Rethinking the Values of the Left PDF
Preview Rethinking the Values of the Left
Rethinking Marxism A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society ISSN: 0893-5696 (Print) 1475-8059 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrmx20 Rethinking the Values of the Left Pranab Kanti Basu To cite this article: Pranab Kanti Basu (2012) Rethinking the Values of the Left, Rethinking Marxism, 24:2, 221-239, DOI: 10.1080/08935696.2012.657445 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2012.657445 Published online: 15 Mar 2012. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 337 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rrmx20 RETHINKINGMARXISM VOLUME24 NUMBER2 (APRIL2012) Rethinking the Values of the Left Pranab Kanti Basu Thepositionofthemarginalpeople’smovementsinIndiaisradicallydifferentfrom thatofthemodernizers,whosubscribetotheideaoflineardevelopment.Thelatter isalsothepositionofconstitutionalMarxistpartiesinIndia,whohavebeeninpower attheprovinciallevelforconsiderablelengthsoftime.Marxistpartiesareunableto cometotermswiththeassortedpeople’smovementspartlybecauseMarxistpolitical economy,particularlythelawofvalue,cannotaccommodatetheethicsandvaluesof people’s movements. The working class position derived from political economy sustains an individual centric ethics, reflected in value, while the people’s move- mentsaresustainedbycommunityethics,reflectedintheirinsistenceonsocialuse value.Thisessayinterrogatescertainopeningsinthediscourseonvaluetoexcavate the ground for understanding the erasure of the notion of community from this discourse.Italsodiscussesarevolutionaryexperimentthattriedtoweavetogether thetwoethics. KeyWords: UseValue,Value,Violence,Community,PrimitiveAccumulation,Marxist PoliticalEconomy Constitutional Marxist parties in India have accepted growth along capitalist lines.1 Ontheotherhand,therehavebeenvarious‘people’smovements’inIndiathathave contested this impoverishing growth controlled by global capital. The Left in power hasnotempathizedwiththesemovements.Thisarticlearguesthatthisfailureofthe constitutionalLeftmaybetracedtosomeofthelessonsofMarxistPoliticalEconomy (MPE). The objective of this exploration is to understand possible reasons for the failure of MPE to provide theoretical wherewithal for these struggles or even to recognize their counterhegemonic potential. Simultaneously this essay will attempt to unravel revolutionary aporetic moments in MPE. The chosen area of this deconstructive endeavor isMarx’svalue theory.Our fundamental proposition is that theerasureofsocialusevaluesfromMPE’sdiscourseofvalueswithinthecommodity- capital complex makes its application in the practice of Left parties problematic. 1. We are referring to the communist parties that adhere to the constitution and contest elections. We do not suggest that the communist groups in India that contest power using extraconstitutionalmethodsdonotsufferfromthekindofblindnessthatwediscusshere,but their position has to be separately and specifically discussed, and this would make the essay ‘‘eight-legged.’’ ISSN0893-5696print/1475-8059online/12/020221-19 –2012AssociationforEconomicandSocialAnalysis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2012.657445 222 BASU Ourviewisthatwhilethiserasureisnecessaryforanalyzingthecapitalisteconomic, the same discourse cannot function as the ground for a sufficient critique of the capitalist order onwhichthe practice of theMarxist partiescan be based. Thefirstsectionpositsthedifferencebetweenthepositiontakenbythesepeople’s movements and the position of the major Marxist parties. The second interrogates certainopeningsinthediscourseonvaluetoexcavatethegroundforunderstanding erasureofthenotionofcommunity-basedusevalues*whichisaprincipalaspectof these people’s movements*from this discourse. We propose that the concepts, whose unavoidable suppression causes these gaps, can be used as ‘deconstructive levers’topriseopenthequestionof‘values’2inordertoproducemeaningsthatcan groundthesepeople’sstruggles.Intheconcludingsection,wediscussarevolutionary experiment in a symbiosis of construction of a material and ethical alternative and struggle against theexploitative order,at oneandthe same time. Situating the Question TheresultsoftheMay2011electionsoftheWestBengalstatelegislatureunderscore foundational gaps in the vision of the parliamentary left or communist parties in India. After thirty-four years in power at the state level (which must be a record of sorts the world over), the Left Front (LF) was routed at the polls.3 From 233 (the number of seats won at the last election in 2006), its number crashed to 62. The oppositionseatsincreasedfromaround50toaphenomenal227.ThevoteshareofLF decreased from49.56 to just 40.9 percent. The decline in popular support was greatly hastened by a series of people’s movements protesting acquisition of agricultural land by the state government for industries,denialofdemocraticrightsoftribals,andpoliceatrocitiesagainstthem. This was reflected in the earlier parliamentary and local administrative body elections. Singur, forty kilometers away from Kolkata, witnessed the earliest of these movements. In December 2006, the LF government had acquired 997 acres ofagriculturallandrequiredforacarfactoryunderthecolonialLandAcquisitionAct of1894.Unwillingfarmersprotestedandstartedacampaignthatbegantakingavery democratic shape, where decisions regarding the course of action began emerging fromvillageassemblies.Themovement,however,wasappropriatedbytheopposition All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), which is now the ruling party. As a result of the movement the industrial house for which the LF government had acquired the land abandonedtheprojectinlate2008.ThispatternwasrepeatedinNandigram,arural area situated seventy kilometers southwest of Kolkata. In 2007, the LF government decidedtoallowaMalaysianindustrialhouse,theSalimGroup,tosetupachemical hub at Nandigram under the Special Economic Zone policy. On 14 March 2007, Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) cadre and the police launched a brutal 2. Inthisparticularinstancewearereferringtothetermasusedincommonparlance,nottoits particularconnotationinMPE. 3. The LF is a coalition of parties, most of which claim Marxist lineage. It is led by the CommunistPartyofIndia(Marxist)*CPI(M). VALUES OF THE LEFT 223 assault on peasants, who had barricaded their villages at Nandigram to prevent the proposed acquisition of their land, and killed at least thirteen people. This move- ment, too, which was organized by aggrieved villagers outside the umbrella of parliamentary parties, was ultimately taken over by the TMC.4 Widespread con- demnation of thegovernment forced it to abandon theproject. To compound their isolation, the LF government in concert with the central government has organized systematic repression of the forest-dependent people. Lalgarh,inWestBengal,ispopulatedmainlybyindigenousforest-dependentpeople. Insuchregionsgovernmenthasalwaysbeenaparasiticentitywhosepresenceisfelt only as repression. State terror has increased with the intensification of Maoist activityintheregionsince1998.5InOctober2008,theMaoistsattemptedtoblowup amotorcadewiththeCPI(M)chiefministerofthestateandacentralminister.Unable to track the perpetrators, police went on a rampage. There were allegations of assault, destruction of property, arrest, detention, and torture without access to legal redress. The people responded by setting up a People’s Committee against PoliceAtrocities(PCPA).Thiswasamassorganizationinwhichdecisionsweretaken bymassassemblyratherthanbyrepresentativeleadership.PCPAinitiallydemanded ritualistic public apology from police*in keeping with traditional tribal custom. Later it broadened its activities and demanded development projects. Resentment against the state increased the stock of the Maoists. They intensified their terror. Usingthisasalibi,thestateandcentralforcesjointlylaunchedamassiverepressive military operation in the area as part of Operation Green Hunt. Schools and health centers were occupied by armed forces. The combined forces regularly harass villagersonthepretextofsearchingforMaoists.Innocentsaredetainedandtortured. Therearewidespreadallegationsofmolestationofwomen.ThoughthePCPAwasnot formallyoutlawed,itsleaderswerearrested(andarestillinprison)anditsmembers are continually harassed andtortured. The LFgovernment’sviolence againstrural andforest-dependent people, andthe spateofpeople’smovementsagainstthegovernmentculminatinginitsouster,point totheinabilityoftheLeftinpowertoempathizewiththeaspirationsofsuchgroups. Thisiscloselyrelatedtoitsinabilitytoimagineasetofdevelopmentpoliciesthatare specifically leftist. Theselacunae are bothrelated to the ‘foundational gaps’in the visionofthisLeftthatwereferredtoearlier.Itfailstoseetheheterogeneityofneeds 4. There is a common pattern in such appropriation. Faced, ultimately, with the lack of a broaderorsustainedvisionofdevelopment,theembryonic‘people’sorganizations’tendtoseek the protection of major, local, opposition political parties. This is not a phenomenon that is restrictedtoWestBengal. 5. ‘Maoists’aremembersofthebannedCommunistPartyofIndia(Maoist)*CPI(Maoist)*one of the several offshoots of the CPI (Marxist-Leninist),which emerged as the spearhead of the peasant movement inNaxalbari in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Maoists reject all formsof parliamentary struggles and believe in violent capture of state power. Their movements are markedbymacabreviolenceinthenameofthepeople’sjudgment.Theirterrortacticsareso chillingandintolerantofanyoppositionthatmanyofthestaunchestsupportersoftheNaxalite movementhaveturnedintoseverecriticsofCPI(Maoist).Wearenotgoingintoanalysisoftheir position, though we assert that they do not subscribe to the symbiosis of construction and strugglethatwepropose. 224 BASU andvaluesthatdistanceculturesandsocialgroups.TheMarxistsinpowersubscribe tothemodernistparadigmthatreducesquestionsofdisplacement,lossoflivelihood, andidentity to the homogeneous spaceof monetary cost/benefit calculations. Itcannotbedecidedonthebasisofreasonwhetherrightsofadivasis6towaterand forest resources*which they had nurtured and subsisted on for so many gener- ations*should be respected, or whether the demand by rich farmers for big dams shouldbegivenpriority.Themarket(able)economistmaysaythatitcanbeshownon the basis of a cost/benefit analysis that a modern dam project in a tribal area is justified because the (capitalized) market value of controlled water supply and additional electric power (calculated on the basis of the additional production that thesegenerate),whichwillresultfromtheproject,isgreaterthanthe(capitalized) market value of what the forest dwellers could earn if they were not displaced by construction of the dam. We will not join issue over the correctness of such calculation. We will not even question by what impossible means the gains of some are to be translated into compensation for the losers. The problem is rooted in the impossibilityoftheevaluationitself.7Marketvaluationofrights,whicharetrampled, to bring water and forest resources within the ambit of market transactions is impossible. Community life, nature, and culture*which the adivasis lose*are not purchased in the market. Nor does there exist any alternative against which their opportunity cost can be calculated. All these are unique to the forest dwellers, so howcanonecalculatetheirmarketvalue?Atthesametime,itcannotbeestablished byreasonthattherighttolifeandlivelihoodoftheadivasisisjustified.Actually,the two different positions arebased ontwo setsof ethical norms. Violence signifies the absence of communication, the presence of difference in language,ethics,valuesorlaw.Theadivasisorothercommunitiesofpeoplelivingon landthatthestatewishestoacquirehaveonekindofrationalitysupportedbyoneset of ethical principles that do not admit the possibility of homogenizing values. The State,8 irrespective of whether the Left is in power, and Capital subscribe to a differentrationalityandethics*anethicsthatisgroundedinmodernityandbelieves inthepossibilityofhomogenizingvalues.Sowehaveviolence,brutalandgradually assuming the proportions of a civil war. Unfortunately, the Left while in power in pocketsofIndiahasfailed tothinkadifferentrationalityandethics.Wearguethat this may be attributable to a certain reading of MPE, particularly a reading of the natureand placeof use value intheprocess of transition. WearguethattheinabilityofthepracticeoftheparliamentaryLeftinIndiatotake account of the community ethos of the kind of peoples’ struggles that we have mentionedcanbelinkedtothenotionofvaluethatfunctionsasanodeofMPE.The notionofvalue,onwhichisbasedtheMarxiananalyticofthecapitalisteconomic,is infectedatitsrootwithakindofself-centerednessorindividualcentrism(asopposed to consciousness of a community). This induces individual or self-centrism into the 6. Thesearethe‘originalinhabitants’orindigenouspeoplesofforestareas,mostlybelonging totribalcultures. 7. SeeWolff(2002)foracritiqueofthenotionofefficiencyusedincost/benefitanalyses. 8. Weareusing‘State’withacapital‘S’todenotepowerasopposedto‘state’asaregional entity. VALUES OF THE LEFT 225 economicandpoliticalvisionofMarxistorcommunistparties.Thisindividualismshuts out the possibility of taking cognizance of the positions of those on or beyond the bordersofmodernity,whicharebasedonoratleaststronglyinfluencedbyasenseof community. Theorizing Violence The clash of ethics and the resultant violence can be discursively situated on the terrain of political economy by extension and deployment of Marxian concepts of ‘groundrent’and‘primitiveaccumulation’andthrougharevaluationofthecategory of ‘use value’. Itispossibletorereadprimitiveaccumulationthroughtheideaofthealeatory,as uncoveredbyAlthusser(2006b,197)andelaboratedbyRead(2006)inordertosituate it as an ever present moment within the capitalist process. This brings to the foregroundofthediscursivespaceofcapital thequestionofproprietyof(property) rights over nonproduced or traditional common property, brought into market circulation through primitive accumulation for expansion of the capitalist process, and the ground rent from such rights. The absence of negotiability between the different ethics that support the different orders of rights, marks out a ‘space’ of conflictandviolencewithinthediscursiveofcapital.Thisquestionoftheproprietyof propertyrightsisamomentofaporia9*anon-roadthatleadstoaspacethatcannotbe articulatedin(to)thediscursiveofcapital.Thepersistenceofprimitiveaccumulation leadstotheever-presenceofthestruggleforredefiningtheuse-valuerelation.The unstable theoretical ground of such turbulence can situate a different vision of developmentandstrugglewithin*thoughnotstrictly*thediscursivespaceofMPE. Violence of the Law of Value We introduce a fictive order into our discussion of some of the moments of violent suppressioninthetextofMPE.Wefollowthelogicalsequenceofthediscussionofthe commodity circuits in volume 1 of Capital (Marx 1954, chaps. 1(cid:2)7). The successive circuitsareC*C(commodity(cid:2)commodityorbarterinsimplecommodityeconomy), C*M*C (such trade mediated through money), M*C*M (the commodity circuit thatstartsandendswiththeownershipofmoney),M*C*M?(thesamecircuitwith the difference thatM? (cid:1)M),andM*C*C?*M?(thecommodity-capital circuit). Violence establishes/demolishes order, both discursive and social. It forces closures of inevitable gaps in what pretends to be logically sufficient order. Force, violence, and aporia are therefore properly (!) postmodern matters. So let us read Derrida on ‘mystical violence’: ‘‘The very emergence of justice and law, the 9. ‘‘...aporia,thatissomethingthatdoesnotallowpassage.Anaporiaisanon-road’’(Derrida 1992). 226 BASU founding and justifying moment that institutes law implies a performative force, which is always an interpretative force ... Here the discourse comes up against its limit: in itself in its performative power itself. It is what I here propose to call the mystical. Here a silence is walled up in the violent structure of the founding act’’ (Derrida 1992, 941, 943). In the context of the law of value, this founding moment is the C*C circuit of commodities.SupposeXsellsthefirstCtoYagainstthesecondC.Then,asMarxputs it,thefirstCisausevaluetoYandanexchangevaluetoX.Conversely,thesecondC isausevaluetoXandanexchangevaluetoY.Thus,usevalueis‘subjective’inthe senseofbeingprivate.Alreadythenotionofself-centeredindividualshasenteredthe calculus, which is to function at the base of the whole journey of MPE. Use values make sense to others*that is, they can be communicated*only when they are anchoredinapriorcommunity.Inthatcase,thereisadirectsocialconnotationofuse value.Inthecommodityspace,ontheotherhand,tothesellerthethinghasmeaning onlyasexchangevaluewhiletothebuyerithasmeaningasusevalue.Inthisspace, therelationbetweentheindividualsisnotadirectrelation,butismediatedthrough commodities.Inthecommodityspace,usevaluesacquirepurelypersonalorprivate meanings,whichcannotbecommunicatedinthesocialspaceandthusarenotliable to social consideration. And since Marx is concerned with social production, purely personal usevalues must be occluded. Thisdroppingoutofusevaluefromthediscursiveofvalueisavexedquestionthat has generated much controversy. The entry point into the commodity circuits is the momentatwhichthelanguageofthecommunityisexcluded,ex-communicatedfrom the MPE’sdiscourse of value. ThisisnotanallegationofthecomplicityofMPEwithacrusadingmodernitythat preachesthemoralstrengthoftheindividualwhostandsalone.Letusbeclearabout this.Marxisanalyzingtheworkingofacapitalisteconomysuffusedwithcommodities fromaconstructedworking-classposition.Thus,asRubin(2008,17)explains,thelaw must be capable of explaining commodity transaction. Theexclusion of anyform of priorcommunicationamongproducers(priortotheactofexchange)isruledoutby the performative requirement of the law of value, any law of value. ‘‘Which,’’ as Derrida puts it, ‘‘is not to say that they are in themselves unjust, in the sense of ‘illegal’. Theyare neither legal nor illegalin their founding moment’’(1992, 943). The ‘abstraction’, subtraction, or exclusion of use value from the discourse of MPE*asvariouslyput*needstobequalified.HereisthepassagefromMarxthathas generated much controversy. Wehaveseenthatwhencommoditiesareexchanged,theirexchangevalue manifests itself as something totally independent of their use-value. But if we abstract from their use-value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value.Theprogressofourinvestigationwillshowthatexchangevalueisthe only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed.(Marx 1954, 46) VALUES OF THE LEFT 227 Spivak’s translation puts ‘‘The common element that represents itself’’ (Spivak 1985, 77) in place of ‘‘the common substance that manifests itself’’ (emphasis added),andthenintroducestheplayofrepresentation.Alotofcommentators*andI agree with them*do not see this moment of dropping out of use value from the discourse ofvalue/exchange valueasamomentof(re)presentation, butrather asa momentofconstructionofthetheoreticalground.10WolffandResnickholdtheview that the entry point of Marx’s analysis and the entry point of his presentation in Capital are different. They assert that ‘‘he made the tactical decision to begin Capitalwithcommoditiesandmarketstoo’’(1987b,157)soastobeginfromapoint withwhichreadershadbeenfamiliarizedthroughthewritingsofSmithandRicardo. Rubin had also argued against taking the presentation of value theory in the initial chapters ofCapital asitstheoretical ground. Bohm-Bawerk’sentirecritiquestandsorfallstogetherwiththeassumptions onwhichit isbuilt: namely,that thefirstfive pagesof Capital contain the onlybasisonwhichMarxbuilthistheoryofvalue.Nothingismoreerroneous than this conception ... It is more accurate to express the theory of value inversely: in the commodity-capitalist economy, production work relations among people necessarily acquire the form of the value of things, and can appear only in this material form; social labor can only be expressed in value.(Rubin 2008, 61(cid:2)2) DeployingpassagesfromContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomyandthe Grundrisse,Rosdolskyopposesthepositionthatusevaluedropsoutofthediscourse ofMPE(1977,74(cid:2)95).11Hiscentralpointisthatthereisafundamentalmisreadingof thepassageinContributionthatreads‘‘Use-valueassuch,sinceitisindependentof the determinate economic form, liesoutside the sphereof investigation of political economy. It belongs to this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form’’ (Marx 1904,28).Hispointisthatitisonlyusevalueassuch,notdeterminateforms(specific to a social order) that are excluded from the scope of MPE. This point is well taken butisnotrelevantinourcontextaswearediscussingacapitalisteconomy,inwhich specific case there is analytical reason for the exclusion of use value from the discursive, as we have argued. The other points that he makes are basically taxonomical. He groups together the categorical separations between commodities thataredependentonthedifferencesinmaterialusesofthecommoditygroupsand claimsthat,becausesuchgroupingsaredeployedbyMarx,usevaluescontinuetobe the subject of MPE’s discursive of the commodity-capital complex. This misses the point.Thematerialbasisofcommodityfetishismispreciselythatconcretelaborsare allocated according to their use values or technical requirements in the macro- structurethroughtheoperationofthelawofvalue.Thus,usevaluesinasocialsense are notdirectly operative. 10. ItisperhapssignificantthatSpivak’s‘modifiedtranslation’insinuates‘represents’inplace of‘manifests’. 11. HespecificallycontestsHilferding(2000)andSweezy(1942). 228 BASU We can venture that a corollary of the axiom that commodity fetishism has a material basis is that the class agents within the order of commodity-capital are blind to social use values.12 The occlusion of use values from the discursive of value and prices is analytically necessary because fetishism has a material basis and is not some kind of false consciousness. Part of the material basis itself is that use values, as perceived by the agents within this economy, have no social connotation and so cannot be communicated. Fetishism implies that there is no direct social (wo)man-(wo)man connection. So the use value to (an)other cannot be cognized by one. If we keep in mind that a law of value is necessary and can be postulated only in a commodity economic, we can reiterate that the exclusion of any form of prior communication among producers (prior to the act of exchange) is ruled out by the performative requirements of the law of value* any law of value. Exclusion and violence incite aporia. The moment of ‘‘mystical violence’’*the violence of exclusion of the community basis of use values*incites moments of aporia in thecourse of the laterjourney of commodity-capital. Once use value has been reduced to a purely private perception it has to fade into the background, be occluded in the course of elaboration of the social language of price and value. Use value has become a private language that cannot be exchanged. But what is occluded does not fall away or disappear without a trace in the discourse. It remains as a remainder, a fixed reminder of what we are blinded to in the course of our search for the laws of capitalism. This occlusion is the result of the posited working-class position that constructs the analytic of the capitalist economic.13 If (private) use value is occluded from the constitutive journey of the (social) languageofcommerce(i.e.,price),thenwhatconstitutesthesubterraneanlanguage that the working-class position unravels and that is not visible from the capitalist classposition,whichissatisfiedwiththe‘surfaceeconomics’ofprices?Itisabstract labor values. Butjustastheutilityofonecommoditytoonepersonisnotcomparablewiththe utilityofanothercommodity(bothtothesameandtoanotherperson),thelaborofa 12. ‘‘Thisstep[ofasking‘‘whytheproductionrelationsamongpeoplenecessarilyreceivesthis materialforminacommodityeconomy’’]wastakenbyMarxinAContributiontotheCritiqueof PoliticalEconomy,wherehesaysthat‘‘labor,whichcreatesexchangevalue,ischaracterizedby the fact that even social relations of men appear in the reverse form of a social relation of things’’(Critique,p.30).Heretheaccurateformulationofcommodityfetishismisgiven’’(Rubin 2008,58). 13. Throughhisdiscoveryoflaborpowercommodityorthroughthesubstitutionof‘‘valueof laborpower’’inplaceofthe‘‘valueoflabor’’*whatAlthusserreads‘‘symptomatically’’asthe signofMarx’s‘‘immensetheoreticalrevolution’’(AlthusserandBalibar1970,23(cid:2)4)*Marxwas able to establish surplus value as the character of produced and appropriated surplus labor withinthecapitalistfundamentalclassprocess.Surplusvalueisderivedwithintheconceptual space of abstract labor values. The fundamental category of Marx’s analysis of the capitalist economicisabstractlaborvalue.‘‘Marx’slabortheoryofvalue,unliketheirs[i.e.,Smith’sand Ricardo’s], provided a direct bridge from the issue of commodity values to the issue of class understood as the production, appropriation, and distribution of surplus labor’’ (Wolff and Resnick1987,157). VALUES OF THE LEFT 229 joinerisnotcomparabletothatofacobbler.Theyareasmuchconcreteorspecificto each commodity as the utilities of the commodities. So what is common to commodities islabor inthe abstract. Andwhat isthis labor? Asageneralrule,articlesofutilitybecomecommodities,onlybecausethey are the products of the labor of private individuals or groups of individuals whocarryontheirworkindependentlyofeachother...Sincetheproducers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labor does not showit selfexcept in the actof exchange. (Marx1954, 77) The only character of abstract labor is that it is private labor*that is, it is labor thatgeneratesproperty.Thereareweightyissues(inaquantitativesense)relatingto theprocessofthisabstraction,whichIwillnotgointo.14Thisabstractlaborislabor from which all concrete attributes have been eliminated (that is, whether it is the laborofthejoinerorthatofthecobblerisrenderedirrelevant),andallthatisleftis the factthat thelabor performedisprivate. The point is that the position of working people (those who produce with their labor), as elaborated by MPE, at its moment of institution (i.e., at the moment of institutionofabstractlabor),isalreadyworkedthroughandthroughbythenotionof privateproperty.Itisofcoursepropertyinone’sownlabor.Butwithouteclectically bringinginquestionsofmoralityandtheftthatarequiteoutofcharacterwithMarx’s analysis,wehavejustthepropertyrelationasinherentattributeofthedefinitionof the working-class position.15 14. To use a differentiation that Rubin frequently used, we are dealing with the qualitative aspectsofthelawofvaluehere,notwiththequantitativeaspects.Theprocessofabstraction (in a quantitative sense) in a simple commodity economy differs from that in a capitalist economy. 15. WefindcorroborationofthispositioninTheCritiqueoftheGothaProgramme.Elaborating onthenatureoftheeconomythatMarxthoughtshouldemergeintheimmediatepostsocialist situation,hesays: Whatwehavetodealwithhereisacommunistsociety,notasithasdevelopedon itsownfoundations,but,onthecontrary,justasitemergesfromcapitalistsociety ... The same amount of labor which he [the laborer] has given to society in one form,hereceivesbackinanother. Here,obviously,thesameprincipleprevailsasthatwhichregulatestheexchangeof commodities,asfarasthisisexchangeofequalvalues.(Marx1875,4) Andfurtheron: Hence,equalrighthereisstillinprinciple*bourgeoisright...thisequalrightis stillconstantlystigmatizedbyabourgeoislimitation.Therightoftheproducers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurementismadewithanequalstandard,labor.(Marx1875,5)
The list of books you might like
