Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 13:24:22 EDT

> Not really because I am arguing that value is not an intrinsic
> property of commodities. To say that it is intrinsic to or inherent in
> or dispositional of commodities in themselves, i.e.
> outside the system of the relative and equivalent form relation,  is
> simply commodity fetishism.

Yes, I agree, so my analogy with a brittle glass was a bit unhelpful.
A useful object has dispositional exchange-value only because it is
part of a system of generalised commodity production. But even if not
exchanged, it has dispositional exchange-value.

> I have argued however that it makes
> sense to speak of abstract labor at least theoretically outside
> of the value form social relation. For example the very argument
> that abstract labor did not have practical validity in say a caste
> society is already to assume homogeneous social labor for we
> are looking at the barriers to its reallocation in the face of natural challenges
> or social changes.

Yes I also agree with you on this point, because I think that
"abstract labour" is a real mechanism, its dispositional powers more
fully realised in capitalism, but surely not wholly realised. I do not
think that abstract labour is purely a socially constructed category,
peculiar to capitalism.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT