BHA: causal bearers in the social world

[Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Howard,

you asked me "Why not value as a real kind?"
I am not a philosopher, therefore I am not quite sure
what you mean by "real kind".

If you mean that abstract human labor is a real definition
or, which seems to me pretty much the same thing, what some
Marxists call a "real abstraction", then my answer would be
in the affirmative.  Let me explain.  Under capitalism,
abstract human labor is not just an abstraction which one
can make in one's mind.  Of course one can, not only under
capitalism but under all social circumstances, consider
labor under the point of view that it is expenditure of
human labor-power.  Nothing prevents you from making this
abstraction.  The existence of the common term "labor" for
all the many different kinds of expenditure of human
labor-power seems proof to me that people have been making
this abstraction before commodity society.  But this does
not mean that the word "abstract human labor" signifies
something real.  However in a commodity society, exactly
that is the case.  In a commodity society, abstract human
labor is real, i.e., it has economic causal powers qua
abstract human labor (and not just because of the concrete
labors of which it is an aspect).  This is what I mean when
I say "`abstract human labor' is a real definition."  Is this
what you mean by "value as a real kind", Howard?

Let me explain how I envision these causal powers emanating
from abstract human labor.  Let's talk for simplicity about
a hypothetical "simple commodity society."  In capitalism
the transmission mechanisms may be a little different.  Say
we have a simple commodity producer Johnny who is producing
widgets.  All day long he uses his concrete labor to make
widgets.  He is producing alone, i.e., this is clearly an
individual process.  It is not society but Johnny who is
producing the widgets.  In the evening he says: Oops, now I
have spent all day producing widgets, and I am still hungry.
So he grabs the widgets, runs with them to the market, and
tries to exchange them for something he can eat.

This is no longer an individual activity, and it is also no
longer an activity emanating from Johnny as his own.  The
causal power behind this activity is no longer Johnny's will
but the value of the widget.  Johnny is merely carrying out
things which the value of the widget needs done.  This value
needs to be actualized (Marx would say "realized") i.e., the
labor spent on the widgets needs social ratification that it
was indeed socially necessary labor.  In other words, it
needs proof that someone needs it and is willing/able to pay
for it.  The widgets must be sold or exchanged on the
market.  This market ratification is a social necessity for
all labor in a commodity society.  This is the overarching
necessity, society would fall apart if labors were not
coordinated in some way, and this is the way it's done
in commodity production.

Johnny is coerced to do what is necessary for his labor to
be socially ratified because he can eat only if the value
of the widgets has indeed been actualized.  He was cunningly
put into a position where he has to perform this social
task, by the fact that society did not provide him with
direct social communication channels to coordinate his
production with other producers of widgets and the consumers
of widgets, but he had to produce them privately and he has
to try to live off the proceeds from their sale.  This is a
setup not of Johnny's making.  Johnny is only the
marionette.  He may think he is benefitting himself by
selling his widgets because he sees the whole process from a
limited perspective.  What he is really doing is carry out a
social task which value needs to be done, not he (or at
least not primarily he).  The ultimate agent, which gets its
goals achieved through Johnny's actions, is the value of his
products, which is a social power, ironically the social
power of Johnny's own labor.

Let me explain now why I don't agree with saying that value
is nothing but a social relation.  Of course, social
relations are very important in societies, they are the bond
that holds it all together.  And if I say value is labor I
mean labor in a very specific social context.  I do not mean
the context itself but labor *in* this context.  Let's
exercise it through again.  The thing which coerces Johnny
to act is his own past labor.  He has spent his time making
widgets, this made him hungry and prevented him from
producing food for himself.  Instead, he has produced
something which contains abstract labor and for this reason
can be exchanged on the market.  Ergo he has to try to
benefit from his past labor by carrying the widgets to
market.  All this is taking place in the context of social
relations, but the thing that is really both pushing and
pulling Johnny is his past labor.


Hans G. Ehrbar



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---