hi john, george, greg,
this first fragment was form my post, not george's. so i will be
brief with a reply. otherwise, i too am at a loss to understand the
significance of george's argument that the 'state is not an aspect of
capital' in relation to clarke et al. ie., i do not think they
actually say this when it comes down it.
i had written:
>>since value is not simply
>>economic value - as a political economist would have it - but social
>>valorization, then, again, I don't see what is so controversial
about
>>this.
john asked:
>But what does this mean in concrete terms?
concretely, it would mean a range of things, including the most
important, in my view, that the categories of value, surplus, etc are
not strictly speaking economic categories divorced from the realm of
politics, culture, etc. in another sense, it would also mean that the
category of value (for eg) would be considered as the reification (and
exression) of an antagonism, hence as a political/histrical category
whose political and historical contours and significance are what is
important to marxist crtitique.
as I said, I too would like george to elaborate a little more on his
point re: clarke. maybe I am missing something vital? who knows. but
I would be interested in seeing the terms fleshed out a little.
cheers,
angela
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|