On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Ajit Sinha writes:>> ... that labor-power cannot be treated as a commodity as a scientific concept in Marx's theory. Marx's analysis of capitalism reveals that the APPEARANCE of the capital-wage labor relation as a commodity relation is an IDEOLOGICAL aspect of the capitalist mode of roduction, and therefore, not a scientifically correct understanding of the relation.<< Ajit, it's always good when you and I agree. I think that this is an accurate statement (though I think that you and I disagree on the reasoning behind it). However (and you knew I'd throw this "However" in, right?), I think it's important to realize that on a lower level of abstraction than vol. I of CAPITAL, at the level of "the surface of society, in the action of different capitals upon each other, in competition, and in the ordinary consciousness of the agents of production themselves" (first page of text of vol. III), that labor-power is typically treated _as if_ it were a commodity under capitalism. That is, even though at the vol. I level of abstraction (that of "capital in general"), labor-power is not a commodity, capitalists in the real world (which is approached "step by step" in vol. III) think of labor-power as a commodity and more importantly act as if it were a commodity. It's a unique commodity, one that among other things poses political problems within the labor process once it's been hired, but it's treated like a commodity nonetheless. We live in a fetishized world and "agents of production" act on that fetishism, act on the IDEOLOGY you refer to. BTW, I was hasty and thus wrong to emphasize the idea that we can't talk about a simple upward-sloping supply curve of LP. The fact is that due to constant or increasing returns to scale and entry into markets we can't see an upsloping S curve for many or most manufacturing commodities either (and those are "real" commodities, even at Marx's high level of abstraction in vol. I). BTW2, since I read pen-l postings only by browsing at the csf.colorado.edu web-site, I missed the following comment from Blair Sandler: >>I still disagree, Jim. Profit maximization and commodity production are two different animals. The former is not a necessary characteristic of the latter. (And neither are simple commodity producers necessarily profit-maximizers.) Households may incorporate ancient, feudal, or communal class processes, depending on the form and structure of the household. Why should these not produce commodities. I think LP is a commodity in the strictest sense of the word, just as any other commodity is a commodity in the strictest sense of the word ... but that doesn't make it any more unique than other commodities. And note, for other concerns, e.g. ecological sustainability, we are also sometimes interested in the distinct unique conditions that constitute certain commodities other than labor power.<< Again, I agree with most of the above. Profit-maximization as a criterion defining what is and what is not a commodity is off-target. Following Marx, what is and what is not a commodity would not be defined by the unique characteristic of the item being sold; instead, the difference depends on the societal context of the item, i.e., what social process the item is in. (Obviously, the former has a major impact on the latter, hence my confusion.) Compare the commodity bread with labor-power. Under simple commodity production, the production of bread is part of the social process of M-C-M. Under capitalism, on the other hand, bread is part of the social process of M-C-M' (where M' > M except in severe crises). There is no LP on the market in the essentially mythical system of simple commodity production. Under capitalism, for the capitalists, the hiring and utilization of LP is part of M-C-M'. The production and reproduction of LP under capitalism, on the other hand, is described by C-M-C. People supply labor-power for all sorts of complex reasons all involving the seeking of use-value rather than exchange-value: as Blair notes, "Households may incorporate ancient, feudal, or communal class processes [or non-class and gender-domination processes, for that matter], depending on the form and structure of the household." I'm sure that most pen-lers have been thinking "who really cares if LP is or is not a 'commodity'?" I can agree with that, not caring that much about which definitions are used as much as trying to understand the world (as long as one is clear about one's own definitions); my use of definitions is instrumentalist, though I think Marx's definitions are often or even usually the best instruments for understanding the world. For that reason, I think the above is a better statement of my view than my previous one that labor-power is treated as a commodity but is not really a commodity like bread. Under capitalism, labor-power is part of C-M-C on the supply-side, but part of M-C-M' on the demand-side. In private correspondence, Alan Freeman points out that Marx defines labor-power independent of the social mode of production (in ch. 6 of vol. I) simply as the capacity to work. As such, it need not be a commodity. If I use my LP to rush my son to the emergency room (as I did last night at 11: he's okay now), it's not a commodity. Similarly, LP need not be part of M-C-M'. I'm not against the idea that the pieces of nature (like minerals) that are sold are also unique commodities that must be treated differently than say, bread. (NB: I am here using the word "nature" to the realm outside of human society.) After all, on the supply-side, they are not really part of a social process at all (since nature as defined here is not part of society). On the other hand, under capitalism, the pieces of nature are treated as part of M-C-M' on the demand side. Marx clearly treats labor-power and the pieces of nature as different than commodities that are produced as part of M-C-M or M-C-M'. (In the CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAM, he says that Nature is as much a source of use-values as is labor, which itself is manifestation of a force of nature, human labor-power.) His emphasis in CAPITAL, of course, is on labor-power, since his focus on the social relations of capitalism. Ecological sustainability was not on the agenda when Marx wrote, at least to the extent that it is today. Blair wrote that >>*every* commodity ... has its own *unique* conditions of existence that constitute that commodity uniquely. For a variety of reasons (political, moral, etc.) we are particularly interested in emphasizing the unique conditions of LP, but that doesn't make it any more unique than other commodities.<< This hints that the issue of labor-power's uniqueness is simply subjective (political, moral, etc.) and thus arbitrary. I would say instead that the issue is based on (imperfectly-perceived) objective reality: the uniqueness of labor-power as a commodity is an important aspect of the essential workings of capitalism (the use of labor-power under capitalist relations of production is the source of surplus-value). A PoMotista might counter by saying that there is no objective reality and that it's all a matter of perception. Luckily, Blair seems to be agreeing with my anti-PoMo stance, in that he makes the ontological assertion that "every commodity has its own unique conditions of existence." in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
