http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/business/29tax.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/business/29tax.html ?
hp=pagewanted=printposition=
July 29, 2004
I.R.S. Says Americans' Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
The overall income Americans reported to the government
absolute general law of
capitalist accumulation is mistaken, when you say:
These claims about how a subjectivity willing and able to transform
productive relations into rational relations are mistaken. Individuals
immiserized in this way would ( not) be subjects of this kind
These claims about how a subjectivity willing and able to
transform productive relations into rational relations are mistaken. Individuals
immiserized in this way would ( not) be subjects of this kind. there is no
necessity, however, for capitalism to produce immiserization. The organic
by Chris Doss
For formal logic , arriving at a contradiction means
there is a
mistake,
something is false.
--
Technically, this is false. In logic, ever since
Plato, the rule has been that something cannot both be
and not be in the same way at the same time.
Dialectics in Hegel and Marx do not
system are the motives for it to change into a different system, i.e.
socialism ? Contradiction as the basis for change is a dialectical concept.
Marx deals with dialectical, not formal logical contradictions.
The contradictions dealt with in the absolute general law of capitalist
accumulation
CB: What's the difference between what you said and
what I said ? I
believe
you state the rule of non-contradiction, which is what
I am referring
to.
---
I thought you were implying that Marx and Hegel denied
the RoNC. Maybe I misread you.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote
of capital and via this an industrial
reserve army. This produces immiserization of the proletariat. This
is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation.
This is irrational and therefore unreal. The rational outcome of the
law by which a constantly increasing quantity of means
I didn't set off the quote from Marx. It's the passage beginning
within the capitalist system. It's also from Chap. 25 of Capital
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm. Also, I
meant to say: Individuals immiserized in this way would _not_ be
subjects of this kind.
Ted
don't know about motives, but obviously for Marx, the contradictions in capitalism
create possibilities for the emergence of socialism.
The contradictions dealt with in the absolute general law of capitalist
accumulation are the poverty and unemployment that inherently accompany
technological
In a message dated 7/21/2004 8:07:43 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
there is no necessity, however, for capitalism to produce
immiserization. The organic composition of capital doesn't have to change
in the way Marx assumes. For this and other reasons, the creation of
Marx sets out the differentia specifica of capitalist production in
the following passage from Chap. 25 (that this is an expression of
motivation dominated by greed is made clear in other passages in
Capital and elsewhere). This too is an absolute law of this mode of
production in the sense
by Chris Doss
21 July 2004 12:29 UTC
CB: What's the difference between what you said and
what I said ? I
believe
you state the rule of non-contradiction, which is what
I am referring
to.
---
I thought you were implying that Marx and Hegel denied
the RoNC. Maybe I misread you.
^^
CB: I can see
.
^^
The contradictions dealt with in the absolute general law of capitalist
accumulation are the poverty and unemployment that inherently accompany
technological progress under capitalist relations of production, a
contradiction of regress and progress, with regress being absolute
In a message dated 7/21/2004 11:36:26 AM Central Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The contradictions dealt with in the absolute general law
of capitalist accumulation are the poverty and unemployment that inherently
accompany technological progress under capitalist relations
Charles:The contradictions dealt with in the absolute general law of capitalist
accumulation are the poverty and unemployment that inherently accompany
technological progress under capitalist relations of production, a
contradiction of regress and progress, with regress being absolute and
progress
, July 21, 2004 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: absolute general law of capitalist accumulation/dialectics and
logic
Charles:The contradictions dealt with in the absolute general law of
capitalist
accumulation are the poverty and unemployment that inherently accompany
technological progress under capitalist
] absolute general law of capitalist
accumulation/dialectics and logic
Dear Devine / To relate each contradiction with its results
is to return to
an explanation established in causality. In fact, it will lead to the
abandonment of the totality notion./ Mário
- Original Message
explicitly repudiates.
Ralph
- Original Message -
From: Ted Winslow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Marx sets out the differentia specifica of capitalist production in
the following
Ralph Johansen wrote:
Where do you find in Marx any reference to innate greed as the
motivation for accumulation under capital? Greed, sloth, etc., are
among the
seven deadly sins of western mythology and religious doctrine, the
basis of
Judaeo-Christian guilt, not the basis for accumulation
If dialectics form a system of logic, it's one that's
qualitatively
different from formal logic. In fact, I'd call them a
system of heuristics
(which Webster's defines as an aid to learning,
discovery, or
problem-solving ... that utilize self-educating
techniques).
---
It is a system of logic in
dialectical thinking is a system of logic in the Hegelian sense of the word, [which]
is not logic in the Aristotelian or Russellian senses.
exactly.
jim devine
dialectical thinking is a system of logic in the
Hegelian sense of
the word, [which] is not logic in the Aristotelian
or Russellian
senses.
exactly.
jim devine
---
In fact in Hegel the dialectical thinking isn't
merely a process taking place in the human mind, but
simultaneously taking place
by Chris Doss
---
It is a system of logic in the Hegelian sense of the
word, which refers to the relationships between ideas
as the develop in the unfolding of Absolute Spirit.
Hegel was using the word Logik with its Greek root,
logos, in mind, esp. the use of logos in Hellenistic
and Roman
/~jdevine
From: PEN-L list on behalf of Chris Doss
Sent: Tue 7/20/2004 8:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
dialectical thinking is a system of logic in the
Hegelian sense of
the word, [which
).
For formal logic , arriving at a contradiction means there is a mistake,
something is false. For dialectics, contradictions can be fruitful, drive
the process to finding a truth.
A dialectical question might be what contradictions is Marx dealing with in
the absolute general law of capitalist
Grammar, logic and math are systems of ordered
symbols.
--
Me: Not to the Greeks, or to Hegel. They are
objectively real. That's why the Greeks never
evolved the concepts of negative numbers or zero; how
can you talk about zero of something? It's absurd. In
one late work of Greek mathematics I
For formal logic , arriving at a contradiction means
there is a
mistake,
something is false.
--
Technically, this is false. In logic, ever since
Plato, the rule has been that something cannot both be
and not be in the same way at the same time.
Dialectics in Hegel and Marx do not deny this; they
I mentioned Plato:
Technically, this is false. In logic, ever since
Plato, the rule has been that something cannot both be
and not be in the same way at the same time.
---
Plato, of course, is where the conceot of dialectics
got started in the first place. Does anybody know of
Marx ever
thinking the use of absolute in the absolute general law of
capitalist accumulation is in the opposition absolute/relative, as in
absolute and relative surplus value and other usages. However, here , Marx
does not mention a relative. Perhaps these are the exceptions , the non-all
other things being
Charles writes:
The funny thing is dialectics is logic. So, it is a way of talking about
things. Formal logic is a linguistic project. Why not dialectical logic to
some extent ?
what exactly is logic then? I'm no expert on philosophy, but it seems to me that
dialectics isn't a logic in the same
by Devine, James
Charles writes:
The funny thing is dialectics is logic. So, it is a way of talking about
things. Formal logic is a linguistic project. Why not dialectical logic to
some extent ?
what exactly is logic then? I'm no expert on philosophy, but it seems to
me
that dialectics isn't a
Charles Brown wrote:
by Devine, James
Charles writes:
The funny thing is dialectics is logic. So, it is a way of talking about
things. Formal logic is a linguistic project.
i am not sure who wrote what, but addressing the above: i would submit
that formal logic is a mathematical project,
Charles Brown wrote:
by Devine, James
Charles writes:
The funny thing is dialectics is logic. So, it is a way of talking about
things. Formal logic is a linguistic project.
To which Ravi responds:
i am not sure who wrote what, but addressing the above: i would submit
that formal logic is a
. So, mathematics is
linguistic is another proposition :)
Anyway, I wonder if the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation is
not an empirical generalization, but a statement of a theoretical conclusion
or something. One of the earlier posts raised this.
But, maybe if it is empirical
Charles asks:Are you saying someone has put Hegel (
or dialectics) into simpler language ?
No. I'm saying that Marx's dialectical and materialist perspective (in CAPITAL) can be
translated into relatively common-sense terms by using a non-Hegelian language.
jd
with scientific materialist ontological
premises and of the inability of minds dogmatically attached to these
premises to comprehend alternative premises such as the premise that
relations are internal.
CB: How does the concept of internal relations help explicate the absolute
general law
In the following Engels uses the categories absolute and relative to
analyze Hegel. See especially the last sentence in the passage below.
Perhaps this usage can help understand Marx's use of absolute in the
absolute law of capitalist accumulation.
CB
^^
Frederick Engels'
LUDWIG FEUERBACH
a great deal of sterile controversy. As an
example we may cite the famous 'law of the increasing misery of the proletariat,'
which Marx called 'the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation.' Anti-Marxists
have always maintained the falsity of this law and have deduced from
Jayson Funke quoted Sweezy:
Marx was a strong adherent of the abstract-deductive method which was
such a marked characteristic of the Ricardian school... Marx believed
in and practiced what modern theorists have called the method of
'successive approximations,' which consists in moving from the
with increases in inequality.
The opposite of this version of the trickle-down effect can be seen in Karl
Marx 's absolute general law of capitalist accumulation, in which he
posits the normal tendency of economic growth under capitalism as being
that wages fall behind the growth of labor productivity
that's because I rewrote -- or wrote -- most of the stuff on the Wikipedia about the
trickle down effect. (There's also an entry on trickle down economics, but, the
last time I looked, it was incoherent. When I rewrote it, the fellow used
(misinterpreted) my text as representing bad thinking.)
of workers, whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of
labour. The more extensive, finally, the lazarus-layers of the working
class, and the industrial reserve-army, the greater is official pauperism.
This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation (p. 631)
These, strictly
exploitation of the World Spirit?
Hegel's absolutes however, end up being permeated with absolute negativity,
there his dialectic remains relevant to Marx's dialectic of Labour and
Capital. In Capital, Vol. I in the chapter on the absolute general law of
capitalist accumulation; capitalism, which cannot
Daniel Davies asked:
was he right?
Hegel's logic elaborates an ontology. One of its key concepts is
internal relations. Individual entities are internally related where
their essences are the product of their relations. This contrasts
with the concept of external relations which conceives
In Hegelian jargon absolute is contrasted with relative. Perhaps Marx
sharply stresses the bad sides of capitalist production as its absolute
aspect, but with equal emphasis clearly proves that this
social form was necessary to develop the productive forces of society,
etc. , as the relative
nverts the old
category of industrial reserve army from being a reserve of the industrial
system . . . the superfluous population world wide is not a reserve of industry
waiting to enter exchange on the basis of a boom.
The "absolute general law of capitalist accumulation" does not mea
Please excuse a layperson's answer: Secular is a trend without end.
Carl
That's one of those terms of art that reverses the lay sense. In a
religious sense a trend without end is sacred.
Charles
by Devine, James
CB: Maybe the use of absolute here is not significant.
JD:As I said, I think the word probably means abstract, but I'd have to
consult
a Hegel expert. Unfortunately, Marx decided to play with the use of Hegelian
language in CAPITAL. This has put off and/or confused a lot of
just one point, since I'm busy:
CB writes On this, I take the position that Marx actually believed that dialectics
is valid and therefore necessary as part of his conception ( not merely the
word forms to be coquetted with, despite Marx's own description). In other
words, we can't dispense with
Devine, James wrote:
I don't reject dialectical thinking. I just don't like Hegelian jargon. I think that
all of CAPITAL could be translated in relatively simple language without dropping
Marx's dialectical method, mode of presentation, or understanding of the world.
In _Alienation_
by Devine, James
just one point, since I'm busy:
CB writes On this, I take the position that Marx actually believed that
dialectics
is valid and therefore necessary as part of his conception ( not merely the
word forms to be coquetted with, despite Marx's own description). In other
words, we
A spectre is haunting the developed world - the spectre of the
Limits to Growth. All the makers of accepted opinion have combined to exorcise
this spectre: market analysts, editorialists, news anchors, economists. But the
spectre remains as the economy's problems grow.
We are now about
to
Speaking of Hegel...
CB
News and Letters October 1998 Journal of Marxist-Humanism
... Class 5: The Notion of Capitalism: The Absolute General Law of
Capitalist
Accumulation. Class 5 focuses on the absolute general law ...
www.newsandletters.org/ Issues/1999/Jan-Feb
One more thing... I went back and paged through Capital, and then picked up
Vol 1 of the Science of Logic, and damned if I can find anything anywhere in
Capital that approaches, parallels, the language Hegel uses in the Science
of Logic-- not that Hegel doesn't make sense-- but Capital, to a
sartesian wrote:
One more thing... I went back and paged through Capital, and then picked up
Vol 1 of the Science of Logic, and damned if I can find anything anywhere in
Capital that approaches, parallels, the language Hegel uses in the Science
of Logic-- not that Hegel doesn't make sense-- but
Thanks for your comment, Gil. Please excuse a layperson's question, but I
have never quite been able to understand this economist's use of secular.
What is the definition of secular.
Charles
by Gil Skillman
You could certainly point to recent economic phenomena supporting an
affirmative answer
July 2004 13:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Thanks for your comment, Gil. Please excuse a layperson's question, but I
have never quite been able to understand this economist's use of secular.
What is the definition of secular.
Charles
by Gil
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for your comment, Gil. Please excuse a layperson's question, but I
have never quite been able to understand this economist's use of secular.
What is the definition of secular.
Please excuse a layperson's answer: Secular is a trend without end.
Carl
Hello, Charles. Secular meaning over a long period of time. As dd
points out, economists usually use this in the sense of as opposed to
cyclical. Gil
Thanks for your comment, Gil. Please excuse a layperson's question, but I
have never quite been able to understand this economist's use of
Charles Brown writes:
I appreciate what you are saying about Marx qualifying his
statement. I
believe all social scientific empirical generalizations are
less than 100%
true ( including the one I am making here ? Reflexivity alert :)).
This sentence that I type now isn't true.
I wonder
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
How broad does Marx intend this generalization to be ? His use of the
term
absolute seems to indicate
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Does the empirical generalization suggested below have validity
today
nationally or globally ?
Charles
The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital
]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
This revolution has to be achieved by radical reforms in the
*relative* distribution of world money, and in the first place by the
peaceful but utterly effective dethronement
- Original Message -
From: sartesian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Chris Burford states at the beginning of his post that the general
law exists only to conclude, in his
extensive, finally, the lazarus-layers of the working-class, and the
industrial reserve army, the greater is official pauperism. This is the
absolute general law of capitalist accumulation. Like all other laws it is
modified in its working by many circumstances, the analysis of which does
not concern
by sartesian
-clip-
Any number of radicals, of left or right, can and will argue that the
workers in the advanced countries must sacrifice their wealth for reasons
of right and left-- like the national good, the international good, the
moral good, and for the sake of the soul. But such
Marx qualifies this absolute law immediately after stating it. For him, it's a law
at the level of capital in general, the subject of volume I of CAPITAL. However, it
might be changed by the competition of capitals, e.g., the uneven development of
capital on the world scale. During the period
I appreciate what you are saying about Marx qualifying his statement. I
believe all social scientific empirical generalizations are less than 100%
true ( including the one I am making here ? Reflexivity alert :)).
I wonder whether the use of the term absolute is some type of rhetorical
advice to
Concerning Marx's statement of the absolute general law of capitalist
accumulation, Charles asks
Does the empirical generalization suggested below have validity today
nationally or globally ?
You could certainly point to recent economic phenomena supporting an
affirmative answer to this question
Concerning Marx's statement of the absolute general law of capitalist
accumulation, Charles asks
Does the empirical generalization suggested below have validity today
nationally or globally ?
Gil writes:
You could certainly point to recent economic phenomena supporting an
affirmative
. This is the
absolute general law of capitalist accumulation. Like all other laws it is
modified in its working by many circumstances, the analysis of which does
not concern us here.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm#S4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles
Brown
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 6:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Does
72 matches
Mail list logo
