Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:the-commodity-and-communism [2023/02/25 12:47]
eaustreum [3.4 Value without commodities?]
+++ en:the-commodity-and-communism [2023/02/25 20:03] (current)
eaustreum
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== From the commodity to communism ======
-Peter Åström ((This is a slightly revised version of “Varan, värdet och
+Peter Åström ((This is an extended version of “Varan, värdet och kommunismen”,
-kommunismen”, //riff-raff// no. 10, April 2022. Please note that although this
+//riff-raff// no. 10, April 2022. Exact copies may be shared in accordance with
-text has already been made available online, certain changes will be made over
-the coming weeks. Exact copies may be shared in accordance with
 [[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/|CC BY-ND 4.0]]. Many thanks to
 GE, HJ, AW, ALB, SF and AK for comments and suggestions.))
@@ Line 1142: / Line 1140: @@
 stop global heating and the extinction of species. To illustrate such a
 transformation from the perspective of the total economy, we can continue the
-series above (Table 6), but assume that accumulation comes to a halt. Since the
+series above (Table 6), but assume that accumulation and population growth come
-additional capital and luxury consumption of the former property owners fall
+to a halt. Since the additional capital and luxury consumption of the former
-away we can assume a much lower rate of surplus labour, say 1/3.((The products
+property owners fall away we can assume a much lower rate of surplus labour, say
-of the soil will cost society substantially less labour when land rent is
+/3.((The products of the soil will cost society substantially less labour when
-abolished: “The determination of the market value of products, including
+land rent is abolished: “The determination of the market value of products,
-therefore agricultural products, is a social act, albeit a socially unconscious
+including therefore agricultural products, is a social act, albeit a socially
-and unintentional one. It is based necessarily upon the exchange value of the
+unconscious and unintentional one. It is based necessarily upon the exchange
-product, not upon the soil and the differences in its fertility. If we suppose
+value of the product, not upon the soil and the differences in its fertility. If
-the capitalist form of society to be abolished and society organised as a
+we suppose the capitalist form of society to be abolished and society organised
-conscious and planned association, then the 10 quarters would represent a
+as a conscious and planned association, then the 10 quarters would represent a
 quantity of independent labour time equal to that contained in 240 shillings
 [instead of 600]. Society would not then buy this agricultural product at two
@@ Line 1204: / Line 1202: @@
 With the means of production held in common and the livelihood of the human
 species secured, it should be possible to go forward with a plan of
-de-accumulation or disinvestment.((See Amadeo Bordiga, //[[https://www.
+de-accumulation or disinvestment.((See Amadeo Bordiga, “[[https://www.
 quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/immediate_program_of_the_rev.htm|The
-immediate program of the revolution]]//, 1953. Camatte, inspired by the former,
+immediate program of the revolution]]” [1953], in //The science and passion of
-uses the term
+communism. Selected writings by Amadeo Bordiga (1912--1965)//, Chicago 2021,
-[[https://revueinvariance.pagesperso-orange.fr/glossaire.html|inversion]]. Cf
+pp. 476--480. Camatte, inspired by the former, uses the term
-also the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth|“degrowth movement”]]
+[[https://revueinvariance.pagesperso-orange.fr/glossaire.html|inversion]]. Bordiga’s
-(“décroissance” in French). Just like the “globalisation movement” at the turn
+list of measures were meant to be taken immediately after “the future taking of
-of the millennium, this movement carries some communist tendencies within it.))
+power in a country of the capitalist West” (ibid.). My view is that a programme
+of disinvestment will be difficult to put into action before the introduction of
+socialism. See also the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth|“degrowth
+movement”]] (“décroissance” in French). Just like the “globalisation movement”
+at the turn of the millennium, this movement carries some communist tendencies
+within it.))
 Let’s continue the series beyond the step illustrated in Table 7 but now assume
@@ Line 1230: / Line 1233: @@
 With the development of communist production through the process of
 de-accumulation, the //necessity// of performing labour //in the service of
-society//, can be reduced considerably.  It would completely revolutionise
+society//, can be reduced considerably. It would completely revolutionise
 today’s notions of work/leisure and production/consumption. As Marx put it:
@@ Line 1277: / Line 1280: @@
 created out of an otherwise mostly agrarian population. Mass industrialisation
 began at the end of the 1920s, not because it responded to the inhabitants’
-self-defined need for modernisation but brutally imposed from above in the name
+self-defined need for modernisation but it was brutally imposed from above in
-of “national interest”. The directors of the state-owned enterprises were
+the name of “national interest”. The directors of the state-owned enterprises
-expected to expand production and the immediate producers work and shut up. The
+were expected to expand production and the immediate producers work and shut
-development was therefore essentially the same as in Table 6, not Table 8. Some
+up. The development was therefore essentially the same as in Table 6, not Table
-still argue that production was not at all governed by the same logic as that
+. Some still argue that production was not at all governed by the same logic as
-prevailing in the West, because of the extent of state ownership and the absence
+that prevailing in the West, because of the extent of state ownership and the
-of independent enterprises and competition.((This includes several value-form
+absence of independent enterprises and competition.((This includes several
-theorists who are strongly influenced by Rubin. See e.g. Michael Heinrich,
+value-form theorists who are strongly influenced by Rubin. See e.g. Michael
-//Introduction to the three volumes of Marx’s Capital// (Monthly Review Press,
+Heinrich, //Introduction to the three volumes of Marx’s Capital// (Monthly
-), chapter 12 and Christopher Arthur, “Epitaph for the USSR: A clock without
+Review Press, 2012), chapter 12 and Christopher Arthur, “Epitaph for the USSR: A
-a spring”, in //The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital// (Leiden/Boston
+clock without a spring”, in //The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital//
-). Both argue that the capitalism was abolished by the Bolsheviks but that
+(Leiden/Boston 2004). Both argue that the capitalism was abolished by the
-it was never replaced by socialism/communism.))
+Bolsheviks but that it was never replaced by socialism/communism. Arthur takes
+the position of Hillel Ticktin that the Soviet Union was an inherently unstable
+“non-mode of production”.))
 State ownership by itself does not stand in the way of capitalist development,
@@ Line 1297: / Line 1302: @@
 as a “substance held in common by one commodity with another commodity”,((Karl
 Marx, “Value-Objectivity as Objectivity Held in Common”, in Michael Heinrich,
-//How to read Marx’s Capital// (2021), p. 377.)) i.e. existing only in products
+//How to read Marx’s Capital// (2021), p. 377.)) existing only in products of
-of private labour made social by being exchanged for money on a market -- then
+private labour made social by being exchanged for money on a market -- then
 these categories probably did not exist within the Soviet Union, and
 consequently neither did surplus value and its sub-categories of profit,
@@ Line 1315: / Line 1320: @@
 trade was limited, but the country as a whole was engaged in fierce military
 competition with the outside world and this required the development of a modern
-industry. From this point of view, production was oriented towards
+industry. From this point of view, production was oriented towards the
 //self-expansion of value// and thus (state) capitalist. As Aufheben((See
 [[https://libcom.org/article/what-was-ussr-part-iv-towards-theory-deformation-value|“What
 was the USSR? Part IV: Towards a theory of the deformation of value”]],
-//Aufheben// no. 9, 2000)) argues, the state enterprises were not
+//Aufheben// no. 9, 2000)) argues, however, the state enterprises were not
-driven by profit but by production targets. If the “Soviet system” was in some
+driven by profit but by production targets and if the “Soviet system” was in
-sense capitalist, it may be more adequate to analyse it from the point of view
+some sense capitalist, it may therefore be more adequate to analyse it from the
-of the circuit of productive capital. If we use the formula P ... C′ – M′ – C′
+point of view of the circuit of productive capital. If we use the formula P
-... P′,
+... C′ – M′ – C′ ... P′,
 > Capitalism [...] appears not so much as ‘production of profit’ but ‘production for production’s sake’. Capitalist production is both the beginning and the end of the process whose aim is the reproduction of capitalist production on an expanded scale. The commodity circulation (C′ -- M′ -- C′) now appears as a mere mediation. A mere means to the end of the relentless expansion [of] capitalist production.”((Ibid.))
-The main difference with Western capitalism was then that sale (C -- M) and
+In contrast with Western capitalism, sale (C -- M) and purchase (M -- C) were
-purchase (M -- C) were not decided on a more or less free market but by the
+not decided on the market but by the central plan.
-central plan.
 Marx did not foresee the possibility of a state-capitalist development, but on
@@ Line 1338: / Line 1342: @@
 Using the concept of value in this sense, however, could only work for the total
-social product,((This is the context of the former quote. See MECW 37,
+social product,((This is also the context of the former quote. See MECW 37,
 pp. 818--819.)) for
@@ Line 1350: / Line 1354: @@
 the abstract”.((See also the //Grundrisse//: “For the person who produces an
 infinitesimal part of a yard of cotton, it is not a formal definition that it is
-value, exchange value.  If he had not produced an exchange value, money, he
+value, exchange value. If he had not produced an exchange value, money, he
 would have produced nothing at all. Hence, this determination of value
 presupposes a given historical stage of the social mode of production and is
@@ Line 1362: / Line 1366: @@
 labour, easy transfer from one type of labour to another, loss of the connection
 of the labour process with determined individuals -- all this occurs under
-socialism in its highest development.”  Dashkovsky, “Abstract labour and the
+socialism in its highest development.” Isaak Dashkovsky, “Abstract labour and the
 economic categories of Marx”
 <https://libcom.org/library/abstract-labour-economic-categories-marx-isaak-dashkovskij>.))
@@ Line 1384: / Line 1388: @@
 existing societies and which I have tried to outline in this text. It may well
 be the case that the terms abstract labour and value should be reserved for the
-analysis of the capitalist mode of production. It does not follow from this,
+analysis of the capitalist mode of production.((“[W]e can see that in communist
+operational life, the amount of work required for the production of individual
+objects of daily use means something quite different than ‘value’. And now it is
+quite possible [...] that in common usage, the ‘value’ of goods in communism is
+spoken of, although the term has acquired a completely different meaning. Here
+[...] we do not want to set a bad example by using an old word for a new term,
+[...] so we speak of the //production time// of the goods.” Group of
+International Communists, //Fundamental principles of communist production and
+distribution//, Hamburg 2020 [1935], p. 108.)) It does not follow from this,
 however, that the existence of labour in general implies commodity production,
 compulsory accumulation or wage slavery.
+February 2023