[OPE-L:2633] Re: Re: Critique

From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@sociais.ufpr.br)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 10:54:25 EST

[ show plain text ]

I do not understand why we have to break in two halves an analysis which
evolved as a unity. Material as well as intelectual misery are derived by
Marx. And sometimes workers put on a coat of intelectual misery on top of
their exploited skins. Obviously, workers must feel exploitation as the owner
of the means of production get richer while they struggle to keep the same
standard of living. Every worker may develop his/her impressionistic view as
to what exploitation maybe. Nevertheless it took a scientist to make it clear.
The scientist provided more: since entering into the factory presuposes buying
and selling, it seems as if the relationship between worker and capitalist is
just an equal exchange of values. We have exploitation but at the same time a
relationship (the market) which masks that exloitation. Both are part of the
analysis in my way of viewing what Marx is proposing. It is rather exciting
the way Marx never lost track of those two sides of the analysis throughout
his work. Just to try not to be dribbled by words, what I mean by those two
sides are for instance: the definition of what the rate of exploitation is but
at the same time showing that its form of appearance through the rate of
profit difuses the origin of surplus value to all elements of capital
therefore giving it the appearance of profit. Why, Paul, should this be
regarded as secondary, I sincerely would like to know?
Paulo Cipolla

Paul Zarembka wrote:

> >Andrew, your post was very usefull to me. It made me thing about the
> >question of essence and appearance. In fact, if essence and appearance do
> >not coincide then science ( in our case, the study of capitalism), in
> >unraveling how capitalism works must necessarily unravel as well how its
> >mode of working produces illusions, false consciousness, ideology. In
> >this sense, the analysis of fetichism cannot be something lateral to
> >issues such as labor power, exploitation, accumulation, crisis. It can
> >only be an intrinsic part of the analysis. No wonder it appears in the
> >analysis of the commodity; the wage; simple reproduction (context:
> >initial capital as a value reproduced by labor as opposed to the idea of
> >it being the result of a primal capitalist labor); profit as seemingly
> >arising from circulation time (context: critique of Ricardo
> >qualifications of the law of value); the appearance of profits as arising
> >from all capital employed (context: transformation of surplus value into
> >profit, first chapters of vol III); profit of enterprise as wages of
> >supervision; interest bearing capital. It emerges at all level of
> >analysis. That is no coincidence.
> >Paulo Cipolla
> Paulo, With few exceptions the human body is covered with skin. We must
> get behind the skin for human anatomy. The skin is real but it is hardly
> the whole ballgame. In more senses than one, the following quotation is
> meaningful:
> "On leaving this sphere of simple circulation or of exchange of
> commodities, which furnishes the "Free-trader Vulgaris" with his views and
> ideas, and with the standard by which he judges a society based on capital
> and wages, we think we can perceive a change in the physiognomy of our
> dramatis personae. He, who before was the money-owner, now strides in
> front as capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his
> labourer. The one with an air of importance, smirking, intent on business;
> the other, timid and holding back, like one who is bringing his own hide
> to market and has nothing to expect but -- a hiding." (Marx, *Capital*,
> last paragraph Part II).
> The violent struggle between the two main classes I referred to between
> the Homestead, PA steel workers and the Carnegie/Frick capitalist is a
> dramatic lifting of the commodity veil, but only to the world OUTSIDE the
> workplace; inside the skin was already removed.
> In other words, workers' understanding is typically already beyond that
> stage of being deeply masked by the commodity veil, altho the veil is much
> thicker in merchandising, banking, stock broking, etc.
> All this is why I asked Andrew "who educates us" to know the important
> themes within Marx. Over-emphasing "fetishism" is a failure to
> incorporate the material reality of the hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute
> ("damn it; why doesn't that clock move!"), every day and night workplace.
> Paul

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:58 EDT