Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [politicalaffairs] Re: Political Affairs Magazine - The Concept of quot; Auraquot; and the Question of Art in Althusser, Benjamin and Greenberg

2009-02-07 Thread Mehmet Cagatay

Mr. Dumain, would you please clarify why you regard Althusserian anti-humanism 
as a kind of epater les bourgeois?

Thank you in advance,



Mehmet Çagatay
http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/


--- On Fri, 2/6/09, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote:

 Althusserian and French anti-humanism in general 
 is bullshit, the French intellectual's way of, as 
 they say, epater les bourgeois. If humanism 
 alludes to something else, then that should be 
 decoded. And I think Tedman is quite mistaken.



  

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Feitshization -things vs relations

2009-01-16 Thread Mehmet Cagatay
I differ here with both BodyS and Hugh Rodwell. I think Marx applied the term 
fetishism to denote the singularity that in capitalist societies the commodity 
form of our mutual objects converts them to fetishes that provide the 
recognition of social relations in the imaginary form through concealing the 
reality whenever we exchange our products we equate the different kind of labor 
expended in production. As a result, the real relations of production is 
disavowed and at the same time accepted but through fetishism in an illusory 
fashion. 

Mehmet Çagatay
http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/


--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Charles Brown charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us wrote:

 From: Charles Brown charl...@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us
 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Feitshization -things vs relations
 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
 Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 8:19 PM
 Fetishization -- things vs relations
 Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se 
 Fri Sep 25 01:20:38 MDT 1998 
 
 Previous message: M-TH: Money for Old Tropes 
 Next message: M-TH: Money for Old Tropes 
 Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [
 author ] 
 
 
 
 BodyS writes:
 
  Fetishizing, it seems to me, is the transformation of
 the thing
 into a social entity.
 
 The problem is that Marx's view is the exact opposite.
 For him,
 fetishization is the transformation of a social relation of
 power into a
 thing -- for instance, the car is assigned the status that
 comes with the
 power over others expressed by the owner's ability to
 dispose over social
 value, or money is seen as a source of wealth rather than
 an expression of
 power over the labour of others embodied in a product of
 labour.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Hugh
 
 
 
 
 
 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl
 plc. www.surfcontrol.com
 
 ___
 Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
 Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
 To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
 http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


  

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have...

2009-01-07 Thread Mehmet Cagatay
Hello,

I found this list via Jim Farmelant's post on Marxmail. After reading 
Waistline's arguments about the macro economic composition of capital and his 
brave challenge that provokes us to provide evidence to the existence of the 
SECTOR called industrial capital, eventually I decided to subscribe to the 
list and post a small contribution to the debate. 

I think the fundamental error of Waistline's claim resides in confusion of 
dialectical method with the descriptive dimension of dialectical analysis. 
Therefore, he takes the concepts literally whereas their purpose is to reflect 
diverse forms of the object in its dialectical movement. 

When Marx accuses the political economy for throwing commercial capital and 
industrial capital together and overlooking the characteristics of former, he 
does not, in any sense, blame them for neglecting the categorical division of 
capital but draws attention to the diverse forms of capital in the operation of 
capitalist accumulation. 

For instance, in the vol. 3 of Capital, Marx says, ...our purpose, which is to 
define the specific difference of this special form of capital:

We have explained (Book II, Chapter VI, The Costs of Circulation,) to what 
extent the transport industry, storage and distribution of commodities in a 
distributable form, may be regarded as production processes continuing within 
the process of circulation. These episodes incidental to the circulation of 
commodity-capital are sometimes confused with the distinct functions of 
merchant's or commercial capital. Sometimes they are, indeed, practically bound 
up with these distinct, specific functions, although with the development of 
the social division of labour the function of merchant's capital evolves in a 
pure form, i.e., divorced from those real functions, and independent of them. 
Those functions are therefore irrelevant to our purpose, which is to define the 
specific difference of this special form of capital. In so far as capital 
solely employed in the circulation process, special commercial capital, partly 
combines those functions with its specific
 ones, it does not appear in its pure form. We obtain its pure form after 
stripping it of all these incidental functions.

So when Marx applies the concepts such as, industrial capital, industrial 
capitalists, fictitious capital, commercial capitalists and so on, he 
designates singular forms of capital in the movement of its being but not the 
specific categorical divisions of capital. 

With this in mind, also when Lenin invoked the financial capital or when 
Sweezy, talked about the triumph of financial capital they were merely 
describing the distinctive characteristics of a specific form which is the core 
of imperialist exploitation. 

I think the answer of Waistline's question is quite easy: There is no such a 
thing as industrial capital sector or industrial capital as a subdivision in 
the totality of capital. And in this sense, there is no financial capital too. 

The supposed difficulty of this question rises on the bizarre confusion about 
categories and forms.


Mehmet Çagatay
http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/


  

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis