From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Tue Mar 06 2007 - 08:22:12 EST
I understand you wish to "stop this thread" now. You wrote: "If Marx distinguishes > labor, it is at the level of social relations of > production and not at the level of the physical > production process" Precisely! This is why you don't understand Marx. A horse is not more an active element in human production than a car or a ship is. _Active element_ means here that it acts as a subject, not as an object. Whether one acts as a cog in the machine or not, it doesn't matter here. For Marx, things, facts and concepts are socially determined, and all his theory is anthropologically designed. A _good_ is not something universally good; it is a good for human society. For example a shit is usually a good for a fly, not usually for mankind. Likewise, the sun _produces_ light, the horse movement and the cow meat... But all those things don't _produce_ from the point of view of human production. This is fetishist. You speak as the typical _hyper-materialist_ who would deserve the fiercest critique from Marx's materialist point of view. Moreover, you seem to confuse science-fiction films with reality: completely automatic production is impossible; what it is possible is a more and more automatic production as designed by human labour. Cheers, Diego ----- Original Message ----- From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > --- Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES> wrote: > >> Ajit: >> This is trivial, isn't it? Who has ever denied that >> in >> > most of the cases (sometimes you can find use >> values >> > as spontaneous product of nature--as a matter of >> fact >> > a great many important use values such as air you >> > breathe) labor is an element in production >> process. >> > All economics, including neoclassical economics >> assume >> > 100% of times that labor is an essential element >> in >> > the production process. So what are you trying to >> say >> > here? >> > _____________________________ >> >> >> You are distorting my words: >> I don't say that labour is an element in production >> process, but the ONLY >> active element. More precisely: without labour you >> don't have ANY _process_ >> at all in the long run. But with labour you always >> have a production process >> no matter how difficult it can become. You will need >> time, of course. But >> without labour no passing of time will help you to >> get a production. >> >> And I repeat: Even if it is possible to say that >> other things enter directly >> OR indirectly in the production of all commodities, >> the truth is that labour >> is the ONLY ONE that enters directly--IN ADDITION TO >> indirectly--in the >> production of ALL commodities. >> >> That means that labour is different from other >> elements in production >> because it is the only thing directly present IN ALL >> production processes of >> commodities at the same time (including services). > ___________________________________ > Okay, let's say I say a commodity x is produced by 2 > tons of steel, 5 tons of coal, and 8 hours of labor. > You say no! I'm distorting your words, and I should > have said that a commodity x is produced by 2 tons of > steel, 5 tons of coal and 8 hours of ACTIVE labor. So > I follow you and put "active" before labor in the > description of the production of all the commodities > x,y, z etc. How does it prove LTV? That is my > question. > > By the way, the way you are arguing might get you in > trouble with Marx. Marx was not making distinction > between labor-power and other means of production on > the basis that labor is the active element. If horse > is used in the production process, is the horse an > active element or not? The significance of labor in > the production process is basically use of mechanical > energy. Labor-power is stored (or potential) energy > which gets released in the production process in a > similar way as the energy of coal gets released when > it is burnt in the production process. There are good > quality works within Marxist literature that show how > capitalism has gradually tried to reduce laborer from > having any control over the process of production to a > mere cog in the machine. That is why it is within the > realm of imagination that the capitalist system could > become completely automated with advancement in > robotic technology. The tragedy of the situation is > that the only active element in the production process > is the guy who sets the speed of the assembly line and > gives order to the robots as well as the workers what > jobs need to be performed. If Marx distinguishes > labor, it is at the level of social relations of > production and not at the level of the physical > production process. But I have a feeling I'm wasting > time here, so we might as well stop this thread. > Cheers, ajit sina > ______________________ >> >> Do you want a proof? Please, don't go yet to your >> kitchen and don't cook: >> simply tell the physical elements you have in it to >> produce for you whatever >> you want, and let me see the results. Please feel >> free to tell them to use >> any element that can enter _indirectly_ in whatever >> you want they cook for >> you. >> >> Cheers, >> Diego >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. > Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT