From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 09:47:14 EDT
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > In fact, what Marxists ignore is that Marx's own text proves beyond any > doubt, that he talks alternately about capital as a thing, a sum of money, > an asset, an objective value, a social relation and a social power. I will > not bore you with quotes here, but you can read the book and see for > yourself. The basic meaning Marx has for "capital" is that of an instrument > (a means) of value-accretion, "Marx's own text proves beyond any doubt"... uhm? Reads like a dogmatism to me. Anyway, if I thought "Capital" and Marx's total work does not have the specific social relations of the production in the capitalist mode of production as capital's basic meaning, I'd close up shop. ... > In his dialectical exposition, he aims to define capital in motion, because I guess we also don't share an opinion about Hegel. > he argues it can only be understood in motion, but this means he actually > must apply several related definitions, in order to explain what it means, > that capital becomes a social power, the "Kommandogewalt" over human labor. > Replying to complaints that Marx used multiple definitions, Engels replied > that one must bear in mind the utility of definitions, that all definitions > are relative and limited in their application, you cannot define a > developing object with a fixed definition, and so forth. Harry Braverman > remarked that Marx's whole book was his "definition of capital". I'm getting lost in the above. But I don't have a problem with needing definitions. > I had this dispute before with the late Mark Jones, who argued the same way > as you do. I don't remember Mark Jones; wasn't he Stalinist inclined? If not, I'd apologize to his memory. In any event, I'll just have to stand by myself. > And I agree, it sounds very profound, very radical and > revolutionary to say that "capital is a social relation". Huh? > ... capital is a thing by virtue of a social relation, > that is, the social relation (what Marx calls specifically the > capital-relation, Kapitalverhaltnis) permits privately owned assets > (physical or ideational) to have a power over people, and regulate their > behaviour. If "capital is a thing by virtue of a social relation", then is not the basis of capital that social relation (even if I cannot go along with capital being a "thing")? > ... It is not in fact the "social relation" that > buys labor, but money owned by people that buys labor-capacity owned by > other people, under the condition of a social relation which permits it to > be bought, a social relation normally enshrined in law. First, labor POWER is bought, not labor. Second, $ or euros do not buy (or fire) labor power, capitalists do. $ or euros are simply pieces of paper, finely crafted by workers. > We can of course talk about "value" as a social relation (as e.g. John Weeks > does), but what does that mean ? It would be a relation between people who > make valuations in regard to labor-time and traded objects, and this sounds > very revolutionary and profound and so on. Huh? > The real point is that, for Marx at least, value itself becomes lodged in > material objects which exist independently from the consciousness of > particular people, ... You seem to regard 'value' itself as a thing, like a neutron. > Supposing that capital itself is defined as a social relation (the > capital-relation, effectively a class relation), how could a social relation > then exist objectively and mind-independently ? In my experience, most > Marxists cannot explain this, and in fact they cannot actually clearly and > precisely explain what a "social relation" is either, in a scientific sense. Yes, science needs to develop the meaning of 'social relations of production', i.e., it's not a proton. > My own view, as I have expounded at various times, is that a social relation > must be understood as distinct from an interpersonal relation, and that > Marx's own idea of what a social relation is, evolved over time and became > more sophisticated. Initially, Marx defined it as a "relation of > co-operation" (at the time he wrote Die Deutsche Ideologie) but subsequently > his concept becomes much more developed, because it then includes ownership > relations and the articulation of class relations. Correctly defined, a > social relation is: > > (1) a relation between individuals, insofar as they are members of a larger > social group > (2) a relation between social groups (kinship groups, genders, institutions, > ethnic groups, social classes etc.) > (3) a relation between an individual and a social group. Yours seems to be a sociological definition of 'social relation'. I don't know why this would be "correctly defined" within Marxism. Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT