> I wrote: >> isn't indicating "what is REALLY going on" the
"fundamental
> conceit" of Marx, too (in a non-deconstructionist way)? Marx would
look at
> something like securitization and say that common-sense
understandings are
> hardly enough, because in capitalism, the stream of interest income
> corresponding to the securities has to correspond to surplus-value
that's
> been created, so we need to understand the exploitative social
relations of
> production ... (If the interest income flow doesn't correspond to
> surplus-value production, it's a redistribution from someone else's
> surplus-value receipts.) Indeed, the securities represent
"fictitious
> capital."<<
>
> Ian writes: >The last thing I want to do is get into a circular
firing
> squad over deconstruction; especially because I've never read
Derrida, De
> Man yaddah yaddah. And I hope I've made it clear I have not desire
to
> defend or attack it on this list [those words are problematic to say
the
> least].<
>
> nor do I. I wasn't attacking deconstruction; my point was that
seeing a
> hidden reality behind appearances was not unique to deconstruction
> (contrary to what Steve seemed to be saying).
>
> >But to the extent that I can understand it from my background in
> philosophy it is about how we go about understanding the mutability
of how
> we go about naming social and natural kinds and the contingencies
and
> politics of meanings that entails. It is about describing relations
and our
> theories of reference. Human beings not only analyze, we create and
there
> is surely a politics of creativity and thus a politics of economic
time. To
> the extent money is a social creation that deeply connects to our
> understanding of time [or lack of understanding] we can analyze it
in a
> plurality of ways. It would be as difficult to argue there is one
true
> theory of money as it would be to argue there is one true theory of
property. <
>
> there's no absolutely true theory, since no mental abstraction could
ever
> correspond exactly to the complexity and heterogeneity of concrete,
> empirical, reality. Some theories can do better than others, though.
How
> good a theory is depends on what you want to get from it, of course.
(If
> all you're interested in is predicting the price of tea, then supply
&
> demand is perfectly good, even though that theory is radically
incomplete.)
>
> >It seems to me that Marx's historicizing [radically temporalizing]
social
> categories like money, property, power etc. makes certain aspects of
> deconstruction, as I struggle to understand it, less troublesome.<
>
> the difference (as I understand it) is that Marx was a philosophical
> materialist (emphasizing empirical reality and human practice),
whereas
> some or most deconstructionists are philosophical idealists
(emphasizing
> words, texts).
>
> >But for both Marx and many other philosophical radicals the issue
of who
> gets to determine how money and property is created is more
important than
> how we analyze it. Indeed the whole point of analyzing it is to
change the
> terms on which we create it or choose to forego being animals that
'need'
> money and property. Who gets to determine what property is and how
they go
> about using language [and weapons] to constrain the ability of those
who
> disagree with those acts of creativity especially when they lead to
> unfreedom and misery for others; from exposing via analysis and
generating
> collective action for changing the the modes by which those
relations and
> objects etc. are brought into being are the real questions. <
>
> then we agree.
>
> >It is the injunctive aspects of our language/behavior that are at
issue.
> Thus there would seem to be deep epistemic and ontic issues of
> justification in the *calls* to repudiate the debt; claims on a
future that
> should not exist. For those of us who feel those *calls* are more
than
> justified, we need to be able to tell the rentier class that any att
empt to
> create a politics of justification over this issue rests firmly with
them.
> If they cannot come up with a justification for why the debt must be
> repaid, then it's down to collective action, not philosophy.<
>
> right
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
============
This is going in my save file big guy! :-)
Ian
