From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sat Mar 03 2007 - 11:43:30 EST
>In socialist society gold will remain more valuable than copper or >lead. Society may be able to >afford to roof halls with copper, but not gold. > >Paul Cockshott A bit misleading, I think. Our social relations of production seem to be established only if the things we exchange happen to possess value--so dependent are we on things--but in fact the things we possess only appear to possess value because the nature imposed necessity of our social relations of production are mediated by things which seem to have acquired this property of value which then varies independently of the will, foresight or the actors who merely represent them in exchange. Objects won't possess value in this fetishized way in socialist society. Marx develops the theory of value as a theory of an emergent objective illusion in specific historical conditions. I think you and Allin are missing how Marx's theory of value is inseparable from his theory of fetishism. However, we may to dismiss this aspect of Marx's theory of value as part of a humanist/alienation problematic as some in the Althusserian school do. I think that's a mistake. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT