[G_O] Capital

Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:41 -0000

Onder,
as I said I don't have my books with me at the
moment. But it's easy to pick up a passage, out
of context, and build a whole theory of what the
proletariat is or isn't for Marx. The fundamental point
for Marx in defining the fundamental opposition that
characterises modern capitalist societies, is the relation
to the means of production, and the last time I checked
engineers did not own the means of production.
Though there might be some who do and are qualified
as engineers.

PP

-----Original Message-----
From: Onder KURT <onder_kurt@hotmail.com>
To: generation_online@kein.org <generation_online@kein.org>
Date: Monday, March 10, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [G_O] Capital

>"I think that Marx was a victim of the so called "Smith effect": Marx never
>questioned the Smithian concept of
>productive work"
>
>I dont know which edition of "Capital you are refering to, but in Penguin
>Books edition of Capital edited by Ernst Mandel there is an appendix called
>, If I remember correctly, "Results of Immediate Process of Production".
>This was meant to be included as a seperate chapter in the original
>structure of Capital but somehow it has disappeared later. In his long
>introduction Mandel refers to this "lost chapter, may be it would be
helpful
>to read it.
>
>Anyway.. In "Results of Immediate process of production", Marx clearly
makes
>a distinction between "productive labour" and "unproductive labour". Under
>the heading of "unproductive labour" he gathers all those white collars,
>engineers, managers, foremen etc.
>
>I refer to this appendix in my polemics with orthodox Marxists who like to
>believe that with the term proleteriat, Marx understands all those waged
>labours. I know a friend who is an engineer and supposes that he is a
member
>of proleteriat. They would have been extremely happy, if it were really so.
>They need desperately a good explanation for the problem of a social
>subject. They feel that classical subject "proleteriat" is not satisfactory
>for explaining the complex class structure of 21st century world. So
instead
>of searching for a better solution, like Negri or Deleuze does, they try to
>extend the definition of the term "proleteriat". However, it is evident
from
>  "Results of Immediate process of production", that Marx understands from
>"productive labour" only industrial worker and his entire analysis is based
>on the working condition of the industrial workers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: "Jaakko Leskinen" <leskinen@hkkk.fi>
>Reply-To: generation_online@kein.org
>To: <generation_online@kein.org>
>Subject: Re: [G_O] Capital
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:00:04 +0200
>
>Hi Nate,
>
>I think that Marx was a victim of the so called "Smith effect": Marx never
>questioned the Smithian concept of
>productive work. Marx was satisfied to distinguish between work and labor
>force to uncover what the political economy hid:  exploitation inside the
>capitalist relation.
>
>  I don't understand, why the sources of economic value cannot be multiple.
>Why only use value and exchange value?  Why can't leisure and art be the
>source of economic value?
>Jaakko
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Nate Holdren" <nateholdren@hotmail.com>
>To: <generation_online@kein.org>
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:38 AM
>Subject: [G_O] Capital
>
>
> > Hi all-
> >
> > I'm finally trying to read all of vol 1 of _Capital_, our first reading
> > group meeting went very well.
> >
> > I was wondering if people here would be willing to hear some of my
>questions
> > on this and offer some helpful input. I'll try not to spend too much
time
>on
> > this now as I need to sleep so I can sell my labor power tomorrow, and
as
>I
> > don't want to write a lot about this if it's something people are not
> > interested in.
> >
> > I should also say that no offense, but I'm a little less interested in
> > hearing from the, err, orthodox crowd on this, and even more so I am
> > completely uninterested polemical finger-wagging replies about the Party
>and
> > such like stuff.
> >
> > My first big question is on the categories of use value and exchange
>value.
> > What do people think of these categories, do you find them useful? If
so,
> > how?
> >
> > I find them mainly confusing and I think inconsistent. Marx defines use
> > value very minimally, as that which, by human action, satisfies a want
or
> > need, any want or need what so ever. He then talks as if this were
>utterly
> > incompatible with exchange value.
> >
> > But, why couldn't there be a want or need to exchange, such that the act
>of
> > exchange satisfies this want or need? In other words, why can't exchange
>be
> > considered a use? And if it is so, what am I to make of Marx's repeated
> > railing about the contradiction of these two opposing terms/practice?
> >
> > I can chase up the page references if need be, but I know on at least
two
> > occasions Marx does say that exchange is use, (he says that the sole use
>a
> > commodity has for a seller is exchange, to be the 'sole' use exchange
>must
> > be 'a' use; also he cites Aristotle saying that someone who exchanges a
> > sandal uses it just as much as someone who wears it.)
> >
> > He still goes on to talk about these as diametrically opposed
> > concepts/practices, when it seems to me that exchange is, in the terms
by
> > which defines use, a sub-category of use.
> >
> > I get the point that in capitalism the social practice of exchange is
> > prioritized/dominant over practices that many people want in order to
>live
> > and be happy, and that we generally only get to these other practices by
> > passing through the practice of exchange, but I still don't see the need
>or
> > the use of conceptualizing this under the categories of use value and
> > exchange value. Is there more to it than this, something I'm missing?
> >
> > Oh yes, I probably should have said this earlier, but I'm much more
> > interested in what people like or don't like about these ideas, how
>people
> > mobilize or see these being mobilized, than I am in any Marxological
>archive
> > hunting about what Karl our dear old uncle Truly meant.
> >
> > Any input is very appreciated.
> >
> > best wishes,
> > Nate
> >
> > No more weekdays, they hanged Monday, shot Thursday, sliced up Friday!
>Every
> > day is Sunday.
> >
> > -Franca Rame and Dario Fo, "Waking Up"
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > generation_online mailing list
> > generation_online@coyote.kein.org
> > http://coyote.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/generation_online
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>generation_online mailing list
>generation_online@coyote.kein.org
>http://coyote.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/generation_online
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>generation_online mailing list
>generation_online@coyote.kein.org
>http://coyote.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/generation_online
>