OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

ajit sinha wrote:

Thanks Mike!

I think the fundamental problem with such reasoning is
the positing of exchange relation as =. There is no
compelling reason for understanding an exchange
relation as a relation of equality. What one can say
is that the VALUES of the two commodities exchanged
are equal. But this is a tautology and already
presupposes VALUES.

Secondly, the move from exchange of equivalents to
exchange of equivalent ABSTRACT labor is always the
weakest link and relies only on assertions. The usual
rhetorical trick employed at this stage is "Marx shows
that..." or "Marx proves that ..." or "Marx argues
that ...". The reason is clear. The author, whoever
the author happens to be, finds it very difficult to
argue the case on the merit of it, so the invocation
of Marx is introduced to bridge this gap in reasoning.
Cheers, ajit sinha
--- Michael Schauerte <yk3mk3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The alternative is to show that the metric space of commodities
shares the features of a system governed by a scalar conservation law.
This does not prove that the scalar being conserved is labour value, it only
shows that hypothesising something called value is equivalent to
hypothesising
something called energy or charge in the case of other systems governed
by conservation laws.
Establishing that it is labour that is the scalar being conserved is an
empirical question.



Hello Ajit,

I'm not sure if Kuruma is advancing any sort of new
idea, but he is examining the "mechanism of value
expression" where the commodity in the relative form
expresses its own valule in the bodily form of the
commodity in the equivalent form, which is in that
form (where it has determinate being as the
"value-body") because the linen has equated the coat
to itself. Kuruma places a great deal of emphasis on
the importance of saying that the linen equates the
coat to itself, rather than saying that the linen
equates itself to the coat (or introducing the
commodity owner into the equation). This distinction
is a bit hard to grasp, at least that was the case
for me. A comparison has been made to the
distinction between person A saying to person B "you
are my "soul-mate" (if you'll excuse the
expression), and person A saying to person B "I am
your soul-mate." In the first case, A has "posited"
B with a certain "power" within this relation, where
for example B now has the power of ma!
rrying A at any time if he/she choses. But in the
second case, B might respond by telling A to get
lost. That second case is similar to the commodity
in the relative form equating itself to B, rather
than equating B to itself. However, this comparison
is a bit faulty, because those two people do not
share an equality from the beginning like the
commodities (unless it is the subjective quality of
loving each other).

It is interesting, by the way, that most of the
translations of the part of Sec. 3 in Capital where
Marx discusses the detour, cannot help inserting the
commodity owner. Granted, everyone knows that the
commodity owners create this value equation based on
their own desires, but for Kuruma once this equation
has been set up we need to set aside the owners and
examine the mechanism of value expression. For Uno,
Marx was wrong to abstract that far. I think that if
the commodity owner is not abstracted from, at the
very least, the impression is created that there is
no substance of value preceding the equation, and
that value (really "price") emerges from the act of
exchange itself.

Anyway, I've pasted one of the relevant passages on
the "detour" from my translation of Kuruma below.

Mike

Kuruma:
This is the question that Marx poses, which no one
had raised before. He poses and then brilliantly
solves this question. Marx first perceives that the
expression of value in money $B!= (Jfor instance,
twenty yards of linen is equal to two pounds of
gold, or equal to gold of such-and-such yen $B!=
(Jis nothing more than the developed version of the
simple value-form (e.g. 20 yards of linen = 1 coat).
Thus, the fundamental mystery of value-expression
lies within this simple form of value. By analyzing
the simple value-form, Marx discovers the "detour"
that constitutes the fundamental secret of
value-expression. This detour concerns how, in the
case of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, in order for the
value of linen to be expressed in the form of a
coat, the coat itself must be the Dasein or esse of
value, which is to say the value-body [Wertding]  or
value in propria persona. Without this taking place,
the quantity of the coat qua thing would be unable
to express a magnitude of va!
lue. The coat, its natural form itself, in that
given state, becomes a thing that expresses value,
or the embodiment of value, because it is equated to
the linen. The coat thus attains the competence just
mentioned, an economic determination of form, so
that it becomes the bearer of a social relation of
production. The labor that makes the coat, of
course, is itself specific concrete labor, not
abstract labor. When the coat is equated to the
linen, the sewing labor that makes the coat is
equated to the weaving labor that makes the linen,
with the coat-making labor reduced to the abstract
human labor that both types of labor have in common.
Meanwhile, the coat is the embodiment of this
abstract human labor, which is to say, it takes on
the significance of being the value-body or
embodiment of value, acquiring this formal
determination. The linen, by positing the coat with
this formal determination, expresses its own value
in the body of the coat qua value-thing. Marx says
th!
at by thinking in this manner the riddle of
value-expression is unrave
led for the first time. Here we need to pay special
attention to the fact that in the value-expression
20 yards of linen = 1 coat, the linen does not
immediately make itself into the form of value by
saying that it is equal to the coat. Rather, the
linen posits the coat with form of value by saying
that the coat is equal to itself, so that the
natural form of the coat, as is, expresses value.
The value of linen is thus expressed for the first
time in distinction from its use-value, using the
natural form of the coat. This is what Marx calls
the  $B!H (Jdetour $B!I (J of value-expression. In
general it is thought, and Marx himself says, that
the most difficult part of Capital is the theory of
the value-form. In the part of the first German
edition of Capital where this detour is explained,
he writes that,  $B!H (Jthis is the point where all
the difficulties originate which hinder an
understanding of the value form $B!I (J (Marx,
1976b, p. 21). Indeed this is the case. Not onl!
y is the issue itself quite difficult to
understand, but in general $B!= (Jdespite various
explanations offered by Marx $B!= (Jthere has not
even been a basic understanding of why it is
necessary to ponder such a bothersome issue. The
fact is, though, that it constitutes the core of the
secret of value-expression. Without understanding
this issue it is impossible to unravel the riddle of
the money-form and the riddle of money, whereas
these riddles can be easily grasped if the issue is
properly understood. The riddle of the money-form,
as mentioned already, concerns the strangeness of a
commodity $B!G (Js value being generally expressed
in the form of a certain quantity of gold, while the
riddle of money involves the peculiarity in this
case of the natural form of gold, as is, having
general validity as value. This is the problem of
the value-form posed in Capital, and by clarifying
the detour of value-expression just noted, Marx
became the first to thoroughly solve the pro!
blem; or at any rate that is my own view on the
subject.





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com




--
Paul Cockshott
Dept Computing Science
University of Glasgow



0141 330 3125

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]