Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 16:06:59 EST
Quoting gerald_a_levy <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > Re Paul C's : > > > I am meaning subjectivist in a more technical sense, one in which > > the model of the world held by a subject ,be they juridical or personal, > > is mistaken for the world. > > The sale of goods is the means by which the firm as a subject builds > > its internal model of the necessity of its product. But it is the > > necessisity of lack of it of the product that determines the sale. > > To say the sale or absence thereof determines the necessity is to > > mistake the model for the reality. > > So, under capitalism, only those goods which are "necessary" are sold? Within the problematic of Vol I of capital and the definition of SNLT yes. Outside of that problematic one can of course question the necessity of goods sold. > > I would say that rather than commodities existing in the conception > of the bourgeoisie alone (i.e. a model of the world held by a subject), > commodities have a social reality under capitalism. I do not question the fact that capitalism is a commodity producing society, commodities are certainly no illusion. > The fact that > goods (and services) must be sold to fully become commodities and to > express value is an aspect of that social reality rather than a mistaken > conception of the world. The question is not whether they must be sold to be commodities, but whether the labour that went into them was socially necessary or unecessary prior to the sale. I agree that they only 'express' value if they are sold. The question is what value they had prior to sale, or what is the same thing, how much socially necessary labour time did they contain. What I am objecting to is the suggestion that it is the sale at nominal value or price of production that determines whether the labour used was fully necessary. I assert that the causal relation is the reverse. > > Furthermore social necessity is socially constructed and reconstructed > _by economic subjects_. Yes, of course there are limits to which > subjects can define and redefine necessity but necessity itself is not > only an objective force. This is a reason why there are variations in > (social) necessity spatially and temporally. > I dont have any particular problems with this so long as the subjects in question include manufacturing firms, such subjects are quite complex material configurations falling outwith the normal conceptions of subjectivist philosophy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 00:00:01 EST