Dear Jerry, I can see why you think my formulation suggests the "stuff" theory, which as you note I also reject. However, "trans-historical" concepts are not necessarily "stuff" concepts. In talking of the most "abstract" concept of exchange value and value I was not even suggesting that the "content" of exchange relations is the same in each case. I was treating the case very much as I would treat the concept of "exploitation", whose most abstract definition I take to be the "coercive appropriation of surplus labour by a class of property owners from a class of direct producers". The specific content of this will vary with specific historical modes of production, so there will not be a "single thing" which each of these modes of production shares. Similarly, I do not claim that there will necessarily be a single thing that different forms of commodity exchange have in common, though there may be tendencies that every form of commodity exchange have in common, simply because they will be embedded in economies. I certainly was questioning whether a necessary condition of the existence of surplus value (in an abstract form) is that commodity exchange is part of the circuit of capital. I proposed a more abstract notion of surplus value, which of course, is defined not by some stuff but by social relations involved in exchanging commodities. Cheers, Ian > Re [7062]: Dear Ian: In [6099] you claimed that viewing value and >[the redistribution of] surplus value as "stuff" is misleading. I agree >with you. Even though value and surplus value are represented through >commodities -- "stuff" (broadly interpreted to also include services) >-- "stuff" are not themselves value and surplus value. That is because >value and surplus value express, most fundamentally, *specific social >relations*. This, in a nutshell, is why I disagree with your "most >abstract definition of value" [7062] -- it takes categories (value, >surplus value) that express *specific* social relations and applies >those category trans-historically such that they can apply wherever and >whenever there are products which are produced in order to have exchange >value and where there is a surplus (product). This strikes me as >suggesting that "stuff" which comes to have a use-value and an >exchange-value must have a "substance" called value and surplus-value -- >regardless of the presence or absence of a *specific* social relation >between the ruling class and the direct producers. Yet, you rightly >claimed that a "stuff" conception is misleading ... and clearly a >conception that highlights the fact that 'commodities' are produced >without specifying the social relations characteristic of that commodity >production is a pure "stuff" theory of value. It is the *specific >social relations* that distinguish one form of extraction of surplus >labor from others. The specific and necessary condition for the surplus >product to come to represent surplus value is a *specific* relation >between the two major classes in capitalist society. In solidarity, >Jerry PS: the above represents a reply to Rakesh's [7063] as well. Associate Professor Ian Hunt, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Philosophy Dept, School of Humanities, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:10 EDT