From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it)
Date: Tue May 13 2008 - 09:23:43 EDT
I don't know Chris's, but you know my answer: capital's self-valorisation depends on the extraction of living labour from labour power, relative to which workers are a mere human appendage. But living labour is *their* activity, as form-determined by capital: and the extension and intensity is a result of class struggle. Most of Marxian economists construct their arguments after production has ended, including the Sraffians (after the harvest, sometimes after market outcomes): but this makes the Marxian labour theory of value redundant, and reduces it to Ricardo. It cancels the typical uncertainties (in labour process, in the actualisation of value etc.) of capitalism. Hence, capital valorizes itself only as long as it 'incorporates' living labour in it, and start to work as if by love possessed. But this is always problematical (hence, the 'negative'). This is the meaning of capital making 'labour' an 'internal other'. The Grundrisse are very interesting because of the stress throughout on the dialectics dead/objectified labour versus living labour/labour in becoming: and this is paralleled by the definition of abstract labour as the living labour of the wage workers. A liability, though, is that the Grundrisse, as most Marxisms, speak of 'labour' referring to too many things: objectified labour, living labour, labour power, the living bearer of the latter, etc. This ambiguity will disappear in the most mature works. If this is right, the real ground of the connection between labour and value through money is through the referring back of the new value to living labour as expressed in money. But this requires a different (or, say, a more developed) theory of money than what we find not only in the Grundrisse but also in Capital. rb At 13:46 +0100 13-05-2008, GERALD LEVY wrote: > > As to your question about the topics at the >> conference, a 'book of abstracts' may help. > > >Hi Riccardo: > >In case others on the list didn't notice, you included those >abstracts in an *attachment* to your post. > >There will certainly be a lot to talk about at the conference! >The papers cover a broad array of subjects related to the >_Grundrisse_ and some of the papers look to be quite controversial: >e.g. the paper by Geert and Peter Thomas on the TRPF >and the paper by Chris on abstract labour [What exactly is the >"negative labour theory of value" anyway?]. > >In solidarity, Jerry > > > >_______________________________________________ >ope mailing list >ope@lists.csuchico.edu >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Hyman P. Minsky" Università di Bergamo Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it direct +39-035-2052545 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2008 - 00:00:04 EDT