Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/09/00 07:49PM maybe he's suggesting that industrial capital as a social relationship isn't a commodity. It involves a non-market (non-commodity) relationship of domination of workers within production. (Of course, that authoritarianism is within the framework of a commodity-producing society that treats labor-power like a commodity. But the relationship within the company during a contract period is typically not a commodity relationship of buying and selling.) *** CB: And , gee, what is sold in the stock MARKET ?
Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
Mat F. writes: My ref to Coase was that that seemed to me to be what you were describing in your original post, that within the firm relations aren't determined by market bargaining but by command. But your response indicates that you seem to have understood what I was getting at? yup. As far as agriculture, you said that maybe he was saying that social relations involves non-market relations of domination, but why does that apply to "*industrial* capital" but not capitalist agriculture? to Marx, industrial capital (a type of social relation, different from commercial capital, money-lending capital, etc.) could be agricultural (in terms of the use-values produced). See the first footnote of chapter 31 of vol. I of CAPITAL. But the interesting part is about labor power as a commodity. 1) is labor power a commodity? I think so. Bought and sold in a market. I'd say yes no. yes, as you say. but no, because it's not produced to be a commodity. 2) is labor power produced? that's a tougher one. it is reproduced for sure. but maybe even produced. it's produced (via sex, family nurturance, etc.), but the question is whether it's produced as a commodity. Paul P. writes: I have always liked Polanyi's designation of labour (land and money) as "fictitious commodities" because they are treated as if they were commodities (bought and sold on the market) but which are not produced for the purpose of selling on the market. I agree that's a useful phrase. Mat asks: Why do you say "not totally produced for sale" and not "_totally_ a commodity"?? I can guess at what you might be getting at but better to just let you explain. I think of my students (almost all undergraduate business majors) who are actively producing themselves as commodities, figuring out how to sell themselves. The fact is that even though labor-power is not a _true_ commodity, capitalism has succeeded in making it one to a large extent. More and more, people seem to be living to work (for the capitalists) more than they're working to live. Tom W. writes: The verb in the sentence is "presents", not "is". The commodity fetish mistakes relations between people as relations between things. "Presents itself" plays right into Marx's contention that all is not "what it appears to be" in capitalist society. The "immense accumulation of commodities" is a mask concealing a system of social domination. that's right. Marx didn't see capitalism _as_ merely commodity relations. Rather, he wanted to dig below the surface appearances of capitalism, which _presents itself_ as such. So of course he has to first understand the commodity and its mystifying character. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
I wrote that: maybe he's [George's] suggesting that industrial capital as a social relationship isn't a commodity. It involves a non-market (non-commodity) relationship of domination of workers within production. (Of course, that authoritarianism is within the framework of a commodity-producing society that treats labor-power like a commodity. But the relationship within the company during a contract period is typically not a commodity relationship of buying and selling.) Charles B. asks: And , gee, what is sold in the stock MARKET ? the stock markets sell ownership claims on existing capital assets (the equity or net worth of corporations), which represent claims on (expected) streams of surplus-value. Capital, on the other hand, refers to a social institution that dominates all of society, as Marx makes clear. This institution then implies the existence of the streams of surplus-value and capital assets. Without capitalism as a mode of production, stock markets wouldn't exist. Rod Hay writes: I think this is discussion is based upon a wrong conception of what Marx is about in this chapter [chapter I of CAPITAL vol. I]. He is trying to root out the basic logic of the capitalist mode of production. Any given society will be composed of a large number of institutions, operating on many different principles. Some capitalist, some not. right. that's the distinction between a concrete "social formation" and the abstract "mode of production." It is the nature of modern society that capitalist principles penetrate institutions that have operated on different principles. Many have commented on the penetration of capitalist values into the university. And many more examples could be provided. A fully capitalist society (which has never existed) would be completely governed by capitalist principles in all human interactions. Our society is one in which the capitalist mode of production dominates not one in which it is exclusive. The crucial point was when labour and land became commodities. the question is what "capitalist principles" are. I would say that it doesn't simply include commodity production (i.e., that capitalism isn't the same as simple commodity production) but also includes the domination of workers in production. Without the latter, there's no surplus-value. I think that one problem (internal contradiction) that capitalism has is the tendency to marketize (commodify) _everything_ undermines capitalism's ability to reproduce itself (as a whole) over time. This is what Polanyi picked up on. In Marxian terms, the effort to eschew hierarchy and to marketize management/worker relations undermines the production of surplus-value. Most managers realize this, so it doesn't happen that much. However, marketizing "pieces of nature" has obvious negative effects on nature and undermines capitalism's reproduction over time. BTW, to Marx, it's not "labor" (actual human activity) that's a commodity, but "labor-power" (time sold to capitalists, during which workers submit to the latter's authority). ... The fact that large firms do not operate internally on capitalist principles has led some to see government ownership and central planning as a basis for socialism. But others have countered that large firms do not operate on socialist principles either. The persistence of hierarchy prohibits that. The nonmarket nature of the inside of corporations is only one half of the development of capitalism that Marx saw as a predecessor of socialism. The other was democratic worker cooperatives. Methinks Marx saw both as inadequate. The point is to figure out how to combine them. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
Jim Devine wrote: 2) is labor power produced? that's a tougher one. it is reproduced for sure. but maybe even produced. it's produced (via sex, family nurturance, etc.), but the question is whether it's produced as a commodity. I think it's a bit more complicated. Sex at most produces a fetus -- and there is a long distance between a f etus and a new hiree at McDonalds. And much of that distance is occupied by schools rather than parents. What are schools doing? And of course more and more university administrators are speaking of their institutions as though they were factories producing something. Also. I have never read much commentary on Marx's distinction between "simple" and "qualified" labor power. If the distinction holds, then perhaps we could say that "simple" labor power is reproduced but qualified labor power is produced. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
I have always liked Polanyi's designation of labour (land and money) as "fictitious commodities" because they are treated as if they were commodities (bought and sold on the market) but which are not produced for the purpose of selling on the market. Mathew Forstater wrote: 1) is labor power a commodity? I think so. Bought and sold in a market. 2) is labor power produced? that's a tougher one. it is reproduced for sure. but maybe even produced. Why do you say "not totally produced for sale" and not "_totally_ a commodity"?? I can guess at what you might be getting at but better to just let you explain. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
At 07:37 PM 3/9/00 -0500, you wrote: You have missed nothing, Mat. A commodity is something that is for sale. Industrial capital is for sale everyday. The recent round of mergers and takeovers demonstrate that without doubt. George is in fact claiming that we do not live in a capitalist society. The first sentence of Capital, is one of the most brilliant encapsulations of the essential nature of modern society. Everything of worth is for sale, even human time and effort. And is some regions of the world even body parts are for sale. Why George thinks that industrial capital would escape that fate is a mystery. maybe he's suggesting that industrial capital as a social relationship isn't a commodity. It involves a non-market (non-commodity) relationship of domination of workers within production. (Of course, that authoritarianism is within the framework of a commodity-producing society that treats labor-power like a commodity. But the relationship within the company during a contract period is typically not a commodity relationship of buying and selling.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
So, Coase's 1930s article, Jim? And why wouldn't that apply to social relations in capitalist agriculture? My hunch is that there is a confusion about the term "commodity." That he may be thinking that commodities are consumption goods or something. I would define commodity a little more specifically than Rod, but basically along the same lines: a commodity is anything that is produced for sale in a market, or anything that is bought and sold in a market. "Produced for sale," because some commodities are produced but are not actually sold (like Rod's "for sale," only I would add in a market [though someone could say if it is for sale it must be in a market, but... ]), due to lack of demand or what have you. But also bought and sold, because some commodities may not be "produced" in the same sense as standard reproducible commodities are (labor power, land-- though we can talk about how and in what senses these are produced and reproduced). Of course, George can explain what he meant. But I agree with Rod about the importance of that first sentence and more generally Marx's decision concerning how to begin _Capital_. I remember there used to be some disagreement about how to teach _Capital_, that some would begin with ch. 10, I think, and then go back to the beginning. I'm glad my teachers began at the beginning and went straight through, exactly as Marx intended. But let's hope it is still being taught at all! I'm lucky to have been at the New School when Ross Thompson was still there teaching the Intro to Political Economy 1 and 2 and when Advanced Political Economy was still required and taught by Shaikh, and when Political Economy meant studying Marx. It hurts to think that these courses have either been changed or are no longer required. -Original Message- From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:58 PM Subject: [PEN-L:17027] Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong At 07:37 PM 3/9/00 -0500, you wrote: You have missed nothing, Mat. A commodity is something that is for sale. Industrial capital is for sale everyday. The recent round of mergers and takeovers demonstrate that without doubt. George is in fact claiming that we do not live in a capitalist society. The first sentence of Capital, is one of the most brilliant encapsulations of the essential nature of modern society. Everything of worth is for sale, even human time and effort. And is some regions of the world even body parts are for sale. Why George thinks that industrial capital would escape that fate is a mystery. maybe he's suggesting that industrial capital as a social relationship isn't a commodity. It involves a non-market (non-commodity) relationship of domination of workers within production. (Of course, that authoritarianism is within the framework of a commodity-producing society that treats labor-power like a commodity. But the relationship within the company during a contract period is typically not a commodity relationship of buying and selling.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Jim Devine wrote: At 07:37 PM 3/9/00 -0500, you wrote: You have missed nothing, Mat. A commodity is something that is for sale. Industrial capital is for sale everyday. The recent round of mergers and takeovers demonstrate that without doubt. George is in fact claiming that we do not live in a capitalist society. The first sentence of Capital, is one of the most brilliant encapsulations of the essential nature of modern society. Everything of worth is for sale, even human time and effort. And is some regions of the world even body parts are for sale. Why George thinks that industrial capital would escape that fate is a mystery. maybe he's suggesting that industrial capital as a social relationship isn't a commodity. It involves a non-market (non-commodity) relationship of domination of workers within production. (Of course, that authoritarianism is within the framework of a commodity-producing society that treats labor-power like a commodity. But the relationship within the company during a contract period is typically not a commodity relationship of buying and selling.) Hang on here, are producers during a contract period ever forced to stay on a job? Not free to leave a job? If not, Idon't see how they don't qualify as involved in a relationship that involves buying and selling of labor power. Steve Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Capital is wrong
I wrote: maybe he's suggesting that industrial capital as a social relationship isn't a commodity. It involves a non-market (non-commodity) relationship of domination of workers within production. (Of course, that authoritarianism is within the framework of a commodity-producing society that treats labor-power like a commodity. But the relationship within the company during a contract period is typically not a commodity relationship of buying and selling.) Steve P writes: Hang on here, are producers during a contract period ever forced to stay on a job? Not free to leave a job? If not, I don't see how they don't qualify as involved in a relationship that involves buying and selling of labor power. What I had in mind was Marx's vol. I, ch. 15 s. 331 distinction between the division of labor in society and the division of labor in manufacture (or more generally within capitalist hierarchies). He refers there to the "anarchy in the social division of labor and despotism in that of the workshop" which "differ not only in degree, but also in kind" but mutually condition each other (quotes on p. 337 and 334 of the 1967 hardback printing of the International Publishers' edition). But getting beyond Marxology, Juliet Schor and Sam Bowles developed the idea of the "cost of job loss," which is especially high when the reserve army of the unemployed is large (but also is high for individuals who will lose medical benefits, etc. due to firing or quitting). A positive CoJL implies that even though proletarian workers obviously aren't slaves, they also aren't totally "free to leave a job." Mat writes: So, Coase's 1930s article, Jim? And why wouldn't that apply to social relations in capitalist agriculture? I don't get what you mean by the reference to Coase here. But as Coase noted, capitalists don't make deals with individual workers at each point to do task X or to go to division Y. Rather, they order workers to do "their jobs" within the limits of the contract. (Workers do not sell a set of predetermined services to the boss; rather, they are paid to submit to the authority of the boss for a specific time period.) And of course, the bosses take advantage of the cost of job loss to reinterpret the contract in their favor, so the cost of job loss determines the limits of the bosses' authoritarianism. (BTW, Michael Reich and I published an article about this kind of stuff a couple of decades ago, in the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS.) I also don't get what you're talking about concerning agriculture. However, the history of agriculture under capitalism has been a matter of the reduction of farmers to the status of proletarians. Most farmers have become either wage-workers or (for a small number) hired managers. US agriculture seems a perfect case of the story Marx told in CAPITAL of simple commodity production turning into its opposite. My hunch is that there is a confusion about the term "commodity." That he may be thinking that commodities are consumption goods or something. I would define commodity a little more specifically than Rod, but basically along the same lines: a commodity is anything that is produced for sale in a market, or anything that is bought and sold in a market. "Produced for sale," because some commodities are produced but are not actually sold (like Rod's "for sale," only I would add in a market [though someone could say if it is for sale it must be in a market, but... ]), due to lack of demand or what have you. But also bought and sold, because some commodities may not be "produced" in the same sense as standard reproducible commodities are (labor power, land-- though we can talk about how and in what senses these are produced and reproduced). Labor-power is treated like a commodity even though it's not totally produced for sale (yet). The fact that LP isn't _totally_ a commodity is a sign that capitalism isn't totally about commodity production and exchange. It's also about the alienation, domination, and exploitation of human beings. Of course, George can explain what he meant. But I agree with Rod about the importance of that first sentence and more generally Marx's decision concerning how to begin _Capital_. I remember there used to be some disagreement about how to teach _Capital_, that some would begin with ch. 10, I think, and then go back to the beginning. I think the line (which originates with Althusser and Balibar, I believe) is that one should start with chapter 4, which gets you beyond the hard-to-read and "Hegelian" first three chapters. I'm glad my teachers began at the beginning and went straight through, exactly as Marx intended. But let's hope it is still being taught at all! I'm lucky to have been at the New School when Ross Thompson was still there teaching the Intro to Political Economy 1 and 2 and when Advanced Political Economy was still required and taught by Shaikh, and when Political
