From: brumback-AT-ncgate.newcollege.edu
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:56:20 -0800
Subject: M-I: Nancy's reply to all


Dear Listers,

I said I would reply to all who responded to my Work in Progress. But after
reading the responses more carefully I find that I cannot respond
specifically to Joseph Green's because it reflects so little understanding
of my theory of value that I would have to write another long post to meet
each one of his points. Instead, for him and for anyone else who
misunderstood me, I will briefly (hah!) review my theory before getting into
my reply.

1.	Marx said that only abstract labor has value. I say that all labor and
all nature has value.

2.	Marx gave the name "surplus value" to the portion of the value of the
abstract labor which the capitalists keep for themselves. I say that surplus
value is really the value of labor and nature which the capitalists have
acquired by externalizing the real costs of production to the family and to
the Third World.

3.	Although I didn't include this third point in my essay, I need it for
this discussion. As Marx said, every form of production brings with it its
own social relations and its own ideology. Marx believed that when the
economic base of society changed, the social relations and ideology would
also change to reflect the new economic reality. I think that Marx was
correct on this as far as he goes. However, I do not think that changing the
economic base is the *only* way to change the ideas of society. I think that
all the aspects or layers of society -- ecological, technological, economic,
social, ideological etc. -- are connected and interconnected, and that they
impact one another. Changing the ideology of a society is part of changing
the economic base of that society. (The Scientific Revolution and the
Protestant Reformation of Western Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries is
an example of how ideology contributes to social change, but I won't go into
that here.)

4.	The oppression of women is an essential part of capitalism not only
because of the contributions women make to surplus value, but also because
the unequal division of power between men and women upholds the unequal
division of power between capitalists and the working class. In the family,
people learn at an early age to respect the authorities and do as they are
told. This willingness of the working class to submit to an external
authority is essential to the capitalists, because to make a profit, they
need to be able to do whatever is necessary. The oppression of gay people
helps to uphold the oppression of women because same sex relationships
challenge the validity of the sex roles.

5.	I didn't intend to suggest that workers who are paid the value of their
labor are not exploited. By #4 above, even though they are paid for their
labor, they do not have the power to make decisions about what they produce.
Thus they might find themselves producing weapons for wars against people of
other countries; or pesticides, etc., to pollute the air, ground, and water
of their own countries; or products requiring the generation of toxic wastes
that will give their children and grandchildren cancer. (For example!)

So now, the question of whether the agent of history is the working class
and/or women and/or people of color and/or the poor, etc. I think we have to
distinguish between class members and class interests. By 4 and 5 above, the
interests of the working class *are* the interests of women, the poor, gay
people, the aged, etc. As to which interests are the most important, I think
that depends on what is happening in our respective countries at a
particular time. For instance, right now in the US, I think the anti-war
protests are the most outstanding challenge to the authority of the ruling
class to do whatever they want. I think that anyone who participates in
these protests is acting in a "revolutionary" way, no matter who they are or
what they think about other issues.

I would like to respond specifically to James Heartfield's comment that "too
much wordplay on the term 'value' and too little differentiation between
Marx's theoretical reconstruction of the capitalist system, and his
programme for communism has been the bane of all discussion about value,
productive labor, etc."

James, to me one of the most precious aspects of Marxism has been the focus
on "praxis" -- the connection of theory and practice. The idea that we can
have a plan for our actions instead of just flailing about blindly. True,
some fundamentalists have carried praxis to conclusions that defy common
sense. The working class really does have broad base of interests, and a
theory of value that reflects this truth is worthwhile.

Yours in the struggle,

Nancy



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