From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 14:44:48 EDT
Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> said, on 06/03/04: >I did not say marriage was a social relation of production. Paul, you >asked about "social relations". Friendship is a social relation, race is >a social relation, gender is a social relation, student teacher is a >social relation. Marx says in the Grundrisse that society is an ensemble >of social relations. Social relations are the object of the study of >society. What is 'society'? What do we study when we study society? We >study social relations. I'm not doing anything peculiar here. I had been starting this dialogue from *Poverty of Philosophy*: "Economic categories are only the theoretical expressions, the abstractions of the social relations of production". I had also said the the M-C-M' illustrates the social relations of produciton in capitalism. You began referring to "social relations of value" (e.g., 6/2) but I wasn't sharp enough to directly ask you: "what is 'social relations of value'?" and made the error of shortening to "social relations". Jerry added back "of production". Now it seems we are in a confused mess, needing to retrace steps. >When we study the hidden inner connection of social phenomena (Kugelmann >letter) we study the form of social relations. "of value", or "of production"? >Now, when we study social relations of production we study the relations >of laboring producers to nature and to each other in the appropriation of >nature. Historically these have overwhelmingly been antagonistic social >relations, ie class relations. But not invariably. Primitive communism >was not, I take it, a class relation, though it was a relation of >production; there may have been examples of self-subsistent household >production that did not involve what we normally call class relations >(though the actual examples undoubtedly all involved patriarchy) -- I'm >open on all that. >Anyway, the real issues are whether the social relation of value is a >relation of production and whether it is a class relation. What is a "social relation of value"? >The social relation of value (Marx definitely refers to such a thing -- >not just to 'value' but to value as a social relation), Are you saying "social relation of value" is the same as "value as a social relation"? >as such, is at >least a mediated relation of producers to nature and to each other. >Recall the definition I offered: what is required is independent >production of use values for others. No 'class' in this definition (pun not intended). >"Separate" or "independent" is a >relation to nature and to others. That makes it a relation of production, >though not necessarily a relation of direct production. A thief can take >a product of someone else's labor to market, making a product intended for >self-subsistent domestic consumption something instead independent and for >others. >Also, as a relation of production, value seems always historically >embedded in class relations of the direct producer to the appropriation of >nature -- cotton produced by slave labor was a commodity that had value >but the direct relation of its production was slave labor. >But while value counts as a relation of production, I think it is not, >just for itself, a class relation. Relations of value, as I understand >them, tend toward equality -- where do you think the drive toward equality >comes from? Even the commodity aspect of the exchange of labor power for >a wage, as an exchange of value, tends toward equality. >The significance of the relation of value and equality is the subject of >the wonderful first ten pages of the Chapter on Capital in the Grundrisse. >Marx emphasizes there how it is impossible to find any difference between >exchangers insofar as we consider their economic role, the specific >economic form of their relationship. >MARX: "As subject of exchange, their relation is therefore that of >*equality*. It is impossible to find any trace of a difference, let alone >of a conflict between them, not even a distinction." (v. 28, 173; penguin >241). [emphasis in original] > This doesn't sound like much of a class relation to me. >And it is for this reason, he explains, that the juridical person enters >at this point -- homogeneous, without particularity, everyone just the >same as the other, equal before the law. >...there are certainly >legitimate questions about value as a class relation and a relation of >production. But I am not using the concept 'social relation' in any way >that is peculiar or unordinary. As I said, Jeez!! Howard, I'm not so sure that your usage is so common, and still suspect a problem here. Indeed, above you seem quite prepared to use "social relation of production" to include exchange transactions among independent commodity producers (C-M-C, e.g., peasants). So I come back to my "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'?". I'd like to see if it used consistently enough in a class context, or not. Jerry and I believe that it is. >P.S. to Paul: as I said in my last post, I think the real issue getting >in the way is how we characterize value. You keep trying to identify >threshold barriers, but these are not the problem. You will undoubtedly >be able to find more thresholds in the argument above. But instead, why >not engage directly the definition of value I've offered. Please restate the definition and/or the specific email, but perhaps modified in light of the current problem with wording. 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 : Sat Jun 05 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT