> Derision, that is, at the idea of labor as a factor of production, paid
its
marginal product.<
hang on a sec, roger: the passage i cited was not simply an argument about the trinity formula, the composition of capital, etc, was it? it was a criticism of a conception of labour as "the productive activity of human beings in general, by which they promote the interchange with Nature, divested not only of every social form and well-defined character, but even in its bare natural existence, independant of society, removed from all societies, and as an expression and confirmation of life which the still non-social man in general has in common with the one who is in any way social." there are any number of ways marx could have approached a critique of the trinity formula (the lassallean view of labour as the source of all wealth could certainly be one), but he didn't.
moreover, i think marx is a little confusing (in some respects) at this point about the relation between use-value and exchange-value. certainly there are enough passages where marx talks about use-value in the way you suggest. but my take is that these occassions are to give a sense of logical (rather than historical) presupposition (remember the passage on the difference between historical and expositional succession?), that they're in the most illustrative or expositional of passages of _Capital_ and, more importantly, there's no way to make sense of the whole of _Capital_ without taking account of the form of capital as consisting of _both_ use and exchange value.
and yes, you're right to note that i don't think communist politics can or should be based on narratives of a return to the once-upon-a-time that's implied by arguments of natural states. this is where we moved from a discussion of anarchism to marxism, wasn't it? that is to say, (and i guess this is the thing i don't quite get) why is it necessary to reformulate what is an immanent contradiction within the form of labour (or of value) into a contradiction between nature/society or present/past or even present/future (as a kind of utopian projection)?
the _political_ presumption here i think is that capitalism affords no dynamic of movement that emerges from within. this is why immanent contradictions are reworked as temporal differences. but if we read, for instance, the chapter "The immediate process of production", there's no clearer example (for me at least) of this internal dynamic that is capable of producing ruptures -- even and esp within capitalist history -- both subjectively and objectively (if we're to use those words in their somewhat stale sense). if there's a concrete sense of rupture that points to a rupture with capitalism, i find it there in that chapter. it's a shame i had to find it in the _collected works_, this being before the penguin edition put it back in to _capital_.
rob wrote:
> But assertions that no natural predeliction pertains are equally to be
approached with caution - we are, inter alia, natural beings<
no one has claimed this i think rob, tho you keep reading it as such.
and, i meant 'conserving' in the sense of assigning, on a quite arbitrary basis it seems to me, certain senses of sexuality, desire, etc to biology. on the issue of blokes being attracted to younger women (or vice versa): it's an issue that's never particularly come across my radar. zzz... but since you raise the issue of consent, are you really saying that whatever one consents to must be a result of natural predilections?
> So what about positing a largely unknowable essential human ('coz I
reckon a couple of things are satisfactorily knowable - but mebbe it
doesn't matter) within the context of the contingent historical relations
category?<
that would be more than fine by me (even the bracketting off of the speculative moment). i've a lot of time for spinoza.
Angela _________