Re: [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion
- From: Diego Saravia <dsa unsa.edu.ar>
- Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:30:35 -0300
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Producing for others does not imply exchange. Look at free software.
Free software is produced for general (unknown) others, but it is not
exchanged. Producing and taking is independent from each other. Free
software ist not exchanged, but spread simply by downloading (taking).
ok, but software is an informational good, so its free (natural), so its not
a good example for other kinds of goods.
could you spoecify better what are you thinking about?
Could you specify your question?
what is a societal producer?, how it works, for whom do they produce?
A societal producer produces the things s/he like only from her/his need
of selbstentfaltung. These things are useful for others, who can take
these things and satisfy their needs. The others are general others, not
personal ones (like in a family), thus they produce for the society.
Producers are well informed about the needs of others via feedback loops
and other ongoing communication. Like in free software.
do you have another example?
or better, do you have an example of a societal society?
in wich the principal mode of distribution is societal?
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
Nope. Value is only a social relation. There is nothing "inside" a
product which creates value.
yes, accumulated work.
Nope, too simple.
its marx abstraction, could be simple, but is what we have
what is your idea?
LTV is a vulgar version of Marx' value theory, it is more Smithian.
The key point, that the value is "related to the labor needed to
produce" the commodity is fine. But this value is not "material", is
not a "thing" or "stuff" which can be measured or viewed at some piece
of commodity. It is only defined in relation to other commodities and
the labor being necessary to produce them. Thus, there is no
accumulation of work which is observable by any means.
its calculable, if you watch the production process, you can add up work
time, and if the work time used is the social time needed, you have it.
No way. It is
only defined in relation to other commodites as a societal exchange
relation. Thus value and the labor it represents is a societal relation.
If the relation vanishes, because there is no longer a private
isolated production and no a-posteriori exchange,
it not depend on exchange, it depend on how do you produced it.
local? there are global markets.
I mean "local" in the sense of the moment of transaction at one place.
This can be an internet click. On global markets prices are nevertheless
fluctuating.
ok
value is
a societally average measure of exchange relations. Prices are
fluctuating around their value.
mmm, that's not always true.
In which cases is it not true?
if you have diferent organic composition of capital, for example
I could have a product that today have a ?-value and tomorrow
have other, without changing it
True in a very general sense, but in average this does not happen,
because social relations did not change so rapidly.
did you review petroleum prices in las two years?
Yes, but oil prices increase due to boom or drop due to the crisis. But,
you are right, social relations is a reason, e.g. when workers
achieve wage increases. This supports my interpretation: Value is a
social relationship and nothing absolute.
prices are one thing, values another, diferent concepts
But you are right:
value is only a social relation. The bad thing is: We can't escape
from this social relation, it determines our actions, which is
named fetishism or alienation.
alienation - work for others - exchange
This is an invalid equalization, see above. You give some arguments, not
simply throw key words.
its not an equalization, only a text :)
Yes, I did not write "all". Values reflect the social relations around
producing and exchanging the commodities, namely the labor necessary to
do so.
exactly.
prices are diferent animal
So, do you agree or not? If not, why? I explained my position carefully.
also I do.
values and prices are diferent
values can be calculated if you know production process, its meassured in
time
prices depend on market force relations, are marginal, etc
free software usage is free, no exchange value, nothing to do with
our discussion.
Why not? It is a perfect example for our discussion. Being free of value
does not come from the fact, that there is no price. The other way
around is true: no value - no price (in most circumstances). Free
software is "general work" (Marx) which is per definition free of value,
because general work _is_already_ societal work.
you need work to create it, but not to reproduce
You are already familiar with Marx?
yes
Value does not depend on _distribution_ work.
value allway depends on work
If you favor the term
"work" (or labor) and equal it with "value" (following the LTV), then
you have to explain,
ok
why free software has no value, because you can not
denial, that there is a lot of "work" (in your sense) involved producing
free software.
you have two stages, you produce it, it cost a lot.
then reproduction of published free soft has no cost, or value
so the only work needed to get free soft, for example in debian, is to type
apt-get install the-software
and you get millions of working bytes
you only need work to create it. once its produced (and disponible to
the public via internet), its value goes to 0, also its price.
So free software _has_ value? Going to zero, but it has value to some
extend? Then the same holds true for proprietary software, right?
the creation yes
the distribution no
propietary soft has distribution price, artificial one, caused by state
repression
could have value if you need work to distribute, for example if you use a
physical box.
No, I didn't say that. It is realted, but not as a "content" or "thing",
but only as a social (societal) relation.
ok, colour is not a thing, is a way of looking stuff, its a society
relationship between
the object and the person looking and the society who specifies the name of
the color.
understand. But it was too simple and it proved wrong when trying
to build new societies
???
I mean socialist countries
ok, first try
and social democrat reform policies.
diferent situation.
No, value and money, which should be redistributed by the state. But
both wings (communists and social dems) didn't touch the value form (and
thus money).
value, price and money are very diferent concepts
everything what we usually call work
Well, "usually called" is not a good defintion, at least not a scientific
one.
ok, but what we use must mach that idea
work is the human effort to change his/her enviroment
work-effort
the dishes, watch for your kid when playing on the streets, caring for
your grandparents etc. All work?
yes
watch a movie, is not work
I know, but I am sorry, most people are not right. Theoretical questions
can not be solved by voting.
mmm, yes, but word definition is not science, but consensus
you could do your theoretical work, using "alienated work" word, and be
absolutly clear and precise.
"should" is the creepy word
but nature have a more "natural" fact. "who do not work, do not eat"
and that has nothing to do with alienation. Its direct
Repeating does not make this assumption true. Don't you see, that this
statement is part of the repressive bourgois ideology?
Its true, not for being repeated.
do you know (or imagine) a society that do not need of work at all (not
alienated work) to survive
I am only talking about capitalism.
I am not.
But don't turn capitalist evicences
(you are coerced to work) into ontological statements (humans are always
coerced to work). This part of liberal ideology.
human need to work to survive in all societes known at today.
(coerced implies another guy ordering you, what I say is more general)
thats not part of liberal ideology, its a fact of life, "biblical" as I say
we were expulsed from paradise, remember?
Yes. I prefer to use "produce" as the neutral term. Work is not neutral.
mmm, so we must agree in a dictionary
How do you distinguish child caring in a kindergarten done by
professionals for money and giving your child a kiss? Is both work?
What is your kiss worth?
you are mixing a lot of stuff
No, you do, and this is what I want to show.
people can (and ussualy do) put love in their work
Yes, because people love to produce, to do useful things. And in
capitalism this is often only possible in aliened work.
I can work now and give a kiss as part of not alienated, nor exhanged work
No, the Wikipedia description given above is misleading (if not wrong in
respect to Marx). Alienation occurs in commodity producing societies.
not all goods are commodities
Thus if you are saying, that you are loving your "work", then you are
loving your alienation. But actually you mean: I love to do what I am
doing, although it is aliened work.
its only a definition problem
Our society also have people working with his capital, that are not
alienated.
Nope, they are aliened too. Marx called this "character masks". They
only have more power (and may be richer), because they control the means
of production.
and how these people are alienated?
--
Diego Saravia
Diego.Saravia gmail.com
NO FUNCIONA->dsa unsa.edu.ar
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de