Professional Documents
Culture Documents
critic, probably the oldest type of criticism, the self-image and selfcriticism of power of itself, now reshaping itself in two branches the
Justice-Moralist view and the Objective-Scientific view. The other one,
the Equality and Freedom critic, as the self-image and self-criticism of
capitalism of itself, its Ideology- if one like to use Marxist terms. But,
before that, first I'd like to settle some accounts with some objections
which are, or which could be, raised against Marx, and in reading his
texts.
2.2 Objections to Marx
2.2.1 The Promised Land is Lost!, The Problem of Transformation
doctrine, but with Marx himself too. He has texts which could amount
to a judicial view, or could be read and interpreted in this manner, if one
wants. He many times hints at the idea that capital turns all the
previously scattered and isolated means of production into connected
and concentrated social bodies, it makes them social means of
production in their function and character, and then it is for most part a
matter of socializing the ownership of them, turning the private
ownership of these socialized mean of production into direct public
property.2 Marx knew, probably better than anybody else, that forms of
2
There is another thorny theme involved here. Is social character of the vast
amount of 'productive forces' separable from their physical existence? Are them
transformable? Are these not, or has not become, the 'productive forces' of
capitalist society, mainly the productive forces of production and reproduction of
this special from of social relations itself? Are not most of them fixed to this form
of society? To the production of capitalism with all its internal working? Do these
forces have, or they could retain, any 'use value' without capitalism, beyond it?!
There is not any innocence 'mean of production', not anymore, I bet. At least not so
much at the present state of technology. The capitalist character is not seems to be
separable from the greatest extents of the present material means, or even forces,
of production, from their physical, institutional, informational and technological
and 'virtual' existence. Choose any industry you want. Car industry? Sex,
fashion, porn industry? Bank, credit, finance industry? Entertainment along
electronic industry? War, terror, crime or health industry?! Marketing, Law, PR,
affection industries?! I doubt if there could be so much salvageable in many of
these industries from their capitalist skins, veins and muscles. As soon as we put
aside the 'economy of subsistence"- and this economy has been on the road of an
ever diminishing size and volume form when capitalism took over- then, how
much of 'productive forces' and means of production in the other economy, which
to distinguish it from the 'economy of subsistence' I would call the 'economy of
social relations', would yield themselves to any changed social relations? Taking
over the productive forces, that battle cay of state-builder Marxists, is not any real
step in changing social relations. At least not anymore. I'd like to come back to this
distinction between 'economy of subsistence' and 'economy of social relations', a
distinction though artificial and very much make-shift kind of theoretic
observation, probably would be useful to shed some light in this thorny theme
which I just mentioned. It perhaps has something to do with the summary
treatment of 'use-value' in Marx analyses. Use-value is a bearer of exchangevalue. But how this relation changes the character of use-value itself? Does not the
form of exchange-value making a vast amount of use-values just the bearer of
exchange- values without any other use outside of this relation?! Money itself
property rights are and could only be the surface effects of much more
entrenched social relations. Here I'd like to give even to Marx the
Prophet some credit, which is really his own! He thought of changing
the property form, the transfer of ownership, as a first step which has to
be enforced by a political act and will. He also knew that legal verdicts,
rights and property titles, all have as their first, and last, resort, the
naked force as their source of validity, the way of their enactment!
Here, our prophet differ from Jesus! He called to arm, to use the
violence, to do revolution. He called for the Dictatorship of
Proletariat". This could not be put out of the Marx picture of social
transformation. Changing property forms, for him, is not judicial but
political. Not merely political either, the overthrowing and replacing the
power of capitalist class by proletariat one.
2.2.2 Two traits?! Agitator and Thinker!
imbued with blood, if violence is the decisive game in the town, why
not stand to force with an equally coherent and organized force, why
not imitate or use the capitalism ways of acting and enforcing?! I'm not
really sure if German uprising could succeed and instead of Nazi
Germany ww2 was fought by Germany of Workers, Socialist,
Communists (pick one you want), if Marxism fate was not totally
entangled with the fate of Russian and her catching up game with
modernity, what we had today was this unchallenged triumphant
capitalism! Probably not the promised socialism either, but I'll bet a
way of life differing somehow from both, and maybe as resilient one as
capitalism itself?! Very wild and an uneducated backward speculation
indeed! But my point, or my understanding, is that the instinct of force,
this deep rooted instinct of political animal3 was used by Marx
agitator to fill the great gap which left empty and open in his theoretical
thinking. (Was not Lenin the heir of this blind trait in Marx thought and
character?! Look, I have already too many parentheses which push me
out the subject!) History did not strike that course of actions, and I'm
left with my further questions.
2.2.3 Class Struggle
Was Marx, the agitator, betraying Marx the thinker? Did he put aside
his line of analyses and deeper insight for the sake of agitation, or
perhaps these insights came to him later in time, insights which we find
in a more mature form in Grundrisse and Capital?! The text which give
our agitator thoughts a free ride, free from later insights into political
economy is that grand recipe for action, the Communist Manifesto.
And this free ride thinking on the wave of class struggle, has its own
3
Instead of political animal, I'd like to use the term city-animal. I hope to better
distinguish and opposed him to other one: tribal animal, or herd animal. This
one has for his prevailing instinct the gregariousness of the herd. Instead of power
play among the citizens its is used to force out a head from the body of tribe, or
the head, and to follow this head, to become resentful and revengeful against the
head and himself! A Bio-power, genetic distinction between culture of Greek
city-states and Jewish, old testament, culture? Or for that matter between former
and the Chinese or Iranian one?! I'll have a better chance to delve in this theme
latter!
it did call the WWI and WWII capitalist wars. But this will not do in the
later cases, let alone the former. It will stretch the class, and the class
struggle too thin for covering everything, overriding nations, societies,
and states, entities which had more than often a more coherent
configuration, stronger cementation, and are more capable of act as a
body, compare with classes which are diffused in the bodies of states
and nations - and it seems to be even more true in later times. Class
struggle was one force among many others and not always that force
dominating, but most often under the constrain and dominance of the
others forces. Could not the passed history could be read more richly at
the level of states? This is the level at which the power functions of any
society derived form its interior relations as well as the constrains
imposed form its exterior, took shape and solidifies itself in it. I fall,
leaning towards this view of the passed, pre-capitalist history of
societies, then any class-struggle view!
Then, there is that related and thorny theoretical question itself: what is
a class?! Is not class something more connected to state than to
political economy, or lets say to the relations of production? Classes
had to be sustained by economy, by relations of production, but it
does not mean that they arose from it, or being equally involved in it.
Many classes stood outside the imminent sphere of production and its
internal relations and this fact was what that made them a class. In precapitalist modes of production, the dominant class, nobles, priests,
sultan, 'divan', are outside the proper sphere of production. When they
did engage themselves more directly in production process, it was when
they were consuming the surplus labor and surplus product of land, in
building their monuments, palaces, churches, mosques, castles, in doing
killings or produce killing equipment the war enterprises. Putting it in
my make-shift terms, the economy of subsistence and the economy
of social relations were separate from each other, often even in space,
and the force was what bridged them together. It was historical setting
and the state in its attempts in ordering social strata, which invented,
maintained and imposed classes. Political economy, or production of
material life, by itself could stay clear and innocent of classes.4
4 In Athens city-state there was heard many complains, among others from the
Putting it in a black and white color, class is a product of history and not
the economy. Class struggle too, could be considered as a sub-part of
violence which drove the general history along other forces.
Marx tries to strike a compromise with himself in order to assign to
class struggle the central stage. He has an eye on a basic trend in
capitalism which could and would bring down all territorial frontiers,
which could bring about a world society integrating all separate and
independent societies into its encompassing orbit. Exterior context and
constrains was vanishing, at least theoretically. In this picture, the inner
force, the class struggle, would be the dominant and determining one. It
is how Manifesto depict class struggle. Two problem lies here: Marx
in his analyses of capital, considers it in its developed state. When
capitalism is standing on its own feet, general rate of profit has been
formed and is in place, meaning all production is now mediated through
circulation, all surplus labor take the form surplus value, profit, interest,
wages, taxes, are all arouse from capitalist production itself and not
anymore from exploiting the others forms and sphere of production. It
is a modeling like any other so called scientific modeling, when one put
aside all which seems to be accidental, effects of other influences, and
try to reduce the whole thing to its own patterns of regularity. It could
work for political economy, where it can reveal at a theoretical level
all possibilities and limits of capital as objectified labor confronting
living one, on the track which already was paved by Smith and Ricardo.
But this kind of modeling, scientific or not, could be very risky and
could fail badly at the level of history or analyses of developing
bourgeoisie society. From mid 19th century, British Empire and its
effort to establish a world market and a world Empire on a capitalist
line, to a world society which would be the equivalent of capitalism
fully stand by itself, or capitalism fully realized, there is a very long
shot. In the path way there has been, territorial states, nations, and
nation-states, numerous power-weighing wars, Soviet Empire, two WW,
the collapse of British and up and down of American Empire and as yet
Plato's friends, that in agora it is not possible anymore to say who is free and who
is slave! The slaves and free citizens more than often shared the same condition of
life.
11
part and parcel of the class. If one insist, what has been called class
struggles could be seen as 'inter class struggle', the fierce competition
which is the condition of bourgeoisie's life.
2.2.5 Labor and Political Economy
12
lets call it the economy of subsistence. This does not exclude that
other forms of society, like those found in pre-capitalist modes of life,
could not do it too! Capitalism, differ in that, that it give shocking
drives to the productivity of labor, blows productivity out of any
hitherto known or imagined proportions. According to Marx, along the
way of capitalism development, though the needs increase and
multiply, the needs which are either imposed by nature or just arise
from the complexity and improvements in social living, the needs
which have to be satisfied in order that society be able to sustain itself,
this necessary labor for satisfying needs, decrease and diminish in all
relative measurements. Relative to total available labor time which
could be at the disposal of society; relative to daily labor time which
every man can master reasonably in himself; relative to working lifespan which everyone is endowed wit it. That is all! That material
precondition for stepping out of slavery, or precondition of a
transformation to a non-slavery social relationships, if we could name it
so. Ancient Greek culture looked at toiling and laboring, the drudgery
of bringing out a life out the breast of land, as a shameful slavery,
deserve only for slaves, but unavoidable for free man too. Life of a freeman could not be drudgery, but being entertained or being educated by
Sophies in the art of pleasures and pains, knowing himself, mastering
his own life, cultivating his taste and emotions, playing philosophical or
athletics games, engaging in politics, exercising in the art of oratory and
social persuasion, hanging with fiends, arranging festivals, dancing and
drinking and playing with gods, contemplating at the sight of tragedies
or laughing at himself in the sight of comedies, pretty much what all life
is about or could give a worldly meaning and purpose to it. Capitalism
brought about this precondition, the possibility of stepping out of
shameful slave life. We know that there is a possibility open to us in a
very wide scale in and with capitalism. It is all that there is to it. Let's
forget about that now silly looking and miserable exercise which was in
fashion some times ago, the socialism of productive forces! That
game is out of the town, though its child, the full occupation is with
us and hunt us. The child now is an orphan, had grown into the worst
and most corrupted one, prostituting itself with the game of job
13
creations at every door, turning every politician into its fully occupied
pimp! All that is forgotten about is that the whole justification for
capitalism and its development, that justification which many socialist
with Marxist leaning or not bought it, was to make us and everybody
else pretty much jobless, having time to enjoy the life!
The point is that this possibility of stepping out of slavery, this
possibility of a social transformation, is the same the possibility, or the
potential of capitalism itself. Capitalism create it and rely on it. Driving
the productivity of labor to unimaginable heights and driving the
economy of subsistence to ever diminishing scale, it is the whole
story of capitalism, the source of all its power and its command. The
gap which is open, however and whenever it is wider, capitalism acts
stronger. It is the gap which M-M', money begetting money create,
defend and widen it. It is its home and its living place. Let's put it in
these words: pre-condition of transformation is the ever reproducing
of potential of capitalism itself. It tell us nothing. If there is a sea, it
does not mean one can or want to swim in it. Possibility is just over
there, not as a neutral ground, not as no-man's land. It is occupied by
capital.
The other point to make at outset is this: the theme of a Proletarian
Revolution, that forceful actor of historical setting, is not an actor in
the theater of political economy. Nothing in the sphere of political
economy calls for it. It is not part of conceptual analyses and can not
emerge from it. It is out of stage actor. One which Marx brings in in his
analyses for the sake of moral sensations, or dialectical dramatization.
In the course of analyses it can only comes in and acts like deus ex
machina (god from a machine) in the manner of ancient Greek theater!
It is not a player by itself. We leave the occupied territory of
transformation and our out of the stage explorer of it, aside and to rest
for now.
2.2.6 Labor Transformed ? Two Forms of Labor?
That out of our way, lets go ahead and consult the wisdom of political
economy. With political economy we leave behind the history. Classes,
here are striped down from their historical casting, they are unburdened
14
from their political and cultural heritage, stripped down to their mere
economical bare bones. In wisdom of political economy, as Marx have
it,capitalist is a personification of capital. Wage-laborer too is a
personification of living labor. Beside, in the course of Marx analyses,
or his critique of political economy, we have to leave the sphere of
circulation to meet the labor in its true existence. In that sphere of
circulation, capitalist and wage-laborer were from the same mold. They
both stood on an equal footing, as traders, and as free man in charge of
their own body and mind, and in the legal and actual command of
their belongings. This world of the sameness, equality and freedom is
behind us. We have entered into the sphere of production, where in
Marx account we could find all the covered up secrets of capital. It is
the central stage, the power house which keep other spheres running
around it and encompassing it. In this sphere capital and labor are not
same mold, there become opposite, or the live and dead form of the
same thing. They are not on equal foot either. The dead, objectified
labor, commands and consume the live labor. The objectified and living
labor, stand oppose to each others, in a relation of command and
obedience, eating and being eaten up.
Now I'll try to outline the story of this opposition as Marx worked it up,
in the most stretched and generalized sketch. Leaving aside all actual,
social and historical constrains and counter balancing tendencies, I'll be
only concern with the theoretical and conceptual limits, the utmost
reaches of all the possibilities of this relation, this opposition.
Fortunately I do not need to labor it, Marx did it himself and I'll just
going to quote him. To the astonishment of many Marxists, it probably
do not works in its predicted Hegelian track, do not give birth to a new
relations sublating its parents opposite ones! Let us see!
Another flashback is necessary. Every imaginable production could be
seen as coming together, the confronting of the passed, objectified labor
and living labor. Even the hunter brought his stick or stone tool, his
passed work, at the service of his live activity, catching the prey. This is
a fact of life and not one which is only special to its capitalist form.
Though, in capitalist form this relation seem to have been somehow
reversed. Instead of dead serving the live, it is the living activity that
15
serve the dead one. All this, because capitalist production is not any
productions, it is value production. Living labor is not using passed
labor for producing some use value in order to entertain oneself, or to
satisfy some need, desire, whim, or arousing them whatsoever. Living
labor is used and consumed by dead labor for maintaining and adding to
its own value. We have to go back to value relation and keep in mind
that the production and labor process, is subsumed in value-relation,
and is only one phase of reproduction of value-relation itself.
The whole body of political economy was being built around the
labor theory of value. Consistency in elaborating it and explaining
different phenomenons at the surface of circulation in terms of this
theory, was a criterion which Marx often used to distinguish a serious
economist form the vulgar one. According to political economy, the
labor which is at the bottom of value-relation is not any labor. It is a
special form of labor, labor in its form of homogeneity, reducible,
countable and exchangeable. It is abstract labor, human activity
stripped to its bare bones, the expenditure of muscle and brain,
measurable with its intensity and its duration in time. It is not the
concrete work of producing use-values, means for satisfying needs
and whims, which is common in all ages. In Marx own words, the
labor that forms the substance of value is equal human labor, the
expenditure of identical human labor power. Socially necessary labortime. This is the labor which produce values, and is separable from the
labor which produces use-values. Marx is very strict on this
characterization. He emphasizes that I was the first to point out and
examine critically this twofold nature of labor contained in
commodities. It is this homogeneous, measurable, the abstract labor,
distinct and separable form useful or concrete work, which he
establishes as the solid base of his reconstructing or his critique of
political economy. Needless to say, for Marx this abstract labor,
labor pure and simple, is not a theoretical device, a scientific gauge to
render reality constrained and under observation. It is reality itself, the
social reality, the form which labor takes or imposed on it to be used
and accounted as socially-necessary labor6. It is the capitalist from of
6 Marx explain adequately the reality of abstract labor among others in the following
16
17
19
body to set and keep in motion the material production. This second
form could be seen more in that field which Marx puts in parentheses,
the work involved in the combination of human activities and the
development of human intercourse. From the standpoint of capital, it is
the labor which is more involved in the outer, exterior, life cycle of
capital, that which engulf production, stimulate it, bring it to halt, or
drive it to explosive proportions.
How political economy, or Marx in his critique of it, accounts for this
second form of labor? Marx is badly in pain, in Volume III of Capital,
when he apparently opposes the capitalist notion which regards the
profits of enterprise - that part of profit which after counting the rent,
interest, and taxes, and deducing them from total profit, remain in his
hands his wage, wage of his own labor, his labor of
superintendence.
Since the estranged character of capital, its antithesis to labour,
is shifted outside the actual process of exploitation, i.e. into
interest-bearing capital, this process of exploitation itself appears
as simply a labor process, in which the functioning capitalist
simply performs different work from that of the workers. The
labor of exploiting and the labor exploited are identical, both
being labor. The labor of exploiting is just as much labor as the
labor that is exploited. The social form of capital devolves on
interest, but expressed in a neutral and indifferent form; the
economic function of capital devolves on profit of enterprise, but
with the specifically capitalist character of this function
removed.
There is a bit of cat and mouse play of forms of capital here, which
suppose to say: watch, the interest-bearing form of capital has shifted
the estranged character of capital to outside of production process,
and that shift make one blind to antithesis between labor and capital
which remain at the core in the production process. There is a subtle
differentiation between the social and economic functions of capital
too. Marx apparently, opts for viewing it from social side. Alongside
this, there came a measured dose of morality, the sharp contrast of
exploiting and exploited labor. They have a meaning in social
20
view, but what about the economic one? Social view is supposed here
to save Marx, in writing off the line of economic analyses, in his failing
to recognize the two forms of labor, and in his reluctance of counting
the labor of exploiting as labor, a labor with a legitimate claim to
wage as exploited labor has claim to it.
But what if the labor of exploiting is not laboring to make somebody
else launders his dirty underwear for him, but laboring to exploit
them in building the public rail roads? What if the exploitation is not
at personal level, but for the good of accumulation of capital and in its
fixation in the infrastructure of productive forces? It has been what
capitalists as a class have always claimed. Exploitation is a moot
argument, a notion with a charge of morality, we better to write it off
from the accounts of political economy. Even Marx's social view, in
its longer perspectives, could not bear exploitation, when he, many
times, credits and with it justifies, the capital and bourgeoisie for their
role in unprecedented development of productive forces. I'll leave this
failing of Marx in Capital aside fro now. The point was that there is
two from of labor, not one, and the second from, though not recognized
in Capital, hunts the analyses there too. I prefer to call these two forms
of labor, first and second form, or value-creating labor and
valorizing-labor, if one prefer such names that could hints to some
significations.
Let's try again to figure out the theme in a morally neutral, or in an
immoral, grounds. In place of capitalist society, we can consider a
society of the sort of the famous example of association of free
producers- not the boring Christian, Amish type kind of communities,
but some imaginary lively one which will not deprive us from a lot of
fun discovered in present day capitalism if one have a choice in it! We
Can imagine this society based on two different assumptions, in two
extremes as much as political economy is concerned. First, our
imaginary society is out of grips pf political economy altogether. It
means that the work is not any longer something separable from social
life and social intercourse with all its enjoyments and pains; the
principle of work as something separable from life has been vanished to
a great extent, separation of work and life and coupling of work and
21
23
what is left of value-creating work, in terms of the pool of total surplusvalue available to it. But as we go on, as value-creating works diminish,
it is valorizing labor which put claim to everything, to all available,
and also potential wreath which is now is produced and could be
produced relatively independent of labor, but has to be accounted and
kept in motion and circulation as values. We can not discriminate the
exploiting labor which is as necessary as exploited one in the
course of value creation. How much capitalist add to produced value
with his work, or is he, too, contributing to total surplus-value which
he extracts, is another matter. As much as capitalist step-aside from
production, replacing himself with managerial wage-salary workers, or
relying to a better trained, integrated self-exploiting workers and
redefined himself at the top their social ranks, we more see that there
was a capitalist work involved in production which justified him to
claim wage for it!
Marx, in Capital, as I mentioned, failed, or refused to distinguish clearly
between these two forms of labor. He did not work out those two stages
in development in productive forces, which give prominence to one or
another form of labor in turn. He did not bring the second from, the
valorizig labor, into analyses of value relations. Though, I think, it
hunts him in many guises, form example in the guise of unproductive
labor. What is this unproductive labor? Marx rightly, reject Adam
smith's characterization of it. For Max every labor which create value,
or contribute to creation and realization of surplus-value counts as
productive labor. Under this characterization of productive labor one
can count not only the labor of capital, which could be performed by
capitalist himself or by the growing army of wage-earners who take
over the function of capital in both spheres of circulation and
production, but one can also counts all other labors of charlatans, thefts,
criminals, law worker and any imaginable labor all those labors which
outside value relation could be considered even destructive, any labor
which could give impetus and excitement to creations, circulation and
realization of values and surplus-value. Productive labor, in Marx
exposition of it, when he puts aside his social preferences and moral
judgments, and judging it only on its capitalist basis, include both
24
free from mold and stamp of exchange-value. The encounter of selfvalorizing-value, capital, and value-creating-activity, bare bone
labor, no doubt is a decisive moment in the development of value
relation. But just as one of its moments, it is not the whole story.
Whatever the force of antitheses between labor and capital, there is
another tendency inherent in capital which could subsume it and bring
that antitheses to some conclusion within itself. It transforms the labor.
It is not just that, that value-relation somehow precede and outlive that
antitheses of capital and labor which is just an episode of it. Their
encounter brings a new from of labor and new form of capital, one can
say, very much merged into each other. The opposition, antitheses
is overcome in the transforming of value relation itself. As I said, the
first trajectory is more evident in the public and published texts of the
Capital. The second is in hideous of Manuscripts, showing its 'pushed
back presence' and its marks in these texts. Let me go back to
Manuscripts, to that passage which is my reference. I'll do an attempt to
bring out, or reconstruct, the longer trajectory, with help of this passage.
Here we look at capital, moving on its own limits, in the overall
trajectory of value-relation. This is a picture of capital, not as
opposition, the two poles of labor and capital, but as a moving
contradiction:
Capital itself is the moving contradiction, in that it presses to
reduce labor time to a minimum, while it posits labor time, on the
other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it
diminishes labor time in the necessary form so as to increase it in
the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing
measure as a condition- question of life and death - for the
necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all powers of
science and of nature, as of social combination and of social
intercourse, in order to make the creation of the wealth
independent (relatively) of the labor time employed on it. On the
other side, it wants to use labor time as the measuring rod for the
giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the
limits required to maintain the already created value as value.
Forces of production and social relations - two different sides of
27
resting on value which has been brought together in a hurry are not
pointing to the same thing. Capital is self-valorizing value, it is M-M',
money begetting money, which found and did establish in the
exchange of dead and live labor its source of valorization. If that
exchange ceased to be the prevalent mode of production of material
wealth, as I mentioned in the previous comment, it does not mean that it
is the end of value relation, or capitalism as over prevailing form of this
relation, or any definite break-down of it. Value relation, money and
capital with it, by penetration and reshaping all the layers of social life
and social relations, have captured and have rebuilt stronger spheres to
live on it, though all of theses spheres could be seem as if they are very
precarious, are suspended structures without foundations, or relying on
a shaky foundations- compare with the solidity of material production
from the stand point of political economy. Text could be read more as a
break-down of political economy, in so far as this science was narrowly
built on the labor theory of value. But labor as it is being transformed
under value-relation and under the stamp of capital, could not any
longer accounts for value and value relation as it did before. Political
economy come down on its foundation, but capitalism escape, expands
it foundation not on labor, but on value-relation, which now seems to be
all suspended in the air, detached from its material base, like the
world of credit. I'll pause on the break-down of political economy
later. Before that, let me try to drive this line of speculation to another
twist, to fill the gaps which has been left empty in the text, not stopping
at those hurried end that marks the text, but driving it to its imaginable
conceptual limits. I'll attempt to outline the longer trajectory in Marx.
2.2.8 A Longer trajectory, an Outline.
32
35
36
form the means and conditions of their social life. They are two pillar
poles of society and everybody else, at most is in and push and put state
of living between these two poles. It is society reconstruct, not as
'personifications' of dynamic of value-relation, but as personification of
capital and labor, which was a transient state of that relation. As we
move away from this initial state, or as capitalism capture the
production process and gather strength, other development and changes
in the class configuration began to leave their marks. It is not only that
the labor, abstract, pure and simple one, become more and more
redundant in production and pushed out and it not the service .
Alongside it the 'capitalist in person', too, become more and more and
redundant social being. Nearly all functions of capital which were
performed by capitalist is now more and more become separated from
him, and organized and lobar exchanged for wage. What hitherto was
accounted as the exchange of revenue with services, in their turns
assume the form of capital.
Following value-relation, apparently, we move away from that kind of
social configuration, and 'sociology13 which is known as Marxian one. It
13 I do not believe that one can make any sound conciliation between a Marxian view
and a sociology of not only of positivist heritage, but of any sort. They
separate precisely on the very point of their departure. Marx takes the path of an
active, interested, change-seeking, insidious and formative view. It differ and
oppose that positive, objective, disinterested, stand outside view, which
sociology imitating natural sciences tends, or pretends to assume. From any
consistence Marxian view any science of man, is absurd, nonsense, a
contradiction in terms, because it is always the man himself which made a
science of himself. If we deny the all knowing God or stop to exalt an allembracing, omniscient apparatus of science in place of him, which could judge and
know the man form their own heights independent of him and in objective manner,
the knowledge of man of himself is always subjective - or rather formative and
intentional. Sociology with a claim to objectivity and on empirical grounds is
ultimate nonsense in Marxian view, as any consistent Marxian view is a
subjective, non-science, and speculative in the eye of sociology. When talking of
Marx, we have to be very cautious in assigning to him any sociology, the term has
a very shallow depth and poor content. This point which came in the way, relate to
another one, which I consider as the most important one. The one which I believe
lies at the heart of current crisis of Marxism, or social-criticism which Marxism
not doubt has been its pinnacle and the most radical and consistent one in the
37
38
producing, molding the self, and it is self suppression, there is the gap,
and there is growing antagonism. But it is, saving capitalism from itself.
Here is my very rudimentary take at it:
Rentiers. They are the top gloss of the class., its aristocratic
pretension and imitation. It is content provider - a mirror
which class hold in front of itself, reflects, and measure the
values of its life it. It is American Dream crystallized. They are
celebrities, but they are not the active core of the Class, the
engine which keep all relations and this pointing top in place. As
we know, once upon a time the land was the main source of a
special kind of revenue, which was called rent. Land property,
and its rent, begun to constitute a safe heaven for the flight of
the tired, exhausted capitalist, or the flight of over accumulated
capital. Capitalist drew his money out from the active and
uncharted waves of circulation and put in landed property. Land
lost most of its natural attractions, as improvement in industrial
agriculture leveled out the natural productivity of different lands
and destroyed the basis of differential rent. But rent bearing land
property find a new source and gained a social attraction,
properties at the heart of cities, land and locations in big cities,
where social concentration, provide a new basis for differential
rents. Alongside this money find the ways to propertize and
monopolize all other, non-natural and purely social resources,
forces, and spaces, nearly all the conditions of social
intercourse, and turn them to rent bearing property. The
invention of 'intellectual property' has only been a recent
symptom in solidifying rent. What characterize this new kind of
rent is precisely it is social basis, it has to be produced and
reproduced and defended all the time. Money, that universal and
independent form of exchange-value has left out all its
thingness, it is detached form any substance and the age of gold
convertibility seem like ancient times. Money has the form of
pure credit. Credit, is purely social, social power and
commands. Every new advance in science and technology,
building virtual spaces, brands, any force or space in social life
39
40
[Note:
It is most unfinished sub part in this draft. Some
thoughts and ideas which converge here, are as
follows:
- There is, apparently a parallel between, things
and men. Man become a thing. He has been thrown in
the world of commodities and has acquired their
characteristics. Analyses of commodities bear on
men. Thingness of man.
-Value and value relation among things, parallels
the Christianity.]
41
42