michael perelman wrote: > I don't think anybody is saying > that material > capital is not real, but that once it becomes swept > up within the > financial sector it can take on fictitious values.
You'll have to run that part past Jonathan, Michael. He isn't saying -- nor do I interpret him as saying -- that physical things aren't "real", in the sense of not existing qualitatively. But I think his point is with regard to value, i.e.,the quantitative side of things. And I believe there is merit to that point as long as one doesn't lose sight of the artificiality (the historical specificity) of the category of value, which is something that Postone addresses rigourously. (There were very specific, substantive theoretical issues underlying my mention specifically of Postone and Virno in my questions to Nitzan). > I don't think that Jonathan was particulary > respectful of your > contribution, but still, I think that he is on to > something -- (perhaps > because what he says largely agrees with material > that I have written. I agree that he is on to something. As I've already mentioned first in my question to him that he dismissed, second in my comment that you just replied to and again in my reply above to your reply. He is on to something but I'm afraid he has framed his analysis (in the New Imperialism or New Capitalism paper) in such a way as to insulate it from integration with other, possibly complementary, anaylses. Notwithstanding what Engels had to say, I think Marx also made that mistake, thus inadvertently founding Marxism rather than contributing to and expanding upon a tradition. But this is the 21st century and there will be no new grand narratives after that fashion. > I think that the interface between capital and labor > is important (Tom's > emphasis) as well as the confrontation of capital > with capital > (Jonathan's, although power does also affect the > division of the product > between labor and capital). A synthesis of the two > is very important. Yes a synthesis of the two is important. I would go further to say that such a synthesis is only feasible on the grounds of the interface between labor and capital. Which is also to say the confrontation of capital with capital may be strategically important but strategy only makes sense if you can identify a subject to pursue the strategy. Traditional Marxism simply /assumed/ that subject (need I mention the proletariat?). We don't have that luxury today. Virno's multitude (which is more tentative and less bombastic and contradictory than Hardt and Negri's use of the term -- I'm relying on Finn Bowring's contextualization pof H&N) suggests a possible way to conceive of that subject. I'm not saying The Answer. Nor is multitude necessarily the collective subject one might wish for. But as Virno says poetically, "Every light we will ever find is already here in the so-called darkness. We need only accustom our eyes." The Sandwichman ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
