Critiques of labour in value

Value is the form of capitalistic products, which also transforms the process of 'production.'

However, the form in which this value is depicted can vary. Marx's formulation is subject to several, potentially valid objections.

Further, 'value' is not an organic form, rather it arises from the form of the social process. This is not restricted to official 'production,' of course. Nonetheless, Marx stresses that value is inorganic, and hence must arise from the social process. This insight is not unique to Marx, of course; most observe that economic categories are a social matter. The capitalist economic categories are premised on several traits of the social process, which allow people to face each other in the atomised yet unified mode characteristic of capitalism.

In dealing with people's conduct within capitalism, capitalism itself might seem slightly relaxed. It does not, of course, tell people that they must spend money in one way or another, or that it represents anything. This is merely a postulate of ideologists. Ideologists also try to take issue with the 'metaphysical' nature of value - as if money just 'happened' to be an inherent property of things. It is not, hence the 'metaphysical' appearance. Hence, all that ideologists are doing is taking a social process that happens to occur, and taking its treatment of forms as inherent to them. The coin just is money, the spending of money is for one purpose or represents a certain thing. In truth, money is merely an emblem of the society as a force against the individual or concrete. Further, human society must necessarily relate to this capitalistic form with slight uncertainty - does capitalism really have any inherent concern over their conduct being 'ethical' or in one set of moral norms?

Hence, the 'metaphysical' nature of value is the pseudo-concretisation of social forms as an alternate or replacement form of the object. Hence, it is already implicit in things like the socially determined nature of money. As such, the 'social forms' encroach on and seek to replace the objects with something empty. They hence also seek to do this with humans, forming a seeming 'community.'

The ideologist merely wants to evade the 'metaphysical' so that they can excuse their own unthinking positivism.

The liberal positivist finds a systematic criticism too 'metaphysical' anyway, because the liberal is only interested in the immediate spurs and stimuli provided by a society which they positivistically accept. Hence, the liberal views a society of shifting hopes and dreams within it, not of 'absolute' forces. In the process, this 'hoping' becomes itself an abstraction that appears 'absolute.' As such, to enquire too far here seems to disturb this image, and hence 'metaphysical.' To criticise something as metaphysical in this sense is merely to say that it falls outside of their limited 'image' of the world, does not appear there. Their interest is in 'reform,' and indeed anything systematic is not understood - it is not merely reforms. Further, it appears 'dry' - 'reform' takes its momentum from positivist takes on social aspects, while the systematic eschews that momentum or does not start from the same place as liberal 'action' and 'excitement.' The liberal considers things within the system, but rarely the system itself.

Yet there are valid criticisms to be made, distinct from liberal prudishness.

- -

Qualms

- -

Social labour-time

Marx wants value to be determined by the total socially necessary average labour time, with labour hence considered as an abstraction. However, labour is not posited as a uniform, social mass without value. Hence, this cannot occur as an external relation of determination. It is labour necessary to produce a value that is relevant - 'value' is the telos of labour. Hence, it is a problematic category to base value on.

- -

Other factors

From a discussion, which touched on the criticisms made by Böhm-Bawerck:

As far as Marx opening with the commodity, it needn't be seen as stringently necessary. In discussing use-value, for instance, we are also implicitly discussing production - which is where some commodities are used. Hence, it isn't a strictly focussed opening or one that can exclude others stringently, or other ways of giving such an account. The category of production is introduced as something derived, as a result, and must be portrayed in this way throughout the account.

Interestingly, however, within this schema production and such can only appear as adjuncts of the commodity or as a result of analysing the commodity. As occurs. In this sense, Böhm-Bawerck's observation can have some validity, namely that many other things can be derived from and play a part in the commodity. Hence, so far as they are concerned Marx might make a valid point, nonetheless they then make a jump which is uncalled for from the commodity itself. Hence, this is akin to criticising the commodity as a starting-point, with some validity perhaps. It might have been clearer to start with production, then investigate how this is altered in commodities.

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.

 - -

 Receptivity

Value appears receptive, or other objects and processes can replace your own active process. 'Sociality' is here posited as generic submission of individuals to the empty core of capitalist society. Hence, this sociality of value appears as a general trait of it. It involves a situation of 'receptivity' where the one person's process is erased in order to unify with another's - your activity and existence is replaced 'seamlessly' by someone else's. Hence, it might not seem apt that it is restricted to 'production.' The act of production is not by itself formulated as being in a social form appropriate to the capitalistic situation. Rather, this is primarily a property of relations.

Of course, even Marx goes in this direction on occasion.

This point might seem straightforward, however it does take issue with the formulation of value as primarily a matter of labour and not of more properly 'labour formulated as part of a society organised according to value.'

- -

What's labour?

The labour process in capitalism typically takes place in a way directed by the interests of capital. However, this hence seems to give capital a role in 'labour.' Hence, capital would also play an active role in the process which 'determines value' - even if it is seemingly excluded from this. If labour is involved, then is not the force which directs social labour and drives it also a determining factor? This is a complex question. Although capitalists function only through capital, nonetheless social labour is conditioned and given direction by capital. As a result, it might be misleading to hypostatise the simple category of 'labour' onto labour in capitalism as if capitalist labour is still the same as labour in general. The labourers who would direct value are themselves directed. The category of 'labour' by itself hence rarely appears without other forces integral to it. This objection does have some significance, although it is important to be careful not to distort it into a more conventional dogma. Due to the 'determination' of value featuring several intertwined or directed forces, it would be misleading to speak of only one as being the sole 'determinant of value.' While rhetorically inconvenient, this is nonetheless the case. However, the classes still have relations to each other which are part of a capitalist system. Though the relations' form of appearance as a relation through objects is interesting, the fundamental objection to this class situation should remain the same due to its basis in the concrete class system as a human social structure. It is easy for people to reduce the criticism of capitalism to a portrayal where it seems like man primarily relates to objects when this is only a misleading appearance which is capitalistic in nature. It is clear why this portrayal may be limited, due to its basis in a capitalist mode of thought. Although it may be called 'Marxist-humanist' or 'German philosophy,' it is important to recall the centrality of the 'human factor' and structure of social relations to anti-capitalist critique within socialist thought.

- -

Multiculturalism or...

There are valid reasons for bringing liberal multiculturalism into question. While it proclaims diversity, it only ultimately wishes for all cultures to surrender their unique or fervent characteristics to take a place in a society governed by the mores of capitalist society. This multiculturalism seeks to manufacture a consensus between various cultures on the basis of their role in capitalist society. This is then represented as a faithful representation of their culture, although it is merely a culture reduced to an indistinguished moment of 'capitalist society.' There is much to object to in such multiculturalism.

However, what is to be opposed to 'multiculturalism' of this sort?

There is a recent trend of opposing Western multiculturalism in favour of some construct of 'white' or 'Western' culture. This is occasionally due to considerations like the theory of 'white genocide,' which confusingly involves little actual genocide. The term 'white genocide' is typically a term used by 'white supremacist' racists and fellow-travellers to glibly reclaim objections that they are genocidal or xenophobic - they appropriate the left's language of victimhood, and use it uncritically in their own favour, even though modern leftist rhetoric is not fit for any purpose other than extinction. These anti-Islamic and 'Western' ideas are less exotic than they seem: is it truly extreme to encourage the West to take measures against Islam and Muslim Arabs when the Middle East has encountered continual invasion for spurious reasons alongside the West's persistent support for Israel? Of course, despite the innocuous fear of 'white genocide' and claims that it is 'okay to be white,' this conceit might well surprise the Middle East where the 'white' Americans have considered themselves so far from oppressed as to freely bomb and pillage Middle Eastern cities. The 'alt-right' consider it radical and offensive to say 'deus vult,' when in truth the West's foreign policy in the Middle East has been invasive for years with or without orders from Pope Francis.

While multiculturalism can have its problems, it maintains the independence of politics as a field from any particular capitalistic culture. Politics is not used merely to serve as a bulwark for some 'Western' culture. Further, this act of not setting politics up as the mere functionary of culture would allow for serious discourse on the more fundamental matters of class, economy and political structure. To dedicate politics to some Western reactionary construct of 'culture' would be almost as much a regression as to dedicate politics to leftist identity politics and cancel culture. It also serves to distract from a serious comprehension of social and political issues. On this ground, liberal multiculturalism comes up wanting, and represents only the persistent tendency of capitalism to abstract from concrete differences and foist the homogeneity of money upon society.

Hence, it is important to be careful in condemning multiculturalism. It is important that in attacking some form of it we do not merely do so on behalf of one or other culture, but from a more comprehensively critical perspective. While there may be a 'culture war,' the real war is not on behalf of one culture or other, but against the rigged social system.

Can dialectics break a Cartesian plane?

Dialectics doesn't even have a plane, you a**hole.

So you think you're reading this? Fascist!

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "What an offensive thing to say! You must be a fascist!" 

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "Whoever you are, how dare you say that! I assume you're a fascist?"  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "How could you utter such a thing? By my troth, you must be a fascist!"  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "You didn't add a trigger warning! FASCIST."  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "That's a strong opinion. You must be a fascist!" And so on.

We aren't a fan of banning members from political organisations for merely some assertion concerning facts, like Ken Livingstone's assertion about German history. It's not a partisan assertion, it is a neutral statement that does not necessitate any particular response. The assumption that a person like Livingstone is secretly evil and a budding supervillain for saying it seems unfounded. We're also not a fan of most political organisations, which helps. These bans tend to thrive on an atmosphere where emotion seems more important than politics, which is indeed most political organisations. This seems apt when the political realm is generally marginalised, however politics contains facets which cannot be comprehended in such a way.

However, Ken Livingstone's suspension from Labour was one of the more ridiculous bans of late. It wasn't for a usual, controversial topic. No, it was for a trivial suggestion about occasional early Nazi collaboration with Zionists. Well, the Nazis later invaded the Soviet Union, and often condemned their take on socialism. Yet they co-operated with them, even starting World War II in co-operation with the Soviet Union. Yet people don't seem offended at this. In lieu of considering Livingstone, he is merely hounded out based on vague insinuation.

Of course, the Labour Party had ties to the Israeli 'Labour Party,' which recently condemned Corbyn for his criticism of Israel. They also have the Friends of Israel groups, which doesn't help matters. So them getting strict about this while allowing pro-Israel factions to stay is a slightly absurd figure. Okay, so Labour is disunited. Some Labourites supported and still support senseless war in Iraq, yet they aren't all banned. Indeed, it might seem like that decision was quite recent. However, in the light of these Labour escapades, what we totally couldn't allow was - Ken Livingstone. This might seem farcical, however people can reduce almost any political current to farce when they sniff wind of alleged 'anti-Semitism.' All of a sudden, it's the height of anti-communism, it's fascism, it's in brief pure villainy. Few labels are as trivialised as being branded a villain by the usual leftist.

Quite frankly, if the liberal Labour wish to make their administrative decisions like this, perhaps they should stick to a 'laissez-faire' platform.

Let us cut to the chase. So, we have decided on a new rule for this blog. You are not allowed to assert that the state of Transnistria invaded England in 1066. You will also be harshly reprimanded for suggesting that the state of Croatia had the majority of its population convert to Buddhism in 975. Finally, as an unspoken rule, you are not to say that Nuri as-Said was overthrown in 1941.

We trust that commenters will do all of these things, so that we can follow up with a concerned post involving the fear of a scandalous culture running rampant in the comment section.

You might also wish to go further and join a political group which posts contemptible, dull pseudo-political agitation on social media sites, by which I mean basically any political group on social media sites. Then post incriminating material that people can screenshot. There are clearly not enough incriminating screenshots available on social media at the moment, because social media is dull, so the media is having to grasp at straws. Perhaps someone who believes that journalists' lives matter should try to help them, by providing convenient material. All the same, the number of people who believe that is justifiably shrinking.

'Cultural Marxism'

 'Cultural Marxism' is a conspiratorial agenda alleged to determine Western culture. This hence appears to represent an 'adapted' form of Marxism. It is a common bête noire in entrenched alt-right groupings.

It can hence seem akin to a mere over-dramatic accusation using 'Marxism' as a pantomime villain, therefore a form of merely continuing prejudice around the Cold War and Marxism. However, speaking of a 'cultural Marxist establishment' is not altogether misled. As 'Marxism' has taken on a form more in keeping with 'establishment' liberalism, it has also tended to avoid 'dry' economic issues in favour of 'cultural' and social justice issues favoured by liberalism. It would be valid to remark that this is not 'Marxism' in a strict sense, and is more akin to a variant of liberalism. However, this also raises the question of how and why Marxist categories are quickly repurposed to serve the agenda of the powerful liberal elite.

The term 'cultural Marxism' can seem like merely a generic conservative slur. That is a possible use. However, there are many summaries of 'cultural Marxism' which attempt to draw more clear parallels and carefully compare the two. This kind of comparison does reflect a form of politics that has taken root in the establishment, a recapitulation of 'Marxist' categories in the context of a focus on demographic groups and liberal politics. In that sense, 'cultural Marxism' often overstates the influence of 'Marxist ideology' in upholding the mores of Western capitalism. This is often done in order to repeat simplistic Cold War archetypes. However, it is nonetheless true that a 'cultural' and demographic-focussed use of Marxist tropes and rhetoric has come to entrench itself somewhat in the Western liberal establishment.

Primary

The 'content' of a text is its centre and the stance that it is committed to, so something which is merely 'represented' or 'formal' without reflecting content is hence actually something opposed by the text. Hence, it relates to content negatively. The illusion that this 'formalism' can take a central place, as such, is merely the illusion of a viewpoint which is at the same time inherently not a viewpoint - an ambiguity dear to apathetic liberalism. Hence, it is the 'hope' for a sort of 'moderateness' where all political ideas give up their partisan or fervent nature. This may be a 'hope,' but it is not of course a concrete political viewpoint or situation. All usual 'conservatism' moves in this direction as well, in its hope to abscond political ideas (in favour of positivism) while still seeming political. Hence, there seems like an influx of 'formalism,' however it is a tautology to assert that this is not an actual stance. It is rather merely a result of the interaction of for instance political content with apolitical 'tolerance,' which through it tries to appear political. 'Formalism' is merely a negative assertion that tries to avoid content and ultimately maintain the status quo if anything, yet to actually assert something apart from the 'content' of the text is to assert something that is opposed.

A text can seem 'deep' in a real sense, or in a received sense. In the real sense, it is an introspective complex of internal connections. It hence takes a 'systematic' approach where aspects of the text are linked together to form a unity. However, this merely implies that the single author of the text concretely holds to their individuality, which is advocated and realised. This is usually not the case, certainly not in a capitalistic economy which was inimical to it. It is nonetheless the logical development of telos in the context of a text. The 'received' sense of depth is merely when the text seems to have apparent 'implications' which are deep - that is, when the internal connections are merely posited as made by the reader, instead of a part of the text itself. Hence, the reader themselves brings the text into artificial connections, then this seems like 'depth.' This is akin to a riddle-maker, or one who wishes to chase their own tail. These are the main senses in which a text can have 'depth.'

A text can aim for 'depth,' however this must actually form a trait of the person themselves. Hence, through positing it as merely a 'textual' task, the person externalises their own traits and hence constructs obstacles to this 'depth.' They hence seem to encounter themselves as another.

There is the apparent existence of critique of a text merely for 'length.' This is a lie. It seems like formalism, however 'formalism' is fine with a text so long as it has the right 'formal traits' or overall aesthetic. Hence, it does not attack a text for merely existing at some point. This is not, in itself, to say anything of the text's traits. Hence, it is a sort of vulgarised, pretend 'formalism'. It seems to hence ignore not only content, also formalism's focus. It hence is to criticise a text 'blindly,' without reference to the text. Hence, it is akin to a 'rig,' an action which only seems to concern the text due to a pre-defined action applied to it. This is a nuisance, however not a valid stance in this context.

There are other forms of pseudo-formalism. If a text is aimed at reception, it hence tries 'formalism.' However, this is not a coherent formalism. Rather, it is open to all manner of conflicting demands and preferences. It is hence empty, while aiming at a deceptive 'appearance.' However, while formalism aims for 'form,' this is nonetheless an attempt at a coherent aim. In lieu of this, one may have only an aim without a coherent form. It never congealed into a concrete aim, hence it also seems to occur only via pre-defined or 'rigged' actions. Hence, the economy takes such a form in this way or other. Further, 'accessibility' is to evade criticising a text by citing someone else's (usually hypothetical) preference. It is automatically invalid: the author was seemingly capable of finishing it, so this is in no way an inherent trait of the text. People have different viewpoints which can't neatly tie into such a category. Other such forms often centre around arbitrary 'roles,' where things like 'good' and 'evil' are to be portrayed in a given balance regardless of what they might involve.

However, texts which are 'deep' will tend to eschew 'formalism' of a general sort. Nonetheless, they will seem highly discriminating around form. It is 'taken up' in the vortex of internal relations, which leads to each element having meaning. Hence, it all comes to relate to the central content.

Poem from earlier, slightly edited

I'm sure everyone is trying to act sprightly right now, so we can't have Wyatt as our latest in artistic decoration. Instead, here's a re-worked form of an earlier poem.

/scar

0. 

Near a night-club,

The way the stars were,
and the palm trees sketching outlines along their spectre,
was almost
a song over
the loud blare of a wordless noise
repeating itself.

**

As the long night went on
a word appeared in the clouds,
and it said,
the plait of flat lights in the sky
was an illumination,
a painting.

**

The people did not stir,
but kept hopefully to their dance
hoping wildly that it might be
something else entirely –
the plaintive, detached glimmer they ignored
and shunned.

**

They liked loudness, yet not the silence
in which you may observe the glimmer
of a hopeful stone.
The chaos of a wild
evening ploughed through the music they heard -
meaning removed for dance beats,
hollowed.
And this dance was their only heartfelt art.

**

A quaint evening’s chorus
was made of plain choirboys
with nothing to say, and too many
ways to say it. They were lying.

But so it was, for they praised God,
but only looked to the crowd.
One might think them deceptive.
The exultantly ordinary laity never would.

Some people would be bored when you first
decried Valentine’s Day.

**

Yet, the stars
rung on with a clear hope, if you looked,
while the clouds almost whispered:
"Silence, stillness,
coldness,
strife is the noise of others
making senseless noise:
it is not your demesne,"
slowly, quietly.

the stars sung something like, 'Holy, Holy, Holy,'

starlit trees held in their light near the street,
walking down a pavement staring apart, and hoping to get seen.

The stars had a music of their own,
quite different from that of others,
yet it was no classical music,
it was real.
The light of
Valentine’s Day moons is like a strange ode,
where the day's halo rings on indefinitely
after the clock strikes, for the night is
all its denizens care for. The moon as if to say,

“Is it a chore of constancy, or the rush
for love without a face? The palest shade of night
shall not shine tonight.”
And so it never did.
There was no such special night.
It was a forgery.
And there were no stars, either, not
even of the vulgar, media kind.

The only truth was in the music of stars and of the spheres
that stared at them as out of a window,

But in capital, ordinarily, people moved closer
to capital, and thus attained some success,
and anything else was alternative, detached and rude.

The way past the open gazes
led to a secluded lilt of leaves and sky,
almost transmuted
seen at night.
We may hold the world to account if they did not listen.
In a decentred system, no-one else could ever be law.
Yet perhaps the moonlight sings, far away.

2. Half-light

Quiet oaks
of a Swindonian garden might render
in opal when in focus, yet
the sky still reflects itself in a distant pond.
The sun is a shadowed eye.
It is silent. It is like abandoned factories,
which call out, ghost-like, in a dour town,
as if to display a way out of this.

3. Creep Song.

Wait! Is there a sweeter slumber in the grave below,
or in the light of thine eyes? Mistress, tell me,
I need to know. Somebody told me. If I were
more perjured I should cry, ‘Calumny!’ and
no doubt be met with sympathy. What, then,
should leave your creep so isolated and serious?

For Hoxha is oft hated, I have seen in most encounters,
I have had with those who were not creeps,
And if I were to hope with a hope
that formed bunkers, would I not
then be called rogue? Aye, this occupies me.
But what else occupies me? Well, the Bible and God.

I am alike all of my kind,
a kin to all of my cause.
When people
decried Tarquin's treatment of Lucrece, then truly
could I say, “I am the table.” In feminism, I am the aggressor.

Yet am I not the victim of a label? Fie, fie,
as even Shakespeare may have said, indicating by it their feminism,
it is victim blaming, to hold against this creep
the rape culture of an age, which admittedly
might just involve me. Yet if a creep likes something,
no doubt its ‘friends’ must separate it from the creep.
In this way creeps are like all subversives.

Their claims are false, for in light we are
and may play with light.
But shall I
give my view on light, or would this not
rather offend the respectable religions
that you have held to?
So I must get your reply,
if I am to go on in this light.

To seek radically is to go to the root of the matter,
and the root of the person,
the person without embellishment.
Let your vision free,
that it may improve your paintings,
and further your illustrative economic diagrams.
Let not your diagrams remain uncared for.

Though it is not a fashion. Some say it is
a fashion to sigh, but it is rather plain.
One must rather detach, and seek another thing,
and then not sigh for what is left behind. But
to enjoy it is another thing. Where is the love
to shelter creeps?

**

So, you see,
Brunei was a function of Tokyo,
Canada was a function of the USA,
Britain was also.
So far as you are concerned,
they must all blur to one thing,
to something empty, a flag pinned
to sanctify the profane.

A narrow path
would not have looked good on a priest’s
credit card.

If drugs are a function of peer pressure,
then people liked them in saying so.

Brooding,
half-realised shapes - hopes for escape - were strewn on the walls
of the no-doubt asylum where a creep grows up,
condemned there for punishment. But do not
most ‘jocks’ and Biebers resemble Creep’s detractors?
So we are circled around,
by wardens in many shapes and sizes,
teachers or boy bands,
all these are the same.

Selena Gomez
may claim to have lost their virginity. I don’t consider it worth it.
Yet trysts are made on a whim, and value. To be a creep is to be revolutionary.

4. Year Zero. (ZeroNowhere.)

What need have we for the sound
of contented words, lacking content?
Our words must hang like silence, in darkness:
mysterious and obscure, yet sublime.
The years pass as a hollow pantomime.
Five years of 'Ellie Goulding' planted
the seeds for 'Sia,' and by that point
people may well have clamoured for
more obscure screeds on reds and 1984,
instead they got a Taylor Swift record,
which might well not tell them anything.
That’s where we come in - if anywhere at all.
Like the stillness of long-empty hallways, and quiet speculation,
socialism is most certain in silent contemplation.

5. Savage (unedited.)

The promises of
yesterday are like a glassed-off
garden’s grey shadow.

If you wish, you may
never be seen again, but shush
before you’re tortured.

It is a brief note
that the day is wan or in spring,
but a quiet gaze.