[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication

[‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪]

Handy reach and prompt answer is not my skill...but...

What does this say?

In Book I we analysed the phenomena which constitute the process of capitalist productionas such, as the immediate productive process, with no regard for any of the secondary effects of outside influences. But this immediate process of production *does not exhaust the life span of capital*. It is supplemented in the actual world by the process of circulation, which was the object of study in Book II. In the latter, namely in Part III, which treated the process of circulation as a medium for the process of social reproduction, it developed that the capitalist process of production taken *as a whole* represents a synthesis of the processes of production and circulation. Considering what this third book treats, it cannot confine itself to general reflection relative to this synthesis. On the contrary, it must locate and describe *the concrete forms which grow out of the* *movements of capital as a whole*. In their actual movement capitals confront each other in such concrete shape, for which the form of capital in the immediate process of production, just as its form in the process of circulation, appear *only as special instances*. The various forms of capital, as evolved in this book, thus approach step by step the form which they assume on the surface of society, in the action of different capitals upon one another, in competition, and in the ordinary consciousness of the agents of production themselves.

I wonder if xmca mechanism preserves Italics.

And I think that the above could be related to this one from Andy himself :

[The idea of producing for exchange being something essential outside of a world in which products are exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something being a hammer outside of a world in which there are nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of  Capital, Marx wrote the Grundrisse and in the Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have to be analysed as such: 
  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 
  
 "Thus production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular syllogism; production is the generality, distribution and exchange the particularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joined together."] 
 
Now what remains to be clarified is that if we are right in taking this 'only especial cases' as having their own separate 'units of analysis' as we take it as such taking into account that each unit of conceptual analysis in theorization necessarily should lead to a 'concrete universal' which is a whole proper which will not accept within itself other wholes dismantling itself of its unity/identity. 

And in another debate not with you dears , 

'is the commodity a unit?' of something or not.


Did they not see this quote from Marx by Alfredo :

"The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its *unit* being *a single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin with *the analysis of a commodity"*


Do we demand clearer than that?

Yes , not that THE commodity is a unit but A commodity IS a unit.

A walnut could be a unit. A seed could be a unit of a harvest.

And the point is here exactly . To Hegel and to Marx quite supporting Hegel in this respect and to the newer logic , theorization procedures does not begin a concrete as such but with an apparently concrete as the abstract because this newer logic sees things not in their discreteness but in their relationalities. Marx as against Hegel manipulates with material concrete procedures , individual , particular , ==> Universal to get the essence out of the phenomenon to ultimately reach a CONCEPT. 

Then quite right with unit-concept (said above as taking a concrete as such) but in theorization not in material procedures. 

unit-concept ; unit-act ; unit-word ; unit-thing , etc. each a unit of ...some relevant whole.

[This analysis all leads to the *particular, productive concept of* 'surplus value'...] again 'concept' which has not been reached yet. Concepts are wholes as to their scientific definition maybe liable to be said to their Nature. I think this indicates fear of polluting phenomenological Notions and theoretical procedural features/moments with material instances. The capitalist does not usurp or appropriate the CONCEPT/NOTION of the 'surplus value' but the very substantial as in the form of a commodity no need to put an emphasis on it as for exchange , value not separable from use value. Money is in the bank but in theory the very money in the forms of coins , notes , etc. is a moment of accumulation of the supluses extra to redeployment in Factorial institutions. M,M' is also an obvious example of dealing with features/moments. 

[maybe even the 'unit' of commodity that we would like to emulate is not generalisable.] 

Was it not you deploying Marx's paradigms as leading to exploitation to the realm of education?

And not 'a unit of commodity' but 'a commodity as the unit (abstract in theory) of the analysis of 'capital' as a concept , as a whole. People here might make mistakes , errors for which they soon apologize but not so confused as to take 'the unit of commodity'?? for the unit of analysis of perezhivanie!! 

Thanks for all constructive help
Haydi  


      From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu 
 Sent: Friday, 20 October 2017, 2:13:46
 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
   
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

    Of course the method of presentation must differ in form
    from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the
    material in detail, to analyse its different forms of
    development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only
    after this work is done, can the actual movement be
    adequately described. If this is done successfully, if
    the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as
    in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a
    mere a priori construction.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
> Seems to me that if we’re going to talk about the details of Marx’s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it’s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis.
>
> Martin
>
>
>