Message 05554 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 66/96 L14 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]

True, but due to simplification I use "money" as a symbol.

ohhhh, ok  lets forget a lot of what we talk.

Behind money
there is exchange _value_, which does only exist, because we do not
produce societally, but isolated. Isolated producers have to exchange
their products, societal producers do not.


what is that?

all we produce  is in a huge system, formed by "families" or something like

families exchange thing, work, etc

you are thinking of creating  bigger "families"

or confusing all society in only one family?

could you spoecify better what are you thinking about?

Thus talking about value in the sense of objective value is more correct
then talking about money.

yes, but diferenet concepts.

value is about work inside a product

"monetary value" or beter  "price value" or better "exchange value"

is diferent and not proportional with value

both values (call them ?-value)  are not conservative, nor  constant, nor
related only to the product,
values depend on social conditions, and that change

I could have a product that today have a ?-value and tomorrow have other,
without changing it

But value, on the other hand, is more
confusing, because it is widely used in a completely different manner as

 _subjective_ value. Subjective value is what we feel something is worth.

you are speaking about utility?

(neo) or liberals define utility to get exchange value derived from utility

Objective value is a form of societal mediation when you have isolated

producers (via exchange, commodity, money).

first time I heard about that definition. I think "objetive" is not a good
word near value.

was not discovery by marx, nor adam smith, its "biblical"

we were expulsed from paradise and coerced to work

Not true. This is one of the big myths of our times. We as humans do not
need to work. This sounds weird, but a proof is simple. Just look at our
daily live. Say you have an 8-hour-job. Then during one third of the
(week) day, you "work" and produce something useful (hopefully). During
two third of the day, you don't "work", but you do other things, most of
them are useful too: Relaxing, child caring, communicating, writing on
ox-list, making history or anything else. Without these things you are
doing -- simply because you live your life -- society would not exist.
These _are_ necessary activities, but they are not "work"!

why are you not calling them work?

"Work" in sense we all know does only exist, because a lot of means we
need for our living are only available via money. And they are only
available via money (which coerces us to "work"), because production is
organized in the silly isolated way described above.

I think you are using a circular definition

you define work as something for exchange (better do not use money here)

and then you say that exchange and work are not diferent, OK you are right,
is not falsable

but the point is that a lot of us think of work as something more general

I would say that prosume is about work

child caring is work (prosumed, usually)

Thus the challenge is to free the one third (or less) of the day from
"work" by finding ways to produce societally from the beginning on, and
not to produce isolated making is necessary to use a stupid ex-post
mechanisms like exchange, money and so on.

you want to form a only one family society.

perhaps that society exists somewhere sometime, sure in the beginins of
human kind, must read antropology.


Because humankind always produced a surplus (=more than they need for

humankind always work?

marx use work as a definition of human being

animals work?

ok, but we are biological items :)

True, but our determination does not come from being natural beings, but
from being societal humans.

animals also form societies

|  An explanation of social processes using
|biological terms is a biologistic one

ok, circular definition

| and thus misleading and dangerous.

?? what kind of fundamentalist is that speach?

sun orbit earth? is dangerous to think otherwise?

Diego Saravia

[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 66/96 L14 [In index]
Message 05554 [Homepage] [Navigation]