From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 09:15:31 EDT
Anybody: Has anybody on the list done or know of any work which does a careful analysis of the occasions when Marx used the term "social relations of production"? Jerry and I use it quite differently than Howard. Paul Z. P.S. Howard, since Jerry is commenting on a portion of your reply to me in a manner I might have done, I'll probably await an answer to the above before continuing with "on money". Thanks for the stimulating discussion. ************************************************************************* 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 "Gerald A. Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> said, on 06/03/04: >Hi Howard. >> 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. >Yes, there is a social relation between Joe and Meg. It does not >constitute social relations _of production_, though. One should not >divorce (no pun intended) the concept of value from the _specific_ social >relations of production associated with capitalism. These specific >social relations of production are associated with a specific _class_ >relation in which value and surplus value can arise. >Simply because in Ancient Greece products were produced for exchange, were >exchanged, and had a utility does not mean that they had (in Marx's sense >of the term) value. Undoubtedly, those products had value in some _other_ >sense of the term, but value in the Marxian tradition refers most >fundamentally to a specific social/class relationship. >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT