Re: [OPE] Fwd: How to read Capital

dogangoecmen@aol.com

 All that I said was that all contradictions in capitalist society can be deduced from the contradiction between use-value and exchange-value.
My reference to the separation of labourers from their means of production was referring to the genesis of capitalism. It is the precondition of production of goods as commodity. Here I am entirely in line with Smith and Marx.

You opposed to that but up tu now I could not see any argument. That is all I can say. I have to stop here.

Dogan

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
An: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Verschickt: Fr., 4. Apr. 2008, 13:17
Thema: RE: [OPE] Fwd: How to read Capital

Paul
"My view is that the social division of labour involves a situation where 
different people work for substantial periods on different tasks and become 
skilled in these: weavers, potters, carpenters etc as such it predates the 
separation of labour from the means of production."

Dogan
        This is usually described as technical division of labour rather than 
        social division labour.
Paul in reply
           In that case what is your social division of labour? The separation
           of the producers from the means of production is not a division
           of labour. The division of society into wage labourers and
           capitalists is not a social division of labour, since the point being
           a capitalist is not to labour yourself but get others to do it for 
you.
Paul
"A social division of labour can exist under multiple different relations
of prodution, some of which are commodity producing ones and some not."
       Dogan
        Fine, but we are talking about modern form of social division of labour.

Paul in reply
            Since when? We were originally talking about your dialectical 
derivation
            of capitalist social relations from the usevalue exchange value 
distinction.
            You went from that to say that commodity production implied the 
social
            division of labour and thus the separation of the producers from the
            means of production.

            When I say that this was not necessarily the case historically, you 
then
            say that you are talking about modern capitalist social division of 
labour.
            But this modern capitalist social division of labour was what you 
were 
            initially trying to infer from the commodity. This is what I mean by 
sleight
            of hand in dialectical argument, a conclusion is drawn that is not 
supported
            by the stated premises, but can only be supported by unstated 
premises.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

________________________________________________________________________
Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle.  Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope