These are some of the enigmas of value, and if value just is labor time, why can't producers simply receive an official certificate of the abstract labor time expended in production? Marx can only be understood in terms of the critique of Proudhon. Did he carry grudge for twenty years against the other socialist?
I enjoyed this piece by Miller; a few minor quibbles.
>So many yards of linen can be substituted for one coat, and so
>on, just as one word can be substituted for another in a metaphorical
>exchange or transfer.
Yet the specific use values of goods do figure in Marx's theory.
>The problem is already solved by a performative enunciation that
>declares the objectivity of the linen as use-value is fundamentally
>different from its ghostly objectivity (gespenstige Gegenständlichkeit) as
>exchange value or as abstract value as so much incarnated human labor.
The problem that is solved here is money, and Marx's point is that the value of a commodity only appears as the use value of another commodity. We know that linen has value because the coat does keep us warm. Many steps here. Once we see the answer in this simple form then we have already hit on the answer to the glittering quality of the one commodity gold which has a monopoly on direct exchangeability.. Which is not simply the ghostly objectivity of value but the relational nature of value and its paradoxical appearance in the natural form of only one commodity. Money is the quarry here.
>Both are ironic writers
>through and through.
No mention here of Robert Paul Wolff Mr Moneybags Must be So Lucky? perhaps the most sustained discussion of irony in Marx's Capital. Sure to disappoint a literary theorist however with its introductory understandings of metaphor and irony, though I enjoyed and learned from the book. But Wolff did insist on reading Marx as a literary critic.
>Within the capitalist system men
>and women do not themselves speak decisively nor do they make the
>messianic promise of the end of labor's alienation that is the central
>message of Marxism... It is not a prosopopoeia ascribing speech to
>something inanimate. It is the literal truth. The linen speaks.
>
Im Anfang War Das Wort. But now objects speak in terms of their price. It's an impersonal language of value, free of affect. In this sense the language of commodities is not a language at all; it is information communicated through numbers.
I don't see how it's the literal truth that the linen speaks. Not just because I am not an animist. Marx is marking the degradation of the word in the marketplace, the absence of language in the fundamental aspects of our social relations of production, the erosion of communicative action. The language of commodities is an ironic expression, no?
"Transactions that proceed through the medium of exchange value fall outside of the intersubjectivity of reaching understanding through language...anonymous valorization processes encroach upon his lifeworld and destroy the ethical order of communicatively established intersubjectivity by turning social relations into purely instrumental relations." Habermas
Of each getting the best price for the value.
But no one would want to say that Habermas has understood Marx better than Derrida?! The latter is more important as a critic of Marx than as an exegete.
>This likeness, however, is not just a
>similarity but an identity, though one may be substituted for the other, as
>in metaphor. All this the linen says, speaking the language of commodities.
Not an identity in the sense that the relative and general forms are not reflexive. A=B, but B does not equal A. Why this is is the key to the fetishism of money.
Rakesh
ps would like to return to the slavery and technology debate at some point.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061221/0efb663d/attachment.htm>