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.

Title: Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte
What is Marx getting at in the critique of Fichtean philosophers and in the emphasis on mediation or detours?

Individuals--real in juridical form but shadowy in content--feel alienated by society and leave to the value of things and  money the powers to establish their seemingly contingent social relations. Yet these fetishes of value and money only have such powers  in their respective specific  magnitudes as a result of the particular commodity form of the organization of our necessary (that is non contingent) social productive interdependence rational regulation of which would actually allow the real individual to flourish.

The real individual is not an ontological datum but the result of a historical process.

So we return to the questions of humanism and the Hegelian theory of history and Marx's understanding of them.

Rakesh



I too would like to know about the 'detour'. (is this term supposed to be in Marx?) I suspect this is an inadequate way of expressing the concept of 'mediation'.
The commodity cannot express its value immediately, ie in its own 'body', so it expresses value through the mediation of another commodity-body it sets up as expressing its essence as value.

Note however the dialectical reversal: when all commodities have chosen a money commodity as the unique bearer of their essence as values it becomes posited as value-for-itself independent of any particular value _expression_. So a new commodity now expresses itself as a value only by comparing itself with money and saying I share that essence.

It is very important indeed to separate this discussion from commodity owners. Uno goes hopelessly astray when he conflates the 'active' role of the C in relative form with the activity of a commodity owner proposing an exchange. He therewith, says Uno, 'assumes the position of the  relative'. But he does not; he is trying to treat his own commodity as means of purchase, ie he 'assumes the position' of the equivalent, assuring the other owner that he is offering the value equivalent.
But again note the reversal with money. Then the agent can offer his C for sale, claiming it is worth that price, knowing that possession of the universal equivalent will allow him to get everything he wants.
My papers on this are
'Money and the Form of Value' in The Constitution of Capital  (pp. 35-62) eds  R. Bellofiore and N. Taylor, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2004
 and (against Uno) 'Money and exchange' in Capital & Class 90 Autumn 2006 (7-35)
Chris A
17 Bristol Road
Brighton
BN2 1AP
On 26 Apr 2007, at 14:03, Pen-L Fred Moseley wrote:

Hi Michael, welcome to OPEL.  Thanks for your posts on Kuruma.  Two
comments below.

Quoting Michael Schauerte <yk3mk3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

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.

1.  It is not clear to me why Kuruma calls Marx's derivation of money
in Section 3 of Chapter 1 a "detour".  This is a straightforward
logical deduction from the basic labor theory of value already
developed in Sections 1 and 2.  In order for each commodity to be
exchanged as equivalents with all other commodities, the SNLT contained
in each commodity (the "magnitude of value") must be observable in some
objective and comparable form.  But quantities of SNLT are not directly
observable as such.  Therefore, the SNLT contained in each commodity
must be represented indirectly in terms of the quantity of the money
commodity that contains the same quantity of SNLT.

If what Kuruma means by "detour" is the indirect _expression_ of SNLT as
money, then perhaps we have no disagreement.  But "detour" is a
misleading term.  The deduction of the necessity of money is in no way
a logical "detour".  Once money is derived in Part 1, it becomes the
basis for Marx's theory of capital beginning in Part 2 - "the
transformation of money into capital".  The transformation of money
into capital is not possible unless money has been previously derived.

So what does Kuruma mean by "detour"?


2.  Commodity owners do not create the value equations in Marx's
theory.  Marx's logic in Chapter 1 - and throughout Capital - is based
on the *objective* characteristics of capitalism, not the subjective
evaluations of commodity owners (as in neoclassical economics).  The
main objective property of capitalism that Marx begins with in Chapter
1 is that products in capitalism are commodities (goods produced for
exchange), and that the general system of commodity exchange is regular
and mutually consistent - i.e. the system satisfies the property of
transitivity.  From this objective property of transivity, it follows
by the laws of mathematical logic that the relations among commodities
must be one of equality.

Continuing with this objective logic, the quantitative exchange-values
of commodities is determined by the objective property of SNLT, not by
the subjective evaluations of commodity owners.

So Marx does not somehow begin with the subjective evaluations of
commodity owners, and then puts these aside in order to derive money,
but rather begins with the objective properties of commodities, and
from these derives SNLT and money.


Comradely,
Fred


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]