[was: Re: [PEN-L:5045] Re: Ohmans on 'marginal' constant capital #1]
Justin writes:
>Norman: this is a fundamental question [the remuneration of capitalist for
>their alleged services], very important, the root of whether to be a
>socialist or not. Why don't you look at the first chapter of David
>Schweickart's book Against Capitalism, which offers a semi-technical (that
>is, technically informed but comprehensible to the laity) discussion that
>is as good as any I know. David'[ basic argument is that there is no
>capitalist contribution as such to reward. Capitalists perform a number of
>managerial, entrepreneurial, etc. functions, indeed, and these are
>socially necessary and worthy of reward. However, they do not perform
>these _as capitalists_, that is, as owners of the means of production and
>expropriators of surplus value (though David does not, you will be happy
>to hear, use any Marxist jargon).
Justin, what's wrong with Marxian jargon? should we reject all Marxian
jargon and stick to the currently-dominant jargons ("entrepreneurial,"
etc.)? should we also reject philosophical or legal jargon, or is your ire
simply aimed at that of Marx?
I'm all in favor of _clearly explained_ and coherent jargon, and I think
Marx provided one even if many of his followers don't. (Marx's _method of
presentation_ wasn't very good in CAPITAL, to my mind, but that's different
from issues of "jargon.") I think that his "jargon" (others would call it
"terminology") is totally consistent with the fact that he approached the
whole topic of political economy from a different angle than the vast
majority of its students. Because Marx treated capitalism as a totality --
which is what it is -- and dealt with the internal relationships of that
totality first and foremost before turning to the role of individuals
within the system (cf. Ollman's excellent book, ALIENATION), his "jargon"
hardly fits with the commonsensical jargon prevailing in an individualistic
society like that of the U.S. (and that intensely individualistic industry,
academia), where we all start with individual "atoms" and hope that they
can be added up to produce an understanding of the big picture.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
