From: "Jurriaan Bendien" For example, when Marx analyzes wages conceptually as an economic form (as a social institution) in Capital, Volume I, he emphasizes very explicitly that "All the notions of justice held by both the worker and the capitalist, all the mystifications of the capitalist mode of production, all capitalism's illusions of freedom, all the apologetic tricks of vulgar economics, have as their basis the form of appearance discussed above, which makes the actual relation invisible, and indeed presents to the eye the precise opposite of that relation" (Penguin ed., p. 680).
He explains how the market relationship by its very nature inverts the real social relationship involved, so that it appears as its very opposite. He applies the same kind of argument in Capital to many different economic "forms", in order to demonstrate how the very nature of an institutionalized practice itself causes a misapprehension of its true significance, so that things appear other than they really are. The real significance becomes apparent only when, through an historical study of the origin of the "form", one becomes clearly aware of what is actually involved in the emergence of the form, i.e. the conditions necessary for its existence and perpetuation. Marx presents this argument not as a metaphysical "philosophy of essentialism", but as a scientifically testable argument with explanatory and predictive power. J. ^^^^^ CB: Marx and Engels like to use the metaphor of the _camera obscura_ in which the image appears upside down or inverted. This inversion is what Hegelianism is , too. So, Marx and Engels stand him off of his head and onto his feet. This does imply that there is a sort of rational kernel in vulgar economic forms, as there is in Hegel. So, vulgar or bourgeois economics _of old_ is not useless. I think neo-classical econ is more than inverted. It's inverted with a twist. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
