If I can jump in here, I think it is important to distinguish "exchange
value," a property of individual commodities, from "value," an organizing
principle of society as a whole. The former is present in any and all
historical contexts where commodities have been exchanged. The latter is
historically specific to capitalism (and brings about historically specific
qualities to the property of exchange value). In Schweickart's model
commodities are exchanged, and so these commodities have exchange
value. But if all new investments in the economy are allocated through a
democratic decision process, and if the capital/wage labor relation has
been dismantled, then I myself would say that value (the "self-valorization
of capital") is no longer the organizing principle of the society. And
those are two crucial features of Schweickart's model.
Tony
At 09:22 PM 4/4/02 +0900, you wrote:
>Chris,
>given your account, what would you say about Schweickart's 'economic
>democracy'? That this is a form of capitalism, that 'value' exists in it
>but is not actual, that what exchanges are not commodities but some other
>form of the product of labour?
>Cheers,
>Ian
>At 04:47 PM 4/3/02 +0100, you wrote:
> >Re [6868]:
> >,Hi Andy.
> >>
> >>> This notion of 'identity' puzzles me. If value *is* money, then what
> >>> is the value-*form*?
> >>
> >>I'll let one of our VFT comrades answer your question concerning
> >>their perspectives.
> >
> >It maybe that someone has said value is money. But speaking for myself I
> >would stress hat value is only actual in the entire system of capitalist
> >commodity production and exchange. Aspects of its 'concept' are as it were
> >'distributed' over varioius points each of which are systematically
> >required to complement the others. Just to stick with form, I beleive value
> >has commodity form, money form and capital form. Money has some sort of
> >'visibility' as 'value for itself' (Marx Gr.) but all these forms are
> >required (just as in Hegel Being/Essence/Concept are jointly required to
> >make up the thought totality) for example the commodity must be a product
> >of capital. Certainly value cannot be identified with any element taken in
> >isolation (e.g. money or labour); nor can it be given a two-word
> >definition, its concept must be *developed* systematically. (Althugh Engels
> >made some major blunders, he did stress this in a couple of places.)
> >
> >Chris A
> >
> >
> >>
> >>For myself, I would express the relation as follows:
> >>
> >>Within a system of generalized commodity production and exchange,
> >>commodities are defined by the duality of use-value and value where
> >>the value-form is a necessary form of appearance of value and money
> >>is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form. Thus, value, the
> >>value-form, and money are all necessarily linked to each other and to
> >>the commodity. I guess that means I have a "single-system" (as
> >>distinct from a "dual system") interpretation.
> >>
> >>So that we don't all repeat ourselves endlessly, is there anybody that
> >>wants to say something about this topic that they have _not_ said before
> >>on this list?
> >>
> >>In solidarity, Jerry
> >
> >
> >17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT