Steve,
I think I am using the term activity only when it something done is
useful and can be exchanged--I garden but do not farm; farming
presupposes the exchange situation.
here directly from Grundrisse--English translation
Production by an isolated individual outside society—a rare exception
which may well occur when a civilized person in whom the social forces
are already dynamically present is cast by accident into the
wilderness—is as much of an absurdity as is the development of language
without individuals living together and talking to each other. There is
no point in dwelling on this any longer.
And from Kapital, English translation Chapter 1 , section on fetishism
As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because
they are products of the labour of private individuals or groups of
individuals who carry on their work independently of each other. The
sum total of the labour of all these private individuals forms the
aggregate labour of society. Since the producers do not come into
social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the
specific social character of each producer’s labour does not show
itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the
individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only by
means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly
between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the
producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations connecting the
labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct
social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really
are, material relations between persons and social relations between
things. It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour
acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their
varied forms of existence as objects of utility. This division of a
product into a useful thing and a value becomes practically important,
only when exchange has acquired such an extension that useful articles
are produced for the purpose of being exchanged, and their character as
values has therefore to be taken into account, beforehand, during
production. From this moment the labour of the individual producer
acquires socially a two-fold character. On the one hand, it must, as a
definite useful kind of labour, satisfy a definite social want, and
thus hold its place as part and parcel of the collective labour of all,
as a branch of a social division of labour that has sprung up
spontaneously. On the other hand, it can satisfy the manifold wants of
the individual producer himself, only in so far as the mutual
exchangeability of all kinds of useful private labour is an established
social fact, and therefore the private useful labour of each producer
ranks on an equality with that of all others. The equalisation of the
most different kinds of labour can be the result only of an abstraction
from their inequalities, or of reducing them to their common
denominator, viz. expenditure of human labour-power or human labour in
the abstract. 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, and the social character that his particular labour has of
being the equal of all other particular kinds of labour, takes the form
that all the physically different articles that are the products of
labour. have one common quality, viz., that of having value.
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