Re: AUT: Remarks on Midnight Notes

[Gerald Levy <glevy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Monty wrote:

> I thought Marx' underlying purpose was to understand capitalism [and
> political economy, JL]  better in  order to help destroy it. He was a
> revolutionary. Presumably, an
> accurate and useful study of capitalist economy can help in the
> struggle.

Agreed.

> An analysis which fails to account for the development of
> the system is, I think, not much help.

That depends on what the analysis fails to account for.

> Yes, the role of book; but the book should be understood in a wider context --
> as Doug and I have suggested.

In answering Paul M,  you suggest that Marx's distinction is "out-moded."
That is a claim that we can discuss. Yet, it is a _different_ claim than
an interpretive [of Marx] claim -- which I thought Paul M was discussing.

I'm not sure that I understand the "wider context" that _both_ you and
Doug think "the book" should be placed in. For instance, when Doug asked:
"What does this fine distinction do for you politically?", he seemed to me
to be suggesting that value categories only have meaning if they can be
pragmatically applied. Thus, he has suggested elsewhere that the
"intelligent use of bourgeois statistics" can adequately serve as a
substitute for using value analysis. I doubt that you agree with him on
that point so maybe the two of your should caucus and discuss what the
"wider context" means in _this_ context.

Jerry






     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---