[Marxism] RE: Stan Goff article

["Tony Abdo" <gojack10@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carrol, your discussion of 'value' recalls Clinton talking about whether the
meaning of the word, 'is', is 'is', or not.

We have been through this stuff on the list before, simply because
traditional marxists refuse to be clear, and rather do all this
flim-flammery around what the popular defintion of 'value' that common
people have of the word.  'Value' is simply, to most people, something that
is of good fruitful use. Things like sunshine, health, air, and clean water
are considered as being of 'value' to the common folk, even if they are not
by marxist economic scientists.

And common to your idea of 'value', Carrol, the common folk consider 'value'
to be a 'thing', and not a 'social relationship'.  Imagine that!  They
consider your definition to be 'irrelevent', not the things they see as
value, Carrol.  But what do the common folk know, ay?  No need to speak that
street talk, right, when we can be clear amonst our tiny circles with our
own deefinition of 'value'?

Actually, you say that the thing that ordinary types call value is of great
importance.  'Greater importance' even than 'value', you say.  But then, the
only name for the popular definition of 'value' that you have is... 'that
other matter'!   So I guess, when talking with traditional marxists, one
should never refer to value, when what one is really talking about is 'that
other matter' of greater importance than the marxist word 'value'!

Or maybe marxists should just shed the King Karl's version of concepts like
'petite bourgeosie' and 'value' altogether, and get some hip-hop slang into
the theories?  Maybe a rap version of Marx's versions would help?   And
maybe start using 'value' as a word in the way that people commonly
associate as the meaning?   That other matter, so to speak.

Tony
`````````````````

Tony Abdo wrote:
> It has been a historic error of great dimensions
> that Marx concentrated so much on human labor as being the principle
> element
> involved in producing value, when the truth of the matter is much broader
> than that.

Value is a social relationship, not a thing. Your comment is irrelevant
because you consult your own private meaning of the _word_ value rather
than its use in Marx's works. Value is simply a way of explaining the
way in which living human activity is allocated under the specific
historical conditions of capitalism. What that human activity produces
(and the usefulness or worth of that product) is another matter
altogether. (That other matter may be -- is -- of greater importance but
that is no excuse for ignoring what Marx was actually writing about.)

Carrol

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


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