/lit/ - Literature

>>10642232
David Harvey's interpretation has issues, but reading Capital at all is great.

>>10642437
any other lectures we could follow along with?

>>10642437
>David Harvey's interpretation has issues
explain pls

This tread, like communists, should be culled.

>>10642232
Reposting from the other thread that died earlier today:

Btw some interesting stuff Zizek has to say about commodity fetishism in The Sublime Object of Ideology:

>fetishistic misrecognition
"Being-a-king is an effect of the network of social relations between a "king" and his "subjects"; but--and here is the fetishistic misrecognition--to the participants of this social bond, the relationship appears necessarily in an inverse form; they think they are subjects giving the king royal treatment because the king is already in himself, outside the relationship to his subjects, a king; as if the determination of being-a-king were a "natural" property of the person of a king."
"How can one not remind oneself here of the famous Lacanian affirmation that a madman who believes himself to be king is no more mad than a king who believes himself to be king--who, that is, identifies immediately with the mandate "king""

Essentially, under capitalism, for Zizek, the relationship between commodities parallels that of the feudal relationship between king and subject or lord and serf, in that, we misrecognise the value of a commodity, which emerges as the result of a social relation with other commodities, as a part of the commodity itself.

"The real problem is not to penetrate to the "hidden kernel" of the commodity--the determination of its value by the quantity of the work consumed in its production--but to explain why work assumed the form of the value of a commodity, why it can affirm its social character only in the commodity form of its product."

So, essentially, acc. Zizek, Marx is saying in this section that commodity fetishism entails that the relations of domination which were clearly understood in feudal societies, have been repressed by being displaced onto commodities under capitalism.

Any thoughts on this from anyone? Does this interpretation have a basis in what Marx is saying?

>Chapter 1, § 1 - The Two Factors of a Commodity: Use-Value and Value
>1. Which of the following industries produce commodities: the movies, prostitution, the public education system, the private schools, public transport, the military, “housewives”, domestic servants?
Everything that is exchanged for is a commodity. In this case the only one not exchanged is the house wife’s work. As a critique: not all commodities are produced, yet they still have value and exchange.

>2. Why is a ton of gold worth more than a ton of sugar? And is gold dug from a thousand metres underground worth more than gold found on the ground?
Gold is rarer than sugar, i.e. it requires more labor to produce(extract). No, gold has an average price regardless of how one gets it.

>3. Does advertising add value to the products it advertises?
Marx said no, but you’re an idiot if you deny it today. Perception is a determiner of value, it changes the use-value which people think things have. Proof: Apple’s stupidly high prices, Gucci, etc. Brand association and perception is value. Value is made determinate in exchange, where the human individuals meet and agree to exchange, not in production.
>Chapter 1, § 2 - Two-fold Character of Labour Embodied in Commodities
>1. What does Marx mean by “human labour in abstract” and “concrete labour”?
Abstract labor is the universal quality of all labor which only takes quantity into account (labor time). Concrete labor is the specific particular/individual labor done (making silk shoes).

>2. In what sense can we say that Nature does not produce value, only labour produces value?
1) We don’t pay Nature to appropriate it, it does not exchange with us in order for us to get its use-value.

>3. Water is free (at least in most places!) therefore it has no value. Is this true? and under what circumstances does water become “valuable” and how does this square with what Marx is saying?
It has no value as mere water because no one exchanges commodities with Nature. It becomes valuable when someone owns it and demands exchange.

>Chapter 1, § 3
Questions for discussion:
>1. Why is Marx bothering to take all this time going back to barter in tribal times?
He’s an autist.

>2. What does this chapter say about the prospect of getting away from capitalism by going back to barter and local exchange systems?
It will just logically lead back to generalized markets.

>3. Why did gold come to be used as money?
Universally desired, easily divisible into quantities for currency.

>4. It is a long time since paper money replaced gold in day-to-day commerce. Why has this happened? Does it make nonsense of Marx’s idea of money as set out in this chapter?
All that is required is that something function as money and maintain social faith. With modern money systems it has become clear that commodity money like gold is irrelevant to money as such, i.e. that money itself is only an ideal representation of value which only needs to be accepted and recognized and itself has no value.

>5. What do Marx’s remarks about Aristotle in this chapter tell us about capitalism and Equality? And what does this mean in the context of “globalisation”?
Aristotle thought that capital and interest were suspect since they violated the concept of equality in exchange. Marx says Aristotle could not understand the problem because general commodity production and proletarianization had not occurred to bring to light that labor was the third thing in exchanges.
>Chapter 1, § 4
>1. What does Marx mean by the “fetishism of commodities”?
A few things 1) the misunderstanding that value is intrinsic to commodities disregarding that it is humans that judge value and exchange; 2) the inversion of subjectivity where value determines human material life rather than humans determining it.

>2. According to Hegel and Derrida, all social production entails “alienation”. Does Marx agree with Derrida and Hegel in this, and if not why not?
No idea about Derrida, but with Hegel literally existing is alienation. Marx does not agree, but Marx’s concept of alienation is centered around human alienation from human essence, free creative labor—this is something simply not on the level of Hegel’s concept.

>3. In what sense is this section crucial to understanding bourgeois ideology and individualism.
It isn’t, and here’s why: The concepts of property, law, state, and ontological/methodological individualism are the categorical social ground that leads to and masks the rapacious reality of capitalism, but notice that the damage is already done prior to markets. What capitalism is often used for is for appealing to a “law of nature” in the economy which directs the fate of who is rich and who is poor.

Marxism doesn't work.

>>10642996
It's the orthodox interpretation of that section. There is a difference, however, and it's important. The whole fetish arises because of logical commitments rather than mere at face recognition. All that is required for value is the right of property, the concept of contract, and the recognition of the 'third' thing which is entailed in exchanges. Once the first exchange is done the quantities of exchange begins to be determined on that exchange, thus you get the expanded form of value as 20yrd Silk=1 coat, 2 boots, 20 apples, etc.

Commodity exchange, once generalized into a production process, has gained a determinate value which can be tracked against other commodities without having anything to do with subjective whim. You don't want my silk bad enough to give me 20 apples? Who cares, someone will—individuals as such become irrelevant because of the mass market.

What is the significance on the section about commodity fetishism? I think I understand what is being said, but I'm not sure I understand the purpose.

>>10643592
It's an attack on "idealism" as an inversion of reality. Value originates as an 'abstraction' of our interactions in exchange, yet this abstraction comes to dictate our lives.

>>10642232
BOOOORING ZZZZZ

>>10643880
t. brainlet

>>10642571
https://critisticuffs.org/events/a-lack-of-companionship-a-critique-of-david-harvey-at-the-common-house/