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