--- On Sun, 2/1/09, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
From: SA
Yes, I do believe I've heard of that. But I thought we were talking about Marx's value for interpreting the world right now, not his value for changing it (although no doubt I'm overlooking the abolition of the distinction between theory and practice). ^^^^^^ CB: Yes, that's it. Unity of theory and practice. Can't change the world based on a wrong theory of it. ^^^^ As far as the point of all this is concerned, I'd say (1) pure intellectual curiosity; (2) prediction, insofar as possible; and (3) being able to provide the masses with a plausible and true explanation of what the hell is going on. I guess my main objection to the notions I've been criticizing is that they don't seem either plausible or true to me. ^^^^ CB: Which in particular again don't seem either plausible or true ? ^^^^
> Also, since Marxthere has been Lenin,Hilferding, Monthly Reviewcomrades
,et al. ,who have built on Marx's basics
> particularly with respectto the rise of monopoly and finance capitalism.
Marx's fundamental ideasare stlll valid, like some ofDarwin's ideas in
biology, even thoughDarwin died long ago. Much of Newtonianphysics is still
valid,even though hedied more than 125 years ago. Surely youdon't think
capitalism is totally differentthan in Marx's day. Things change, but
somethings take a long time. Until wehave socialism, capitalism is the more
things change, the more theystay the same, and thus ancient Marxis on time
still.
>
This reification of timeless "capitalism" (yet always changing! - a dialectical unity of opposites, no doubt) is another pet peeve of mine, but I'll spare everyone..... ^^^^^^^ CB: Not quite eternally unchanging. Is it really hard to believe that the fundamentals haven't changed much since 1867 ? Lots of phenonmena have "circular" change or movement. The solar system for example. The business cycle is a circular form of change. ^^^^^ One hugely important aspect of capitalism that has changed since Marx's death, as Doug noted, is the radical separation of ownership from control. In Vol. 3 of Capital, Marx notes this phenomenon - which was at only a very rudimentary stage at that point - and makes the following remarkable observation. He says that in stock companies (corporations),
> The capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and
presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labour-power, is
here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly
associated individuals) as distinct from private capital, and its undertakings
assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings. It
is the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of
capitalist production itself.
Since then, it's become the dominant mode of production. Bet you hadn't heard private property had been abolished!
SA ^^^^^ CB: yes indeedy. What do you think about ficticious capital ? That seems to get at a lot of what is happening on Wall Street today. And then monopoly and financial oligarchy seem to be just leaping out of the television and newspapers in our faces. ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk