An interesting further step in the argument re labor-of-learning in
schools, from the Grundrisse citation below: the full value of the product
of labor-of-learning is only achieved when it is exchanged, when it is
admitted to the web of exchange.
though it also proposes another mode of educational analysis: that it is
when we teach others what we have learned that we complete our
learning-as-labor, our knowledge-as-product, for only then is it in the
final form that is fit for consumption by others. But we don't arrange
schools so students can do this either ...
JAY.
At 02:24 PM 10/13/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>here a quote from the EXCHANGE AND PRODUCTION section of GRUNDRISSE:
>
>It is clear, firstly, that the exchange of activities and abilities which
>takes place within production itself belongs directly to production and
>essentially constitutes it. The same holds, secondly, for the exchange of
>products, in so far as that exchange is the means of finishing the product
>and making it fit for direct consumption.
>
>You see, exchange is a means of finishing the product...
>
>Michael
>
>On 13-Oct-04, at 1:14 PM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
>
>>Michael, I would like to please return to the post you opened this thread
>>with, where you discuss Engeström and Marx. Your statement that "Marx
>>clearly says that all activity implies the exchange situation ..."
>>perplexes me. I found the p88 quote you mention below - its on p84 of
>>the Progress MECW volume 35 I have - but I am still working on
>>understanding what you mean by "the exchange situation" - and why you say
>>Marx claims that "all activity" implies it. So far I am not seeing this
>>in Marx. Certainly, Marx explains that all exchange originates in the
>>creation of commodities through labor activity. In this sense, the
>>opposite idea can be attributed to Marx - that all exchange implies the
>>labor activity situation - but I am not grasping what you actually say,
>>that all activity implies the exchange situation.
>>
>>Best,
>>- Steve
>>
>>
>>At 08:45 AM 10/13/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>Steve,
>>I am referring to chapter 1 in the German edition--
>>
>>Marx says :
>>(p.55) that production for your own needs produces use-value but not
>>commodity
>>(p.57) in the use-value of each commodity there is a certain purposeful
>>activity or useful labor
>>(p.61) All labor ... produces value (of commodity)
>>(p.88) The two-fold social character of the labour of the individual
>>appears to him, when reflected in his brain, only under those forms which
>>are impressed upon that labour in every-day practice by the exchange of
>>products. In this way, the character that his own labour possesses of
>>being socially useful takes the form of the condition, that the product
>>must be not only useful, but useful for others,
>>((THis translation was taken from the English version on marxists.org))
>>
>>The product of labor must be useful, importantly, for others...
>>
>>So labor already implies the usefulness of the product for others... Marx
>>is not interested in production for my own needs, like my labor of
>>running an organic garden and eating my own vegetables year round.
>>
>>On a final note, the English translation is atrocious. Marx wanted a
>>readable work, and was proud that commentators described the Kapital as
>>readable, even by non-academics. The English translation does not, in my
>>view, do justice to the original, and leaves out many of the important
>>shades of meaning... tradutore traditore
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>
>>On 13-Oct-04, at 1:09 AM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>
>>
>>Michael, where does Marx say this?
>>"Marx clearly says that all activity implies the exchange situation ..."
>>
>>Thanks,
>>~ Steve
>>
>></blockquote></x-html>
></blockquote></x-html>
Jay Lemke
Professor
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
610 East University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259
Ph: 734-763-9276
Fax: 734-936-1606
http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:06 PST