From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2008 - 05:52:55 EDT
Dogan -------- Marx speaks elsewhere of commodity as a *cell* or (perhaps) *cell-form* of capitalist mode of production, I think, which I cant find just now. In above-quote Marx is suggesting that to understand the contradictory nature of the wealth of capitalist mode of production we have to analyse the contradictory nature of an, say, abstract commodity. After having analysed the contradictory nature of a commodity in the first section he makes in the first paragraph of the second section following statement: Karl ---- "At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things - use value and exchange value. Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses the same twofold nature; for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this twofold nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns, we must go more into detail." Dogan ----- I highlighted the word *complex* and *twofold nature* of the labour because I am not sure whether the translation gives the right meaning of what Marx says in German edition. In German edition he uses the word "Zwieschlächtiges" and "zwieschlächtige Natur". These expressions imply the concept of contradiction. In the original version it reads as follows: Karl ---- "Ursprünglich erschien uns die Ware als ein Zwieschlächtiges, Gebrauchswert und Tauschwert. Später zeigte sich, daß auch die Arbeit, soweit sie im Wert ausgedrückt ist, nicht mehr dieselben Merkmale besitzt, die ihr als Erzeugerin von Gebrauchswerten zukommen. Diese zwieschlächtige Natur der in der Ware enthaltenen Arbeit ist zuerst von mir kritisch nachgewiesen worden.(12) Da dieser Punkt der Springpunkt ist, um den sich das Verständnis der politischen Ökonomie dreht, soll er hier näher beleuchtet werden." Paul ---- This of course was a paraphrase of Aristotle's ideas. Dogan ----- Please bear in mind that Marx speaks of commodity as an ensemble of social relations. Paul ---- Where? Dogan ----- (Bear also in mind how he explains the genesis of money as form of social relation.) Paul ---- Marx's explanation of money as a generalisation arising out of barter is really pretty conventional in economics, as I understand it Menger gives the same explanation. If one contrasts it with actual existing money then there are problems, and these problems, I think, illustrate the difficulties with applying a dialectical deductive approach. Real existing monies are all issued by the state, but since the state can not be deduced from the commodity, Marx can not allow the state a causitive role in money. This then renders contemporary money, or Chinese Imperial money unintelligible. We end up with Newtonian rationalism and eurocentric prejudice being disguised as dialectical development. Dogan ----- The production of commodity requires already division of labour, i.e. the separation of labour from the means of production. Paul ---- Not at all. Surely as a Smith scholar you can see that Smith recognised the division of labour but did not consider that this entailed the separation of labour from the means of production -- indeed practical experience of the 18th century economy would have made that idea seem absurd. 0s Dogan ----- This turns the labour into commodity too. This, in turn brings, brings the relationship of labour and capital into existence. Paul ---- This is the sleight of hand or dialectical conceit that I was sceptical of in an earlier post. What you present as a logical development was actually a long historical process that only at particular times and under particular historical circumstances -- primarily in Britain and the Netherlands initially -- led to this occuring. Marx recognises this, and devotes the chapter on primitive accumulation examining it. There was a long scholarly debate between marxist historians about this during the 1950s and 196os. Dogan ----- So when Marx speaks of mutual negative relationship of use-value and exchange-value he speaks at the same time of the contradictory relationship of labour and capital, or if you like, one can say that the contradictory relationship of labour and capital is already contained in the *zwieschlächtige Natur* of commodities, which is also expresses itself in the contraditory relationship between concrete and abstract labour. Paul ---- I dont think he actually does that. I think you are projecting that onto him in order to justify your hypothesis about dialectical development. Note that this is not to deny that simple rules or relations can give complex results -- what complexity theorists term 'emergence'. Wolfram's last book is devoted to arguing this case, with some plausibility I think. ________________________________________________________________________ Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle. Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT