From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 00:59:36 EDT
Hi Paul, This really is interesting. I think I am beginning to understand and I confess I didn't appreciate the different come froms earlier. This is probably the most important point: [Paul] > I think you are thinking water --> H2O and similarly exchange --> value. Suppose we switch to objects fall --> gravity. Do we still get exchange --> value? .We cannot see, touch, feel, or smell gravity, but maybe H2O could be said to be able to be seen in advanced physical experiments. In the gravity case, do we not move toward gravity as concept, and thus value as concept, but not value as able to been seen, touched, smelled, felt. In other words, value itself is an abstraction. _______________ The really critical point here is to understand that contemporary science is not possible without reference to unobservables like gravity. During the first half of the 20th century logical positivism exercised a certain dominance in the philosophy of science and logical positivism insisted what you see is what you get. But you can't do science that way. Electrons are not observable. So there are not just two alternatives -- what you can see touch taste, etc. on the one hand, and concepts on the other. There is a third possibility: entities, like gravity or electrons which are not empirically observable but which we have good reason to think exercise causal powers. There is a bridge here to Aristotle's realism, actually, because he insisted on concepts, on sensible things, and then on powers instantiated in things. Idealist readings always try to make this concepts or ideas instantiated in things, but it seems quite clear that Aristotle had in mind causally active powers. They were "accessible in account only," ie could not be perceived, but they were causally active. Actually I have a paper just published in the Journal of Critical Realism on Adorno that makes this point. It's not really relevant to the discussion except for the point that it argues that the barrier Adorno confronted was exactly his inability to get beyond seeing the world as either empirical or conceptual. Realism insists that there are powers, like gravity, that are neither empirical or conceptual but that are still potent. It is the contribution of Bhaskar, and his reading of Marx, to make clear that some such understanding could be applied to social relations, ie that social relations can be thought of as causally potent, but non-empirical. In other words, I can see the material poles that make up a social relation, say Joe (a husband) and Meg (a wife) and I can see it's effects, but the "relation" is something that is non-empirical. Marx said that society is just an ensemble of social relations. That means, I take it, that much more than class is involved. Marriage qualifies. Ultimately social relations are effective, if they are, as a result of the actions of individuals. But when we refer to "separate" producers establishing the relation of value, really we refer to any constellation of entity that acts autonomously in bringing a product to market -- a corporation, a petty producer, a slave owner, a collective farm, etc. Incidentally, the comparison is not "water => H2O' with 'exchange => value', but rather the water/H2O couple with 'commodity => relation of value', though of course a commodity taken in isolation is a contradiction in terms. So the same would apply to objects falling and gravity. I start with the commodity that is the phenomena to be explained and discover explanation in the causal powers of a particular social structure. I don't know what to do with this: [Paul] > Isn't there a slippage between (3) and (4). (3) ... "exchange value is only the phenomenal form of value"? But this is our question, is exchange value indeed the form of value anywhere it exists, including ancient Greece? Are you not still presuming the conclusion? ______________ I discover the form of value in bourgeois society, now, today. I grasp it theoretically drawing on Marx's analysis. Now I investigate (retrodict, wouldn't it be?) the facts of the ancient world. I find evidence of a social relation which corresonds to the economic category at issue. Obviously it might be the case that I would find something almost that, but varied in some way. And so I would modify my theory. I'm sure you could find variations of that sort in the ancient world. But I think pretty plainly you also find the real thing. Hope this helps, Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Zarembka" <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] on money > Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> said, on 06/02/04: > >... Based on my > >theoretical understanding of the social relation of value, I conclude that > >value must have existed in the ancient world since its existence would > >best explain the surprising phenomena with which I began my inquiry. (3) > >I still have to test the hypothesis: do I in fact find evidence of the > >value relation in the ancient world? I do indeed find such evidence, and > >therefore conclude that value did exist in the ancient world. ... > > Howard, > > 1. Maybe one part of our problem is the word "social relation". I think of the phrase as "class relation", do you think of it individually (separate distinct but individual producers)? > > 2. You find that 'value' explains a lot in the ancient world. I cannot contest/confront that, because I'd have to study your conception of 'value' much more deeply and then your evidence (which I haven't). > > > >...I mean water is the wet stuff > >that runs out of the faucet. What in the world does it mean to say it is > >H2O? By H2O I identify its inner structure. We can use the word 'value' > >in something of the same way to refer both to the third thing behind > >objects in exchange and also to refer to the social relation that is its > >inner structure. > > I think you are thinking water --> H2O and similarly exchange --> value. Suppose we switch to objects fall --> gravity. Do we still get exchange --> value? We cannot see, touch, feel, or smell gravity, but maybe H2O could be said to be able to be seen in advanced physical experiments. In the gravity case, do we not move toward gravity as concept, and thus value as concept, but not value as able to been seen, touched, smelled, felt. In other words, value itself is an abstraction. > > > >I've summarized the steps I understand Marx to take in arriving at an > >explanatory definition of value as follows: (1) he starts with a concrete > >fact of social life immediately given -- the product of labor as a > >commodity; (2) he analyzes this and finds it contains at once use value > >and exchange value; (3) pushing analysis further he notices a thing behind > >use value and exchange value -- exchange value is only the phenomenal form > >of value; (4) in a continuation of the analysis he finds value to have its > >source in a specific relation of production: the producer must produce use > >values independently that are useless to the producer and instead are > >produced for others. See Notes on Wagner. Now I look to the ancient > >world. Did some producers produce goods independently and for others? > >Unquestionably they did. QED: the social relation of value existed in the > >ancient world. > > Isn't there a slippage between (3) and (4). (3) ... "exchange value is only the phenomenal form of value"? But this is our question, is exchange value indeed the form of value anywhere it exists, including ancient Greece? Are you not still presuming the conclusion? > > > I think Althusser would refer us to the real object and the object of knowledge. I think you think the real object is indeed value -- which is 'revealed' only upon the arrival of capitalism. But perhaps Althusser doesn't need to be thrown into our discussion. > > Paul Z. > > ************************************************************************* > Vol.21-Neoliberalism in Crisis, Accumulation, and Rosa Luxemburg's Legacy > RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Zarembka/Soederberg, eds, Elsevier Science > ********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT