From: Hans G. Ehrbar (ehrbar@LISTS.ECON.UTAH.EDU)
Date: Wed Feb 22 2006 - 14:07:54 EST
Rakesh wrote: > To put it awkwardly (just don't have the time), it seems to me that the > condition of possibility of general commodity exchange by > which each is measured, as an aliquot, in terms of an identical measure > must be the existence of an at least conceptually > homogeneous substance in terms of which commodities > can be such abstract, only quantitatively differentiated, parts. > (Of course I agree with Marx that with the development > of capitalism social labor becomes more practically homogeneous.) I agree with this paragraph if the phrase "condition of possibility" is understood in a specific manner. Of course it is possible to exchange products of labor even if the labor producing them is not equal (the ancient Greeks did that), or to exchange things which do not have exchange-value (wife-swapping). The issue is not whether it is possible to exchange things. People have free wills and they can exchange whatever they please. As I understand Marx's reasoning, his premises for the conclusion from commodity exchange to labor are much more stringent. Rakesh's formulation "conditions of possibility of *general* commodity exchange" suggests to me that he is thinking along similar lines as what I am going to say now. Three steps are involved: (1) In capitalism, all relations of production are filtered through the market. This is not a historical accident but the market is obviously an essential aspect of capitalism. The mediation through the market is not an alien element but fits together perfectly with the social organization of production in a capitalist society. This is the first step of the syllogism: the market and capitalist relations of production fit together. (2) In the market, things are treated as equals. Everything can be bought by the same thing, money. (3) A mediating interface which treats everything as equal can only then fit together with the underlying relations of production if in production itself these things indeed count as equals. Otherwise the market equality would be a social fiction which would interfere with production itself, and markets could not be as tightly connected with capitalism as they indeed are. This equality in production is the centrality of labor in capitalism: all things count as congealed abstract labor. Supply is adjusted to demand by shifting labor around. Labor is the last resort which everybody has to sell if they have no other resources. Hans G. Ehrbar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 00:00:02 EST