File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/97-02-15.234, message 16


Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:01:28 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: M-G: Re: Labour Theory of Value


Andrew A writes on M-I:

>Rob,
>
>We don't need a theory of value to substantiate the objective reality of
>exploitation. Exploitation can occur in any endless number of prior
>existing, presently existing, or future existing modes of social life. [etc]

This is:

a) Pretty empty. Exploitation as such is a huge abstraction, that can be
dealt with very briefly, just like production as such, which Marx deals
with in a couple of pages at the beginning of Grundrisse. (The ultimate
abstraction, by the way, neatly dealt with by Hegel in even fewer pages in
the Logic, is Kant's Thing-In-Itself.)

b) Anti-Marxist. Marx worked with the concrete manifestations of social
relations. That is, he worked with exploitation and its mechanics in the
capitalist mode of production, its origin, development and future
trajectory. For this, he *needed* a theory of value -- no theory of value,
no concrete analysis of real exploitation under the capitalist system. Why?
Because analysing the processes of production and distribution of
commodities hinged on understanding the formation of value, because it is
precisely the value of commodities that provides the mechanism for setting
prices and allowing  exchange to take place.

c) Typical of ahistorical academic intellectualizing, of which the most
flagrant example I can think of off-hand is Habermas. Even Foucault, with
his naturalistic nostalgie de la boue (homesickness for mud and filth) does
a better job of getting under the skin of, say, violence.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005