I'm conveinced that this is going to be a complete waste of time, and I have right now no time to waste, so i would not follow this any more. Cheers, ajit sinha Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > re AJit's 5556 > > > > >___________________ > > > >For the sake of simplicity, let us stick to capitalism from now on and not any > >society. > > Well this is not how Marx proceeded in the Grundrisse the > methodological introduction to which I had basically quoted, but > perhaps you did not notice. In his critique of Robinsonades Marx > simply took as a starting point man's dependence on each other need, > on association, on social labor. So Marx did specify a way in which > it makes sense to speak in logical terms of social labor before we > speak of how either it is distributed to various activities or its > products are divvied up. > > But let's get to the question which you think you is basic and straightforward. > > > So you say that total social labor is given prior to its distribution? Now, > >do we know what is the quantity of this *given* total social labor? > >How do we go > >about knowing this information? > > As you know Fred M, Edward Wolff, Shaikh and Tonak, Duncan F, Allin > and Paul C and many other have made estimates of the number in the > work force, the percentage which are laborers productive of value and > the hours which have been logged by workers in general and productive > labor in particular. > > > > > > >What do you mean by "the capacity of the members of that society to labor"? > Converting energy to labor. > > >Is it > >somekind of biological maximum that doctors can determine? > > Probably they can make some estimate. > > >How is this "capacity to > >labor" determined? Do we also take capitalists' capacity to labor in > >determining the > >society's total labor? > > We can make two estimates: one of the total workforce in which > capitalists qua managers would be included and one in which only the > workforce productive of value would be specified. > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >and how do you know how much of its quantity there is. > >> > >> A larger society, a healthier society, etc. would have a greater > >> quantity of labor time at its disposal. > > > >________________________ > > > >The question was "how do you know how much of its quantity there > >is". Is it such a > >hard question to understand? > > No we can look at the statistics; we can see how many people worked; > we can estimate what percentage was productive of value; we can > estimate how much labor time was unused from the statistics--and this > would have to be added to the labor time at the disposal of a society. > > >If somebody asked you how much of trousers do you own, > >do you generally answer that if I had more money i could own more? > >Just look at the > >absurdity of the nature of your answer to the precise question. And this is my > >problem with the Marxist-Hegelian mumbo jumbo. > > I don't think your question is precise by any stretch of the > imagination. What do you mean by distribution? > > By "distribution" are you referring to the distribution of product or > distribution of income; or by distribution are you referring to the > division of labor? > > Obviously there would be no product to distribute if it was not > produced first, so we could then make estimate of the labor time that > had been spent in the production of the product. Obviously there > could no social division of labor if there were not social labor to > be divided up in the first place. So if you want to simply sum up the > hours spent in the various activities which comprise the entire > social division of labor, I don't see why you could not do so. > > Though you seem not the least bothered by it,you reveal yet again > your ignorance by referring to my reply as Marxist-Hegelian since > neither did I use any Hegelian terminology nor did you make any > precise analysis of the way in which my analysis is Hegelian in any > sense. > > It is also obvious that obscurantism does not only come in Hegelian > form. Hegelian does not mean obscurantist. > > If I suffer from obscurantism, it is not because I am Hegelian so you > will need to specify more clearly the kind of obscurity from which > you think I suffer, instead of using the same form of abuse for > everything which you do not think makes sense. > > > > >_______________________ > > > >Forget about "any society" and just concentrate on capitalist society. > > Why should I follow your order? Why is the methodological order worth > following? > > > So the > >relation of production is given. > > Now, are you saying that the total quantity of > >abstract social labor is dependent upon how it is distributed to > >various concrete > >production processes? > > Well yes of course. It is Marx's theoretical argument that in a > society in which the division of social labor is effected by or > through the exchange value of things, some growing portion of the > social labor time at its disposal will be wasted in the form of a > surplus population. > > >If so, then could you specify what kind of relationship is > >there between the distribution of social labor and its total quantity? > > This is analyzed in the chapter on the general law of accumulation. > > > And of > >course, you must have noticed that your answer here seems to > >contradict what you > >said above about social labor is given prior to its distribution, > >but I'm not too > >much concerned about it at this moment. > > No it does not contradict the answer which I gave. I said that it > makes sense to speak of humanity's dependence on social labor--this > is Marx's critique of robinsonades--before we speak of how that > social labor is divided in an ongoing manner. > > For reasons completely beyond me, you take this to be Marxist > Hegelian mumbo jumbo, though again I am obviously only trying to > rephrase Marx's famous letter to Feuerbach on value. > > >___________________ > > > >> > >> > >> > In what way the total > >> >quantity and its distribution are related to each other? > >> > >> There is a historically variable relation; while each society has to > >> accomplish an ongoing division in (or distribution of) the social > >> labor on which it depends--no natural law can be done away with--that > >> division is effected in historically variable ways. Starting then > >> with social labor, Marx reasons that in a society in which man's > >> relations are primarily through things, the distribution of social > >> labor obviously has to be effected through the exchange value of > >> those things. > > > >_______________________ > > > >Let's stick to capitalism. The question was "In what way the total > >quantity and its distribution are related to each other?" Your answer is "the > >distribution of social > >labor obviously has to be effected through the exchange value of > >those things." > >Again an absurd answer to a simple question. The question is not about how the > >distribution of labor is effected. The question is that if you admit that > >distribution of labor affects its quantity, > > The manner in which social labor is divided in bourgeois society can > affect the length of the working day; it can affect proportion of the > social labor which is actually expended, i.e. how much labor time is > wasted in the form of surplus persons; it can affect the different > kinds of processes into which that labor is divided; it can affect > the proportion of time spent in each of these respective various > activities. > > >then you need to tell us what kind of > >relation exists between the two. How the distribution of labor is > >effected is simply > >not the question. > >_____________________ > > Again I do not understand your question since you never specified in > any sense what you meant by distribution. Are you asking me > a)about total social labor that is at a society's disposal or the > total social labor time which is actually expended > b)by distribution of labor do you mean distribution of the products > of social labor or distribution of social labor time to various > concrete activities? > > the argument which you are trying to set up with these questions is > hardly evident either. > > > > > > >What I'm trying to do is to prove to you, and to many others who follow the > >Marxist-Hegelian interpretation of the value problematic, that your > >understanding of > >the value problematic is nothing but a jumble of confusion by making > >you realize > >that this way of thinking makes you completely incapable of > >answering very basic, > >straightforward, and simple questions. Cheers, ajit sinha > > Your question is not well specified at all. In fact it is as badly > specified as your embarrasingly overused phrases of abuse. > > Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT