|
Ilikenuman (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
is your mothers name Martha?
brendanmcooney (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
This is mostly my understanding of Marx's methodology based on my own observations of his method and not an explicit analysis of his approach. I think a more explicit study would involve getting more acquainted with Hegel... an eventual goal of mine, but not something I am ready to undertake yet.
Catholicboy4life (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Just a quick question, is your "abstract-concrete" method of analysing social relations taken directly from Marx? or is it your own creative take?
I find this a good way of looking at the social world, as I am a history student that often has difficulty linking all the complex detail of specific historical events to more abstract macro-theories.
brendanmcooney (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
I think you have missed the finer points of the argument. I have not claimed that commodity exchange doesn't produce class consciousness or inform personal identity. To the contrary commodity exchange is essential for understanding how these are formed. Commodity relations are social relations. The social is economic.
Work is concrete on the individual level but in order to be exchanged it also takes on an abstract value. If it weren't for this abstraction exchange would be impossible.
Jpom22 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
modern workers DO see each other, some have work-class consciousness, derive personal identity, sense of own social value from job! relate to co-workers thru that social value = social relation between people. something wrong with the term "social product"? the basis requires denying social relation between workers, only affirm relating thru commodities. mixing apples and oranges, social with economic, abstract with concrete. nothing abstract about work! dig a ditch, suffer real charlie horse!
Badwolf182 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
VERY clear explanations which is not the norm on utube.
I watched this amazing vid called 'the magnificent deception' by robert menard (c google vids) and his info is fantastic BUT all over the place. hard to follow.
So well done here
milt0nics (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
I like your face Mr. B... Share it with the world!
brendanmcooney (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Thanks. I look forward to seeing this video. Please post it as a response.
brendanmcooney (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
I think you are projecting some other argument onto the argument I am making.
I am explaining the way different producing groups relate to each other in a society- how private labor implies a greater set of social relations. I am saying that we must understand economics through an analysis of the way different groups relate to the production of the social product, and how individuals relate to these groups. I am not saying that hunter gatherer societies had class hierarchy.
yeahwotevaman (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
I think that is a projection of 'civilised' social relations onto pre-civilisation forms of society. It doesn't really help to illustrate the later points about class hierachy, which are exclusive to civilisations. |
