From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 15:15:11 EDT
At 1:47 AM +1000 4/8/05, Nicola Taylor wrote:
> Frankly, I envy the whale.
This envy is very reactionary, as Cassirer long ago noted
There does seem to be the sense that the technology
which man has invented in order to subjugate the physical world has turned
against him. many seem to think that technology has not only led to
heightened self alienation but ultimately to a kind of self loss of human
existence. The tool, which appeared to provide the fufillment of human
needs, has seemingly instead created countless artificial needs. Each
perfecting of the technological culture is, and remains, in this discourse a
truly treacherous gift. So there is a yearning for primitive, unbroken,
immediate existence; and the more numerous the areas of life taken over by
technology.
There is jealousy of the lower animals each of which is completely adapted
to its environment that it rests in it as quietly and securely as a baby in
its crib. But this calmness comes to an end-as soon as we enter the
human spehere. Each animal
species is firmly bound as it were to the circuit of its needs and drives;
it has no other world than that which is prescribed for it by its instincts.
Within this world there is no wavering and no transgression; the limits of
instinct offer at the same time the greatest security. No human knowledge
and no human action can ever finds its way back to this kind of
unequestionable existence and unquestionable uncertainty,
Some long for the reality and immediacy of natural existence. And so
they undermine the active side of humanity in a way which will erode
the capacities for action and creation in a decaying world.
For instead of being moved immediately by stimulus, a human looks to
'possible' needs, for which he prepares the means of satisfaction in
advance. For example, in order to invent a tool, a human must look beyond
the sphere of immediate need. A human cannot act from impulse and the
necessity of the moment. We must place something not yet existing before
ourselves in 'images' in order, then to proceed from this 'possibility' to
the reality, from potency to act.
It is to the erosion of this quintessential human capacity that
differentiates even the worst architect from a bee.
>
>thanks for your very stimulating contribution
>
>nicky
>
>Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:*
>{behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
>.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
>st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
>
>Thanks Nicky,
>
>
>
>As you will see in my reply to Jerry it is productive creativity I
>have in mind, i.e. labour as such.
>
>
>
>Andy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicola Taylor
>Sent: 07 April 2005 16:15
>To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
>Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?
>
>
>
>Hi Andy,
>
>I understood that you were talking about "creativity" as a uniquely
>human attribute and reason for privaleging human labour above the
>labour of animals. I can't agree with you there.
>
>
>
>However, on the crucial distinction between labour and labour power
>- as the central argument of Marx's thesis - we may well agree.
>
>
>
>cheers
>
>Nicky
>
>
>Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>Nicky,
>
>
>
>I agree with all of what you say. Did I say otherwise?
>
>
>
>Many thanks
>
>
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicola Taylor
>Sent: 07 April 2005 14:51
>To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
>Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?
>
>
>
>Andy, Ian and comrades
>
>
>
>as usual I find myself aligned with Jerry on this issue. What is
>important in Marx is the fact that labourers sell their *labour
>power* on markets. They do not sell themselves. Moreover, the
>*labour power* paid for in the wage must be converted by capitalists
>into *labour* - a process that is by no means assured.
>
>
>
>Where people, animals and machines are *owned* the capital-labour
>relation cannot exist, in the very real sense that the sale of
>labour power does not take place; in relations of slavery, for
>example, workers do not willing sell their labour but on the
>contrary are traded body and soul against their will. The slave
>owner may, if he choses, work his slave to death just as he may work
>a donkey to death. (imo) Marx's key insight into the social
>relations of capital is that workers trade their labour-power
>freely. i.e. the crucial distinction is not between humans, land,
>donkeys etc but between living *labour* and the *labour power*
>purchased for wages.
>
>
>
>comradely
>
>Nicky
>
>
>Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote:
>
> > The difference between labour / labour-power and machine
>> input / machine-power (or animal activity / animal-power) is that
>> labour is productively creative whereas machines are not, and
>> animals are strictly limited in this regard (the creative -- as
>> opposed to innate -- production of tools by animals is more
>> or less rudimentary, where it occurs at all).
>
>Andy,
>
>I think this underestimates the level of creativity that certain non-
>human species are capable of. You, obviously, have never
>had an opportunity to observe a beluga whale in the wild. The
>military of several nations (including the US and the former USSR)
>has long realized this and has used cetaceans for a number of
>purposes, including sophisticated ('sonar'-equipped) security guards
>at naval bases and for the placement of explosives on underwater
>targets. The (human chauvinist) position you advance, though, does
>seem to be consistent with Marx's position.
>
>> Ian, if robots one day became able to creatively produce
>> to the extent of humans, then they would have become labourers,
>> with social relations of production, and labour time would retain
>> its relevance.
>
>That wouldn't make the robots, or animals held in captivity which
>are required to perform, wage-workers. The social relations of
>production of *slavery* might, though, be extended to analyze these
>cases. After all, aren't the animals forcibly held in zoos enslaved?
>Presumably, the intelligent robots would also have human 'overseers'
>(programmers, maintainers) who could ensure compliance. (NB: the
>above is in reference to the question of 'who' can be able to labour
>and produce, not create value.]
>
>In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>
>
>Find local movie times and trailers on
><http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/*http:/au.movies.yahoo.com>Yahoo!
>Movies.
>
>
>
>fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
>
>
>
>
>Find local movie times and trailers on
><http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/*http:/au.movies.yahoo.com>Yahoo!
>Movies.
>
>
>
>fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
>
>
>
>Find local movie times and trailers on
><http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/*http://au.movies.yahoo.com>Yahoo!
>Movies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT