Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:riff-raff-10-introduction [2022/06/20 19:35]
eaustreum
+++ en:riff-raff-10-introduction [2022/06/20 19:38]
eaustreum
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 In his text, Henriksson reflects on the critique made by Åström in 2013 against both the communisation perspective and value-form theory, as they are represented by TC and Chris Arthur, respectively. Considering the theme of the present issue and the critique by Åström, Henriksson presents a sketch for a preliminary theoretical perspective where he aims to show what is potentially productive in some form of communisation perspective and some variant of value-form theory.
-According to Henriksson, Åström’s notion of value neglects and misses completely what is eminently critical in Marx’s theory and, instead, understands value as some kind of technical solution to the problem of and the need to distribute social total-labour time in capitalism through the market, or in communism through the plan. In this way, Åström’s understanding tends to become purely nominalist or formally logical, with ‘value’ as nothing but a name for a nature-imposed and, thus, transhistorical phenomenon, namely human labour in general. Value, Henriksson claims, should rather be understood as a purely social ‘object’, which expresses and summarizes historically specific relations of production, appearing in the form of exchange value and money, or capital, depending on our level of abstraction. Value, thus, has to do with a capitalist commodity economy, and value producing abstract labour is intimately and internally related to this economy. The establishment of communist relations abolishes both the value character of the products of labour and the character of human labour as abstract labour. Communist relations, Henriksson claims, are characterised by the abolition of ‘labour’ in its restricted form, as it becomes part of human practice as a totality. Communism is, thus, (another form of) praxis, not some rational allocation of the total labour-time of society in order to be able to expand ‘leisure time’. Given this, he argues that the opposition between the ‘realm of freedom’ and the ‘realm of necessity’ is obsolete in communist relations.
+According to Henriksson, Åström’s notion of value neglects and misses completely what is eminently critical in Marx’s theory and, instead, understands value as some kind of technical solution to the problem of and the need to distribute total social labour time in capitalism through the market, or in communism through the plan. In this way, Åström’s understanding tends to become purely nominalist or formally logical, with ‘value’ as nothing but a name for a nature-imposed and, thus, transhistorical phenomenon, namely human labour in general. Value, Henriksson claims, should rather be understood as a purely social ‘object’, which expresses and summarizes historically specific relations of production, appearing in the form of exchange value and money, or capital, depending on our level of abstraction. Value, thus, has to do with a capitalist commodity economy, and value producing abstract labour is intimately and internally related to this economy. The establishment of communist relations abolishes both the value character of the products of labour and the character of human labour as abstract labour. Communist relations, Henriksson claims, are characterised by the abolition of ‘labour’ in its restricted form, as it becomes part of human practice as a totality. Communism is, thus, (another form of) praxis, not some rational allocation of the total labour-time of society in order to be able to expand ‘leisure time’. Given this, he argues that the opposition between the ‘realm of freedom’ and the ‘realm of necessity’ is obsolete in communist relations.
 In short, Henriksson argues that Åström misses the opportunity to articulate a meaningful critique of both the communisation perspective and the value-form paradigm. Instead Åström advocates for a positive social theory which, when taken ad absurdum, provides a vision of a planned state where ‘society’ subsumes individuals instead of, as in capitalism, the market doing so. This vulgar image is hard to differentiate from the command economies of the 20th Century.