So you disagree with Engels that freedom is the recognition of necessity. More specifically though, you have defined capitalism so generally that any society including Marx's "réunion d'hommes libres travaillant avec des moyens de production communs" is capitalism.
Labour and the distribution of labour are common to all societies above the most primitive hunter gatherer stage and will continue to exist in the future. Marx to Kugelmann: "Every child knows that any nation that stopped working, not for a year, but let us say, just for a few weeks, would perish. And every child knows, too, that the amounts of products corresponding to the differing amounts of needs demand differing and quantitatively determined amounts of society’s aggregate labour. It is self-evident that this necessity of the distribution of social labour in specific proportions is certainly not abolished by the specific form of social production; it can only change its form of manifestation. Natural laws cannot be abolished at all. The only thing that can change, under historically differing conditions, is the form in which those laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labour asserts itself in a state of society in which the interconnection of social labour expresses itself as the private exchange of the individual products of labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products." The need for the proportional distribution of labour is 'a natural law that can not be abolished', in hoping to abolish it you are hankering for the abode of the blessed rather than anything mundane. ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:18 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Ingo Elbe Between Marx, Marxism, and Marxisms, Part I.3 If it doesn't eliminate labor it is diguised capitalism Freedom equals free time. Carroi On 7/17/2011 134 PM, Paul Cockshott wrote: > Technically no, since a stock of people is a flow of value per unit time. > person hours / year has dimension persons. > If a socialist economy calculates the disposition of people it is by the > definition of labour value calculating flows of value, the two are the same > thing. > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On > Behalf Of michael perelman [[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 7:23 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Ingo Elbe Between Marx, Marxism, and Marxisms, Part I.3 > > Paul C., I don't understand what you are saying. Surely, a communist > society would have to organize work in one way or another, but would > it really reduce people to abstract labor values? > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA > 95929 > > 530 898 5321 > fax 530 898 5901 > http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
