Re: [jox] A response to Michel and Jakob
- From: Hans-Gert Gräbe <hgg hg-graebe.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:23:14 +0100
Hi Jakob,
Am 19.03.2012 10:38, schrieb Jakob Rigi:
Imagine a self-sufficient houshold economy of production-consumption.
First, they divide the labour among the member of the family
according to age and gender. Second, the head of the family decides
how much of the products should be consumed and much will be
reinvested in reproduction process. How many eggs should be eaten and
how many used for producing chikens. How many chickens should be
eaten and many kept to produce eggs. How much corns should be
consumed and how much shoul be saved as seed, etc.
Such planning (called "resource planning" in the theory) has to be done
by all entrepreneurs those days. Combined with a time planning you can
try to produce "just in time" (as your head of the family did saving a
well calculated amount of corns as seed). So it remained in the core of
capitalism, and market punishes you (as entrepreneur) if your plannings
were wrong - regardless why, bad planning, changing circumstances,
happening the "unforeseen" or what else.
But here the quantative standard is an immediate natural quality of the
use valuees such as number, weight, length or volume. Here, the time of
concrete labour spent on the production of use value corresponds
directly to the amount of use value measured in (number, weight, length
or volume, depemding on its physical form).
When trade and money are involved, even in preecapitalist societies, the
use values and the measurement of labour time by the natural properties
of use vaues are not relavant anymore.
Why do you think so? If I'm planning to build a house, this requires 7
cbm of wood (very special one, appropriate for ...), 12 cbm of bricks
etc. The only point is, that there is an _additional_ money dimension
that counts the amount of "human labour on foreign needs" (you called it
"abstraced labour") spent within all branches and subbranches of the
production process of those goods within the mankind's
cultural-technological environment. You are not required to know all
that branches and subbranches, since money "automagically" registers
that for you (Marx revealed that this is a social process and hence
money and value a social relation and not a fetish).
No one get credit for the amount of time they spent on solving a problem
but for the sollution itself. I may spend 40 hours solving the same
problem that you solve it in 4 hours. If your sollution is more
intillegent the community will go with your sollution and you receive
the recognition. Where is the quantity (calculation) here?
That's indeed an important point. In Marx' value theory labour value is
measured with a time measure, but in the "Grundrisse" he reasoned about
value in a developed scientific-technical productive environment that it
cannot be a time measure but should account for the "application of the
general intellect" and count the ability to "get moving the power of
agencies". But value (even labour value) is not measured in hours but
in money terms. Marx could easily have seen that if he did not eliminate
the labour value coefficients from the very beginning, since for labour
measured in time units they have the dimension (e.g.) Euro per hour.
Clearly there are other accounting regimes, e.g. piecework rate, that
lead to factor units Euro per piece, regardless how much time you need
to produce a piece (there is another norm value pieces per hour, that
has nothing to do with wages but much with the technical takt of
production).
I come back to your question: capitalism invented much forms to cope
with it, the most common are "contractuals fees" - money becomes
directly visible as "social relation" and you ask "hey, but where is the
fetish"? Didn't you, argueing
If you cannot identify any quantative factor (whether in tem of use
value or abstract valeue) in p2p, then p2p in contrast to all pre p2p
modes of production is free from any quantative (accounting ) regime
whether in terms of use value or abstract value.
...and indeed the freedom from duty. It is
the true realm of desire, i.e communism=true freedom.
HG, duty is always something external to desire. In all societies
dominated by quantative regimes you have to work in order to eat, unless
someone elae feeds you (children) or you expropriate the surplus labor
of someone eles. Indeed work has alwas been a duty.
My definition of freedom is the following: Freedom is the ability (in a
wide social sense) to get responsible for duties (to obey resilient
bindings charged with responsibility). So I probably wrongly translated
the german word "Pflicht".
hgg
--
Dr. Hans-Gert Graebe, apl. Prof., Inst. Informatik, Univ. Leipzig
postal address: Postfach 10 09 20, D-04009 Leipzig
Hausanschrift: Johannisgasse 26, 04103 Leipzig, Raum 5-18
tel. : [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]
email: graebe informatik.uni-leipzig.de
Home Page: http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~graebe
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal