Re: [Marxism] From here to there? The Road Forward

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/26/03 12:28:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
clyder@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

This formulation is confused. It conflates value with exchange value.
Value is defined by Marx to be abstract social labour.
This exists in any mode of production
with social production - that is a mode of production where the product
is not directly consumed by the producer.


Reply

Reread Marx and why he says that value is manifest as exchange value. The
commodity form embodies use vale and exchange value - not use value and 
value.:-)

A COMMODITY IS NOT USE VALUE AND VALUE OR USE VALUE AND ABSTRACT LABOR -
BUT!!! - use value and exchange value.
__________

>I think this is over optimistic. Currently commodity prices are 95%
determined by labour input, I and others have published a number of
econometric
papers showing this.<

 Reply

You confuse value with price - a common mistake. I am speaking of the
technological regime that destroys the value of labor power. Products are sold 
and
can continue to be sold because the fall in say the agriculture produce is
greater than the fall of value in the industrial sector. The universal fall in 
the
value of labor power is a dialectic that makes it possible to momentarily
employ more workers to produce more products.

It is true that I am optimistic. I can see communism based on what is in
front of me as clear as clear as looking at my grand kids. Do you argue that I
have not outlined the fundamental logic of the unraveling of the value system 
and
the commodity form?

I am not a theoretician but a highly political communist worker that had to
land on my feet in the course of 30 years. I know politics and political logic
and the Road to Freedom.
______


> Rather my vision and advocacy is for communism - distribution of all social
> necessary needs of humanity based on a common sense understanding of needs
at
> this juncture of society and our existing state of development of
production.

You state

>This implies generalized rationing. I prefer Marx's proposal for the
>use of labour vouchers.

Reply

As if bourgeois production does not rationalize and ration everything based
on money possession. Can we grasp that about 4 billion people do not have money
in any significant way?

In American we do not necessarily need labor vouchers for socially necessary
means of subsistence. Vouchers may be need for that which is above and beyond
socially necessary. This question of the communist class is a theoretical leap
in Marxist theory and takes time to comprehend.


peace


Melvin P.

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism