Is Marxism a continental or analytic philosophy? [Archive]

Buffalo Souljah

15th April 2010, 04:19

I'm leaning to think that it is analytic. What are everyone's thoughts?Marxism is neither 'Continental' nor 'Analytic'--these are concepts attached to tendencies which philosophers in the respective traditions adhere to, some more or less than others. Now, that having been said, it is difficult or impossible to assign a binary value to all philosophers ascribing themselves as 'Marxists' whether they be 'Continental or 'Analytic'. Now, I could say that, since the predominant contemporary manifestation of the analytic tradition--logical positivism-- erupted from individuals with generally 'conservative' political views, that 'analytic' philosophy tends to be too politically conservative to adhere to Marxian traditions, but this would be a falsehood. Firstly, philosophers like Quine and Russel were far too concerned with deep-seeded philosophical issues to let their political tendencies bleed into their philosophical writings, and secondly, though you cannot say the same thing about philosophers in the Continental tradition (eg. Jaspers, Sartre, Heidegger), this is by no means the rule, so, ultimately it is hard to say which tradition you could assign most Marxists to.

There are some really intreresting mixtures of both 'Analytic' and 'Continental' traditions in individuals like Jurgen Habermas and Lucien Goldmann, who were both somewhat "dabblers." In conclusion, it is by no means appropriate to make sweeping statements like "most Marxist philosophers were/are 'x' or 'y' "... this is ultimately an oversimplification, and an unwaranted one at that.

Also, what is with the deal of these British "Analytic Marxists" such as Cohen?I don't really know much about him. Ask someone like Rosa or Hyacinth.

black magick hustla

15th April 2010, 04:53

r 'Analytic'. Now, I could say that, since the predominant contemporary manifestation of the analytic tradition--logical positivism-- erupted from individuals with generally 'conservative' political views

This is not true. Most logical positivists were either socialist or liberal actually. In fact, logical positivism came as a reaction to british idealism, which was strongly linked to conservative hegelianism.

which doctor

15th April 2010, 05:11

black magick hustla

15th April 2010, 05:18

Marxism is an Hegelian science that recognizes the proletariat's potential to overcome capitalism on the road to humanity's self-emancipation. Philosophers influenced by Hegel are usually lumped into the 'continental' category, so I suppose Marxism can too, but it is important to remember that Marxism is no mere 'philosophy,' when compared to the rest of them. I don't know that much about the Analytical Marxists, but I find it difficult to imagine, since key concepts of Marxism take their cue from Hegel, and I don't think this is something to deny. The hate campaign against Hegel has been going on ever since Hegel had students who knew himself better than he did, and it's lingering effects continue today, and as a whole has probably helped discredit Marxism more than it has to justify it.

well, the hegel hate campaign had to do with the fact that hegel is incomprehensible gibberish, with schopenhauer better putting it than anybody else:

"... a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage..."

obviously, it was outrageous to some people that this man was taken seriously when to some of us, it seemed self evident that he basically made a career of talking with big words rather than saying anything substantial. a big leap from the very sober minded kant.

marx carried within himself the hegelian deadweight because hegelianism was fashionable at that time. in the same sense Newton might have been religious because ireligion was such a centerpiece of 17th century britain. however, like religion did not discredit newtonian physicis, discrediting hegelianism does not discredit marx, because the rational kernel of marxism, in my view, is historical materialism, which can do ok without the hegelian deadweight.

S.Artesian

15th April 2010, 14:13

Can you give us some examples of Marx's historical materialism that is free of the Hegelian deadweight?

ZeroNowhere

15th April 2010, 15:59

Marxism? Which one? Engels pretty much popularized Marxism, I suppose, and Anti-Duhring had a large influence on the 20th Century Marxist movement, so I guess we can go with that.

"External, sensuous motion itself is contradiction's immediate existence. Something moves, not because at one moment it is here and at another there, but because in this 'here', it at once is and is not. The ancient dialecticians must be granted the contradictions that they pointed out in motion; but it does not follow that therefore there is no motion, but on the contrary, that motion is existent contradiction itself."

"Motion itself is a contradiction: even simple mechanical change of place can only come about through a body at one and the same moment of time being both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it. And the continuous assertion and simultaneous solution of this contradiction is precisely what motion is."

One of those is by Hegel. The other is not.

Lenin pretty much carried on from Engels, and, as it was once put, "'tried' to read Hegel 'materialistically' precisely at the place where the latter was... negating matter." De Leon didn't give a rat's ass about Hegel, or dialectics, it would seem. Wittgenstein was pretty much analytical, and he in many ways paralleled 'The German Ideology', which was mainly written by Marx. Then we have the 'Analytical Marxists', who weren't particularly analytical, and did not have much affection for Marx.

So, more or less, perhaps it should be specified what is meant by 'Marxism' here, else we may be talking about whether completely different things are Hegelian.

black magick hustla

15th April 2010, 16:48

Can you give us some examples of Marx's historical materialism that is free of the Hegelian deadweight?

The thesis that society is made of classes and that ideas are just a superstructural manifestation of the base donh't need of language like (quantitative to qualitative change" or "unity of opposites" or "totality".

Hit The North

15th April 2010, 19:22

Marxism is an Hegelian science

I think we need to be clear that Marx's intellectual journey begins with a critique and rejection of Hegelianism.

Despite Marx rescuing some aspects of the dialectic as handed down by Hegel (such as the role of contradiction), it would be mistaken to view him as continuing in a Hegelian tradition.

[

Buffalo Souljah

15th April 2010, 20:49

This is not true. Most logical positivists were either socialist or liberal actually. In fact, logical positivism came as a reaction to british idealism, which was strongly linked to conservative hegelianism.Whether this is true or untrue is not important to my argument. My point is that you cannot lump all individuals proclaiming themselves as Marxists as either Continental or Analytic, and that these distinctions are themselves shallow in nature.

It is true that Quine in particular was politically conservative (for instance, he tried to petition Cambridge from giving Derrida an honorary degree, and disagreed with most 'levelling' social theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine#Political_beliefs)), but, again, (according to him) his political views did not intrude on his philosophical speculation(s). Now, you could argue that this is in fact impossible, that one's political views always show up in one's philosophical discourse, but this is another issue entirely.

S.Artesian

15th April 2010, 20:54

The thesis that society is made of classes and that ideas are just a superstructural manifestation of the base donh't need of language like (quantitative to qualitative change" or "unity of opposites" or "totality".

You sure? How are the classes formed? What are the defining social characteristics of each class? What makes each class a class? What links the classes to each other? How do the classes reproduces themselves? In reproducing themselves as that particular class what else is reproduced?

What happens to the system as a whole [uh-oh, we're getting might close to "totality] as accumulation, expanded reproduction, persists?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

15th April 2010, 20:59

You might make the case that analytical philosophy is focused on using logic and argumentation. It presents evidence and "how that evidence entails X." Continental philosophy, on the other hand, tries to come up with an explanation that is simple, plausible, and "coheres with the world."

For instance, the beginnings of evolutionary theory might be considered continental. There was no good explanation for what Darwin witnessed. As a result, he analyzed things and came up with the "most reasonable explanation." Sometimes theories are just "the best hypothesis." That's why it's always possible they might be overturned.

Most analytic philosophers accept this, but they have an affinity for being able to say "this is true." A lot of them actually want self-evident ideas that last throughout time, but that's fallen largely out of favor. Even logical axioms are being revealed to have been mistaken these days.

So I'd argue that Marx is a combination of both. While I admire analytic philosophy, I think his dialectical methodology is an attempt to turn "continental dialectics" into analytical philosophy. Not only does material evidence not support dialectical materialism, but dialectics isn't even that reasonable in the context of continental philosophy.

I think the "hear and there" analytic arguments Marx makes are influential. However, I think the majority of Marx's truth claims come from "reference to the best explanation," which is often a more continental line of thinking. This is why so many people agree with his "explanation" but not his analytic justification for it. Marx wanted to have his cake and eat it to, in many respects.

The benefits of communism, the plausibility, alienation of labor, etc. There is evidence to support these, but it's generally in the form of "that sounds reasonable consider things as they are" rather than "X, Y, and Z show that this is true for all scenarios."

If you examine things using this model, part of the conflict between analytic and continental philosophy is evident. Some continental philosophers pull things out of nowhere with little justification. Similarly, some analytic philosophers would jump off a bridge if you gave them an analytic proof of why they should do it.

black magick hustla

15th April 2010, 22:37

You sure? How are the classes formed? What are the defining social characteristics of each class? What makes each class a class? What links the classes to each other? How do the classes reproduces themselves? In reproducing themselves as that particular class what else is reproduced?

I do not know what exactly you mean but someone's class is made up by its relationship to the means of production.

S.Artesian

15th April 2010, 23:44

I do not know what exactly you mean but someone's class is made up by its relationship to the means of production.

What I mean is that it is precisely in those organization of classes, in that social relationship of production, that Marx's dialectic exists.. that contradiction exists, that the self-generating opposition to and of capital exists, that those things called totality, contradiction, negation, and even transformation of quantity into quality exist.

It is in that social relationship that each, capitalist and wage-laborer reproduces each other when reproducing itself; that capital and wage-labor exists only in the organization of each other; that accumulation of capital becomes the barrier to the accumulation of capital.

black magick hustla

15th April 2010, 23:52

What I mean is that it is precisely in those organization of classes, in that social relationship of production, that Marx's dialectic exists.. that contradiction exists, that the self-generating opposition to and of capital exists, that those things called totality, contradiction, negation, and even transformation of quantity into quality exist.

I don't think the word contradiction is that apt. Rather, there are opposing forces.

I think you think these concepts exist because the words are so vague that can they be applied to everything. To talk about "self generating opposition" etcetera is at best, metaphorical talk. One should not confuse words that sometimes lend themselves to communicate some ideas better like real philosophical objects. "Quantitative" has real meaning when we mean something in a specifric context, for example, a quantitative analysis in science. I think we strip these words from their use when we relegate them as these laws.

It is in that social relationship that each, capitalist and wage-laborer reproduces each other when reproducing itself; that capital and wage-labor exists only in the organization of each other; that accumulation of capital becomes the barrier to the accumulation of capital.

These is of course, rhetorical tools. They might be useful for political tools but I dont think they are really useful to try to objectively understand something. If you wanted to clarify "accumulation of capital becomes a barrier of accumulation of capital" we can say that the market spreads so badly that it cannot spread anymore. To say that the market is a barrier of the market is just a rhetorical device for political agitation. I think this is the problem sometimes with continental philosophy, it confuses rhetorical devices that are meant to encourage a sort of emotional reaction as a real object.

S.Artesian

16th April 2010, 01:49

I don't think the word contradiction is that apt. Rather, there are opposing forces.

I think you think these concepts exist because the words are so vague that can they be applied to everything. To talk about "self generating opposition" etcetera is at best, metaphorical talk. One should not confuse words that sometimes lend themselves to communicate some ideas better like real philosophical objects. "Quantitative" has real meaning when we mean something in a specifric context, for example, a quantitative analysis in science. I think we strip these words from their use when we relegate them as these laws.

I understand that, but since Marx persists in using the word "contradiction" throughout his studies of capital, and augments that with the use of "antagonism," I think its perfectly apt. The form of contradiction is certainly different than what formal logic allows:

FL: Improved productivity of labor increases capital accumulation.
Improved productivity of labor does not increase capital accumulation.

Marx's Dialectic: The increase in the productivity of labor that capitalism accomplishes in order to expand accumulation actually undermines the accumulation and leads to contraction.

I don't think the terms are vague at all. They are precise and specific-- specific to a definite historical mode of production where labor confronts the conditions of labor as an opposition. In Marx's exploration of this social relation he repeats in a number of different iterations. He identifies "the propertyless labourer as a fundamental principle is rather a creature of civilization, and on the historical scale, of 'capitalist production.' This is a law of 'expropriation' not of appropriation'...."

Another iteration of this confrontation, opposition at the core of capital in the very social relation that makes capital appears in his manuscript of the General Law of the Fall in the Rate of Profit:

"Capital shows itself more and more as a social power....,but an alienated social power which has become independent, and confronts society as a thing--and through this thing as a power of the individual capitalist. On the other hand, constantly increasing masses are thereby deprived of the conditions of production and set over against them. The contradiction between the general social power which capital is formed into, and the private power of the individual capitalist over these social conditions of production becomes ever more glaring, and implies the dissolution of this relation, since it implies at the same time the development of the material conditions of production into general, therefore communal social conditions of production....
The question now is, how is the accumulation of capital affected by the development of the productive forces, in so far as they find expression in changes in surplus value and the rate of profit, and how far is it influenced by other factors?"

Marx has an answer to that question-- and his answer is exactly that capital becomes the immanent barrier to capital accumulation.

These is of course, rhetorical tools. They might be useful for political tools but I dont think they are really useful to try to objectively understand something. If you wanted to clarify "accumulation of capital becomes a barrier of accumulation of capital" we can say that the market spreads so badly that it cannot spread anymore. To say that the market is a barrier of the market is just a rhetorical device for political agitation. I think this is the problem sometimes with continental philosophy, it confuses rhetorical devices that are meant to encourage a sort of emotional reaction as a real object.

These are not rhetorical tools to Marx, and he does not use the "market" as the proxy for the accumulation of capital, as markets exist before capitalism, without capitalism. The clarification you propose is no clarification because it does not locate itself in the exchange of wage-labor with capital; within the social relationship of production that enables accumulation. What Marx does say is:

"The means, this unconditional development of the productive forces of society comes continually into conflict with the limited end, the self-expansion of existing capital. Thus, while the capitalist mode of production is one of the historical means by which the material forces of production are developed and the world-market required for them created, it is at the same time in conflict with this historical task and the conditions of social production corresponding to it."

And.."The rate of profit sinks, not because the laborer is less exploited, but because less labor is employed in proportion to the employed capital in general."

Short version: "The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself." Not the market, but capital, it's self-expansion of value; its self-generating opposition.

Proletarian Ultra

16th April 2010, 05:30

I'm leaning to think that it is analytic. What are everyone's thoughts? Also, what is with the deal of these British "Analytic Marxists" such as Cohen?

Cohen's students all became liberals, "left-libertarians" or neocons. I think that says something important.

I think we need to be clear that Marx's intellectual journey begins with a critique and rejection of Hegelianism.

Yes, but. Sure, he rejected idealism and so on. But the basic scheme of a subject realizing itself dialectically in history is still intact.
"Analytic" windbags by and large don't even bother with a critique of Hegel.

Hit The North

16th April 2010, 12:06

Yes, but. Sure, he rejected idealism and so on. But the basic scheme of a subject realizing itself dialectically in history is still intact.

Could you elaborate on this for our readers?

Proletarian Ultra

16th April 2010, 16:38

Could you elaborate on this for our readers?

Sure. Without going too far into the weeds:

In Hegel, history is the story of Mind (Geist, often translated as Spirit) unfolding through reason, becoming conscious of itself for itself through the conflict and development of various societies. It ends in the establishment of a society in the image of Mind, Absolute Freedom in the Absolute State.

In Marx, it's the gradual emergence and becoming-selfconscious of the proletariat, which ends in communism.

It's the antithesis of Hegel. But it's a dialectical development out of Hegel - it transforms rather than discards Hegel, it preserves the signal importance of history and becoming-selfconscious through conflict and negation.

This is tremendously important in practical terms. There's a strong trend of lumpen-Leninism that seems to think if we just stand on enough corners and yell "hey idiots, you're being oppressed", then we'll gather a sufficient number of warm bodies to seize the apparatus of state, and that's that. It's terribly naive. The proletariat has to become conscious of itself through struggle. This is why it is necessary to build real alliances in the working class and work towards intermediate goals. That's the only way self-consciousness comes about.

Philzer

16th April 2010, 18:11

Hi!

The thesis that society is made of classes ....... don't need of language like (quantitative to qualitative change" or "unity of opposites" or "totality".

Unfortunately, this is absolutely wrong.

The class society is exactly a dialectical unit in the sense of Hegel.

Let me try to explain:

Dialectical unit in the sense of Hegel:

1. Needs a primary connecting element, which is the base for the unit

2. in consequence of the primary-element results a secondary element which force the progress - not the destruction of the unit!

-->> The dialectical unity of peoples and rulers in class society:

1. Primary: the connecting-element is the same level of consciuosness of rulers and peoples: Opportunism.

-simplified: greed-controled individual -> rutheless exploitation of the world: like unlimited population-growth (peoples),+ unlimited consumption-waste (rulers+beneficiaries, like the people in the democratic-exploiter-nations)

2. Secondary: as a result of this connecting-element develope unequalities in taking possesion of surplus value i.e. rich and poor
-> explicit for capitalism Marx called it: The contradiction between capital and work.

Note: The class society is consequently solid and can only beared down by overcome the connecting element!

Please look for better understanding also here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html).

Kind regards

S.Artesian

16th April 2010, 21:10

Hi!

-simplified: greed-controled individual -> rutheless exploitation of the world: like unlimited population-growth (peoples),+ unlimited consumption-waste (rulers)

Kind regards

How did that bit of Malthusian baloney get attached to class struggle, Marx, and dialectics?

Philzer

16th April 2010, 23:06

Hi!

How did that bit of Malthusian baloney get attached to class struggle, Marx, and dialectics?

How did that bit baloney incomprehension of the last 100 Years go conform with Marx and a scientific understanding of the world?

For example read something about the problems in civilisation in sociobiology (Jared Daimond) and I.Kant in "To the everlasting peace. A philosophical draught".

Kind regards

S.Artesian

16th April 2010, 23:15

Hi!

How did that bit baloney incomprehension of the last 100 Years go conform with Marx and a scientific understanding of the world?

For example read something about the problems in civilisation in sociobiology (Jared Daimond) and I.Kant in "To the everlasting peace. A philosophical draught".

Kind regards

Jared Diamond? Please, spare us sociobiology, which is nothing but the same old same old attempt to locate human behavior, conflict in nature, rather than the specific social organization.

There is no such thing as human overpopulation. There is no such thing as human desire for "uncontrolled population growth."

Try reading Marx on supposed "overpopulation," or The Legacy of Malthus by Allan Chase.

Wait, let me guess, next you'll be telling us that there is a peak oil crisis and we're on the downside of Hubbert's curve and we've exceed the "carrying capacity" of the planet.

black magick hustla

17th April 2010, 00:08

FL: Improved productivity of labor increases capital accumulation.
Improved productivity of labor does not increase capital accumulation.

Marx's Dialectic: The increase in the productivity of labor that capitalism accomplishes in order to expand accumulation actually undermines the accumulation and leads to contraction.

Actually, in FL, you could say:

1) Improved productivity increases capital accumulation.

2)capital accumulation reaches its limit.

3)Capital cannot accumulate anymore.

FL is not some sort of philosophical law, its more or less an accumulation of the rules we take for granted when we speak. In a sense, if one says Socrates is a mortal and not a mortal, you are throwing away the rules already agreed upon about communication and you are speaking other language I am not acquainted with. it is like if someone moves the rook diagonoally in chess.

Obviously capital cannot accumulate and "contract" at the same time. This is nonsense. There is no dialectical law.

I don't think the terms are vague at all. They are precise and specific-- specific to a definite historical mode of production where labor confronts the conditions of labor as an opposition. In Marx's exploration of this social relation he repeats in a number of different iterations. He identifies "the propertyless labourer as a fundamental principle is rather a creature of civilization, and on the historical scale, of 'capitalist production.' This is a law of 'expropriation' not of appropriation'...."

Another iteration of this confrontation, opposition at the core of capital in the very social relation that makes capital appears in his manuscript of the General Law of the Fall in the Rate of Profit:

"Capital shows itself more and more as a social power....,but an alienated social power which has become independent, and confronts society as a thing--and through this thing as a power of the individual capitalist. On the other hand, constantly increasing masses are thereby deprived of the conditions of production and set over against them. The contradiction between the general social power which capital is formed into, and the private power of the individual capitalist over these social conditions of production becomes ever more glaring, and implies the dissolution of this relation, since it implies at the same time the development of the material conditions of production into general, therefore communal social conditions of production....
The question now is, how is the accumulation of capital affected by the development of the productive forces, in so far as they find expression in changes in surplus value and the rate of profit, and how far is it influenced by other factors?"

Marx has an answer to that question-- and his answer is exactly that capital becomes the immanent barrier to capital accumulation.

I think I adressed all of this above.

Short version: "The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself." Not the market, but capital, it's self-expansion of value; its self-generating opposition.
He states capitalists in a sense, are their own grave diggers. This is different from saying that capitalist accumulation contracts and expands at the same time. This is of course, nonsense.

black magick hustla

17th April 2010, 00:11

"Analytic" windbags by and large don't even bother with a critique of Hegel.

How can you critique gibberish?

Unfortunately, this is absolutely wrong.

The class society is exactly a dialectical unit in the sense of Hegel.

Let me try to explain:

Maybe I am a retard, but what you posted made absolutely no sense to me.

S.Artesian

17th April 2010, 00:35

Actually, in FL, you could say:

1) Improved productivity increases capital accumulation.

2)capital accumulation reaches its limit.

3)Capital cannot accumulate anymore.

Obviously capital cannot accumulate and "contract" at the same time. This is nonsense. There is no dialectical law.

He states capitalists in a sense, are their own grave diggers. This is different from saying that capitalist accumulation contracts and expands at the same time. This is of course, nonsense.

Who said that capital accumulates and contracts at the same time? I didn't. But we know capital can accumulate and contract at the same time. It can accumulate in certain sectors and contract in other sectors... unless you're talking about the "totality" of capital, although I thought totality is one of those words that doesn't describe anything real. Capital can also accumulate as use-value while it declines in exchange value, and vice-versa. Capital can increase the overall mass of values exchanged with wage-labor while reducing the relative value exchange with wage-labor.

These antagonisms are exactly what drives capital in its attempts at expanded reproduction.

What you have not addressed, of course, is the concrete transposition of Hegel's dialectic that Marx accomplishes-- you haven't addressed a thing about Marx's actual analysis of capital. That concrete logic of Marx's dialectic says, "The very accumulation of capital itself causes capital to contract. The very profitability of capital reduces the profitability of capital. The expansion of the means of production that capital compels on the owners of private property undermines the relations of private property, leads to a conflict between means and relations of production.

Formal logic does not explain why and how capital becomes the immanent barrier to capitalist production.

black magick hustla

17th April 2010, 00:45

Who said that capital accumulates and contracts at the same time? I didn't. But we know capital can accumulate and contract at the same time. It can accumulate in certain sectors and contract in other sectors...

Of course. This is the beauty of language. but the issue here is that these words meanings are context specific, you cannot build philosophical systems around them. Same with "dialectical laws", which are just an attempt to put words in a pedestral.

unless you're talking about the "totality" of capital, although I thought totality is one of those words that doesn't describe anything real. Capital can also accumulate as use-value while it declines in exchange value, and vice-versa. Capital can increase the overall mass of values exchanged with wage-labor while reducing the relative value exchange with wage-labor.

Well yes. Notice that your statements didnt really make any sense unless you had to clarify.

These antagonisms are exactly what drives capital in its attempts at expanded reproduction.

Yes? What is your point? My only beef is the use of words like quantitative and qualitative and Unity of opposites as these sort of laws that span across nature.

[qute]
What you have not addressed, of course, is the concrete transposition of Hegel's dialectic that Marx accomplishes-- you haven't addressed a thing about Marx's actual analysis of capital. [/quote]

What is your point. I don't disagree with marx's analysis of capital. i disagree with some of the language, which only obfuscates rather than clarifies.

That concrete logic of Marx's dialectic says, "The very accumulation of capital itself causes capital to contract. The very profitability of capital reduces the profitability of capital. The expansion of the means of production that capital compels on the owners of private property undermines the relations of private property, leads to a conflict between means and relations of production.
I don't think these are "dialectic-specific" at all. While I might tweak the way you state things a bit, these all can be stated without the need of dialectical baggage.

Formal logic does not explain why and how capital becomes the immanent barrier to capitalist production.

Formal logic doesn't explain anything. Its not a science.

S.Artesian

17th April 2010, 00:56

black magick hustla

17th April 2010, 01:03

Let's look at your three statements of formal logic:

1. Improved productivity increase capital accumulation

2. capital accumulation reaches its limit

3. capital cannot accumulate anymore

First 2. and 3. are essentially saying the same thing.. but that's a minor point.

You give me these three statements of formal logic and I respond to:

1-- why, how, when?

2--why, how, when?

3--why, how, when?

It is the why, how, and when, the actual historical materialism that Marx's dialectic of the relation between wage-labor and capital, of the shared identity or unified opposition of wage-labor and capital, answers. Without that dialectic, what answers can you provide to 1,2,3 and how are those answers all manifestations of the same thing, which is exactly what Marx shows?

So if you want to tweak, please do in providing the how, why, and when to the three FL propositions and showing how they are in fact all aspects of a single relationship.

i just want to clarify that is not FL. it was just a way to break down what you said.

What do you mean by manifestation of the same thing? That society is ridden by conflict? That there is a tendency of the rate of profit to fall as the market saturates?

I think the problem here is that you think there is a sort of ethereal law pushing this. It reminds me of the old teleology of Aristotle, where he thought that things fall to the ground because everything has a tendency to reach to the center of the universe (which was the earth).

which doctor

17th April 2010, 01:05

well, the hegel hate campaign had to do with the fact that hegel is incomprehensible gibberish, with schopenhauer better putting it than anybody else:

"... a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage..."

obviously, it was outrageous to some people that this man was taken seriously when to some of us, it seemed self evident that he basically made a career of talking with big words rather than saying anything substantial. a big leap from the very sober minded kant.

Dismissing a significant philosophical tradition because 'it's too difficult to understand' reeks of the worst kind of philistinism. Of course any philosophical system that attempts to explain the whole of the social world is going to push the limits of language, but just because it's difficult to understand and doesn't fall into the sort of vulgar economic determinism you propose, doesn't mean it isn't worth studying. Marxist writings seem like gibberish to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they actually are. Describing complicated social formations requires complicated language, and when you simplify it for the purpose of accessibility, you lose what's most important. Of course I'm not saying that everyone needs to be well-versed in Hegel, because that's not going to happen, but the dialectical method is something worth learning, especially for so-called 'revolutionaries.'

marx carried within himself the hegelian deadweight because hegelianism was fashionable at that time. in the same sense Newton might have been religious because ireligion was such a centerpiece of 17th century britain. however, like religion did not discredit newtonian physicis, discrediting hegelianism does not discredit marx, because the rational kernel of marxism, in my view, is historical materialism, which can do ok without the hegelian deadweight.
The comparison with Newton hardly works here. Newton's religion did not seriously inform his study of physics in the same way Marx's Hegelian roots informed his treatment of material society. The essential component Marx inherited from Hegel was the dialectical method, which he applied to the then emerging proletariat as a political category, showing how they are at once the object of the capitalist mode of production, and also the historical subject that can lead the way out of capitalism, and the way class consciousness develops as the self-consciousness of this historical mission.

black magick hustla

17th April 2010, 01:12

Dismissing a significant philosophical tradition because 'it's too difficult to understand' reeks of the worst kind of philistinism. Of course any philosophical system that attempts to explain the whole of the social world is going to push the limits of language, but just because it's difficult to understand and doesn't fall into the sort of vulgar economic determinism you propose, doesn't mean it isn't worth studying. Marxist writings seem like gibberish to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they actually are. Describing complicated social formations requires complicated language, and when you simplify it for the purpose of accessibility, you lose what's most important. Of course I'm not saying that everyone needs to be well-versed in Hegel, because that's not going to happen, but the dialectical method is something worth learning, especially for so-called 'revolutionaries.'

It is not a matter of "phillistinism". There is all sorts of jargon that is useful because it is not empty. Physics comes to mind. Kant, to a certain extent, comes to mind. An old man rambling about Geist and assigning a telos to every aspect of the universe by weaving a narrative of nothing is just sophistry.

The comparison with Newton hardly works here. Newton's religion did not seriously inform his study of physics in the same way Marx's Hegelian roots informed his treatment of material society. The essential component Marx inherited from Hegel was the dialectical method, which he applied to the then emerging proletariat as a political category, showing how they are at once the object of the capitalist mode of production, and also the historical subject that can lead the way out of capitalism, and the way class consciousness develops as the self-consciousness of this historical mission.

Are you kidding me? Newton's religious views certainly informed his study. The ontological basis of newtonian physicis lied in the idea that the universe was a sort of complicated machine, created by God. It was essentially, an old version of the argument for intelligent design.

The second part is more Lukacs speaking than Marx speaking tbh. But even so, even if Marx said it, that "dialectical" aspect is obviously wrong. History has no telos. There is no mission of the proletariat that it has to "uncover". In the same sense there is no purpose for us awaiting, or meaning of life.

black magick hustla

17th April 2010, 01:28

but just because it's difficult to understand and doesn't fall into the sort of vulgar economic determinism you propose, doesn't mean it isn't worth studying.

what economic determinism do I even propose?

S.Artesian

17th April 2010, 02:14

i just want to clarify that is not FL. it was just a way to break down what you said.

What do you mean by manifestation of the same thing? That society is ridden by conflict? That there is a tendency of the rate of profit to fall as the market saturates?

I think the problem here is that you think there is a sort of ethereal law pushing this. It reminds me of the old teleology of Aristotle, where he thought that things fall to the ground because everything has a tendency to reach to the center of the universe (which was the earth).

Right, those statements aren't formal logic, but using formal logic you said you can make those statements.

What you can't do is show the connections between those statements. How does the accumulation of capital, how does expanded reproduction become contraction? How does the production of value become actual devaluation? How does the conversion of profit into capital become the inability to convert capital into profit?

What do I mean by manifestation of the same thing? All these conflicts share a common source, actually a single source in the organization of wage-labor for the extraction of surplus value through exchange with the means of production organized as private property.

What appears to you as "an ethereal law" as a "telos" is not an ethereal law, and no telos of a supreme, universal force. It appears as an ethereal law because it is the result of the alienation of human labor into a property form, a class relation dominating, human labor.

The law is an alienated "law"-- that human labor is social, is mediated by the social conditions which it recreates in its own activity.

What we see as a law, a force compelling x, y, z, is actually the results inherent in the expropriation of labor.

syndicat

17th April 2010, 04:38

"Capital shows itself more and more as a social power....,but an alienated social power which has become independent, and confronts society as a thing--and through this thing as a power of the individual capitalist. On the other hand, constantly increasing masses are thereby deprived of the conditions of production and set over against them. The contradiction between the general social power which capital is formed into, and the private power of the individual capitalist over these social conditions of production becomes ever more glaring, and implies the dissolution of this relation, since it implies at the same time the development of the material conditions of production into general, therefore communal social conditions of production....
The question now is, how is the accumulation of capital affected by the development of the productive forces, in so far as they find expression in changes in surplus value and the rate of profit, and how far is it influenced by other factors?"

"Contradiction" here could be replaced by "conflict" and retain the same meaning.

One of the main influences on "continental" philosophy was the phenomenology of Husserl. The emphasis on intentionality (influence of Brentano) differentiated the theory of perception from British empiricism and its sense-datum theory.

One of the problems with "continental" philosophers like Husserl and Heidigger and others is their excessive neologism and general unclarity.

The "analytic" tradition emphasized use of simple and clear language and the use of formal logic to analyze arguments and positions.

I think Marxism pre-dates this division and is hard to categorize in this particular binary.

S.Artesian

17th April 2010, 06:04

"Contradiction" here could be replaced by "conflict" and retain the same meaning.

One of the main influences on "continental" philosophy was the phenomenology of Husserl. The emphasis on intentionality (influence of Brentano) differentiated the theory of perception from British empiricism and its sense-datum theory.

One of the problems with "continental" philosophers like Husserl and Heidigger and others is their excessive neologism and general unclarity.

The "analytic" tradition emphasized use of simple and clear language and the use of formal logic to analyze arguments and positions.

I think Marxism pre-dates this division and is hard to categorize in this particular binary.

Sure it could be but it wasn't. Again, Marx persists in using contradiction because the facets of the "conflict" share an identity, share the same origin in the organization of social labor as wage-labor and the means of production as private property.

which doctor

17th April 2010, 18:08

what economic determinism do I even propose?

The thesis that society is made of classes and that ideas are just a superstructural manifestation of the base

I'm also thinking about your unapologetic support for Bordiga's article that crudely explains the holocaust entirely in terms of the 'logic of capital.' Seriously, thinking the 'logic of capital' is some invisible hand that determines all social phenomenon is far more 'mystical' than dialectics.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/auschwitz-big-alibi-t130438/index.html?t=130438&highlight=bordiga+holocaust

Meridian

17th April 2010, 18:45

Since when is Marxism a philosophy? I thought communism was politics, not obfuscation.

S.Artesian

17th April 2010, 19:02

Since when is Marxism a philosophy? I thought communism was politics, not obfuscation.

I agree with that. There is no Marxist philsophy. There is Marx's analysis of capitalism and the immanent tendencies within capitalism toward revolution.

black magick hustla

17th April 2010, 19:14

I'm also thinking about your unapologetic support for Bordiga's article that crudely explains the holocaust entirely in terms of the 'logic of capital.' Seriously, thinking the 'logic of capital' is some invisible hand that determines all social phenomenon is far more 'mystical' than dialectics.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/auschwitz-big-alibi-t130438/index.html?t=130438&highlight=bordiga+holocaust

I don't think it is an invisible hand. it is something made up by people. Its like when economists talk about the market has a tendency to do this, or that. I don't see anything crazy about it.

black magick hustla

17th April 2010, 19:21

The law is an alienated "law"-- that human labor is social, is mediated by the social conditions which it recreates in its own activity..

You don't need dialectics to say THAT.

S.Artesian

17th April 2010, 21:19

You don't need dialectics to say THAT.

Maybe. I get a kick out of the fact that whenever something is said that points to the actual and inherent self-contradictions of capital as a social force, "anti-dialectics" say 'you don't need dialectics to say that,' when in fact, they never say that-- they never point out the self-contradictions, the antagonisms of capital, and how the antagonisms share an identity, in fact are the identity of the social organization of labor.

It's like saying "Marx didn't need to use the word 'contradiction'." Yeah, he did. And he did.

You don't need dialectics to say that human labor is mediated by the social conditions which gives it its specific form, and which it reproduces in its own activity? Well you do need dialectics to determine that, to explain that. Actually, we have the cart a little bit before the horse, when it-- the mediation of human labor by the social conditions which it recreates is the dialectic, that is the historical development of the antagonism of labor and property.

which doctor

17th April 2010, 23:41

I don't think it is an invisible hand. it is something made up by people. Its like when economists talk about the market has a tendency to do this, or that. I don't see anything crazy about it.
Yes, but what you obfuscate when you make oversimplistic generalizations like Bordiga did, is the danger of reified consciousness inherent to a non-dialectical treatment of capitalism. The atrocity that is the Holocaust was not caused by the 'logic of capital,' but by a non-dialectical version of anti-capitalism where the elimination of the Jewry (which represented money changing, finance capital, internationalism, casino capitalism, etc.) was the precondition for national socialism. Capital is not what makes capitalism so barbaric, but the dangers of reified consciousness are.

S.Artesian

18th April 2010, 05:42

black magick hustla

18th April 2010, 06:36

Maybe. I get a kick out of the fact that whenever something is said that points to the actual and inherent self-contradictions of capital as a social force, "anti-dialectics" say 'you don't need dialectics to say that,' when in fact, they never say that-- they never point out the self-contradictions, the antagonisms of capital, and how the antagonisms share an identity, in fact are the identity of the social organization of labor.

there is no "anti-dialectics" movement or whatever. I think the only commonality with people here suspicious about that language is an appreciation for analytical philosophy. Which is understandable.

I think my point is that you talk about "self contradictions" or whatever, and then you are forced to clarify. It can be an issue of jargon, but I think it has to do with the fact that the hegelian language makes stuff sound deep and this is why people use it, but in reality its not helpful at all.

It's like saying "Marx didn't need to use the word 'contradiction'." Yeah, he did. And he did.

No he didnt need it.

You don't need dialectics to say that human labor is mediated by the social conditions which gives it its specific form, and which it reproduces in its own activity? Well you do need dialectics to determine that, to explain that. Actually, we have the cart a little bit before the horse, when it-- the mediation of human labor by the social conditions which it recreates is the dialectic, that is the historical development of the antagonism of labor and property.

The "antagonisms of human labor" are being explained well here without the use of hegelian gibberish.

black magick hustla

18th April 2010, 06:49

Yes, but what you obfuscate when you make oversimplistic generalizations like Bordiga did, is the danger of reified consciousness inherent to a non-dialectical treatment of capitalism. The atrocity that is the Holocaust was not caused by the 'logic of capital,' but by a non-dialectical version of anti-capitalism where the elimination of the Jewry (which represented money changing, finance capital, internationalism, casino capitalism, etc.) was the precondition for national socialism. Capital is not what makes capitalism so barbaric, but the dangers of reified consciousness are.

I think this post is connected with your general attitude about the holocaustr. A lot of your posts treat the holocaust as this exceptional thing and therefore it demands to be sanctified and not analyzed beyond stating how horrible it is. Genocide and Barbarism are the alpha and omega of capital. from the armenian genocide, the holocaust, to the interhamwe hacking tutsis, they are all an expression of imperialism. i dont think "national socialism" was a "non-dialectical" form of anti-capitalism. it was an expression of state-capitalism, which in many senses, was similar to to sovet state-capitalism.

Everything I say is crystal clear. I think it is you who obfuscate the issue, which is much clearer than you think it is, with hegelian gibberish.

S.Artesian

18th April 2010, 07:02

I think my point is that you talk about "self contradictions" or whatever, and then you are forced to clarify. It can be an issue of jargon, but I think it has to do with the fact that the hegelian language makes stuff sound deep and this is why people use it, but in reality its not helpful at all.

The "antagonisms of human labor" are being explained well here without the use of hegelian gibberish.

You keep saying that, but I don't see you doing that. You keep saying using the language that Marx actually used is gibberish, and is unnecessary, but you prove it necessary every time you attempt to explain why capitalism develops, reproduces itself, the way it does.

It's not jargon, it's the explanation of the necessity for the workers' revoluton, not just as a "moral imperative," but as a necessary result of capitalism's own mechanisms of development; and as a necessary process in the social organization of labor.

I'd love to see the "analytical Marxists" actually produce a concrete analysis of the historical development of capitalism in,say, Mexico that was able to link the particular history, the specificity of Mexico's experience with the general development of capitalism; that could account for the limits of the Mexican Revolution without requiring, or employing, an analysis of the contradictions of capitalism; of the contradiction between the means and relations of production in Mexico. Do you know of one?

I've read and studied quite a bit of the history of Mexico and never yet have I come across an "analytical" Marxist inquiry, one that purposely eschewed dialectical analysis, and still could account for limitations of the revolution in the very same force that propelled the revolution.

And for all the talk about historical materialism, I haven't seen much in the way of any historical materialist analysis of class struggle from the analytical side of the debate.

black magick hustla

18th April 2010, 07:14

You keep saying that, but I don't see you doing that. You keep saying using the language that Marx actually used is gibberish, and is unnecessary, but you prove it necessary every time you attempt to explain why capitalism develops, reproduces itself, the way it does.

In the contrary. I don't think I have made use of quantitative to qualtiative, unity of opposites, the totality, or whatever, in any of my posts.

It's not jargon, it's the explanation of the necessity for the workers' revoluton, not just as a "moral imperative," but as a necessary result of capitalism's own mechanisms of development; and as a necessary process in the social organization of labor.

This is vulgar economism. The slogan is not socialism or socialism, but socialism or barbarism.

I'd love to see the "analytical Marxists"

Im not an analytical marxist, if by that you mean the crude technological determinism of Cohen.

actually produce a concrete analysis of the historical development of capitalism in,say, Mexico that was able to link the particular history, the specificity of Mexico's experience with the general development of capitalism; that could account for the limits of the Mexican Revolution without requiring, or employing, an analysis of the contradictions of capitalism; of the contradiction between the means and relations of production in Mexico. Do you know of one?

I don't know of one, but I dont find it impossible to do. I wrote this article about drug trafficking and decomposing capitalism. Tell me what you think about it, which uses some of the themes you are looking for:

http://en.internationalism.org/inter/151/drug-violence

I've read and studied quite a bit of the history of Mexico and never yet have I come across an "analytical" Marxist inquiry, one that purposely eschewed dialectical analysis, and still could account for limitations of the revolution in the very same force that propelled the revolution.

Well, because there are not many "analytical" marxists. I dont think it is impossible to write a sober analysis about this though.

And for all the talk about historical materialism, I haven't seen much in the way of any historical materialist analysis of class struggle from the analytical side of the debate.

Your problem is that you think there is some unified, "anti-dialectics". To me its not really that important. I don't go in real life polemics about it. Its generally something I discuss in the coffee shop or with a drink. I do think, however, that the language itself is a dead-weight and is part of a tendency of some marxists to be dazzled by the rhetorical gymnastics of people who were paid to talk pretty.

S.Artesian

18th April 2010, 07:46

That's not "economism," it's the recognition of the historical specificity of capitalism, and that it creates the material basis for its own super-cession, the class to accomplish it, and the contradiction between the development of the means of production and the bourgeois property form that encapsulates that development.

.
Economism is the view that the working class should limit itself only to those struggles involving the "economics" of its wages.

I don't find it impossible for any of the various anti-dialectic advocates [no, I don't think there is one uniform 'movement' of anti-dialectics] to produce a Marxist analysis, it's just that I don't see them doing it.

Thanks for the link, and I will check out the article. As long as we're providing links, you might look at this and see how much you get out of my gibberish:

http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com (http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/)

which doctor

18th April 2010, 18:08

I think this post is connected with your general attitude about the holocaustr. A lot of your posts treat the holocaust as this exceptional thing and therefore it demands to be sanctified and not analyzed beyond stating how horrible it is.
I have never said that the holocaust doesn't deserve to be analyzed, in fact I think just the opposite. It needs to be mercilessly studied in order to prevent it from happening again. There is a reason why Nazism arose out of the wreckage of a failed worker's revolution, and the answer is not as simple as the economic conditions being ripe for fascism.

Genocide and Barbarism are the alpha and omega of capital. from the armenian genocide, the holocaust, to the interhamwe hacking tutsis, they are all an expression of imperialism.
The funny thing here is that you're the one reverting to using theological concepts to explain social phenomena. I really don't know where you get the idea of genocide and barbarism being the alpha and omega of capital. Capital doesn't have an 'alpha and omega' so stop simplifying it with biblical 'gibberish.' Besides that point, explaining the ideological character of the holocaust (I don't know enough about Armenia or Rwanda) as merely an expression of imperialism is hardly adequate and fails to provide any basis for stopping it.

i dont think "national socialism" was a "non-dialectical" form of anti-capitalism. it was an expression of state-capitalism, which in many senses, was similar to to sovet state-capitalism.
Perhaps they were similar in terms of their economics, but they took on entirely different ideological platforms, and this is a very significant point. These are things vulgar economism fail to explain.

Everything I say is crystal clear. I think it is you who obfuscate the issue, which is much clearer than you think it is, with hegelian gibberish.
But why is it that you find the world in all of its complexity so crystal clear?

black magick hustla

18th April 2010, 20:33

I have never said that the holocaust doesn't deserve to be analyzed, in fact I think just the opposite. It needs to be mercilessly studied in order to prevent it from happening again. There is a reason why Nazism arose out of the wreckage of a failed worker's revolution, and the answer is not as simple as the economic conditions being ripe for fascism.

And prevent the armenian genocide, rwanda, the great purges, etc etc etc

There is nothing exceptional about the holocaust. You cannot prevent something like the holocaust withouyt preventing everything else.

The funny thing here is that you're the one reverting to using theological concepts to explain social phenomena. I really don't know where you get the idea of genocide and barbarism being the alpha and omega of capital.

Capital doesn't have an 'alpha and omega' so stop simplifying it with biblical 'gibberish.'

The difference of my language and your language is that I am being intentionally hyperbolic. Unfortunately, the hegelian poppycock you are used to presents certain configuration of words as deep.

Besides that point, explaining the ideological character of the holocaust (I don't know enough about Armenia or Rwanda) as merely an expression of imperialism is hardly adequate and fails to provide any basis for stopping it.

Well of course there are all sorts of specificities that I have not explored. But to say the holocaust was something particular and above all the sort of barbarities perpertuated by capital is what zionist imperialism uses as ideological justification.

Perhaps they were similar in terms of their economics, but they took on entirely different ideological platforms, and this is a very significant point. These are things vulgar economism fail to explain.

I don't know why you keep calling my ideas "vulgar economism". I am just using historical materialism.

Of course their ideological platforms are not going to be completely the same. There where certain parallels though. Both states were viciously nationalistic and both states resorted to all sorts of scapegoats. Whether they were political enemies or not does not obfuscate the fact that, both as state-capitalist countries, had many parallel things.

I might not provide a completely satisfactory answer. But yours is certainly worse.

But why is it that you find the world in all of its complexity so crystal clear?

I think certain issues are much clearer than what philosophers make them seen.

Zanthorus

19th April 2010, 21:32

Formal logic does not explain why and how capital becomes the immanent barrier to capitalist production.

No, the social science of economics does that. No matter how much jargon you try to cover it up with it's not a matter of "logic" it's a matter of economics. I do occasionally bang my head on the table when I see Marxist economists who think that there positions are true because of some mystical "dialectics" instead of using well reasoned arguments. It's almost cult like really.

S.Artesian

19th April 2010, 22:00

No, the social science of economics does that. No matter how much jargon you try to cover it up with it's not a matter of "logic" it's a matter of economics. I do occasionally bang my head on the table when I see Marxist economists who think that there positions are true because of some mystical "dialectics" instead of using well reasoned arguments. It's almost cult like really.

First off, you need to bang your head a bit harder because there is no such thing as Marxist economics. There just is not. If perhaps you had studied a little bit more of Marx's transposition of Hegel you might have realized that for Marx economics is nothing but concentrated history, and history is the history of the social organization of labor.

"Economics" tells us nothing about the how and why of overproduction, of the overproduction of capital, of the closing of gap between the costs of production and the production prices.

This is not the least bit about jargon. It is completely about grasping the organization of capital as a historically specific organization of labor; capital existing in the organization of wage-labor.

There's no cult about this either. I use every bit of empirical data I can obtain [and sometimes there's too much and we risk DIO, deadly information overload] to validate and verify what is in fact the dialectic of capital, that in its accumulation of value, it devalues itself as capital.

Zanthorus

19th April 2010, 22:28

First off, you need to bang your head a bit harder because there is no such thing as Marxist economics. There just is not. If perhaps you had studied a little bit more of Marx's transposition of Hegel you might have realized that for Marx economics is nothing but concentrated history, and history is the history of the social organization of labor.

This is just semantics. Marxists write commentary on economic phenomenon. They have their own theories as to what causes these phenomenon. These theories constitute "Marxist economics".

If you are going to tell me that the labour theory of value is not a contribution to "economics" (Or "political economy" maybe. Whatever you want to call it) then go ahead but it's been debated by various economists throughout the past century and makes predictions about economic phenomenon. Therefore I call it "economics". And since it is mostly Marxists that support it I calle it "Marxist economics".

"Economics" tells us nothing about the how and why of overproduction, of the overproduction of capital, of the closing of gap between the costs of production and the production prices.

Er, yes it does :confused:

This is not the least bit about jargon. It is completely about grasping the organization of capital as a historically specific organization of labor; capital existing in the organization of wage-labor.

This can easily be done without "dialectics".

S.Artesian

19th April 2010, 23:30

Philzer

20th April 2010, 12:08

Hi comrades!

Jared Diamond? Please, spare us sociobiology, which is nothing but the same old same old attempt to locate human behavior, conflict in nature, rather than the specific social organization....

Please spare us sanity ... :D

Everytime I found it very happy that unscientific individuals think they can found satisfy of her unconscious life and carelessness in a scientific controled society.

And communism can only be a scientific fourdimensional controled society. Nothing else. -> exactly this is the reason that communism no exist in real today, the average individuals hate sanity and love greed controled societies like democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html).

Friedrich Engels:

Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws

Please note the definition of freedom in M/L after Spinoza(Hegel overtake it)/Engels(add the acting):

Freedom is the recognition of necessity and acting so.

Kind regards

ZeroNowhere

20th April 2010, 14:00

This is just semantics. Marxists write commentary on economic phenomenon. They have their own theories as to what causes these phenomenon. These theories constitute "Marxist economics".

If you are going to tell me that the labour theory of value is not a contribution to "economics" (Or "political economy" maybe. Whatever you want to call it) then go ahead but it's been debated by various economists throughout the past century and makes predictions about economic phenomenon. Therefore I call it "economics". And since it is mostly Marxists that support it I calle it "Marxist economics".

M. Proudhon has the misfortune of being peculiarly misunderstood in Europe. In France, he has the right to be a bad economist, because he is reputed to be a good German philosopher. In Germany, he has the right to be a bad philosopher, because he is reputed to be one of the ablest French economists. Being both German and economist at the same time, we desire to protest against this double error.-The Poverty of Philosophy.

To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy.-A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

Political economy can only be turned into a positive science by replacing the conflicting dogmas by the conflicting facts, and by the real antagonisms which form their concealed background.- Letter to Engels, 1868.

The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term “civil society”; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows.

[...]

This sketch of the course of my studies in the domain of political economy is intended merely to show that my views – no matter how they may be judged and how little they conform to the interested prejudices of the ruling classes – are the outcome of conscientious research carried on over many years. At the entrance to science, as at the entrance to hell, the demand must be made:

Qui si convien lasciare ogni sospetto
Ogni vilta convien che qui sia morta.- A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

Now let me tell you how my political economy is getting on. I have in fact been at work on the final stages for some months. But the thing is proceeding very slowly because no sooner does one set about finally disposing of subjects to which one has devoted years of study than they start revealing new aspects and demand to be thought out further. On top of which I am not master of my time but rather its slave. Only the nights are left for my own work, which in turn is often disrupted by bilious attacks or recurrences of liver trouble. All things considered it would be most convenient for me to bring out the whole work in instalments without any rigid datelines. This might also have the advantage of making it easier to find a publisher, since less working capital would be tied up in the venture. You would, of course, oblige me by trying to find someone in Berlin prepared to undertake this. By ‘instalments’, I mean fascicles similar to those in which Vischer’s Aesthetik came out.- Letter to Lassalle, 1858.

Pick a chapter at random.-Capital.

One can hardly turn political economy into a positive science if one rejects it as a possible branch of knowledge, and Marx makes no suggestion that doing so would make it cease being political economy. Indeed, if that were the case, it would not make much sense to make propositions on topics such as value, price, profit, distribution of the social product; in other words, it would not make much sense to make propositions about the subjects which come under political economy, "in the widest sense, is the science of the laws governing the production and exchange of the material means of subsistence in human society," if one were not practicing it. On the other hand, one can certainly critique the established science of political economy, just as a philosopher of science can write a critique of science, which is a critique of current scientific practice, as well as one which is a critique of the possibility of science.

S.Artesian

20th April 2010, 16:32

Hi comrades!

Please spare us sanity ... :D

Everytime I found it very happy that unscientific individuals think they can found satisfy of her unconscious life and carelessness in a scientific controled society.

And communism can only be a scientific fourdimensional controled society. Nothing else. -> exactly this is the reason that communism no exist in real today, the average individuals hate sanity and love greed controled societies like democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html).

Friedrich Engels:

Please note the definition of freedom in M/L after Spinoza(Hegel overtake it)/Engels(add the acting):

Kind regards

Gee... I guess that cinches the case for dialectics as Malthus now becomes Marx, and Marx becomes Malthus. All I can say is, so much the worse for dialectics.

Jared Diamond has been exposed to be, to put it charitably, less than rigorous in his research and conclusions. Those interested can see Louis Proyect's review in Swan's Magazine available at:
http://www.swans.com/library/art16/lproy60.html

Freedom is the recognition of the necessity. It also is the recognition of bullshit.

S.Artesian

20th April 2010, 16:44

-The Poverty of Philosophy.

-A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

- Letter to Engels, 1868.

- A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

- Letter to Lassalle, 1858.

-Capital.

One can hardly turn political economy into a positive science if one rejects it as a possible branch of knowledge, and Marx makes no suggestion that doing so would make it cease being political economy. Indeed, if that were the case, it would not make much sense to make propositions on topics such as value, price, profit, distribution of the social product; in other words, it would not make much sense to make propositions about the subjects which come under political economy, "in the widest sense, is the science of the laws governing the production and exchange of the material means of subsistence in human society," if one were not practicing it. On the other hand, one can certainly critique the established science of political economy, just as a philosopher of science can write a critique of science, which is a critique of current scientific practice, as well as one which is a critique of the possibility of science.

And what was Marx referring to when he was writing to Lasalle? About his critique of political economy, not his "substitute political economy," because he is not a substitute political economist.

Political economy is repeatedly identified by Marx as the "self-analysis" of capital that fails, and it fails because of its relationship to capital, the relationship of the political economists to the sanctity of private property.

Marx's work is not at about turning "political economy into a positive science." Precisely the opposite, as Marx's work contains, and is the analysis of the immanent tendency for the negation of capital. Yes, pick any chapter from Capital, from the Theories of Surplus Value, from the Grundrisse, the Economic Manuscripts 1861-1864 and see if any chapter can stand alone from the more complete analysis of capital that exists in the works as a whole defining the contradictions of capital. See of there's any point where Marx states, implies, demonstrates that his work is aimed at transforming political economy into a "positive science."

He and Engels are certainly determined to provide a scientific basis for socialism, locating the material determinants of socialism in a science of history as opposed to utopian socialism based on fantasy and desire [not that there's anything wrong with fantasy and desire-- it just doesn't account for the history of capitalism and the prospects for socialism], but neither is concerned with turning "political economy" into a positive science.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th April 2010, 18:32

BTB:

Despite Marx rescuing some aspects of the dialectic as handed down by Hegel (such as the role of contradiction), it would be mistaken to view him as continuing in a Hegelian tradition.

Then you disagree with Lenin, Trotsky, Harman and Callinicos...

But, you'd not know anyway, since, on your own admission, you haven't studied Hegel (or even read him)!

Zanthorus

20th April 2010, 19:30

Well, here, let me bang your head for you-- the difference between "economics" and Marxism is that "economics" doesn't include, contain, develop, transform itself into... class struggle.

You're joking right? You know economists act as government advisors and are partly responsible for the waves of privatisation and deregulation that have been happening for the past thirty years? Neo-classical economics is not just a pure science either, it acts as a justification for union busting, service privatising governments. Thatcher was regular visitor of the Institute of economic affairs in her early years and famously banged Hayek's constitution of liberty on the table of the conservative party conference saying "this is what we believe". She was also heavily influenced by Friedman's monetarism. If that's not transforming itself into class struggle then I don't know what is.

Marxist economics is just the other side of the coin, acting as a justification for workers in their struggles.

The labor theory of value is not Marx's contribution to economy, and certainly not 'political economy,' [which Marx recognizes as the ideological justification of capital], in part because the labor theory of value predates Marx. The other part is that Marx takes the labor theory of value out of the realm of economics and into the social origin of classes, thereby establishing the limit to the bourgeois mode of production.

Actually he improved on the original versions of LTV by Smith and Ricardo by adding the qualifier "socially necessary" and developing a theory of money consistent with the LTV. So it was partly his own theory. Also Marx doesn't take it out of the realm of economcis, in the first chapter of Capital he explains the LTV by starting from the act of exchange and deducing that for exchange to occur there must be a common factor involved which both objects are reducible and the only candidate is human labour.

It's true that he establishes from LTV a tendency for the rate of profit to fall and hence for capitalism to walk towards its own destruction but I don't see how that doesn't fall outside the realm of "economics" or "political economy". It's just a description of a tendency in the real world economy. Economists do that all the time.

...pick any chapter from Capital, from the Theories of Surplus Value, from the Grundrisse, the Economic Manuscripts 1861-1864 and see if any chapter can stand alone from the more complete analysis of capital that exists in the works as a whole defining the contradictions of capital. See of there's any point where Marx states, implies, demonstrates that his work is aimed at transforming political economy into a "positive science."

Likewise, pick any chapter from Alfred Marshall's "Principles of Economics" or John Maynard Keynes "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" and see if it stands alone apart from the more complete analysis in the rest of each of the books.

S.Artesian

20th April 2010, 20:20

You're joking right? You know economists act as government advisors and are partly responsible for the waves of privatisation and deregulation that have been happening for the past thirty years? Neo-classical economics is not just a pure science either, it acts as a justification for union busting, service privatising governments. Thatcher was regular visitor of the Institute of economic affairs in her early years and famously banged Hayek's constitution of liberty on the table of the conservative party conference saying "this is what we believe". She was also heavily influenced by Friedman's monetarism. If that's not transforming itself into class struggle then I don't know what is.

Marxist economics is just the other side of the coin, acting as a justification for workers in their struggles.

The difference is in the ideological claim of political economy, and particularly the Friedman/Rand/Hayek/Mises to be maximizing "human freedom" and emancipation in their actions.

If indeed they were explicitly saying-- "Our political economy is nothing but the justification and preservation of bourgeois property, and toward that end we will trash and burn every cubic centimeter of the planet" then we would have the sum contribution of political economy to the analysis of capitalism.

Marxism does say exactly that--[well, not exactly, but it's pretty clear from the analysis]-- the bourgeoisie in the effort to preserve, maintain, and expand its property will incinerate every cubic centimeter of the planet and will do so by the necessity of their need for accumulation.And in the next chapter, we'll tell you why.

Neither Friedman or Thatcher do that; they construct an ideological fantasy world, where money supply or deficits, or fiscal policy account for everything, and where every disruption in the so-called equilibrium of capital is due to a "deviation" from the truth path of free markets. Of course, behind every free market stands a death squad, but that's just reality impinging on the beauty of the fantasy construction.

As I stated right at the getgo, political economy is an ideology, a self-justification. Of course the ideology can be, and is, put to use justifying the status quo, or worse. That's the point, that's why political economy is what it is, and why Marxism is not political economy. It is not political economy because it begins its analysis with the actual social origins of classes and the exchange that is carried out between those classes via the labor process.