[OPE-L:6898] Re: Re: Re: value-form

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 04 2002 - 21:54:25 EST

Nicky writes in 6896

>I think that the most fruitful way forward theoretically is to
>emphasise our agreement on two key points: 1) that the capital-labour
>relation is more fundamental than the exchange relation,

If the exchange relation includes what both Banaji and Meillasoux 
call the form of exploitation, then it is possible that a 
capital-labor relation of production could be in place even if the 
form of exploitation makes it seem otherwise: in the chapter on the 
Oxford Press website Banaji gives the examples of the use by 19th 
century Cuban agrarian capitalists of slaves and antebellum American 
Southern industrialists employment of serfs.

At any rate, I thought I would note the attempt to differentiate the 
form of exploitation from the relation of production. Is the 
distinction viable? I think so...

>and from this 2)
>money and capital must be theorised as a relationship with labour along two
>interconnected dimensions (reflected in the circuit of capital): the
>exchange (in markets) of labour power for wages

but this does not follow from 1--no?-- since the capital labor 
relationship (presumably within the abode of production) is more 
fundamental than the exchange relation of which the payment of wages 
is a form.

>and the subsumption of
>living labour (in production) under the aspects of time.

Lukacs--spatialization of time? That is, tasks are to be completed in 
a determinate *space of time*--time thereby losing its flowing and 
other non spatial qualities?  Colletti seems to me too dismissive of 
such phenomenological insights as so much vitalist clap trap. I 
learnt a lot from Postone.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT