From: cmgermer@UFPR.BR
Date: Mon Jul 16 2007 - 09:05:15 EDT
Paul, thank you very much for your reply. You wrote: > However, I am not sure where you find support for the following: > > "What Marx argues is that, in order for society to subsist, this > exchange must be based on the exchange of equal amounts of labor: the > use-value which each individual offers to the society mus be the product > of the same amount of labor contained in the use-values he/she receives > from the society in exchange" Claus: in my previou post I provided one passage where Marx asserts it: ‘(...) if society wants to satisfy some want and have an article produced for this purpose, it must pay for it. Indeed, since commodity-production necessitates a division of labor, society pays for this article by devoting a portion of the available labor-time to its production. Therefore, society buys it with a definite quantity of its disposable labor-time. That part of society which through the division of labor happens to employ its labor in producing this particular article, must receive an equivalent in social labor incorporated in articles which satisfy its own wants’ (Marx, Capital, vol. 3, Int. Publ., p. 187). I presented this argument in more detail in the chapter I wrote for the book organized by Fred Moseley, “Marx's theory of Money : modern appraisals”. In his post in reply to mine, Fred provides additional passages of Marx in support of my opinion above. Below I provide another significant passage from the Critique of the Gotha Program, which you also mentioned. Paul: > > This seems similar to the formulation referring to future communist > society in Critique of the Gotha Program, but I do not recall him > presenting an argument of this form with respect to capitalist society. Claus: you are right in part. This formulation does not refer to the future communist society, but just to its first stage, “just as it emerges from capitalist society” in Marx’s words in the Gotha Program. His reference to this first stage provides an additional support to the first point above: “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.” However, in the future communist socieyt, where there is a conscious social plan for the distribution of labour and of the products of labour, both can be distributed on the basis of a different principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Comradely, Claus. > Claus > I don't think that any of the participants in this exchange would > dispute what you are saying about what Marx meant about SNLT being what > was conserved in exchange. > > However, I am not sure where you find support for the following: > > "What Marx argues is that, in order for society to subsist, this > exchange must be based on the exchange of equal amounts of labor: the > use-value which each individual offers to the society mus be the product > of the same amount of labor contained in the use-values he/she receives > from the society in exchange" > > This seems similar to the formulation referring to future communist > society in Critique of the Gotha Program, but I do not recall him > presenting an argument of this form with respect to capitalist society. > > You say > "Finally, robots are just machines. A society where robots produced > everything could not be a capitalist society, because the robot-machines > would be the private property of a few individuals, thus how would the > mass of the non-owner people live, since there would be no employment > for > them?" > > This is obviously a pertinent question, not unrelated to the general > problem of technological unemployment. A sufficiently powerful and > ruthless capitalist class might simply allow the former working class to > die off due to poverty and disease. The contemporary Russian capitalist > class seems to have been following this strategy. Otherwise, the > capitalist class might be willing to pay sufficient taxes to support an > idle proletariat on the dole. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of > cmgermer@UFPR.BR > Sent: 14 July 2007 04:03 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] equality versus equivalence > > Dear Paul, Fred, Andy and Ajit, > It seems to me that in Marx's theory the scalar must be labor and that > the > equivalence between two commodities in exchange (x com A = y com B) > means > precisely equality of labor times. This seems to me to be clear in > Marx's > presentation: the substance of value is abstract labor; the quantity of > value is the quantity of social labor (SNLT). Hence, when Marx says that > what is meant by = is equivalent values, he is saying that what is meant > is *equal* labor times (SNLTs). > > Please observe the following passagens in ch. 1 of Capital: > "But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the > exchange-value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., > must, as exchange-values, be replaceable by each other, or *equal* to > each > other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange-values of a given commodity > *express something equal*;" > > "...1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It > tells us that in two different things - in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. > of > iron, there exists in *equal quantities* something common to both. The > two > things must therefore be *equal* to a third ..." > > > Now, why must labor and nothing else be the scalar? Because the human > being depends on his/her labor to subsist, but not on the individual > labor > providing the needs of each individual, but on social labor, i.e., > division of labor, in such a way that each individual provides society > with the product of his/her labor, and receives in exchange what he/she > needs. What Marx argues is that, in order for society to subsist, this > exchange must be based on the exchange of equal amounts of labor: the > use-value which each individual offers to the society mus be the product > of the same amount of labor contained in the use-values he/she receives > from the society in exchange. > > Please observe the following two passagens by Marx: > '(...) if society wants to satisfy some want and have an article > produced > for this purpose, it must pay for it. Indeed, since commodity-production > necessitates a division of labor, society pays for this article by > devoting a portion of the available labor-time to its production. > Therefore, society buys it with a definite quantity of its disposable > labor-time. That part of society which through the division of labor > happens to employ its labor in producing this particular article, must > receive an equivalent in social labor incorporated in articles which > satisfy its own wants' (Marx, Capital, vol. 3, Int. Publ., p. 187). > > 'Now since (...) [the laborer's - CMG] work forms part of a system, > based on > the social division of labor, he does not directly produce the actual > necessaries which he himself consumes; he produces instead a particular > commodity, yarn for example, whose value is *equal* to the value of > those > necessaries or of the money with which they can be bought. (...) If the > value of those necessaries represent on an average the expenditure of > six > hours' labor, the workman must on an average work for six hours to > produce > that value' (Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p.104). > > Finally, robots are just machines. A society where robots produced > everything could not be a capitalist society, because the robot-machines > would be the private property of a few individuals, thus how would the > mass of the non-owner people live, since there would be no employment > for > them? > Comradely, > Claus Germer. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT