From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: RE: Zizek
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:56:49 -0600


>
> Hi Chris, Marx's concept of alienation is always argued in relation to
> worker's product. So Alienation is no connection with "humanity"
> Marx's position is "The standpoint of the old materialism is civil
society;
> the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity. (Theses On
> Feuerbach) in this line " social humanity" means critique of individualism
> of civil society. In civil society human-being is private, separate,
> non-social individual. Later Marx develop concept of alienation into
> critique of fetishism, which Zizek completely can't understand. From
> critique of fetishism, we understand why Sachen(commodity, money, and
> capital) rules our brain, and not vice versa. Once we understand how
sachen
> rule our brain, our radical social movement to destroy Sachen, i.e. Civil
> society spread.

'appropriate to and worthy of our human nature', Capital, Vol 3, Marx
discussing communism as such a society.  I'll come back to this, but I did
not have time to find the quote.  Also, Marx does (even though never again)
use the term humanism in the 1844 manuscripts to describe communism.  This
is worth considering.

Love the reply on Zizek.  I think it is smashing.
> Below is my short reply to Zizek
>
> According to him,  the expanded from of value occurs when the social
> network of commodity relations develops such that commodity A can find its
> relative and equivalent value in a variety of other commodities. At such a
> moment, Marx observes, the commodities becomes a citizen of that world
> Third, in this arbitrary network of exchange these arises a problem.
Because
> the commodities are all relative to, and mirroring, each other, the
> various types of labor remain specific(rather than existing as abstract
> labor in general).  In order to give unity and true abstraction to the
> system, a third element is needed, a mediator, a single commodity acting
as
> universal equivalent, representing abstract value in a pure, symbolic
> form (such as gold or money). This universal equivalent or  generalized
> Other embodies pure value, reflecting back the value of all other
> commodities mediated through its from.  As the  generalized Other( the
> embodiment of abstract human labor), it therefor represents pure
difference,
> all difference, and as such, it stands in no direct relationship to any
> other commodity, even as it gives value and thus meaning to all exchange
> relations.  Within this generalized from of value the universal equivalent
> can only act as a successful mirror because everything specific and useful
> has been taken from it(as in the case of gold).  As such, it is an empty
> signifier(a pure abstraction), or nonsensical  pseudo-subject from of
> capital, that nevertheless serves retroactively to give sense, or assigned
> value to all other commodities( The sublime object of ideology. London:
> Verso)
>
>  Firstly he fails to understand Marxs analysis on form-of value.  Marx
> analyzed firstly one commodity  as having two character, use-value and
> exchange value, and reduced the latter to abstract labor.  Secondly Marx
> analyzed social character of commodity, i.e. from-of- value.  Beginning
with
> the simple, isolated, or accidental form of value, Ended with money form,
he
> showed the origin of money-form,  according to tracing the development of
> the expression of value contained in the value-relation of commodities
from
> its simplest, almost imperceptible outline to the dazzling money-form.
>From
> that the mystery of money will immediately disappear.
> Zizek  confused relative-value from with equivalent from of value, and put
> all commodities  in relative-form-of values, so that he failed to trace
the
> development of the expression  of value to money form.  Hence, he must
> introduce the third factor separated from expression of value, and this
> third
> element is said to be empty signifier or  pseudo-subject, say, the
> Other, Symbolic Order.  This is lethal error of Zizek who misread from of
> value.
> So, his argument on ideology is based on incorrect interpretation of form
> of value sothat it result in invalid understanding on ideology.
>
Cheers,
Chris



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---