[OPE-L:5637] Re: Re: Re: Re: Howards [5578] Peculiarities of the equivalent form

[Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: [OPE-L:5636] Re: Re: Re: Howards [5578] Peculiarit

I think Ajit is saying that  Hegelian (sic) value theory has no answer to Joan Robinson's challenge (dubbed the infinite regression critique by Carchedi):

"the constant capital was produced in the past by labour time working with then pre-existing constant capital and so on, ad infinitum backwards. It therefore cannot be reduced simply to a number of labour hours that can be added to the net value of the current year. And there is no advantage in doing so." quoted in Carchedi, 1990, p. 96.

Rakesh

> Ajit,
>  
> Under capitalism of course the C
> entering production is generally the result of 'social' labour. But
> what exactly do you mean by that? The point is that capitalist
> production  is indirectly social. Chris fudges the point
> with his 'yes and no'. Commodities are purchased privately from
> private producers and used for the accumulation of  profit
> (which is a concept based in private ownership etc). Nevertheless
> none of this is possible without other private owners to buy from and
> sell to, ie a society of private activity where the private commodity
> labour power is used for  the private appropriation of wealth by
> capitalists.
>  
> The idea that 'the goods that are
> exchanged is not the product of "private labor" '
> seems to me to reduce the notion of 'society' to a most abstract
> notion, (a sort of 'togetherness' .or we need your stuff so we must
> be being soocial ) .. whilst ignoring the composition and basis of
> that society. Are you trying to say that exchange has destroyed the
> category of private property? On the contrary exchange requires
> private property!
>  
> regards
>  
> Paul Bullock
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajit Sinha <ajitsinha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 21 May 2001 07:40
> Subject: [OPE-L:5632] Re: Re: Howards [5578] Peculiarities of the
> equivalent form
> >
> >
> >Christopher Arthur wrote:
> >
> >> d) First let us go back and ask why there is a problem. It
> is that
> >> capitalism is manifestly a form of social production yet
> production is
> >> carried on in separate autonomous enterprises. The solution
> is  universal
> >> exchange. Does this make production immediately social? Yes
> and No.
> >> Certainly it allows goods to be distributed but only via a
> form of
> >> *abstract* sociality in which labours are not immediately
> social but become
> >> socially recognised only under the form of abstract labour,
> and that
> >> indirently under the shape of the value prodduced. So just
> as with the
> >> other peculiarities there is the problem of how this
> abstract sociality is
> >> to be represented, and it is in the private labour that
> produced the
> >> equivalent: 'immediate exchangeability' is itself a most
> peculiar social
> >> form quite different from the concrete specific connections
> between
> >> production and consumption is a peasant household.
> >
> >_________________________
> >
> >Chris, the most fundamental problem, which no Hegelian
> interpretation of value
> >problematic recognizes, is that the goods that are exchanged is
> not the product
> >of "private labor". It could be so only if labor could
> produce without any aid
> >of the means of production or raw materials, such as picking up
> silver on a
> >beach. But the production that Marx is dealing with is a
> production assisted by
> >means of production--Marx was one author who repeatedly insisted
> that there is
> >always a commodity residual left no matter how far you go back in
> reducing means
> >of production to labor time, a point that Smith and Ricardo had a
> habit of
> >forgetting in their explanation. The problem is simple: how do
> you deal with the
> >means of production part of the commodity in its exchange?
> Cheers, ajit sinha
> >
> >