Further comments interjected below.
Charles Brown
JONATHAN NITZAN:
-clip-
We, on the other hand, still feel a little insecure. We feel that we do not
understand these central processes of accumulation very well, and that the
only way to theorize capitalism is to study them in depth and in detail. We
learned that from Marx. Moreover, as we delve deeper, we realize that the
puzzle itself changes; that in order to understand this changing puzzle we
need to invent new concepts; and most importantly, that we need to ask new
questions.
^^^^^
CB: Are you saying capitalism has changed from Marx's time or that your
concepts always applied better than Marx's ?
^^^^
Jonathon: You may feel that the fact that capitalists control social
reproduction-- including the creative abilities of human beings ("labor
power") -- is sufficient to understand the process of accumulation. We
don't. We see it merely as a first step.
^^^^^
CB: Basically, I am standing on the classical Marxist position on this. If
you want to know where I am coming from, just read Marx, Engels and Lenin.
On one level, accumulation does come down to capitalists controlling social
reproduction, but on another level, it takes a much longer explanation as in
several volumes of _Capital_ and all the rest.
In your earlier posts , you seem to be saying that apprehending that the
capitalists control social reproduction and labor power is _not_ a first
step , but rather superceded in some sense.
Also, why are you trying to understand the process of accumulation ? With
the aim of changing the system , or not ?
^^^^^^^^
Jonathon: You feel that you know precisely what to overthrow ("private
ownership in the basic means of production"). We are not sure exactly what
are the "basic means of production" (Machines?
Ideas? Organizations? Government regulations and policies? Everything?).
CB: Well, lets start out with just "means of production". Are you exactly
sure what are means of production ? They are the instruments and raw
materials of production. "Everything" but the human workers. So, machines,
yes. Ideas, well yes, there wouldn't be intellectual private property.
Organizations are groups of people, so no. Government regulations and
policies are not exactly ownable , are they ? They wouldn't be privately
dictated.
^^^^^^^
Jonathon: I'm not sure why you ask me about the "revolutionary process" in
Venezuela. I don't know much about this "revolutionary process" (is it
indeed "revolutionary"?), and I prefer to not express an opinion on things I
did not study.
So no harm intended, but I think the gap between us is just too wide for
this sort of debate.
Jonathan
^^^^
CB: I ask about the revolutionary process in Venezuela to try to get an idea
of how your ideas would work in practice. If you have not studied Venezuela,
what actual politicaleconomy have you studied , and how does your thesis
apply to that ?
Do you consider your thesis revolutionary, or contributing to a
revolutionary movement ?
Basically, in case you didn't notice, I am upholding the classical Marxist
position in relation to your challenge to it. So, are you saying the gap
between your ideas and classical Marxist ideas is too wide for you to debate
classical Marxists ? That seems , oh, a bit much , since you seem to be
putting forth a critique of the classical Marxist ideas. That would seem to
make it incumbent upon you to reply to responses from classical Marxists.
Otherwise, you are sort of saying "Marx is wrong, but I won't debate
Marxists."
