From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Fri Mar 02 2007 - 22:27:39 EST
Hi Jerry, You subjectivize my point. Water exists in a liquid form at normal room temperature because of the character of the physical bonds that hold the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen together. That is, we learn something about the substance's nature and behavior if we know its molecular constitution that we could not learn if we paid attention only to its form as a liquid. There is nothing in the analogy as so stated that does not apply to the distinction between the real definition of the commodity form and price. Drawing a sharp line between the things we study in nature and in society is too easy and insulates social science to its loss. Analogies to lessons from natural science run throughout Capital. Whether they're illicit or not depends on what is being shown. Marx found "inner" connections in the social structures he studied and traced their phenomenal manifestations. In this his task was not different from the kind of thing a natural scientist might do. Analogies often clarify because relationships in nature, like that between H2O and the liquid form of it, can be readily grasped. If someone says the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in a water molecule aren't wet, we get it. Social things are the product of our intentional actions and water mostly is not. Close attention to the mind and practice dependence of social things follows. But just like the phenomena of nature, social things often exist and reproduce themselves independent of our ideas of them and may even exist without our having any theory about them at all -- recall Marx observing that the concept of value didn't exist in the ancient world. The point to be insisted on is that we don't change the things of either nature or society except by our causal engagement with them. You point out that I identify a social structure linked to the character of commodities. Actually my point was more precise. The concept of a commodity makes no sense except as the product of a particular social form of labor. That form of labor -- independent producers producing goods useless to them for private exchange -- gives us a real definition of the commodity form. All of it, not part of it. You suggest that prices are part of the real definition of commodities. What else does the definition include? To be clear: a nominal definition is the kind of thing we do with a dictionary. A real definition identifies the dispositional properties of a thing such that we know how it persists as what it is and how it tends to behave. An explanatory mechanism showing how these essential properties account for manifestations of behavior and other features is presupposed. It is not a conjunction or gathering of all important characteristics. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > > Saying prices are part of the real definition of commodities is like > saying > > being wet is part of the real definition of water. > > Hi Howard: > > The experience of being wet is not part of the real definition of water > because water exists independently of whether there are beings who > experience wetness. The real definition of commodity is social, however, > and requires the existence of a series of specific social relationships > including markets and price. Your simile above is odd since you, > in your reply to Allin, recognized the existence of a qualitative social > structure > necessarily linked to the character of commodities. > > In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT