**************
FWIW in the section of the GCP to which you refer, Marx says, "Within the cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products here appear _as the value of these products_, as a material quantiuty possessed directly by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no loger exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labor." CTucker, ME Reader 2d ed, at 529.
OK, clear enough? This explains why I want to talk about capitalism. There is, according to Marx, no value in a post capitalsist society based on collective ownership where the producers do not exchange their products.
I find no reference in Marx to a "mixed" system, and certainly not in the CGP, where he talks about the first state of communsim involving remuneration according to labor. Labor, yes. Value, no.
--- Charles Brown <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yes. I am sure. Compensation according to labor a
> nonmarket system CANNOT be computed according to
> value.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Marx , who is the originator of concept of
> "value" as you use it
> here, seems to think that there are mixed systems in
> the transition from
> capitalism to socialism. In other words, it is not a
> completely
> non-market system.
>
> ^^^^
>
> Where there is no labor market or generalized
> commodity production, THERE IS NO VALUE. If you
> don't
> understand that value theory is a theory only for
> generalized commodity production, you're out of the
> ballpark, whoever "you" are.
> ^^^^^
> CB: Well, if "you" are Karl Marx, I'm going to
> listen to your comment.
> And Marx made a comment that suggests something
> different than what you
> are saying here.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> This point is not
> arguable by serious readers of Marx and I am not
> going
> to argue it. Anyway, Marx did take apart at the
> joints
> some hapless contemporary who proposed a Parecon
> like
> scheme of compensation by units of labor time -- not
> value in Marx's sense, a sense of the term value at
> the time peculiar to him. I have mislaid the
> reference. The remark in CGP about remuneration
> according to labor says nothing about value,
>
> ^^^^
> CB: It logically implies something about value,
> since it speaks of
> labor and in the Marxist system, labor is the
> source of value.
> Comments about labor automatically say something
> about value in this
> theory.
>
> ^^^^
>
> and it
> wouldn't, because unlike the early Bolsheviks, Marx
> understood his own theory reasonably well. Nor does
> it
> involve a labor chit system, unless Marx cahnged his
> mind after his demolition of the proto Alber-Hahnel,
> which I doubt. What it means is somewhat opaque, BUT
> NOT GERMANE HERE, because it is not discussing
> CAPITALISM but a postcapitalist society.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: I was commenting on a comment you made on a
> postcapitalist society,
> so it's germane to something you said about a
> postcapitalist society on
> this thread.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> Therefore my
> theory about what the poassage in CGP means means (I
> have one, in fact I've published it, citation on
> request) is irrelevant to my question.
>
> Can we get back to my question?
>
> ^^^^
> CB: We can discuss both questions.
>
> ^^^^
>
> I agree that there is potential for an insustance on
> the p-u distinction to be politicatically divisive.
> But that is not an answer to my question, which is,
> does it make sense in capitalism?
>
> ^^^^
> CB: The unproductive productive distinction arises
> in Marx's
> _Capital_. A Marxist discussion of capitalism should
> never confine
> itself to only capitalism, but rather it must
> discuss capitalism in
> capitalism's self-changing into socialism, and in
> terms of the class
> struggle and working class struggle as important in
> changing capitalism
> into socialism. The dialectics of Marxism is that
> it insists on
> discussing capitalism in terms of the change of
> capitalism into
> socialism, not a fixed and permanent capitalism. So,
> a Marxist approach
> demands that discussion of postcapitalist society be
> included as germane
> in discussions of capitalist society.
>
>
> Productive and unproductive labor should be
> discussed in terms of
> ending capitalism, not as some improvement over
> bourgeois economics in
> understanding how permanent capitalism
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ