Re: quick question
Can anyone remove how to remove PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply to Loren Goldner2; On fictitious Caspital
in forms that call forth a reaction(Chapter31 of Capital3) Thus,Marx points out that movement of fictitious capital may be both dependent and independent of real capital movement. So Loren's argument that The circulation of fictitious values and their integration into the movement of the valorization of the total capital M-C-M' is made possible by the credit system and the central bank is fatal error, and here he again confuses money--capital with moneyed-capital. Secondly, Loren confuses credit system with fictitious capital. Credit system conditions fictitious capital, but the two are not the same. Marx says;analyis of the credit system and the instrument this creates(credit money, etc), thus he dintinguishes the credit system from the instrument this creates. But for confusing the two, he could not analyze concrete mode of fictitious capital movement independent of real capital circulation. MIYACHI
Reply to Loren Goldner; Introduction; on basic concepts
Reply to Loren Goldner's "The Remaking of the American Working Class" (BIntroduction (BOn basic concepts (B (B $B!H (JMarx "discovers", in an immanent fashion, through "value as a (Bcondensation of the necessary time of production", the reproduction of human (Bcreative powers $B!I (J (B (BThis is false. $B!H (J the value of a commodity represents human labour in the (Babstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. $B!I (J(Capital) (Band $B!H (JHuman labour-power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is (Bnot itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when (Bembodied in the form of some object $B!G (J(Capital) (B (B Loren confuses source of value with value. Human labor is source of value (B,but not itself value. This is the reason why analysis of value is begun by (Banalysis of commodity, not labor process. (B (BLoren says (B $B!H (JThe proletariat, which is the commodity form of labor power, which is the (B"underside" of the capital relationship $B!I (J (B (B This is false. proletariat has labor power, but he is not the commodity. (B$B!H (Jlabour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so (Bfar as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it (Bfor sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do (Bthis, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his (Bcapacity for labour, i.e., of his person. [2] He and the owner of money meet (Bin the market, and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights, (Bwith this difference alone, that one is buyer, the other seller; both, (Btherefore, equal in the eyes of the law. The continuance of this relation (Bdemands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a (Bdefinite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he (Bwould be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, (Bfrom an owner of a commodity into a commodity. $B!I (J(Capital) (B (BLoren says (B $B!H (JA value for Marx is something that contributes to the process of (Bvalorization. We have already said that value is a relationship , an (Binverted relationship of labor power to itself. Thus something has value (Bwhich contributes directly or indirectly to the expansion of labor power $B!I (J (B (B This confusion of value with source of value is already pointed out, thus (BLoren himself becomes one of Ricardians. (B (BLoren says (B $B!H (JValorization is also, as we shall see momentarily, inseparably (Bvalorization of money-capital $B!I (J (B (B What? Where is valorizaiton? For valorization of money-capital, (BIt is needed to assume valorization in industry and commercial capital. And (Bto argue money-capital, it is needed to assume to complete to analyze money, (Bcommodity, and social capitals. because $B!H (JMoney -- here taken as the (Bindependent expression of a certain amount of value existing either actually (Bas money or as commodities -- may be converted into capital on the basis of (Bcapitalist production, and may thereby be transformed from a given value to (Ba self-expanding, or increasing, value. It produces profit, i.e. , it (Benables the capitalist to extract a certain quantity of unpaid labour, (Bsurplus-product and surplus-value from the labourers, and to appropriate it. (BIn this way, aside from its use-value as money, it acquires an additional (Buse-value, namely that of serving as capital. $B!I (J (Capital) (B (BIt is important to point out that Loren ignores analysis of commodity, but (Bto understand money-capital, we assume to complete analysis of commodity, (Bbecause money-capital assumes $B!H (Jan additional use-value $B!I (J i.e. one side of (Bcommodity. (B (BCont'd (B (BMIYACHI TATSUO
On current credit system
About current credit system and fictitious capital, I Think below; (B (BAnalysis of contemporary capitalism (B (B In the historical disputes among various Marxist parties, there have been (Bmany problems at issue for the development of capitalism,for example, the (Blaw of capitalist development, the agricultural problems, the theory of (Bimperialism etc. (B Today the development of the credit system has made a great change in the (Bindustrial structure of the imperialistic countries and as a matter of (Bcourse the credit system should be clarified as a theoretical problem. In (B $B!! (Jspite of this, the problem has not been adequately dealed with by any (Brevolutionary left party, to say nothing of established left parties. (B On the definite purpose for increasing the cpital acccumulation and (Bcreating its technical basis, the bourgeois class have engaged in a shrap (Bcontroversy on transformation of the industrial structure and development of (Bcredit system $B!! (Jamong themselves. This transformation of the capitalist mode (Bof accumulation has changed the ordinary consciousness of the mass which (Breflected in the ideological world. But the left parties have been far (Boblivious to this. (B (B (B1.What made capital commoditified (B (B It is now popular among modern theorist to regard money as a symbol. As (Bshown in the assertion of the disintegration of the proletarian class in the (Bclassical sense and the denying of the labor theory of value with (Bcommoditification of money, the ideological dissolution of Marxism has been (Bin progress systematically. (B The symbol theory of money is an old theory and many studies have been made (Bin the field of primitive money theory. The question is why this theory has (Bbeen removed from its original field of the primitive money theory and (Bapplied to the present economic situation. (B With the development of the credit system, capital has been so extensively (Bcommoditified that it can represent itself as a commodity in general. (B The price of commoditified capital is determined indifferent from its (Boriginal value. Its price mechanism isn't the same as that of commodity in (Bgeneral. Capital is self-increasing value and embodied abstract human (Blabor., but the price of commoditified capital can't be determined through (Bits content. Through amplifying this mechanism to the law of price (Bmechanism, the fact that the value of commodities is determined with the (Bamount of abstract human labor and money is generated from commodities as (Bsuch will be denied. (B In fact, the price of commoditified capital is determined with dividing the (Bgross profit into interest and entrepreneur's profit, but in superficies (Binterest is shown as a product of the credit system which represents itself (Bas an illusionary communal behaviors. Consequently it is proper to explain (Bthe price of mechanism of commoditified capital by the use value of money as (Ba symbol , that is, a mediator of illusionary communal behavior. (B Thus the money in the symbol theory, different from the primitive theory of (Bmoney ,is just an embodiment of capital, and after all it is a capital (Brelation that is symbolized here. However, how the capital relation is (Bembodied in the money can't be seen in superficies. So those who advocate (Bthe symbol theory can't understand this context and just suppose the content (Bof this symbol as a communal subjectivity or communal illusion. (B (B2.On the the study of credit theory (B (BThe symbol theorists pull ahead to understand the movement of the (Bcommoditified capital through the appearances irrespective of the real (Bcapital relation, to grasp it within the framework of the ordinary (Bcommodity, and then to formulate it based on the law of movement as (Bcommodity in general. (B Against such prevailing thinking many kind of Marxists, although they only (Backnowledge $B!! (Jthemselves to be so, have expressed their critical opinions. (BBut , in general, their contents are that the above thinking is just (Bmodification of Marx's theory of commodity and money, and that it conceals (Bthe exploitation of capital in the direct production process to distort the (Blaw of the real capital movement. Thus they can't criticize it on the (Bclarification for commoditification of capital ,which has in original, (Bproduced such thinking.. All with this the thinking can't be fundamentally (Bctiricized, and those opinions seems to be out of date, or, as a case may (Bbe, tend to subordinate to the Stalinist propositions. (B It is already clear that such theoretical delay in the defensive parties of (BMarxism can just overcome through the radical solution of commoditified (Bcapital and its movement law. (B Thus it is urgent need to study the credit theory, but the significance of (Bthe study is not confined to this. (B The most important is that with the development of the credit system
Thank you
Title: Thank you Thank you to see my article Out document is from summarize 6os struggle We may be incorrect, especially on commmofyfiig Sachen I now study PROBLEM of credit by YAMAMOT0 BEST REGARDS MIYACHI TATSUO
Re: RE: RE: Productive Forces
Title: Re: [PEN-L:23309] RE: RE: Productive Forces on 2002.03.01 01:02 AM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: How do we measure the productive forces, anyway? Miyachi writes: We measure productive force by quantity and value of commodities produced. It all. you forget always object people act on. labor productivity itself can't be measured without commodity workers product. An price of commodity is money-form of commodity value, it often hide real value of commodity. I don't quite get this. Are you saying that productive forces can only be measured in commodity-producing society? If so, I'd agree. This suggests that folks such as G.A. Cohen who see history as a long process of the increase in the forces of production (pushed by an assumed human drive to increase such forces) is limited to only those modes of production that produce commodities - mostly, capitalism. Of course, that goes against Cohen's pretensions, which is to present a theory of history (which he presents as belonging to Marx) which applies to all modes of production. It also means that productive forces aren't always a good thing (a sign of progress), since producing more commodities (exchange-value) isn't the same thing as producing more use-value. Eric N. writes: I would go further. It could be argued that no objective measure of the level of productive forces can exist. Presumably a productive force is considered productive because it leads to some good or service that people want and/or need. But, as Smith and Marx recognized, wants and needs are (partly) socially/historically determined I agree. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't say commodity-producing is only result human-being productive forces. Human-being always must produce for their living and produce means of production of living, and , in addition, they must produce surplus product for their social security. In its sense, Hegel said that labor is essence of human-being. Important is specific form of surplus value and its exploiltation. Below is from Capital. You may be able to understand means of surplus labor I expect We [49] have seen that the capitalist process of production is a historically determined form of the social process of production in general. The latter is as much a production process of material conditions of human life as a process taking place under specific historical and economic production relations, producing and reproducing these production relations themselves, and thereby also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of existence and their mutual relations, i.e., their particular socio-economic form. For the aggregate of these relations, in which the agents of this production stand with respect to Nature and to one another, and in which they produce, is precisely society, considered from the standpoint of its economic structure. Like all its predecessors, the capitalist process of production proceeds under definite material conditions, which are, however, simultaneously the bearers of definite social relations entered into by individuals in the process of reproducing their life. Those conditions, like these relations, are on the one hand prerequisites, on the other hand results and creations of the capitalist process of production; they are produced and reproduced by it. We saw also that capital -- and the capitalist is merely capital personified and functions in the process of production solely as the agent of capital -- in its corresponding social process of production, pumps a definite quantity of surplus-labour out of the direct producers, or labourers; capital obtains this surplus-labour without an equivalent, and in essence it always remains forced labour -- no matter how much it may seem to result from free contractual agreement. This surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product. Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed over and above the given requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist as well as in the slave system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form and is supplemented by complete idleness of a stratum of society. A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand
Re: Re: Productive Forces, was Re: reply-part 2
on 2002.02.27 06:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated Tue, 26 Feb 2002 1:21:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We demand change in society along the direction of the productive forces, No. Not true. _Many_ Marxists but by no means all put central emphasis on the productive forces. Others argue that this proposition about the necessary growth of productive forces applies not to all history (and certainly not to socialism or communism) but only to capitalism. It is this drive to unleash the productive forces that turns capitalism into a destructive force. See esp. the works of Ellen Meiksins Wood, Edward Thompson, Raymond Williams, and Robert Brenner. Carrol Acknowledged. I - me personally,(it is incorrect to state we as if I represented the marxist) desire change in society that conforms to and along the trajectory of the technical development that reflect the new qualitative change in the productive forces that makes an abundance of commodities availabe to all. I acknowledge my arrogance and mistake in assuming a posture that articulates anyones voice other than my own and those who I agree with. I will be more careful not to make this mistake in the future. Everyone wants something different. What makes captialism capitalism - in my opinion, (that is to say to me as an indivdual) is not the productive forces as an abstraction or merely a technical state of development - as the fundamental distinction of social production on the basis of the industrial infrastructure and all the properties this entail, but the the character of appropriation. I am aware that many do not agree with this focus on property relations. You are correct. In the final instance I speak for myself only. Melvin P. Hi Melvin MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] productive force belongs to human being. Its force confirm his activity. See Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844of Marx Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers. To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being full of natural vigour is to say that he has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being or of his life, or that he can only express his life in real, sensuous objects The outstanding achievement of Hegel¹s Phänomenologie and of its final outcome, the dialectic of negativity as the moving and generating principle, is thus first that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process, conceives objectification as loss of the object, as alienation and as transcendence of this alienation; that he thus grasps the essence of labour and comprehends objective man true, because real man as the outcome of man¹s own labour. The real, active orientation of man to himself as a species-being, or his manifestation as a real species-being (i.e., as a human being), is only possible if he really brings out all his species-powers something which in turn is only possible through the cooperative action of all of mankind, only as the result of history and treats these, powers as objects: and this, to begin with, is again only possible in the form of estrangement. Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers. To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being full of natural vigour is to say that he has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being or of his life, or that he can only express his life in real, sensuous objects and see Capital A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process
Re: RE: Productive Forces, was Re: reply-part 2
on 2002.02.28 07:26 AM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We demand change in society along the direction of the productive forces, No. Not true. _Many_ Marxists but by no means all put central emphasis on the productive forces. Others argue that this proposition about the necessary growth of productive forces applies not to all history (and certainly not to socialism or communism) but only to capitalism. It is this drive to unleash the productive forces that turns capitalism into a destructive force. See esp. the works of Ellen Meiksins Wood, Edward Thompson, Raymond Williams, and Robert Brenner. Carrol How do we measure the productive forces, anyway? It seems that capitalism would measure their development differently from other modes of production. (Capitalism might measure them in terms of labor productivity, which is marketable output per worker, corrected for inflation. There are all sorts of index-number problems with that measure, BTW.) Jim Devine Hi Jim We measure productive force by quantity and value of commodities produced. It all. you forget always object people act on. labor productivity itself can't be measured without commodity workers product. An price of commodity is money-form of commodity value, it often hide real value of commodity.
japanese new left movement
Dear Sabri, MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I explain shortly Japanese new left movement. In pre-war and post-war to 1962, Japan communist party ruled left movement. But its strategy was under Komintern order. In 1950', Komintern ordered armed struggle from rural area modeled after China's revolution. But in Japan, buffered area such as Colombia, Nikaragua, or Ziapas in Mexico, did not exist. So military section of party became scattered and surrendered. In 7th central committee, party was split into two groups , one insisted in peace revolution participating in congress and non-violent peace movement. and another remained to insist armed struggle, and escaped to china. So Remaining sect in Japan ruled party. But although, wild range anti-war(Korea war), anti-US movements emerged with mass violence, party leaders suppress, neglect, and oppose these movements, because leader insisted peace movement. So within party, especially university cells, dissident grew, finally tort from central committee and build new party called as communist league(BUND). This party led and intervened various social movements. In 1960, when security league between US-Japan is to plan modify to military league, BUND reject this league ,led mass movement and many members plunged into congress, and intercepted US president's coming. After violent oppression including Japanese communist party, BUND spilt into several sects, but in 1967, under Vietnam war, when several sects associated and tried to stop PM's action to participate in Vietnam war, armed struggle began again on the urban street, followed by occupying universities in whole country. This process continued 3 years long, and oppressed by total congress- oriented parties including socialist party, communist party, using police and self-defence military force. many members went into underground and continued armed struggle. But gradually there appeared difference of political and social strategies within underground group and scattered. On the other side, University occupying mass students went to ecology, worker's or consumer cooperative, rural communities rebuilding etc. So currently very wide range social movements continues including ex-underground member. And we now try to integrate and build vision of complete new communism. It does not depend on orthodox marxism, in thought, organization, and strategy. BUND adopted Lenin's strategy, but also this idea abandoned. in organization, we prefer network-type, such as Al-Qaeuda, but lenin's party was in reality network-type, although through Stalin, idea of Lenin's original thought lost and most of us believed in Lenin's type of party incorrectly. For example, in Lenin's party, regional committee did not exist, and end cell member could directly debate in central committee. In thought , we prefer association society as a stage to communism. So we respect ongoing social movements as element of social revolution with social soul. In contrary to orthodox marxists, we think we already exist within revolutionary society, and to takeover political power will come in the end. Below is Marx's idea on social revolution. Please beware Marx distinguished social revolution with social soul from social revolution with political soul. The more powerful a state and hence the more political a nation, the less inclined it is to explain the general principle governing social ills and to seek out their causes by looking at the principle of the state -- i.e., at the actual organization of society of which the state is the active, self-conscious and official expression. Political understanding is just political understanding because its thought does not transcend the limits of politics. The sharper and livelier it is, the more incapable is it of comprehending social problems. The classical period of political understanding is the French Revolution. Far from identifying the principle of the state as the source of social ills, the heroes of the French Revolution held social ills to be the source of political problems. Thus Robespierre regarded great wealth and great poverty as an obstacle to pure democracy. He therefore wished to establish a universal system of Spartan frugality. The principle of politics is the will. The more one-sided -- i.e., the more prefect -- political understanding is, the more completely it puts its faith in the omnipotence of the will the blinder it is towards the natural and spiritual limitations of the will, the more incapable it becomes of discovering the real source of the evils of society. No further arguments are needed to prove that when the Prussian claims that the political understanding is destined to uncover the roots of social want in Germany he is indulging in vain illusions. It was foolish to expect the King of Prussia to exhibit a power not possessed by the Convention and Napoleon combined
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
on 2002.02.23 05:20 PM, Rakesh Bhandari at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In response to Doug's (tongue-in-cheek?) comment Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Charles writes Charles: Isn't it worse than that ? Marx asserts as principle the insolubility of the transformation problem. The unsystematic relationship between value and prices is symptomatic of the basic anarchy of capitalist production. If the problem were solved , Marx would be refuted. Depends on what you think the transformation problem refers to. As I read Marx, the problem, as he posed it in Chapter 9 of Volume III, lies in showing that aggregate prices equal aggregate values and aggregate surplus value equals aggregate profits even if commodities exchange at prices of production which are disproportional to their values (which is the general case). Issues have been raised with the logic of Marx's original demonstration, and interpretations of his value theory have been offered that get around these issues at the cost of raising others. But the real question, it seems to me, is whether anything at all that is critical to Marxist political economy hinges on this demonstration. And I agree with Doug's negative response to this question. Gil Does the Sraffa model which presumably makes Marx's demonstration redundant explain the source of profit any better the Quesnay model to which as Heilbroner notes it bears a family resemblance explains the origin of the produit net? rb MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is not necessity of socialism Rather, there is only possibility of socialism. Marx firstly expected revolution when economic panic happened, but later In Capital, Marx depended upon growing social movements themselves. BELOW is From Capital Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. For, depending on the development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the necessary labour-time=3 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=6 and the rate of surplus-labour=100%. If the necessary labour=9 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=12 and the rate of surplus-labour only=33 1/3 %. In that case, it depends upon the labour productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence also in a definite surplus labour-time. The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands
Re: Re: Marx's Capital manuscript
Title: Re: [PEN-L:23105] Re: Marx's Capital manuscript ON 2002.02.23 03:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] AT [EMAIL PROTECTED] WROTE: IN A MESSAGE DATED 2/21/2002 3:10:30 PM CENTRAL STANDARD TIME, [EMAIL PROTECTED] WRITES: I PRESENT SUMMARY OF ARTICLE $B!H(JENGELS$B!G(J EDITION OF THE THIRD VOLUME OF CAPITAL AND MARX'S ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT$B!I(JBY MICHAEL HEINRICH IN $B!H(JSCIENCESOCIETY$B!I(J VOL. 60 NO.4(1996-1997;THEGUILFORD PRESS) IN FEAR OF WARPING, I ATTACH MY ORIGINAL PAPER. HE POINT OUT THAT IN 1993, MARX'S MANUSCRIPT OF 1864-65, USED BY ENGELS AS THE BASIS FOR VOLUME? OF CAPITAL, BECAME AVAILABLE AS PART OF NEW MEGA. AND HE ANALYZES THIS MANUSCRIPT COMPARED WITH FORTH EDITION. ALTHOUGH ENGELS WROTE$B!I(J I TRIED MY BEST TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE FIRST DRAFT WHENEVER IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR,$B!I(J THERE ARE LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSPOSITIONS, ADDITIONS, CONTRACTIONS, AND ALTERATION. 1. IN OVERVIEW OF ENGELS$B!G(J TEXTUAL MODIFICATION, HE SUMMARIZE THE $B!H(JMODIFICATION$B!I(J INTO 6 POINTS. A. DESIGN OF TITLES AND HEADINGS ENGELS TURNED THE TITLE FROM $B!H(J GESTALTUNGEN DES GESASAMPTPROYESSES (FORMATIONS OF THE PROCESS AS A WHOLE) INTO $B!H(JDER GESAMPTPROZESS DER KAPITALISTISCHEN PRODUKTION (THE PROCESS OF CAPITALIST PRODUCTION AS A WHOLE). I THINK PROBABLY THAT MARX WANTED TO DESCRIBE FROM ESSENCE OF CAPITAL TO APPEARANCE FORM OF CAPITAL, BUT IN ENGELS EDITION, THIS POINT BECAME OBSCURE. ENGELS ALSO MADE A DETAILED SEGMENTATION OF THE TEXT. THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT WAS DIVIDED INTO ONLY SEVEN CHAPTERS WITH FEW OR NO SUBDIVISIONS. ENGELS TURNED THE SEVEN CHAPTERS INTO SEVEN PARTS WITH 52 CHAPTERS AND A NUMBER OF SUBPARAGRAPHS. MARX'S TEXT CONSISTS OF 34 HEADINGS (AND FIVE CONSTRUCTION POINTS WHICH ARE ONLY NUMBERED), WHILE ENGELS$B!G(J EDITION CONTAIN 92 HEADINGS. BY PUTTING THIS MATERIAL TOGETHER INTO CHAPTERS AND INSERTING HEADINGS, THIS DRAFT CHARACTER IS CONCEALED. THE READER CAN NO LONGER TELL AT WHAT POINT IN THE MANUSCRIPT$B!I(J $B!H(JPRESENTATION$B!I(J TURNS INTO$B!H(J INQUIRY$B!I(J THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESENTATION AND INQUIRY IS OF CENTRAL IMPORTANCE FOR MARX'S OWN METHODOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING. TO MARX $B!H(JPRESENTATION$B!I(J DOES NOT JUST MEAN THE MOIRE$B!-(J OR LESS SKILLFUL ASSEMBLY OF FINAL RESULTS. THE FACTUAL CORRELATION OF THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED SHOULD BE EXPRESSED BY THE CORRECT PRESENTATION OF THE CATEGORIES, BY$B!I(J ADVANCING FROM THE ABSTRACT TO THE CONCRETE.$B!I(J TO MARX, THE SEARCH FOR AN ADEQUATE PRESENTATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF HIS PROCESS OF INQUIRY. BUT THIS DIFFERENCE IS CONCEALED BY ENGELS. ADDITIONALLY, ENGELS TRIED TO STRENGTHEN THE COHERENCE OF THE TEXT, SO READERS DO NOT LEARN THAT A LARGE PART OF MARX$B!G(J MANUSCRIPT IS OPEN AND UNDECIDED. I FIND YOUR COMMENT ON THE TRANSLATION OF CAPITAL BY ENGELS EXCELLENT AND REMARKABLY GOOD. I HAD DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE INITIAL PRESENTATION OF THE QUESTION AND THE EMPHASIS ON SHAPE OF CAPITALIST PRODUCTION. YOU HAVE CLEARED UP THIS DISTINCTION FOR ME. READING MARX CAPITAL AS THE SHAPE OF A SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION AT A CERTAIN STAGE AND WITHIN CERTAIN QUANTITATIVE BOUNDARIES IS DIFFERENT FROM ACCEPTING SHAPE AS THE FINAL TOTALITY OF PROCESS. I HAVE READ YOUR COMMENT THREE TIMES AND IN ALL HONESTY WILL HAVE TO REREAD THEM 10-15 TIMES AND THEN REREAD MAJOR PORTIONS OF CAPITAL FOR MY OWN CLARITY. BEFORE NOW I HAVE NEVER REALLY GRASPED THE LOGIC OF DISTINCTION CONCERNING THE CRISIS OF OVERPRODUCTION, - RAISED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY, ALTHOUGH I HAVE A CONCEPTION THAT THE CRISIS ELEMENT DOES NOT ORIGINATE IN THE LAW OF THE TENDENCY OF THE RATE OF PROFIT TO FALL, BUT RATHER THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES THAT CONSTITUTE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS PRODUCTION PROCESS. MY CONCEPT HAS BEEN THAT OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS DRIVEN TO REVOLUTIONIZE PRODUCTION, IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER MANUFACTURING THE SAME OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INTERNAL BARRIER OF THE MARKET AS EXPRESSED IN THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE MASS AT A GIVEN TIME. I HAVE NO EGO INVESTED IN THIS PROPOSITION, RATHER IT IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT MAY BE MORE OR LESS ABSURD THAN WHAT MARX MEANT. I HAVE NEVER ADVANCED TO A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OR UNDERSTANDING OF CREDIT AND NOW HAVE INCENTIVE TO PURSUE THIS MATTER AS A DISCIPLINE. I SIMPLY MUST REREAD WHAT YOU HAVE WROTE MANY TIMES OVER AND AM GRATEFUL. THIS SHALL KEEP ME BUSY AND EXCITED FOR A WHILE. NOW I CAN'T GO TO SLEEP. GREAT ARTICLE. MELVIN P. MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI PRE JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] THANK YOU READING MY ARTICLE. But still there remains to decode and analyze manuscript of credit which Marx remained. Differing from Heinlich(he describe credit theory itself was beyond Marx's plan), we think it is possible credit theory which can go today from Marx's manuscript, and its work will be nearly accomplished. we
Marx's Capotal manuscrip
MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I present summary of article $B!H(JEngels$B!G(J Edition of the Third Volume of Capital and Marx$B!G(Js original Manuscript$B!I(Jby Micchael Heinrich in $B!H(JScienceSociety$B!I(J vol60 no.4(1996-1997;TheGuilford Press) In fear of warping, I attach my original paper. He point out that in 1993, Marx$B!G(Js manuscript of 1864-65,used by Engels as the basis for Volume?of capital ,became available as Part of New MEGA. And he analyse this manuscript compared with forth edition. Although Engels wrote$B!I(J I tried my best to preserve the character of the first draft whenever it was sufficiantly clear$B!I(J, there are large number of transpositions,additions, contractions, and alteration. 1. In overview of Engels$B!G(J Textual Modification, He summarize the $B!H(Jmodification$B!I(J into 6 points. a. Design of titles and headings Engels turned the title From $B!H(J Gestaltungen des Gesasamptproyesses(Formations of the Process as a Whole) into $B!H(JDer Gesamptprozess der Kapitalistischen Produktion(The Processs of Captalist Production as a whole). I think probably that Marx wanted to describe from essence of capital to appearance form of capital, but In Engels edition, this point became obscure. Engels also made a detailed segmentation of the text. The original manuscript was divided into only seven chapters with few or no subdivisions. Engels turned the seven chapters into seven parts with 52 chapters and a number of subparagraphs. Marx$B!G(Js text consists of 34 headings(and five construction points which are only numbered),while Engels$B!G(J edition contain 92 headings. By putting this material togetherinto chapters and inserting headings, this draft character is concealed. The reader can no longer tell at what point in the manuscript$B!I(J $B!H(Jpresentation$B!I(J turns into $B!H(J inquiry$B!I(J The difference between presentation and inquiry is of central importance for Marx$B!G(Js own methodological understanding. To Marx $B!H(Jpresentation$B!I(J does not just mean the moire$B!-(J or less skillful assembly of final results. The factural correlation of the conditions presented should be expressed by the correct presentation of the categories, by$B!I(J advancing from the abstract to the concrete$B!I(J. To Marx, the search for an adequate presentation isn an essential part of his process of inquiry. But this difference is concealed by Engels. Additionally, Engels tried to strengten the coherence of the text, so readers do not learn that a large part of Marx$B!G(J manuscript is open and undicided. b. Textual transpositions- Engels transposed large number of pieces . The transposed pieces consists of part of a sentenc,and the rearrangement of whole text complex ass in th fifth chapter(Part?in Engels edition) At this stage, a serious error of Engels has to be mentioned. Marx wanted to begin his seventh chaptert,$B!I(J Revenues(Income)and their Sources$B!I(J with$B!I(J1) The Trinity Formula$B!I(J, Engels nelieved he had gound three independent fragments concerning this point, two smaller ones which he labaled ?and,?$B!"(J and a longer one labeled ?$B!#(JThis last fragment also had a gap, which Engels pointed out to the readers. But in fact, these are not three independent fragments. The fragments labeled?and?by Engels form a continuous text which exactly fills the gap in fragment ? c. Text omission- Engels made a number of deletions of single words. Part. And sentence. For example, the reflections on the transition from chapter ?to ?(MEGA ?4,2 282-83) d. Text conversions- Engels changed the relevalence of many text passages. Footnotes were integrated into main text, many brackets in the main texts were omitted. Most of Marx$B!-!-(Js emphases were deleted. Such differentiations disappear in Engels$B!-(J presentation. For example, the famous passage on the poverty of the mass as the $B!H(Jultimate reason for all real crisis( Capital? 484),which ia often quoted as a proof of the existence of an underconsumption theory in Marx$B!-(Js work,happened to be inside such a bracket and was integrated into the main text by Engels.. And replacement exists For example $B!H(Jmode of production by $B!H(J production$B!I(J e. Insertions and textual extensions- They concerns single words or parts, sentences,. Even relativitation of and reservations to Marx$B!-!-(Js texts can be found. The alteration of marx$B!-!-(Js methodological remarks is especially critical to the understanding of the text. f. Modification of minor importance- These consist of textual condensations, terminological alterations, stylistic change, alteration, replacement of mathematical example. Heinlich continues as $B!H(J interpretatory handicaps caused by Engels$B!-(J $B!-(JEdition$B!I(J a. crisis theory-Mar
i forgot
Sir Michael Perelman I forgot to clarify Adam smith, Ricardo's deficit . They all can't understand value-form. Although they reached to source of value, but they failed to prove How value appeared as value-form, in which highest form is money-form. So, they can't prove how and why money related commodity, and why commodity fetishism occurs. In addition, since they can't understand value-form, they failed to grasp the relation between value and price, and cost-price. They all confused value and price, so they frequently price or cost-price as fundamental leading to capitalist production as price production. MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a left program at the global level?
on 2/9/02 03:33 PM, Peter Dorman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At first, I was irritated by Uchitelle's assertion that concrete proposals for change are not coming from the streets but from more moderate types like Dani Rodrik. But then I thought about it, and it seemed to be more or less correct. The excellent critiques of the existing system usually end with a brief wish list of desired outcomes but not actual proposals, or where there are proposals they are disappointingly nonradical. (Perhaps the only exception is the demand for widespread debt relief, but isn't this also defined in terms of the outcome and not the concrete mechanism?) I'd like to be wrong. I would love to say that our side has carefully thought-out demands to fight for, and that the problem is just that they are being ignored or blacked out. Please convince me that this is so. (And, no, the Tobin tax does not qualify as a radical proposal.) Peter Ian Murray wrote: [NYTimes] February 9, 2002 Challenging the Dogmas of Free Trade By LOUIS UCHITELLE snip The anti-globalization protests, including the protests near the Waldorf last weekend, have rallied tens of thousands of people against globalization and above all against its laissez-faire guiding principle. But the alternative visions that are beginning to be offered are not coming from the streets. They are coming instead from Mr. Rodrik, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and a handful of other economists, sociologists and political scientists. You need not concern. Ongoing various social movements such as anti-globalizaiton ,ecology, feminists, ethnic rebuilding, local community rebuilding using LETS as exchange means and small banking which is for example, in progress in Afghan revival plan due to World bank, UN,UNICEF, or religious form of class struggle, especially by Muslim emerges increasingly day by day. We may better change image of revolution, which we experienced past. Lenin or Mao type political revolution may be old. Because although they succeeded in abolishing capital but failed to abolish money. To abolish money may be key point of expected revolution, and its process already exists, for example LETS instead money. We learned in school that working-class revolution is differ from bourgeois revolution in which within feudal system bourgeois matured and leaded to revolution. Differ from bourgeois revolution, we are taught that working-class revolution begins with taking over political power. But in reality, we are experiencing new type society are emerging increasingly within capitalist system. We may base these new social movements as revolutionary elements and may take over political power as final action. MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Capital and English translation
on 2/9/02 01:48 PM, Karl Carlile at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a great need for the Marxist Internet Archive to download the Ben Fowkes English translation of Marx's Capital. Its present downloaded translation, the Moore/Aveling translation leaves a lot to be desired. Much of the translation is mistranslation. It is interesting that Engels should have given his imprimatur to this English translation which for many years was the standard translation of Moscow. Indeed this particular translation was published by them. Until the seventies it was probably the only translation available --there may have been an Everyman translation of Volume One that was of poor quality too. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] In English translation, there is not first and second version of Capital. in First version(1867), form-of -value chapter is very different from fourth edition which Engels modify. Especially,in first edition, equivalent form of value was not ascending to money-value and Marx aimed to Das Entsheidend Wi xhtige aber war den inneren notwendingen Zusammenhang zwischen Wertfrom,Wersubstanz,und Wertgrose zu entdecken,d.h. ideel ausgedruckt,zu beweisen,das dis Wertfrom aus dem Wert begiriff entspringt, but in fouth edition Marx modify to aim that a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money-form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value-relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form. By doing this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented by money. Secondaly, Engels modified very largely Capital3. in Current edition, title is process of capitalist production as a whole but in Marx's draft title was form of capitalist production . For Marx, Form was always used for describing appearing form of hidden essence so Engels can't understand Marx's intention, IN addition, in current edition, distinction between GeldKapital and moneyed capital not exist, although the two is different from perspective of explaining fictitious capital. And thirdly difference of chapter exists, especially chapter28 and chapter 30. So difficulty in understanding moneyed capital exists. In Japan, First and second edition is available in German language. In the contrary, in England and US, even German version don't exists. Only in science society(Guilfrod press) vol.60.no4, Michael Heinrich point out the difference of Engels's edition of the third volume of capital and Marx's original manuscript, but he failed to discover Marx's scientific value of manuscript. So it is urgent need to translate German manuscript to English.
Re: Re: method of economy
on 2/10/02 06:57 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Rakesh's comments: First, I would accept a modifies largely not broken away. Michael, i think i disagree with both you and Shortall that Marx had not broken from what you are calling simple value analysis in vol I. To me simple value analysis means static, as in simple commodity production. A bit confused. What do you mean by simple value analysis? price assumed to be proportional to value or value assumed to be not continously changing? Do you mean by simple value analysis an assumption of proportionality or a static assumption? ##[The] value [of a unit of capital] is no longer determined by the necessary labour-time actually objectified in it, but by the labour-time necessary either to reproduce it or the better machine When the machinery is first introduced into a particular branch of production, new methods of reproducing it more cheaply follow blow upon blow. [Marx 1977, p. 528] Nathan Rosenberg has picked up on these passages in a couple of important articles in the mid 70s. Rosenberg was a Marxist, who became very conventional. To the extent that Babbage's example was typical, quantitative measurement of values would be difficult, if not impossible. Reproduction costs shift in unpredictable patterns. Because we cannot predict what future technologies will be available at any given time in the future, we have no way of knowing in advance how long a particular capital good will be used before it will be replaced. A machine that lasts 20 years would presumably transfer value to the output at a different rate from a machine that would be expected to last only a single year. For Rosenberg, there is a change from a period in which new models are being rapidly introduced and a period in which the model has been decided upon though due to greater efficiency in its production it becomes cheaper and cheaper to produce. So with the new machines, there is a kind of shift from qualitative to quantitative innovation, the latter allowing for the wide dissemination of the new technology. That sounds reasonable. Because we cannot see into the future, we can only retrospectively calculate the appropriate amount of value transferred from the constant capital. In other words, some time in the future after the equipment used in the production process had been used up we could calculate the values of goods produced today. We cannot calculate the values of goods produced today, because knowing the appropriate values of the constant capital being transferred today is impossible without advanced knowledge of future reproduction values. but with such uncertainty why would there be investment in branches that are fixed capital intensive, asks Shortall. Keynes and Smith say because of irrationality. Marx speculated that most pioneers never get their money back. Schumpeter says that this problem is why controls on competition are needed. I discussed this in my Natural Instability book. Well, I'll read the rest a bit later. Michael, have you read Grossman's book on dynamics as well? No. I should. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is the meaning of static I can't understand, What do you want to say to define that simple value analysis as static? Simple value analysis began since physiocrat, followed by Adam Smith, Ricardo, Mill. They could reach entity of value ,but they all failed how and why value-form, i.e. highest of which is money-form, so they failed to define relation between commodity and money, and relation between value and price, i.e. money form of commodity value, so they confused value production with price production. You insist that value is determined by labor time necessary to reproduce machine, but to maintain machine's value is due to use this machine by worker's labor. Why is it possible that value is reproduced by machine itself without using? Machine is no value without use it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question on the term loan
on 2/10/02 06:52 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Money is a very metaphysical concept. Wray suggests that money gets its value from its ability to pay taxes. Others compare money to subway tokens or hat check receipts at a restaurant. Hicks says that money originated out of credit. By the way, money seemed to be the origin of writing. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sir Michael Perelman Loan is commodity-form of capital. It is not relinquished but merely lending. To borrowers, it is appeared as "loan" Below is from "Capital" "Money -- here taken as the independent expression of a certain amount of value existing either actually as money or as commodities -- may be converted into capital on the basis of capitalist production, and may thereby be transformed from a given value to a self-expanding, or increasing, value. It produces profit, i.e., it enables the capitalist to extract a certain quantity of unpaid labour, surplus-product and surplus-value from the labourers, and to appropriate it. In this way, aside from its use-value as money, it acquires an additional use-value, namely that of serving as capital. Its use-value then consists precisely in the profit it produces when converted into capital. In this capacity of potential capital, as a means of producing profit, it becomes a commodity, but a commodity sui generis. Or, what amounts to the same, capital as capital becomes a commodity.[1] Suppose the annual average rate of profit is 20%. In that case a machine valued at $B!r(J100, employed as capital under average conditions and an average amount of intelligence and purposive effort, would yield a profit of $B!r(J20. A man in possession of $B!r(J100, therefore, possesses the power to make $B!r(J120 out of $B!r(J100, or to produce a profit of $B!r(J20. He possesses a potential capital of $B!r(J100. If he gives these $B!r(J100 to another for one year, so the latter may use them as real capital, he gives him the power to produce a profit of $B!r(J20 -- a surplus-value which costs this other nothing, and for which he pays no equivalent. If this other should pay, say, $B!r(J5 at the close of the year to the owner of the $B!r(J100 out of the profit produced, he would thereby pay the use-value of the $B!r(J100 -- the use-value of its function as capital, the function of producing a profit of $B!r(J20. The part of the profit paid to the owner is called interest, which is just another name, or special term, for a part of the profit given up by capital in the process of functioning to the owner of the capital, instead of putting it into its own pocket. It is plain that the possession of $B!r(J100 gives their owner the power to pocket the interest-that certain portion of profit produced by means of his capital. If he had not given the $B!r(J100 to the other person, the latter could not have produced any profit, and could not at all have acted as a capitalist with reference to these $B!r(J100. [2] Let us first consider the singular circulation of interest-bearing capital. We shall then secondly have to analyse the peculiar manner in which it is sold as a commodity, namely loaned instead of relinquished once and for all. What is it that still puzzles him in the peculiar movement of interest-bearing capital? The categories: buying, price, giving up articles, and the immediate form in which surplus-value appears here; in short, the phenomenon that capital as such has become a commodity, that selling, consequently, has turned into lending and price into a share of the profit. nd this movement, disposing on condition of returning, constitutes per se the movement of lending and borrowing, that specific form of conditionally alienating money or commodities."
method of economy
on 2/8/02 00:45 PM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will try again. miyachi wrote: on 2/7/02 08:25 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried to send you my paper, but your mailbox is full. Excuse me. But my mailbox is not full!? [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~M~A~X~T~H~I~N~K Marx, Devalorization, and the Theory of Value Introduction I am offering yet another reinterpretation of Marx's value theory. Although this value theory does not easily lend itself to algebraic or statistical modeling, the approach that I propose has the advantage of providing a closer link between Marx's crises theory and his theory of value. The core of this article concerns the treatment of constant capital in Marx's value theory. All quantitative treatments of Marxian value theory must find a way to measure the transfer of value from constant capital to the final products. Although the expanding literature on the solutions to Marx's so-called transformation problem has worked on this problem, none to my knowledge has satisfactorily come to grips with the impossibility of correctly measuring this transfer of value. An Alternative Approach Let us begin at the beginning. In the first volume of $B"s(JCapital?, Marx analyzed commodities at their most abstract level. We might refer to the quantitative value theory that Marx presented there as a presentation of "simple value," to indicate an affinity with simple reproduction or the most simplistic version of Marx's model of expanded reproduction. Keep in mind that both simple reproduction and expanded reproduction were merely analytical devices, neither a full description of reality nor a formal model. Nonetheless, neither simple nor expanded reproduction is entirely without interest. Both simple reproduction and simple value theory represented a significant theoretical advance over classical economics. For example, Marx's reproduction schemes laid the foundation for a more concrete investigation of a dynamic economy in the sense that they illustrate the difficulty of establishing the right proportions among sectors of the economy. In effect, Marx proposed an anti-equilibrium theory, which demonstrates that, unless certain unlikely conditions are met, the economy can experience a disproportionality crisis, similar, in some respects to the Harrod-Domar model. Had he gone no further, Marx might be remembered today as an interesting economist, but perhaps not much more. Both simple value theory and simple reproduction presume either a static or at least, a proportionately expanding economy, implying that all relationships retain all aspects of their initial structure, including relative prices. Nobody would argue that Marx's schemes of simple reproduction were a realistic model of the economy, but only a conceptual device that demonstrated the weak foundations of the sort theory that Say's Law represented. Neither simple value theory nor simple reproduction was a mere mental exercise. Marx used both to analyze the contradictory nature of capitalism. Despite their indisputable importance in this regard, both simple reproduction and simple value theory are inadequate for a more concrete level of analysis. The limits of simple reproduction theory are easier to recognize than those of simple value theory. To acknowledge the limits of simple value theory does not minimize the analytical importance of this concept, any more than the unrealistic assumptions underlying simple reproduction theory invalidate the insights that the reproduction schemes provided. Although Marx developed enormous insights from simple value theory in the first volume of $B"s(JCapital?, simple values are inadequate for analyzing the dynamic economy that Marx analyzed in the later volumes. Certainly, Marx was interested in the dynamic nature of the economy. He saw himself as breaking new ground by realizing, "Capital ... can be understood only as a motion, not as a thing at rest" (Marx 1967; 2, p. 105). Before he could begin his dynamical analysis, Marx had to move beyond simple value analysis. Of course, Marx had already moved away from simple value theory, even before he began his dynamic analysis. For example, he allowed for deviations due to different organic compositions of capital, although he considered that modification to be minor. To sum up the argument to this point, most of the literature on Marx accepts the assertion that Marx's general method was to begin with a very abstract analytical approach, which he would progressively modify as he applied his theory to more concrete levels of analysis. Value theory is a case in point. Marx continually developed his value theory as he moved to more concrete levels of analysis. This
Re: value vs price
know and can say, e.g., whether an animal is alive or not. But, upon closer inquiry, we find that this is, in many cases, a very complex question, as the jurists know very well. They have cudgelled their brains in vain to discover a rational limit beyond which the killing of the child in its mother's womb is murder. It is just as impossible to determine absolutely the moment of death, for physiology proves that death is not an instantaneous momentary phenomenon, but a very protracted process. In like manner, every organic being is every moment the same and not the same, every moment it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a longer or shorter time the matter of its body is completely renewed, and is replaced by other atoms of matter, so that every organic being is always itself, and yet something other than itself. Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa. None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things and their representations, ideas, in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin, and ending. Such processes as those mentioned above are, therefore, so many corroborations of its own method of procedure. " etc. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/introduction.htm MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Value price debate diffuses. I would summalize this debate, excluding scientifically doubtflly LOVLTV debate. I simply cite origibal definition of value,value-form,price etc, according to Marx's "Capital" 1.VALUE;;If then we leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use-value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use-value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract. Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour-power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour-power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are $B!=(J Values. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is HOMOGENEOUS HUMAN LABOUR, EXPENDITURE OF ONE UNIFORM LABOUR-POWER. The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units 2.FORM-O$B#F(J -VALUE;$B!!(JThe reality of the value of commodities differs in this respect from Dame Quickly, that we don't know "where to have it." The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a ma
Re: Re: Re: Re: Value talk
on 2/6/02 04:02 AM, Karl Carlile at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JKS: Rubbish. We can say, as I do, that capitalsim is exploitative, unfair, and unnecessary, and needs to be replaced, without adiopting a value framework. Not adopting that framework does not stuck us with demanding only higher wages. Karl: Dountlessly Justin can say what he likes. However that is neither here nor there and of no political or ideological significance. That Justin thinks otherwise is neither here nor there too. Marx through the value form was able to establish the historical limits of capital and the historical need for communism. Capital is an exposition of the historical obsolesence of capitalism. It is this that means the conditions for communism exist. With Capital Marx demonstrated the objective necessity of capitalims. He demonstrated that the struggle for communism is not a merely subjective crusade based on subjectivist ethics and morality. It is not enough to claim that capitalism is exploitative. It must be explained how it is exploitative. Marx did just that. By establishing the limits of the value form itself and the value form in the specific form of capital he made a great contribution to the development of communism. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Sir Karl Carlile MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marx proved not only exploitative, but also ability of working class to abolish civil society. exploitation existed every times. But in capitalist exploitation, characteristic is growing opposite power to build. Below is from "Capital" In this line, later Marx overcame "crisis theory" and became close to ongoing social movements itself. "How it is exploitative" is not problem. It was already explained in capital production. "This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. " And In Capital? $B!I(JThis surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product. Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed over and above the given requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist as well as in the slave system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form and is supplemented by complete idleness of a stratum of society. A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour
Re: Re: Re: : Value talk
on 2/7/02 04:37 AM, Justin Schwartz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22469] Re: : Value talk Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:46:46 -0800 Justin writes: . Or (2) (as Rakesh suggests) there is athe moral deprecaition line, the idea that value explains crisis. Crisis is explained on the basis of the law of value, not by reference to moral depreciation at all. In fact I did not suggest that moral depreciation explains crisis at all. I underlined that it helped to explain why machinery has not seemed to fufill its task of reducing the torment of labor. You simply are not reading carefully. And you haven't yet proposed an alternative set of concepts by which to understand moral depreciation. No doubt I am careless and illiterate, also lazy and stupid. I do see how moral depreciation offers a theory of crisis. I don't seewhat value talk adds to it. As I have shown here by restating the argument without reference to value, and as Brenner has shown in greater length, value does no work in this story. Have you followed any of the criticism of Brenner's theory? No. I have a full time nonacademic job and a family. Value theory, and indeed crisis theory, is a distinct sideline interest for me. I'd rather think about legal positivism, democracy, or, closer to home, judicial admissions under a 12(b)96) motion to dismiss. There may be problems with Brenner's view, and it no doubt doesn't explain everything. same with many views of Marx or anyone else. Still, I think it is basically right. As I say,I'm lazy and illiterate and careless when I do read, so I'm going to go on thinking that until something large hits me on the head. Fortunately, you are here to keep the rest of the world on track. jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brenner's reductionism is clear. he only analyze market, finance, or credit. This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any English translation of Capital there is no distinction between Sachen and Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property, and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to understand Marx's critique of fetishism)rule people, and people unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive power for people. And finally Marx described In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent, labour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources, we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the material production relations with their historical and social determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms, and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the direct production process We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But Stalin neglect this fundamental fact. Crisis theory was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital, As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form
Re: Value talk
on 2/7/02 05:34 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin: A degenerating research program often doesn't have a single fatal flaw. It just runs out of steam, spends all of its time trying to fix up internal problem, doesn't geberate new hypotheses and predictions and theories. I think that is a pretty good description of what has happened in Marxian value theory over the last century. CB: We don't need new hypotheses and predictions and theories until we finish the project of overthrowing capitalism and initiating socialism. Theory for the sake of theory, generation of theory for only the sake of theory is an especially bad idea in the historical sciences. Sir Charles Brown MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] For young Marx, theory was considered as below. He noticed that we shall simply show the world why it is struggling, and consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether it wishes or not Nothing prevents us, therefore, from lining our criticism with a criticism of politics, from taking sides in politics, i.e., from entering into real struggles and identifying ourselves with them. This does not mean that we shall confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: Here is the truth, on your knees before it! It means that we shall develop for the world new principles from the existing principles of the world. We shall not say: Abandon your struggles, they are mere folly; let us provide you with true campaign-slogans. Instead, we shall simply show the world why it is struggling, and consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether it wishes or not. The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in explaining its own actions to it. Like Feuerbach's critique of religion, our whole aim can only be to translate religious and political problems into their self-conscious human form. Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is not to draw a sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the thought of the past. Lastly, it will becomes plain that mankind will not being any new work, but will consciously bring about the completion of its old work. We are therefore in a position to sum up the credo of our journal in a single word: the self-clarification (critical philosophy) of the struggles and wishes of the age. This is a task for the world and for us. It can succeed only as the product of untied efforts. What is needed above all is a confession, and nothing more than that. To obtain forgiveness for its sins, mankind needs only to declare them for what they are.
Re: : value and price: a dissenting note
on 2/5/02 05:22 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : value and price: a dissenting note by Michael Perelman 03 February 2002 05:46 UTC Michael P:I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values today that depend on conditions in the future. On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY) that values make sense as an _ex post_ (and true-by-definition) accounting framework. Obviously, _ex ante_ matters matter, in helping to determine values. But, for example, in realization crises (in which profits which seem to have been produced _ex ante_ turn out not to be so _ex post_). My impression is that what Marx emphasizes is what actually occurs in practice, i.e., _ex post_ values. JDevine CB: I did read Michael Perelman's paper on this when it was on the Crash list or somewhere . Not answering the puzzle, but what occurs to me in thinking about it now (and maybe last time) is that the rate of obsolescence seems to address the use-value of the instrument of production involved. When it becomes obsolete, it is its use-value that is extinguished. Without use-value, it cannot carry any exchange value anymore, so all the exchange-value in it must be calculated based on the amount of time it was adding value to commodities. But this is still ex-post. What does being expost disturb in the calculation ? Sir Charles Brown You determine value as depending upon future condition. but it may be wrong, because value which depends upon future belongs to sphere of fictitious capital flow, such as various derivertives -futures, forword option, swap etc- not belong to real capital market. In reality, real capital flow and fictitious capital flow intertwine, so this double flow makes us difficult to analyze and differentiate two flow and leads to make to confuse the two flow such as your doubtful determined value. Commodity value must firstly be determined within the simple sphere of commodity world. MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: value and price: adissenting note
on 2/4/02 02:53 PM, Justin Schwartz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values today that depend on conditions in the future. On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY) that values make sense as an _ex post_ (and true-by-definition) accounting framework. Obviously, _ex ante_ matters matter, in helping to determine values. But, for example, in realization crises (in which profits which seem to have been produced _ex ante_ turn out not to be so _ex post_). My impression is that what Marx emphasizes is what actually occurs in practice, i.e., _ex post_ values. JDevine I still don't see the problem. Ex ante, my widgets, made by process X (labor intensive) have value N. I expect to amortize the cost of the investment in X over ten years by selling widgets at $5 each. Five years into my period, you invent process Y (capital intensive), and now your widgets and mine both have the value N-1,a nd I can obly get $4 each for my widgets. I'm in trouble, but where;s the theoretical problem? jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Sir Justin Schwartz MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] You confuse commodity production with its consumption. In commodity production we add to matter some value which is counted by labor time. in other side, namely in consumption, we reproduce our labor ability. Below is from "Capital" Firstly, about labour-power. "We must now examine more closely this peculiar commodity, labour-power. Like all others it has a value. [5] How is that value determined? The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article. So far as it has value, it represents no more than a definite quantity of the average labour of society incorporated in it. Labour-power exists only as a capacity, or power of the living individual. Its production consequently pre-supposes his existence. Given the individual, the production of labour-power consists in his reproduction of himself or his maintenance. For his maintenance he requires a given quantity of the means of subsistence. Therefore the labour-time requisite for the production of labour-power reduces itself to that necessary for the production of those means of subsistence; in other words, the value of labour-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the labourer. Labour-power, however, becomes a reality only by its exercise; it sets itself in action only by working. But thereby a definite quantity of human muscle, nerve. brain, c., is wasted, and these require to be restored. This increased expenditure demands a larger income. [6] If the owner of labour-power works to-day, to-morrow he must again be able to repeat the same process in the same conditions as regards health and strength. His means of subsistence must therefore be sufficient to maintain him in his normal state as a labouring individual. His natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort in which, the class of free labourers has been formed. [7] In contradistinction therefore to the case of other commodities, there enters into the determination of the value of labour-power a historical and moral element. Nevertheless, in a given country, at a given period, the average quantity of the means of subsistence necessary for the labourer is practically known." Secondly, about use of labour-power. "The owner of labour-power is mortal. If then his appearance in the market is to be continuous, and the continuous conversion of money into capital assumes this, the seller of labour-power must perpetuate himself, "in the way that every living individual perpetuates himself, by procreation." [8] The labour-power withdrawn from the market by wear and tear and death, must be continually replaced by, at the very least, an equal amount of fresh labour-power. Hence the sum of the means of subsistence necessary for the production of labour-power must include the means necessary for the labourer's substitutes, i.e., his children, in order that this race of peculiar commodity-owners may perpetua
Re: Re: Re: Engels, Marx, Value and Communism
on 2/5/02 00:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not that Engels misunderstood Marx. Marx unfolded a new law system. Engels agreed to the best of his ability. To continue. MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Below is from "Capital" "The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. This does not prevent the same economic basis" Brenner's reductionism is clear. He only analyze market, finance, or credit. This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any English translation of " Capital" there is no distinction between Sachen and Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property, and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to understand Marx's critique of fetishism) rule people, and people unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive power for people. And finally Marx described "In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent, abour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources, we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the material production relations with their historical and social determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms, and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the direct production process" We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But Stalin neglect this fundamental fact. "Crisis theory" was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital, "As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the Instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of prod
Re: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
on 2/3/02 02:40 PM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the difference between Justin and Miyachi and my understanding. They seem to look at the value of the depreciated computer EX POST -- after the fact. The problem that i see is ex ante. How do you set the value of the product made with the computer years before the depreciation occurs? I can expect a future path of depreciation but I cannot know it. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sir Michael Perelman Answer is easy. Below is fundamental category due to which Marx develop his capitalist critique A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour-time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours. We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. [9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. [10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour-time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour-time. [11] The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour-time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical2 conditions
Re: Re: re: anal. Marxism and value
MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] As you see "analytical marxism " as reductionist, it is right. Marx began with critique of religion, secondly critique of state, and his conclusion was to critique state and its members(civilian),it was needed to analyze economic structure. So he never forgot critique of state, rather to try combine two factors. Below is from "Capital" "The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. This does not prevent the same economic basis" Brenner's reductionism is clear. he only analyze market, finance, or credit. This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any English translation of " Capital" there is no distinction between Sachen and Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property, and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to understand Marx's critique of fetishism)rule people, and people unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive power for people. And finally Marx described "In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent, labour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources, we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the material production relations with their historical and social determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms, and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the direct production process" We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But Stalin neglect this fundamental fact. "Crisis theory" was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital, "As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all me
Re: value vs. price
rms the cost-price of the commodity, it does not form any surplus-value, but merely an equivalent, a value replacing the expended capital. So far, therefore, as it forms surplus-value, it does so not in its specific capacity as expended, but rather as advanced, and hence utilised, capital. For this reason, the surplus-value arises as much out of the portion of the advanced capital which goes into the cost-price of the commodity, as out of the portion which does not. In short, it arises equally out of the fixed and the circulating components of the utilised capital. The aggregate capital serves materially as the creator of products, the means of labour as well as the materials of production, and the labour. The total capital materially enters into the actual labour-process, even though only a portion of it enters the process of self-expansion. This is, perhaps, the very reason why it contributes only in part to the formation of the cost-price, but totally to the formation of surplus-value. However that may be, the outcome is that surplus-value springs simultaneously from all portions of the invested capital. This deduction may be substantially abbreviated, by saying pointedly and concisely in the words of Malthus: "The capitalist ... expects an equal profit upon all the parts of the capital which he advances."[3] In its assumed capacity of offspring of the aggregate advanced capital, surplus-value takes the converted form of profit. Hence, a certain value is capital when it is invested with a view to producing profit [4], or, there is profit because a certain value was employed as capital. Suppose profit is p. Then the formula C=c+v+s=k+s turns into the formula C=k+p, or the value of a commodity=cost-price+ profit. The profit, such as it is represented here, is thus the same as surplus-value, only in a mystified form that is nonetheless a necessary outgrowth of the capitalist mode of production." MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism
on 2/2/02 07:55 PM, Rakesh Bhandari at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim writes: (2) no, Marx shows convincingly in volume III of CAPITAL that as long as (1) the rate of surplus-value is constant and uncorrelated with the OCC; (2) the OCC differs between industries; and (3) the rate of profit tends toward equality between sectors, prices gravitate toward prices of production (POPs) that differ from values. Maybe you're thinking of Ricardo, who saw exactly this kind of result from his analysis but assumed that the value/POP correlation was "good enough for early 19th century British political economy work" (embracing what historians of economic thought call the 98% labor theory of value [i.e., of price]). For Marx, the connection between prices and values is macroeconomic in nature, with total value = total price and total surplus-value = total property income, with the macro structure of accumulation limiting and shaping the microprocesses that make up that totality. (Charlie Andrews' recent book, FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY, is good on this.) I agree with the focus on totality here. but it is a peculiar focus, and I am going to make an outlandish guess as to why. By vol 3, Marx is nearing his descent to the concrete totality, yet Marx seems not interested in *individual* capitals even as he approaches them because any one individual capital does not yield--as a result of the variance in compositions--surplus value at the same rate as would the *typical particular* capitalist (that is, the prototype of or a perfect aliquot of the whole class; Meek links Marx's typical particular of a capital of average composition to Sraffa's standard commodity). In vol 3 Marx remains more interested in total surplus value produced by all the individual capitals, and it is only in terms of capital-as-a-whole that the total mass of surplus value can be defined, and the average rate of profit determined. Capital-as-a-whole is thus revealed to be itself a concrete unit with its own specific attributes. So even as Marx comes to appreciate fully individuality, as opposed to typical particularity, in the multiplicity of capitals, he is not ultimately interested in the the multiplicity or aggregate of individual capitals but with the concrete individual that is itself capital as a whole. Itself a concrete individual, capital-as-a-whole is thus not like say boats-as-a whole which is merely a *generalized concrete abstraction* for small open craft, ocean liners, battleships and and exchange carriers. In this latter case the members are of course more concrete than the abstract class. But in the case of capital-as-a-whole, the class itself has been concretized in that it alone has attributes that its members, as individuals *abstracted* from that class, do not. The capitalist *class* is not a not a mere plurality of capitals; it is itself a fairly concrete unit. I do not think we have here a fallacy of misplaced concreteness or an error of hypostatizing. Though I do not know whether I am making sense either. And it may be that the fault should be put on capitalist social relations, not those social scientists who reject methodological individualism which seems only to accord concreteness to members, not classes. Such a stricture may be illsuited for the very society that produces the standpoint of the individualist. rakesh SIr Rakesh Bhandari In "Capital" Marx distinguish buyer-seller relation from class relation Below is this. True, in the act M---L the owner of money and the owner of labour-power enter only into the relation of buyer and seller, confront one another only as money-owner and commodity-owner. In this respect they enter merely into a money-relation. Yet at the same time the buyer appears also from the outset in the capacity of an owner of means of production, which are the material conditions for the productive expenditure of labour-power by its owner. In other words, these means of production are in opposition to the owner of the labour-power, being property of another. On the other hand the seller of labour faces its buyer as labour-power of another which must be made to do his bidding, must be integrated into his capital, in order that it may really become productive capital. The class relation between capitalist and wage-laborer therefore exists, is presupposed from the moment the two face each other in the act M---L (L---M on the part of the laborer). It is a purchase and sale, a money-relation, but a purchase and sale in which the buyer is assumed to be a capitalist and the seller a wage-laborer. And this relation arises out of the fact that the conditions required for the realisation of labour-power, viz., means of subsistence and means of production, are separated from the owner of labour-power, being the property of another.
Re: value and price: a dissenting note
on 2/3/02 08:21 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The discussion about the labor theory of value misses one important point, which I have been trying to push for years. Suppose you want to calculate the value of a commodity according to the simple algebraic formula C+V+S Held the calculate C? Marx describes a simple method: the suppose you have a machine that last 10 years, take the C and apply 1/10 of it to the value of the final product for each year. If, however -- and Marx pushes this quite a bit -- new technology destroys the value of the remaining C before the 10 years is up, how the calculate the amount of value embodied in the constant capital consumed? Of course, such calculations are impossible. Marx's value theory is very important for showing, as Jim emphasized, how the capitalist system works, but the simple algebraic description neglects the dynamic nature of capitalism. Marx's goes much farther in his description of the dynamic nature of capitalism, but nobody seems to have incorporated that part of his work into value theory, as such. In effect, those who talk about the dynamic nature of capitalism seem to ignore value theory and those who emphasize value theory seem to ignore dynamics -- the partial exception of Alan Freeman, Andrew Kleiman, and myself. None of us has done a satisfactory job. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 Sir Michael Perelman MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN your account is easy possible to reply, you suppose C as element of commodity value, and if new technology " destroy" o f the remaining "C",value is not possible to calculate. But remaining C is caluculative. If value of "C" is originally 100,and new technology make value of "C" to 50 after 5years, and complete consuming time is 10yeqrs, we calcalatte commodity value as including 5 "C" instead 10. Below is from Capital" "A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour-time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours. Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power. The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour's social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value." In this It is pivotal point how we calculate " homogenous, social labor" In many orthodox Marxists and non-marxist economists misunderstand this "homogenous, social labor" as some physical substance countable by physical measure, but it is incorrect, For Marx, money-form of value is firstly appeared as ideal or imaginary. Below is Marx's explanation of it, which most marxist stumble, "The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental form. Although invisible, the value of iron, linen and corn has actual existence in these very articles: it is ideally made perceptible by their equality with gold, a relation that, so to say, exists only in their own heads. Their owner must, therefore, lend them his tongue, or hang a ticket on them, before their prices can be commu
Re: Engels, Marx, Value and Communism
on 2/2/02 08:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I happen to be one who believes that there exists a difference in articulation - not substance, between Frederick Engels and Karl Marx approach to value and embrace the reshaping of the theory of value in the hands of Marx. Nevertheless, both were revolutionaries approaching the emancipation of labor from its status as a commodity and why society moves in antagonism; polarizes and one system of production inevitably gives way to another and the role of the individual in this social process. In his Introduction to A Contribution to A Critique of Political Economy, Marx gives account to the events that led to his and Engels collaboration. It was Engels conception of the historic trajectory of value as a mediator in social relations - described in The Conditions of The Working Class in England, that Marx worked out or rather, had come to the same conclusion on the basis of theoretical postulates. This is stated in a footnote to Anti-Duhring, which Marx wrote a Chapter for (From The Critical History) and corresponded with Engels during the two years it took to write the book. In criticizing Mr. Durhing Engels states: Unfortunately Marx put a short footnote to the passage in Capital cited above: The reader must note that we are not speaking here of the wages or value that the laborer gets for a given labor-time, but of the value of the commodity in which that labor-time is materialized. Marx, who seems here to have had a presentiment of the coming of his Dühring, therefore safeguards himself against an application of his statements quoted above even to the wages which are paid in existing society for compound labor. If Herr Dühring, not content with doing this all the same, presents these statements as the principles on which Marx would like to see the distribution of the necessaries of life regulated in society organized socialistically, he is guilty of a shameless imposture, the like of which is only to be found in the gangster press. But let us look a little more closely at the doctrine of equivalence. All labor-time, the porter's and the architect's, is perfectly equivalent. So labor-time, and therefore labor itself has a value. But labor is the creator of all values. It alone gives the products found in nature value in the economic sense. Value itself is nothing else than the expression of the socially necessary human labor materialized in an object. Labor can therefore have no value. One might as well speak of the value of value, or try to determine the weight, not of a heavy body, but of heaviness itself, as speak of the value of time, and try to determine it. Herr Dühring dismisses people like Owen, Saint-Simon and Fourier by calling them social alchemists. By his logic chopping over the value of labor-time, that is, of labor, he shows that he ranks far beneath the genuine alchemists. Now let the reader fathom Herr Dühring's brazenness in imputing to Marx the assertion that the labor-time of one person is in itself more valuable than that of another, that labor-time, and therefore time, has a value-to Marx, who first demonstrated that labor can have no value, and why it cannot! The realization that labor has no value and can have none is of great importance for socialism, which wants to emancipate human power-power from its status of a commodity. With this realization all attempts -- inherited by Herr Dühring from primitive workers' socialism -- to regulate the future distribution of the necessaries of life as a kind of higher wages fall to the ground. . . . If the equivalence of labor time means that each laborer produces equal values in equal periods of time, without there being any need to take an average, then this is obviously wrong. If we take two workers, even in the same branch of industry, the value they produce in one hour of labor-time will always vary with the intensity of their time and their skill-and not even an economic commune, at any rate not on our planet, can remedy this evil-which, however, is only an evil for people like Dühring. What, then, remains of the complete equality of value of any and every labor? Nothing but the purely braggart phrase, which has no other economic foundation than Herr Dühring's incapacity to distinguish between the determination of value by labor and determination of value by wages-nothing but the ukase, the basic law of the new economic commune: equal wages for equal time-time! Indeed, the old French communist workers and Weitling had much better reasons for the equality of wages, which they advocated. All current production is fundamentally social production in the world in which we live, as opposed to the still existing forms of scattered production one-hundred and fifty years ago. Value is the socially necessary amount of human labor in the production of commodities. From this standpoint - as opposed
Re: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
on 2/3/02 10:39 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Miyachi's solution is not so simple. You have a new computer. Some of the value will be transferred to the product today. You have no idea how long the computer will last; when it will become obsolete. Unless you have foreknowledge of the future, you cannot know how much value transfers to the product. I wrote about this in more detail a few years ago in the Cambridge Journal of Economics. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sir Michael Perelman I can't understand your account. My computer has price, and I consume it some years. After some year, my computer's price down, because I consume by using it. I can't transfer value to computer, on the contrary, by using it, I destruct its exchange value. If I trade in my computer to shop, shopper assess my computer's trading price usually due to using years. It is well common knowledge even little kids knows. If I transfer value while using computer, trading price is higher than when I bought it. Ridiculous! Did you use trading shop? If you did not, try it. When you try, you can understand common knowledge which California State University did not teach. MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ideology, fetishism
on 2/3/02 01:20 PM, Justin Schwartz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CB: Before you get to that, isn't the burden on you to demonstrate that the theory alternative to Marx's explains what Marx's theory does ? Justin and the AM's haven't quite proven that to everybody yet. Well, Marx and Engels collected writings are 50 volumes. However, I think I've made a tolerable start by showing how Marx's theory of exploitation, the core of Capital I, can be resttaed without the LTV (this in my two papers on exploitation), and by sketching how the theory of commodity fetishim, the core of Marx's mature theory of ideology, can also be statedwithout it (this in The Paradox of ideology). The papers are available on line, and I think you have copies, Charles. So, since I put some years into doing that, the ball is now in your court to show how I have failed. Btw, for crisuis theory and the rest of the main line of Capital, see Daniel Little, The Scientific Marx. Robert Brenner's book The Turbulent Economy does the same with crisis theory. I will say, too, that in many years of explaining Marx to students and others, I have never had to rely onthe LTV for any core point; I mean, I'd try to explain it and explain Marx's thinking, but then I'd restate it without the LTV. I still don't understandwhat I'm supposed to me missing. (Sorry, Jim; I've read your papers too, and remains opaque to me). jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Sir Justin Schwartz Marx proved not only how workers are exploited, but also proved worker's ability to destruct civil society radically. Ongoing global social movement are proving it. Below is my argument on ideology, fetishism.$B!J#1(Jpart is my "alternative psychiatry's preface and second is critique of some "left psychologist") 1 "This is an attempt to continue and modify anti-psychiatric and critical psychiatric tradition. In the first place, critical element of my argument must be presented. According to Marx, commodity and capital rule person's will. Person act for commodity's behavior$B!"(Jso the subject is commodity and person only obey the commodity's behavior .$B!!(JBut due to the Pesonifizierung der Sachen und Versachlichung der Personen,the mystification of the capitalist mode of production, and the reification of social relation is completed and person seems to adapt to the social relations as if obeyed by natural law. Obeying natural law seems natural behavior, so the false semblance of freedom establishes.$B!!(JBut since collective praxis for making Sachen(commodity, money and capital)is, in reality, compulsory character, people are driven to oppose to social relations unconsciously. But this opposition seems unnatural for the people caughted in fetishism of commodity,$B!!(Jso that people become to oppose to themselves. This is the core of psychopathology. Then, people live double lives,$B!!(Jon the ground and on the heaven. Madness is defined as unity of those opposite lives. At first, I argue critique of Freud's tradition. Accordingly to Freud, Person possess a psychic apparatus, which is almost unconscious. The psychic apparatus is made by three instances called superego,$B!!(Jego,and es. But, this division is, in reality, projection from impressed unconscious real social relations and reflective consciousness of reificated social relations. So, for example, so called mistake action is a product of contradiction between impressed unconscious social real relation and ideas from reificated relations . More correctly, people are caught in the estranged form of appearance of economic relation that involves these prima facie absurd and complete contradiction. In the other side ,the connection impresses itself on the bearer of this process. The real connection and on which social needs emerge, is, in daily life, unconscious to the people. In the sleeping period, in place of consciousness caught in estrange form of appearance, representation of impressed real connection, and corresponding social needs emerge in the brain. So, the dream is interpreted as a product of contradiction between representations suitable for real social needs and reflective consciousness caught in the fetishism of Sachen(commodity, money and capital)" 2.Marx$B!G(Js critique of the fetishism $B!!(J In Theory Psychology, Volume 9, Number 3 June 1999, the commodity fetishism, the ideology, the false consciousness, and the theory of need are separately argued. But these categories have a common cause and an inner connection. I begin with analyzing the value-form, especially the equivalent form of value, show the mysterious character of commodity-form, and finally show the critique of the fetishism of the commodity. As for the fetishism of the capital, and interest-bearing capital, I
Re: Re: RE: Re: value and morality
on 2/2/02 04:01 AM, Sabri Oncu at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marx seemed to try to avoid moralism in Capital, but sometimes he let his moral outrage creep in even though that violated his methodological principles. I alway found his notion that capitalist were merely the charactermasks of capital very attractive. Very much like Bertold Brecht, he felt that they were just adopting a role that capitalism gave them. In an article entitled "How did Marx invent the symptom?" in "Mapping Ideology", Zizek qoutes Marx's phrase from Capital: "They do not know it, but they are doing it" and then goes into discussing Sloterdijk's thesis: "They know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it." However attractive Marx's notion is, what I observe both here in the US and back home makes me agree with Sloterdijk. It appears to me that they know what they are doing very well. On another note, thanks to all who participated in this discussion. It has been most useful, at least to me, and I wish that it doesn't stop here. Best, Sabri Sir Sabri Oncu MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marx argued critique of civil society, not on basis of some morality Below is my critique on Zizek,etc. based on Marx's critique of fetishism Marx$B!G(Js critique of the fetishism $B!!(J In Theory Psychology, Volume 9, Number 3 June 1999, the commodity fetishism, the ideology, the false consciousness, and the theory of need are separately argued. But these categories have a common cause and an inner connection. I begin with analyzing the value-form, especially the equivalent form of value, show the mysterious character of commodity-form, and finally show the critique of the fetishism of the commodity. As for the fetishism of the capital, and interest-bearing capital, I only point out the basic mechanism different from that of the commodity. But since some articles analyze the fetishism incorrectly, I reply these arguments. They are swayed by the sphere of the exchange and the circulation, and ignore the critique of the immediate production process and the fetishism of the capital, as a result, They legitimize the capitalist mode of production. 1. On the equivalent form of value In the value-form in Capital, Marx wrote about the equivalent form: The relative value-form of a commodity, the linen for example, express its value-existence as something wholly different from its substance and properties, as the quality of being comparable with a coat for example; this expression itself therefore indicates that it conceals a social relation. With the equivalent form the reverse is true. The equivalent form consists precisely in this, that the material commodity itself, the coat for instance, express value just as it is in everyday life, and is therefore endowed with the form of value by nature itself. Admittedly this hold good only within the value-relation, in which the commodity linen is related to the commodity coat as its equivalent. However, the properties of a thing do not arise from its relation to other things, they are, on the contrary, merely activated by such relations. The coat, therefore, seems to be endowed with its equivalent form its property of direct exchangeability, by nature,.just as its property of being heavy or its ability to keep us warm. Hence the mysteriousness (Ra$B!/(Jtesellhafte-quoter) of equivalent form(Caipital,1,p.149) This is the first peculiarity of equivalent form from which use-value becomes the form of appearance of its opposite, value.(First substitution-Quidproquo) About the second peculiarity of equivalent form, Marx wrote: In order to express the fact that, for instance, weaving creates the value of linen through its general property of being human labour rather than in its concrete form as weaving, we contrast it with the concrete labour which produces the equivalent of linen, namely tailoring. Tailoring is now seen as the tangible form of realization of abstract human labour(Capital,1,p.150). In this substitution concrete labour becomes the form of manifestation of its opposite, abstract human labour. In this form, the relation of the abstract and the concrete is reverse. This is the second substitution(Quidproquo-quoter) . And the third peculiarity of equivalent form is that private labour takes the form of its opposite, namely labour in its directly social form: Because this concrete labour, tailoring, counts exclusively as the expression of undifferentiated human labour, it possesses the characteristic of being identical with other kinds of labour, such as the labour embodied in the linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is the labour of private individuals, it is nevertheless labour in its directly social form. It is precisely for this reason th
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: query:Historical Materialism
on 2/2/02 02:55 AM, Justin Schwartz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the argument that workers contribute more to the value of output than they receive in compensation does not necessarily imply that either: a) labor is the only source of value or b) that workers are entitled morally to a wage equal to the value of their contribution right? Right. Moreover the proposition that you state is obviously true, and will be accepted by any sentient being who thinks about the matter for a second. jks _ Join the world$BCT(J largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Sir Justin Scywartz your argument on value is incorrect. Marx analyzed how does surplus- value make. Below is Marx's piece of description on surplus-value "Every condition of the problem is satisfied, while the laws that regulate the exchange of commodities, have been in no way violated. Equivalent has been exchanged for equivalent. For the capitalist as buyer paid for each commodity, for the cotton, the spindle and the labour-power, its full value. He then did what is done by every purchaser of commodities; he consumed their use-value. The consumption of the labour-power, which was also the process of producing commodities, resulted in 20 lbs. of yarn, having a value of 30 shillings. The capitalist, formerly a buyer, now returns to market as a seller, of commodities. He sells his yarn at eighteenpence a pound, which is its exact value. Yet for all that he withdraws 3 shillings more from circulation than he originally threw into it. This metamorphosis, this conversion of money into capital, takes place both within the sphere of circulation and also outside it; within the circulation, because conditioned by the purchase of the labour-power in the market; outside the circulation, because what is done within it is only a stepping-stone to the production of surplus-value, a process which is entirely confined to the sphere of production. Thus "tout est pour le mieux dans le meflleur des mondes possibles." By turning his money into commodities that serve as the material elements of a new product, and as factors in the labour-process, by incorporating living labour with their dead substance, the capitalist at the same time converts value, i.e., past, materialised, and dead labour into capital, into value big with value, a live monster that is fruitful and multiplies. If we now compare the two processes of producing value and of creating surplus-value, we see that the latter is nothing but the continuation of the former beyond a definite point. If on the one hand the process be not carried beyond the point, where the value paid by the capitalist for the labour-power is replaced by an exact equivalent, it is simply a process of producing value; if, on the other hand, it be continued beyond that point, it becomes a process of creating surplus-value. " MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: query: Historical Materialism
on 2/1/02 04:17 AM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does anyone know when or if the next issue of the British-based journal Historical Materialism is coming out? Allegedly, they're publishing a book review of mine... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] I subscribe Historical materialism I think that its weakness is inadequate insufficient analysis of fundamental category of Marx's analysis of value-form and labor theory.
Re: Communism not reform
on 1/26/02 08:40 PM, Karl Carlile at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reuters (with additional material by AP and AFP). 25 and 26 January 2002. Thousands of Argentines Protest Over Cash Crisis. BUENOS AIRES - Tens of thousands of Argentines, from middle class businessmen to the unemployed, took to streets on Friday to bang pots and pans in the biggest protest yet against a new government struggling to end a massive financial crisis. Karl: The masses can go on strike as much as they like, bang billie cans or whatever. It is no substitute for class politics. While the working class remain tied to reformist philosophy their struggle will inevitably head towards defeat --as has repeatedly happened in the past. Where is there to go? Capitalism cannot deliver. Capitalism in Argentina cannot reform conditions in such a way as to improve living standards and conditions for workers and sections of the middle class. The only solution is the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with communism. This is the line that communists must take concerning the mass popular mobilisation in Argentina. Otherwise the mobilisation will merely mean sustained instability entailing, more pain and bloodshed for workers or an extreme right wing crackdown. The only alternative for workers is communism. The petty bourgeois radicals that suggest otherwise are left counter-revolutionaries whose bourgeois role it is to disarm the working class from the right. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hospital Komaki city Aichi Japan I cite Marx's early work. For Marx, critique of civil society was pivotal, because in civil society, Subject is side with Sachen( commodity,money, capital) and side against people. he wanted to abolish this reversed world, and create social humanhood. Under historical process, Social revolution with social soul is not yet built, instead, social revolution with political soul emerged in various situation. For example, Lenin gained firstly political power and abolished capital but failed to abolish money. In order to abolish money, mature civil society is needed. In Russia, there was only poor peasants, who didn't adequate exchange means. But Lenin exploit peasants without benefit. As the result party bureaucrat command distribution system built, which Stalin enforced. In contrary, in China Cultural Revolution or Cambodia, Commune society without exchange means ware tried to build. In these situation, great massacre happened. Because Mao or Pol Pot tried immediately to build Commune without adequate property, and thought bureaucrat was not needed though adequate Civil Service mechanism was needed. Now we live in international credit capitalism which is higher stage than Hilferding's financial capital. In financial capital Hilferdig described financial capital within one or other nation-state. And financial capital appeared as integrator of real capitals. So severe competition occured between nation-state which led to world wars. In current credit system, capital flow is beyond border of nation-state, and organize international mechanism such as world bank, OECD, WHO, etc, and these political systems trade off each other, so nation-state competition decrease or become meaningless. In according to these tendency, workers, peasant, feminist, ecologist, etc. resist or protest, globally and further try to create local commune using such as LETS as exchange means. It means under historical reformist movement new possibility emerges. Reformist leaders don't recognize its own historical fruit, but in reality reformist movements results in possible new community . In other words we already can gain social revolution with social soul Ongoing global social movements prove it. Below is Marx's writing in 1844 Critical Notes on the Article The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian [1] The state will never discover the source of social evils in the state and the organization of society, as the Prussian expects of his King. Wherever there are political parties each party will attribute every defect of society to the fact that its rival is at the helm of the state instead of itself. Even the radical and revolutionary politicians look for the causes of evil not in the nature of the state but in a specific form of the state which they would like to replace with another form of the state. From a political point of view, the state and the organization of society are not two different things. The state is the organization of society. In so far as the state acknowledges the existence of social grievances, it locates their origins either in the laws of nature over which no human agency has control, or in private life, which is independent of the state, or else in malfunctions of the administration which is dependent on it. Thus England finds
Re: Re: Re: RE: Theory on Mullah Omar etc
on 1/27/02 03:58 AM, Mohammad Maljoo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As to Carl's analysis, I should say that Taliban's return to political scene of afghanistan seems very unlikely. Moreover, it seems that Afghans can not obtain a democracy friendly dialogue, even a dialogue of the deaf. So Iran dose not need Taliban to destablize Afghanistan. Regards, Mohammad Maljoo From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21939] Re: RE: Theory on Mullah Omar etc Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:37:03 -0800 trying to start a flame war? On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 08:35:16AM -0800, michael pugliese wrote: Karl, you have your conspiranoid geo-politics more than a bit awry below. Russia supported, for several yrs. before 9-11, the -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki Municipal Hospital Komaki CITY JAPAN I think Taleban or other religious resistance are part of anti-Globalizaition social movement. Economic liberation struggle appear as various form,such as Taleban or Palestinian Islam movement.
Re: Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES
on 1/27/02 07:13 AM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Perelman writes:what is an anarcho-leninist? I wrote: The old FAI in Spain (which stands for the Federacion Anaquista Iberiana or something like that)was conspiratorial in its organization and so some have likened it to leninism. Bukharian was also known for trying to organize conspiracies. ERROR: It's Bakunin, not Bukharian. Also, it's Iberica not Iberiana, so that the FAI was (and may still be) the Federacion Anarquista Iberica. -- Jim Devine. MIYACHI TATSUO MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Deparment Komaki municipal hospital Komaki city AICHI Pref JAPAN Lenin's party before revolution was very different from Stalin's party structure,Lenin did not place local committee, and allowed end party member to direct discussion. Secondly, Lenin's party member was required persistent activity in only one without Central committee order, such as Al-Qaeda organization. In other word, Lenin's party was net-working type. But after revolution, Lenin must have took over political power, In order to continue to concentrate political power against bourgeois party, he must have concentrated political power to Central Committee. He built political revolution, not social revolution. To success political revolution, depriving capital was needed but he failed to abolish money. In other words, civil society funded upon social interaction through money remained. So he exploit and massacre peasant who lived without money in communal society. He must have not stopped NEP which contributed to grow and socialize peasant. Distinction between political revolution and social revolution was clear in Marx. Let cite young Marx's writing. I cite Marx's early work. For Marx, critique of civil society was pivotal, because in civil society, Subject is side with Sachen( commodity,money, capital) and side against people. he wanted to abolish this reversed world, and create social humanhood. Under historical process, Social revolution with social soul is not yet built, instead, social revolution with political soul emerged in various situation. For example, Lenin gained firstly political power and abolished capital but failed to abolish money. In order to abolish money, mature civil society is needed. In Russia, there was only poor peasants, who didn't adequate exchange means. But Lenin exploit peasants without benefit. As the result party bureaucrat command distribution system built, which Stalin enforced. In contrary, in China Cultural Revolution or Cambodia, Commune society without exchange means ware tried to build. In these situation, great massacre happened. Because Mao or Pol Pot tried immediately to build Commune without adequate property, and thought bureaucrat was not needed though adequate Civil Service mechanism was needed. Now we live in international credit capitalism which is higher stage than Hilferding's financial capital. In financial capital Hilferdig described financial capital within one or other nation-state. And financial capital appeared as integrator of real capitals. So severe competition occured between nation-state which led to world wars. In current credit system, capital flow is beyond border of nation-state, and organize international mechanism such as world bank, OECD, WHO, etc, and these political systems trade off each other, so nation-state competition decrease or become meaningless. In according to these tendency, workers, peasant, feminist, ecologist, etc. resist or protest, globally and further try to create local commune using such as LETS as exchange means. It means under historical reformist movement new possibility emerges. Reformist leaders don't recognize its own historical fruit, but in reality reformist movements results in possible new community . In other words we already can gain social revolution with social soul Ongoing global social movements prove it. Below is Marx's writing in 1844 Critical Notes on the Article The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian [1] The state will never discover the source of social evils in the state and the organization of society, as the Prussian expects of his King. Wherever there are political parties each party will attribute every defect of society to the fact that its rival is at the helm of the state instead of itself. Even the radical and revolutionary politicians look for the causes of evil not in the nature of the state but in a specific form of the state which they would like to replace with another form of the state. From a political point of view, the state and the organization of society are not two different things. The state is the organization of society. In so far as the state acknowledges the existence of social grievances, it locates their origins either in the laws of nature over which no human agency has control, or in private life, which is independent of the state, or else in malfunctions of the administration which is dependent
Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
on 1/22/02 06:44 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Paris Commune caused a flurry of interest in Marx -- especially by mainstream economists. On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:13:37AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: CB: The difference between Marx and others is the Russian, Chinese and other socialist revolutions. We are studying Marx because of the Bolsheviks and the Russian Rev. Please Charles speak for yourself. For one thing, I do not think Marx developed a theory of the transfer of value in and through the world market that gives expression to revolutionary aspirations of national revolts in which peasants, petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat have been engaged. The Cuban revolution was not waged against a pure advanced capitalism by a pure proletariat of the sorts imagined by Marx in his theoretical work. This has erroneously led some Marxists to dismiss outright such revolutions (say the Cuban and Sandinista revolutions) as nationalist reaction and to ridicule first world supporters of them as third worldists, but to combat this view one has to in fact go beyond Marx's theory of a pure capitalism (no trade, only two classes, etc) to show that without protection in the real world market weaker national capitals are as a result of the tranfer of value in circulation subject to devaluation and endemic crisis, which in turn lead to financial/debt crises. Some orthodox Marxists would dismiss this kind of theory of dependency because it is circulationist, but it is in fact a development of Marx's theory of production price in the third volume of Capital. The reason why so many Marxists have difficulty in understanding the progressive thrust of many third world revolutions has been that they only study Marx, and do not beyond him. Two people who have tried to go beyond Marx here are Guglielmo Carchedi and Enrique Dussel from whose latest book (edited by the way by Fred Moseley) I draw in the above. Second, it is patently absurd to say that Marx was not studied before the revolutions that you mention and imply that people would have ceased studying Marx if not for those revolutions. Rakesh Towards An Unknown Marx: A Commentary on the Manuscripts of 1861-63 (Routledge Studies in the History of Economics, Volume 34) by Fred Moseley, Yolanda Angulo (Translator), Enrique D. Dussel MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hospital JAPAN arguments about relationship between reform and revolution are prosperous. But I think previous revolutions we experienced was political, not social. In other words, for Marx(Critical Notes on the Article The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian) It is entirely false that social need produces political understanding. Indeed, it is nearer the truth to say that political understanding is produced by social well-being. Political understanding is something spiritual, that is given to him that hath, to the man who is already sitting on velvet. Our Prussian should take note of what M. Michael Chevalier, a French economist, has to say on the subject: In 1789, when the bourgeoisie rose in rebellion the only thing lacking to its freedom was the right to participate in the government of the country. Emancipation meant the removal of the control of public affairs, the high civic, military, and religious functions from the hands of the privileged classes who had a monopoly of these functions. Wealthy and enlightened, self-sufficient and able to manage their own affairs, they wished to evade the clutches of arbitrary rule. We have already demonstrated to our Prussian how inadequate political understanding is to the task of discovering the source of social need. One last word on his view of the matter. The more developed and the more comprehensive is the political understanding of a nation, the more the proletariat will squander its energies -- at least in the initial stages of the movement -- in senseless, futile uprisings that will be drowned in blood. Because it thinks in political terms, it regards the will as the cause of all evils and force and the overthrow of a particular form of the state as the universal remedy. Proof: the first outbreaks of the French proletariat. [8] The workers in Lyons imagined their goals were entirely political, they saw themselves purely as soldiers of the republic, while in reality they were the soldiers of socialism. Thus their political understanding obscured the roots of their social misery, it falsified their insight into their real goal, their political understanding deceived their social instincts. But if the Prussian expects understanding to be the result of misery, why does he identify suppression in blood with suppression in incomprehension? If misery is a means whereby to produce understanding, then a bloody slaughter must be a very extreme means to an end. The Prussian would have to argue that suppression in a welter of blood will stifle
Re: Who will be the next Marx
on 1/21/02 10:04 AM, Ian Murray at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After This Whatever Capitalism's Fate, Somebody's Already Working on an Alternative By David J. Rothkopf Washington Post Sunday, January 20, 2002; Page B01 [David Rothkopf is chairman and CEO of Intellibridge Corp. He served as managing director of Kissinger Associates and was deputy undersecretary of commerce for international trade in the Clinton administration.] Somewhere in the world today walks the next Marx. But he is not a communist, and he almost certainly is not an expatriate German slaving over his theories in the stacks of the British Library. Nonetheless, he or she will attempt to seize upon the trends behind today's headlinesto shape a competitor to "American capitalism" that the disenfranchised in nations around the world can embrace. She may be in the streets of Buenos Aires, protesting an economic meltdown that has left her family in the dust. He may have been among the Palestinians celebrating at the collapse of the World Trade Center or among the Indonesians marching beneath banners bearing the likeness of Osama bin Laden. He may be in Beijing working to become the architect of reforms that might actually make "market socialism" a sustainable concept. She might be a Nigerian whose daughter is among the 25,000 children worldwide who die every day because, in the era of Perrier and artificial hearts, they lack clean water, basic medicine or food. He might even be a Russian seeking to reestablish that country's leadership with an approach that is an alternative to an increasingly self-interested, inflexible United States. We may not know the region from which the next Marx will hail or his particular approach. But we can be sure that someone, somewhere will offer an alternative vision. And as America stands astride the world, the fact that so many of us, citizens of the most successful nation in history, think that such a threat to our values is impossible may be the very thing that will allow it to come true. Never in the history of nations or ideas has there been an extended period in which one view has prevailed without challenge, particularly one that is seen by many to be widening the gaps between the world's comparatively few rich people and the great majority who are poor. Rome was supposed to last forever, and fell. Kings ruled by divine right, and fell. The British Empire was the mightiest in the world but could not stand up against the will of its subjects. The Industrial Revolution was transformed when it generated a clamor for workers' rights and unions and communism itself. In business, what dominant brand has ever remained unchallenged? As Swiss watchmakers and American car makers, steel companies and television networks all know, the seeds of disaster lie in a triumph so great that it stifles the will to innovate, to evolve and to attend to the needs of the markets or peoples upon whom you depend for success. The end of the Cold War was not, as some would have it, the End of History. It was, instead, the end of one challenge to capitalism. And if we do not recognize the costs of the hubristic interpretation of world affairs we have accepted during the past decade (that we are right and all others must play by our rules or founder), then we will be making it easier for a new generation of challenges to arise. The harbingers of this looming threat are not just in the dissatisfaction of the world's poor. They also lie in the frustrations of America's allies at this moment of our undisputed greatness. Recently, one of Latin America's senior diplomats -- a known supporter of the United States -- asked me, "What kind of message is America sending? In Argentina, they thought they were playing by U.S. rules, being a good friend to the United States, helping you from Haiti to Bosnia. And what was their reward? You turn away at their moment of greatest need. They are not alone in this feeling." He went on to say that many of America's friends in Latin America and elsewhere think that we are good at asking for cooperation, good at directing -- and not so good at listening or giving. This is not a new view. But recent events have exacerbated feelings of frustration with the United States on these points. A European politician with whom I spoke a few weeks ago complained about the so-called Bush Doctrine, the president's "Whose side are you on?" policy toward terrorism. This was not his idea of what an alliance should be. "It's a one-way street. You say we are either with your or against you. And who decides? America does." When I repeated this politician's reaction a few days later to a group of senior Asian military leaders, they laughed and nodded in agreement. At the moment, the U.S. government talks a good game about engagement in the world, but the reality is in large part disengagement and
Re: reform and rev
on 1/22/02 02:35 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, but how are his claims any different from the predictions of other economists-social forecasters? What is it about his method of inference etc. that renders his approach to the futurity of indeterminism and uncertainty capable of generating more reliable predictions about the long run? Ian CB: The difference between Marx and others is the Russian, Chinese and other socialist revolutions. We are studying Marx because of the Bolsheviks and the Russian Rev. In current international credit capitalism, various social movements has " maximum claim" from start. It is different from Lenin's epoque. Below is my argument on Marx's critique of fethishism through which we can understand and make new type of social mivement. Marx$B!G(Js critique of Fetishism 1. commodity fetishism in Fourth edition and First edition of $B!F(JCapital$B!G(J 1-1 The difference of the perspective about fetishism Marx point out the point where is there the Mystizismus der Ware in the Fourth edition $B!H(JDas Geheimnisvolle der Warenform besteht also einfach darin,Dass sie den Menshen die gesselshaftlichen Charactere ihrer eingnen Arbeit als gegensta$B!/(Jndliche Charactere der Arbeitsproduckte selbst,als gesellschaftliche Natureigenschaften dieser Dinge zuru$B!/(Jckspiegelt,daher auch das gesselshaftliche Verha$B!/(Jltnis der produzenten zur Gesamtarbeit als ein ausser ihren existierendes gesellshafliches Verha$B!/(Jltnis von Gegensta$B!/(Jnden$B!I(J In First edition,the same matter is expressed as $B!H(Jden Privatproduzenten die gesellshaftlichen Bestimmungen ihrer Arbeitsprodukte,dass die gesselshaftlichen pruduktionsverha$B!/(Jltnisse der Personen als gesellshaftliche Verha$B!/(Jltnisse der Sachen zu einander und zu den Personen ersheinen. Die Verha$B!/(Jltnisse der Privatarbeiter zur gesellsha$B!/(Jftlichen Gesammtarbeit vergegensta$B!/(Jndlichen sich ihren gegenu$B!/(Jber und existieren daher fu$B!/(Jr sie in den Fromen von Gegensta$B!/(Jnden.$B!I(J Compared both edition, firstly,in fourth edition,He point out Zuru$B!/(Jckspiegelt,while in first edition,he point out the form of apperenance as a cause of zuru$B!/(Jckspiegelt, secondly,as the result, in the fourth edition,Quidproquo,Die gesellshaftlichen Charektere Ihrer eigenen Arbeit als gegensta$B!/(Jndliche Charactere der Arbeiteprodukte,is ploblematized, while in the first edition, he come into question the form of apperance of gesellscaftlichen Charaktere ihrere eigenen Arbeit as gesellshaftliche Natureingenschaften dieser Dingen. To understand the differnce of both edition, we compare the before sentence. In the fouth edition $B!H(JWoher entspringt also der ra$B!/(Jrselhahte Charakter des Arbeitdprodukts,sobald es Warenform annimmet?Offenbar aus dieser Form selbst. Die Gleichheit der menschlichen Arbeiten erha$B!/(Jlt die sachliche Form der gleichen Wertgegensta$B!/(Jndlichleit der Arbeitsprodukter, das Mass der Verausgabung menschlicer Arbeitkraft duruch ihre Zeitdauer erha$B!/(Jlt die Form der Wertgro$B!/(Jse der Arbeitsprodukte,endlich die Verha$B!/(Jltnisse der Produzenten,worin jene gesellschaftlichen Bestimmungen ihrer Arbeiten betra$B!/(Jgen,werden,erhalten die Form eines gesellschaftlichen Verha$B!/(Jltnisses der Albeitsprodukte$B!I(J In First editon,$B!I(JDie Privatproduzenten treten erst in gesellscha$B!/(Jftlichen Kontact vermittelst ihrer Privatprodukte,der Sachen.Die gesellshaftlichen Beziehungen ihrer Arbeiten sind und erscheinen daher nicht als unmitelbar gesellschaftliche Verha$B!/(Jltnisse der Personen in ihren Arbeiten,sondern als sachliche Verha$B!/(Jltnisse der Personen oder gesellschaftliche Verha$B!/(Jltnisse der Sachen. Die erste und allgemeinste Darstellung der Sache als eines gesellshaftlichen Dings ist aber die Verwandling des Arbeitprodukts in Ware$B!I(J Marx point out the comparison about fetishism between in Die relative Wertform and in Die A$B!/(Jquivalentform,which relate to the difference of of perspective between the first edition and fourth edition.In other word, corresoponding analysis of form of value in the first edition is achieved in Die relative Wertform,while in the fourth edition, he explains Der Mystizismus of fetishism in Die A$B!/(Jquivalentform. In the fourth edition,Das Ra$B!/(Jtsellhafte des A$B!/(Jquivalentform, that is that A$B!/(Jquivalentform besteht ja gerade darin,dass ein Warenko$B!/(Jrorper,wie der Rock,Dies Ding wie es geht und steht,Wert ausdru$B!/(Jckt,also von Natur Wertform besitzt,is analysed in analysis of A$B!/(Jquivalentform in Einfache,winzelne oder zuha$B!/(Jlige Wertform,$B!!(Jand this is suppposed to be fundamental to analysis of fetischism, while in first edition,$B!I(JIn der ersten oder einfachen Form des relativen Werts:20 Ellen Leinwand=1 Rock,ist dieser falsche Schein noch nicht bestigt,weil
Re: Re: ideology
and surplus-value contained in these commodities must first be realized in the circulation process. Both the restration of the values advanced in production, and particularly the surplus-value contained in the commodities, seem not just to be realized only circulation but actually to arise from it.This appearence is reinforced by two circumstances in particular. The actual production process, as unity of the immediate production and the process of circulation , produces new configulations in which the thread of the inner connection get more and more lost, the relations of production becomming independent of one another and the components of value ossification into independent forms. (Capital vol 3. chapter 48 ) Thus Marx explained why does inner real connection is replaced with the false semlances which develops in the surface sphere of capitalist production. In the surface sphere , these false semblances function as not only entities but also subject which move the world.Further, These semblances form its corresponding patterns of consciousness(law, religion,state,violence apparatus,etc). People swayed by these patterns of consciousness live double lives, namely, in the sphere of semblance world and in the sphere of inner real connection world. Their cousciousness and behavior become to distorted , incoherent and divide. To more degree people are swayed by these semblence world, to smaller degree they belong to the real world, and reversal, within which people believe in the semblence world as the real and the real world as the illusional, hostile power, occurs. In this positon, world appears to return to Hegel's world within which consciousness or ideas rule real world. But, in the other way, to smaller degree people believe in the semlance world, to more degree they can recognize their real social connection. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal Hospital Komaki city AICHI Pre, JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
