RE: [OPE] Fwd: How to read Capital

wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk

My view is that the social division of labour involves a situation where different
people work for substantial periods on different tasks and become skilled in these:
weavers, potters, carpenters etc
as such it predates the separation of labour from the means of production.
A social division of labour can exist under multiple different relations
of prodution, some of which are commodity producing ones and some not.
The social division of labour is a precondition of commodity production, the
separation of the producers from the means of production is not.

Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 1629
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/

-----Original Message-----
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of dogangoecmen@aol.com
Sent: Fri 4/4/2008 9:35 AM
To: ope@lists.csuchico.edu
Subject: Re: [OPE] Fwd: How to read Capital

Paul C

When you say: "The production of commodities requires a division of labour, but a division of 
labour is not at all the same as a separation of labour from the means of production." you refer 
to general concept of the division of labour. I agree with that. The concept division of labour 
is more comprehensive than the separation of labourers from the means of production. we know that 
from Smith's investigation and in one of the passages I quoted from chapter 26 of the first volume 
refers to this. But I was referring to a particular concept of the division of labour as the precondition 
for the production of commodities. This particular concept of the division of labour, i.e. the separation 
of labourers from their means of production is sometimes dealt with as social division of labour. You seem 
sometimes agree with this thesis and sometimes oppose to it. In the passages I quoted from chapter 26 
explains this very well. If you want to oppose to it you have to explain the so-called enclosures in Britain.

Dogan 

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
An: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Verschickt: Do., 3. Apr. 2008, 20:41
Thema: RE: [OPE] Fwd: How to read Capital

My objection is to the sentence "The production of commodity requires already 
division of labour, i.e. the separation of labour from the means of production."

The production of commodities requires a division of labour, but a division of 
labour is not at all the same
as a separation of labour from the means of production. 
1) Division of labour predates commodity production
2) Even under commodity production, the producers may remain in control of the 
means of production.

The separation of labour from the means of production is neither logically nor 
historically
necessitated by commodity production.

Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 1629
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/

-----Original Message-----
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of dogangoecmen@aol.com
Sent: Thu 4/3/2008 4:38 PM
To: ope@lists.csuchico.edu
Subject: [OPE] Fwd: How to read Capital

 That was my original statement.

"Please bear in mind that Marx speaks of commodity as an ensemble of social 
relations. (Bear also in mind how  he explains the genesis of money as form of 
social relation.) The production of commodity requires already division of 
labour, i.e. the separation of labour from the means of production. This turns 
the labour into commodity too. This, in turn brings, brings the relationship of 
labour and capital into existence. 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."

Not

"the contradiction between use value and exchange value inherent in the 
commodity was what led to the separation of  producers from their means of 
production
That is what I dont agree with and what is contradicted by history."

You seem to have misread it. My claim was that we can reduce all higher forms of 

contradictions in capitalist mode of production to the contradiction between 
use-value 
and exchange-value.

Dogan

________________________________________________________________________
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

________________________________________________________________________
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