|
Sorry forgot the references!
Steve,
Well-met. First time I came across Ilyenkov was in Mandel's The formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx. Mandel wasn't very enthusiastic about his work - more or less regarded Ilyenkov as just another Stalinist apologist. In the course of reviewing Marxist theory and its relation to Vygotsky's work, about two years ago, I happened upon several writers who regarded Ilyenkov as "the Marxist philosopher who fully integrates Vygotsky's works into general theory." Through the good services of MIA and its extensive archive on Ilyenkov it's possible to do a very thorough personal examination of Evald's writings. Then I ran into P Jones articles (yeah the same ones you've read) and shortly thereafter joined the XMCA CHAT site. As you may recall, from my earlier messages, I regard Peter Jones strong distinction between ideal objects and instruments of production etc. to be most consistent with Marx's theory, and a more useful explanatory tool for the kinds of work I do than the Bakehurst-Cole formulations. P. Jones does a very good job showing that Marx and Ilyenkov make a strong distinction between social tools and tools of production, but he's considerably weaker in demonstrating the importance of this distinction for the general theory of political economy. In the general theory the distinction between instruments and subjects of production (which together comprise the "means of production" and as means of production joined with "labour" comprise "forces of production) and "relations of production" (which are all those social relations that concern social production, exchange, and distribution of material wealth) is a critical feature of the dialectical analysis of capital. After all it is the continual contradiction between ever developing forces of production and the mode of production ( The method of producing the necessities of life which is a unity of the forces of production and "relations of production") that generates the normal revolutionary state of political economic systems. You may recall that one part of my recent critique of Paul Adler's article "Rethinking Labor Process Theory" was that he did not consider the importance of the revolutionary (if you are a proletarian you would probably rather call it "counterrevolutionary," though in the larger picture most "counterrevolutionary" strategies usually turn out to be as productive of revolution as "revolutionary" ones do) role of the "personal contract" in the preservation of capitalist relations of production under conditions of the growing socialization of labour in the productive process. The "personal contract" is a strictly social instrument that represents an extensive collection of social relations ranging from the mutual obligations between employee and employer, to the laws concerning rights of labour and property, to the rights and obligations of citizens of the US of A guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America etc. etc. While Adler presents a very convincing argument concerning socialization of labour, his analysis is incomplete because he misses the critical changes in the social relations of production that have evolved through the capitalists' efforts to preserve the modes of production of their necessities of life So the importance of the distinction between instruments of production and the ideal objects that are the instruments of social relations of production goes far beyond the issue of their immediate referents or of the particulars of their construction and form. Yours, Victor |
_______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
