> Feudalism, slavery and Stalinism don't fundamentally concern value? I'm sorry, I find this gibberish.
Jurriaan:
Of course you do. I would expect nothing less from someone who believes that the ultimate
origin of value is natural and that value existed in both the ancient Inca and Aztec empires.
It is gibberish to you because you refer to value in a simpler and more trans-historical sense
(the process of 'valuing') rather than expressing a set of specific social relations (of production).
> You refer to "the organising principle of capitalist society" - do you mean that capitalist society is
> "organised by value"? What does that mean?
It means that the capitalist organization (including the specific forms of production, distribution,
and exchange) and dynamics are determined by, and expressions of, the value relationship.
> Analogously, I could hypothetically argue that Feudalism, slavery and Stalinism "don't fundamentally
> concern" the colour blue.
> Why? Because blue wasn't the dominant colour.
> Does that make sense?
No, your claim that it is analogous doesn't make sense. The color 'blue' has no bearing whatsoever
on the fundamental character of feudalism, slavery, Stalinism _or_ capitalism. Value is
_fundamental_ to the character of capitalism. If one views value in a more specific sense than
simply human valuation and sale of goods then one can see that the same came not be
said for feudalism, (ancient) slavery, and Stalinism. But, I can see we're not getting anywhere.
Without attempting to characterize your position, I will only add that our perspectives on value
are so dramatically different and you are so adamant in your perspective that it makes a meaningful
exchange between us on this topic extremely unlikely.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Feb 17 07:54:31 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 24 2009 - 20:30:37 EDT