O > >Chris Arthur > > > >> If the > >> argument were really from the content there would be no 'defects' or > >> 'deficiencies' in the simple form and money would just be a numeraire > >> rather than doing any constitutive (form determining) work, which your > >> argument clearly shows it does. At least I assume that is what is meant by > >> the inclusion of the word 'NECESSARY'. If the content really were seperable > >> as is, then it would clearly be possible for it to have various forms of > >> appearance. > > This was indeed the position of Marx and Engels, that in a socialist economy abstract labour would appear directly as labour time on labour tokens paid out to workers. See Anti-Duhring and Critique of the Gotha Program, for backing of this. Fred > >I don't understand this argument at all. Abstract labor has certain key > >characteristics - the abstract labor contained in each commodity is > >qualitatively equal and quantitatively comparable with the abstract labor > >contained in all other commodities. But these characteristics are not > >directly observable as such; hence abstract labor must acquire an > >observable form of appearance. But THIS FORM OF APPEARANCE MUST > >ADEQUATELY EXPRESS THESE KEY CHARACTERISTICS. The simple form of value > >and the expanded form of value do not adequately express these key > >characteristics; i.e. they do not express the abstract labor contained in > >all commodities as qualitatively equal and quantitatively > >comparable. Only money, the general form of value, in which the abstract > >labor contained in all commodities is expressed in one and the same form > >of appearance, satisfies this requirement. Why do you think it is > >possible for abstract labor as a separate entity to have "various forms of > >appearance"? How would these different forms of appearance adequately > >express the homogeneity and the quantitative comparability of the abstract > >labor contained in all commodities? > > > I ask - why are they unobservable? In my opinion because they are merely > ideal requiremenets that are only actualised with money. Only actualised in money in a capitalist economy, but I assume that you are aware that Marx was a notorious communist agitator, and was not unconcerned with alternatives to capitalism. It is a travesty of his whole project in critiquing political economy to restict ones focus exclusively to capitalism. This exclusive focus on capitalism is the ahistorical approach that he denigrated in the political economists of the 19th century. One should be able to answer how abstract labour will be manifest in socialist economies. Unless one can say something about that what useful theory of socialism do you have? What is the point in investigating political economy unless it is construct an understanding of how to run the world more humanely than the evil system that exists today? Chris A > I entirely agree > with the thrust of Jerry, Michael and Chai-on Lee in the subsequent posts > in this thread. I stress that in my own theory money is derived first > before abstract labour; but I also agree entirely with Michael when he > writes in 5812 > "Money is 'derived', in the systematic > dialectical presentation, as a necessary condition of existence of Abstract > Labour. And that is the converse of deriving Money logically from a > full-formed autonomous concept of Abstract Labour, and prohibits any > ontological commitment to abstract labour independent of its systemic > interconnections." What is the political implication of this? At first reading it looks as if you are backing the von Mises or general Austrian economist argument against the possibility of rational economic calculation in the absence of a monetary exchange economy. -- Paul Cockshott paul@cockshott.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:30 EDT