Comments on: Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Value and Abstract Labour as Real Abstractions

By: Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: A Way of Visualising Abstract Labour and Value

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:35:19 +0000

[...] I find it useful to think about abstract labour in terms of sets and subsets, each enacted in collective practice. [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Relativism, Absolutes, and the Present as History

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:46:54 +0000

[...] In earlier posts, I’ve made the claim that, in spite of appearances, Marx isn’t outlining an historical development of capitalism in this section. When I say “in spite of appearances”, this is because there are moments in the text where it looks very strongly like Marx is doing precisely that, so my claim about textual strategy is not immediately or self-evidently true. [...]

By: Natural’s Not In It « Grundlegung

Natural’s Not In It « Grundlegung — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:20:55 +0000

[...] Value and Abstract Labour as Real Abstractions [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Subjects, Objects and Things in Between

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:06:53 +0000

[...] Nevertheless, this small hint begins to react back on the modes of presentation with which this text begins, and the strategic intention of the earlier sections becomes a bit clearer. At this point, it begins to become clear that the opening definitions, which appear to concern certain economic concepts about material wealth, are always and already quite sweeping categories capturing forms of subjectivity – encompassing modes of the experience of self, forms of embodiment, possible means of practising selves in their self-relation, relation to others, and relation to a nonhuman environment. [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Value and Its Form - from Deduction to Dialectic

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:32:16 +0000

[...] I read this section, among other things, as Marx’s somewhat playful virtuoso demonstration of the ease with which he can surpass Hegel by embedding certain core concepts of “dialectics” by revealing the ways in which certain dimensions of collective practice possess practically dialectical properties. [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Human Labour in the Abstract

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:39:39 +0000

[...] In my last post in this series, I suggested that:

the first chapter was driving toward the argument about commodity fetishism,
significant aspects of the earlier sections of the chapter were intended to express fetishised forms of perception and thought, rather than Marx's own "position", and
fetishised forms of perception involve the attribution of supersensible social qualities to material objects.

[...]

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:01:55 +0000

Yes, Harvey is very good – it’s been quite a while since I’ve read Limits – I should read it again. That’s a nice way of putting the sort of thing I’ve been fumbling around with here, using the vocabulary of “perspectives” or “shapes of consciousness” or other (very awkward) terms. Thanks again for the pointer :-)

By: Mike Beggs

Mike Beggs — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:53:29 +0000

Yeah in some ways it’s unfortunate that he develops it this way, if he’d only flagged what he was doing it would have been so much more clear and saved an awful lot of Marxological effort! I always recommend people read a good secondary source before trying to read Capital itself, though there are also bad secondary sources!

I think David Harvey’s Limits to Capital argues along these lines too, that’s how I got on to the Elson essay. Limits to Capital is a great secondary source, and it gives an overview of the debates about various points rather than just following Harvey’s own argument. Here’s something from his first chapter:

“It is rather as if… Marx sees each relation as a separate ‘window’ from which we can look in upon the inner structures of capitalism. The view from any one window is flat and lacks perspective. When we move to another window we can see things that were formerly hidden from view. Armed with that knowledge, we can reinterpret and reconstitute our understanding of what we saw through the first window, giving it greater depth and perspective. By moving from window to window and carefully recording what we see, we come closer to understanding capitalist society and all of its inherent contradictions.

“This dialectical way of proceeding imposes a great deal on the reader. We are forced to grope in the dark, armed with highly abstract and seemingly a priori concepts we have very little understanding of, working from perspectives we are not yet in a position to evaluate. Most readers therefore encounter great difficulty on reading the first few chapters of Capital.”

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:40:46 +0000

It’s funny you should mention Rubin – I actually skimmed the text (and, to be honest, a pile of others – but I particularly liked the Rubin, and want to go back and read it more carefully) when I was stuck over how to write this post… I haven’t seen the Elson, though – I’ll look it up – there are a few other folks who make a similar argument (and somewhere back in my archives I have a couple of posts making a similar claim, although I think the way I explained the argument is considerably less precise than how I would go about it now). I’m looking very actively for people making arguments along these lines, to get some sense of where I “fit” in the broader discussion – if you think of any other references, please do toss them my way.

On your points about Marx and the WTF? (this is such a useful shorthand – I wonder if I can somehow smuggle “Marx’s WTF?” into the thesis… ;-P): yes – I agree, and I find the work very similar to Hegel in this respect – except that I think Hegel constantly tells his readers that this is what he’s doing, whereas Marx… has a lot of trust that his readers will figure it out, or have an enormous amount of patience to follow along with him… I understand Marx’s point – there’s a not wanting to “put the science before the science” aspect to the structure of the work. But since so little else is written this way, it does encourage a level of confusion…

By: Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: An Aside on the Fetish

Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: An Aside on the Fetish — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:24:05 +0000

[...] As I have presented it here, “commodity fetishism” is a form of perception or thought that perceives material objects and human beings to possess supersensible essences that are distinct from their overtly-observable, sensuous properties. These essences are understood to be governed by impersonal laws. The existence of such laws can be inferred or deduced from empirical observation and manipulated instrumentally for human ends, but the laws (and the essences) are not understood to derive from contingent human practice.[...]