From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sat Dec 21 2002 - 09:06:18 EST
Re Michael E's [8221]: Previously, including in the following excerpt from [8217], you emphasized the importance of "know-how": > Thus e.g. with the art of building, the starting-point governing the > transformation of stone and wood into a house lies in something else, > namely, the builder, in whom resides the know-how of building. While a carpenter e.g. has "know-how", i.e. a skill, I thought that your comments in this and other posts were headed in the direction of the concept of 'entrepreneurial ability' as a 'factor of production'. That (mistaken?) perception led me to write: > The 'starting point' of commodities and value is in the exchange > relation between wage-laborers and capitalists, i.e. in the 'employment > contract'. This is the starting point because without wage-labour, > capitalist production can not commence. What I wanted to emphasize was the specific class relation embedded in the nature of commodities and value. You replied: > I don't agree with this kind of argumentation, since it confuses causal > interrelations with a conceptual ordering required to think through the > phenomena. On the level of causal interrelations, one could just as well > say that without commodity markets, capitalist production could not > commence, but such causal interrelations and the kinds of causes they are > (e.g. effective cause, final cause, material cause, formal cause) are > all intertwined and depend on each other. Capitalist society is an > interdependent whole with many causal interrelations. I think this is a valid response. > In thinking through capitalism, Marx starts by first considering > first the exchange of the commodity products of labour in order to work > out the first concept, value, which will be used to formulate the essence > of capitalism. The focus is first on the simple relations of commodity > exchange. How the commodities are produced is bracketed to start > with. In particular, Marx explicitly brackets wage-labour in considering > value (see the footnote on wage-labour in Chapter 1 on MEW23:59 > "The category of wages does not exist at all on this level of our > presentation.") I agree with Marx's way of proceeding here. I agree with this _although_ class relations _do_ form a part of the essence of capitalism. Indeed, the 'starting point' (commodity) leads one -- in due course -- to comprehend the specific nature of class exploitation under capitalism as part of the essence of capitalism. > Attention to what is prior and later in the order of thinking-through has > been with philosophical thinking since Aristotle, who introduced the > distinction _proteron_/_hysteron_ in his Metaphysics. Hegel and Marx > are just two thinkers who respect this ordering of concepts. They are > both system thinkers. Essence is revealed at various stages in the ordering of concepts. If Marx e.g. develops a concept in Part Two rather than Part One of _Capital_ this does not mean that this concept does not concern the essence of capitalism. I wrote previously: > There is uncertainty in _all_ phases of the circuit. You replied in part: > The uncertainties inherent in a power relation are of a different kind > than the uncertainties inherent in the abstract kind of (fleeting) > associating which takes place on the market. Agreed. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 23 2002 - 00:00:01 EST