Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 22:08:01 -0500 From: quilty-AT-philos.umass.edu (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters) Subject: Re: Exploitation and all that... Justin Schwartz again: |My reading of exploitation, both in Marx and analytically, is that it is a |matter of forced surplus transfer (as I have said, and indeed argued |before). So there is a quantitative element: we have to be able to |distinguish between what's necessary for reproduction of the producers and |what is surplus. But what's surplus outside of commodity production? If I work three days for myself, then three for the landowner, there's a surplus there obviously. But if the landowner also gives me something in exchange (i.e. imported goods), it's only insofar as these inputs are commodities, and the outputs are sold as commodities, that I know which has a greater "value". |No. We can measure lots of quantities: how many calories are produced over |thoswe consumed in production, or how much corn, or indeed, how much time |is spent in reproduction versus total production. Hmmm... are you suggesting "caloric exploitation" then? :-) Some people produce more consumable calories in their productive activity than they consume in their maintenence (i.e. farmers), while others produce less (i.e. most others... although food-preparers are ambiguous here). |I am interested in the first question too. The answer to the second |question is obvious. In my terminology, a surplus (here labor) is forcibly |extracted from women, just as a surplus (value) is forcibly extracted from |workers in capitalist exploitation. Hmmm... I guess this gets a bit closer to Schwartz' *general* notion of exploitation. It seems to be that he wishes to leave money out of the quantitative comparisons, and do it all with labor-hours. I think it's the deletiae where Schwartz mentions Mendel's proposal on doing so. The problem, IMO, is that labor-hours aren't very good because the don't capture SNALT. SNALT is closer to money-measure in general. The problem seems to be illustrated with a gedanken experiment about substituting commodities. If I decide to buy a $20 hand-woven sweater from Guatamala perhaps I buy an item incorporating 30 hours of labor-time. If I buy a very similar item (i.e. same price and usefulness) machine-woven in the USA, perhaps it only incorporates 1 hour of labor. Does Schwartz' notion suggest that whether I am exploited at my job is determined by my choice between these two sweaters (along with a range of similar consumed items)? It seems that I might manage to stop being exploited in Schwartian terms (i.e. work fewer hours than the labor-time I consume) simply by choosing to buy all my consumables from low-wage sources. |> I guess the relevant "general definition" will have to show the |> (broad definitional) equivalence of productive and unproductive |> labor. |I guess not, if unproductive labor is by definition nonsurplus-producing. |But then my notion of a surplus is rather broader than that involved in |surplus value, so many workers or producers who don't produce surplus |value do produce surplus on my account, whether s-product or s-labor. Schwartz' suggested definition of "productive" is certainly heterodox. At the least, a traditional notion sees productive labor as producing commodities, while Schwartz defines this feature away. If productive is *defined* by Schwartzian exploitation then, sure, the two are tautologously the same. ---------* The sqabbling over tone follows below *----------------- |> Exploitation is not a description of working |> conditions or wages, as many -- Schwartz seemingly included (despite |> his so-and-so many years of studying and teaching Marx) |Lulu, are you trying to make me angry? Have I insulted you beyond calling |your post tedious, for which I apologized? This is neither comradely nor |scholarly. In fact it is rude. Sorry, I'm at a loss to figure out what might make you angry in my above remarks. Perhaps I haven't quoted enough of them. If you do not think "exploitation is a description of working conditions", so much the better. You said that in a bit I deleted in this latest. I think your earlier posts gave the appearance of such a belief (apparently to others than myself from what I can discern on this list). If it just makes you angry that anyone might misunderstand your intentions in posting, then I would think striving for clarity would be the main thing. Beyond that, though, I'm afraid you're doomed (along with everyone else) to be sometimes misunderstood. I mean, I kinda suspected that's not what you really think, but I thought it relevant that your previous posts *sounded* as if you meant that. | Lulu, do you talk like this to your colleagues? If you will be so kind as | to read what I have written here and elsewhere in previous posts on this | net, you will find that I have done so [stated general definition of | 'exploitation']. If I understand the general notion here, it's just a question of talking only about tallying all the total labor-hours which everyone does, plus all their consumption. At a practical level this seems rather daunting, but I guess it makes perfectly good theoretical sense. I have not seen such a general statement in any previous posts from Schwartz... although it's possible I overlooked a post or two which he made. The condescending tone throughout this post by Schwartz is hardly very condusive to conversation though. For what (little) it's worth, I've also been reading and teaching Marx for a good while, though a bit less than Schwartz mentions he has (I suppose *reading* about as long, teaching less long being a [currently unemployed] grad student). Do *you* talk that way to *your* colleagues, Dr. Schwartz? |Shall we try again to raise the level of civility on the net? I apologize |for lapses on my part. Ummm... I thought that has been what I was doing. I think you are perhaps confusing *disagreement* with lack of civility. For someone so consistently combative and dismissive (in the last few weeks on this list, at least... which is all I know), these seem like odd allegations... especially given that there was narry a shadow of a flame in anything I wrote. Oh well. Yours, Lulu... quilty-AT- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY:_/_/_/_/_/ v i philos. _/_/ Postmodern Enterprises _/_/ s r umass. _/_/ MAKERS OF CHAOS.... _/_/ i u edu _/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU_/_/_/_/_/_/ g s ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005