HANS.DESPAIN at m.cc.utah.edu
Sun Sep 17 23:09:06 MDT 1995
This is a quick response to Alex T.
Actually my point was that technology is not the issue, and specifically
the productive forces are not simple defined as the means of production
and labor power (i.e. Cohen's defination); but further should include the
value-form as it is materialized and becomes a real force in the
capitalist mode of production (i.e. Sayer's defination).
Marx, with respect to this conception speaks of the value-form and commodity
(money) fetishism, but I think Gidden's 'structuration' and Bhaskar's
Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA) better capture the
notion of (internal) relations becoming a materialized force or *real*
Hence, the production forces as Cohen would have it leads to the
developmental thesis, whereby the the relations of production adjust to
the continual technological developments, hence, defining or determining
the conditions of the relations as such.
Sayer, as I understand him, is arguing that Cohen's conception misleds a
proper understanding of Marxian historical materialism. In Sayer's
conception, the value-form itself is a **force** of production. That is
the relational structure of capitalism is part of the forces of
production. This implies that the forces of production need not develop
to redefine (or determine the conditions for) the relations of
productions, but rather must overcome or transformed. Whereby,
technology plays a much more humble part in a "real" transformation
towards further emancipation.
despain at econ.sbs.utah.edu
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism