Talk:Capitalism

From Capitalism and Schizophrenia

[edit] Study of Capitalism - Too Hard(t)?

Håll ögonen öppna efter nästa Fronesisnummer. Så här löd deras introduktion inför föredraget på Socialistiskt Forum den 24 november:

Marx ekonomikritik
Tidskriften Fronesis anser att det är dags att lyfta fram Karl Marx ekonomkritik igen. 
Idag används   han mest som en kulturteoretiker vilken som helst, 
och sedan slutet av 1970-talet har hans
ekonomiska teorier egentligen inte diskuterats i några svenska sammmanhang.
Med. Ramsay, Daniel Ankarloo. Samtalsledare: Klas Gustavsson, Linne Nilsson
Arr: Tidskriften Fronesis

Under föredraget tog Ramsay upp en mycekt skarp kritik av H&N's Marx-tolkningar som jag hoppas utvecklas i det kommande nummret. Han menade att deras Marxism i allmänhet och deras värdeteori i synnerhet är grova feltolknigar av vad Marx skrev i Kapitalet. Vidare menade både han och Ankarloo att Kapitalettolkningarna skall kunnas lyftas fram och behöver diskuteras av en vänster för att inte marginalisera Marx:ism till ett kulturprojekt eller ideellt studium på en ren hermeneutisk nivå.

De menade nog att för att Marx teorier skall ha Politisk Relevans idag så måste de också användas politiskt och inte bara till metodavsnitt i c-uppsatser. Hardt och Negri skulle väl aldrig ha något emot en sådan praktisk användning av Marxismen heller men Ramsay menade i sitt föredrag på Socialistiskt Forum att deras Marx (och tolkning av Kapitalismen) på intet sätt är korrekt.

Och i förlängningen kan (enligt Fronesis) en inkonsekvent tolkning av en teori heller aldrig användas som en Politisk Vetenskap utan måste bli en Fundamentalism som yxar fram en verklighet mönsterpassad till sina egna grundföreställningar.

De menade alltså att om Marxtolkningen i grunden inte är logiskt korrekt och applicerbar på dagens Kapitalism så är all politik som utgår från tolkningen gränsande till reaktiv fundamentalism.

Ett lite stickspår om Katpitalism, värdeteori och H&N... --Dnlnstrm 15:29, 9 December 2007 (CET) Intressant!, ska kolla upp --Christopher Kullenberg 20:40, 9 December 2007 (CET)

Citation needed on the first paragraph of the DeLanda section. I must question the position that the c-word leeds us "to a view of economic history as a matter of increased 'marketisation'". Why is this? Why should for example the idea of endless accumulation of capital or the fundamental divide between capital and labour write a history of of increased marketisation? Further argumentation is needed to make such a point. --Marcus Nilsson 20:07, 9 December 2007 (CET)

The Deleuze & Guattari section is a bit messy right now. I am going through pages 501-522 in ATP (7000 BC Apparatus of capture). The answer is there, but it takes a little time to work through it. --Christopher Kullenberg 20:40, 9 December 2007 (CET)

@Marcus: I just wanted to put something up there quick, was in a bit of a rush. My point is that capitalism is generally described - in everyday language - as a "market economy", in which "the Market" is expanding, as an economy that relies on "the market mechanism" (as opposed to reciprocity or redistribution, to speak in Polanyiesque terms). There are also recent examples of (Marx-inspired) scholars who claim that the "new capitalism" is all about more marketisation, the diminishing of redistributive hierarchies (Richard Sennett, Boltanski & Chiapello etc.)

DeLanda's point is that the 19th and 20th centuries have witnessed a hierarchisation of the economy, coupled with less reliance on markets. Note: He uses markets in the sense of the classical street market/the bazaaar, described abstractly as the meshwork/self-consistant aggregate abstract machine, based on auto-catalytic loops. This, I feel, is quite a significant departure from how capitalism is normally portrayed, no? --Karpal 11:15, 10 December 2007 (CET)

@Karl: Oh dear, I sounded a bit grumpy - that was not my intention. I just wanted a more elaborated argumentation and a citation... :-)

Well, I'm not very familliar with theories of "new capitalism", but at this point I have a some concerns about them being "Marx inspired". I would say that the traditional marxist position is to over and over again repudiate the synonymisation of the term 'capitalism' with 'market economy'. However I must agree with DeLanda that the confusion between capitalism and market economy is so widely spread that the abandonment of the former term might be for the better. Let me leave it at that... --Marcus Nilsson 11:54, 10 December 2007 (CET)

@Marcus, no problem. Boltanski & Chiapello are, to me, Marx-inspired in the sense that they start from the position that capitalism is an "absurd" system, that contains the seeds of its own destruction, not least due to its reliance on increasing exploitation of labour (though the proletariat does not understand this, due to the legitimising discourses that this "system" comes up with in order to sustain itself).

Sennett's account of the new capitalism is more subtle, but does maintain a strict focus on the exploitation of labour as the central theme of the economy - thus very much seeing the world with his Marx-engineered glasses on (ie. the kind of glasses discussed by Barry & Slater in the last quote of the DeLanda section).--Karpal 12:22, 10 December 2007 (CET)

Yeah, I can see that point. All deterministic tendencies of any marxism should be subject to criticism. I'm quite content! --Marcus Nilsson 13:31, 10 December 2007 (CET)

Nice one - the axiomatic bit. In what way does an axiomatic differ from an abstract machine? --Karpal 15:24, 10 December 2007 (CET)

That's a good question that I need to elaborate. Please help me out, this is just a personal account... :-)

I don't see an axiomatic as being morphogenetic in itself - and that would be a fundamental distinction, since morphogenesis is the very function of abtract machines (the "engineering diagrams defining the structure-generating processes that give rise to more or less permanent forms but are not unique to those forms", in DeLandas words). I rather see the axiomatic as a certain system of "conditions" set up at the junction between flows of matter and energy; a starting point, if you will, where the abstract machine enters, and the finishing point where it exits.

When it comes to the capitalist axiomatic, it ensures that no matter what the product, the commodity, the materialized labour is, and no matter what process actually takes place, at the end of the day labour and capital are separated again - no matter how intertwined within "the factory" or "the corporation" or whatecever, capital and labour are seperate flows both coming in and coming out.

Does it make any sense to you? --Marcus Nilsson 16:05, 10 December 2007 (CET)

Hmm, we really should do some kind of seminar on this, it is getting complicated. I added some more stuff onto "my" bit about the alternative reading of what capitalism - Massumi on molarity, as something created when transcendent essences are imposed on a system. --Karpal 19:46, 10 December 2007 (CET)