Re: [OPE-L] Albritton on Arthur

[Christopher Arthur <arthurcj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry
You raise two issues: 1) use value 2) class struggle.
1) It is true that in my 'narrow' value form theory use value is
treated merely as a bearer of value and up to the general formula of
capital it has no specific economic bearing. However, with the turn to
the study of production, and especially with my (delayed) introduction
of the labour theory of determination of magnitude of value, I present
the process of the subsumption of the material side by the formal side
as a process of negativity. Rob A, by contrast insists that from the
start this latter process of management of UV should be central. For
example I derive money purely from the need for value to autonomise
itself. Rob like the Uno school generally (see Lapavitsas) takes it in
the context of circulating use value.
In my HM reply to critics I went so far as to deny there is a dialectic
of value and use value on the grounds that  these were not true
opposites in that while value certainly presupposes (negatively to be
sure) use value, use value does not need value to complete its concept.
They are not like north and south. This may have been too strict; for
once subsumed under the value form use value can only realise itself
through sale.
I need to think more about this.
2) I agree with Rob A that class struggle is a sociological and
historical phenomenon that might well be left to 'stages theory'.
However the very fact there is class struggle must come out of the pure
theory in some way. Here I agree with Mike L that it is part of concept
of capital that it realises itself only through 'negating its negation'
namely the workers.
 The term 'pure theory' is ambiguous. It can refer to the general
character of capital distinguished from the specificities of stages of
development. I would be happy to call my work pure theory in that
sense. It can also mean pure in the sense of logical which seems to be
the Sekine/Albritton reading of Uno. Here i dissent because I think it
is part of the concept of capital that the logic of form finds itself
struggling with the recalcitrance of the material factors subsumed
under the form. At the level of circulation this may be ignored but not
at the level of production where capital faces the subjectivity of
workers. It is true one may abstract from the 'class for itself' but we
must look at the 'class in itself' or 'in relation to capital' where
it, however incohately, may be expected to resist being treated simply
as capital's own use value, variable capital, human resources etc. For
example we do not need to study the struggle over the working day - but
we know this is a variable in which there is right against right and
force decides; we also know that within a given working day force will
determine the intensity of labour. Now Rob A will say 1) the value form
manages the material factors through wages and rents, and 2) in order
to exhibit the pure logic of capital we must make the methodological
assumption (backed up by the real tendency) that labour is totally
reified and at the disposal of capital. Here I would appeal to the
dialectical point that the 'positive' and the outcome of 'negation of
the negation' are different. That capital succeeds most of time in
really subsuming labour, or may be methodologically taken to have done
so, still leaves it the case that it rests on this process of
negativity, always renewed and in principle never assured, of gaining
hegemony over labour such that value is defined by me as reified
labour. In fact Rob's conjectures about why I want to include the
subjectivity of the workers in the concept of capital are off the mark.
My real motivation is that I cannot understand what justification there
can possibly be for a labour theory of value unless this specific fact
about labour is basic. Otherwise labour is a resource like any other
and there is no reason to prioritise it in our theory. To put the point
against Rob. If his strictly logical account of capital were to be
taken seriously he has no justification for a labour theory of value
(that must surely have something to do with the use value of labour
power) or if he accepts the labour theory of value then non-logical
facts such as that workers can produce more than they consume must be
admitted into pure theory.
Chris
On 25 Mar 2006, at 13:47, glevy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> You didn't see Robbie's review in _La Travail_ and I haven't read
> the exchange between the two of you in _Historical Materialism_.
> But, it may indeed be the case that similar points were made in each,
> especially since he wrote in the review that he would "condense this
> discussion down to two fundamental points".  I brought the review
> to the attention of the list because I thought that the same criticism
> that he made about your alleged "incoherence" could also be extended
> to some others on the list.
>
> First, a side point. Robbie claims that:
>
> "The basic problem is that in Capital the basic contradiction is
> between
> value and use-value from the beginning. By pushing use-value into the
> background, Arthur makes capital into pure form, which in turn leads
> him
> to overemphasize the role of pure form determination in the entire
> theory."
>
> but this doesn't sound right: in your theory is use-value pushed into
> the
> background?
>
>
> It is the next section that could have been written as a criticism
> of the perspectives of many others on this list:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "This leads to incoherence because he then wavers between emphasizing
> the
> preeminance of value form theory, on the one hand, and the claim that
> "value is the outcome of class struggle at the point of production"
> (57)
> on the other. If we take this latter claim seriously, then the laws of
> motion of capital disappear altogether, since we cannot generalize
> about
> value beyond saying that it varies with the balance of class forces in
> each factory. The problem is that he defeats his own dialectic by first
> evacuating use-value and then returning to it with such a vengeance.
> It is
> fine to claim that "labour is in and against capital;" but at the
> level of
> systematic dialectics, we cannot give the "against" any specific
> content,
> precisely because at this level the labour market, periodic crises,
> etc.
> regulate wages and the supply of labour. Again, it is not a question of
> denying labourers all subjectivity, but of seeing capital's
> commodification of labour-power as successfully channelling that
> subjectivity into channels supportive of profit maximization. For
> example,
> workers are free to quit any job, but at this level of abstraction, we
> assume that any other job will have similar wages and working
> conditions.
> Workers are free to bargain for the highest wages possible, but this
> bargaining power is undermined by the fact that in pure capitalism we
> cannot assume the existence of trade unions and by periodic crises that
> produce high unemployment. 8
>             Arthur again falls towards incoherence when he argues that
> the
> systematic dialectic of capital has two subjects - capital and
> labour. If labour is outside capital, then the dialectic must
> be of capital and labour - two totalities and their
> interrelations. Arthur tries to say that there is really one
> totality, but labour is relatively autonomous within this
> totality. But if labour is even relatively outside, it can
> continually disrupt the dialectic in unpredictable ways thus
> preventing it having any coherence. In order to have a
> coherent theory of capital's inner logic, we must assume that
> labour power has been securely commodified. The reason Arthur
> has a problem with this is that he wrongly thinks that such an
> assumption must deny all subjectivity to workers, and because
> he thinks that the class struggle that is so present in
> history must for some reason be diminished if it is not also
> given a central position in systematic dialectics. This latter
> concern, I believe, stems from inadequate attention to
> articulating the relations between systematic and historical
> dialectics as distinct levels of analysis. In other words,
> Arthur at times gets sucked into the very logical-historical
> method that he explicitly rejects. For if the levels are
> distinct, the reification at the level of systematic
> dialectics that subsumes labour to capital can, at the level
> of historical analysis, always be resisted and even radically
> transformed. 9"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> Do others on the list recognize this as a critique that could be
> extended
> to others?  How can/should it be answered?
>
> In solidarity, Jerry