Re: Postone on value form and capitalist production

[Ajit Sinha <ecas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:05 6/11/97 -0500, Gil wrote:
>Hi, Ajit.  You may well disagree with me, but it can't possibly be on the
>basis of the arguments you attribute to me below, because I don't make them.
>Ajit writes:
>
>>Though I have not read Postone's book under attack, I beg to disagree with
>>Gil's basic point that methodological individualism is the only 'currect'
>>way of reasoning, and all other kinds of reasoning only betray fallacies.
>
>I never said or implied that "methodological individualism is the only
>'correct' way of reasoning, and all other kinds of reasoning only betray
>fallacies."  I said applying value theory to the analysis of capitalist
>production involves a specific error of logical type.
__________________

Okay, I would admit I did read slightly more into your post than warranted.
But then I think you do follow methodological individualism and there are
passages in your earlier post that suggest that. For example, you said:

"Now it is of course *possible* that the cumulative effect of such an
innovation, once generally adopted, is to increase surplus value. But that
is a (contingent) consequence of the **original** (emphasis added)
motivation, and should not be confused with that motivation itself."

My point is that your faith in the "original" motivation comes from your
methodological individualism, and is highly problematic in my opinion.
Capitalists do not have any *original* motivation. They are simply playing
a role in a play, the script of which is already written by the system as a
whole, i.e. the structural causality. If you look at it from such a
perspective then Postone may not appear as making any logical error,
neither would Marx.

I do not want to get involved with 'value theory'. It is hard to tell who
means what by it. I would agree with you that we do not need commodity
values in labor terms to explain exploitation. However, the question is, do
we need to express exploitation in labor terms, which can always be done
without the notion of commodity values. If yes, then there is something to
labor-time as a unit of measure for economic intities such as commodities.
I think most of the people would agree that labor-time is a good measure
for representing technology. It is the question of exploitation and
division of income that is problematic. I think, any science requires an
uncompromising unit of measure. We all know that 'money' is a highly flawed
unit of measure. Labor sounds like a good candidate to me. We need to do
more work on it though.

I also think that it is possible to conceive of almost a fully automated
system of production. In such a society labor-time will loose its relevance
as a unit of measure. Though there could still be prices and 'profits' in
the system. The Habermasian point that Ricardo had raised earlier needs
more serious consideration than what pen-l accorded it.

Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>> I don't think it is improper to say that the goal of capitalism is to
>>accumulate.
>
>That's not the issue, except to note that attributing "goals" to
>non-conscious entities is problematic. [ I note that Ajit uses the term
>"goal" in a fundamentally different sense below, as something a conscious
>entity might *want* to achieve other things equal, but can't given present
>constraints.]  Rather the issue is whether there are fundamental problems in
>suggesting that *expansion of surplus value*, as the term is understood by
>Marx, is the "goal of capitalism."  I give specific reasons why this is
>problematic.
>
> It does not mean that the goal of the capitalist is to reinvest
>>his/her profit. On the contrary, the goal of the capitalists may be to
>>enjoy life. However, an average capitalist is incapable of doing so because
>>the forces of competition would compell an average capitalist to
>>continuously reinvest his/her profits.
>
>Except for a slight reinterpretation on what is meant by "goal", this is
>entirely consistent with what I wrote.  Indeed, it reinforces it, since it
>is precisely under the sort of conditions of competition Ajit speaks of that
>the fallacy of division I attribute to Postone and Marx most clearly arises.
>
>> The thrify nature of the capitalist
>>is an effect of the structural causality of the system, rather than the
>>cause of accumulation, as Gil would imply.
>
>I would not imply it, and I certainly didn't say it.
>
>I am completely puzzled by the interpretation Ajit puts on my comments.
>They do not follow from what I said, and are not consistent with what I
think.
>
>Gil
>
>
>
>