Re: Capital is wrong

["Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Re: Capital is wrong,
el 12 Mar 00, a las 18:01, Hinrich Kuhls dijo:

> At 10:41 11.03.00 -0300, Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
>
> >The exchange
> >process, in the conditions of capitalist society, in fact NEVER ends.
> > When the "consumer" finally puts an end to the life cycle of the
> >commodity he is AT THE SAME TIME giving new life to a new commodity,
> >namely labor force. Consumption is, at the same time, creation. And
> >what you, me, everyone creates when, say we consume a pound of pasta,
> > is ourselves AS A SOURCE OF SURPLUS VALUE. That is what capitalism
> >is about. If you do not understand this, George, then I would
> >seriously propose you to go back to the socialist kindergarten, if
> >you have ever been there. Or, better still, try a season at a
> >sweatshop in my home town, where you will learn lots on
> >"commodities".
>
> So the rejoinder decreases to:
>
> The exchange process of commodities never ends. *What capitalism is
> all about*  is the process of consumption of commodities as the
> process of creation of labour-power, which is - as an acting force - a
> source of surplus value.
>
> If you see yourself recapitulated correctly in this summary, could you
> please comment on the difference between the exchange process *that
> never ends* and the "hiding" (Marx, Capital, Volume 1, last word
> before starting part III "Production of absolute surplus-value") in a
> sweatshop in your home town or in Microsoft's software factory.

"Hiding", in my book, does not equate with "ending".  Only that which
exists can be "hidden".  You are confusing "exchange" and
"circulation".  It is precisely at this point of _Capital_  (to which
you are proposing us to return) where Marx, after having demonstrated
that value is not added in the phase of circulation, will begin his
extraordinary demonstration that value is added during the production
process, in the -C- phase of the M-C-M' cycle.  All the relationships
during this phase are relationships between COMMODITIES. So that
where did you want us to go?

>
> And by the way: You write "everyone" creates herself/himself AS A
> SOURCE OF SURPLUS VALUE by consuming their food stuff. Does this also
> apply to the non-productive parts of the working class and to the
> wage-earning middle-class? Does it also apply to the owners of capital
> and to the land-owners?

I, you, everyone on this list, are not INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS, but parts
of COLLECTIVE SUBJECTS. The collective subject working class is, of
course, composed both of the "non-productive" and "productive"
individuals that share the same objective situation as regards the
productive process.

The reserve army is a constitutive part of society, and its
existence, its size, the conditions under which it exists, and so on,
are constitutive of the collective subject. When I spoke of pasta, it
was in the understanding that this individualistic example was to be
understood as a reduction from the complex metabolic process (aren't
these Marx's words?) through which humans interact with Nature and
produce themselves under a given set of social relations.

>
> As far as I'm concerned: I don't dare to propose a brush up of
> socialist basics (your term is "back to the socialist kindergarten")
> to list members.
>

I was not proposing that. I was proposing something more elementary
yet, and it was the return to direct emotional and sensual
vinculation with the real world outside, particularly with the
struggles outside. I have never been too fond of quoting, nor am I a
good quoter. But I have always kept an eye on the material fighting
in the streets. This has helped me to search for the quotes a lot
more than my memory.


> HK





Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx