Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 04:44:04 PDT From: Bullock J P <pbullock@barclays.net> Subject: [OPE-L:5874] Re: Re: Re: Reply to fred Howard, I add cooments below where I don't follow the view. Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: howard engelskirchen <lhengels@igc.org> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 02 July 2001 06:32 Subject: [OPE-L:5874] Re: Re: Re: Reply to fred > "Paul -- I think value form's approach in identifying economic forms first and explaining private property on that basis is correct. " Well, in explaining the nature of capital Marx starts with a form, an historically developed form. The fact that bourgeois private property had to come into existence to allow that commodity form to become so extensive is discussed later - the so called primitive accumulation - so we can accept that as you state it. "As I understand it, exchange value is predicated upon the autonomy of independent producers who produce values useless to them for others. This is not a relationship of property, at least in any legal sense, but a relationship concerning the distribution of agents of production to the means of production." Now this is where I have a problem. Exchange value exists in many societies, BUT subordinated to the central/ essential social relations of production of those societies which were not capitalistic. This exchange value is occasional, secondary etc, and begins to take on some significance with merchants acting between societies, or outside of their home base. The exchange value itself has not developed into a well established social form until then. Here is the key historical issue. Nevertheless to say that this is not a relationsghip of property is quite startling. The merchants purchased or had made up, the goods they traded. Are you saying they didn't own them? If they were 'agents' did the 'principles' not own the property?Do those involved in exchange not own their products? If not who does? What do you mean? (legal form is not the immediate issue here but I don't understand your note here either). Here you speak of 'agents of production' being distributed 'to' the m! eans of production. This sounds more like the type of terms used by formal theory of ' games' type, not the exposition of an historical method. Propertyrelations as legal relations are relations of force and consciousness derivative of that. So if we want to speak of commodity ownership we would speak of onwership of value and reach the reverse of your proposition, namely: private property is predicated upon the value form of labor. I'm lost again I'm afraid what is the 'value form' of labour? Do you mean the commodity form, labour power sold in the market? If so why should I sell my labour power if I have property (ie means of reproducing myself). It is when property has been 'privatised' away from me that I sell my capacities to the property owner! The workers do not sell their labour power in order to bring into existence private property. Try to convince me otherwise, please. OR perhaps you mean by ''value form ' of labour' , money? But then I don't get the logic here either. 'Capital is more complicated because it is intrinsically a relationship involving the subordination of will, nonetheless we can start with the distribution of agents in the sense of the separation of direct producers from the means of production. And this of course is immediately a class relation.' Well, now you seem to have reversed your initial position above.... 'in the sense of the separation of direct producers etc'... Once private property is established... separation.....class.. So it seems that 'primative accumulation does come first... (although of course we know that there is a drawn out battle involved with the social categories coming into being interdependently). The key point is that until we have labour power sold as a commodity we can't speak of systematic and self expanding value in exchange. Cheers paul At 11:36 AM 7/1/01 +0100, you wrote: meaning 'of no particular concrete/ or technical skill'... human >>labour in general... although there is an avoidance of the notion of some >>essential physical/mental activity.. since this would move into an obvious >>a-historical position. private property. Now we are no longer >>dealing with a directly - as I stressed some time ago - the link in an >>historically new social process. Private property exchanges with >>private property, abstracted from the particular existence of man as a >>directly social being. Mankinds directly social being is of no immediate >>interest to capital. The quality of labour socially, becomes 'abstract' >>when direct exchanges are broken down through the spontaneous development >>of money. It becomes systematically over a period of time. >>Understanding it after industrial capitalism had developed simply enabled >>us correctly to understand the history leading up to it accurately. >>labour . Money is the gateway by which private property is able to act for >>its own society, it blesses the private offering with the stamp of social >>validation. It reveals the abstract, social, nature of the labour >>performed privately. between private property, and so class >>society based on labour power as a commodity, and not one sidedly >>reiterate the fact of exchange as such. Fraternally Paul B. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 00:00:02 EDT