Reply to Jurriaan;&Critique of Uno's theory

[MIYACHI <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jurriaan wrote
 historically, the labour hours worked to produce a product that is
exchanged as a commodity were a real objective yardstick

 My answer;If you are correct, if some producers produce coat containing
less labor hour, in commodity market, the coat price(expression of value)
ought to be less, but it does not occur. On the contrary, the price remains
to be same as before,unless socially necesary labor for production of coat
changes,  because in capitalist production,"some people might think that if
the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on
it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his
commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The
labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human
labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power.(capital)"
 Thus capitalistic "social necessary labor" is different from real concrete
labor. This homogeneous human labour is in fact substance of value which
Marx proved when he analyzed commodity.before arguing exchange process. Your
analysis inversely begin with exchange process,and secondly analyze abstract
labor. Thus below.

  "emergence of the economic category of abstract labour is bound up with
the development of exchange and trading as such,as an evolutionary process,
proceeding from less abstract forms
to more abstract forms, reaching its ultimate abstraction under fully
developed capitalist society, where the exchange of most commodities
is mediated by money and most goods are commoditised ("generalised
commodity production").


  Jurriaan wrote;
  Marx argues at the beginning of Das Kapital, that in order to be
exchanged, commodities must have something in common, and that this
"common attribute" can only be labour, the fact that the commodities
are the product of human labour. But contrary to what many
dogmaticians say, this is a pedagogic device,.

 My Answer;Marx himself never speak of "common attribute". what is "common
attribute"? He begins with analysis of commodity. 1.The utility of a thing
makes it a use-value. 2.In the form of society we are about to consider,
they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange-value.
3.Exchange-value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative
relation,4.the valid exchange-values of a given commodity express something
equal; secondly, exchange-value, generally, is only the mode of expression,
the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from
it.5.1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells
us that in two different things ― in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of 
iron,
there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things
must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor
the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange-value, must therefore be
reducible to this third. 6.there is nothing left but what is common to them
all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the
abstract. 7.it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere
congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour-power expended without
regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is,
that human labour-power has been expended in their production, that human
labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social
substance, common to them all, they are ― Values.
  So your arugment that common attribute"(What is this?) can only be
labour,is strictly speaking incorrect, your so-called "common attribute" is
not labor rather abstract,human, homogenous labor.

Jurriaan wrote;
 This is why Kozo Uno completely eliminates
the attempt to prove the labour determination of value in his
exposition of the "doctrine of circulation", in his book Principles of
Political Economy. He says, it is not necessary to prove the substance
of value as labour in discussing the forms of value. Kozo Uno tries to
show how, whereas originally commodity trade begins at the boundaries
of separate economic communities, eventually commerce begins the
engulfs the entire production process of economic communities, and it
is in the doctrine of production, that he really introduces abstract
labour as the substance of value.

 My answer;Critique of Uno-school completed in Japan in 1972,
 when armed struggle occured, Uno's theory is proved to be useless.

 Below is its summary.
 1.He regard  labor in motion  in production process as substance of value,
but labor in motion itself value-creating, i.e., a source of value, not
value.He confuses source  of value with value, the latter is materialized in
commodity. AS doing so, he transfers substance orf value from commodity to
labor-in -motion.
This confusion leads to his focus of analysis ofn value from commodity to
production process in common.
  In Later,Marx wrote;
   "In so far as labour is value-creating, and is manifested in the value of
commodities, it has nothing to do with the distribution of this value among
various categories. In so far as it has the specifically social character of
wage-labour, it is not value-creating. It has already been shown in general
that wages of labour, or price of labour, is but an irrational expression
for the value, or price of labour-power; and the specific social conditions,
under which this labour-power is sold, have nothing to do with labour as a
general agent in production. Labour is also materialised in that value
component of a commodity which as wages forms the price of labour-power; it
creates this portion just as much as the other portions of the product; but
it is materialised in this portion no more and no differently than in the
portions forming rent or profit. And, in general, when we establish labour
as value-creating, we do not consider it in its concrete form as a condition
of production, but in its social delimitation which differs from that of
wage-labour"

 Also from this paragraph, Uno's argument is proved to be incorrect.

 2. Uno argues that value is proved through value-forming labor. It is also
incorrect.Uno considers value as common in history, and its form are
discovered through value-forming labor.

 3.Uno's proposal of concept"labor-production process" is in fact mistifying
capital production,and it leads to propose "common labor process" without
history-specific.

 4. Uno argues that substance of value develops various forms through
commodity society. Its result is that labor process is said to be general
form of production. Contrary to Marx, Uno reduces the production
characteristic to capitalist society to labor process in common.

 5. commoditification of labor; This Uno's argument leads to theory of
alienation(Itself correct) in labor process. But also it is from the
argument that capitalist society is formed by simply sell and buy
labor-power relation so ignores the relation of rulers and ruled.
 As such argument, We could not adopt Uno's theory.





------ End of Forwarded Message ------