Comments on: The Bird and the Spider http://poltergeist.blogsome.com/2006/09/09/the-bird-and-the-spider/ Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:41:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Paul B http://poltergeist.blogsome.com/2006/09/09/the-bird-and-the-spider/#comment-19 Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:53:41 +0100 http://poltergeist.blogsome.com/2006/09/09/the-bird-and-the-spider/#comment-19 I don't think Marx was implying that capital constitutes this relation, I think the specifically human nature (essence) of the labour process is related to the production of an imagined use value prior to the production of the material (or immaterial commodity). Neither machines nor animals can produce use values - they can produce material objects, but they need the guidance of human consciousness for those objects to embody a use value. This feature is a necessary grounding for social production - i.e. the possible communication of the use value between collaborating producers. Of course, it is possible through a coercive social production process for some of the associated to be left out of this communication - to be directed like beasts or machines (say some extreme cases of production line work), but we all recognise this precisely as a "de-humanisation" of labour. And in the case where this de-coupling of labour and consciousness of the intended use value is actual rather than ideological (i.e. its not just the usual bigotry by the bosses of "monkeys could do your job") then automation usually follows. I think the relation between man's nature (species-essence) to Nature (ecosphere) is just a re-statement of the historical materialist basics - i.e. man's nature is his\her needs, his\her needs are changed by labour process which also changes ecosphere of which s\he is a part - man's nature a historical product. I don’t think Marx was implying that capital constitutes this relation, I think the specifically human nature (essence) of the labour process is related to the production of an imagined use value prior to the production of the material (or immaterial commodity). Neither machines nor animals can produce use values - they can produce material objects, but they need the guidance of human consciousness for those objects to embody a use value. This feature is a necessary grounding for social production - i.e. the possible communication of the use value between collaborating producers. Of course, it is possible through a coercive social production process for some of the associated to be left out of this communication - to be directed like beasts or machines (say some extreme cases of production line work), but we all recognise this precisely as a “de-humanisation” of labour. And in the case where this de-coupling of labour and consciousness of the intended use value is actual rather than ideological (i.e. its not just the usual bigotry by the bosses of “monkeys could do your job”) then automation usually follows.
I think the relation between man’s nature (species-essence) to Nature (ecosphere) is just a re-statement of the historical materialist basics - i.e. man’s nature is his\her needs, his\her needs are changed by labour process which also changes ecosphere of which s\he is a part - man’s nature a historical product.

]]> by: erik http://poltergeist.blogsome.com/2006/09/09/the-bird-and-the-spider/#comment-13 Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:10:10 +0100 http://poltergeist.blogsome.com/2006/09/09/the-bird-and-the-spider/#comment-13 Paul, you are probably right that I try to read too much into the passage on Milton and the Singer. Perhaps they are involved in labour-processes. But it was the concept on "nature" that cought my attention. Miltons writing is an "expression" of his nature, but with the architect (introduced in <em>Capital</em> well after the introduction of the capitalist relation of production) it is not a question of a simple "expression". I think this might be more clear if I include the passage that precede the quote above: <blockquote>Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human.</blockquote> It is not only an expression of, but also a relation to, nature. It seemed to me that Marx was implying that capital was constitutive of such a reflective relation. But it might be stretching it. Paul, you are probably right that I try to read too much into the passage on Milton and the Singer. Perhaps they are involved in labour-processes. But it was the concept on “nature” that cought my attention. Miltons writing is an “expression” of his nature, but with the architect (introduced in Capital well after the introduction of the capitalist relation of production) it is not a question of a simple “expression”. I think this might be more clear if I include the passage that precede the quote above:

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human.

It is not only an expression of, but also a relation to, nature. It seemed to me that Marx was implying that capital was constitutive of such a reflective relation. But it might be stretching it.

]]> by: Paul B http://poltergeist.blogsome.com/2006/09/09/the-bird-and-the-spider/#comment-10 Sat, 09 Sep 2006 18:57:55 +0100 http://poltergeist.blogsome.com/2006/09/09/the-bird-and-the-spider/#comment-10 Hello again Erik (we met at the Summer School in July). Enjoying the blog so far, though I have to confess a fair amount of it is a little over my head, so pardon my ignorance if I ask stupid questions. In the case of the bird vs. the spider, I'm not sure I see a direct contradiction. In the first quote Marx is dealing with the distinction between productive and unproductive labour processes - there is no imputation that either Milton or the singer are not engaged in a production process. The singer is unlike the bird in that the song of the former is a use value - i.e. a product of human labour (albeit mental) and thus transferable between author, singer and listeners. The bird's song however is a product of evolution (though scientists have recently started to argue for the existence of learned songs amongst birds - even regional differences, but lets not get too sidetracked). The separation of the production of the use value (i.e. design, specification) and the material production of the commodity that embodies that use value is a necessary condition for social labour. The spider cannot build webs to sell to other spiders because it is not aware of the concept of a web as a use value distinct from its living activity of survival. I have an unfinished text based on my earlier "production of use values" fragment that you may find useful in clarifying some of these issues. If you have access to my email address as entered into the "make a comment" form on this blog, then drop me a line and I'll send you a copy. cheers, Paul Hello again Erik (we met at the Summer School in July). Enjoying the blog so far, though I have to confess a fair amount of it is a little over my head, so pardon my ignorance if I ask stupid questions.

In the case of the bird vs. the spider, I’m not sure I see a direct contradiction. In the first quote Marx is dealing with the distinction between productive and unproductive labour processes - there is no imputation that either Milton or the singer are not engaged in a production process. The singer is unlike the bird in that the song of the former is a use value - i.e. a product of human labour (albeit mental) and thus transferable between author, singer and listeners. The bird’s song however is a product of evolution (though scientists have recently started to argue for the existence of learned songs amongst birds - even regional differences, but lets not get too sidetracked).

The separation of the production of the use value (i.e. design, specification) and the material production of the commodity that embodies that use value is a necessary condition for social labour. The spider cannot build webs to sell to other spiders because it is not aware of the concept of a web as a use value distinct from its living activity of survival.

I have an unfinished text based on my earlier “production of use values” fragment that you may find useful in clarifying some of these issues. If you have access to my email address as entered into the “make a comment” form on this blog, then drop me a line and I’ll send you a copy.

cheers,

Paul

]]>