Mr. Perelman, thank you for sharing the sketch of your forthcoming speech in
Turkey with us. I intend to present my critique after I read the finished
version of it. For now, I'd like offer a couple of thoughts albeit they are not
mine but no regrets since we often don't have any thoughts of our own.
In this debate I second S. Artesian, political economy should be brutally
criticized and exterminated whenever it is stumbled upon. But one must also
add: if it really exists today. With a footnote in Capital Marx makes it clear
what he means by political economy: "Once for all I may here state, that by
classical Political Economy, I understand that economy which, since the time of
W. Petty, has investigated the real relations of production in bourgeois
society in contradistinction to vulgar economy, which deals with appearances
only, ruminates without ceasing on the materials long since provided by
scientific economy, and there seeks plausible explanations of the most
obtrusive phenomena, for bourgeois daily use, but for the rest, confines itself
to systematising in a pedantic way, and proclaiming for everlasting truths, the
trite ideas held by the self-complacent bourgeoisie with regard to their own
world, to them the best of all possible worlds." In
the sense of Marx's usage of the term, it is certainly impossible to refer to
contemporary political economy which deals with the real relation of production
since our prominent economist who often deserves the Nobel Prize is a sort of
witch doctor whose fundamental occupation is to apply the game theory to
economics. Even though I would prefer psychoanalysis as a companion to
economics, one must be contend with what one gets. Besides, contemporary
economics is just as inextinguishable as religion, it will makes sense of the
most mind-blowing scientific discovery long before the Marxists recognize what
they discovered. Therefore, struggle against the vulgar economy is to struggle
against the world whose theoretical aroma is vulgarity. I agree with you and
Turkish comrades on that we undoubtedly need a fresh theoretical enthusiasm of
21st century that will hopefully enable us to grasp the particular reality of
modern forms of capitalist production. But
at the same time I have a firm doubt that any great theoretical leap forward
will itself be grasped and assimilated by capitalist witchcraft. Here I will
quote Badiou's response to the same question:
"The part of Marxism that consists of the scientific analysis of capital
remains an absolutely valid background. After all, the realization of the world
as global market, the undivided reign of great financial conglomerates, and so
forth – all this is an indisputable reality and one that conforms, essentially,
to Marx's analysis. The question is: where does politics fit in with all this?
I think what is Marxist, and also Leninist - and in any case true - is the idea
that any viable campaign - against capitalism can only be political. There can
be no economic battle against the economy. We have economist friends who
analyse and criticize very well the existing systems of domination. But
everything suggests that on this point, such knowledge is useful, but provides
no answer by itself. The position of politics relative to the economy must be
rethought, in a dimension that isn't really transitive. We don't simply fall,
by successive representations, from
the economy into politics. What kind of politics is really heterogeneous to
what capital demands? - that is today's question. Our politics is situated at
the heart of things, in the factories, in a direct relation with employers and
with capital. But it remains a matter of politics - that is to say, of thought,
of statements, of practices. All the efforts to construct an alternative
economy strike me as pure and simple abstractions, if not simply driven by the
unconscious vector of capital's own reorganization. We can see, for example –
and will see more and more - how so many environmentalist demands simply
provide capital with new fields of investment, new inflections and new
deployments. Why? Because every proposition that directly concerns the economy
can be assimilated by capital. This is so by definition, since capital is
indifferent to the qualitative configuration of things. So long as it can be
transformed or aligned in terms of market value,
everything's fine.
The only strategy worth the name is a political struggle - that is to say, a
singular, active subjectivity, a thought-praxis. We are in the phase of
experimentation."
I guess here you agree with Badiou since you pointed out that the biggest
challenge is "how do we find a way to engage people?"
Regards,
mç
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
