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. To that extent, exchange is an act comprised within production itself. Thirdly, the so-called exchange between dealers and dealers is by its very organization entirely determined by production, as well as being itself a producing activity. Exchange appears as independent of and indifferent to production only in the final phase where the product is exchanged directly for consumption. But
(1) there is no exchange without division of labour, whether the latter is spontaneous, natural, or already a product of historic development;
(2) private exchange presupposes private production;
(3) the intensity of exchange, as well as its extension and its manner, are determined by the development and structure of production. For example. Exchange between town and country; exchange in the country, in the town etc. Exchange in all its moments thus appears as either directly comprised in production or determined by it.
from: Karl Marx's Outline of the Critique of Political Economy (Grundrisse)2) The Geneeral Relation of Production to Distribution, Exchange, (c1) Exchange, Finally, and Circulation. Exchange and Production pg. 99
Michael, significantly, you left out the rest of the paragraph (in red).
Exchange of activities and abilities which takes place within production itself is simply the expression of the fact that human production is a social process involving collectivities. Equally, exchange of products is a part of the productive process if the purpose of exchange is to complete or finish the product. On the other hand exchange of goods for a living (for needs emerging from the self-perpetuating process) is no longer a fact of production, but of the relations of production: division of labour, private production, and of course private property.
Indeed labour and the means of production do not disappear with the transformation of the product from the outcome of the forces of labour, rather they are sublated into the exchange process, at very least as restricting conditions for the intensity, extension and manner of exchange.
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolff-Michael Roth
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: general, particular Holzkamp, Engeström
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>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:06 PST