RE: BHA: causal bearers in the social world

["howard Engelskirchen" <lhengels@xxxxxxx>]

> [Original Message]
> From: Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 > Date: 5/5/2002 1:24:42 PM
> Subject: BHA: causal bearers in the social world
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> H




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---