Re: Re: Re: The Subject is Capital
Being tone deaf, I'd like to stand with the choir and lip-synch. Gene Coyle Rob Schaap wrote: > A quick rant, Reverend Tom ... by way of testimony from the congregation. > > As Charlie Andrews so pungently summarises the whole sad business, "By > living his life the worker produces his capacity to work." > > The raison d'etre of the dispossessed is to produce commodities - 'his' > being is not an end in itself (which means the order's apologists do not > have Kant's categorical imperative available to them when they spout that > freedom-lovin' moralism in their defence) but a means to the end of > accumulation. The one thing - the ONE thing - that accumulation cannot > proffer the worker is the only thing a life needs to be itself: the > possession of time. > > John Stuart Mill had an inkling of this when he wrote that line Marx liked > enough to use: "It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made > have lightened the day's toil of any human being." It ain't the time you > take to make something; it's the socially necessary time - the time a > competing owner of plant would need to pay for to have the thing made. As > Marx avers here (chapter 15), technology cannot give us time because, under > capitalism, its raison d'etre is to produce surplus value. So technology > appears on the scene as a thing made of death, purchased with death to bring > death. > > And if ever the 'behind-our-backness' of that which drives us needs > verification, it's in the dominant discourse of our time. As we all > demonstrably have ever less of the very thing that defines life itself, we > have convinced ourselves we are wealthier than any generation in human > history. So whatever 'wealth' is, it is not life. The dead things which > comprise 'wealth' are, each and every one, physical manifestations of living > denied. > > Ergo, the opportunity cost of capitalism is life. > > Ergo, capitalism is murder. > > >The traditional left has sought to affirm labour. The point is to abolish > it. > > Neat thesis, Reverend Tom!'The standpoint of the old leftism is the > distribution of death and dead things; the standpoint of the new is the > freedom to live human lives', eh? > > Signing up for a spot on the choir, > Rob.
Re: Re: The Subject is Capital
A quick rant, Reverend Tom ... by way of testimony from the congregation. As Charlie Andrews so pungently summarises the whole sad business, "By living his life the worker produces his capacity to work." The raison d'etre of the dispossessed is to produce commodities - 'his' being is not an end in itself (which means the order's apologists do not have Kant's categorical imperative available to them when they spout that freedom-lovin' moralism in their defence) but a means to the end of accumulation. The one thing - the ONE thing - that accumulation cannot proffer the worker is the only thing a life needs to be itself: the possession of time. John Stuart Mill had an inkling of this when he wrote that line Marx liked enough to use: "It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being." It ain't the time you take to make something; it's the socially necessary time - the time a competing owner of plant would need to pay for to have the thing made. As Marx avers here (chapter 15), technology cannot give us time because, under capitalism, its raison d'etre is to produce surplus value. So technology appears on the scene as a thing made of death, purchased with death to bring death. And if ever the 'behind-our-backness' of that which drives us needs verification, it's in the dominant discourse of our time. As we all demonstrably have ever less of the very thing that defines life itself, we have convinced ourselves we are wealthier than any generation in human history. So whatever 'wealth' is, it is not life. The dead things which comprise 'wealth' are, each and every one, physical manifestations of living denied. Ergo, the opportunity cost of capitalism is life. Ergo, capitalism is murder. >The traditional left has sought to affirm labour. The point is to abolish it. Neat thesis, Reverend Tom!'The standpoint of the old leftism is the distribution of death and dead things; the standpoint of the new is the freedom to live human lives', eh? Signing up for a spot on the choir, Rob.
Re: Re: The Subject is Capital
At 06:21 06-11-00, you wrote: I've been floundering around for twenty years or so trying to work out a program -- not a vision, not a theoretical critique but a program. Of course a program needs to be grounded theoretically (here) and it needs to project a vision of where its going (there). One of the things that has encouraged me in this undertaking is that I often encounter expressions of sheer incomprehension (from knowledgeable people) just at the moments when I feel I have achieved greatest lucidity. That suggests to me that the behind our backedness of it all is itself systemic, not arbitrary. Tom, I'd like to hear just how you consider systemic in this case to be non-arbitrary. Since it ain't necessarily so. cheers, Joanna
Re: The Subject is Capital
Rob Schaap wrote, >Hey, Tom - I've read this one! Won't pretend I'm across all of it, but I >certainly felt breathlessly close to something big while I had my beak >buried in it. So what are we talking about? That we should disagree with >Panglosses and those who belabour us with all that a priori difference >stuff? That there is an historical subject, and that it's the mediating >structure by which 'abstract labour' (the category that makes capitalism >capitalism, and has us regulated and driven from 'behind our backs') messes >with every bit of real stuff we do? I have also felt breathlessy close to something big with my beak in the book. I hope it wasn't just my beak. It's to Postone's credit that he doesn't try to take the next step to that "something big" because what he's doing is immanent critique just as what he argues Marx was doing was immanent critique. There IS a historical subject OF CAPITALISM, yes -- and it isn't labour. I'll be despicably and vulgarly empirical here and toss in an anecdote. A couple of days ago I was heading into the public library and ran into the president of the provincial labour federation. He's been a friend for 20 years or so -- really more of a close friend of mutual friends. So we were talking and I pressed him on why the fed didn't take a more active stance on working time. He started to mention a resolution coming up at the next convention and I just shook my head. The same damn resolution has been passed unanimously at every labour convention -- and then ignored til the next convention -- since Samuel Gompers was in diapers. Now I'm not one to confuse trade unionism with the "labour movement", but I suspect my expectations of and my frustrations with organized labour do reflect some kind on an ideal that I have about what a labour movement should be and do. And on reflection I think that ideal is paralyzing, or perhaps more accurately, motivates a sisyphusian labour (excuse the pun) on behalf of an ideal of labour that can never be and besides doesn't address the fundamental contradiction in modern society. A decade ago, Andre Gorz criticized what he called the "utopia of work" and attributed the utopian view to, if not Marx, traditional Marxism. In many respects, Gorz has mapped out an alternative "vision" of the future of work and this too is terribly annoying because Gorz doesn't deal with how we (who ever "we" are) get from here to there. I've been floundering around for twenty years or so trying to work out a program -- not a vision, not a theoretical critique but a program. Of course a program needs to be grounded theoretically (here) and it needs to project a vision of where its going (there). One of the things that has encouraged me in this undertaking is that I often encounter expressions of sheer incomprehension (from knowledgeable people) just at the moments when I feel I have achieved greatest lucidity. That suggests to me that the behind our backedness of it all is itself systemic, not arbitrary. Another consideration that I want to throw into this soup is the need to respect enemies. It's hard not to fall back on the excuse that those who oppose us are stupid or evil. But stupidity and evil explain nothing, especially when we are dealing with political power because then there's the problem of how they get away with it, which leads to the stupidity or evil of a larger circle of people and ultimately to the stupidity and evil of humanity. The panglossians and the a priorists become intelligible to the extent we can historically situate their gloss. Take Hayek as an example. I can buy his critique of "socialism" with the proviso that what Hayek imagines to be socialism is centrally-planned capitalism, the same one-dimensional society that inspired the cultural pessimism of the Frankfurt School. Hayek and Horkheimer thus stand on the same ground as far as their negative critique goes. But the affirmative, restorationist moment of neo-liberalism stands on no ground -- that is, it stands on an untenable Archimedean point outside of society. Neo-liberalism is neither new nor liberal. It is simply a mode of exhortation. Stakhanovism in a suit. We can leave the difference crowd aside for this discussion, simply because they embrace no positive strategy -- they consummate cultural pessimism. So you're probably still wondering just when and where the shouting stops and history begins. >I know I'm gonna want to talk about this, Tom. Coz it's the sort of stuff >about which I want to find out what I think. But I'm not exactly sure where >we're starting here ... critiquing shonky ahistorical conceptions of the >'labour' category and their sadly go-nowhere implications, or fashioning a >convincing bit of theoretical room for fundamental social change? My thinking is that, first, those ahistorical conceptions of labour _didn't_ go nowhere. They brought us to where we are today (whopee!). But we can be confident that from here on out they _will
Re: The Subject is Capital
Hey, Tom - I've read this one! Won't pretend I'm across all of it, but I certainly felt breathlessly close to something big while I had my beak buried in it. So what are we talking about? That we should disagree with Panglosses and those who belabour us with all that a priori difference stuff? That there is an historical subject, and that it's the mediating structure by which 'abstract labour' (the category that makes capitalism capitalism, and has us regulated and driven from 'behind our backs') messes with every bit of real stuff we do? I know I'm gonna want to talk about this, Tom. Coz it's the sort of stuff about which I want to find out what I think. But I'm not exactly sure where we're starting here ... critiquing shonky ahistorical conceptions of the 'labour' category and their sadly go-nowhere implications, or fashioning a convincing bit of theoretical room for fundamental social change? You go first, and I'll try to be useful! All the best, Rob. >Two great quotes from Time, Labor and Social Domination (p. 80). I would >be more than happy to discuss, if anyone else is interested: > >". . . those positions that assert the existence of a totality only to >affirm it, on the one hand, and those that recognize that the realization >of a social totality would be inimical to emancipation and therefore deny >its very existence, on the other are antinomically related. Both sorts of >positions are one-sided, for both posit, in opposed ways, a >transhistorical identity between what is and what should be." > >"In Hegel, totality unfolds as the realization of the Subject; in >traditional Marxism, this becomes the realization of the proletariat as >the concrete Subject. In Marx's critique, totality is grounded as >historically specific, and unfolds in a manner that points to the >possibility of its abolition." > > >Tom Walker >Sandwichman and Deconsultant >Bowen Island >(604) 947-2213 > >
Re: The Subject is Capital
Timework Web wrote: > Two great quotes from Time, Labor and Social Domination (p. 80). I would > be more than happy to discuss, if anyone else is interested: > Plunge ahead & see what happens. Carrol
