Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 11:36:17 EDT 

Thanks Nicky,
 
As you will see in my reply to Jerry it is productive creativity I have
in mind, i.e. labour as such.
 
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicola Taylor
Sent: 07 April 2005 16:15
To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?
 
Hi Andy,
I understood that you were talking about "creativity" as a uniquely
human attribute and reason for privaleging human labour above the labour
of animals.  I can't agree with you there.  
 
However, on the crucial distinction between labour and labour power - as
the central argument of Marx's thesis - we may well agree.
 
cheers
Nicky

Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote:
        Nicky,
         
        I agree with all of what you say. Did I say otherwise?
         
        Many thanks
         
        Andy
         
        -----Original Message-----
        From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicola
Taylor
        Sent: 07 April 2005 14:51
        To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
        Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?
         
        Andy, Ian and comrades
         
        as usual I find myself aligned with Jerry on this issue.  What
is important in Marx is the fact that labourers sell their *labour
power* on markets.  They do not sell themselves.  Moreover, the *labour
power* paid for in the wage must be converted by capitalists into
*labour* - a process that is by no means assured.
         
        Where people, animals and machines are *owned* the
capital-labour relation cannot exist, in the very real sense that the
sale of labour power does not take place; in relations of slavery, for
example, workers do not willing sell their labour but on the contrary
are traded body and soul against their will.  The slave owner may, if he
choses, work his slave to death just as he may work a donkey to death.
(imo) Marx's key insight into the social relations of capital is that
workers trade their labour-power freely.  i.e. the crucial distinction
is not between humans, land, donkeys etc but between living *labour* and
the *labour power* purchased for wages.
         
        comradely
        Nicky
	
        Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote:
                > The difference between labour / labour-power and
machine
                > input / machine-power (or animal activity /
animal-power) is that
                > labour is productively creative whereas machines are
not, and
                > animals are strictly limited in this regard (the
creative -- as
                > opposed to innate -- production of tools by animals is
more
                > or less rudimentary, where it occurs at all).
        	
                Andy,
        	
                I think this underestimates the level of creativity that
certain non-
                human species are capable of. You, obviously, have never
                had an opportunity to observe a beluga whale in the
wild. The
                military of several nations (including the US and the
former USSR)
                has long realized this and has used cetaceans for a
number of
                purposes, including sophisticated ('sonar'-equipped)
security guards
                at naval bases and for the placement of explosives on
underwater
                targets. The (human chauvinist) position you advance,
though, does
                seem to be consistent with Marx's position.
        	
                > Ian, if robots one day became able to creatively
produce
                > to the extent of humans, then they would have become
labourers,
                > with social relations of production, and labour time
would retain
                > its relevance.
        	
                That wouldn't make the robots, or animals held in
captivity which
                are required to perform, wage-workers. The social
relations of
                production of *slavery* might, though, be extended to
analyze these
                cases. After all, aren't the animals forcibly held in
zoos enslaved?
                Presumably, the intelligent robots would also have human
'overseers'
                (programmers, maintainers) who could ensure compliance.
(NB: the
                above is in reference to the question of 'who' can be
able to labour
                and produce, not create value.]
        	
                In solidarity, Jerry
         
	
  _____  

        Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/*http:/au.movies.yahoo.com> 


fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
 
  _____  

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/*http:/au.movies.yahoo.com>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT