From: Michael Eldred (artefact@t-online.de)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 11:42:59 EST
Cologne 26-Nov-2002 Nicola Taylor schrieb Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:51:32 +1100: > > Yet, the perspective that beings can only be comprehended in > > terms of magnitude is one-sided and hence false. There are many > > *essential* aspects of social relations that *can not* be expressed as > > magnitude. In fact, I would assert that a systematic comprehension > > of *CLASSES* and *THE STATE* can not be developed merely > > through an examination of magnitude. Indeed, *ONE CAN NOT > > CHANGE THE WORLD IF ONE ONLY COMPREHENDS > > THE WORLD IN TERMS OF MAGNITUDE*. Hence, a rejection > > of Descartes Rule 14.4 is a REVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE. > > WONDERFUL! I agree with Jerry that if we want to answer the question > 'why Marx' we should not be looking to calculations of magnitude to > answer it. > > In any case, as Chris A has already pointed out somewhere, labour is not > the content of value since labour in general produces only use-values. > It is *capital that produces value* (with an eye to monetary profit) out > of living labour. So value, strictly speaking, has meaning only as a > comparison with itself in different points of time, this comparison is > possible only because value is measured in money, and all that matters > (to the production of surplus value) is that the wage-bill (an external > purchase to the capitalist class) does not exhaust value added. > Magnitude is not therefore terribly interesting. The far more > interesting question is how a value form, namely capital, comes to > determine the dimensions of production (including time) in the first > place. This requires an inquiry into how alienated living labour > expended in production comes to count as abstract labour and a source of > value greater than that advanced at the start of a capital circuit (on > the confusion between 'source' and 'content' of value see Geert R, 1999 > in Rivista di Politica Economica). > > In answering this last question, much comes to depend on the sequencing > of arguments. As you recently pointed out, Mike, what is needed up > front is a theory of forms of commodity exchange; to this I would add > 'value forms of exchange', since ultimately capital is the value form of > exchange that we are dealing with, and as a means of association (or > condition of existence of dissociated labour) it determines all.... I'm > pressed for time, so will jump the gun a bit and say that only when the > concept of value form is further developed, up to the simple > valorisation form, M-C-M', is it possible to sensibly introduce the > question of magnitude, and along with that an analysis of the capital > labour relation in exchange and production. In proposing this, I want > to stress that I am not advancing a theory of form without content, but > a simple methodological point: in the sequence of argument, form before > content. Interested to hear Mike's comment, in particular! > > Marx, imho, makes the mistake of developing form and content together > and in the process gets stuck in a Ricardian muddle. I suggest that all > that matters at the early stage of his analysis is that a concept of > value is advanced as a principle of universality or commonality in the > *social relation* of commodities on either side of any set of exchange > relations. What value is 'essentially' must of course be determined - > but not on the first pages! Moreover, since value is not a material > property but a social relation, discussion of the 'content' of value > doesn't make much sense until the value form is fully developed and the > capital labour relation introduced. On this I am much in agreement with > Chris A. Although agreement between us breaks down once the content of > value (SNLT) once the capital-labour relation is finally introduced. > Chris maintains that once production is shown to be determined by value > form, then SNLT determines value in production (correct if wrong Chris). > I prefer to go along with Geert R's radical scepticism on that one! For > me the value measure can't be anything other than money, because what is > 'socially necessary' in labour time is impossible to conceptualise > adequately outside monetary exchange. That's all for now comrades. > > Michael, great to have you on board! Look forward to stimulating > discussions > > Nicky Thank you Nicky! -- for the welcome and for filling me in. Revolution is a turning in which what is at the bottom comes to the top, and what is at the top comes to the bottom. Stepping back is a displacement which opens a broader horizon from another locality. Perhaps it even allows the horizon to be seen for the first time. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_- artefact@webcom.com _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 27 2002 - 00:00:01 EST