|
Ed (someone) wrote:
=====
Since there are at least two Eds on this list, would
contributors be so kind
as to use an initial to indicate which Ed is at issue - e.g. "Ed G." and "Ed W." I keep seeing stuff attributed to "Ed" and wondering when I said that. And remember: Two Eds are better than one! =====
The above was written In response to my post which attributed to one of the
2 eds the following quote (slightly modified for clarity) - (from Ed G or
Ed W I do not know and this is because of the way the list posts have been
posted):
Dictionary definitions of capitalism highlight two essential features of the capitalist system. They are: Firstly that the factors (means and modes of production) necessary for the production of the necessities for human life, are in private ownership; (an historical development), and secondly; That these means and modes of production - privately owned - are used for the production of a private benefit (defined, in modern economic terms, as profit) - a contemporary fact (Cf: Industrial relations). Will the real Ed please stand up and tell us that this (without my slight
modification) dictionary definition was indeed posted by him/her!
Jack Cole I presume stands by his reply to this which was:
Maybe a new formulation (is required) my addition)),
starting from scratch, or somewhere less convoluted than the outcomes
of two centuries of tortured philosophy. Start with the
concept of value and a concept of value transaction. Commerce, capital,
common good, public and private, the information environment,
and purposes of human interaction. See what you can build
from those building blocks.
I have not replied to jack's quest for a "new formulation" because "of what formulation" I'm not sure. Of capitalism? Does that mean that Jack (C) does not see eye to eye with Ed (G) or (W)'s dictionary definition? Someone wrote a reply to the concept of "Tortured Philosophy" and suggested we read a book about it. What does that mean? Cannot we have that viewpoint from that person which tells us what "tortured philosophy" means. I don't have access to that book. But if book name-dropping is the way we are going to conduct this public discourse - then I gues we must all dust them off! My reply to Ed (G) or (W) and to the particular response it elicited from
Jack (C) was to suggest that we are (seem to be) moving towards a consensus on
what the economic state of society (capitalism) means - by reference to
dictionary definitions and daily experiences (which is what future work ought to
be about because future work is about work today according to the
injunction "know the past-know the future".
Jack's imperative seems to me to be concerned with "building blocks". I
assume that means 're-construction' which I assume moves us from philosophy
(which interprets the world) to change (which is what interpretation needs to be
about if anything is to).
At the risk of wasting bandwith I will copy below my retort which is a
phrase I've been carrying (as stated) in need of a sourcing:
"What is society, whatever its form may be? Nothing more
in conscious terms than the product of men and women's
reciprocal action. But
are men and women free to choose this or that form of society? I think not.
Assume a particular state of development in the productive
faculties of humankind and you will get a particular form of commerce and
consumption.
Assume particular stages of development in production,
commerce, and consumption, and you will have a corresponding
social Constitution, a corresponding
organisation of the family, of particular social orders (regulation etc), and of
classes. In a word: a corresponding civil society. Assume a
particular civil society and you will get particular political conditions which
are only the offical expression of those class efforts
exherted in the production of cohesion of a civil society at a particular
stage of the evolution of what has become (in modern times)
that particular idea of a democratic state (in modern times). In no less a
way did Greek civil society believe that they were then,
the founders of a civil democracy."
Regards, William Beattie |
