In a message dated 3/4/2002 11:57:49 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Question to Various comments in In Digest 77
by Davies, Daniel
-clip-
And whatever else
one thinks about Cohen's work, I think he has to be right that Marx had a
theory of history, and that this theory of
In a message dated Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:51:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, Charles Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Question to Various comments in In Digest 77
by Waistline2
05 March 2002 12:09 UTC
CB: Doesn't _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ make it pretty clear that Marx's
theory
CB: Doesn't _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ make it
pretty clear that Marx's theory of history is rooted in the
relations of production aspect of the forces of production,
the division of labor, and the class struggle ? History is a
history of class struggles, not technological
CB: Doesn't _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ make it pretty clear
that Marx's theory of history is rooted in the relations of production
aspect of the forces of production, the division of labor, and the class
struggle ? History is a history of class struggles, not technological
Marx's idea of social forces may be grounded more in common sense than in
some
deep theory One other factors that I see in his understanding of the
transition to socialism runs as follows: people will see the tremendous
social
forces (capabilities or potential) of capitalist production
But, in any case, I believe that attention in recent years by economic
historians has been given to the role of countless thousands of very small
innovations each year (rather than focus on the big-deal innovations) as
having been key for technological progress in capitalism. I tend to go
(hoping this will do as a tentative reply to Eric too)
Recasting Marx in algebraic, mathematical, or precise numerical form, seems
a
bit foreign to his overall project, which his understanding the nature of
capitalist society and the weaknesses that will lead to the creation of a
socialist
This does seem like an interesting fundamental disagreement on the meaning
of the productive forces. We've basically got two views here:
1) Charles' and mine, that production is a physical process. As Charles
said, one measure of the productive forces which allows the term to be given
sense
]'
Subject: [PEN-L:23342] RE: Question to Various comments in In
Digest 77
This does seem like an interesting fundamental disagreement
on the meaning
of the productive forces. We've basically got two views here:
1) Charles' and mine, that production is a physical process.
As Charles
Marx's idea of social forces may be grounded more in common sense than in some
deep theory. One other factors that I see in his understanding of the
transition to socialism runs as follows: people will see the tremendous social
forces (capabilities or potential) of capitalist production
Hari wrote,
In some instances, say the discovery of
iron and its smelting and malaeabilty etc- this may be a single
discovery that itself spawns a whole set of subsequent developments Is
that not the overall intent of Mar Engels in this views on what came
to be known as historical
dd writes,
You could envision a theory in which state of development of the
productive forces was measured by the highest temperaturebut it
has the advantage of, as far as I can tell, being monotonically increasing
in whatever the underlying variable of human development might be
AND
On 2002.03.01 10:54 PM, "Hari Kumar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A number of comments discuss the fact the the societal values placed
upon 'productive forces' varies and thus there is no single barometer of
that, as put by Eric here:
"Productive forces must produce "what people want." And what
MIYACHI TATSUO wrote,
In capitalist society that anyone can't argue Productive forces must
produce what people want Instead, capital produce in its own for
profit,not in order to human needs
My point was that productive forces can't be defined except by reference to
what people want and need
14 matches
Mail list logo
