paul bullock wrote: > Ajit, Under capitalism of course the C entering production is > generally the result of 'social' labour. But what exactly do you mean > by that? The point is that capitalist production is indirectly > social. Chris fudges the point with his 'yes and no'. Commodities are > purchased privately from private producers and used for the > accumulation of profit (which is a concept based in private ownership > etc). Nevertheless none of this is possible without other private > owners to buy from and sell to, ie a society of private activity where > the private commodity labour power is used for the private > appropriation of wealth by capitalists. > __________________________ > > You see, if you ignore the C part (which in the verbal rendition of > the private/social dialectics is generally done) then of course there > will be no transformation problem. It is then easy to work out the > argument that exchange of commodities, one way or the other, > represents exchange of social labor. In this context, the problematic > of the dialectics of private/social, concrete/abstract labor etc. > remain meaningful, and labor theory of value will slide through. But > since you have C part in all your commodities, there is no way by > which the value problematic could escape the transformation problem. > Reduction of C in tems of labor time is simply illigitimate within a > capitalist framework because it amounts to measuring profits as simple > interest rather than cumpond interest, which is the case with profit. > This is what shows up in the transformation literature as all kinds of > mathematical difficulties with LTV. What I'm asking the Hegelian > Marxists is that please don't ignore the C part from the very > beginning because it is not legitimate. This immideately tells you > that the first argument about exchange as dialectics of private/social > labor has a problem because C part of the commodity by no means can be > interpreted as either "private" or "concrete" . Thus you got a problem > at the very outset of your story. Now I invite you, Chris, and some > other good Hegelian Marxists on this list to give an account of the C > part of the commodity in exchange. My sense is that once you try to do > that you will find that your argument is unable to move beyond simple > commodity production to capitalist production or it gets into a > circular argument of a vecious kind. Cheers, ajit sinha > _____________________ > The idea that 'the goods that are exchanged is not the product of > "private labor" ' seems to me to reduce the notion of 'society' to a > most abstract notion, (a sort of 'togetherness' .or we need your stuff > so we must be being soocial ) .. whilst ignoring the composition and > basis of that society. Are you trying to say that exchange has > destroyed the category of private property? On the contrary exchange > requires private property! > regards Paul Bullock -----Original Message----- > From: Ajit Sinha <ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in> > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> > Date: 21 May 2001 07:40 > Subject: [OPE-L:5632] Re: Re: Howards [5578] Peculiarities of the > equivalent form > > > > > >Christopher Arthur wrote: > > > >> d) First let us go back and ask why there is a problem. It is that > >> capitalism is manifestly a form of social production yet production > is > >> carried on in separate autonomous enterprises. The solution is > universal > >> exchange. Does this make production immediately social? Yes and No. > > >> Certainly it allows goods to be distributed but only via a form of > >> *abstract* sociality in which labours are not immediately social > but become > >> socially recognised only under the form of abstract labour, and > that > >> indirently under the shape of the value prodduced. So just as with > the > >> other peculiarities there is the problem of how this abstract > sociality is > >> to be represented, and it is in the private labour that produced > the > >> equivalent: 'immediate exchangeability' is itself a most peculiar > social > >> form quite different from the concrete specific connections between > > >> production and consumption is a peasant household. > > > >_________________________ > > > >Chris, the most fundamental problem, which no Hegelian interpretation > of value > >problematic recognizes, is that the goods that are exchanged is not > the product > >of "private labor". It could be so only if labor could produce > without any aid > >of the means of production or raw materials, such as picking up > silver on a > >beach. But the production that Marx is dealing with is a production > assisted by > >means of production--Marx was one author who repeatedly insisted that > there is > >always a commodity residual left no matter how far you go back in > reducing means > >of production to labor time, a point that Smith and Ricardo had a > habit of > >forgetting in their explanation. The problem is simple: how do you > deal with the > >means of production part of the commodity in its exchange? Cheers, > ajit sinha > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT