IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Paul B wrote: > What is > striking about the 'value is only value' after 'sale', school (apart from > clearly reflecting a shop keeper mentality) is that it seems to separate > the concept of value from that of exploitation in the workplace. Really > quite striking! Value as capital is wealth extorted from an imprisoned > class, and to regard the value relation as non existent before the > individual sale or sales - ie not to assume ( like our friends the astute > accountants must do) that the 'business ' is 'ongoing' at any point of > appraisal - seems to me to be quite, let us say, 'odd'. I replied to Paul's post earlier today. However, I want to note now that the claim that Paul B has made about those who "separate the concept of value from that of exploitation in the workplace" -- while _not_ having merit in regard to those (including value-form theorists) who claim that value is actualized in exchange -- *does* have merit ironically for those who believe that value exists wherever there is 'commodity' production. Consider the case of commodities produced by producer cooperatives in which there is worker ownership and control. Clearly, the products produced by these cooperatives are produced in order to be sold. They also typically have a use- value and an exchange value. They thus represent value from the perspective of those who believe that a particular social and class relationship (that between wage-labour and capital) is not required for the constitution of value. Yet, there is clearly no exploitation which necessarily arises in the case of the producer cooperative. Hence, the link between value and exploitation is broken and the concept of value can exist without exploitation in the workplace. Paul's charge is thus misdirected: rather than being directed against value-form theorists and others who emphasize the role of exchange, it should instead be directed at those who have a trans-historical conception of value. In solidarity, Jerry
- Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General, Paul Bullock Tue 18 Oct 2005, 18:53 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General, Paul Bullock Fri 21 Oct 2005, 09:14 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General, Jerry Levy Fri 21 Oct 2005, 12:30 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 21 Oct 2005, 15:20 GMT
- [OPE-L] Value and Exploitation, Jerry Levy Fri 21 Oct 2005, 17:52 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Value and Exploitation, Ian Hunt Sat 22 Oct 2005, 02:09 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Occupy/Resist/Produce Versus Value/ Exploitation/ Globalization, Jerry Levy Sat 22 Oct 2005, 12:56 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Occupy/Resist/Produce Versus Value/ Exploitation/ Globalization, Ian Hunt Sun 23 Oct 2005, 01:55 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Occupy/Resist/Produce Versus Value/Exploitation/Globalization, Jerry Levy Sun 23 Oct 2005, 14:27 GMT