Ted Winslow wrote: > > > The object to be revealed, in this case the "intrinsic > interconnection" constitutive of capitalism in general and of the "law > of value" operative in it in particular, is knowable by "really > comprehending thinking". Such thinking, however, requires "maturity" > of "mind". This is itself the product of "intrinsic interconnection" > and develops with it, i.e. human history understood in terms of these > ideas is an internally related set of "educational" "stages in the > development of the human mind".
Two different things. (1) Capitalism, a unique social order, which constitutes (in _tendency_*) a totality, and hence must be understood in terms of its "internal connections." (2) Humanb history as a whole, which does NOT, so far as we know, constitute such a toatality, and cannot be understood in terms of such "internal relations." For example,the relations between two feudal entitities, or between two _oikoi_ in the Odyssey, are strictly external. Changes in one such entity (e.g., improvements in productivity in growing rye) have no necessary effect on an adjacent feudal domain. In capitalism, however, changes in productivity in (say) Argentine acultivation wheat can transform the very meaning of the labor of an auto mechanic in Kansas. It is those connections that Marx attempts to explain through surplus value (which is not intended to 'prove' exploitation: On that topic Marx has nothing to add that was not already quite clear to hesiod.) Incidentally, I don't believe you can cite Marx in support of Whitehead in his disagreement with Russel you have mentioned. I think Marx's response would be that, at a cosmic level, it is and will probably remain undknown whether relations are internal or merely atomistic. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
