[she/they/comrade]
Forgive me, Marx, for I have sinned.
My matrix is @queercommie28:matrix.org
- Posts
- 129
- Comments
- 1122
- Joined
- 4 yr. ago
- Posts
- 129
- Comments
- 1122
- Joined
- 4 yr. ago
It’s not “without seizing the means of production.” It’s prior to doing so. The proletariat has a special place in capitalism in that its labor is essential to the system’s functioning. If people refuse to work like in a strike (see the USSR) the system stops functioning and people can take over.
lol no. It’s not that most people don’t have the capacity. They are rational and many can figure it out themselves. But we really lean on their rationality when giving our arguments (or at least we should, instead of thinking of it like manipulation). Plus, many of the people who think they’re above the masses don’t actually understand capitalism.
You recall the part of Masses Elites and Rebels where Day says that all the proles are inherently revolutionary and knowledgeable and there’s no education to be done?
How is that wishful thinking? It’s a rather realistic thought that revolution will never come and establish socialism if people do not oppose capitalism. Everyone hates the government, but how many of us actually understand how the state works as a tool of the ruling class?
The question is whether it’s correct, not whether it makes you personally feel good.
There is a global supply chain. What’s your point? People around the world can buy phones made with materials from the same places.
Paul Cockshott is probably more eloquent than me, but unequal exchange is not at all a Marxist theory. Marx set himself against the notion that profit in capitalism was generated from anything but equal exchange. The difference between the core and the periphery is that labor in the periphery is far less developed. Socially necessary labor time is the same globally, but in the US, say, wheat production is far more mechanized and productive than in india.
Modernity started in the 1600s. It was the era of bourgeois revolutions, independence revolts, and such. I don’t see any of those nowadays. And even if I did, that would not imply they are a way global socialism could be achieved.
There have been tons of movements against “neoliberalism” (aka the “bad side of capitalism”) in the east and west. Just look at occupy wall street or the yellow vest movement.
The fact that people die to fight imperialists does not imply that national liberation is on the horizon. Just like anarchists doing adventurism doesn’t imply immanent anarchist revolution. Even if national liberation succeeds, it tends to result in the native bourgeoisie doing the exploiting instead of the foreign one. Is that an improvement? None of the movements you noted are even Marxist. Yeah, people struggle along national lines under capitalism, but I fail to see how that is a real path to liberation moving forward. Granted, I was on your side for the longest time, but after reading some more theory and understanding nationalism and modernity more, I’m just not inclined to cheerlead bourgeois movements anymore.
People can be driven towards extremes during crisis yes. We must take advantage of that. However we cannot count on inherently revolutionary conditions coming out of nowhere. We must spread class consciousness. Additionally, we must critique crises not as aberrations where capitalism went “too far,” but as one more horror in a long line. Capital harms the proletariat whether there’s a crisis or not.
Holy shit, someone here can name an actual explicit ultra leftist tendency. The content of this essay is strongly inspired by reading various works of Bordiga and strongly disagreeing with his historical moralism.
You say there’s some special basis for national chauvinism and reformism in the west, but is there more of such tendencies here than elsewhere? There’s a ton of reformism across South America, and I shouldn’t have to say that nationalism is a plague practically everywhere. Just look at India. There’s a huge amount of poverty and yet the BJP heavily dominates. Yeah, the Naxals used to exist, but today 0.07% of the population is in the communist party.
The average Chinese peasant knew what it was like to be exploited by a landlord. They didn’t like landlords. That doesn’t mean they understood “exploitation” in general or the reasons for abolishing private property. Similarly, most Amerikans know what it’s like to have a “shitty job” and hate their boss or even the “elites.” That does not mean they are revolutionary, as they do not understand capitalism.
Nowhere did I claim fewer profits meant less exploitation. The average worker does not receive some great benefit from cheap goods. It’s required to have certain goods be cheap for the sake of the reproduction of labor capacity. Plus, automation constantly drives down prices while continuing to keep people exploited. More stuff does not mean less work and more “freedom to buy” does not mean a lack of systematic harm. That is liberal logic.
The New Deal was made possible by the massive destruction of constant capital during the world wars. There was not more colonial exploitation, but in fact unprecedented independence from colonialism. And yes, I know independence from colonialism doesn’t stop exploitation. Only the abolition of capitalism in the core can do such.
Anyone who’s read Sakai knows exactly what I’m talking about with moralism.
Cheap refrigeration is a necessity for life alienated from the production of food, and with very little free time to cook or collectively eat food. You are essentially giving the liberal argument that “all this nice stuff means we aren’t really oppressed by capitalism” but you think that’s a bad thing because the people “over there” are still oppressed by capitalism.
I already gave my historical materialist analysis (see the reply to cfgaussian). Have you noticed that there haven’t been any notable socialist revolutions in the periphery in the last forty years? Do you recall that there was a ton of revolutionary momentum in Europe in the late 19th century and early 20th century that, in some places succeeded, while others succumbed to counterrevolution. Heck, there was a large socialist block in Europe after WWII.
Is the explanation wrong?
If we want to talk about history, then let’s note that it was a different era when most socialist revolutions happened. People were rebelling against colonialism, and the national bourgeoisie was pursuing liberal independence and the establishment of a government more suitable for the interests. In some cases communist groups took the helm of the anti-colonial struggle and ultimately founded their own governments. In many cases, the new government allowed the new bourgeoisie to have some power for the sake of developing the productive forces. People didn’t have insight capitalism here. They didn’t blame capitalism or the commodity form. They blamed explicit colonial oppressors. And they succeeded in achieving nominal independence around the world regardless if it was done by communists.
There are no more bourgeois revolutions to ride off or take advantage of. Capitalism is a powerful and legally widespread force. We have to actually abolish it. Colonialism in its blatant form is mostly gone, although exploitation remains. In Engels’ words (the Principles) “The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.” This task can only be achieved by the proletariat’s collective refusal to feed the machine, instead taking control of the means of production and pursuing the abolition of wage labor and commodity production.
This is the real “gap” between the east and west that used to exist. In countries under blatant colonial domination vanguard groups could ride the coattails of bourgeois revolution, whereas in the imperial core we had to do the work of organizing the proletariat. This gap doesn’t really exist any more. We are all exploited by the same international capital.
Insight into capitalism typically only works if one’s interests are violated capitalism, obviously. But it is everyday capitalism that oppresses us, not just the crises. We cannot rely on bad conditions to make class consciousness easier to spread, because people can just as easily take up racist explanations or the idealist complaint that “this couldn’t be real capitalism. If only we could return to the decent time when the economy didn’t go to shit. Maybe one day we could have a true free market again.”
There are some labor aristocrats in the west, but yes, it’s not a great explanation for the lack of revolution.
I think my “alternative explanation” was fairly explicit—and repeatedly contrasted to the false explanation: plainly, however much rebellious energy there is, there will be no movement that abolishes the present state of things if people do not grasp certain insights about the nature of capitalism and fight that as the source of their suffering. In the U$ today 2/3rds of people are living paycheck to paycheck, yet they mostly blame evil immigrants/woke elites/jews or just an insufficiently benevolent state. Similarly, we have seen many overthrown governments in the last twenty years in the global south, but all of them have just established new rulers and new exploiters. Nothing fundamentally changes because people do not grasp the root of their problems and fight it.
The logical solution is, then, to actually promote class consciousness instead of just protesting the current thing or trying to get your own party popular. One of Marx’s major contributions was the notion that the proletariat must liberate itself, but they will not do so if they place blame incorrectly.
I don’t think most people on here understand that there are people who self identify as “ultra leftist.” Those people have arguments of varying strength that most folks here are completely ignorant of.
I was driven to Third Worldism after repeatedly following and then discovering terrible takes from proto-ACP “patriotic socialists.” I even joined a patsoc party and argued with them over Amerikkkan nationalism. Unlike then, as you can see, I have found no reason to center the issue of the “national question.”
The last time I was on here I said I’d write something on this soon. Unfortunately, I wasn’t in a writing mood for a whole, but luckily I happened to enter an argument (where I actually convinced the third worldist) and fully fleshed out my critique.
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml On Third Worldism
Anarchists typically do not self identify as ultras. Those that tend to use that label are those on the Italian Left, Council Communists, Situationists, and Communizers.
It’s not that they didn’t have faith. They simply didn’t read or understand Marx, most of the time.
Footnotes
[1] This conclusion about labor as the third thing that commodities have in common, the thing that constitutes the substance of value, is not shared by bourgeois economics. The economists would say: “One person exchanges boot polish for gold, the other person exchanges gold for boot polish. Why did they exchange them? Because one person values boot polish higher than gold, the other person values gold higher than boot polish. There is nothing in common. If there is an equalization, then it is the equalization of the benefit weighed by both sides.” The thesis is that the benefit is equal. Here Marx would reply that this is a mistake because the benefit always depends on the concrete use-value. The benefit of the bed and the benefit of a bottle of beer are not comparable. It does not make sense to ask: is the beer more useful than the bed or is it the other way around? The utility of a thing is a predicate that expresses a thing is good for a particular need and/or satisfying a particular need. An “abstract” benefit does not exist. By the way, economics itself doubts whether one can compare the utility of different things and then comes up with the idea that if one can’t compare the utility, then one can still compare the utility of bundles of goods: 17 beds and 1 bottle of beer and 17 beers and 1 bed; economics asserts that one should be able to compare these in terms of utility. As if this comparison would be possible without maintaining an abstract utility of goods; one can only say: no such thing exists.
[2] Modern economists argue that Marx did not realize that the price of commodities depends on supply and demand. But Marx did not deny that a price is not obtained without demand, but explained the substance of what is taking place in the market. The market proves whether individually performed labor counts as socially necessary average labor or not. But this is only one side of it. It still has to be explained that value determines supply and demand. In price, the substance of socially necessary labor is asserted. On the other hand, the socially necessary labor in the long term must also be paid or else the product does not exist. If something is needed but doesn’t obtain a price which compensates the producer’s expense, then he stops making the product available. Only when a price is paid that allows the producer to reproduce the product is the product produced and offered. It is noticeable that value is the law of exchange, which does not contradict the fact that everyone wants to pay as little as possible and get as much as possible. This is precisely how socially necessary labor as the measure of exchange is carried out in a society in which no one can say how many products of a certain type are needed or what the social average labor for a pound of bread is because there is no collective decision-making.
[3] The conclusion Marx draws from these qualities of the commodity and the form of social wealth about the relation of the subjects of this economy to the products of their labor is often misunderstood. He talks about the “fetishism of commodities.” The commodity is the objectified form of a social relation in the sense that it is not realized in its use-value, but in its exchange-value. The social relation between the producers appears in this society as what it is, namely: a relation between things. A matter that is really between people who make arrangements between themselves appears to them as a relation between things that have their own autonomy and subordinate the people. One day somebody produces a commodity and it is in demand and they get a price for it which they can live with; and the very next day they produce the same commodity and finds no one buying the commodity. Marx says: instead of people controlling their social relations, people are controlled by their social relations. The abstract point of the fetish section is that people do not control their circumstances. People turn themselves over to being instrumentalized by relations which are not under their own control. They use the social institutions – commodity, money, capital – but do not understand what they are using and do not have control over the institutions they are using.
- Concluding remarks
Many readers of the first chapters of Capital on the commodity and money overlook the fact that Marx is criticizing these methods. They pick up on the criticism only when Marx starts talking about wage labor and capital, surplus labor and exploitation. However, the very first pages already make a fundamental critique of the irrationality of this mode of production in which the production of wealth takes place via the sacrifice of the vast majority. The criticism is not that this is unfair. No – here Marx would say that justice corresponds to the economic laws. If you recall the initial comments on the absurdities of the bourgeois economy which pose so many problems – the juxtaposition of wealth and enormous poverty, the phenomenon that labor is ever more productive but there’s no reduction in work as a result, the phenomenon of crises in which everyone tries to earn more and more money and then all of a sudden nobody is earning any anymore – then what has previously been said partly explains why these peculiarities exist.
The juxtaposition of poverty and wealth is not a mystery when the satisfaction of needs is not the purpose of production. If needs are satisfied only to the extent as they are backed by money, then needs are left unsatisfied. And not because it isn’t possible to produce the goods which could meet these needs, but because the satisfaction of needs depends on a business being made out of them. If one has no money, one’s needs are economically irrelevant in our society. In the course of Capital, Marx explains why money concentrates so one-sidedly.
The second question was already answered in the opening sections. Labor becomes ever more productive, but not reduced as a result. If the social purpose of production were to consist in producing use-values to satisfy needs, then labor would be reduced to the extent that labor becomes more productive. Then disposable time would increase to the extent that more stuff is produced in the same time, without requiring any decrease in consumption. On the contrary. But if money, value, is the economic purpose, then there can’t ever be too little toil. Then labor can be more productive, but never reduced.
On the third question, crisis, no answer has been given. But that’s ok. It’s only the abstract starting point for reflections that take Marx a thousand pages to explain. There’s still a lot to explain between the capitalism we see and the starting point of the explanation, that the commodity is the elementary form of wealth in our society.
Even before Marx makes it clear that the producer of commodities in modern society is not the individual producer who works on his own, but is divided into the entrepreneur who organizes the production of commodities and who owns the products of labor, and the workers who do the necessary work and get a wage for it, he makes it clear that this type of wealth can never be the wealth of those who create this wealth with their labor. This form of wealth, money wealth, is the wealth of a society based on exploitation. A wealth whose substance only grows when toil grows is an irrational form of wealth. A rational form of wealth would consist in labor making itself redundant, not in the effort which generates the wealth. Here is a quote where Marx makes this point:
“For real wealth is the development of the productive powers of all individuals. The measure of wealth then is not any longer, in any way, labour time, but rather disposable time. Labour time as the measure of wealth posits wealth itself as founded on poverty, and disposable time as existing in and because of the anithesis to surplus labour time; or, the positing of an individual’s entire time as labour time, and his degradation therefore to mere worker, subsumption under labour. The most developed machinery thus forces the worker to work longer than the savage does, or than he himself did with the simplest, crudest tools.” (Karl Marx, Grundrisse, p. 708-709) People now have to work longer than the primitive peoples who were masters of their own labor and worked with the crudest and most rudimentary tools. For those who work, the work never becomes more productive. This is another way of saying: if labor eexpenditure determines wealth, then wealth can only increase to the extent that effort, toil, increase. There can be no rational determination of social wealth when this wealth finds its measure in expended labor. A rational form of social wealth would make labor relatively superfluous. This would mean more leisure time; having more free time and the things you need to live are the rational measures of wealth.
The wealth in our society is measured in toil, in sacrifice. The following sentence shows that Marx is already thinking of wage labor and capital, which were not even mentioned in the first determinations about the commodity and money. And yet the social form of wealth already points to a social conflict. In a developed capitalist economy, the wealth of the few is based on the poverty of the many. This form of social wealth, which is increased through toil, can only exist in a society where the result of labor and the carrying out of labor are assigned to different people. Those who benefit from labor and those who do the labor are not the same people. Because the disposable time of the rich is based on the fact that others work all the time. This is the meaning of the phrase “labour time as the measure of wealth posits wealth itself as founded on poverty.”
- Abstract labor – expended labor is the substance and measure of wealth only in an economy based on exploitation
Marx didn’t think his great discovery was that labor is the substance of exchange-value. Economists long before him had figured out that products are products of labor and exchange because they are products of labor. He was interested in explaining the role played by labor in the creation of value. In Marx’s view, earlier economists like Smith and Ricardo hadn’t seen what this shows about the character of labor in capitalism:
“Initially, the commodity appeared to us as an object with a dual character, possessing both use- value and exchange-value. Later on it was seen that labour, too, has a dual character: in so far as it finds its expression in value, it no longer possesses the same characteristics as when it is the creator of use-values. I was the first to point out and examine critically this two-fold nature of labour contained in commodities … this point is crucial to an understanding of political economy … ” (Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 132) If commodities are equated in exchange, if boot-polish and silk are exchanged in a certain ratio, both are products of labor, and both include socially necessary labor which has been recognized (or not) as socially necessary labor by the exchange. If products of labor are exchanged, then the labor done to produce boot-polish ot silk still involves quite different tasks, so the specificity of the labor can’t be the common quality of the goods, the third thing, because the types of labor in them are qualitatively different. If various types of labor are equated, what then is the thing that makes them equal? Now the question of abstract equality comes up again, about the labor itself:
“If we leave aside the determinant quality of productive activity, and therefore the useful character of labour, what remains is its quality of being an expenditure of human labour-power. … expenditure of human brains, muscles, nerves, hands, etc.” (ibid., p. 134) Labor only creates value in the sense that it requires sacrifice: in that brain, muscle, and nerves are exerted. The nasty side of labor, that time that is lost in the process is what constitutes the social validity of labor in this society. From a rational point of view, the social accomplishment of labor is the benefit that the labor contributes; the use-values that are produced, not the toil that the labor requires. Labor is negatively connected to benefit.
“In itself, an increase in the quantity of use-values constitutes an increase in material wealth. … Nevertheless, an increase in the amount of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of value. This contradictory movement arises out of the twofold character of labour. By ‘productivity’ of course, we always mean the productivity of concrete useful labour; in reality this determines only the degree of effectiveness of productive activity directed towards a given purpose within a given period of time. Useful labour, becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products in direct proportion as its productivity rises or falls. As against this, however, variations in productivity have no impact whatever on the labour itself represented in value... [T]he same change in productivity which increases the fruitfulness of labour, and therefore the amount of use-values produced by it, also brings about a reduction in the value of this increased total amount, if it cuts down the total amount of labour-time necessary to to produce the use-values.” (ibid., p. 136-137) The message here is: the more productive the labor is, the more that labor produces in an hour, the more material wealth that it churns out, the more use-values that become available, the richer a society is. But in a society which is about value, money, about acquiring the social power to have disposal over wealth, toil is the measure of wealth. This means that if producing a commodity takes less labor time, then less value, monetary value, is produced. Material wealth increases, but not monetary wealth. On the contrary: if the amount of work decreases, then the value materialized in a given mass of use values decreases.
This has huge consequences. Society becomes constantly richer as labor becomes more productive and work becomes relatively more superfluous. That is the real blessing of productivity: that the toil of labor decreases, or could decrease. The satisfaction of needs can be met without a need for more labor having to be exerted. But once the purpose is money, about the power to have disposal over wealth, wealth measures itself in the effort, in the sacrifice that must be made in order to produce the product. So when the necessary effort is reduced, the monetary value of the product is reduced. Everyone knows the consumption goods are always getting cheaper. A cell phone is produced and a year later it costs less because productivity has increased. The wealth measured in money can only grow in proportion to the increase in toil. The wealth measured in use-values is enormous, and not as much work needs to be done, but once it is about money, it’s different. In a society in which the purpose of production is money, in which labor produces monetary wealth, there can never be too little work. If the measure of value consists in the labor that is done, hence in toil, then wealth increases to the extent that sweat and tears increase.
What is meant by “average” and “socially necessary” labor? Within industries that produce the same product, “average” means the average amount of labor which is necessary in this society to produce this good. If someone in the same time produces more than average, then more value is objectified in his labor product than in the same commodity by other producers. If someone produces less, he objectifies less socially necessary average labor and therefore value. In competition – and only in competition – what is called average social labor is asserted. At the same time, how much socially necessary total labor time is generally used in picking strawberries or in producing electric clocks is asserted. So if all producers in the clock industry only need the average working time in order to make their clocks, but overall too many clocks are made, what one learns after the fact what then asserts itself against all clock manufacturers: too much social labor has been used in this sector. Then the producers of clocks are not able to obtain the socially necessary average labor because too much labor has been used in making clocks. Each then has used less socially necessary labor time than he has individually put into it – regardless of the fact that his labor attains the average within that industry. It is not the purpose in this society to produce necessities. Rather, social necessity is asserted by the willingness of customers to pay money for a product.[2]
What are the consequences of this for the division of labor? It is social production; each producer considers a social need. Each produces for others. In this society, there is a division of labor in production, but the labor is not divided. Each produces for society, but only learns afterward in the market whether he has produced for the society – or not. He then learns whether society has rewarded his effort as socially necessary labor. In this society, one does not get one’s labor remunerated; it is rather a fight over how much one can get for it. Everyone must make sure that he gets as much in competition as possible and at the expense of the others, who also want to pay as little as possible.
What role do needs play in this society? Production is for the society’s needs, but not in order to satisfy the needs, but to take advantage of them. Needs are the weakness that the producer wants to exploit in order to get as much as possible from the person who is dependent on the commodity. Need is not the purpose of production, but the means of gain. Production is for social needs and the use-values which others need are produced, but not in order for other people to have their needs met, but so that one can use the product to take advantage of their needs. This implies that needs count to the extent that they are capable of payment; insofar as they can satisfy the property claims of the producers. Needs that can’t pay count for nothing in this society. The needs of people who have no money are economically irrelevant. For example, the media tells us that the pharmaceutical industry has no reason to develop costly drugs in order to fight diseases in the third world because the ability to pay is so low there. That is the role played by needs in this society. Vice versa, if a need is endowed with money, any whim can find a commodity and producer for it. For any kind of nonsense, there are items, while the most urgent needs go unsatisfied if they are not backed with money. A rational system for producing according to the importance of needs and satisfying them is out of the question.
What does production actually aim at? The producer does not see the use-value as the purpose of production. The use-value is the means to produce exchange-value. The producer of commodities wants to get rid of the use-values. What does he want? He wants value, to realize the exchange-value of his commodities, by getting money from selling them. As long as the commodity is not sold, the value is not realized. Only through sale is the use-value of the commodity handed over; when the producer receives the value of the commodity in an independent form separate from the use-value, as a monetary amount. Whether he is successful at this is his private risk. He competes with other suppliers and must see whether the society rewards his individual labor with customers who pay money for it. The idea that someone gets his labor remunerated is nonsensical.
What does one have if one sells the commodity? One has money; or: value. What is money, value? Everyone knows that one can’t eat money. Economists say: money is not an insanity of this economy; its just a medium of exchange for getting hold of use-values; in the end, everything revolves solely around needs. In fact, money sets a new purpose into the world. The wealth in this society which exists in the form of commodities does not consist of the useful things, but of having the power of disposal over the useful things. The power of access to the property of others is the actual purpose of production. Wealth is the social private power to use one’s property to get things that belong to others. Wealth in this society does not consist of useful things, but of power over the wealth and services of others. This power over social wealth has a very different goal than, say, sausage or bread. It’s a goal that is in principle limitless. The rich are those who have a lot of money, and that does not just mean they can afford more sausage and bread. This power of disposal never translates back into consumer items. The wealth which is increased is not the means of consumption, but the whole goal of accumulating social private power in itself. And that is already included in the product insofar as wealth in this society does not consist of use-value, but has a social form that abstracts from use-value. [3]
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml Class Consciousness: What? How? Why?
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml “But that’s undemocratic!”
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml The tendency for the rate of profit to fall
Comradeship // Freechat @lemmygrad.ml Wassap guys?
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml Is China socialist?
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml Hear me out: what if people’s war is universal?
Ask Lemmygrad @lemmygrad.ml Is cannabis the best thing ever?
Ask Lemmygrad @lemmygrad.ml Opinion on Buteyko?
Memes @lemmy.ml We also just hate eachother
Memes @lemmygrad.ml We also just hate eachother
Ask Lemmygrad @lemmygrad.ml Cisgender people of Lemmygrad: why are you cis?
Memes @lemmy.ml Determinism W
Ask Lemmygrad @lemmygrad.ml How to think in a non internet-poisoned way?
Ask Lemmygrad @lemmygrad.ml Are there any decent arguments for free will?
Memes @lemmygrad.ml based Alan Moore
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml Socialism or Extiction
Memes @lemmygrad.ml What did I expect from a left anti-com?
shitposting @lemmygrad.ml YouTube knows me well
Ask Lemmygrad @lemmygrad.ml Has anyone here read Alasdair MacIntyre?
Yeah, I’ve read it a few times. Also read WitbD, as well as a book on the subject, and the book it was named after.