Capital as The Subject

Chris Burford cburford at gn.apc.org
Mon Jul 24 21:51:39 MDT 1995


>>>>>>>>>
From: wpc at clyder.gn.apc.org (Paul Cockshott)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 20:47:39 PDT
Subject: Re: Capital as The Subject

Chris's presentation of capitalism as a self organising system
( quoting Lenin ) is different from the Hegelian concept of
capital as a subject. A system implies complexity and
functional dependencies between its components, something
which is harder to recognise if you treat capital as a
subject - with the implications of unity/coherence that this
implies.

<<<<<<<<<<<

Chris:
------

If it comes to a choice, obviously I would choose reality
versus Hegel. I assume that Hegel appeared to Marx to
provide the most scientific model available on condition that
the grounding was strictly materialistic. Or was he merely
coquetting with Hegel?

Why the universe should appear at times consistent with a dialectical
model is another question. (Last chapter of The Dialectical Biologist,
by Levins and Lewontin, Harvard, 1985, gives some answers).

I agree with Paul's caution about treating capital as the
Subject if that obliges us to show unity/coherence rather than
interconnectedness and interaction in a partly regular,
partly chaotic system.





     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list