Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: Reich and Marx - Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:48:36 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:48:36 -0500
From: "Christopher T. Phillips" <zzippy@cris.com>
Message-Id: <199603130027.TAA06620@darius.cris.com>
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Reich and Marx
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
>
>Christopher T. Phillips wrote:
>>This quote is from "People In Trouble", chapter three, (The Living
>>Productive Power, "Work-Power," of Karl Marx) pages 54-5.
>>
>> "Marx defined the concept "capitalist" scientifically. It is not, as
>>is commonly assumed, an individual who possesses a lot of money, but a
>>person who is able to buy and make use of the work-power of others on the
>>basis of the laws of market economy. If, as a doctor, I am proficient in my
>>field, cure numerous patients, and discover good methods of healing, then
>>many sick people will come to me. They pay for my time and, along with this,
>>for the value of my work-power. In order to do my work I must repeatedly
>>renew my work-power, that is, I must eat, house myself, buy clothes, etc.
>>This constitutes one part of the value of my work-power. But with this alone
>>I could not carry on my specific work. I need, additionally, certain
>>training which requires work and money, continuous expenditure of effort for
>>further development, instruments, etc., upon which others have exerted their
>>work-power. I pay for all this with portions of my work-power. Hence the
>>patient must pay not only for my work-power but for all the work-power
>>expended upon him through my work. This is done through the conventional
>>value substitute "money," by means of which I, in turn, may purchase the
>>results of other people's effort, such as shelter, food, clothing, etc.,
>>i.e. use values. As long as I myself work, I am not a capitalist no matter
>>how much money I earn. However, if I were to employ, let us say, four
>>doctors, pay them a fixed salary of two hundred kronen a month, and use
>>their eight-hour work-power to treat patients for me, then I would be a
>>capitalist. Then I would be "exploiting" the work-power of others and
>>appropriating the the value of their work-power in the form of money. In
>>eight hours, I myself could treat eight patients and earn eight hundred
>>kronen in twenty-five workng days. Four doctors, however, could earn four
>>times as much, namely thirty-two hundred kronen. While I would have to pay
>>the four doctors a total of eight hundred kronen, I could keep what was left
>>of the thirty-two hundred kronen they had earned, thus acquiring twenty-four
>>hundred kronen through the exploitation of other people's work-power without
>>having worked for it myself. According to the laws of market economy, I
>>would not be considered a swindler but would be acting entirely within the
>>law. No one could prosecute me or accuse me of wrongdoing."
>>
>>
>> > Wilhelm Reich
I am sorry if it bothers you, but I simply do not agree
with this example as a definition of Capitalism. It is, however,
a fine example of how Marxists define Capitalism !
>> >
>> >
>> > --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>> >
>> Well, this clearly shows that Dr. Reich was not an economist.
>>
>> Christopher T. Phillips
>> <zzippy@concentric.net>
>>
>
>I don't know what you mean here. Reich here shows a fairly erudite
>understanding of Marxist political economy. He is illustrating the
>difference between someone who is highly paid (like a doctor) and a
>capitalist. A capitalist is someone who uses capital (money) to exploit
>the labor of others. For instance, imagine I am a worker in a widget
>factory. I get paid 5 dollars an hour, and in that hour I make a number
>of widgets that the capitalist (the owner of the widget factory) will
>sell for 10 dollars. Thus, my labor is being exploited. I am producing
>10 dollars of value and only paid 5 dollars. This is due to the private
>ownership of the means of production (i.e. the factory). It is because
>the capitalist owns the means of production (the factory) that he is in a
>position to exploit my labor.
>
>Reich's example, of someone who employs five doctors, is an example of
>the petite bourgeois (literally "small capitalist")- someone who only
>exploits the labor of a few people.
>
>In the course of his explanation, Reich draws the distinction between
>simple and complex labor. Simple labor, like working in a widget
>factory, does not require much training. Complex labor, like being a
>doctor, requires much training. Doctors much be paid more than a
>widget maker to compensate for the expense of training. This explains
>why Reich, as a doctor, is paid more than the average worker, but is not
>a capitalist.
>
>Reich also makes the distinction between "value" (or exchange value) and
>"use value" in his explanation. Money is a token of value. Every
>commodity in a capitalist economy has two properties: value and use
>value. A commodity has use value in that it fulfills some human want:
>food satisfies my need to eat, shoes to walk comfortably, etc. A
>commodity also has exchange value (or just "value") in that it can be
>exchanged for other commodities or their equivalent (money). Reich's
>patients receive use-value (namely, health) from the services he provides.
>Reich receives exchange value (i.e. money) for the services he provides.
>In turn, he uses this value (money) to buy products like food, clothes,
>etc., which have use-value for him (i.e. they fill his needs).
>
>Reich's statement here seems impeccable to me. What do you mean when you
>say that he is 'clearly not an economist'?
>
>Do one have to 'be an economist' (i.e. have the proper degrees and
>status) in order to speak the truth about the economy?
>
>--
>Chris Caruso Check out: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~ccaruso/
>ccaruso@sas.upenn.edu http://www.igc.org/fair/
>Philadelphia, PA USA http://www.mcs.com/~jdav/league.html
>
>
>
> --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
Reich's paraphrasing of the Marxist definition of Capitalism
is very accurate, I agree. I was not implying that he was unfamiliar
with Marxist theory. And I've never said that one must be an economist
in order to "speak the truth" about the economy. However, I do take
issue with Marxist definitions of Capitalism, and the villanisation of
the application of Capitalistic principles, especially when Marxism has
yet to be applied sucessfully as an economic system.
Unfortunately there was only one freely-elected Marxist that I
know of, perhaps I am mistaken, but I beleive it was Presedent Allende
of Chile. Unfortunately it appears that the U.S. Government assisted
military dictators to overthrow and murder Allende. Not an unfamiliar
theme, I'm afraid.
I simply disagree with the Marxist dogma which villifies
person or persons that organise people so they can be be steadily
employed, and depicting them as being little more than exploiters
of labor, deseving to be prosecuted for wrongdoing. This is, in
my opinion, seriously flawed.
That's really all I have to say about it. I am not critiquing
Reich <at the moment>, after all, he was a product of his time just
as we are of ours. But I do not feel compelled to blindly accept every
statement Reich ever made as gospel either. He had his shortcomings
too. <gasp!> After all, he was born human into a superstitious soceity
just as we are.
Thank You
C. T. Phillips
<zzippy@concentric.net>
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com