I agree: Marx was "deliberately" abstracting in a way that (he thought) reflected the actual process under capitalism. In my very short pr�cis, I was only summarizing one part of his approach and its actual application. I was in no way endorsing Cohen or Thernborn's interpretation of anything.
Though the actual process of capital clearly leads to the abstraction described, it does not yet mean that the "organic composition of capital" is the same in all sectors. Thus the realm of "capital in general" is not identical to that of "many capitals" and the underlying reality of capitalism explicated in volume I of CAPITAL does not leap out when one simply examines the "realm of appearances" described in volume III. ------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Mat�as Scaglione [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production > functions -clarification-] > > > Dear James: > > On Marx's use of "abstraction" in Capital I you wrote: > > > In order to understand > > capitalist production in volume I, he deliberately > > and clearly abstracts from the differences among > > heterogeneous use-values, types of labor-power, and > > means of production. He uses the "acid of > > abstraction" to clarify the nature of class > > relations and exploitation. > > I disagree. I interpret that Marx is not > "deliberately" abstracting the differences among > heterogenous use-values and concrete labours, but > describing an abstraction, a "reduction" that actually > occurs through exchange (Cf. Isaak Rubin), in a > "social process", in "the capitalist mode of > production". The values of the commodities are > "realized" through exchange, and so the substance of > value, the expenditure of simple human labor. > " ...by equating their different products to each > other in exchange as values, they equate their > different kinds of labour as human labour. They do > this without being aware of it." (Capital I (Penguin > Ed., p. 166) > "The production of commodities must be fully > developed before the scientific conviction emerges, > from experience itself, that all the different kinds > of private labor... are continually being reduced to > the quantitative proportions in which society requires > them. The reason for this reduction is that in the > midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange > relations between products, the labour-time socially > necessary to produce them asserts itself as a > regulative law of nature. In the same way, the law of > gravity asserts itself when a person's house collapse > on top of him."(C. p. 168) > Marx is not just starting here with his > clarification of "the nature of class relations and > exploitation", as your wrote, but also developing the > concept of form of value, which for him is crucial in > his book and embodies "the whole secret of the money > form and thereby, in nuce,of all burgeois forms of the > product of labour" (Marx to Engels, june 22 1867). Of > course this opens discussion on the role and validity > of Marx's theory of value, but that is an issue that > is of course beyond this email (but not beyond our > argument). > > > > It's presumed that the output of use-values > > increases with both labor-power hired (and the > > intensity of the labor process) and with the > > productiveness of labor. The latter rises with the > > technical composition of capital, an effort to > > measure the "capital intensity" of production. > > Regarding the production of material wealth, i.e. > use-values, and the so-called "productivity", I think > that we need a benchmark here, and such benchmark is > the amount of use-values that concrete useful labour > achieve in the same length of time. As Marx clearly > put it, the expression "productive power" > [produktivkraft] means "of course... the productive > power of concrete useful labor; in reality this > determines only the degree of effectiveness of > productive activity directed towards a given purpose > within a ginver period of time." (C. p. 137) Here MArx > is clearly following the Smithian concept of > "productive powers of labor" -Wealth of Nations, book > I- and Ricardo, although he also assigns "productive > powers" to the land. Marx defines explicitly what > determines the "productive power of labor": > "it is determined amongst other things by the > worker's average degree skill, the level of > development of science and its technological > application, the social organization of the process of > production, the extent and effectiveness of the means > of production, and the conditions found in the natural > environment". It should be stressed that throught > Capital I Marx uses the expression "productive powers" > in this sense, and not as Goran Thernborn and G.A. > Cohen, among other, wrongly interpret, assigning > "productive powers" to **things**, that at the sime > time, as Cohen incredibly argues, ARE productive > powers. Nonsense. > > My query about a critique of production functions goes > in this direction. That is why I am interested in a > critique of the very concept of production functions. > Julio Huato wrongly believes, if I understant his > email, that I am looking for a rejection of this > "concept". What I am trying to find is a serious > critique of the concepts behind the "forms" (this is a > sarcasm) of neoclassical economics. For instance, I > still cannot find what the letter k stands for, I > still cannot find the concept of capital, just to put > an example. I presume that the conceptual > underdevelopment of the process of capitalist > production in neoclassical economics certainly reveals > an irrational development of knowlege since the demise > of the critical version of political economy achieved > by Marx. > > > Mat�as > > > > > > > > > ------------ > �Ayud� a los chicos navegando! > En noviembre, Yahoo! dona un plato de comida por cada usuario > que nevegue gratis con Yahoo! Conexi�n. > Conectate ya en http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar >
