> roger wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
You're right. Marx, of course, was not criticizing neoclassical marginal productivity theory, which, for all intents and purposes didn't exist when he wrote, and it is of little value to extend his critique there. My response is the sort thing that can happen when, as part of the academic bargain, you get to Marx, as I did, by wading through the endless prattle of neoclassicals. You seem pretty free of such infections.
> 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)?
Apt question, but containing some inapt predicates. Let's remove the phrase "why is it necessary" and just consider whether it's useful to (1) *not reformulate* the contradiction within the form of labor into a nature/society contradiction, but to consider the effect of it on human nature as (2) not a utopian projection, but a material condition to be changed in the process of creating a society organized to satisfy human needs instead of the self expansion of capital. Labor no longer as alienating, but as a source of self-realization.
Carrol has suggested we read Martha Giminez's review of Sean Sayers' book Marxism and Human Nature in the latest Monthly Review, and he is right; it is precisely on point. I offer a few things for your perusal.
Echoing Rob, Giminez says, "The substance of his [Sayers'] argument is that neither those who negate the reality of human nature nor those who posit the reality of a universal human nature offer an acceptable account. Human nature is both historical (i.e., relative to the mode of production within which it emerged and develops) and universal, insofar as every mode of production shapes the world in its own image. As modes of production change, human nature changes accordingly because 'the whole of what is called world history is nothing more than the creation of man through human labor' [citing Marx]".
"This book is particularly useful also for exposing the weaknesses inherent in the false and the rigid theoretical alternatives students are offered in theory courses today, between the natural and social, the universal and the relative, and the essential and the inessential. It is important to bring back the Marxist alternative, the historical understanding of human nature and social reality that stresses the dialectical, concrete unity of the universal and the particular, and the natural and the social....It is important to be reminded of the nature of our human nature, of the role of labor in our self-realization, and of the dialectical interaction between structural change, contradictions, and the emergence of new needs, aspirations, and powers."
"To those who would argue against that notion [of the human need to work] Sayers points out that the concept of alienation presupposes the need to work which, though denied under capitalist conditions, resurfaces in the extremely negative effects of unemployment, in people's eagerness to develop their creative potential after work, and (as shown in research findings about people's reluctance to give up work even without income loss. The need to work, as we experience today, is a historical product of the development of the forces of production and, concomitantly, the development of human capabilities and knowledge; that it is historical does not mean that it is false or unnatural, because all attitudes and feelings towards work reflect the mode of production and the kinds of constraints and possibilities it opens up for people. The need to work is an integral part of human nature as it historically develops through labor."
Giminez then goes on to explain that the same reasoning applies to leisure. "Sayers postulates the historical emergence of leisure as a need dialectically related to the need to work, but responding to related (though somewhat different) concerns."
RO