RedMarx

A Forum
It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Welcome


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:22 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
Alright I think I understand you now. What the capitalist appropriates is simply surplus value above and beyond what is necessary to sustain the labouring class. What then happens to this surplus value is varied. Some of it is used on means of subsistence for the capitalist class, some of it is capitalized, and some of it is spent on luxuries.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:17 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
When it comes to value generally, people tend to neglect that it's discussed as part of capitalism, or a mode of production. From this, while we have discussed the precise reasons and manner by which it is correct previously, it would generally follow that Marx's account is straightforwardly true.

In addition, obviously the essence of abstract labour is that the labourer is called upon to produce something that cannot be produced - I've made this point before here, and Broletariat has made it since - but is a social positing. Hence, repudiations of Marx tend to ultimately merely establish this. The product of labour is hence something that labour is merely called upon to enact, or form, but which floats there as if apart from any labour that could go into this - hence, the labour in the mode of production must take the form of abstract labour, or it is treated as empty. However, for this lack of specification of labour to take place implies a need for value as a category. (In general, the commodity is not posited as value automatically, but by abstraction which leads to the category of value.)

In general, then, the act of labour in capital is also an act of assimilation, or of the labourer bending the actual labour process to the production of value or abstract labour. Otherwise, they would get fired, generally.

It may also be called an act of vulgarisation, in which sense vulgar political economy is merely political economy as a profession, and other works are to count as outside of this. Marx's works are notably such, and as such notably communistic, while the others can be variable.

Re: "Let us assume that a century ago a hundred thousand workers were required to do what is done today by eighty thousand; the other twenty thousand would have found themselves obliged to take to other occupations to obtain wages; and the new products of their manual labour resulting from this would increase the pleasures and the luxuries of the rich."

Marx's use of this quotation in the context - talking about the augmenting of wealth of the owners - comes across as slightly cynical. In general, though, what it might be getting at in context - it isn't meant to represent Marx's view in toto - might be related to this. In general, if people were displaced - or not hired - for a profession, they would therefore be neutralised as consumers, and therefore have to take up - as neutralised consumers - jobs which serve the rich in principle. This kind of scenario is more a positing of a limit case than a general narrative, although in the context of the falling rate of profit, etc., it does have some accuracy - once they are gotten rid of, the task of being re-hired is already posited immediately in principle (unless they were only performing abstract labour by mistake, and not there because they were trying to be), however long it is delayed by their following the usual capitalistic principle of not-working. Hence, if we suppose that situation of the usual proletarian as akin to this, or beginning without 'connections,' or whatever, then their job is hence to serve to please the rich - not themselves - or desire to do so, which is already easily contradictory. Hence the frequent side-talk in certain circuits about how people had to be willing to 'do the best' to those who were 'already at the top,' ie. capitalists, before they could get anywhere - although from the beginning it isn't about them and hence this doesn't go anywhere. In this sense we may say that job-finding is in principle simply a matter of being such as to cater to capitalist society and the bourgeoisie. This could easily lead to the reduplication of ideologues, who were often strangely sent to the field of economy.

In addition, given what we said in the other thread about value and how it requires different people to be posited as essentially the same, while this kind of bent towards the 'rich' would usually tend to produce a fairly strenuous and obvious differentiation for those who did not do so, or meant that clear boundaries would easily be drawn by those opposing them, creating a sort of 'STD' where value by realising its aim and attaining pleasure would be greeted by pain - this kind of division could be done at times, of course. This meant that they generally only tried this by pretending that this bent towards the 'rich' and employers - over all else - is done based on the same principles that you work on, or is somehow compatible with whatever you say, or just a general social grace, or in brief fictionalise opposing elements to try and make themselves seem innocuous. In general, apologistic abstract labour, or labour stressing and advocating this abstract nature, is in contradiction with itself if it attempts concrete labour - it hence usually has to pretend to be a capitalist or 'beyond this,' somehow more important than whatever pointless, pro-capitalist waffling and emotions it is -, but in general can only involve the continual assimilation or 'stealing' by this point of concrete labour done in the field, and hence is merely a continual stream of plagiarism albeit now in favour of capitalism, which littered for example the halls of academic economics and other related topics.

Wasn't the quotation made from Necker or such? Their quotations from there were usually quite pointed. In general, this also seems to anticipate some of Marx's points concerning the composition of capital across society or tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which increasingly locks workers out from the production process and trivialises their ability to resist as a class within capitalism.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.
ZeroNowhere has been thanked by:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred