OPE-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: [OPE-L] Marx and philosophy



You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.


I am not intending to mislead,

Hi Jurriaan:


I knew that.


I therefore said explicitly "also by analogy" and therefore, not only by
analogy.

Paul C. said he had followed Mirowski's interpretation that Marx's laws of
motion of capitalist market economy were in some way inspired by Isaac
Newton's theories. I doubt that interpretation, especially because I am not
aware that Marx seriously studied Newton, or even referred to his theories,
other than perhaps incidentally.


Engels, more than Marx, referred to Newton.  Marx wrote a bit
about Newton, though - note  e.g. references in _Mathamatical Manuscripts_.



When Marx talks about "laws of motion" and "inevitability", there is IMO no
particular theoretical conflict or tension in his thought, unless you argue
that efficacious human choices made on the basis of free will are
incompatible with, or contradict, determinism.


But, Marx wasn't an economic determinist.

If you don't want to call it a "tension" (my expression) then I think you'd
have to call it a _contradiction_ in Marx's thought.  Either he believed
that
there were social processes at work which lead "inevitably" to certain
results or he did not or he at different places and times suggested
inevitability and non-inevitability.  If you don't see this tension, then we
can
look at specific references he made to the "inevitable".



The "tensions" arise only in crudified, anti-historical Marxisms which
operate with a deformed or schematic idea about determinism.


I think, rather, that most of what you call "crudified, anti-historical
Marxisms" have _some_  textual basis in Marx.



The "whole" in Marx's economic writings, is the capitalist mode of
production, defined as an organic unity of the production and circulation
of commodities.



The unity of the processes of capitalist production and circulation only express one essential aspect of capitalism, it does not "define" the capitalist mode of production. The "whole" can only be unpacked with reference to all of the essential levels of abstraction associated with the real subject matter and that includes not only capital, but also classes, the state, foreign trade, the world market, etc.


In solidarity, Jerry



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]