Re: [OPE-L] New article at artefact[MESSAGE NOT SCANNED]

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Feb 17 2006 - 05:48:45 EST

The abstract below looks like a fairly banal piece of appologetics for
capitalism. Why is our attention being brought to it?
Is it particularly influential or otherwise worthy of somebody writing
a critique of it.

Michael Eldred wrote:

>What is to be learned by reconsidering exchange relations, money, value
>and justice at three major stations in the history of political
>philosophy: Aristotle, Adam Smith, Karl Marx? First of all, that money
>is not merely a self-evident thing whose being does not pose subtle
>philosophical problems that demand well-thought ontological concepts of
>human association through exchange. Second, that the value of useful
>things which are used in the usages of everyday life comes about through
>a process of reciprocal social recognition in exchange and cannot be
>attributed to any intrinsic (causal) measure such as the labour-time
>embodied in those useful things. Third, given that such a thing as
>‘value creation’ cannot be attributed to spent labour power measure by
>time, there is no injustice per se involved in workers hiring their
>labour power to an employer who directs the exercise of their labour
>power. Fourth, on the score that hired labour-power is directed by an
>other, namely the employer, and therefore ‘alienated’ in a literal
>sense, there also is no inherent injustice. Fifth, and finally, that
>association through the interplay of money-mediated exchange goes
>essentially hand in hand with the socio-ontological possibility of
>existence of the free individual who is the hallmark of Western liberal

Paul Cockshott
Dept Computing Science
University of Glasgow

0141 330 3125

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 00:00:02 EST