[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4chon / cafechan / jp / just / leftpol / russian / sonyeon / strek ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 19th Attention-Hungry Games
/scifi/ - We won because we paid Yawn fifty bucks.

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 573d573ebee2435⋯.png (121.07 KB, 684x828, 19:23, 20140502.png)

 No.2281705

>all these butthurt threads on Zizek

Here's something theoretically worthwhile instead. In his latest book, Incontinence of the Void: Economico-Philosophical Spandrels he designates a chapter (6.1.) to the labor theory of value:

>6.1 The Intricacies of the Labor Theory of Value

>The question of the continuing relevance of Marx’s critique of political economy in our era of global capitalism has to be answered in a properly dialectical way: as Badiou repeatedly emphasizes, not only is Marx’s critique of political economy, his outline of the capitalist dynamics, still absolutely relevant, one should even take a step further and claim that it is only today, with global capitalism, that—to put it in Hegelese—reality arrives at its notion. However, a properly dialectical reversal intervenes here: at this very moment of full actuality the limitation has to appear, the moment of triumph is that of defeat, after overcoming external obstacles the new threat comes from within, signaling immanent inconsistency. When reality fully reaches its notion, this notion itself has to be transformed. So let us begin our analysis with the deceivingly commonsense definition of labor as such at the beginning of chapter 7 of Capital:

<The labour-process, resolved as above into its simple elementary factors, is human action with a view to the production of use-values, appropriation of natural substances to human requirements; it is the necessary condition for effecting exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence, and therefore is independent of every social phase of that existence, or rather, is common to every such phase. It was, therefore, not necessary to represent our labourer in connection with other labourers; man and his labour on one side, Nature and its materials on the other, sufficed.[1]

>Something is wrong with the process of abstraction here: “man and his labour on one side, Nature and its materials on the other, sufficed”—really? Is not every production process by definition social? If we want to grasp the labor process in general, should we not link it to “society in general”? This abstraction of labor into the asocial is ideological in the strict sense: it misrecognizes its own sociohistorical conditions: it is only with capitalist society that the Robinsonian category of abstract labor as asocial emerges. It is not an innocent conceptual mistake, but has a crucial social content: it directly grounds Marx’s technocratic vision of Communism as a society in which the production process is dominated by the “general intellect.” Marx’s vision here is that of a fully automated production process in which the human being (worker) “comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself.” Marx’s systematic use of the singular (“man,” “worker”) is a key indicator of how “general intellect” is not intersubjective, it is “monological.” It is as if in Communism, with its rule of “general intellect,” this asocial character of labor is directly realized.

 No.2281714

>>2281705

>This brings us to the crucial question raised by any revival of the Marxist critique of political economy: the question of the so-called labor theory of value, usually considered the weakest link in the chain of Marx’s theory. Marx first criticizes the idea (the ideological illusion which imposes itself “at first sight”) that exchange value is a purely relational term, the result of comparing one commodity with another, not the intrinsic property of a commodity:

<Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[2]

>If this is a false appearance, what, then, is the true status of exchange value? Here comes the surprise: although it is not relational but intrinsic, it is not intrinsic in the sense of a natural property of the commodity as object:

<the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or lesser quantity. This common “something” cannot be a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only insofar as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterized by a total abstraction from use value. … As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value. If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labor.[3]

>Is not this strange universal intrinsic value, which is nonetheless of a totally different nature from all the natural (physical) properties of the commodity as an object, a purely meta-physical (spiritual) property? When we look at commodities as products of abstract labor, “there is nothing left of them in each case but the same phantom-like objectivity.” “As crystals of this social substance, which is common to them all, they are values—commodity values.” “Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodity as values; in this it is the direct opposite of the coarsely sensuous objectivity of commodities as physical objects.” “Commodities possess an objective character as values only insofar as they are all expressions of an identical social substance, human labour, that their objective character as value is purely social.”[4]


 No.2281718

>>2281714

>So what is the exact status of this “phantom-like objectivity”? Is Marx here not an ontological realist in the medieval Thomist sense, claiming that the universal has an autonomous existence within the object, beyond its physical properties? Furthermore, does he not commit again here a blatant petitio principii? The passage from use value to exchange value (based exclusively in the labor time spent on it) is not the passage from particular to universal: if we abstract from the concrete properties which account for the use value of a commodity, what remains is obviously usefulness (utility) as such, as an abstract property that all commodities share; and, in an exactly symmetrical way, being-the-product-of-labor as the common property of all commodities is an abstraction from concrete particular labor which provided a particular commodity with its use value.

>The reply to this is that (exchange) value is a social category, the way the social character of production is inscribed into a commodity: the relationship between use value and (exchange) value is not that between particularity and universality, but that between the different uses of the same commodity, first as an object that satisfies some need, then as a social object, as a token of relations between subjects. Value concerns products (commodities) as social entities, it is the imprint of the social character of a commodity, and this is why labor is its only source—once we see that value concerns “relations between people,” the claim that its source is labor becomes almost a tautology. In other words, the only source of value is human labor, because value is a social category which measures the participation of each individual laborer in the totality of social labor; to claim that capital and labor material are also “factors” which create value is the same as claiming that they are also members of human society.

>We can now see clearly the origin of Marx’s confusion: when he grounds his labor theory of value in the claim that, if we abstract from the concrete properties of a commodity which satisfy some human need, the only common feature that remains is that they are all products of human labor, he forgets to add that it is social labor, labor in its social dimension, and he thereby opens up the path to the “logical” critique of his “mistake.” The reason he forgets to add this is because his abstract notion of labor is asocial (single worker confronting tools and material), and, again, he thereby opens up the path to the “realist” misunderstanding of value as an immanent property of a commodity.


 No.2281723

>>2281718

>The labor theory of value faces a further problem: if the value of a commodity is determined by the labor time needed to produce it, how do we explain the differences in skill between laborers, i.e., the obvious fact that an hour of a doctor’s labor produces more value than an hour of an unskilled factory worker’s? In order to resolve this problem, Marx introduces the distinction between “simple labor” and “complex labor” (the work of highly trained workers), where complex labor counts as “multiples of simple labor.” In this way, complex labor can be reduced to simple labor, and this reduction is an objective social process which goes on “behind the backs of the producers.” One should not accuse Marx here of being guilty of a vulgar naturalization: he is well aware that what counts as “simple labor” is not a transhistorical constant but depends on a specific historical situation:

<Of course, human labour-power must itself have attained a certain level of development before it can be expended in this or that form. But the value of a commodity represents human labour pure and simple, the expenditure of human labour in general. … It is the expenditure of simple labour-power, i.e. of the labour-power possessed in his bodily organism by every ordinary man, on the average, without being developed in any special way. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different cultural epochs, but in a particular society it is given.[5]

>Is not the distinction between “simple labor” and “complex labor” deeply problematic from Marx’s own standpoint? Marx repeatedly insists that abstract labor which generates value is just that: an abstraction, the reduction of labor to the pure abstract flow of labor time, the obliteration of all particular qualities—so why should the quality of the performed labor determine the value it generates? Marx’s point is that, within each “cultural epoch” (it is worth noting that Marx evokes culture here, not just history), “simple average labor” functions as a zero-level standard to which all its more complex forms can be reduced (and are reduced in the social practice of exchange):

<More complex labour counts only as intensified, or rather multiplied simple labour, so that a smaller quantity of complex labour is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the outcome of the most complicated labour, but through its value it is posited as equal to the product of simple labour, hence it represents only a specific quantity of simple labour. The various proportions in which different kinds of labour are reduced to simple labour as their unit of measurement are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers; these proportions therefore appear to the producers to have been handed down by tradition.[6]


 No.2281731

>>2281723

>The key, enigmatic term here is “experience”: as David Harvey noted in his classic commentary, “Marx never explains what ‘experience’ he has in mind, making this passage highly controversial.”[7] The least one can add is that this “experience” has to be conceived as referring to a specific historical situation: not only what counts as simple labor, but the very practice of reducing complex to simple labor, is something historically specific and not a universal feature of human productivity, limited not only to capitalism but to classic industrial capitalism. As Anson Rabinbach has demonstrated, it is operative only within the nineteenth-century break with Hegel, the assertion of the thermodynamic engine as a paradigm of how labor-power operates, the paradigm which replaces the Hegelian paradigm of labor as the expressive deployment of human subjectivity still operative in the texts of the young Marx:

<The thermodynamic engine was the servant of a powerful nature conceived as a reservoir of undiminished and inexhaustible motivating power. The laboring body, the steam engine and the cosmos were connected by a single and unbroken chain, by an indestructible energy, omnipresent in the universe and capable of infinite mutation, yet immutable and invariant. … This discovery also had a profound, game changing effect on Marx’s thinking about labor. After 1859, Marx increasingly regarded the distinction between concrete and abstract labor in the language of labor power, as an act of conversion rather than generation. Marx credited early nineteenth century French engineers—Navier, Coriolis, Poncelet—who analyzed steam engines and the discoveries of Lord Kelvin and von Helmholtz, who first used the concept of Arbeitskraft to describe how energy is converted into work. Put in another way, Marx superimposed a thermodynamic model of labor onto the ontological model of labor he inherited from Hegel. As a result, for Marx labor power became quantifiable and equivalent to all other forms of labor power (in nature or in machines). Marx thus shifted his focus from the emancipation of mankind through labor, to emancipation from productive labor by an even greater productivity, since the productivity of the machine is measured by the extent to which it replaces human labor power. Marx became a “productivist,” when he no longer considered labor to be simply an anthropologically “paradigmatic” mode of activity, and when, in harmony with the new physics, he saw labor power as an abstract magnitude (a measure of labor-time) and a natural force (a specific set of energy equivalents located in the body). … Though worlds apart ideologically, Helmholtz’s characterization of the universe as Arbeitskraft, Marx’s theory of the relentless transformation of labor power into the powerful engine of capital, and Frederick Winslow Taylor’s utopia of the worker’s body subordinated to the rational intelligence of the engineer, were all variations on the theme of the metaphor of the human motor, of the working body as a medium for converting energy into work.[8]


 No.2281735

>>2281731

>The question that arises here is: is this paradigm which relies on the mechanical, linear flow of time (of labor) as a measure of value still applicable in our late-capitalist postindustrial societies? This question has to be answered precisely to avoid the attempts of the ruling ideology to dismiss Marx’s critique of political economy as belonging to another era, and to celebrate the potential of today’s post-Fordist capitalism to use labor-power in a much more creative and cooperative way:

<An intellectually vigorous new discourse of ‘antidisciplinarity’ has found a niche in the boardrooms of corporations and on the editorial pages of influential newspapers and periodicals. Take for example that journal of post-Marxist studies, the Wall Street Journal, which in the 1990s campaigned against the lingering consequences of the Taylorist-Fordist workplace, e.g. firms sticking to an outdated model in which management distrusts the autonomy of workers, prescribes dull routinized tasks, curbs creativity, and creates a workplace ill-suited to ‘literate, independent-minded workers.’[9]

>Along similar lines, David Harvey[10] recently made a series of important points about Marx’s labor theory of value. His starting point is the well-known fact whose implications are often ignored: value for Marx is a social relation which, as such, is immaterial (“not an atom of matter” enters into it) but objective. Marx, who is often criticized for his vulgar economic materialism, here makes a very refined, non-reductionist point. Critics who are aware of this “objective immateriality” accuse Marx of a neo-Thomist realism (objective idealism), as if “value” for Marx is an objective ideal entity that resides somewhere deep in a commodity. The answer to this reproach is that, for Marx, the value of a commodity is purely relational: it does not exist somewhere deep in a commodity independently of its relations to other commodities, it is “actualized” only through acts of exchange. All the “contradictions” of the expression of value in money stem from the fact that an immaterial social relation has to be expressed in a concrete material object which, in this way, “becomes the form of manifestation of its opposite, abstract human labour.” As a material object, money “becomes a commodity, an external object capable of becoming the private property of any individual. Thus the social power that derives from social labour becomes the private power of private persons.”[11] We have here yet another version of what Hegel called “infinite judgment”: social relation appears as an object which is privately owned and can be treated as just another object to be sold or otherwise exchanged.


 No.2281739

>>2281735

>Marx’s so-called labor theory of value is thus a kind of misnomer: it should in no way be read as claiming that one should discard exchange, or its role in the constitution of value, as a mere appearance which obscures the key fact that labor is the origin of value. One should, rather, conceive the emergence of value as a process of mediation by means of which value “casts off” its use—value is surplus-value over use value. The general equivalent of use values had to be deprived of use value, it had to function as a pure potentiality of use value. Essence is appearance as appearance: value is exchange value as exchange value—or, as Marx put it in a manuscript version of the changes to the first edition of Capital: “The reduction of different concrete private labours to this abstraction [Abstraktum] of the same human labour is accomplished only through exchange which effectively posits the products of different labours as equal to each other.”[12]

>In other words, “abstract labor” is a value relationship which constitutes itself only in exchange, it is not the substantial property of a commodity independently of its relations with other commodities. For orthodox Marxists, such a “relational” notion of value is already a compromise with “bourgeois” political economy which they dismiss as a “monetary theory of value”; however, the paradox is that these very “orthodox Marxists” themselves in effect regress to the “bourgeois” notion of value: they conceive of value as being immanent to the commodity, as its property, and thus naturalize its “spectral objectivity” which is the fetishized appearance of its social character.

>We are not dealing here with mere theoretical niceties: the precise determination of the status of money has crucial economic-political consequences. If we consider money as a secondary form of expression of value which exists “in itself” in a commodity prior to its expression—that is, if money is for us a mere secondary resource, a practical means that facilitates exchange—then the door is open to the illusion, succumbed to by Leftist followers of Ricardo, that it would be possible to replace money with simple notes designating the amount of work done by their bearer and giving him or her the right to the corresponding part of the social product—as if, by means of this direct “work money,” one could avoid all “fetishism” and ensure that each worker is paid their “full value.” The point of Marx’s analysis is that this project ignores the formal determinations of money which make fetishism a necessary effect. In other words, when Marx defines exchange value as the mode of appearance of value, one should mobilize here the entire Hegelian weight of the opposition between essence and appearance: essence exists only insofar as it appears, it does not preexist its appearance. In the same way, the value of a commodity is not its intrinsic substantial property which exists independently of its appearance in exchange.

>This is also why we should abandon the attempt to expand value so that all kinds of labor will be recognized as a source of value—recall the great feminist demand in the 1970s to legalize housework (from cooking and maintaining the household to caring for children) as productive of value, or some contemporary eco-capitalist demands to integrate the “free gifts of nature” into value production (by trying to determine the costs of water, air, forests, and all other commons). All these proposals are “nothing more than a sophisticated green-washing and commodification of a space from which a fierce attack upon the hegemony of the capitalist mode of production and its (and our) alienated relation to nature can be mounted”:[13] in their attempt to be “just” and to eliminate or at least constrain exploitation, such attempts simply enforce an even stronger all-encompassing commodification. Although they try to be “just” at the level of content (what counts as value), they fail to problematize the very form of commodification, and Harvey is right to propose instead to treat value in dialectical tension with nonvalue, i.e., to assert and expand spheres not caught up in the production of (market) value (like household work or “free” cultural and scientific work) in their crucial role. Value production can thrive only if it incorporates its immanent negation, the creative work that generates no (market) value, it is by definition parasitic on it.


 No.2281745

>>2281739

>A further challenge to market economy comes from the exploding virtualization of money, which compels us to thoroughly reformulate the standard Marxist topic of “reification” and “commodity fetishism,” insofar as this topic still relies on the notion of fetish as a solid object whose stable presence obfuscates its social mediation. Paradoxically, fetishism reaches its acme precisely when the fetish itself is “dematerialized,” turned into a fluid “immaterial” virtual entity; money fetishism will culminate with the passage to its electronic form, when the last traces of its materiality disappear—electronic money is the third form, after “real” money, which directly embodies its value (gold, silver), and paper money which, although a “mere sign” with no intrinsic value, still clings to its material existence. And it is only at this stage, when money becomes a purely virtual point of reference, that it finally assumes the form of an indestructible spectral presence: I owe you $1,000, and no matter how many material notes I burn, I still owe you $1,000; the debt is inscribed somewhere in virtual digital space. It is only with this thorough “dematerialization,” when Marx’s famous old thesis from The Communist Manifesto—that in capitalism, “all that is solid melts into air”—acquires a much more literal meaning than the one Marx had in mind, when not only is our material social reality dominated by the spectral/speculative movement of Capital, but this reality itself is progressively “spectralized” (the “Protean Self” instead of the old self-identical Subject, the elusive fluidity of its experiences instead of the stability of the owned objects)—in short, when the usual relationship between firm, material objects and fluid ideas is turned around (objects are progressively dissolved in fluid experiences, while the only stable things are virtual symbolic obligations)—it is only at this point that what Derrida called the spectral aspect of capitalism is fully actualized.

>However, as is always the case in a properly dialectical process, such a spectralization of the fetish contains the seeds of its opposite, of its self-negation. Imagine the endpoint of this process of spectralization: the self-overcoming of commodification into its full naturalization, a point at which money in a way “falls into the Real”—for instance, when I enter a store, a scanning machine just identifies me and checks my database (bank and police records, etc.), so that I do nothing, there is no specific act of buying on my part, I just take the things I want out of the store and the digital network registers it (and endorses it if I met the financial and legal requisites) without any symbolic act of recognition. … (One can easily imagine a similar procedure in going to a restaurant or theater: I simply do what I want there; the financial aspect remains fully in the virtual background.)

[fin]


 No.2281749

>>2281745

1. Karl Marx, Capital, Volume One, available online at <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm>.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. David Harvey, A Companion to Marx’s “Capital” (London: Verso, 2010), 29.

6. Marx, Capital, Volume One.

7. Harvey, A Companion to Marx’s “Capital,” 29.

8. Anson Rabinbach, “From Emancipation to the Science of Work: The Labor Power Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript).

9. Ibid.

10. See David Harvey, “Marx and the Labour Theory of Value” (unpublished manuscript).

11. Ibid.

12. MEGA (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe), Abteilung II (Berlin: Dietz, 1976), 6:41.

13. Harvey, “Marx and the Labour Theory of Value.”

Sorry for the length, but I think it's worth it.


 No.2281756

>>2281749

Can't you post a PDF or something? I'm not going to read all this shit in imageboard format.


 No.2281761


 No.2281768

File: fc15f31519ce4f3⋯.pdf (1.77 MB, Slavoj Žižek-Incontinence ….pdf)

>>2281761

Found .pdf version.


 No.2281771

>>2281761

dankon kara amiko


 No.2281785

tl.dr


 No.2281798

>>2281785

t. ☭TANKIE☭


 No.2281800

It's clearly a massive /pol/ raid. They know Zizek is very valuable to the left, and will do anything to get rid of him.

They want us instead to support leftists that are as braindead (or dishonest, who the fuck knows anymore) and annoying as Peterson so they don't have to compete with us in intellect or likability.


 No.2281997

>>2281723

<More complex labour counts only as intensified, or rather multiplied simple labour, so that a smaller quantity of complex labour is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made…

>>2281731

>The key, enigmatic term here is “experience”: as David Harvey noted in his classic commentary, “Marx never explains what ‘experience’ he has in mind, making this passage highly controversial.”

How is that controversial? The experience here is the experience of market exchange. It's not weird that totally different concrete activities are thought of as different, everybody thinks of them as different, what is weird about the market is that this difference is expressed here as one activity being like a multiple of the other, and the activities are treated like that in terms of $.


 No.2282122

>>2281997

>The experience here is the experience of market exchange.

I'm not sure about that. The context in Capital is that of production. Here's Harvey's full quote:

>Notably, Marx never specifies what “experience” he has in mind, making this passage highly controversial. In the literature it is known as the “reduction problem,” because it is not clear how skilled labor can be and is reduced to simple labor independently of the value of the commodity produced. Rather like the proposition about value as socially necessary labor time, Marx’s formulation appears cryptic, if not cavalier; he doesn’t explain how the reduction is made. He simply presumes for purposes of analysis that this is so and then proceeds on that basis. This means that the qualitative differences we experience in concrete labor, useful labor and the heterogeneity of it, is here reduced to something purely quantitative and homogeneous.


 No.2282189

>>2281800

Peterson?


 No.2282275

>>2282189

He's this "le Kermit the frog Jungian anti-postmodernist meme man" who got popular on the alt-right for whining about "muh postmodernist boogeyman".


 No.2282277

>>2282275

Okay, was just confused cause the dude called him a leftist.


 No.2282333

>>2281739

I really wonder what Cockshot fans would say to the second half of this.


 No.2282369

>>2282277

I wasn't calling him a leftist. he's just an example of an unlikable "acadamic" who knows jack shit.

Zizek is the complete opposite of that, and it triggers the alt-reich


 No.2282819

>>2282122

>I'm not sure

But I am.

>The context in Capital

is to be found in Capital. Reading Harvey to figure out what Harvey's opinion is what Marx meant is better than going by what Zizek thinks Harvey meant, but it's best to always get as close to the source as possible, surely your question is about what Marx meant, so here is Capital by Marx.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

>Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone.

There is a footnote right at the end of the sentence, clarifying that he is talking there about "the value of the commodity in which that labour time is materialised". He is talking about what shit exchanges for above that passage, and he talks about what shit exchanges for below that passage. And he doesn't refer to the experience of experts, he doesn't say experience of experts in business/Hegel/whatever experts shows the reduction, just experience shows… Meaning, it's something a random person reading it should know from experience. What else could he possibly have meant.

Look, I read Capital and I first found it rather tedious and repetitive, Marx goes and on that if the value of X units of foo = Y units of bar, Not only do Y units of foo exchange for Y units of bar, but also, get this: When you read it right to left, it also means that Y unit of bar *breathes* exchange for X amount of foo, dude!! And at first it made me roll my eyes. Yes, Karl, that's how an equal sign works. That's what the market does. And Marx repeatedly points at it to crack the thing open and to get you to actually think about it. We can argue about whether the how of this reduction by capitalism and the market is described well by Marx, but it's absurd to have a debate whether the reduction happens in the real world. It's not an invention by Marx.

In another chapter (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm), Marx talks about the education that goes into skilled labour requiring work and so that education being an ingredient to the products that require that skilled labour, so that the labour adds more value to the product, analogous to how fixed capital adds value (and just like Cockshott and Cottrell later handle the prices of products that require skilled labour in TANS):

>In order to modify the human organism, so that it may acquire skill and handiness in a given branch of industry, and become labour-power of a special kind, a special education or training is requisite, and this, on its part, costs an equivalent in commodities of a greater or less amount. This amount varies according to the more or less complicated character of the labour-power. The expenses of this education (excessively small in the case of ordinary labour-power), enter pro tanto into the total value spent in its production.

Put your meme philosopher aside and read Marx for a change.


 No.2283157

File: fabb53d7e9de774⋯.jpg (49.95 KB, 500x701, 500:701, pizzas philosoficas.jpg)

>>2282819

>>The context in Capital

>is to be found in Capital.

When I said context in Capital I meant the context in Capital.

>But I am.

But then you are clearly wrong. The paragraph's first sentence states that we'll be looking at production with no concern to its usefulness, its 'special form,' i.e. production as mere physical phenomenon. Hence the following passage about the "productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles," hence comparing with a simile this "mere human labour's" relation with "human labor in general" (represented in a commodity) to the productive role of the simple man and the banker. Then he moves on to talk about labor power as potentiality ("exists in the organism") and only after these conceptual steps were taken can he talk about how larger quantities of simple labor can add up to a smaller quantity of skilled labor.

The question about whose experience Marx talks about is justified by the development of the passage. It is clearly not yet "market experience," and not just the "everyday experience of the reader" (we've gone down to the level of human organisms, for crying out loud). We are at the conceptual level of labor as mere physical activity, deprived of considering personal or social usefulness. The text is far from talking about the interconnected concepts of commodities, markets, wages – even the footnote hints at this "Wages is a category that, as yet, has no existence at the present stage of our investigation." – and your approach tries to insert complex categories into the text that are not yet developed and are clearly not on the same conceptual level of labor Marx is.

>the rest of your pedantic post

Very constructive, thank you. Your expertise is much appreciated.


 No.2283461

>>2283157

>The question about whose experience Marx talks about is justified by the development of the passage.

You have to read more than one paragraph in one go, and stop trying to read sentences as entirely self-contained in meaning.

>even the footnote hints at this "Wages is a category that, as yet, has no existence at the present stage of our investigation." – and your approach tries to insert complex categories into the text that are not yet developed and are clearly not on the same conceptual level of labor Marx is.

The topic is Capital, not a sentence or two, and the issue you put in bold here is exactly why the excerpt from another chapter was provided. Do you even have an alternative hypothesis what experience could possibly relate to?


 No.2283486

>>2283461

Typical.


 No.2284651

Dear OP,

if you just read the first chapter until

>Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made

you will see that Marx already mentioned exchange value before the passage you have trouble parsing and he wrote that a certain quantity of a product gets equated to a quantity of another in the market:

>The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron…

But you claim in >>2283157

<It is clearly not yet "market experience,"

You wouldn't have claimed that if you had even read the first chapter until the experience bit. Read Capital, you mong.


 No.2285365

<Some people claim Zizek is sloppy in his arguments and quotes people out of context all the time. That's not true. I will convince them by making a thread posting some excerpt of his new book full of sloppy arguments and out-of-context quotes.

What did OP mean by this? You want to know how long it takes our genius Zizek to get to his first fuck-up? Look at OP's post number … 1. First, the Marx quote, made longer to give context (I put the extensions in italics), then Zizek's "analysis". Marx:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

>In so far then, as its instruments and subjects are themselves products, labour consumes products in order to create products, or in other words, consumes one set of products by turning them into means of production for another set. But, just as in the beginning, the only participators in the labour-process were man and the earth, which latter exists independently of man, so even now we still employ in the process many means of production, provided directly by Nature, that do not represent any combination of natural substances with human labour.

>The labour-process, resolved as above into its simple elementary factors, is human action with a view to the production of use-values, appropriation of natural substances to human requirements; it is the necessary condition for effecting exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence, and therefore is independent of every social phase of that existence, or rather, is common to every such phase. It was, therefore, not necessary to represent our labourer in connexion with other labourers; man and his labour on one side, Nature and its materials on the other, sufficed. As the taste of the porridge does not tell you who grew the oats, no more does this simple process tell you of itself what are the social conditions under which it is taking place, whether under the slave-owner’s brutal lash, or the anxious eye of the capitalist, whether Cincinnatus carries it on in tilling his modest farm or a savage in killing wild animals with stones.

Zizek:

<Something is wrong with the process of abstraction here: “man and his labour on one side, Nature and its materials on the other, sufficed”—really? Is not every production process by definition social? blablabla This abstraction of labor into the asocial is ideological blablabla I need to fill my book with words to get paid

Of course, Marx didn't mean a single man there, but mankind. Inside Zizek's head, the part that isn't made of cocaine weakly senses that, and so he writes:

<Ablobloblo Marx’s technocratic vision of Communism bloblobo Marx’s systematic use of the singular (“man,” “worker”) is a key indicator of how “general intellect” is not intersubjective, it is “monological.”

And that's bad and totalitarian, DAE horseshoe theory? Seriously, now: The reason Marx hasn't gone much into the social dimension of work yet, at that point, is that he describes something so general that it applies to different social formations. Marx doesn't forget that production is social, as Z. implies. This sort of "critique" amounts to pretending that something isn't in a text, just because it doesn't appear in every single sentence in it. What Zizek wrote in that passage is TP-USA tier.


 No.2285371

>>2285365

You got some issues, man.


 No.2285545

File: 04235a16c136350⋯.gif (Spoiler Image, 1.52 MB, 200x360, 5:9, 456365.gif)

>>2285365

>blablabla

>blablabla

>I need to fill my book with words to get paid

>cocaine

>Ablobloblo

>Marx’s technocratic vision of Communism

>bloblobo

>TP-USA


 No.2286394

>>2281739 (quoting Žižek)

>In other words, “abstract labor” is a value relationship which constitutes itself only in exchange, it is not the substantial property of a commodity independently of its relations with other commodities. For orthodox Marxists, such a “relational” notion of value is already a compromise with “bourgeois” political economy which they dismiss as a “monetary theory of value”; however, the paradox is that these very “orthodox Marxists” themselves in effect regress to the “bourgeois” notion of value: they conceive of value as being immanent to the commodity, as its property, and thus naturalize its “spectral objectivity” which is the fetishized appearance of its social character.

I think Žižek misconstrues the position of oldschool Marxists here (though, since he hasn't named names here, he can weasel out of being proven guilty beyond doubt when it comes to that particular falsehood). Their point isn't let's look inside of the commodity to find out what it's Really Worth(TM), their point is that you shouldn't over-emphasize markets. Since you don't need capitalism or markets to arrive at a relational notion of cost and benefit of an object, opposition to capitalism or markets (even markets in the very limited sense as in the TaNS proposal) does not imply that you can't have a relational notion of that.

Žižek has trouble with thinking about objective facts existing in production if they don't also exist literally inside the products, like the steel in a car (which leads to doubt about how powerful the LTV really is). But of course, there is more than that to the objective side, it isn't just that and the rest being feelings or history or policy or what you want to call it. Some production processes require intense heat. This heat can come from electricity. This electricity can come from solar panels or a nuclear power plant or some other source, and you won't see the type of source in the molecules of the objects made with that heat. Of course, Marx doesn't mention nuclear power, but he does point out this type of objective relations that exist in production in the first volume of Capital (which OP hasn't read).


 No.2286655

>>2282333

>I really wonder what Cockshot fans would say to the second half of this.

Cockshott. I guess you mean this part:

>>2281739

>the illusion, succumbed to by Leftist followers of Ricardo, that it would be possible to replace money with simple notes designating the amount of work done by their bearer and giving him or her the right to the corresponding part of the social product

… minus some deductions for a buffer, for children, the elderly, healthcare, a (hopefully) expanding part of social consumption, and for research and expanding production is what Marx himself advocated for, see his remark on Owen's "money" in (sigh) Capital Volume One as well as Critique of the Gotha Program. What Marx criticized wasn't labour vouchers in themselves regardless of the system around them, but the feasibility of the combination of fixed administrative prices with decentralized management of production.

You want to have a discussion how a proposal of a book you haven't read relates to another book that you haven't read? Well, I have read both and here is my impression of the text you posted: Posing in the garb of the radical, the author vomits out "thought" that starts with echoing the totalitarianism doctrine of hysterical liberals ("Marx’s technocratic vision of Communism", "asocial character of labor"), one tangent "leads" to another, quotations are tortured in tangentception until they confess, and then it fizzles out in lethargic randomness.


 No.2286659

>>2286394

You are conflating (again) the social form of a commodity (value) with its physicality (resource input, utility) and thereby – quite comically – provide an example of Zizek's critique. Nobody denies that steel and electricity needs to "go into" a car's production (an absurd premise you attribute to Zizek and debunk vigilantly).

>>2285365

>Marx doesn't forget that production is social

<<It was, therefore, not necessary to represent our labourer in connection with other labourers; man and his labour on one side, Nature and its materials on the other, sufficed.

>>really? Is not every production process by definition social?

>The reason Marx hasn't gone much into the social dimension of work yet

So let's pin this down, Robinson Crusoe: is there a dimension of work outside the social?


 No.2286671

OP, conversations require some common ground. Would you mind answering some simple questions:

You have read Capital: y() n()

You haver read Towards a New Socialism: y() n()

Did Marx consider Owen's labour-time notes as money: y() n()


 No.2286725

>>2286659

>You are conflating (again) the social form of a commodity (value) with its physicality (resource input, utility)

Who is talking about utility? The utility an object has to a person is not intrinsic to it as a fixed quality irrespective of the situation the particular person is in and as such not really something completely separate from it and entirely due to its physicality, e. g. the usefulness of telephone technology depends on other people having it. Marx mentions the historical dimension (his magnet example), and even an isolated person on an island doesn't relate to the surroundings in such a simple way that things available in multiple units that bring him happiness (e. g. some fruit) can be equated with a quantity of them, such that X times as many units would simply amount to X times as much satisfaction (I'm referring to the idea of marginal utility usually not being constant, but diminishing).

>Nobody denies that steel and electricity needs to "go into" a car's production (an absurd premise you attribute to Zizek…

When someone states a banality as a critique, the point is virtually never that the other person doesn't know that, it's rather that the other person hasn't taken it fully into account.

>is there a dimension of work outside the social?

Look at the Marx quote again: "…it is the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence, and therefore is independent of every social phase of that existence, or rather, is common to every such phase." The claim by Marx is not that labour is in some spooky twilight zone outside of the social dimension and historicity, it is rather that an aspect of it is invariant.


 No.2289433

Bump. Where are you, OP?


 No.2296650

So, to wrap things up, the part with "experience shows that…" can be interpreted to refer to market exchange. If you put in market exchange there the sentences make sense and the statement also happens to be factually correct. And it's exactly the kind of statement Marx wouldn't dwell on much, given how bleedingly obvious it is. What else could "experience" there possibly relate to, OP?

The only other possible candidate here I can think of is division of tasks, but that is a very distinct second compared to market exchange. First, the argument for the interpretation putting division of tasks here: Marx goes from the abstract to the concrete, he starts in the most general way. Division of tasks is older than market exchange, it will also exist after, so it is the more general concept.

Now, the argument against: The way work is reckoned about in a manufacture keeps the different types of work more separate than what the comparison by the market does. Within the manufacture most pairs of distinct activities are reckoned about as not being substitutes at all, whereas in the market everything is compared in terms of money, meaning: made equal just by the quantities being right. In a factory distinct groups of workers do distinct activities, distinct steps in the production of a thing, and the overall performance tends to be set by the bottleneck, the weakest link; so, doubling the amount of workers at some step that is not the bottleneck is very unlikely to have any positive effect. So you don't have that equalization in terms of setting some quantities of activity A and B as equal to another, as it happens in the market.


 No.2296683

>>2296661

>/leftypol/ having a god emperor

Wrong, everyone gets the blade of ruthless critique, whether it's sniff man, neck massage man, computer man, the bearded brothers, or google man.


 No.2296724

File: 2ae15e13134526f⋯.jpg (79.92 KB, 736x1104, 2:3, robespierre terra cotta.jpg)

>>2296683

>everyone gets the blade

V I V E

I

V

E


 No.2296728

File: fdebf41ba6300e9⋯.jpg (72.36 KB, 793x758, 793:758, fdebf41ba6300e9d81b2a4b474….jpg)

File: de08ce170bda57c⋯.png (140.89 KB, 1400x1120, 5:4, de08ce170bda57c999b2e98665….png)

File: ee1ed43ac570002⋯.jpg (144.09 KB, 714x623, 102:89, ee1ed43ac570002d18a444d77a….jpg)

File: ea293e45b4a0e80⋯.png (1.04 MB, 960x1248, 10:13, ea293e45b4a0e807ccf6fb8fd3….png)

>>2296724

DROPPIN' THE BLADE!


 No.2296733

File: e0e832263e5b99d⋯.gif (175.4 KB, 852x480, 71:40, 1422614202219.gif)

>>2281705

Shut the fuck up you western liberal buji college cocksucker, zizek is fucking garbage, a limited hangout that has nothing to offer outside of intellectual masturbation, taking ziz seriously is the biggest indicator that you are a LARPing fag that will probably be a liability when the revolution comes, you are a useful idiot that doesnt understand controlled opposition at best

mandatory ☭TANKIE☭ read on this fucking collaborator:

http://alphonsevanworden.tumblr.com/post/146430343445/the-protocols-of-the-learned-lacanian-of


 No.2296749

>>2296661

There has been a major infiltrator of anti-Zizek nerds over the last few months. Shan't be taking seriously.


 No.2296760

File: 5e754322bc21961⋯.jpg (74.91 KB, 400x295, 80:59, PutinistNegro.jpg)

File: 6c725acb1e7c5fd⋯.jpg (8.79 KB, 284x177, 284:177, CryptoVlad.jpg)

File: 6bbe8971ad97006⋯.jpg (40.12 KB, 540x327, 180:109, CELINE.jpg)

>>2296749

>major infiltrator

I will infiltrate your ass faggot,

N A Z B O L G A N G

has already begun the trial on ziz for abetting the Albion-Sionista Unipolar Order, it is only a matter of time until he is judged




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4chon / cafechan / jp / just / leftpol / russian / sonyeon / strek ]