Well said, John. Wythe
> On January 13, 2021 at 2:45 PM John A Imani <[email protected]> wrote: > > > judeanpeoplesfront@. wrote: > > <<I said I’m seeking just such a “philosophy,” but I did feel a bit > strange changing it from science to philosophy. They are not the same. I have > read elsewhere that Marxism is not a moral framework and I am aware of how > rigorously scientific Marx’s research was...I suppose I said philosophy > because, although learning about the inner workings of capitalism and its > contradictions has been eye opening, I would not have questioned capitalism > in the first place if it weren’t for a moral reaction to what I see in the > world. Based on the little I know about Marx (please correct me if I’m > wrong), I believe he held a similar moral repugnance for capitalism, which is > what led him to investigate it and scientifically critique it in the first > place...This duality is fascinating. Marxism may be a science, but it seems > to me (granted, I’m a total newcomer) that it is deeply, inextricably > intertwined with moral issue...>> > > I think that you are right. From my readings of Capital it seems clear > that morality (working-class valued morality) is a red red thread running > through and throughout the 3 volumes. No matter how 'objective' his writings > are purported to be by many good comrades it is hardly soulless. Almost all > passages save the introductory chapters of Vol 1--where he meticulously lays > out his theory of value and surplus-value and exchange-value (the Law of > Value)--from thenceforth it is a, well, manifesto, a delineation of the > cruelties visited upon men by men. > > Most times these are not delivered as a preacher's sermon nor a school > hall seminar handed down from a podium of some such 'recognized authority' > who has deigned to illuminate the unwashed, the unshod, the ones invisible to > all and, in many cases, to themselves. Many many times it is value judgement > disguised as fact as implicit in its explication is condemnation as when he > talks about the Native peoples being subjected to carrying 200 pounds of > metal ore and being fed and bred upon beans and not the bread they would > prefer. He cites: "The labourers in the mines of S. America, whose daily task > (the heaviest perhaps in the world) consists in bringing to the surface on > their shoulders a load of metal weighing from 180 to 200 pounds, from a depth > of 450 feet, live on bread and beans only; they themselves would prefer the > bread alone for food, but their masters, who have found out that the men > cannot work so hard on bread, treat them like horses, and compel them to eat > beans; beans, however, are relatively much richer in bone-earth (phosphate of > lime) than is bread." (Liebig, l. c., vol. 1., p. 194, note.)” Quoted in Vol > 1. Chap XXIII. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch23.htm > > But Marx is fair in his dispensation of his morality. He even makes a > value judgment as to whether it is the landlord or the usurer who is the more > blatant exploiter: "...the landlord, who does nothing at all for the > improvement of the land, also expropriates his small capital, which the > tenant for the most part incorporates in the land through his own labour. > This is precisely what a usurer would do under similar circumstances, with > just the difference that the usurer would at least risk his own capital in > the operation.” “Vol 3.” Chap XXXVII. > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch37.htm > > And Marx is again fair in his appraisal of the role of parsimony and > self-sacrifice in the early origins of capitalists: "Variable capital, it is > true, only then loses its character of a value advanced out of the > capitalist’s funds, when we view the process of capitalist production in the > flow of its constant renewal. But that process must have had a beginning of > some kind. From our present standpoint it therefore seems likely that the > capitalist, once upon a time, became possessed of money, by some accumulation > that took place independently of the unpaid labour of others, and that this > was, therefore, how he was enabled to frequent the market as a buyer of > labour-power.” http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch23.htm > http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch23.htm . > > And just to be sure that this is not a lapsus lingua he repeats his > appraisal of some early capitalists in the same chapter: “The original > capital was formed by the advance of £10,000. How did the owner become > possessed of it? "By his own labour and that of his forefathers," answer > unanimously the spokesmen of Political Economy. And, in fact, their > supposition appears the only one consonant with the laws of the production of > commodities.” And once more unto the breach: “The accumulation of the first > additional capital of £2,000 presupposes a value of £10,000 belonging to the > capitalist by virtue of his “primitive labour,” and advanced by him.” > http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm > http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm > > ‘Capital”, in spite of its simple but academically imposing > pseudonymously titled facade, is not a sterile, surgical, humaneless, ticking > off of bullet points of the frailties and failures of capitalism, it is > propaganda in its best sense of that word, it is ideas that propagate, that > promulgate without pontification the overriding of the soulless essence of > capitalism. > > JAI > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5521): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/5521 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/79587279/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
