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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005