Great! I agree with both 1. and 2. and look forward to 3. Will try to get to your other post soon... Nicky At 03:36 8/04/02 +0100, you wrote: >Nicky' >NO. I disagree completely. >1. 'Physiology' notwithstanding, IMO Marx understands very well that >abstract labour is not transhistorical. >2. Marx quite definitely does not derive mooney from barter. (Below another >extract from work-in-progress.) >3. I am currently writing the section defending commodity money at this >level of abstraction. >Comradely >Chris >"There can be no doubt that the topics of Marx's first two chapters, and >their order, were very deliberately chosen by Marx: first 'the commodity'; >and only then 'exchange'. In this light it is quite extraordinary how many >accounts of the forms of value offend against this separation by discussion >of the motives of exchangers at the more abstract level. (Uno, Sekine, >Cartelier) Marx quite consciously postponed such considerations until after >he had already analysed the nature of what it was they exchanged, analysing >the commodity as a unity of use value and value. It would be completely out >of order to discuss the need of an exchanger for a certain use value in the >context of the dialectic of the forms of value of section 3, for example. >Confusion may have been occasioned by the term 'use value'; if this is >taken as 'what is wanted', as it is in Chapter 2, then the motives of >exchangers may be implicated. But in the context of chapter one 'use value' >refers merely to the 'natural body' of the commodity. It is in virtue of >this that it is of interest for 'use', but that relation is abstracted from >so as to concentrate on the objectivity of commodity relations in chapter >one. >A very important point about the nature of money is involved here also. To >put the point negatively, there is no trace of any discussion of barter in >chapter one. Marx does not derive money as a device to overcome the >limitations of barter. Positively, we shall see, he derives money as the >form necessary to constitute value objectively (and therewith, incidentally >the meaningfulness of 'abstract labour'). As Marx notes, the abstraction he >employs in discussing the simple form is 'x of commodity A = y of commodity >B' which is not that of 'direct exchange of products' which has the form 'x >use-value A = y use-value B'. (p. 181)" > > [6927] >>Also, on your [6915] reply (below) to Geert [6891] and the relation between >>the two dynamics. On the first relation, would you agree with Backhaus's >>conclusion that in the first chapter of C1 the dynamics of value considered >>as content can 'only be construed as a pseudo-dialectical movement of >>pseudo-dialectical contradiction' (1980, p.101) because Marx actually >>*fails* to explicate the double character of labour as the *essential* >>opposition of capitalist production i.e. he fails to ground that opposition >>in the Value-Form (because of the retention of a transhistorical concept of >>abstract labour)? So that the second relation (that between value and its >>forms in section 3) appears rather ambiguously as a theory of commodity >>money derived from an exchange relation - in the context of non-monetary >>barter exchanges! - rather than an exposition into 'fully dialectical' >>monetary relations of a Value-Form determination? >> >>all best >>Nicky >> >>>>[6915] >> Firstly, the value form is entirely alien to the product and >>valorisation >>is entirely alien to production. The main problem for us is to theorise >>this almost impossible combination. Because it is a combination it is >>logically possible to examine each separately, and their relations will be >>ones of interaction such that the language of 'cause' is not too far off: >>the value form 'causes' the development of industry, this development in >>turn 'causes' changes in socially necessary labour times, which in turn >>'causes' the magnitude of value to vary. It is because of the relative >>autonomy of the value form that two things are possible, namely the >>self-development of value, regardless of the matter regulated, and the >>force which it exerts on production which underpins quantitative changes in >>the magnitude of value. >> Secondly, the other relation, that between value and its forms is where >>fully dialectical relations such as form and content, essence and >>appearance, have their place. It is literally senseless to separate value >>from money because value only exists in a money economy. Occasionally Marx >>sees this (but I concede he often fails to) e.g.: "[without money] they >>definitely do not confront each other as commodities but as products or use >>values only." (180). The relation between these sides will be internal. > >17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England > ----------------------- Nicola Taylor Faculty of Economics Murdoch University South Street Murdoch W.A. 6150 Australia Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT