Capital Redefined: Difference between revisions
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
(https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290382/1/9781003805588.pdf) | (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) | |||
Revision as of 06:49, 23 July 2024
* 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
"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’!"
- 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)
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)