abstract labour and getishism

[MIYACHI <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jurriaan Bendien

Thanks to your reply
> Dear Miyachi-san
>
> I disagree with your interpretation of Isaac Rubin. Rubin
> distinguishes very well between value and the form of value, even if
> he did not have access to all of  Marx's unpublished texts, such as
> the 1844 Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, the marginal notes on Adolph
> Wagner, and so on.  But abstract labour is not unique to industrial
> capitalism as Rubin sometimes suggests. It occurs both in
> precapitalist and postcapitalist society, where there is no open
> market in labour and capital in most cases. There are other problems
> with Rubin's theory but I will not discuss them here.
>
     I think that Rubin's historical contribution was to argue against Cohn
who argued abstract labor is in common in history. So I cannot understand
your argument. Secondly, Rubin could read first and second edition of
Capital( yet not translated in UK&US), 3rdly Rubin failed to analyze form of
value,i.e. Secret of money-form and the fetishism which is critical point
that Marx put his soul. Below is my argument on critique of fetishism which
contains analysis of abstract labor.
 PS; In JAPAN , UNO's theory infuluenced new left movement in 60's, but
today, Uno's school dissolved,because Uno also failed to analyze form-of
value, i.e, similar to Cohn's argument.

And my argumet contains deutsch langauge,so words may be distorted, if so
aplogize.
　　　

Marx’s critique of the fetishism
　　　　　　　　　
1. On the equivalent form of value

In the value-form in Capital, Marx wrote about the equivalent form:





    "The relative value-form of a commodity, the linen for example, express
its value-existence as something wholly different from its substance and
properties, as the quality of being comparable with a coat for example;
this expression itself therefore indicates that it conceals a social
relation.  With the equivalent form the reverse is true. The equivalent form
consists precisely in this, that the material commodity itself, the coat for
instance, express value just as it is in everyday life, and is therefore
endowed with the form of value by nature itself.  Admittedly this hold good
only within the value-relation, in which the commodity linen is related to
the commodity coat as its equivalent.  However, the properties of a thing do
not arise from its relation to other things, they are, on the contrary,
merely activated by such relations.  The coat, therefore, seems to be
endowed with its equivalent form its property of direct exchangeability, by
nature,.just as its property of being heavy or its ability to keep us warm.
Hence the mysteriousness (Ra¨tesellhafte-quoter) of equivalent
form(Caipital,1,p.149)



 This is the first peculiarity of equivalent form from which use-value
becomes the form of appearance of its opposite, value.(First
substitution-Quidproquo)

About the second peculiarity of equivalent form, Marx wrote:

   "In order to express the fact that, for instance, weaving creates the
value of linen through its general property of being human labour rather
than in its concrete form as weaving, we contrast it with the concrete
labour which produces the equivalent of linen, namely tailoring.  Tailoring
is now seen as the tangible form of realization of abstract human
labour(Capital,1,p.150).



In this substitution concrete labour becomes the form of manifestation of
its opposite, abstract human labour. In this form, the relation of the
abstract and the concrete is reverse. This is the second
substitution(Quidproquo-quoter) .

And the third peculiarity of equivalent form is that private labour takes
the form of its opposite, namely labour in its directly social form:Marx
wrote

   "Because this concrete labour, tailoring, counts exclusively as the
expression of undifferentiated human labour, it possesses the characteristic
of being identical with other kinds of labour, such as the labour embodied
in the linen.  Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing
labour, it is the labour of private individuals, it is nevertheless labour
in its directly social form.  It is precisely for this reason that it
presents itself to us in the shape of a product which is directly
exchangeable with other commodities(Capital,1,p.150)



 This is the third substitution.



2. On the mysterious character(Das Geheimnisvolle-quoter) of the
commodity-form

About the mysterious character of commodity-form, Marx wrote:

   "the mysterious character of the commodity-form therefore simply in the
fact that commodity reflects the social characteristics of men’s own 
labour
as objective characteristics of the products labour themselves, as the
socio-natural properties of these things(Dinge-quoter). Hence it also
reflects the social relation of the producers to sum total of labour as a
social relation between objects, a relation which exists apart from and
outside the producers. Through this substitution, the products of labour
become commodities, sensuous thing(Ding), which are at the same time
suprasensible or social(Capital,1,p.164)



To understand this Geheimnisvolle of this commodity-form have to be premised
on understanding the Ra¨tesellhahte of equivalent form, and the problem 
is
previously resolved in the part of value-form, in which the equivalent form
seems to have its property of direct exchangeability by nature just as the
material properties.  So Ra¨tesellhafte of equivalent form meets the
Geheimnisvolle of the commodity-form.



3. From equivalent form to money-form

The purpose of analyzing the value-form is to show the origin of money-form
by tracing the development of the expression of value. Marx wrote;

     "The degree of development of relative form of value, and that of the
equivalent form, correspond. But we must bear in mind that of the
development of the equivalent form is only the expression and the result of
the development of the relative form. The simple or isolated relative form
of value of one commodity converts some other commodity into an isolated
equivalent.  The expanded form of relative value, that expression of the
value of one commodity in terms of all other commodities, imprints those
other commodities with the form of particular equivalents of different
kinds.  Finally, a particular kind of commodity acquires the form of
universal equivalent, because all other commodities make it the material
embodiment of their uniform and universal form of value…The universal
equivalent form is a form of value in general.  It can therefore be assumed
by any commodity.　On the other hand, a commodity is only to be found in 
the
universal equivalent form(form C), if, and in so far as, it is excluded from
the ranks of all other commodities, as being their equivalent.  Only when
this exclusion becomes finally restricted to specific kind of commodity does
the uniform relative form of value of the world of commodities attain
objective fixedness and general social validity. The specific kind of
commodity with those natural form the equivalent form is socially interwoven
now becomes the money commodity, or serve as money… The only difficulty 
in
the concept of the money form is that of grasping the universal equivalent
form(Capital 1, p.139)



And the difficulty in the concept of equivalent form is that of grasping
simple value form between two commodities. In money-form, gold and
silver are not seen as representing a social relation of production, but in
the form of natural objects with peculiar social properties. This
substitution makes the social relation of production being natural things.



4. Versachlichung der Personen  and  Personifizierung der Sache



About Versachlichung der Personen, Marx wrote:

   "Whence then, arise the enigmatic( ra¨tsellhafte-quoter) character of 
the
product of labour as soon as it assumes the form of a commodity?  Clearly,
it arises from this form itself. The equality of the kinds of human labour
takes on a physical form in the equal objectivity of the products of human
labour as values; the measure of the expenditure of human labour-power by
its duration takes on the form of the magnitude of the value of the products
of labour; and finally the relationship between the producers, within which
the social characteristics of their labour are manifested, take on the form
of a social relation between the products of labour(Capital 1, p.164)



And about Personfizierung der Sache:

    "Commodities cannot themselves go to market and perform exchanges in the
their own right. We must, therefore have recourse to their guardians, who
are possessors of commodities.  Commodities are things(Dinge-quoter) and
therefore lack the power to resist man.  If they are unwilling, he can use
force; in other words, he can take possession of them. In order that these
objects may enter into relation with each other as commodities, their
guardians must place themselves in relation to once another as persons whose
will resides in those objects, and must behave in such a way that each does
not appropriate the commodity of the other, and alienate his own, except
through an act to which both parties consent.  The guardian must therefore
recognize each other as owners of private property.  This juridical
relation, whose form is the contract, whether as part of a developed legal
system or not, is a relation between two wills which mirror the economic
relation. The content of this juridical relation( or relation of two wills)
exist for one another merely as representative and hence owners, of
commodities(Capital,1. P.178)



 In this context, subjectivity is on the side of commodity, not person.Marx
wrote;

   "As guardian of commodity, person’s will resides in those objects, 
which
become the subject of relation, and person merely act for commodities
behavior. This substitution is the mode of unintentional government of
person’s will. Therefore the bearer of commodities are not free person, 
but
is ruled by commodities behavior

This is the Personfizierung der Sache.



5.  On the fetishism of commodity



 Versachlichung is followed by fetishism. Marx wrote:

    "The mysterious(Geheimnisvolle) character of the commodity-form consists
therefore simply in the fact that the commodity reflects the social
characteristics of men’s own labour as objective characteristics of the
products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these
things.  Hence it also reflects the social relation of the producers to sum
total of labour as a social relations of objects, a relation which exists
apart from and outside the producers.  Through this substitution, the
products of labour become commodity…The commodity-form, and the
value-relation of the products of labour within which it appears, have
absolutely no connection with the physical nature of commodity and the
material relations arising out of that.  It is nothing but the definite
social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the
fantastic form of the relation between things.  In order, therefore, to find
an analogy we must take flight into the misty realm of religion.  There the
product of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life
of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the
human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of 
men’s
hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of
labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore
inseparable from the production of commodities(Capital,1, p.164)



The appearance form of commodity relation produces the fantastic form of
relation between things. Therefore Versachlichug produces Verdinglichung.
Now, fundamentally speaking, Simple value form provide the basis of the
fetishism as false semblance independently of this relation: Marx wrote

    "We have already seen, from the simplest expression of value, x
commodity A= y commodity B, that the thing in which the magnitude of the
value of another thing is represented appears to have the equivalent form
independently of this relation, as s social property inherent in its nature.
We followed the process by which this false semblance became firmly
established, a process which was completed when the universal equivalent
form became identified with the natural form of a particular commodity, and
thus crystallized into the money-form.  What appears to happen is not that a
particular commodity becomes money because all other commodities express
their values in it, but, on the contrary, that that all other commodities
universally express their values in a particular commodity because it is
money.  The movement through which this process has been mediated vanishes
in its own result, leaving no trace behind( Capital,1,p.187)



Thus Ding appear to have the social force by nature. The fetishism of
commodity and money is completed.

  Now about fetishism of capital, and interest-bearing capital, this theme
is beyond my argument, but the basic mechanism is not that of the fetishism
of commodity and money, but I only point out that the substitution of
relation of means of production and labour is the root of fetishism of
capital in which the separation of means of production from producer
occurs..

Thus, the fetishism is itself an ideology, which justify the capitalist mode
of production. Marx wrote:

   "We have already shown in connection with the most simple categories of
the capitalist mode of production and commodity production in general, in
connection with commodities and money, the mystifying character that
transforms the social relations for which the material elements of wealth
serve as bearers in the course of production into properties of these things
themselves(commodities), still more explicitly transforming the relation of
production itself into a thing(money). All forms of society are subject to
this distortion(Capital,3,p.965)

.

6. The fetishism and every day life consciousness

On the basis of the fetishism, the actual producer’s consciousness is
determined.  Marx wrote:

  "It is also quite natural, on the other hand, that the actual agents of
production themselves feel completely at home in these estranged and
irrational forms of capitalist-interest, land-rent, labour-wages, for these
are precisely the configuration of appearance in which they move, and with
which they are daily involved(Capital,3,p.969)



  But, on the same time, on account  of Versachlichung, the capitalist mode
of production appear to them as overwhelming natural law, governing them
irrespective of their will. Obeying natural law as such gravity is natural
action, so false semblance of freedom is established..

But, on the other hand, since the social power that governs people is Sache,
Deversachlichung movement emerges. Ecologies, consumer and worker’s
cooperative, and many social movements  generally pursuit Deversachlichung
unconsciously or consciously to establish the new organization of society in
which the social labour need not to receive the form private labour, and
need not to mediate the product of labour in order to prove his own labour
in abstract form as socially approved