RE: AUT: more on (with) questions re: Capital Volume 2

["Lowe Laclau" <lowelaclau@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Nate,

With regards to your first question, I'm not exactly sure it'd be appropriate to say that Marx's use of "commodity" necessitated any bias towards it being a "physical object". Marx as far as I understand him analyzed immaterial activity tat produced commodities that existed separately from their producer e.g. art works, literature etc. (and one could pose the question here whether their product was their physical entities and/or the production of affects produced by those entities) as well as activities that were inseparable from the productive act, e.g. teaching or being a performer of whatever type. Look in Theories of Surplus Value.

Where this ties in with Harry and David's conversation on education is that Marx seemed to only want to define as "productive labor" those acts that worked to create surplus value. Marx would only consider the latter class of people as "wage-laborers" but not productive laborers. Or at least that's how I interpret his statements. Someone else can chime in if they disagree.

According to people like Negri, Lazzarati (I believe thats how you spell it) and others who have written on the topic of "immaterial labor", the postmodern era constitutively changes the material conditions for productivity, as services such as those Marx discounted may not be employed not only by income, but by capital itself. After '94 this process really solidifies itself manifold and on a global level.

cheers,

Lowe



>From: "Nate Holdren"


>Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>Subject: AUT: more on (with) questions re: Capital Volume 2

>Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:07:07 -0500

>

>Hello all,

>More stuff that's come up as I lurch through Volume 2.

>

>pg 51-52, International Publishers edition

>"In the general formula the product of P [production] is regarded as

>a material thing different from the elements of the productive

>capital, as an object existing apart from the process of production

>and having a use-form different from that of the elements of

>production.... But there are certain independent branches of

>industry in which the product of the productive process is not a

>material product, is not a commodity." Marx gives the example of the

>"communications industry, whether engaged in transportation proper,

>of goods and passengers, or in the mere transmission of

>communication, letters, telegrams, etc".

>

>My question is this: does the term "commodity" in Marx's use mean

>only a physical object existing apart from the production process?

>This selection seems to say yes, that a commodity - for Marx - is

>only a physical object. Does this seem right to you all? (I ask

>because the characteristics of the "communications industry" seem to

>be common the 'immaterial' aspects that some folks have written

>about in the present economy.)

>

>If Marx does limit the term commodity this way, I think it's a slip

>on the old fellow's part and one that can be fairly safely ignored.

>He goes on to say (pgs 52-55) that the transportation industry's

>product is consumed during its production, that the consumption and

>production coincide, are the same moment. Still, transportation is

>subject to the dictates of exchange value and value, and it also

>"entertains the same realtions to consumption" as commodities -

>individual consumption means the value disappears, productive

>consumption as a stage of production of another commodity means the

>value is passed on. So commodity or no, what the transportation

>industry produces still functions a good deal like a commodity does.

>As such, I'm not sure a lot is riding on this question of

>terminology, what Marx means by 'commodity', but I would still like

>to know. As always, thanks for any assistance.

>

>best wishes,

>Nate

>

>

>on Sunday you need some wine to get through the terrible wilderness

>of workdays.

>-Luisa Valenzuela, "Strange Things Happen Here"

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from

>McAfee® Security.

>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

>

>

>

>     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---




------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------
Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe.
------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html (html body -- converted)
---


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---