tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post2598162403252032629..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: ONE MORE GO-ROUND WITH CHRISRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-30822367825400899432015-04-05T19:48:26.941-04:002015-04-05T19:48:26.941-04:00Dear Chris,
Maybe, it was very loosely put! In ou...Dear Chris,<br /><br />Maybe, it was very loosely put! In our country (Australia), prior to white colonisation, obviously there were no markets, etc. in the hunter-gatherer lives of the indigenous people.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Stephenstephendarlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978504026681997333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-39983429271289655652015-04-05T19:39:15.213-04:002015-04-05T19:39:15.213-04:00Dear Chris,
Fair enough. It was a bit loosely put...Dear Chris,<br /><br />Fair enough. It was a bit loosely put. Thanks.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Stephenstephendarlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978504026681997333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-74991745670946030772015-04-05T08:29:38.962-04:002015-04-05T08:29:38.962-04:00I agree with all you say Stephen except this part:...I agree with all you say Stephen except this part:<br />"if you reflect on it, markets have always been (more or less) around in some form; so has money"<br /><br />I don't think anthropology bears this out. Look, I don't want to be a complete anti-essentialist, or relativist, but we have to be weary - and Marx has shown us why so many times - of comporting our present economic categories of thought into other modes of production. The human species is 150,000 years old, I don't think it's prudent to comport market and/or money into that long history. I see those two things as fairly recent.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-71855164151725906832015-04-04T23:30:51.423-04:002015-04-04T23:30:51.423-04:00Dear Chris,
I appreciate what you say. I use to t...Dear Chris,<br /><br />I appreciate what you say. I use to think you had to get rid of markets as well as capitalism and so was a critic of market socialism. But, if you reflect on it, markets have always been (more or less) around in some form; so has money and various forms of 'capital', but not specifically industrial capital as discussed by Marx (which is at the centre of his analysis of the capitalist market system in Volume 1 of Capital). Presumably, under some form of a modern democratic socialist market system alienation will disappear, which of course is a strong feature of the prevailing capitalist market system. Also, under such a market system the underlying motive will no longer be the profit one of capitalists, but something like a need's based approach wherein we produce what we need (including a surplus product) for the good of all and we do so around some kind of Rawlsian principles about fairness and justice.<br /><br />By the way, I too think that Marx's labour theory of value is central to his critique of political economy, especially regarding uncovering the fundamental laws of motions of modern capitalism.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Stephenstephendarlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978504026681997333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-43465097836063535792015-04-04T08:17:24.176-04:002015-04-04T08:17:24.176-04:00Stephen,
I understand that, but I still don't ...Stephen,<br />I understand that, but I still don't see why we couldn't have a P-C-P society instead of one involving M-C...P...C'-M'.<br /><br />I agree that we need democratic ownership of the means of production, organized production, a surplus of goods for the elderly, young, injured, etc., I'm just question the motive to keep capital and money in existence. That's all. I’ve been consistent that these are determinates of various social relations, and the social relation of capitalist to wage worker is less than great, but I also think the social relationship that reproduces capital is less than just.<br /><br />Class,<br />It's because one deals with values, and one deals with time, that I don't say they are in fact the same thing. As Marx makes clear in the critique of the Gotha program, the ultimate goal of a socialist society is to kill the law of value. We would then want to do exactly what you rightfully pointed out, which is re-conceptualize what is necessary labor. And if we are humane people that will involve 1-5 of Wolff's list.<br /><br />Your last post is what I was trying to press on Wolff, from Marx's perspective, so thank you for sharing that! I couldn't remember the page he had said it in, but I knew it had been said.<br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-17845096218464899822015-04-04T02:27:33.019-04:002015-04-04T02:27:33.019-04:00The ‘reduction of the working day to the necessary...The ‘reduction of the working day to the necessary labour-time’ would mean that necessary labour time would ‘expand to take up more of the day.’ And this, marx says, happens for ‘two reasons: first, because the worker’s conditions of life would improve, and his aspirations become greater [meaning his needs or ‘means of subsistence’ expand], and second, because a part of what is now surplus would then count as necessary labour, namely the labour which is necessary for the formation of a social fund for reserve and accumulation’ (Fowkes trans., p.667).<br /><br /><br />Note a) Marx does not use the concept of value, but labour-time because under socialism there would be no exchanging commodities since there is no market (production and distribution of the product would be democratically planned) and b) that here production is now necessary because it is for the well-being of society and its future.classtrugglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17537776267404584351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-41197693311941110782015-04-04T01:13:07.821-04:002015-04-04T01:13:07.821-04:00Chapter 18 in Volume I of CAPITAL is about the imp...Chapter 18 in Volume I of CAPITAL is about the importance of the distinction between labour and labour-power, and necessary labour time and surplus labour-time.<br /><br />These formulae -- <br /><br />surplus-value/variable capital (s/v) <br /><br />= <br /><br />surplus labour/necessary labour<br /><br />represent the same thing in different terms; the first as ‘a ratio of values’ and the second as ‘a ratio of times during which those values are produced’ (Fowkes 1976 ed, p. 668). <br /><br />In Chapter 10 under the section 'Voracious appetite for Surplus Labour' Marx also compares the capitalist and pre-capitalist in their drive for surplus labour. He observes in pre-capitalist economic formations the production process is primarily concerned with use-values and so surplus labour, he says, will be limited to a 'set of needs' beyond the merely physical. In ancient times, he observes 'overwork becomes frightful only when the aim is to obtain exchange-value in its<br />independent monetary shape, i.e., in the production of gold and silver.' (p.345).<br /><br />And the extraction of surplus labour in a pre-capitalist economy is different from a capitalist system in that in the former, the surplus labour is evident as surplus; it is separated from the necessary labour required to reproduce the means of subsistence for the worker (e.g. corvee system). In the capitalist system, however, the extraction of surplus labour is done simultaneously with the necessary labour. In the working day he argued, both forms of labour are being performed, necessary and surplus, without any distinction between the two.classtrugglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17537776267404584351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-25218020191862862112015-04-03T22:49:45.628-04:002015-04-03T22:49:45.628-04:00Dear Chris,
The question here is the nature of th...Dear Chris,<br /><br />The question here is the nature of the underlying social relations of production. Under capitalism the core social relation of production is the capital/wage-labour relation - a social power relation of production wherein capitalists dominate and exploit wage-workers at the point of production. Under some form of democratic socialism (see the 2nd edition of David Schweickart's book, After Capitalism) the core social relation of production is between co-operative workers; hence it will presumably be a relation that is non-oppressive and non-exploitative. The question of a 'social surplus' is not the problem; nor is money, for that matter. Neither are forms of a 'social evil'. To say so or at least to suggest that they are misses the point and just focuses on the epiphenomena of the social system in question. The 'social evil' is the present one under capitalism which results in greater and greater profits for capitalists at the expense of wage workers (think about the gross exploitation of cheap Chinese labour by western capitalists like Apple). Anyway, just a few thoughts to toss around.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Stephenstephendarlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978504026681997333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-22446660688493646782015-04-03T10:00:46.957-04:002015-04-03T10:00:46.957-04:00Professor Wolff,
Thank you kindly for your respons...Professor Wolff,<br />Thank you kindly for your response. I appreciate you taking time away from your schedule to clarify your differences (but also our agreements!). <br /><br />There's probably not much left to say, because I do in fact agree with you that a socialist society should do 1-5; to the degree that the environment and not the market, will tolerate a surplus. So of course I have no desire to throw people out on the streets and let them die in agony.<br /><br />Our disagreement, per usual comes at the end:<br /><br />"Of course, you can certainly refuse to call it "surplus value," or even "surplus labor," but renaming things, by and large, does not change their nature, as Marx in a number of passages rather mordantly points out."<br /><br />I do think there is an essential difference between surplus labor and surplus value. I also think the nature of these sorts of things (capital included) will change when social relations that reproduce them change. Capital did not exist in the past, and it does not be necessity have to exist in the future. I still think we could have a socialist future that's a P...C...P(') productive arrangement, where surplus goods are made, but capital and surplus value are not reproduced, and money is non-existent (or at the very least not the universal equivalent of exchange).<br /><br />All that said, since we do agree on 1-5, and many other things, I'll jokingly but amicable conclude: with enemies like you, who needs friends ;)<br />Fraternally,<br />CB<br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.com