From: Michael Eldred (artefact@t-online.de)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 07:10:18 EST
Cologne 07-Jan2003 Re: [OPE-L:8284] Christopher Arthur schrieb Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:58:45 +0000: > > > >Re: [OPE-L:8225] > > > Michael's main claim is that 'capitalism is groundless, fathomless, or > abysmal' (8042) This is closely related to the claim that value is > constituted by exchange and has no ground outside it (e.g. SNLT) and that > there is no difference betweeen value and price (8071). Since the VF is > merely 'relational' it is 'substanceless' (8129) In sum "value is not a > substance which only expresses itself as a certain magnitude in the > exchange relation" (8167). > I contest these claims. As marx says in ch 4 value is a "self-moving > substance" i.e. a 'subject'. > I think your major problem is that you focus on simple exchange in which > context V does indeed appear as relation. But this is only the most > superficial ABSTRACT appearance of value, which as such is the appropriate > starting point for exposition, and to which abstraction value continually > reduces itself such that its origin in self-valorising value is obscured. > In my work I have argued that value exists, and must exist to be what it > is, at various levels, that its dialectical exposition is a passage through > its forms in which it is demonstrated that in its concept value is a > complex totality of production circulation and distribution. Not merely ch > 1 but the whole 3 volumes are needed to say what value is. It is much more > that the exchange value of sec 1. As early as the price form value is > determined as substance because the value of commodity A + commodity B is > given as a single measure. If it is argued that this notion of additivity > is too static then certainly by ch 3 we have the metamorphoses of value, > the way the same substance changes shape, now C, now M, now C again etc. > With the teleological structure MCM, V has a fair claim to be a > proto-subject. > In your exposition I think you give substance a somewhat Heideggerian twist > stressing its 'presence' but in Aristotle/Hegel version it is what > maintains itself on its own account and it is contrasted with 'accidents' > which cannot stand apart from a substance and may merely contingently > characterise it. Thus i am a substance but my suntan is accidental. > As early as sec 1 marx is thinking that iron and corn are accidents of the > value substance. In other words an inversion has occured whereby use value > substances predictated in exchange as bearers of value relations become the > shell of value; a kind of objective metonymy. IMO Marx is right but cannot > prove this so early: this presupposition must be posited in the subsequent > exposition. > The discussion in C is unfortunately confused by the fact Marx uses the > term 'substance' in ch 1 in a sense different from that in ch 4. In ch 4 > value IS substance but in ch 1 he asks what is the substance OF value. IMHO > this last usage is somewhat akin to Aristotelean 'matter'; Marx contrasts > it with Form whhereas I think I am right that in Aris Substance comprehends > both form and matter. _Ousia_ for Aristotle is a being in the mode of its being. The everyday Greek meaning of _ousia_ is estate, assets, belongings, i.e. all those useful and valuable things which stand at one's disposal in practical life. In the philosophical sense, _ousia_ is above all _to ti aen einai_, i.e. what something 'always already was' from the start: its _eidos_ or 'form', i.e. the face it presents in presenting itself which is then addressed and defined, delineated and delimited through speaking (_legein_). The _logos_ brings the form to its definition. > Matter could of course suggest Use Value with its origin in concrete labour > and at this early stage this externality of form and matter is pure > difference but later value form determines use value and recognises labour > only as abstract (I will write on labour later). > Then, Michael, in your 8225 you appear to do a Uturn. To my way of thinking, that is only apparent. Once value is seen to be the concept of the abstract commodity exchange relation (and thus substanceless), thinking can proceed. > >The concept of money is developed by considering the phenomenon of the > >exchange of commodity products of labour. Value is first of all a > >relational concept which conceives the abstract social relation between > >commodity products and their exchangers. > >But this social relation precipitates its own substance and magnitude. > >How? In that it becomes mediated by a customary thing, money. Money is > >the social, customary thing that substantiates the abstract exchange > >relation of value. ...As this customary mediator, money > >also provides the measure for the exchange of commodity products, and as > >a thing it becomes the measure of the magnitude of value itself, i.e. > >the quantitative measure of a social relation. > >The order of thinking in relation to the phenomenon and concept of value > >is thus relation, substance, quantity. > >As the embodiment of value, i.e. its precipitation, money as a > >substantial thing is a reified social relation (from Latin 'res' for > >thing), that is, a social relation that has become a thing. This thing > >can take on a life of its own beyond the mediation of the exchange of > >commodities in becoming a movement from money to more money, i.e. the > >movement of capital M -- C -- M'. In this movement, money is able to > >purchase labour-power (_dynamis_) in order to set it to work > >(_energeia_) in a production process. As capital, money no longer merely > >mediates exchange, but subsumes also the very production of the > >commodity products of labour. The production process remains > >dissociated, but mediated by the social thing, money-capital. The > >production process has to prove itself as a social production process > >through the commodity products being sold on the market, realizing the > >return of the advanced money-capital. If a surplus-value is made (i.e. > >advanced money-capital is augmented), the movement of capital has been > >successful and the labour performed in the production process has proven > >itself post factum to be a successful portion of social labour as a > >whole. > > All this seems conformable with my line above and in my papers and does not > square with your earlier mails. If money is 'value-for-itself' as I put it, > or 'value-as-substance' as you seem to say, then value does not remain as > it first appears in the exchange ratio but has a subsequent set of > form-determinations, and reduces relation to a moment of its > fully-developed concept. I would understand "form-determinations" (Formbestimmungen) as further faces of (the phenomenon of) value which show themselves in proceeding along the path in thinking. > MCM as a play of form requires grounding in > production which it subsumes with MCPCM as you admit above. > So surely we have the possibility of LTV, not as a ground from which > capitalism develops but as the mediation whereby capital grounds itself and > determines its measure. > The problem for us is this: price appears as groundless because it seems > capable of assimilating any old content and is subject to contingency in > its magnitude. But I distinguish between the emptiness which characterises > most such forms and those cases, commodities produced by competitive > capitals, which touch ground in the labour process. (of course Marx's > presentation in ch 1 is highly defective when he first uses the commonality > argument only to calmly reject non-products as value without adequate > explanation.) So while it remains true that the VF in its immediacy gives > rise to a mass of groundlessness there is yet a 'core' that cet par > exhibits the necessity springing from the form of valorisation in > production. > Value is thus distinct from price both in the sense that some price forms > are empty and in the sense that even values are subject to contingencies > of the marketplace in their realisation as price. I do not see this latter. In Aristotelean metaphysics, contingency (_symbebaekos_) is the opposite of _kath'auto_ i.e. that which is what it is in itself. If value is first and foremost a social _relation_, it is never something in itself, but is always exposed to the contingency of others. > We have in effect given value a 'real definition' similar to saying water > IS H2O or pneumonia IS the disease caused by the Pneu bacillus. G. A. Cohen > (in Value by Stedman et al) says this is cheating because orignally the > problem was to explain price but now many prices are said to be not > expressive of value. But this is a standard move in science. When the > legionaires presented with 'pneumonia' and the bacillus was not present > they were reclassified, something that looked like water but was not H2O > would not be said to be another kind of water but not water at all > (variation within H2O is allowed e.g. 'heavy' water). SO when Ricardo said > value was caused by two things, scarcity and labour time , it was not > unreasonable for Marx to stipulate only labour. > It all depends on the theoretical utility of the definition. To my mind, the definition has to bring the phenomenon to light _as_ it shows itself of itself. Your examples here suggest that the "real definition" for you is a cause (labour) which necessitates further theoretical constructions. But it is important to stick to the abstract relation of value itself. > If we study the form of industrial capital and see that it has a certain > drive to subsume production to the purpose of valorisation, that the major > social relation in production is that with labourers and that some capitals > can make do with less labour than others then stipulating a definition of > value that relates the visible exchange value to the underlying labour is > justified because it is the only law-like phenomena in the otherwise mass > of contingency. > (I will come back to the measure problem and time separately.) > fraternally Chris. That sounds like a procedure of picking a ground because there must be one in there somewhere -- in line with Leibniz' "grand principle" "nihil est sine ratio". I'll take up the "drive to subsume production to the purpose of valorisation" and the question of a ground for value along with the question of _dynamis_ in my response to your post [OPE-L:8283] on "the measure problem and 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 Jan 08 2003 - 00:00:00 EST