File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1997/97-03-08.181, message 7


Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:35:22 -0800 (PST)
From: LH Engelskirchen <lhengels-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: BHA: Hans critique


 
 
Hans,  Many thanks for the boost and equally for the provocative
elaboration of your ideas.  I have enjoyed the exchange immensely. 
I'm sorry I was AWOL from the list during the discussion of Alice
Miller.  I will review those posts from the archives.  
 
We have narrowed the major points to two, I think:
 
1.   Autonomy.  When Marx refers to deriving the "value expression
of the commodity" from the "nature of commodity value," instead of
exchange value, I understand his reference to the nature of
commodity value to be to the commodity form as a social relation of
production.  What is that relation of production?  (We don't
usually think of value in that way, and its a reason value is
poorly understood.)  I would not know how to describe it except as
I have: separate producers producing a good useless to them for
private exchange.  
 
Exchange value is a way commodities speak to each other and Marx is
very clear that we couldn't talk that way even if we wanted to.  We
have no "labormeters" to allow us to say "my commodity is worth x
hours of social labor."  But commodity x can say to commodity y,
"I'm worth 3 of you."  That's exchange value.  The substance of
value is labor.  The form of value is a relation of production. 
"Interdependent autonomy" is simply a way of expressing a relation
of production that renders it amenable to further legal elaboration
in terms of concepts like consent.
 
2.   Consideration as "forced consent."  I agree with you that a
person would not read my paper and come away with that idea on the
tip of their tongue.  I think I have presented the idea that the
social connection which attaches to a market economy must be
supported by force because of self-interest's centrifugal thrust. 
Reliable connection between persons must be given the overlay of
coercive obligation.  But I will think more carefully about the
idea of forced consent.  On the one hand it is clear that like the
wage slave, the agent of commodity exchange is driven to market by
the dull compulsion of economic need.  Moreover, once there she is
held by coercive obligation.  But on the other hand I think it
would be wrong to treat this product of market exchange as sham
only.  As a historical matter consent is an achievement of the
bourgeoisie.  Its narrow limits must be surpassed, but it is not
all charade.  
 
Anyway I do want to think harder about "consideration as forced
consent."  It would be a Prodhounist to divide up the good and the
bad so that the commodity is one and capital the other. 
 
I thank you for *forcing* my attention.
 
Howard


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005