From: Jonathan Nitzan ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Abstract labor ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JN [new]: We do not pretend to solve the broad philosophical question of �fiction� vs. �reality� here. Our argument rather is: (a) that Marx claims that commodities have a DEFINITE quantity of abstract labor (even if we mortals cannot directly �observe� that quantity); and (b) that this definite quantity is the BASIC UNIT with which capitalism is organized (�organized� in the sense of being the underlying category with which we can critically constructs and empirically explain the pattern of accumulation, relative price trends, distribution, the allocation of labor, crises, long term profit tendencies, and other such aspects of capitalism�s �laws of motion�).
We see both of these claims as deeply problematic. In our view, commodities do NOT have a definite quantity of abstract labor. (a) A basic unit of abstract labor is meaningful only if we accept that different qualities of concrete labor can be converted into a universal quantity of abstract labor. (b) Even if abstract labor does exist, the notion that commodities have a definite quantity of such abstract labor is impossible to defend � that is, unless we can agree on the objective existence and unique structure of the so-called input-output process (i.e. if we can agree on what �inputs� went into the production of what �output�, and precisely in what quantities). Our own view is that neither of these claims stands, hence our claim that abstract labor cannot � and, indeed, does not -- serve as the basic unit of organizing capitalism. It is in this sense that abstract labor � and, therefore, �real� capital measured in value terms -- are fictitious. ^^^^^^ CB: Well, lets assume you are right, and look at what you say a little more closely. Before we do, I'd say that at least at the basic level of production of commodities, the basic "input" level, there are definite amounts of time that people work in producing wealth. So, in this sense of labor time, the labor that "goes into" producing wealth is not abstract or fictitious. And we can observe it directly. I accept from you , Michael Perelman, The Sandwichman and others that as we go up in the process, what the capitalists do with the money they get from M-C-M' stops mathematically corresponding to the labor times input initially. Through various ways that they control , i.e. have power over, prices and finance, interest rates, accounting methods, etc. they inflate what counts as the money they own such that they do not confine themselves to exploitation as Marx models it. Somehow they rig it that they end up with even _more_ $$$$ than they would if you were only to give them account for having exploited surplus-value based on value as produced by labor time. In other words, though exploitation may not be theft (in the Lockean sense) , finance _is_ embezzlement. Bubbles are basic. Finance capital makes money out of thin air. Now are you claiming to have discovered a mathematically rigorous way to calculate how they keep track among themselves of how they make money out of thin air ? And that you do this based on units of "power" that are more concrete than even abstract labor ? Lets see. Maybe not , as you say power can't have a standard unit. But then what is a "nomos" ? That's a bit mysterious , no ? ^^^^^^^ JN: Unlike abstract labor, power is a qualitative/multifaceted relationship. As such, power CANNOT have its own standard unit. It is the capitalist nomos that speculatively �quantifies� this power by discounting it into the universal ratios of differential capitalization. ^^^^ CB: As I asked before, you really have to define "nomos" here. It's pretty critical in your analysis. I know it as "naming" , from an African context. I can see if you are saying , as I think Jim D. mentioned, that the capitalists have among themselves a sort of agreement that they will act "as if" such and such has so much quantity of price or $$$ or value. As the structuralists say, "everything happens as if..." ^^^^^ JN: The difference, then, is that Marx moves from quantities to quantities (from abstract labor to price), whereas our own theory moves from quality to quantity (from power to differential capitalization). A theory of capitalism built on the latter logic can only tell a story that reproduces this speculative reduction. It narrates how the qualitative processes of power are �registered� on the quantitative processes of differential capitalization. ^^^^^ CB: Well, that seems it might be dialectical, the movement from quality to quantity :>). I see social power as one or more people having control over the conduct of other people. What's your definition of power ? In this case, because the capitalists have the control over the state repressive apparatus ( the military, police and other dominators of force agree to do what the capitalists say) the capitalists are able to force everybody to act as if they, the capitalists, have more $$$ or a larger QUANTITY of whatever markers, symbols, chits, dollars, that is whatever it takes to get control of commodities, the wealth of society. In a sense, you are saying that Marx is wrong, and capitalism is no different than feudalism. The bourgeois ruling class rules as the feudal and slaveholding ruling classes did - by brute force only, with no fictions about exchange of labor time for wages. In other words, there is no wage-labor/capital relationship organizing the capitalist accumulation of wealth. In a certain sense, who cares how the capitalists divide things up among themselves, based on what logic , no ? Again, don't you agree that the solution is to throw the bums out ? Tear down this whole fa�ade of differential capitalization ? What does it matter that there is a pattern to how the capitalists distribute the bezzle among themselves, that there is honor among these thieves ? What does your discovery suggest ,different from what Marx suggests, that we do with the capitalists and the capitalists system ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Cosmology ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JN: A bit of both, although "always" is too strong a word. As our cosmology changes, so do our theories of society. It is hard to judge Marx on many issues by today's standards. CB: Why has your cosmology changed ? JN [new]: Another complicated issue. We now have relativity, quantum, holograms, a critique of substance, etc. I think these contribute to a cosmology different that in Marx�s time. CB: Yes, we have had threads on quantum mechanics here. I maintain that Marxist-Leninist materialism is still valid. Objective reality still is there :>) Anyway, how do changes in cosmology change the exigency of socialist revolution ? In terms of power, the bourgeoisie have it. We have to take it away from them, whatever the architecture of their logic in dividing up the booty among themselves, no ? Quantum mechanics doesn't change that. The fact that they don't divide up their control of the wealth of society among themselves based on a mathematical forumula derived from labor time inputs at the basic level wouldn't mean we don't want to stop them from controlling the wealth of society , would it ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Power ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JN [new] Yes, Marx sees capital as representing the power of capitalists to shape society. But the way Marx understands the quantitative constitution of capital in terms of abstract labor prevents him from integrating the concrete nature of this power into the very definition of capital. We develop this argument in the paper and elsewhere in our work. The qualitative nature of labor and labor power certainly can help us understand the quantitative nature of accumulation, but the so-called �quantitative� nature of labor and labor power cannot (see above note on the impossibility of abstract labor). Accumulation also involves processes that labor and labor power can tell us nothing about. ^^^^^ CB: OK, but what does the precise mathematical pattern of how the capitalists divide up among themselves their control of the wealth of society matter to us ? We just want to stop them from controlling the wealth of society, as a class. We don't care if they throw dice and play on monopoly boards. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Organization ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JN [new] From the perspective of accumulation, the primary function of MS�s organization is to preserve, enforce and enhance exclusion through intellectual property rights and other means. Remove these forms of exclusion, and the labor and labor power of MS�s employees would be worth nothing for the owners. This conclusion holds whether the employees are �productive� or not. ^^^^ CB: I don't quite get this. If they didn't have the labor of the employees, there wouldn't be any software to have intellectual property rights over, would there ? The property rights are to maintain control over the stuff they get from the employees. Well , I guess you are saying "if they can't control it, what do the bosses want if for." They don't really "have" it if they can't have exclusive control of it. I agree with that. But they need both the labor of the employees ( to make something to get control over) and the private property laws to keep exclusive control over it after its made. I agree that private property means rights to control something as against the rest of the world. That's the way Marxists define it. Private property is a relationship among a thing, and a private owner and the rest of the people in the world. ^^^^^^ JN: This argument is articulated, along with additional examples, in �Differential Accumulation� (1998) http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/archive/00000009/ and in �Dominant Capital and the New Wars� (2004) http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/archive/00000001/) ^^^ CB: I started to look at the first. I don't know how to copy from PDF or I'd comment here on some of what you say. I don't think you quite accurately portray the Marxist understanding of some of the things you discuss. That doesn't mean that Marxism differs with you on some of the points. Just that Marxism prediscovered some of the things you "discovered". Don't worry. That's not unusual. :>) I guess I can say that in confining your understanding of Marxism to _Capital_ , you underestimate the Marxist understanding of power. The concept of class and class struggle is precisely a politicaleconomic concept, power and material, isn't it ? History , including capitalism, is a history of class struggles. Surely, you have heard that famous Marxist dictum from _The Manifesto of the Commuinist Party_ before. Political parties are very much concerned with power. Class struggles are power struggles. Wealth: the workers make it; the bourgeoisie take it. That's a power thing, clearly. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Accumulation of what? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JN [new]: There is a difference. In classical Marxism, if I interpret it correctly, the state �supports� the accumulation of means of production measured in terms of abstract labor. But if abstract labor does not exist, what exactly is being accumulated? In our view, the answer is power itself. CB: What is accumualated is wealth :>). Power is what allows a certain elite minority to control (appropriate, consume and dispose of ) more of the total wealth than the vast majority. I don't think it is necessary to be more precise than to say that the elite controls MORE , a clearly disproportionate share, of the total wealth that is produced socially, a disproportionate share than the elite's input into the social process. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Socially created categories ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JN [new]: We fully recognize Marx�s insistence on the socially created nature of all capitalist categories, including abstract labor. In our view, this is one of his greatest merits. But as noted, we also think he got entangled (a) in supposing, perhaps under the influence of the chemical revolution, that the qualities of concrete labor could indeed be reduced to some quantitative elementary unit (abstract labor), and (b) that this unit indeed was the building block underlying the process of accumulation. ^^^^^^ CB: Naahhh :>) I don't think so :>) That'd be the ultimate vulgar materialism. Although there is a kind of pun joke here I was going to tell. You know in the old cosmology of Newtonian physics "power" is the " ability to do work" hahahaha. ^^^^^^ JN:The issue is not that this is a socially created category, or that it is unhelpful or helpful in some sense. In our view, the issue is whether abstract labor DOES exist as a socially created category, and indeed, whether it CAN exist. We believe that it does not and cannot exist. But we are willing to be persuaded otherwise, preferably with some evidence. Jonathan Nitzan (�New Imperialism or New Capitalism?� http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/archive/00000124/) ^^^^ Good show. I think , though I don't have the proof, that if we go historically, the law of value is highly common sensical. Go back to barter and simple commodity exchange, schematically developed in the first few pages of _Capital_ and historically essayed by Engels. Before capitalism, what was the basis for exchange of goods going back thousands of years ? When people produced things for exchange and not for their own use, roughly speaking, wouldn't people be likely to estimate how long it took them to make something and trade what they had for something else in amounts that roughly took the same time to make it ? If I produce more shoes than I can use and with the purpose of exchanging them for a hammer; and if it takes five hours to make shoes, and ten to make a hammer, you know...All abstract labor means is that the sweat and effort spent in one concrete form of labor shoemaking is socially equivalent though concretely different than hatmaking. The hands go through different specific motions in one project than the other. But when shoes are exchanged for hats, that act is "as if" the shoes are the same thing as the hat. Concretely they are _not_ the same thing. But the act of exchanging them makes them equivalent in some sense. On what basis can we say they are equivalent ? A good candidate for the equivalence it to create a category of human labor in the abstract. But then what are equivalent amounts of abstract labor ? Time spent is a good candidate for this. My time at work is equal to your time at work. Engels historical study maintains that in fact people did discover and trade commodities according to this logic. This doesn't mean , as you point out, that the capitalists keep accounts among themselves based on workers' labor inputs. Why should they ? They don't keep accounts in relation to workers based on labor inputs. Comradely, Charles Brown
