File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0201, message 39


From: "John Roberts" <msrssjmr-AT-man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:44:57 -0000
Subject: Re: BHA: On alienation


Hi Hans

I think questions of sexism and anti-semitism are completely 
different issues. Alienated labour, sexism and anti-semitism 
operate at different levels of abstraction. My very short reply (as I'm 
working so have to be quick) would be that I would not want to 
*reduce* these types of power relations to alienated labour. 
However, I think that is reasonable for me to say (as a Marxist) that 
alienated labour provides the *determinative* moment of capitalism 
at a very high level of abstraction. This is because for capitalism to 
developed it requires labourers free from the ownership and control 
of and from the means of production and free to sell labour power to 
whoever so wishes it. This double-form of freedom suffuses the 
circuit of capital as a whole and provides the aforementioned total 
social experience of capitalist social relations. Obviously this is all 
at a high level of abstraction but I think that it does provide the 
*ideological context* for all sorts of forms of social activity. These 
social forms are, if you like, refracted and qualitatively unique 
social entities (or moments) of capitalist social relations and thus 
obtain unique contradictions, power relations, conflicts, etc., that 
may prove problematic for the reproduction of capitalist social 
relations. This complexifies our account of non-capital capitalist 
social forms because we need to see how they obtain a specific 
ideological form within the totality of capitalism. 

I say this is a 'reasonable' position to adopt because we all need a 
way of defining precisely the societies in which we live. I prefer to 
*begin* (but not end) with the abstract definition of capitalism 
developed by Marx. Others prefer the term 'modernity'. The point is 
that we all implicitly and explicitly define the world as being 
structured in some way or another. To be honest, I often find that 
those who use the term 'modernity' to explore (e.g.) gender, 
citizenship, ethnicity, culture, etc. are far more reductionist than 
Marx.     

Cheers,
John

On 14 Jan 02, at 16:13, Hans Puehretmayer wrote:

Hi John (and all)

I'm not sure if I understand your argument right. But it seems to me a
little bit reductionistic?
My question would be: would you suggest to explain sexism and
anti-semitism exclusively out of the 'self-valorisation of capital'? Or
aren't sexism and anti-semitism forms of alienation in your
conceptualization?

Cheers,
Hans

John Roberts wrote:
> 
> Hi Ruth
> 
> Thanks for the welcome. Much appreciated. On alienation, no I do
> not think that it is defined exclusively through the wage form. If I
> remember correctly I didn't say this (I hope!). Defining capitalism
> through the wage form would mean that capitalism is based upon a
> system of exploitation. Obviously this is true, but I don't think that
> this is the defining characteristic of capitalism. Afterall, wage
> labour has been a form of many non-capitalist societies. Rather I
> would say that alienation is bound up with a process of
> fetishisation based not upon need but upon the self-valorisation of
> capital which is brought into being by labour's double form of
> freedom which you identified. These processes are uniquely
> 'capitalistic'. It is the rule of the totality of things, the rule of dead
> labour over living labour, which produces both alienation and
> fetishisation. In other societies there are certainly power relations
> (master-slave type relations), etc., but not alienation. For in these
> societies individuals are not ruled exclusively by a reified totality
> within which people interact with each other through things.
> Alienation in this sense is specific to capitalism.
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 
> On 14 Jan 02, at 9:09, Ruth Groff wrote:
> 
> Hi John, Mervyn and everyone,
> 
> Welcome, John.  When I read your first post, I thought yes, that seems right.
> But the more I think about it, I think that I would have said that in Marx
> alienation is the result of producers not owning the means of production
> (and controlling the process and surplus).  It is thus tied to the class
> character of the relations of production, as you say - in contrast to being a
> necessary by-product/corollary of instrumental reason or even rationality
> as such, for example - but is not exclusive to capitalism.
> Are you sure that it requires exploitation through the wage form specifically?
> 
> Warmly,
> Ruth
> 
> At 12:42 PM 1/14/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hi Mervyn
> >
> >I'm afraid I don't have the direct quotes to hand from Marx's writings
> >(they're at home and I'm in my office) but I think it is you who are
> >wrong in this instance Mervyn. Marx, in my readinbg anyway, is
> >pretty clear that alienation is associated with capitalism i.e. with a
> >world mediated *exclusively* through the concrete things of
> >commodities and the abstract compulsion of value. Thus there is a
> >double form of alienation. And, I should add, this notion of
> >alienation (contra Mervyn) is not reliant upon the clash of concrete
> >classes. It is an objective process based primarily upon alienated
> >labour. The idea that alienation is a more transcendental notion is
> >one perpetuated by subsequent Marxists e.g. some Marxists
> >working within what became known as Critical Theory.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >John
> >
> >On 13 Jan 02, at 17:50, Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
> >
> >Hi Richard, John,
> >
> > >Thus, I tend to interpret discussions of "alienation" as
> > >an secularized attempt to get at the same dimension of the human condition
> > >that is expressed mythologically in the story of the fall of Adam.
> >
> >For what it's worth, I would endorse that. I don't think you're right,
> >John, that it's restricted in Marx to capitalism and commodity fetishism
> >- for Marx it reaches a kind of frenzied apogee there but is actually
> >co-eval in all five of Marx's senses (alienation from our labour,
> >nature, the nexus of social relations, and ourselves) with the rise of
> >what Marx calls 'class society' and Bhaskar 'master-slave-type
> >societies'.
> >
> >Mervyn
> >
> >
> >Richard Moodey <moodey001-AT-mail1.gannon.edu> writes
> > >Welcome, John Roberts.  I am a relatively new member of the list, and also
> > >find the current discussion very interesting.  I seldom get into these
> > >discussions, primarily because I am a dabbler than a scholar in Bhaskar's
> > >writings.  I have probably learned more about Bhaskar from the list than I
> > >have from Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom (affectionately known as DPF on
> > >the list), the book I am currently dabbling in.  I also consider myself a
> > >Christian, a rather "heretical" Catholic, to be precise, and thus cannot
> > >avoid being influenced by my religious beliefs, however critical I might be
> > >of some of them.  Thus, I tend to interpret discussions of "alienation" as
> > >an secularized attempt to get at the same dimension of the human condition
> > >that is expressed mythologically in the story of the fall of Adam.
> > >
> > >Dick Moodey
> > >
> > >
> > >At 02:39 PM 01/11/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> > >>Hi everyone
> > >>
> > >>This is my first time on the list (I'm a new member). The discussion
> > >>between Mervyn and Phil is very interesting. I would just like to add
> > >>one quick note on the subject of alienation. It seems to me that
> > >>Marx viewed alienation is a very restricted way i.e. he believed that
> > >>alienation was specific only to capitalism where human interaction
> > >>becomes mediated through things. Alienation is thus intrinsically
> > >>associated with the fetishism of commodities. Obviously in other
> > >>social systems such as feudalism people were subject to various
> > >>forms of ideology, etc., but I would not want to say that they were
> > >>alienated. Marx is fairly clear about his restricted definition in most
> > >>of his works. Therefore, and for what it's worth, I think that the
> > >>discussion of alienation by both Mervyn and Phil is somewhat
> > >>transcendental insofar that both seem to define alienation beyond
> > >>the remit of any real historical social relations.
> > >>
> > >>All the best,
> > >>John Roberts (Manchester)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >--
> >Mervyn Hartwig
> >13 Spenser Road
> >Herne Hill
> >London SE24 ONS
> >United Kingdom
> >Tel: 020 7 737 2892
> >Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk
> >
> >
> >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005