Tom wrote: > While I would concede the possibility of the technical succession > you envision in reply, I wouldn't go so far as to stake my > expectations on it. In part, this is because of the 500 years worth of > coal, natural gas, shale oil and other crap waiting in the wings to > take the place of conventional oil. My understanding is that a lot of > this stuff, although more expensive than conventional oil, is still > cheaper than wind/solar -- as long as the environmental costs are > excluded.
Would it be fair to say that your skepticism is about our collective ability to internalize the costs of environmental mayhem, politically or otherwise? > On (2) and (3) I haven't yet been able to fully articulate for myself all > that my understanding of unequal exchange entails much beyond the glib > label that it is a "mode of destruction" that is necessary for capital > because the collective labor process is too productive of use values, which > if left unchecked would undermine the production of exchange value. What I > have in mind follows from observations made by Dilke in "The Source and > Remedy of the National Difficulties" about the function of unproductive > labor (including war) in consuming the accumulated material surplus, from > Kalecki's observations about "the political aspects of full employment" > along with Kenneth Burke's satirical Veblen-inspired essay on waste as the > future of prosperity. Not to mention the fragment on machines from the > Grundrisse. > > When you frame my view as "modern capitalists are appropriating wealth > (and value) not produced under capitalist conditions," the part I would > dispute and amend is that it is about "wealth." In my view it is about the > dissipation of "illth" rather than the appropriation of wealth. That illth > then becomes the basis for an expenditure of labor time for recuperation > and repair, the cost of which is deducted from wages (or the social wage) > rather than charged to the enterprises that generated the waste in the > first place. > > I think the term "value" although technically correct is misleading here in > that it tempts us to think of it euphemistically as an addition to wealth. > Just think of it neutrally as expenditure of socially necessary labor time. > If a house burns down, the labor time socially necessary to replace it > doesn't create "new wealth" but it still counts as value. Let me think this aloud. Let's start with this: If a house burns down, value is destroyed. If the house is rebuilt, value is created. If (1) it is basically the same house, (2) society needs the new house just as much as it needed the old one, and (3) the social labor time required to build it anew is the same as it was before, then the value destroyed is the value restored. It would seem like a zero sum in wealth and value. Now, change gears and suppose that society discovers that both the burning down of an existing house and its reconstruction have as a necessary byproduct an irreversible effect on the natural environment (let's call it "entropy") harmful to us and increasingly so over time. Frame it a bit differently: a common good called "sustainable human-nature interaction" (SHNI), a sine qua non good for the survival of the species, becomes increasingly expensive to reproduce. (I'd like to think that a SHNI that could accomodate our species in this planet for several centuries down the road won't require us to reverse the second law of thermodynamics, but only to avoid speeding it up recklessly.) As a result, society now reckons that the destruction of a house obliterates more value than the narrowly-regarded value of the house itself and that the building of new houses further increases social labor time necessary to produce SHNI, so that the net value that results is negative, because SHNI has turned more expensive to reproduce. Wouldn't these measures of net wealth (gross wealth minus gross illth) and net value be more reliable measures of human freedom, productive power, or welfare? Now, how can society accomplish this shift in consciousness? By building of socialism, by working people waging their righteous class struggle. For things to be of value, they have to meet a human need, they have to be use values in the proportion required by society. However, in a society split by class and other internal conflicts, what is wealth for some is illth (poverty?) for others, so the very definition of wealth, and value is up for grabs. Revolutions are about contesting the notion that what is good for GM is good for everybody; they are about redefining the content of public wealth. What is good, what is wealth, and -- therefore -- what is valuable is the result of a struggle we have no alternative but to win. > So here's the general picture: the aggregate mass of surplus value depends > both on the present expenditure of labor time and on institutional barriers > to prevent most of that surplus being consumed in the future reduction of > working time. > > Unequal exchange arises in the distribution of that surplus > value as profit, which is regulated by private property ownership and > competition, not by where the surplus value was actually produced. > > The generation of waste and environmental damage is functional is this set up > in that it expands the social necessity for the expenditure of labor time > to repair the damage without thereby increasing the quantity of use-values > available for consumption. > > It would be fair to say that the above sounds "irrational" -- but that is > from the perspective of society. From the perspective of the accumulation > of capital, such irrationality is perfectly rational. I need to think about this more. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
