4 years sober today… And not sure how to put the significance to words… But still going strong… Celebrating with (something like the following): “Books not vodka”; poster from the Society for the Fight against Alcoholism, 1930.
Further whetting my interest in 1920-1930’s Soviet cinema, Part III of Kozintsev’s “Maxim Trilogy” — an excellent and intriguing work throughout. All of his films are for free/ subtitled generally reliably in English on YouTube. (Have to add that Dovzhenko, Pudovkin et al. are also found there.)
An addition to the debate on simple and capitalist commodity production — and a couple points to consider Marx’s theories on “value” and “surplus value”:
The argument forged by Marx suggests that relations of simple production of commodities (ie values/ exchange values) and the law of commodity exchange (ie the law of value) do not in themselves produce surplus value. Capitalism, as opposed to simple (ie, pre capitalist) commodity production, can only begin with production of surplus value. Conditions of production — and expansion — of surplus value defines capitalism. This constitutes its identifying feature.
As understood by Marx, accumulation of surplus value is a necessary function of capital; “necessary” in as much as representing its source of profit; and requires that workers produce more than the value equivalent of the daily average of commodities required for their subsistence — thus exploitation. Nevertheless, the initial laws of simple commodity exchange and relations associated with value obtain within capitalism — albeit, in a modified form — which Marx called the “average rate of profit” — such that production of commodities and exchange of equivalent values results in a greater sum of values — surplus value — profit — bestowed upon capital. Thus, as Marx indicates, equality of value form/ commodity owners coincides with exploiting workers and wage labor under capitalism.
As explained above, profits on capital in accordance with the law of value is one of the most glaring contradictions of capitalism. And the solution to the paradox lies in the unique capacity of labor power to produce more exchange value than its own. But still leaves us with, as we witness, the blind mechanisms of commodity production — which continue to interfere with satisfying human need.
Discussing value in terms of Engels; exchange of non/ pre capitalist commodities precedes emergence of capitalism. Although this is a historical development, we may also conceptually disentangle simple and capitalist commodity production. Insofar as “value” in itself is part and parcel of the process that comprises production of capital, capitalism does require simple exchange at an “abstract” level.
However, if we accept evidence cited by Engels, Marx’s account of simple and capitalist commodity production unavoidably involves a “historical” transition (ie, the undeveloped or simple form of value leads to value in full force as capital). In other words, production and exchange of equal value becomes an attempt to produce and realize surplus value. Thus Marx states that, in the form of capital, value acquires capacity to self increase — through struggle to wrest surplus value from direct producers deprived from means of production.
From the outset of Marx’s discussion, the distinguishing feature of capital is that it is a developed form of value aiming to expand its own value in excess of the costs of production. In terms of the “transformation debate”, cost prices (price without surplus value) are replaced by prices of production (cost + surplus value (profit) ). Development of this surplus value aspect stands in clear contrast to the “part of value” in simple commodity production oriented to “metamorphosis” of use values and replacement of labor time. As it turns out, surplus value becomes the only permissible reason for creation of value and exchange of commodities in capitalism. In this sense, the law of value is not renounced but rather “inverted” by capital. Marx’s conclusion is thus to dissolve the simple form of exchange — ie buying and selling commodities/ compensating based on labor time — in addition to the developed form of value/ capital.
Noticing how Heinrich’s “Intro” develops Marx’s value debate, his position on Engels’ “historical” interpretation seems to be my biggest problem so far — eg, whether simple commodity production actually preceded capitalism. Albeit, it is not my position; for Heinrich, value is an abstract logical tool to be used in theorizing capitalism, and Marx’s discussion of value begins with full blown capitalism. So basically, I think Heinrich’s concept of value is based on too restrictive a criteria, ie that value must be produced under “fully developed capitalism”; is a “relation that exists within contemporary capitalism”, where commodity form of products is “the rule” and exchange is “comprehensive”.
Of course, there are different ideas about what Marx’s concept of “value” is. And the core of Marx’s investigation in “Capital” is (obviously) geared toward capitalism..! But based on Marx — and Engels, Marx’s life long confidant — it is clear to me that commodities exchanged in terms of value based on labor time and for money well before the historical advent of capitalism. In contrast to Heinrich, consider Engels’ notion — ie value must have had simple commodity exchange as its basis, existing since ~ 500 BCE. Significantly, Heinrich also admits commodities and money existed for “thousands of years” during precaptialist social organization. Because of these conditions, it is convincing — for me — that pre capitalist buyers and sellers must have had some concept of value and thus were influenced to some extent by the law of value — And consequently were able to exchange use values with other commodity owners, their goal being to replace labor/ labor time, instead of increasing surplus value like in capitalism.
In this respect, concerning simple and capitalist commodity production — the question is about how the mechanisms of capitalism and the surplus value related demands of profit driven society influence the inherent tendencies of commodities to exchange for their value (eg, transition from simple form of value to prices of production). And I feel limiting an understanding of the notion of value and operation of the law of value to capitalism misunderstands Marx’s critique of political economy and potentially leads to reformism/ utopian socialism a la Proudhon — ie to reify value as such in Socialist society, while eliminating capital. Thus for Marx there is no way around eliminating exchange. Marx’s notion of communism provides the capacity for all to determine and satisfy their own needs without recourse to the law of value and commodity exchange; excluding the simple commodity form of products and value form of labor.
“The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the 20th century—without exception—has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise made life impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement—from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador—no one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; no one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
It’s as if the Wright brothers’ first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly.”
—Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II - William Blum (updated, 2014)
and the Iraqi people welcomed the Americans with flowers. I wanted to set a historical event to teach Bush a lesson from the Iraqis, telling him you lied, we did not welcome you with flowers, and instead we are saying goodbye with our shoes.“
Muntaza Al Zaidi, the Iraqi reporter who became known as the guy who threw a shoe at Bush and later ended up in jail for three years because of it.
happy 12 years to bush shoeing incident
Not all heroes wear capes, sometimes they throw shoes.
