From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon Jun 21 2004 - 15:13:25 EDT
Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> said, on 06/21/04: >Thanks for your post of 6/17. In order to minimize further >misunderstanding, before replying, let me see if I understand your post: Howard, fair enough. >1. You are wondering whether I've understood you at all from the >beginning. You argue that when Marx said that exchange value is a form of >manifestation of value, this left open the possibility that exchange value >could be a form of manifestation of other social relations or forms of >production or exchange - "Marx did not say "ALL . . . " More simply: Marx never said (to the best of my knowledge) that everywhere there is exchange value, then there is 'value'. >2. So, this is the point of Marx's analysis that I should have >understood had been opened: the question in dispute is whether exchange >value or value are categories that apply outside the capitalist mode of >production. But in resolving this question it cannot be assumed that >exchange value is a form of value exclusively; it might be a form that >characterizes other forms of economic life in other historical periods. Rewrite to "in resolving this question it cannot be assumed that exchange value is necessarily a form of 'value'; it". >Can I understand this as applying to the categories 'money' and >'commodities ' as well? That is, are money and commodities like exchange >value - they could appear in earlier modes of production but that would >not necessarily mean that they were social forms characterized by value. >Is that the argument? Can we stay with "exchange value" (I hadn't gotten into the exact expressions "money" and "commodities")? >3. You feel that in responding to this thread I have more or less >mindlessly relied on the authority of Marx by saying that Marx established >the proposition that exchange value is a form of manifestation of value. >Also I argued that I am correct about the real world existence of value >outside the capitalist mode of production because Marx said so and the >reason I know Marx said so is because I cite myself as authority. >Furthermore, reliance on authority of this sort (both Marx and me) to >settle differences is, in your view, unworthy of the quality of discussion >that should be taking place on the OPEL list. As far as you are concerned >my contribution is not up to snuff. I am objecting to anyone, by way of *explanation*, claiming that Marx said so, or Marxist science says so. The issue must be to *explain* why/how 'value' is applicable outside the context of the capitalist mode of production. It's not a question of claiming authority, but a question of elaborating the underlying issues/conceptions. Yes, it is atypical on this list to make a statement as *justification* for a position such as Marx said so, or that one is working "within the framework of a coherent theory in science" (marxist theory). >4. In fact, for you this sort of reliance on authority resurrects >memories of the Stalinist 30s when people were silenced for not toeing an >orthodox line. Were you to acquiesce in such a claim of authority you >would have to apologize for not holding views identical to mine. Yes, but rewrite the last part to "apologize for not holding views identical to the stated truth". >5. Finally, you argue that when I say "the concepts of 'value' or >the 'social relation of value' or the 'social substance of value' are >theoretical objects, and then go on to say that "the social relation of >value is a real object; the social substance of value is a real object," I >am in effect trying to have my cake and eat it too because I use value as >both a real and a theoretical object. Yes. If you collapse 'value' as a theoretical object into a real object, you are presuming your conclusion. >Have I understood your post? Have I got it all? Please correct or modify >as necessary. I hope this helps. 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 : Thu Jun 24 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT