a dimension of Marxian concept of labor
the following statements are written by me as a note of FUMITAKA SATOH;"REBELLION OF EINSTEIN AND QUANTUM COMPUTER" (KYOTO UNIVERSITY PUBLISHER, 1st ed. February 2009).*********************Einstein’s warning is like the following. He did not deny the quantum mechanics as a whole, but he wondered and warned “if the description by the Wave Motion FunctionΨ was perfect or not”. P140 I think that this wonder is equal to the one if a mathematic description is complete or not to describe the quantum world. That there is no way but how to describe it with mathematics but not with natural languages is quite different from the statement that mathematics is complete (Cf. Gödel’s Theorem of Incompleteness). The frauds would rather intend to cut and divide the part of the wave function Ψ without “h” and take it away from ‘material world’ and put another soul to raise it up. P140. However, I think that a scientific doing is something like adaptation (換骨奪胎) right? I mean a science cannot avoid itself from any abstraction and reasoning (conjecture). This discussion on the EPR’s formal objection reminds me of the formal objection against K. Marx’ “Capital” in the economic theory of UNO School. Koichiro Suzuki (a writer of “Principal Theory of Economics” Part 1 and Part2 Tokyo University Shuppankai 1960 and 1962), one of Kozo Uno’s epigones, argues on impossibility of the deduction of the labor value on any logical stages of his principles of economics, which is deduced from understanding K. Marx’s “Capital” or Uno’s “Principles of Economics” (IWANAMI SHOTEN 1950). They insist that it is possible to deduce the logical development of economic categories without the concept of labor substance or the labor value theory. As you know, Marxian economic theory has a tendency to regard most of capitalistic or commercial categories (such as commodity, money, capital surplus value, fixed capital, floating capital, profit, interest, rent and national income etc.) as a phenotype of labor substance. It is only a constant substance of the economic category. If the labor substance (labor value theory) is taken away out of the Marxian economic theory, there could remain just the form, namely, the phenotype only. Many Marxists wonder if the forms without substance (content) can exist or not like a ghost made of phenotype without soul. I think that if the wave function Ψ without “h” is just an information, the system of the pure phenotype without labor value theory or the development of forms without substance also is just a theory of information. Can you imagine of the pure phenotype without DNA? I am sure you cannot. However, DNA itself is a configuration of the chemical bases. And in turn, the configuration itself does not always need the substance of the chemical bases so that it can be said to be a set of information. In this discussion, there is a matter which is theoretically and ideologically delicate due to fearing the used-to-be heterodox inquisition by the Marxian authority at least in Japan. According to the Marxian=Engels’ historical materialism, there is necessarily some increase of material productivities on the basis of the historical development of the productive relations, the material productivities are reduced to the productive labor and the increase in the productive labor is the socialization of labor. The reductionism of labor should be necessarily related to an ideology to stand for the working class as the singular avant-garde of the democratic and socialistic revolution. By the way, in turn, there is a distinction of labor between the concrete useful labor and the abstract human labor in Marxian theory of the labor value. Marx states of the abstract human labor for the first time, “On the one hand all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour, it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expenditure of human labour power in a special form and with a definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labour, it produces use values.” (at the end of Section 2 of Chapter 1 Boo1 Vol. 1 of “Capital”). The useful labor is supposed to make the use value and the abstract labor is to make the value in general. It is very easy to observe or measure of the quantity. You can only see the volume or quantity of the products. On the other hand, the abstract human labor cannot be easily measured or observed. He calls it as “social entity among commodities”. The abstract human labor is social by nature. The quantity of the abstract human labor which is materialized into a commodity has already been given as a certain duration time in a particular age and society, Marx says. How do we know observe it? He answers that we can know it through everyday practices of innumerous dealings in the marketplace, namely, the mechanism of the marketplace whose laws, like the universal gravitation law, self-actualize by means of blindly carrying themselves out amid antagonistic competitions. Needless to say, the marketplace is a field of the economy.Nobody controls it. There is no need of God like Smith’s God hand. However, it seems like just a rhetoric which Marx loves very much. This may be a kind of the brain-freezing. Marx thinks that the quantity of the abstract human labor can be measured by the labor time that is socially and on average necessary to produce the material with value in use under the socially standard conditions of production. Nobody determines the quantity of the abstract human labor namely the social necessary labor time. It is supposed just to be given. Then cannot you know forever that the quantity of your abstract labor is socially suitable? Yes, you can. However, the quantity of the abstract human labor cannot be measured beforehand but informed a posteriori the compatibility of that quantity depending upon the information how enough, less or excessive the commodity might be sold in the marketplace. This, however, is just an interpretation or a matter of information evaluation as a result of judgment. For there is no clear evidence why the result of the sales in the marketplace is related exclusively to the quantity of the abstract human labor. For all that, Marx’ definition of the abstract human labor seems to come from L. Feuerbach, who argued the God was an abstract human being. Feuerbach’s definition of the abstract human being is closely related to his concept “species-essence” (Guttunswesen in German). Marx takes over the “species-essence” as “an ensemble of the social relations” in “11 Theses on Feuerbach” written when he was 26 years old.The core of the conception of the abstract human labor lies in thinking way of the entire labor as if every labor were done by only one same person. That is to say, a Creator of all nature is supposed there. Thus, there lies the Creator or Hegelian idea of idealism on the basis of the Marxian historical materialism. He states that “All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated” (Section 4), despite difference of personal labor or social labor. Thus after all, the abstract human labor is an abstract expression of the labor by the ensemble of the social relations. In order to salvage the materialism from the hell of idealism, thinking that “all labour is the expenditure of human labour power in a special form and with a definite aim” (above quoted), we should regard the abstract human labor as the physiological energy which has been expended appropriately, because the abstract human labor is a continuum by social nature as much as energy in physics. The quantity of energy in physics is measured by the product of the Plank constant and frequency, that is, hν(hν/2πfor operation). Herein, h is the Plank constant; ν, oscillation frequency andπ, the circular constant. Nonetheless the physiological energy also is just a simile again. We don’t know what a social h and social oscillation ν. What is sure is that the abstract human labor is a representation of the ensemble of social relations including not only information but also meta-information (Cf. “tacit dimension” by Michael Polanyi) whose quantity can partly be measured by the negative of Entropy or “Negentropy” but not duration time only.