[OPE-L:5886] Paul B replies to Howard

From: glevy@pratt.edu
Date: Wed Aug 08 2001 - 11:27:44 EDT

Date: Sat,  7 Jul 2001 04:44:04 PDT

From: Bullock J P <pbullock@barclays.net>
Subject: [OPE-L:5874] Re: Re: Re: Reply to fred


I add cooments below  where I don't follow the view.


-----Original Message-----
From: howard engelskirchen <lhengels@igc.org>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Date: 02 July 2001 06:32
Subject: [OPE-L:5874] Re: Re: Re: Reply to fred

"Paul --

I think value form's approach in identifying economic forms first and
explaining private property on that basis is correct. "

Well, in explaining the nature of capital Marx starts with a form, an
historically developed form. The fact that bourgeois private property had to
come into existence to allow that commodity form to become so extensive is
discussed later - the so called primitive accumulation - so we can accept
that as you state it. "As I understand it, exchange value is predicated upon
the autonomy of independent producers who produce values useless to them for
others. This is not a relationship of property, at least in any legal sense,
but a relationship concerning the distribution of agents of production to the
means of production." Now this is where I have a problem. Exchange value
exists in many societies, BUT subordinated to the central/ essential social
relations of production of those societies which were not capitalistic. This
exchange value is occasional, secondary etc, and begins to take on some
significance with merchants acting between societies, or outside of their
home base. The exchange value itself has not developed into a well
established social form until then. Here is the key historical issue.
Nevertheless to say that this is not a relationsghip of property is quite
startling. The merchants purchased or had made up, the goods they traded. Are
you saying they didn't own them? If they were 'agents' did the 'principles'
not own the property?Do those involved in exchange not own their products? If
not who does? What do you mean? (legal form is not the immediate issue here
but I don't understand your note here either). Here you speak of 'agents of
production' being distributed 'to' the m! eans of production. This sounds
more like the type of terms used by formal theory of ' games' type, not the
exposition of an historical method. Propertyrelations as legal relations are
relations of force and consciousness derivative of that. So if we want to
speak of commodity ownership we would speak of onwership of value and reach
the reverse of your proposition, namely: private property is predicated upon
the value form of labor. I'm lost again I'm afraid what is the 'value form'
of labour? Do you mean the commodity form, labour power sold in the market?
If so why should I sell my labour power if I have property (ie means of
reproducing myself). It is when property has been 'privatised' away from me
that I sell my capacities to the property owner! The workers do not sell
their labour power in order to bring into existence private property. Try to
convince me otherwise, please. OR perhaps you mean by ''value form ' of
labour' , money? But then I don't get the logic here either. 'Capital is more
complicated because it is intrinsically a relationship involving the
subordination of will, nonetheless we can start with the distribution of
agents in the sense of the separation of direct producers from the means of
production. And this of course is immediately a class relation.' Well, now
you seem to have reversed your initial position above.... 'in the sense of
the separation of direct producers etc'... Once private property is
established... separation.....class.. So it seems that 'primative
accumulation does come first... (although of course we know that there is a
drawn out battle involved with the social categories coming into being
interdependently). The key point is that until we have labour power sold as a
commodity we can't speak of systematic and self expanding value in exchange.
Cheers paul At 11:36 AM 7/1/01 +0100, you wrote: meaning 'of no particular
concrete/ or technical skill'... human >>labour in general... although there
is an avoidance of the notion of some >>essential physical/mental activity..
since this would move into an obvious >>a-historical position. private
property. Now we are no longer >>dealing with a directly - as I stressed some
time ago - the link in an >>historically new social process. Private property
exchanges with >>private property, abstracted from the particular existence
of man as a >>directly social being. Mankinds directly social being is of no
immediate >>interest to capital. The quality of labour socially, becomes
'abstract' >>when direct exchanges are broken down through the spontaneous
development >>of money. It becomes systematically over a period of time.
>>Understanding it after industrial capitalism had developed simply enabled
>>us correctly to understand the history leading up to it accurately. >>labour
. Money is the gateway by which private property is able to act for >>its own
society, it blesses the private offering with the stamp of social
>>validation. It reveals the abstract, social, nature of the labour
>>performed privately. between private property, and so class >>society based
on labour power as a commodity, and not one sidedly >>reiterate the fact of
exchange as such. Fraternally Paul B. > >

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 00:00:02 EDT