Apologies for double posting if that occurs. I sent this out, but I think it must have gone to Tony only. Also I sent out a reply to Andrew's post agreeing with him that there was nothing wrong with repetition in conversations on value, but that also must have gone only to him. Howard > [Original Message] > From: howard Engelskirchen <lhengels@igc.org> > To: Tony Smith <tonys@iastate.edu> > Date: 4/5/2002 1:53:18 AM > Subject: RE: [OPE-L:6893] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form > > > Doesn't the idea that value is no longer the organizing principle of society reproduce the error of, notably, Pashukanis? Capital presupposes value and its forms, but surely capital is the organizing principle of society. > > Anyway, I was happy for your distinction between exchange value present in any and all historical contexts where commodities have been exchanged and value as an organizing principle of society as a whole. This would explain a question I would have raised with Chris's earlier post among others -- how do you account for e.g. Roman law, which suggests legal relations corresponding to value relations (unless we abandon Marx's proposal that legal relations reflect relations of production.) > > But I haven't any idea how it would explain it. It seems to me value (sorry for the repetition, Jerry) is a causally efficacious social relation rooted in a particular form of the distribution of agents of production to the means of production -- not the capital form but the one Marx describes in Chapter One. And that form will be causally efficacious whether or not value is the organizing form of production -- e.g. in the ancient world it generated forms of exchange and contract but was not the organizing form. > > Still, since value is pregnant with capital always, there is a problem with imagining some post capitalist future where value exchange persists -- it's possible as long as the trajectory of social life is to the steadily diminish the material conditions that make value possible. But overcoming the capital relation means overcoming the separation of the worker from the means of production and this cannot be fully accomplished as long as the value relation persists. > > Howard > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Tony Smith <tonys@iastate.edu> > > To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> > > Date: 4/4/2002 10:04:44 AM > > Subject: [OPE-L:6893] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form > > > > If I can jump in here, I think it is important to distinguish "exchange > > value," a property of individual commodities, from "value," an organizing > > principle of society as a whole. The former is present in any and all > > historical contexts where commodities have been exchanged. The latter is > > historically specific to capitalism (and brings about historically specific > > qualities to the property of exchange value). In Schweickart's model > > commodities are exchanged, and so these commodities have exchange > > value. But if all new investments in the economy are allocated through a > > democratic decision process, and if the capital/wage labor relation has > > been dismantled, then I myself would say that value (the "self-valorization > > of capital") is no longer the organizing principle of the society. And > > those are two crucial features of Schweickart's model. > > > > Tony > > > > At 09:22 PM 4/4/02 +0900, you wrote: > > > > >Chris, > > >given your account, what would you say about Schweickart's 'economic > > >democracy'? That this is a form of capitalism, that 'value' exists in it > > >but is not actual, that what exchanges are not commodities but some other > > >form of the product of labour? > > >Cheers, > > >Ian > > >At 04:47 PM 4/3/02 +0100, you wrote: > > > >Re [6868]: > > > >,Hi Andy. > > > >> > > > >>> This notion of 'identity' puzzles me. If value *is* money, then what > > > >>> is the value-*form*? > > > >> > > > >>I'll let one of our VFT comrades answer your question concerning > > > >>their perspectives. > > > > > > > >It maybe that someone has said value is money. But speaking for myself I > > > >would stress hat value is only actual in the entire system of capitalist > > > >commodity production and exchange. Aspects of its 'concept' are as it were > > > >'distributed' over varioius points each of which are systematically > > > >required to complement the others. Just to stick with form, I beleive value > > > >has commodity form, money form and capital form. Money has some sort of > > > >'visibility' as 'value for itself' (Marx Gr.) but all these forms are > > > >required (just as in Hegel Being/Essence/Concept are jointly required to > > > >make up the thought totality) for example the commodity must be a product > > > >of capital. Certainly value cannot be identified with any element taken in > > > >isolation (e.g. money or labour); nor can it be given a two-word > > > >definition, its concept must be *developed* systematically. (Althugh Engels > > > >made some major blunders, he did stress this in a couple of places.) > > > > > > > >Chris A > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>For myself, I would express the relation as follows: > > > >> > > > >>Within a system of generalized commodity production and exchange, > > > >>commodities are defined by the duality of use-value and value where > > > >>the value-form is a necessary form of appearance of value and money > > > >>is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form. Thus, value, the > > > >>value-form, and money are all necessarily linked to each other and to > > > >>the commodity. I guess that means I have a "single-system" (as > > > >>distinct from a "dual system") interpretation. > > > >> > > > >>So that we don't all repeat ourselves endlessly, is there anybody that > > > >>wants to say something about this topic that they have _not_ said before > > > >>on this list? > > > >> > > > >>In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > > > > > > >17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT