Capital Redefined

* Book: Hosseini, S A Hamed; Gills, Barry K. (2024) : Capital Redefined: A Commonist Value Theory for Liberating Life, Rethinking Globalizations/ Routledge, 2024 doi

URL = https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf

Contextual Quote

1.

"The axiological turn is about giving primacy to the ‘true value’ that emanates from life and nourishes life. The true sources of value are all in commons form. Life itself is a commons, perhaps the most fundamental of them all after the cosmos. Life is a unity emerging out of a web of diversity. It is dynamic and in constant motion, cyclical yet self-enduring and self-flourishing, if its boundaries are not transgressed and if its capacities to thrive are not undermined, especially ironically in the name of ‘value’!"

2.

"Capital, as a form of social relations and relationship with labor, land, and natural resources, is inherently antagonistic to oikos, a non-capitalist care-based mode of creativity. In the historical encounter between everexpansionist capital and oikos, each representing two essentially different modes of value construction, the historical tendency is that capital annihilates oikos. These two forms of social relations and social modes of existence cannot coexist peacefully."

- S.A. Hamed and Barry K. Gils [1]

Description

From the publisher:

"Capital Redefined presents a unique perspective on the nature of “capital,” departing from the prevailing reductionist accounts. Hosseini and Gills offer an expanded perspective on Marxian value theory by addressing its main limitations and building their own integrative value theory. They argue that the current understanding of “value” must be re-examined and liberated from its subservient ties to capital while acknowledging the ways in which capital appropriates value. This is achieved by differentiating between “fetish value” created by capital and “true value” generated through various commons-based forms of coexistence.

The authors propose a defetishization of value by rejecting the commonly accepted idea of its objectivity. They introduce their “commonist value theory,” which redefines capital as both the product and process of perverting the fundamental commoning causes of true value into sources of fetish value. Capital is theorized through a “modular” framework, where multiple intersecting processes constitute a comprehensive power structure, a “value regime,” representing an unprecedented degree of the domination of capital over life. Their theory reconciles two apparently incompatible views on the notion of value. One view encompasses all inputs involved in capitalist value production and conflates intrinsic and commodity values. The other warns against this conflation as it treats capital as an entity tightly associated only with commodity production and wage labor.

The authors believe that establishing alternative forms of value creation based on normative principles of living in commons is crucial as an analytical base for criticizing existing power structures and economic systems."

(https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf)

Contents

From the authors:

"In Chapter 2, we identify four key limitations in traditional Marxian ideas of capital, given the current state of the capitalist world system and the various global crises we face. We also offer potential solutions to overcome these limitations. Each of these limitations has been detected and addressed by a different line of reflexive criticism in critical scholarship. However, interestingly, each one corresponds to an irreducible source of ‘true value’ (or a fundamental commons) as introduced above. We aim to bring these critical reflections together through our proposed modular framework since all four ultimate sources of true value are closely intertwined, and their interactions require an integrative approach. This integrative approach, which we call the ‘commonist framework,’ is distinctive in the sense that it attempts to outline a new definition of capital, considering it as ‘fetish value regime,’ which makes the development of a more coherent praxeology possible.

In Chapters 3 and 4, we expound on the ‘architecture of capital’ in the form of ideally constructed modules of (inter/in)dependent social (infra-)processes and (meta-) mechanisms. Capital is analytically deconstructed into its constituting processes (modules), and its evolution is discussed closely in association with alter- and counter-processes, and thus perceived more dynamically rather than as a fixed notion, a singular mode of social relations, or a singular process. Chapter 3, by taking a critical realist perspective, discusses the metatheoretical bases of the model, preparing the ground for Chapter 4 to introduce the commonist modular framework.

Chapter 5 revisits and reconstructs Marxian value theory by drawing on the commonist modular framework. We argue that ‘labor’ is the result of the decommonization of (more than) human creative power through abstraction and appropriation processes. To clarify, ‘real abstraction’ in the Marxian tradition refers to the process of extracting and reducing complex social relations to a simple measure of value, such as labor time. We will expand this notion by distinguishing between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ abstractions.

‘Primary abstraction’ creates labor and labor power outside capitalist production relations, while ‘secondary abstraction’ results in abstract labor and productive capitalist value represented by exchange value and surplus value. By delineating the two types of real abstraction, we offer potential solutions to disagreements over the suitability of Marxian value theory in the context of post-industrial capitalism.

Chapter 6, drawing on the commonist modular framework, examines recent debates around the capacity of Marxian labor theory of value (LTV) in adequately theorizing affective work, automation, and the ecological profile of capital. The chapter provides an overview of these major debates and discusses how the commonist perception of value can help overcome some of the underlying confusion."

Excerpts

Preface

From the preface,

S.A. Hamed and Barry K. Gils:

"This book Capital Redefined proposes a novel approach to theorizing capital and ‘capitalism’ by incorporating the ‘normativity of life’ into its critical analysis and recognizing the absence of inherent true value in capital. It challenges the prevailing belief that capital is the ultimate source of worth and redirects our attention to the flourishing of life and the preservation and enhancement of its thriving capacities. This transformative perspective calls for a fundamental reevaluation of our socio-economic and political systems, aiming to transcend the destructive contradictions and deficiencies of capitalism.

Redefining capital necessitates redefining ‘value’ in the process. Although the notion of value has been neglected in most modern social theories (Pitts, 2021), Marx’s assertion that “value forms the foundation of capital” (Marx, 1993: 421) remains as relevant as ever. This, however, raises the question of how to redefine capital while also acknowledging the value of socio-ecological relations in shaping it. These relations should not be seen simply as a context or precondition, but rather as a set of interrelated causal mechanisms that are embedded in and against capital. Merely contemplating the socioecological, cultural, and (geo-)political dimensions of capitalist functionality as the vital conditions for economic exploitation, without theorizing their re/ construction in the process of capitalist value production, is inadequate to grasp the complex challenges posed by capital, and the prospects for profound conflicts and paradigm shifts.

Redefining capital and value entails revisiting and expanding upon Marxian conceptions while deploying a new perspective inspired by a new discourse on the ‘commons’ and ‘commoning’ developed here in the form of a ‘modular conceptual framework.’ This framework, built on a critical realist ontology, conceptualizes capital as an ensemble of multiple interrelated socio-historical (infra)processes, rather than as an analytically isolated inner structure of ‘the capitalist system’ (see Chapters 3 and 4). This perspective goes beyond the limitations of productivism, economism, and the post-value turn while emphasizing intersectional and ecological dimensions and complex relationships with post-capitalist alternatives and transformative movements. This book reflects on the strengths, potentialities, and limitations of the Marxian tradition of understanding capital in terms of value. It then argues for expanding on these limitations and proposes relevant solutions by presenting a new normative value theory that prioritizes the sources of life as commons and their intrinsic value. Thus, offering a commonist value theory.

This theory encompasses both critical and analytical elements. According to this new theory, the ultimate sources of what we call ‘true value’ are precisely the organized life’s condiciones sine quibus non, which under capitalist relations are perverted into the causal sources of what we call ‘fetish value’ as the essence of capital (Hosseini, 2022a).

True value is sustainably (re)produced only through the commoning modes of living and interconnecting. A commons, whether material or immaterial, naturally occurring or manufactured, is a living organism made up of communities of interconnected and interdependent entities. In normal conditions, the activities of these entities borrow their vitality from the entirety of the commons and, in return, contribute to the survival and thriving of the whole, inclusive of all individual (living) entities. One for all, all for one, and unity in diversity – this is how true value is regenerated.

Under the supremacy of capital, however, the so-called modern civilization emerged as a development through which not only were commons expropriated, but also de-commonized, losing their essence as commons.

Capitalism has now become capitality, a life-killing mode deeply coded into the genetics of our daily lives, thanks to its axiological primacy. Only a profound (re-) commonization of our modern socio-ecological relations can liberate life from the immense grip and power of capital; a transformative process that holds the potential to effectively transcend the predicament of mere survival, while also transforming ubiquitous capitalist relations."

(https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf)

Considerations on Value

S.A. Hamed and Barry K. Gils:

"Four points are worth mentioning here:

(1) The polarity between labor and nature/ecology is one of the significant contradictions of capital. Labor, in its ‘natural form,’ when considered outside the confines of capitalist social structures, is a manifestation of humanity’s innate creative potential, a faculty that has evolved naturally but has been ‘abstracted’ and profoundly alienated from its natural context by capitalism. In this book, we will argue that this dualism needs to be resolved at the normative level since the two (when unalienated) are not only ontologically entwined but must also restore their lost integration to allow a meaningful transition beyond capital. However, we do not suggest equating or hybridizing the two in our critical ‘analyses’ of capital, as their effects on capitalist value are distinct. We will explore these effects in more detail later in Chapters 5 and 6.

(2) We need to differentiate between ‘labor’ and ‘creative power’ (or the ‘humans’ capacity to be creative’) beyond producing the necessary means of subsistence. Work is one of the socially natural forms of humans’ creative power that is reified into ‘labor’ and, thereby, commodity and value forms (made abstract and homogeneous) under the capitalist mode of production, as Marx’s value theory entails. In this way, we also distance ourselves from productivist interpretations of Marx without marginalizing commodity production (see also Vitale, 2020).

(3) Although we argue for closely relating the definition of ‘true value’ to ‘well-living,’ i.e., good life, consciously and conscientiously defined by the associations/communities of free commoners (Hosseini, 2018b), the proposition would still be ‘crude’ as a practical approach if we consider achieving the communal good life as an ultimate goal, i.e., as an end in itself, while ignoring the necessity of what Marx terms as the “transcendence of human self-estrangement” (Marx et al., 1988, p. 102) as well as what we may call ‘existential liberation,’ that is, ‘exploring and living up to the purpose of Existence.’

(4) Although we may occasionally, loosely, and interchangeably use terms like ‘organized life,’ ‘lifeworld(s),’ ‘earth system,’ and ‘web of life,’ we are mindful of their specific disciplinary and theoretical connotations, which may limit their compatibilities with our critical social theory.

Therefore, we introduce the concept of ‘life-domain’ as the interconnected system of all living things and their environment on planet Earth.

Life-domain encompasses the biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere and includes all forms of life, from microorganisms to plants and animals. The concept of life-domain emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all living things and highlights the importance of maintaining the health and balance of the natural world for the well-being of (more than) human societies and future generations. The life-domain includes human social systems and cultural practices that shape and are shaped by the living world. It is a holistic domain that encompasses all domains of life, including social, economic, and ecological dimensions of (more-than-human) life, without ignoring their relative autonomy. The use of the word ‘domain’ is intended to imply both control and power relations but also responsibility and stewardship. The life-domain, unlike the web of life and the like, is more inclusive of the sociology and anthropology of conflictual power relations."

(https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf)

Fetish Value

S.A. Hamed and Barry K. Gils:

"In this book, we introduce the term ‘fetish value’ to distinguish our conception of value from that of classical political economy and its Marxian critique, encompassing Marx’s idea of (commodity) value but extending beyond it, as we will elaborate. Fetish value should not be confused with Marx’s ‘fictitious value’ that refers to ‘fictitious capital’ as its embodiment versus ‘real value’ embodied in productive capital. While keeping the notion of value within the contours of production relations, David Harvey instead prefers the notion of ‘anti-value’ (Harvey, 2018b). To avoid confusion, we have chosen to use the terms ‘fetish value’ (not to be confused with Baudrillard’s concept either) and ‘true value’ instead."

(https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf)

The Four Fundamental Categories of Commons That Create True Value

S.A. Hamed and Barry K. Gils:

"Following an Aristotelian fourfold model of causality (i.e., the efficient, material, formal, and final causes), we consider four irreducible categories as the ‘fundamental commons’ that (only when) together cause true value:

(1) Creativity as the ‘efficient’ commoning cause of true value, comprising (more than) humans’ creative capacities to conscientiously achieve and sustain selffulfilling levels of collective living in balanced coexistence with the (rest of the) life-domain;

(2) Liveability as the ‘material’ commoning cause, consisting of the material and immaterial substances, components and inputs necessary for producing true value. These sources evolve naturally through self-sustaining, restorative, and regenerative practices under shared stewardship and collective decision-making across socio-ecological networks of communal life;

(3) Conviviality as the ‘formal’ commoning cause entailing deep interdependence among (more than) human populations, pluriversality of their modes of living and caring, and their communal solidarity inclusive of non-humans, or in other words, the convivial modes of ‘living well together’ (well-living, buen vivir) through (and despite) frictions, tension, disputes, and diversities; and finally;

(4) Alterity as the ‘final’ commoning cause of true value, such as organized prefigurative practices and subjectivities (imaginative, symbolic, proactivist) essential for transcending the dominant hierarchical structures and for actualizing rightful ideals, moralities, dreams, more-than-human liberation, purposeful ‘well-living,’ and a ‘free life.’ "

(https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf)

The Modular Approach to the Theorization of Capital

S.A. Hamed and Barry K. Gils:

"Capital entails a set of radically interrelated social relational and sociohistorical processes and mechanisms. The nature of capital is not only processual but also modular, meaning that capital engages manifold interactive socio-ecological processes. Multiple theories have been developed to provide explanations of these processes. However, the multisystemic mechanisms through which these processes ‘interface’ and their constantly evolving relative positions to one another (the ‘architecture of capital’) have not previously been the subject of integrative theorization. On the other hand, producing an all-inclusive fixed definition has become unfeasible, and even pointless, since the modularity of network systems of capital has significantly increased. The modular nature of capitalist relations thus requires a modular approach to (re)defining capital.

...

Our approach to developing a modular explanatory framework assumes that no organically evolved social formation can be a closed system, and therefore, the aim of theory should not simply be reduced to deductive inferences around constant conjunctions of events. However, hierarchical social formations (such as slavery, feudalism, capitalism, statism, and their subtypes) are all systems of subjugation that enforce closure by creating self-serving closed circuits of fetish value production and actively suppressing and perverting any forces that threaten such closure.

A new conception of capital, suitable for theorizing capitalist social relations and societies, needs to be delineated in a modular construct consisting of elements/subdivides that are analytically distinguished to represent the reality of capital heuristically, in an ideal–typical manner. A modular definition of capital redefines the concept in the form of ideally constructed modules of interdependent social mechanisms. In this way, capital is analytically deconstructed into its constituent processes (modules) and is discussed closely in association with counter-capital processes, thus perceived as a dynamic rather than a fixed notion. Capital and its antipodal social forms are profoundly entangled, both historically and ideologically. Therefore, the new modular model has a double manifestation, contrasted from one another only for analytical purposes (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2). In summary, based on this new model, the complete process of building and utilizing ‘fetish value,’ that is, decommonization, involves converting what is a causal source of ‘true value’ (in the commonist state of being) into a source of ‘fetish value’ (under capital). As described in detail in the next chapter, this process of perversion is composed of the reification, fetishization, and appropriation of the commoning sources of true value. These commoning sources, when transformed under capital, are turned into sources of fetish value."

(https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf)

See also: Modularity

A Redefined Notion of Commons, Informed by the Aristotelian Theory of Causation

S.A. Hamed and Barry K. Gils:

"Commons encompass more than just tangible entities such as common pool resources, public spaces, shared ownership, or commonwealth institutions. To avoid reductionism in understanding commons and commoning, the Aristotelian theory of causation can be used. By applying the four causes to the concept of commons, a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding can be obtained that recognizes the multiple dimensions and levels of commons and commoning. This includes the agential, ecological, and social structural, as well as the iterative processes through which they are sustained and regenerated.

A commons is a living ecosystem, or a complex ‘species-being’ in and of itself, which – according to the Aristotelian doctrine of causality – consists of four constituting elements. Firstly, the efficient cause is the activities of the commoners (both human and non-human) and their subjectivities, which include skills, knowledge, agency, experiences, and capabilities that are actualized through the process of building and maintaining commons, as well as their ‘organs as tools’ and ‘tools as organs.’6

Secondly, the materialcause is a set of resources that are held in common, conserved, enhanced, and governed collectively, as well as the flows of energy and mass in and out of the commons as an open system.

Thirdly, the formal cause is its structure, or what Marx would refer to as an ‘ensemble of social [ecological] relations,’ along with their corresponding forms of cooperation and conviviality across a plurality of subjects, as well as the norms, rules, evaluative measures, and mutual rights and responsibilities that regulate these relations and guide actions toward the realization of the final cause.

Finally, the final cause is the self-sustaining and life-regenerating function of the commons as a living being seeking a good life through the transformative praxis of commoning by the commoners (De Angelis, 2022; Mau, 2022).

A redefined notion of commons, informed by the Aristotelian theory of causation, could provide several benefits when applied to understanding the nature of human creative power."

(https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf)