| This question <63|60> overall <65|67> Hans: <64|69>. |
| Question 98: Carefully explain the meaning of the statement: “Under capitalism, labor has social significance only as abstract labor.” |
| [66] Hans: The deceptive fairness of commodity production. For Eastwood [60], the word “social significance” refers to an attitude: something is socially significant if people consider it relevant. This is a colloquial use of the word “social” which captures only one aspect of it. “Social”, in its scientific sense, refers to all the relations which bind people together, whether people may be aware of them or not. Eastwood is making here exactly the mistake I warned against in [8]. |
| Due to this mis-understanding about the meaning of words, Eastwood reads into Marx exactly the opposite of what Marx actually said. In Eastwood's reading, Marx considers capitalism to be one big meritocracy, meaning that capitalism is a collection of hard-working individuals where the effort someone puts in is all that counts. Eastwood writes: |
| Power, privilege, maximum self interest, etc. has no relevance with abstract labor. |
| It is not surprising that one may come to this view after just reading the beginning of chapter One about the commodity. But if you look at Marx's theory as a whole you will realize that he agrees very much with the view that |
| capitalism represents power, privilege, maximum profit, and maximum self interest. |
| In Capital, Marx tries to understand the social relations which make such an individualistic and selfish attitude possible and successful. This is why he is looking at abstract labor. The link between abstract labor and capitalist power and privilege is the very simple: Money represents abstract labor. Those who have money dispose over the abstract labor of others. But the worker gets, in his or her wage, a much lower amount of abstract labor back than he or she performs on the job. Capitalism is a rip-off system in which that what is being ripped off is abstract labor. |
| Judging by the three contributions received so far, [15], [19], and [60], it Eastwood seems smart and eloquent. He has a good grasp of reality and a deep and logical view of things. I have the impression all he is lacking is a good set of theoretical tools to put his mind to use (and perhaps the time and patience to grapple with intellectual issues -- but this will come automatically once the tools are there). The educational system which you all are the victims of is trying to dumb you down, and I am trying to turn you all into dangerous intellectuals who are not fooled by the appearance of things. |
|
|
|||||