From: cmgermer@UFPR.BR
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 09:40:52 EDT
I read very fluently and can write and speak 'understandably' enough I think. Probably like my English. No hablo muy bien porque me falta la practica yo creo. > Claus, Do you speak Spanish? > > Alejandro Agafonow > > > ----- Mensaje original ---- > De: "cmgermer@UFPR.BR" <cmgermer@UFPR.BR> > Para: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Enviado: jueves, 30 de agosto, 2007 14:22:02 > Asunto: Re: [OPE-L] A startling quotation from Engels > > > Hi Ian, > thank you for your reply. I'm preparing to leave tomorrow for a > conference, from which I'll be back only next wednesday. For this reason > I'll not be able to answer now to your comments, but I'll do it after my > return. > > I take the opportunity to inform to the list that a new association of > political economists has been founded and is being organized in Latin > America: SEPLA - Sociedad Latinoamericana de Economía Política y > Pensamiento Crítico [Latin American Society of Political Economy and > Critical Thinking]. It is largely based on the Brazilian experience of the > SEP - Society of Political Economy, which has been founded in 1996. The > conference I'm going to participate is organized by SEPLA with the title: > DESAFIOS Y PROPUESTAS DE UN PROYECTO ALTERNATIVO CON HORIZONTE SOCIALISTA > PARA AMERICA LATINA [Challenges and proposals for an alternative project > with socialist horizon (?) for Latin America]. The conference is a joint > meeting of political economists and leaders of social movements. > > comradely, > Claus. > > > >> Hi Claus >> >> Sorry for the delay in replying. >> >>> Thus the individual producer does >>> not know in advance if he/she is or is not a part of the social >>> reproduction. A product of labour having value means that it has been >>> accepted as product of social labour, i.e., has been sold; not having >>> value means that it has not been accepted. Having produced something >>> that >>> cannot be sold means to have been excluded from the social >>> reproduction, >>> and this condition cannot go on if the producer wants to survive. >>> He/she >>> must be accepted again as a member of the social reproduction, which >>> implies that he/she must insert again his/her particular labour as part >>> of >>> social labour, i.e., he/she must produce something that meets a social >>> demand. >> >> I agree in general with your characterization. But now I wonder >> whether this is, again, a terminological issue. >> >> I interpret "having value" to refer to the "total labour-time >> required to produce a commodity under the given conditions of >> production". So a commodity "has value" regardless of its fate in the >> marketplace. >> >> The unqualified term "value" is highly ambiguous. So I am beginning to >> try to avoid it. I prefer to use the terms labour-embodied and >> labour-commanded when contrasting actual labour-time expended and the >> amount of social labour-time that equalizes with it. >> >> I agree that the labour-embodied in a commodity that does not sell is >> not "social labour" in the sense that it fails to equalize or exchange >> with other labour. The labour-embodied in the commodity is positive, >> but the labour-commanded by that commodity is zero. >> >>> It seems to me that you use an unusual concept when you say that there >>> is >>> "labour-value regardless of whether it meets a social demand or not". >>> To >>> be a product of labour, particular labour, is not the same thing as >>> being >>> a product of social labour. Having value does not mean not having >>> required >>> labour, it means that the labour spent is not social labour. >> >> I don't think my concept is unusual but rather standard. Marx in Vol >> I: "We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value >> of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the >> labour time socially necessary for its production." The modifier >> "socially necessary" does not refer to the existence of sufficient >> social demand, but to the prevailing conditions of production. >> >> There has been some semantic drift from Marx's definition due to some >> more modern interpretations that I do not agree with. >> >>> Claus: I totally agree with you about the requirement of the allocation >>> of >>> the total labour-time in all societies. This is basic in Marx's theory. >>> What I don't agree is that labour-time expresses itself as value in all >>> societies. >> >> Again, this may be a terminological dispute. What do you mean by >> "value" in that last sentence? >> >> Certainly money and prices are not present in all societies. But >> articles that require a definite, objective amount of labour-time to >> produce, given the level of technology, is present in all societies. >> (Unless we have left the realm of necessity, which seems unlikely for >> quite some time). >> >>> I interpret Marx's point of view as saying that the expression >>> of labour-time as value is specific of the merchant economy and of >>> capitalism. It does so because in the merchant economy labour as the >>> source of all wealth is obliterated by the non existence of a social >>> plan >>> of production and is disguised as value expressed as exchange-value in >>> the >>> form of money. Where there is an explicit plan (like f.i. in feudalism) >>> labour time appears clearly and does not need to express itself >>> indirectly. >> >> Monetized markets and widespread commodity exchange were ubiquitous in >> feudal times. Some parts of the division of labour were partially >> governed by the spontaneous operation of the law of value. I agree >> however that certain cases of exploitation -- e.g. the corvee peasant >> -- are more transparent due to the direct and personal provision of >> surplus labour. >> >>> The analogy you make between the thermometer and money (which is the >>> form >>> of value) are imo not valid. Although temperature exists without >>> thermometers, value does not exist without money, because money is the >>> way >>> through which the individual labours are converted into social labour, >>> which money represents. The sale of the commodity, i.e. its conversion >>> into money, is what asserts it as the product of social labour. Thus, >>> value and money are social phenomena that evolve side by side. >> >> I very much agree that social labour and money are two sides of the >> same coin that historically evolve side-by-side. Money, as you say, >> *represents* labour-value; but it is not *constitutive* of >> labour-value. It requires a definite amount of labour time to produce >> an article regardless of whether the society uses money or not. Such >> articles will "have value" even in a planned economy, for example. >> >> Best wishes, >> -Ian. >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Sé un Mejor Amante del Cine > ¿Quieres saber cómo? ¡Deja que otras personas te ayuden! > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/reto/entretenimiento.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT