From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Sun Aug 26 2007 - 15:52:50 EDT
Paul B ------ >I don't think this is a terminological issue per se. Exchange value and value are not synonyms; exchange >value is explained by value (quantitively and qualitively), and they are quite different concepts. Paul C ------ In that case we agree that they are different, I am however unsure what you mean by value. Paul B ------ You have restated your belief that 'that abstract social labour is a feature of all modes of production in which there is some form of social cooperation'. In this case excluding Mr Crusoe before Man Friday, you are saying abstract social labour is pretty much an historical constant. I don't agree. The abstract quality evolves with the expansion of commodity production, this vastly accelerates with capitalism. Paul C ------ 1. What do you mean when you say that the 'abstract quality evolves'? Paul B ------ >The value process thus arises and exists through the market. On your part you avoid the issue rather by >saying. Only in some societies will this labour be projected onto the space of money relations. As Claus >has said in responding to Jurrain, in effect the cloak of capitalist social categories is thus cast over >other societies. Paul C ------- 2. Consider the feudal serf, who is obligated to work 2 days a week on the land of his feudal superior, and who is also obligated to deliver each whitsun 3 suckling pigs and 2 combs of honey to his bishop. His duty to his lord spiritual is expressed in terms of the product of concrete labour, but to his lord temporal, it is abstract. He must work for his seigneur at whatever concrete task he is set. Under feudalism this obligation do deliver abstract labour is 'uncloaked', it is there for all to see. It is only capitalist social categories of money and wage labour that cloak abstract labour, representing it as something other - monetary profit. Paul B ------- >You say,The labour theory of value is used to cost them. So now we are back to the initial problem... >your separation of this 'value' from the money commodity, your conversion of abstract labour, whilst >retaining the name, into various conrete labours that for some reason can be both measured and compared >as equivalents. I don't see this as possible without the market making the abstraction in practice with >money. Paul C ------ 3. By the use of timesheets and by normal accounting practices, except denoted in hours not euros. Each unit of production returns to the planning authority the total immediate labour it used, and how much of this was allocated to each deliverable. It also returns the quantities of each raw material and means of production it uses. (This is already standard practice on EU projects for eample.) The planning authority can then calculate the direct and indirect labour content of the deliverable. If the deliverable is unique - a particular bridge, a particular software product, then the labour expended in that unit + indirect inputs is the value of the product. Where the product is something standard - tons of polyethelene glycol, then the planning authority computes the average labour content used by all plants producing it in order to arrive at the labour value. One needs to make some adjustments to deal with skilled labour, but in our book, Allin and I go into how one could do this. Paul B ------- Undoubtedly, with specific performance times for specific sorts of work, the extension of linear programmimg would be very relevant. But I take it as read that a whole mass of techniques and methods used by the bourgeoisie will be retained and applied for different social ends; the new society cannot appear from heaven. Paul C ------ 4. Linear programming was a socialist technique first, later adopted by capitalist firms, but Kantorovich invented it for the purposes of socialist economic calculation. Paul B ------ What shouldn't happen is that the special commodity money be used as capital, but forced out of circulation, so that the whole purpose of measuring socially necessary labour time through the market - the production of surplus value - is prevented. This ' holding down' is the role of the workers state. Paul C ------ That passage was too condensed for me to interpret, please elaborate. Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of paul bullock Sent: Sat 8/25/2007 5:49 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] A startling quotation from Engels Paul, I don't think this is a terminological issue per se. Exchange value and value are not synonyms; exchange value is explained by value (quantitively and qualitively), and they are quite different concepts. You have restated your belief that 'that abstract social labour is a feature of all modes of production in which there is some form of social cooperation'. In this case excluding Mr Crusoe before Man Friday, you are saying abstract social labour is pretty much an historical constant. I don't agree. The abstract quality evolves with the expansion of commodity production, this vastly accelerates with capitalism. The value process thus arises and exists through the market. On your part you avoid the issue rather by saying. Only in some societies will this labour be projected onto the space of money relations. As Claus has said in responding to Jurrain, in effect the cloak of capitalist social categories is thus cast over other societies. With regard the 'cost of production' issue, this is indeed a problem for the construction of socialism.What sort of new 'valuation' processes are to be applied given the existence of needs to be met? The rather obvious issue of 'opportunity cost' is bound to present itself.. but again how do we assess cost? You say,The labour theory of value is used to cost them. So now we are back to the initial problem... your separation of this 'value' from the money commodity, your conversion of abstract labour, whilst retaining the name, into various conrete labours that for some reason can be both measured and compared as equivalents. I don't see this as possible without the market making the abstraction in practice with money. For socialism to work, a political process of deciding what we need to do, what labour needs to be trained and applied has to be made. Certainly the time taken by mixes of different labours to effect a piece of work will be PART of the decision making process, but direct decisions will be made on the usefulness of labour without either the need, or the possibility (if this is socialism) of referring to value in the market. It will not be a simple question of 'costing' alone... however that is done. You say this will be done in terms of labour hours contained, amount to listing their labour values.. here using the term 'value' when you mean the current best socio-technically determined time of performance of specific concrete labour. It is not surprising that you see the disagreement between us as terminological, since you start by viewing Marx's notion of capitalistically performed labour as human labour in general. Undoubtedly, with specific performance times for specific sorts of work, the extension of linear programmimg would be very relevant. But I take it as read that a whole mass of techniques and methods used by the bourgeoisie will be retained and applied for different social ends; the new society cannot appear from heaven... even if we should like to think it will head in that direction! What shouldn't happen is that the special commodity money be used as capital, but forced out of circulation, so that the whole purpose of measuring socially necessary labour time through the market - the production of surplus value - is prevented. This ' holding down' is the role of the workers state. Cheers Paul B ----- Original Message -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT