From: "Lowe Laclau" <lowelaclau-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: basic income
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:39:12 -0400



Hi Harald, 




>I am not sure I get the point.  There is nothing in 



>principle in this demand that is not still taken as 

>granted by the old conservative/business party in 

>Norway, for instance ...  There is nothing 

>mysterious in this. If one is convinced that  it 

>brings aboutsocial disorder, and it is overall un- 

>productive to have  a lot of people starve to 

>death, or be wholly dependent on stealing to at 

>all survive, then there is a battle over how low the 

>guaranteed income should be, and how much 

>control and intimitation to tie to it. 


Be sure not to confuse being "productive" as in useful with productive as in producing surplus-value. 

>But no capitalist or government is so stupid 


>as to believe that all activity is productive in 

>capitalist terms. They certainly would not want 

>to give the future labour power growing up bad 

>ideas, and there is no way that one within capitalism 

>can let each and one decide on their own what 

>qualifies as productive work to be renumerated 

>in money value (The latter further more, within 

>the framework of modern production, in itself 

>being a manifestation of capitalist relations.) 




Capitalist rationality certainly needs no belief in the perspective of labor in order to function. Max Weber showed this clearly did he not? Capitalist relations of production produces its own rationality for the capitalist. There is a difference in what the capitalist would demand for the world and what the perspective of labor must bring out for its own well-being. This is a demand of labor. 

>Simple put, you cannot abolish the logic of wage 


>slavery within the framework of wage slavery, 

>no more than you can square the circle. 


And you also can't abolist wage slavery while the means of production are totally in the hands of the capitalist. Instead of seeing any move within capitalist relations of production as solely a move in favor of capital, recognize as well that not moving (keeping things the way they are today) is worse. Let's not forget the situation globalization & postmodernization put labor in globally. Labor can not not respond can it? I don't think H&N meant that the social wage would be some final resting point or should become one. Its one demand amongst many others. If labor has the means of augmenting its productive capacity outside the relations of capitalist production by insituting guaranteed wage, then I would say its not to their detriment. 

 


>Harald 

> 

> 

> 

>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- 




------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
text/html (html body -- converted)
---


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---