Re: [xmca] déjatel¹ nost¹

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Fri Sep 05 2008 - 06:39:38 PDT

I think the two things at play are:

(1) The "cell" or conception of the science as the essence
problem underlying a series of inter-related problems in a
certain domain of experience, and
(2) The "real premises", or the conception the researcher
has of the underlying reality.

In "rising from the abstract to the concrete" the point is
to reconstruct the concrete as a concentration of
abstractions, one of which is the commodity relation. Sure,
if you want to understand *everything* then many conceptions
will be necessary. But Marx only set out to understand
capital. If you want to understand ovarian cancer or Hindu
sculpture, the commodity relation will not be sufficient.

Apologies for my carelessness in talking of the commodity
relation as "commodity". And enjoy yourselves in San Diego.


Martin Packer wrote:
> On 9/3/08 10:57 AM, "Andy Blunden" <> wrote:
>> So the cell of bourgeois society and its "unit of analysis"
>> is *not* a commodity, but the commodity relation.
> OK, Andy. But it was you who first said:
> "Marx applied the idea to political economy and came up with
> the *Commodity*, as the simplest relation of bourgeois
> society and the simplest unit of capital."
> I think we both agree that a commodity *is* a relation, *and* a process. It
> *appears* to be merely a thing, but analysis shows that it is much more than
> this. But I would still argue that analysis shouldn't be conducted on the
> 'unit' in isolation, but as it participates in something larger.
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

Andy Blunden +61 3 9380 9435 
Skype andy.blunden
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
xmca mailing list
Received on Fri Sep 5 06:40 PDT 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 01 2008 - 00:30:04 PDT