The silver cord unbroken

A discussion recently came up with Zanthorus, involving Böhm-Bawerck's contentions about Marx. Zanthorus issued the following summary of Böhm-Bawerck:

Hopefully this clarifies to a certain extent where Böhm-Bawerk goes wrong in suggesting that the common property of commodities could just as well be that they are products of nature, or something absurd like the fact that gravity acts on them

We would like to examine this in more depth.

Marx contends that, when commodities are considered in an abstract manner, then the only common property can be that they are products of labour. However, Zanthorus notes a possible and opposed viewpoint, that commodities are also a product of other forces. Hence, that Marx might be hasty in this circumstance.

However, in doing this we must not ignore what becomes of 'labour' in this process. Otherwise, the commodity itself is lost sight of. The labour is action upon and involving the commodity. It is not cleanly cut apart from this object. If the commodity disappears, so does the labour upon it. The labour is specified by the commodity and interaction with it, hence when the commodity is removed you cannot properly speak of a labour process behind it - nor is it differentiated from a 'natural' object. Hence, to speak of 'being products of labour' is misguided. Once the abstraction removing all traits from the commodity occurs, we cannot speak of labour upon it instead. That vanishes with the traits. Marx essentially follows capitalism's 'logic' for a way, stripping commodities of all traits, and hence of all physical specifications and interactions, however they then wish to turn around and introduce the category of 'labour' as still remaining. This is an unjustified summoning. Marx wishes to derive the category of 'labour' or physical interaction from these commodities without physical traits. This is problematic.

We want to derive 'labour' from the commodity itself, however labour like all physical interactions is evacuated in the commodity without physical traits. To speak of labour on a commodity, we must speak of the physical commodity and the interaction with its traits. Otherwise there is nothing for labour to interact with, nor can we derive that labour could ever do so.

While Marx observes later how labour alters under capital, however this serves only to partially correct the earlier problems. The abstraction of capitalism does, indeed, mean that other forces that act upon commodities are hidden. To refer to capital being a 'mode of production' would be sleight of hand, like merely contending that despite the commodities being abstracted from they have traits and these determine value. Of course, Marx is correct from this basis to diverge from economics that after this abstraction wishes to make the fundamental economic form depend on people's evaluation of these void commodities. Nonetheless, if the physical traits are abstracted from, then labour and so on are also casualties. The only possible near-exception would be to a 'divine' or 'psychic' labour, that is to one which produced the commodity without participating in it at all or needing to. This would mean that the commodity could exist without such interaction. However, otherwise labour is abstracted from when we mention an abstract commodity.

To abstract from the commodity is also to abstract from the things touching it.

Marx hence wishes to abstract from the physical traits of commodities, then phoenix-like to resurrect them as if they presented a solution. It is like wandering into a desert, as Jesus did, and then promptly wandering out rather than surveying the area. The physical traits of commodities are extinguished, then return covertly in the form of the category of 'physical interactions with these traits.' It is a contradiction of such 'communism,' not of capitalism.

As a result, to criticise it as ignoring the overall interactions of the commodity and world around it is not that misleading. These also play a part in the commodity, and specify its place. Hence, they are also important. However, one might wish to examine the question of production in more depth. If we have an image of production without an object, we of course do not have an image of 'production' in any strict economic sense. It cannot be derived from commodities as such. Nonetheless, we hence have an image of 'production' as an action which might seem to have an object, which is actually objectless. This could be profound in some ways. Hence, production becomes reducible to private motions. While this cannot be acknowledged economically, it is nonetheless a general situation. Hence, people act, albeit without an object, and this process constitutes 'production.' What is the precise nature of this process? In any case, it presents a level of detachment from the external which can easily be decisive. Hence, instead of acting on an external object, production becomes something that constitutes merely actions. Due to the actions being ultimately directed in a void direction, the outcome is hence not the object in a straightforward way, but rather internal stimulation or the stimulating experience of the action. From this, an object or external thing must arise or be ejaculated. Hence, in the midst of this exploration of the commodity, we also happen upon a different or less clearly economic conception of 'production,' which is devoid of its object. Is this confined to capitalism? While the particular form might be,

A given form of labour is familiar and known despite the object not always yet being present, then it is carried out. Hence, it is a process repeatable without a specific object. One could hammer in a nail, or hammer a thousand. The specific nail is not intrinsic to such an occupation. Hence, in a way you still have a generic action or format, followed by this encountering 'objects' and stimuli. In this sense, such labour always has in part the character of labour devoid of a specific object. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily posited socially as abstract labour, as labour without properties. It hence is instead close to this other form of labour which is without a direct object, yet not posited as abstract. Hence, on the other side is posited a human form of action, of which the 'commodity' is merely a result of the stimulation of the action. The commodity hence represents here simply the general emission of this human action. Marx occasionally seemed to draw on such things, positing that labour should be its own end and focussing on the fulfillment of labour. However, this was usually not posited as an aspect of labour independent from the commodity, which springs incidentally from it. As a result, we have instead the possibility - though one which capital discounts - of labour carried on for its own sake and with the commodity merely a result of the stimulation of labour. Hence, the form taken by it and the direction of it is decisive. This is of interest.

Nonetheless, we may also finish the central points with a copy of a comment on their blog:

Böhm-Bawerck deals with Marx's logical exposition, however this is in any case the main part which is relevant later on. As a result, the rest is mostly optional, or follows. If it didn't follow from an analysis of capital, then it would be irrelevant to it specifically. It would be a dishonest association. Hence, Böhm-Bawerck would merely be highlighting the heart of Marx's work.

In general, it is valid to note that other factors go into the commodity. This is a basic factor of capitalism, that other things are subordinated to commodities, and to act as appendages of them. Hence, other factors are also important, because they contribute to the commodity. However, this is a limitation, as these factors cannot be economically integrated or given a notable status. This was somewhat relevant in times of Luddism and so on, where people were forced to sacrifice machinery and so on in order to demand more of a place for themselves. In any case, it forms a limitation in an economy which wishes to centre around something, yet cannot generally do so.

As a result, we may also note the inability of the economy to truly revolve around the 'commodity,' rather than being limited in this by human social relations. Conversely, by abstracting from these human aspects it can easily lead humans to death - the more humans participate, the more they eviscerate themselves. It is like entering a chamber of toxic gas, which is fatal to humans. Nonetheless, the commodity cannot be simply transfigured into human categories, once it is given. It persistently shuns this, as if to maintain this toxicity. In this it deserves some respect.

While the commodity is a fragile thing, being shattered as soon as it is formed, it remains through that a stubborn creature which shrinks from human society. Perhaps it may turn out just as reluctant, in its own manner, to participate. Like Gandhi, it is disobedient though civil, and occasionally beckons humans to throw themselves 'lemming-like' to their deaths, and strips them of their existence. From this perspective, the commodity was like a virus, not merely a stable and acquiescent social commonplace.