Hi John. Your posting was deeply appreciated.
John: I don't understand your objection to our speaking of value as
being, like the state, a form of capitalist social relations. Like the
state, it is historically specific; like the state, it is a fetishising and
fetishised form of social relations: it conceals the creative power of
humanity. Like the state it exists as a struggle to separate us from our
own products, our own creativity. That does not mean that there is no
distinction between value and the state: they are distinct forms (or modes
of existence) of the social relations of capitalism.
George: At stake here is the character of the concept of capital, a social
relation of production, as presented in Marx's Capital and thereby Marx' entire
critique of political economy.
Marx's in Capital conceives capital as a social relation of production. Neither
in this work nor anywhere else does he construct an argument that entails a
conception of the state as a social relation of production. If capital and the
state are each conceived as forms of the "capital relation" then you are
effectively introducing a new concept into Marx's thought. Nowhere in Capital
has such a concept as the "capital relation" as an all embracing category in
which is nestled the categories of capital and the state been presented.
To enlarge the concept of the social relation of production to include both
capital and the capitalist state is to transform the content of the category
capital, as outlined in Capital, thereby challenging Marx's concept of capital
as a social relation of production and thereby Capital.
My basic argument is a modest, yet significant one: In your introduction of the
concept "capital relation" into the discussion on the nature of the capitalist
state you abandon Marx's Capital and thereby challenge his critique of political
economy.
John: I don't understand your objection to our speaking of value as
being, like the state, a form of capitalist social relations. Like the
state, it is historically specific; like the state, it is a fetishising and
fetishised form of social relations: it conceals the creative power of
humanity. Like the state it exists as a struggle to separate us from our
own products, our own creativity. That does not mean that there is no
distinction between value and the state: they are distinct forms (or modes
of existence) of the social relations of capitalism.
George: You misunderstand John. In my posting I never expressed an objection to
the conception of value as a social relation of production. Indeed Marx's
Capital conceives value as just that. However I do object to value being
conceived "as a form of capitalist social relations". Value is a social relation
of production but not necessarily a capitalist social relation of production.
In my posting my point is that value is precisely a social relation of
production but that the state, under capitalism, certainly is not a social
relation of production. Furthermore my argument is that your proposition that
both capital and the state are respectively social relations of production is
incorrect --only the former is a social relation of production. My argument is
that by describing the capitalist state as a social relation of production the
entire meaning of Marx's concept of capital is under challenge. Marx in Capital
held to a very limited, and thereby revolutionary, view as to the nature of
social relations of production under capitalism. To puff out this conception of
his into that of "capital relation" which includes capital, value, money and the
state is to challenge this concept of his.
John: Do we extend capital beyond its meaning in Marx's Capital? I don't
think we do. Marx is at constant pains to stress that capital is a social
relation. Our argument is that, in the same way as Marx developed a
critique of political economy, it is important to extend that critique to
other forms of social activity, such as politics, law, music, philosophy,
language and so on. Every aspect of our existence is a struggle for a
different world.
George: Of course "Marx is at constant pains to stress that capital is a social
relation." I too have been at pains to stress this fact.
You response suggests that you dont think you have extended capital beyond its
meaning in Marx's Capital yet in the same paragraph you write that "it is
important to extend that critique to other forms of social activity, such as
politics, law music, philosophy. language and so on." You make my point for me
here. Indeed it is this very extension that extends the meaning of the category
capital beyond its meaning in Marx's Capital.
The simple extension of Marx's critique of political economy to other spheres of
capitalist society, including the state, without any examination of the
methodological and conceptual limits underlying the specificity of his critique
is an invalid exercise.
Warm regards
George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
