Shane Mage wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 2:33 PM, S. Artesian wrote: > > > I don't know about FTROP [ok, Shane, don't get your knickers in a > > twist] as > > metaphor... > > Marx was very explicit that this *tendency* was no metaphor but was > and is a basic law of motion of the capitalist mode of production. >
I think acronymbs must be neurologically related to proper names in general. About 12 yars ago I started having serious problems in retrieving proper names from memory -- dramatically driven home to me when, about 10 years ago, I was about to mention [damn -- I did itagain -- ah, Edmund Burke in a post & had to check an anthology contents to recall his name: and I've TAUGHT Burke in a course. Anyhow, when I wrote that post I couldn't quite retrieve the the correct acronym so I wrote FROP fully confident that anyone on a Marxist list would know it was a TENDENCY TO, and would also know that I knew. So as S. said, don't get your knickers in a twist. In fact the whole of Capital could have tendency placed before it, since Marx does not discuss any actual capitalist economy but only its tendency towaard a state it can never acvhieve in actuality. Recognition of that is part, incidentally, of the reason to emphasize contingency in attempting to understand any actual historical state of affairs (including the present and future), since that is always disrupting the nature of any "laws" of motion one can find in 'pure' capitalism In other words, Marx does not gie an empiracl account of capitalism. That was Stan Goff's understanding of Marx, and when he found a disconnect between Marx as he understood him and empirical reality, he rejectee Marxism. Carrol Carrol ________________________________________________ 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
