From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Fri Oct 21 2005 - 22:07:58 EDT
Dear Jerry, It depends on what the accusation is: if the accusation is that value is separated from capitalist exploitation in the workplace, then "trans-historical" (or multi-system accounts of value) need not stand accused just because they cannot say that wherever there is value production, there is capitalist exploitation (or even some form of exploitation through appropriation of surplus value, if there are systems of value production in which no exploitation occurs). For they can say that a necessary condition of capitalist exploitation is the transfer of surplus value created in the process of production and they can say that the appropriate measure of capitalist exploitation is the rate of surplus value. Perhaps that is enough for Paul B. This defence of accounts of value which do not treat it as exclusively a relation of capitalism is not support for the charge of "oddness", which I think can be answered by saying that it accords with the notion that capitalists who fail to sell their product do in fact fail to exploit their workers, no matter how hard they tried to do so (the complaint seems analogous to complaining that feedback to students oddly has no connection with reading student essays once you claim that reading essays counts as part of a process of providing feedback to students only if the assessment is eventually handed over to them) Cheers, Ian >Paul B wrote: > >> What is >> striking about the 'value is only value' after 'sale', school (apart from >> clearly reflecting a shop keeper mentality) is that it seems to separate >> the concept of value from that of exploitation in the workplace. Really >> quite striking! Value as capital is wealth extorted from an imprisoned >> class, and to regard the value relation as non existent before the >> individual sale or sales - ie not to assume ( like our friends the astute >> accountants must do) that the 'business ' is 'ongoing' at any point of >> appraisal - seems to me to be quite, let us say, 'odd'. > >I replied to Paul's post earlier today. However, I want to note now >that the claim that Paul B has made about those who "separate the >concept of value from that of exploitation in the workplace" -- while >_not_ having merit in regard to those (including value-form theorists) > who claim that value is actualized in exchange -- *does* have merit >ironically for those who believe that value exists wherever there is >'commodity' production. > >Consider the case of commodities produced by producer >cooperatives in which there is worker ownership and control. >Clearly, the products produced by these cooperatives are >produced in order to be sold. They also typically have a use- >value and an exchange value. They thus represent value from >the perspective of those who believe that a particular social and >class relationship (that between wage-labour and capital) is not >required for the constitution of value. Yet, there is clearly no >exploitation which necessarily arises in the case of the producer >cooperative. Hence, the link between value and exploitation >is broken and the concept of value can exist without exploitation >in the workplace. Paul's charge is thus misdirected: rather >than being directed against value-form theorists and others who >emphasize the role of exchange, it should instead be directed >at those who have a trans-historical conception of value. > >In solidarity, Jerry -- Associate Professor Ian Hunt, Dept of Philosophy, School of Humanities, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 23 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT