Hu's on First - belated reply I
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Fri Nov 21 08:46:43 MST 2003
In a message dated 11/20/03 10:11:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nsiemensma at yahoo.com.au writes:
Available energy and energy-efficiency is the key
factor in increasing social complexity and raising
relative surplus value, ie. the technological,
material and scientific change which, as DMS points
out, applies to energy appropriation itself. This
circular relationship produces entropic traps which
map onto accumulation crises and the overproduction of
unvalorisable capital. So you have investments in
procuring energy, which is of course the basic input
in these same activities, and if the rate of
productivity isn't raised fast enough to
counterbalance the other macroeconomic effects then
you are screwed, because the logic of "self-expanding
value" requires increasing rates of energy
transfusion, as does expanding the efficiency and
productivity of the energy-base itself.
Not exactly. This is the surface expression of a more basic process at work.
The "entropic trap" flows from the property relations and the impulse that
drives production for production sake. Without this property relations - not
simply bourgeois property but the full meaning of property as a historical curve
of evolution, the "entropic trap" loses - discards the "trap" and becomes
simply another law of matter in motion, that humanity better learns and adhere to.
It is not the inherent quality of petroleum or its utility that creates the
"entropic trap." Approaching the question from the standpoint of "utility" or
"use-value" is incorrect in my reading of Marx. The question has to be
approached from an understanding of value that is expressed as exchange value. The
value form makes its appearance in history thousands of years before the
bourgeois property relations and will persist after the bourgeois property relations
"Except as personified capital, the capitalist has no historical value,
and no right to that historical existence, which, to use an expression
of the witty Lichnowsky, 'hasn't got no date.' And so far only is the
necessity for his own transitory existence implied in the transitory
necessity for the capitalist mode of production. But, so far as he is
personified capital, it is not values in use and the enjoyment of them.
but exchange-value and its augmentation, that spur him into action.
Fanatically bent on making value expand itself, he ruthlessly forces
the human race to produce for production's sake; he thus forces the
development of the productive powers of society, and creates those
material conditions, which alone can form the real basis of a higher
form of society, a society in which the full and free development of
every individual forms the ruling principle."
After the value relationship is regulated to history and communism flows as
the world reality a thin "layering" of the historical residual impact of value
will be slightly found in the administrative organs of society. Engels
discovered this and Marx formulated the historical tendency - law system.
DMS is stating something different from the above. He is specifically stating
- IMO, to stop looking at the utility of substances and grasp the cycles of
reproduction as it is driven on the basis of bourgeois property and the
historical tendency of value. The unknown impact of women on nature as productive
activity is not ignorned or discarded but placed within the law of commodity
production, with the property relations within.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism