Ian I agree with all this (except the last para makes no sense). Probably what I intended was that value-as-content has causal efficacy only in capitalism. But the empty form of value can certainly carry other information, so I was wrong to use the word arbitrary. Thanks Chris >Chris, >After giving it some thought and finding some spare time, I'm not sure that >I understand your claim that 'empty forms' lack 'causal efficacy'. After >all, if exchange mediates between producers or solves the problems of >barter, it surely has 'causal efficacy' in at least one sense. >I think I agree with your claim that in other modes of production, >exchange-value does not 'express a content but is simply used by a foreign >content as a mere mediator'. Your expression 'mere mediator' suggests to >me that what you mean by 'causal efficacy' is the system building causal >efficacy of 'self-valorising value'. That is, taking the parallels that you >admirably draw between 'self-valorising value' and Hegel's 'geist,only in >the case of capitalist commodity production does the commodity form and >'value' as its substance have the kind of causal efficacy that hegel >ascribes to 'Geist'. But I don't think I understand or agree with a >stronger claim. >As to your claim that only in a value form of that kind of causal efficacy >do we have value determining manitudes, if we accept that the pattern of >exchanges values can be discerned in other cases (but not as an expression, >as you put it, of 'a content') it is surely an empirical matter whether as >you put it 'in such pre/post-capitalist exchange systems, exchange ratios >would be arbitrary or tautologically reducible to >intersection of preference schedules.' The law of supply and demand in the >form that prices move higher when supply falls short of demand and lower >when it exceeds demand is not a tautology and is even false in non >perfectly competitive markets (which cannot exist), although it isd a good >approximation for a wide range of markets and circumstances. Nor need it be >the case that exchange ratios are 'arbitrary' in the sense that they are >matter of random fluctuation behind which no pattern can be discerned, >though they might be 'arbitrary' in the sense of not expressive of a >content'. Paul Cockshot's sort of analysis could show that the pattern >lies between that of correspondence with embodied socially necessary labour >contents and that of a uniform return on investment. It could also be >argued that this is no mere accident by analysing the forces generally at >work in commodity exchange. > >Perhaps the following might both accommodate something like what you are >saying and could also be something that I agree with. Alternatively, it may >not be possible to achieve that - but I think our conceptual categories >should not become so rigid that they pronounce as meaningless, confused or >wrong reasonable claims (resting on analogies perhaps) such as that slave >owners appropriate surplus value from their slaves, or merchants >appropriate surplus value from buying cheap and selling dear. (Of course, >slave owners do not HIRE workers to be worked for a profit, but buy them as >though they were cattle. Formally, they are in the same position as a small >capitalist, who hires a few workers to tend a herd of cattle - where these >human animals, of course, may yield profits on a scale that milking cows >cannot, because of the competitive advantage of their costs of production) >. >But let me try this out for agreement: The organising principle of >capitalist commodity production is universal self-valorising value: let us >call this V. V has systematic effects, reproducing and expanding capitalist >commodity production, and lends its peculiar stamp to commodity exchange >within the capitalist mode of production. Capitalist production and >capitalist commodity exchange each produces the other as itself. Capital as >a whole provides an account of self-valorising value as the principle of >capitalist commodity production, in which more abstract elements of >commodity exchange take their specific form from their place in a system of >self-valorising value as a whole. > >In other social formations, commodity exchange might exist but it will not >be 'the other' of a single mode of production (competitive capitalist >exploitation, as you put it) which penetrates and develops the system of >production and exchange. It plays a role in the economy of these social >formations but is not the developmenta principle of the social system as a >whole. The pattern of exchanges is either accidental or, if it has a >substance - call it 'value' - that does not play a developmental role such >as Value does. > >Surplus Value exists only in capitalist commodity production but surplus >value may exist in other social formations. > >Please let me know what you can accept in the above (less than carefully >considered email expression, typos, etc, aside), >Cheers, >Ian > >>Hello Ian, >>I more or less agree with Tony. But I would use dfferent terminology. I >>believe that, given the peculiar socially constituted relations of >>exchange, we can have value as an 'empty form'. That could be so even with >>MCM if that were restricted to merchant capital and not indusrial capital. >>BY an empty form I mean one that does not express a content but is simply >>used by a foreign content as a mere mediator e.g. the use of money to >>overcome problems of barter. In such pre/post-capitalist exchange systems, >>exchange ratios would be arbitrary or tautologically reducible to >>intersection of preference schedules. Only competitive capitalist >>exploitation allows the value form to appropriate a universal content that >>in turn determines magnitudes. >>The empty form can of course be the sub-structural basis for a legal >>superstructure as in Pashukanis.Such empty form could be called an >>organising structure but perpahs not 'principle' if the latter means some >>sort of causal efficacy is involved. I associate causal efficacy only with >>self-valorising value, i.e. industrial capital. >>Chris A >> >>>Thanks for that interesting clarification (or different slant). I agree >>>that in Schweickart's 'economic democracy', the self-valorisation of >>>capital would no longer be the organising principle of society. I think, >>>though, that there is an argument for saying that commodity exchange is an >>>organising principle of the society and, if one does not absolutely >>>counterpose the spheres of production and exchange, that the market >>>functions as a social relation of production within that society. But I >>>have no fierce objection to taking the term 'value' as the substance of a >>>system based on M-C-M' and to take something else as the substance of a >>>system based on C-M-C'. I was only concerned that all categories relating >>>to commodities might be pronounced smeaningless outside the context of the >>>categories of capitalist commodity production. If the possibility of >>>embryonic elements of M-C-M', such as merchant's capital, which have >>>existed since at least the ancient world, is existed, then there could be >>>no substantive difference at all over the substantive organising principle >>>of capitalism, though differences might still perhaps remain over the >>>organising principle of the phenomena of commodity exchange, >>>regards, >>>Ian >>> >>>>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 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >>> >>>Associate Professor Ian Hunt, >>>Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, >>>Philosophy Dept, School of Humanities, >>>Flinders University of SA, >>>Humanities Building, >>>Bedford Park, SA, 5042, >>>Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784 >> >> >>17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England > > >Associate Professor Ian Hunt, >Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, >Philosophy Dept, School of Humanities, >Flinders University of SA, >Humanities Building, >Bedford Park, SA, 5042, >Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT