Nicky writes in 6896 >I think that the most fruitful way forward theoretically is to >emphasise our agreement on two key points: 1) that the capital-labour >relation is more fundamental than the exchange relation, If the exchange relation includes what both Banaji and Meillasoux call the form of exploitation, then it is possible that a capital-labor relation of production could be in place even if the form of exploitation makes it seem otherwise: in the chapter on the Oxford Press website Banaji gives the examples of the use by 19th century Cuban agrarian capitalists of slaves and antebellum American Southern industrialists employment of serfs. At any rate, I thought I would note the attempt to differentiate the form of exploitation from the relation of production. Is the distinction viable? I think so... >and from this 2) >money and capital must be theorised as a relationship with labour along two >interconnected dimensions (reflected in the circuit of capital): the >exchange (in markets) of labour power for wages but this does not follow from 1--no?-- since the capital labor relationship (presumably within the abode of production) is more fundamental than the exchange relation of which the payment of wages is a form. >and the subsumption of >living labour (in production) under the aspects of time. Lukacs--spatialization of time? That is, tasks are to be completed in a determinate *space of time*--time thereby losing its flowing and other non spatial qualities? Colletti seems to me too dismissive of such phenomenological insights as so much vitalist clap trap. I learnt a lot from Postone. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT