Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sat Apr 16 2005 - 08:02:55 EDT

>  I agree with your own [Chris's, JL] and Nicky's  *emphasis* on the
>  capital  relation but not with your rejection of Marx's perfectly
>  correct argument on value that precedes discussion of the capital
> relation.

Hi Andy,

Welcome back from your (mini-) holiday.

Marx's (Ch. 1) argument on value indeed precedes discussion of
the capital relation.  That, though, concerns the *order of presentation*.
It should not be seen as an argument for a trans-historical conception
of value, anymore than it should be seen as an argument for "simple
commodity production."

In solidarity, Jerry

PS1: re SCP -- which we have discussed on the list previously --
see the 2005 article written by Chris for 'marx myths and legends':
< >.

PS2:  [*long*]  In a post dated 4/7, Andy wrote:

>  This whole notion of my 'dogma', my 'deeming' this that and the
> other, seems to me to be a figment of your imagination since I am
> offereing arguments, not assertions, and am open to be persuaded I'm
> wrong (as are you). You have introduced 'superiority' and
> 'intelligence' and a host of concepts that I haven't, whilst not yet
> disagreeing with the key argument I have in fact made.

When I read the above narrative of our conversation, I was
puzzled: I didn't remember events in quite the same way. So,
I went back over the posts to reconstruct who said what when.
I am replying in the form of a footnote because I don't want
to bore everyone else and elevate this misunderstanding into
something more than what it was.

1. Intelligence was brought into the conversation by Ian.  Clearly
he must have thought that the "future robotic taxi firms, in which
the drivers are software machines ...."   were intelligent (as in
artificial intelligence).  Clearly Ian believed that the "future
genetically and cybernetically enhanced primates" were
intelligent -- how else could they "have the language abilities of,
say, a six year old"?

2. The way in which I "introduced" intelligence  in my conversation
with Andy, was only by referring to Ian's robots as "intelligent
robots."  It was indeed Andy that raised the subject for discussion
when he wrote about what "many of the more intelligent animals"
can do.

3. He followed that up in his next reply (on a very busy
day on the list last week) by asserting that "animals are not as
intelligent as humans."   When Andy made that claim he, in
effect,  introduced "superiority".  I only used the word dogma
in relation to this claim: "It is not the scientific community which
posits with an air of certainty the dogma that humans are the most
intelligent (and therefore allegedly 'superior' species) -- it is (most)
religious communities."  What  I claimed that Andy "deemed"  was
in response to his claim that humans need to show "mastery over
their natural environment."

4. I suppose when Andy claimed that animals are "strictly limited"
in terms of being "productively creative", he took us unintentionally
on the path that led to discussions of creativity, intelligence,  and
notions of superiority.  Such is the nature of Internet discussions!
They often leads in directions other than those intended by the
person initiating a particular thread.  Periodic misunderstandings,
I'm afraid, come with the territory.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 17 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT