From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Thu Feb 01 2007 - 05:53:00 EST
Thanks, Rakesh. Reproducing the poverty of the worker is key.
Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] 3 crucial points?
> >Hi Rakesh,
> >
> >The fact that something is mere form does not mean it is unnecessary or
> >inert. Marx refers to law in some contexts as mere form, but it is a
> >necessary constituent. Take some liquid. The container is likely to be
> >mere form. But once in the container how you ship or store is usually
> >determined. Also the form can relate back, e.g. for low priced wines
there
> >is apparently a greater risk of losing this or that case if you cap with
a
> >cork than with a faux cork.
> >
> >Anyway, here's Marx at the end of the third section of the Results, p.
1064
> >of the Penguin ed.:
> >
> >"It follows that two widely held views are in error:
> >
> >"There are firstly those who consider that wage labour, the sale of
labour
> >to the capitalist and hence the wage form, is something only
superficially
> >characteristic of capitalist production. It is, however, one of the
> >essential mediating forms of capitalist relations of production, and one
> >constantly reproduced by those relations themselves.
> >
> >"Secondly, there are those who regard this superficial relation, this
> >essential formality, this deceptive appearance of capitalist relations as
> >its true essence. They therefore imagine that they can give a true
account
> >of those relations by classifying both workers and capitalists as
commodity
> >owners. They thereby gloss over the essential nature of the
relationship,
> >extinguishing its differentia specifica."
> >
> >[italics omitted throughout]
> Howard, here is how I understand the important two points.
> Not only is capitalism incompatible with relations among independent
> commodity producers, it is not even compatible with actual exchange
> among commodity
> owners. Exchange proves itself to be a deceptive appearance. See my last
post.
> Marx has shown moreover that the accumulation of capital reproduces
> the poverty of the worker, i.e.
> the labor fund remains in the hand of the capitalist and the worker
depends on
> its advancement in some form for her life. I agree with Banaji
> however that the wage can
> take multiple forms: the labor fund can be advanced in multiple ways.
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Apologies to all for having sent an empty reply on the tribute to Guy
Mhone.
> >
> >Howard
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU>
> >To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:46 PM
> >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] 3 crucial points?
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> Howard wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Hans,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the reference! I looked back through Ch 23 and 24. I am
> >> > always
> >> > amazed at how Marx worked with his manuscripts. Invariably after
> >> > laboriously working through and learning some point in the
manuscripts
> >one
> >> > returns to Capital I and finds the point had already been made there
> >quite
> >> > clearly and had just never been noticed. Compare, for example, the
last
> >> > paragraph of the chapter on Simple Reproduction and the very first
> >> > introductory paragraphs (still part of the outline) of the
'Results'.
> >> >
> >> > Without doubt the point you make is correct -- the exchange between
> >labor
> >> > and capital in circulation is form; the relation in production
itself is
> >> > content. Marx uses the concept of 'form' differently. 'Form
> >> > determination'
> >> > can show how the form of a thing just is its content (content has
> >received
> >> > form into itself, in the wording of his doctoral dissertation), but
here
> >> > there is a divorce between the two that mystifies and the derivation
> >must
> >> > be
> >> > traced.
> >> >
> >> > But we still need to deal with the 'becomes': 'wird formell' =
> >*becomes*
> >> > formal. There I think the reference to the immediately preceding
> >sentence
> >> > of the passage clarifies the meaning. The process of production in
any
> >> > form
> >> > requires joining the direct producer to the means of production.
The
> >only
> >> > content the relation between capital and labor can have is as joined
in
> >> > the
> >> > process of production. The relation between capital and labor in
> >> > circulation is formal as compared to that. But where an independent
> > > > individual produces as part of the social division of labor, then
there
> >is
> >> > an immediate unity between the direct producer and the conditions of
> >> > production. Capitalist production destroys production on this basis
and
> >> > therefore the relation between labor and its conditions first
manifested
> >> > in
> >> > exchange *becomes* formal. That is, where an individual produces
> >> > independently, the relation between labor and its conditions is not
> >> > formal.
> >> Marx is saying that at first the capitalist exchanges money (amassed
in
> >some
> >> sordid way) for labor power but that under repeated exchanges the
> >> relation becomes
> >> one of appropriation as the initial capital has been consumed and the
> >> capitalist
> >> "exchanges" only what he has already appropriated or taken without
> >> equivalent from
> >> labor power. That is, under quantitative pressure as per dialectics
> >> the relation is now only formally one of exchange and substantively
one of
> >> appropriation
> >> or more precisely wage slavery, i.e. the opposite of an exchange
> >> relationship.
> >> I don't think any other economic theory builds dialectical materialism
> >> into its very structure.
> >> But if exchange is only a semblance or has only formal existence, then
in
> >> what way
> >> could it possibly be a necessary constituent of the capital relation
or
> >> the capitalist mode of production?
> >> Rakesh
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Rakesh, it seems to me considerations of that sort answer your two
> >> > questions. Of course the exchange between capital and labor in
> >> > circulation
> >> > is essential to the capital relationship and to the capitalist mode
of
> >> > production. We could only say that it wasn't by ignoring precisely
the
> >> > social form of capitalist production and treating it as immediately
the
> >> > labor process in general.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "ehrbar" <ehrbar@LISTS.ECON.UTAH.EDU>
> >> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:53 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] 3 crucial points?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Howard,
> >> >>
> >> >> it seems the Penguin translation is wrong here.
> >> >>
> >> >> A good explanation why the exchange between laborer
> >> >> and capitalist is only "formal" can be found in chapter 24,
> >> >> Penguin edition pp 729/30. Here is the translation as I
> >> >> have it in my Annotations:
> >> >>
> >> >> The exchange of equivalents, the original operation with which we
> >> >> started, has now become turned round in such a way that only the
mere
> >> >> semblance of exchange remains. This is owing to the fact, first,
> >> >> that the capital which is exchanged for labor-power is itself but
a
> >> >> portion of the product of others' labor appropriated without an
> >> >> equivalent; and, secondly, that this capital must not only be
> >> >> replaced by its producer, but replaced together with an added
> >> >> surplus. The relation of exchange between capitalist and laborer
> >> >> becomes a mere semblance appertaining to the process of
circulation,
> >> >> a mere form which is foreign to the content itself {730} only
> >> >> mystifies it. The ever repeated purchase and sale of labor-power
is
> >> >> now the mere form; what really takes place is this---the
capitalist
> >> >> first appropriates, without equivalent, a portion of the
materialised
> >> >> labor of others, and then exchanges a part of it for a greater
> >> >> quantity of living labor.
> >> >>
> >> >> In "Resultate", Marx says similar things too, for instance he says
> >> >> that capitalist and laborer "sich scheinbar als *Warenbesitzer*
> >> >> gegenuebertreten" ("scheinbar" means that this is what it looks
like,
> >> >> this is the form it takes, but this is not what is really the
case).
> >> >> Maybe one could translate it as: they confront each other as
commodity
> >> >> owners only in semblance. Again the Penguin translation as "each
> >> >> confronts the other apparently on equal terms as the owner of a
> >> >> commodity" got the "apparently" wrong and added a phantasy "on
equal
> >> >> terms" which cannot be found anywhere in the German (MEGA II/4.1,
> >> >> p. 64)
> >> >>
> >> >> Hans.
> >> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST