IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Resnick and Wolff wrote: > ... each and every individual process within society is > conceived as a site of different effectivities emanating > from all the other social processes. Each process is thus > both cause and effect; each partly constitutes and is > constituted by all the others. To affirm this kind of > relational logic as the distinctively Marxian dialectic > implies certain theses. First, no social or physical process > can be treated as existing independently from the others, > since each is caused literally by the different > effectivities emanating from the others. Second, it follows > that no one process can be deduced from any one other > process. Finally, it follows that no particular process can > be deemed to be more or less important in its causation than > any other. Indeed, the unique impact of any one process on > any and all others is itself a result of how that one > process is constituted by them. These three theses > necessarily vitiate economic or any other kind of > determinism. A Critical Realist would say that this is an illicit conflation of the real and the actual. The goal of the scientist is not primarily to identify the *processes* that influence other processes but above all to identify the underlying "generative mechanisms" which both enable and necessitate the visible phenomena. And even in a totality in which everything depends on everything and therefore no process can be seen in isolation, such underlying generative mechanisms can be isolated, and they have varying degrees of permanence and urgency. If this is determinism then let's all be determinists. Marx did not begin with the commodity because it is the most important causal agent in capitalist society. He begins with it because it is an ubiquitous object of individual activity on the surface of the economy---everybody is buying and selling commodities---and it is simple, i.e., the real definition of a commodity can be given in one short sentence: a commodity is something produced for the exchange. Marx uses the commodity as entry point for his exploration of the invisible social relations which underly the observable individual activity. Here it need not disturb us that commodities obtain additional determinations if they are the product of capital. They are still commodities, i.e., they still have the double character of being use-values and carriers of value, etc. Hans.
- [OPE-L] Marxism Symposium 2006, Jerry Levy Mon 19 Dec 2005, 02:07 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] measuring causes, Paul Cockshott Fri 16 Dec 2005, 18:53 GMT
- Message not available
- Re: [OPE-L] measuring causes, michael a. lebowitz Sun 18 Dec 2005, 07:30 GMT
- [OPE-L] resnick and wolff on the commodity form, Howard Engelskirchen Mon 19 Dec 2005, 05:39 GMT
- [OPE-L] resnick and wolff on the commodity form, Hans G. Ehrbar Mon 19 Dec 2005, 18:44 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] resnick and wolff on the commodity form, Stephen Cullenberg Mon 19 Dec 2005, 22:59 GMT
- [OPE-L] resnick and wolff on the commodity form, Hans G. Ehrbar Tue 20 Dec 2005, 03:57 GMT
- [OPE-L] RePresenting resnick and wolff on the commodity form, Howard Engelskirchen Tue 20 Dec 2005, 06:03 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] resnick and wolff on the commodity form, Ian Wright Tue 20 Dec 2005, 01:08 GMT