[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'


In principle I am Ok with the idea of the unit that contains the essential
contradictions… but of what?

For Marx the whole point of commodity exchange/value is that it is the
beginning of an explanation of the 'economy', capitalism, and the labour
theory of value is the key to its collapse …

What is the equivalent 'point' of sign exchange in dialogue? And where is
the equivalent of the theory of value? I think the sensuous/supersensuous
is a distraction from the 'point'.

That’s my puzzle.


On 17/04/2017 21:49, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Julian,
>the sign is to the verbal exchange what the commodity is to the commodity
>exchange--both the sensuous and supersensuous parts are there that Marx
>Vygotsky are writing about. :-)
>Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>Applied Cognitive Science
>MacLaurin Building A567
>University of Victoria
>Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
>http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Julian Williams <
>julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Michael and all
>> I am coming late to this discussion and maybe have been missing some
>> important thingsŠ but I want to see a few issues addressed by the
>> Commodity => Sign: my skepticism follows to some extent the critique I
>> wrote of the mapping 'labor = learning' that you are familiar with: but
>> some ways I am even more skeptical of this metaphor. So:
>> Commodity to sign, is a unit of a totality as in 'economy' to .. 'Š? Š '
>> What ? Maybe 'dialogue/discourse'?
>> What is the 'value' that is exchanged in discourse, and how does it
>> ultimately realise its 'use value' in some sort of dialogic
>> of useful understanding?
>> How does the producer of value 'labour' to produce it, and how is the
>> 'labour time' related to the 'exchange value' of the sign that results?
>> [Bearing in mind that the labour theory of value is Marx's essential
>> contribution.]
>> Then how does this work relate to devious studies: we already have the
>> work of Bourdieu who assigns cultural capital/value to symbolic power in
>> the cultural fieldŠ is there a connection here?
>> Best regards as ever
>> Julian
>> Ps I need to come back to you about Hegel (I am far from happy with
>> reading the 'Ideal' as a straightforward negation of the 'Real' implicit
>> in what you sayŠ) when I have thought about this a bit more - maybe in
>> 2018Š we should pick up!   :-)
>> On 17/04/2017 18:22, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>> Wolff-Michael Roth" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Hi Larry,
>> >things become easier to think through if you do not take an
>> >starting point but a relational one---not "she has to produce . .  ."
>> >look at what is happening in the exchange, where each giving also is
>> >taking, such that in a commodity exchange, you have double
>> >in a verbal exchange, each speaking also involves listening and
>> >and the receiving is for the purpose of giving (speaking, replying). As
>> >soon as you do this, you remain with back-and-forth movement, no longer
>> >action but transaction.
>> >
>> >The other interesting thing is that the Russian word znachenie,
>> >as "meaning" (really, signification) also translates as "value" and
>> >"magnitude," and Il'enkov (2009) parenthetically adds "function" and
>> >"rôle". I am quoting from p. 178:
>> >
>> >Marx joins Hegel as regards terminology, and not Kant or Fichte,
>> >who tried to solve the problem of Œideality¹ (i.e., activity) while
>> >remaining Œinside
>> >consciousness¹, without venturing into the external
>> >corporeal
>> >world, the world of the palpable-corporeal forms and relations of
>> >     This Hegelian definition of the term Œideality¹ takes in the whole
>> >range of phenomena
>> >within which the Œideal¹, understood as the corporeally embodied form
>> >the activity of
>> >social man, really exists ­ as activity in the form of the thing, or
>> >conversely, as the thing
>> >in the form of activity, as a Œmoment¹ of this activity, as its
>> >metamorphoses.
>> >     Without an understanding of this state of affairs it would be
>> >impossible to fathom
>> >the miracles performed by the commodity before people¹s eyes, the
>> >commodity-form of
>> >the product, particularly in its dazzling money-form, in the form of
>> >notorious Œreal
>> >talers¹, Œreal roubles¹, or Œreal dollars¹, things which, as soon as we
>> >have the slightest
>> >theoretical understanding of them, immediately turn out to be not
>> >at
>> >all, but Œideal¹
>> >through and through, things whose category quite unambiguously includes
>> >words, the
>> >units of language, and many other Œthings¹. Things that, while being
>> >wholly
>> >Œmaterial¹,
>> >palpable-corporeal formations, acquire all their Œmeaning¹ (function
>> >rôle) from Œspirit¹,
>> >from Œthought¹ and even owe to it their specific corporeal existence.
>> >Outside spirit and
>> >without it there cannot even be words; there is merely a vibration of
>> >air.
>> >
>> >Michael
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>> >------
>> >Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>> >Applied Cognitive Science
>> >MacLaurin Building A567
>> >University of Victoria
>> >Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
>> >http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>> >
>> >New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>> ><https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>> directions-in-mat
>> >hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>> >
>> >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael¹s trajectory as presented in
>> >> article (A Dialectical Materialist Reading of the Sign). On page 149
>> >> attempts to clarify the difference between sign complex Œuse-value¹ &
>> >>sign
>> >> complex Œvalue¹.
>> >> His methodology is to read Marx Œsubstituting¹ the word ŒSIGN¹
>> >> sign complex) FOR Œcommodity¹ and intuites this method will be
>> >>generative.
>> >>
>> >> Here is his realization through the method of re-reading as (trading,
>> >> translation, transposition) as I am carried along.
>> >>
>> >> a) USE-VALUE:  Œnatural signs¹ such as animal footprints are
>> >> useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have Œvalue¹
>> >> (exchangeble value) though they do have use-value for the hunter or
>> >>hunting
>> >> party in finding game.  Similarly a sign complex can be useful and
>> >> product of human labour without being Œvalue¹ (exchangeable). Someone
>> >>who
>> >> satisfies HER needs through her product produces Œuse-value¹ but NOT
>> >> Œvalue¹.
>> >> b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to
>> >>produce
>> >> not only Œuse-value¹ but use-value FOR others. She has to produce
>> >> Œsocietal¹ use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product
>> >>HAS
>> >> TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex Œconstitutes¹
>> >> use-value.
>> >>
>> >> The production of signs that produce no Œvalue¹ that is exchangeable
>> >> others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others.
>> >> trans/form use-value to BE come Œvalue¹ requires exchangeability
>> >> lighting various forms of SIGN (complexes).
>> >>
>> >> Apologies to Wolff-Michael if my echoing his re-reading methodology
>> >> garrbled the trans/mission?
>> >>
>> >> I offer this because it helps clarify my reading of Œuse-value¹ &
>> >>Œvalue¹
>> >> (exchangeable)
>> >> My morning musement
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>> >>
>> >>