Showing posts sorted by date for query COMMODITY FETISH. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query COMMODITY FETISH. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, November 16, 2024

COMMODITY FETISH

Jeff Beck guitar collection to go under the hammer in January

By AFP
November 15, 2024

Jeff Beck's guitars are to be auctioned at Christie's in London in January 
- Copyright AFP Richard A. Brooks

A collection of guitars and other musical equipment owned by influential rock guitarist Jeff Beck will go on sale in London in January, Christie’s auctioneers announced on Friday.

Some of the 130 guitars, amps and “tools of the trade” used by Beck during his decades-spanning career are expected to fetch hundreds of thousands of pounds (dollars) when they go under the hammer on January 22, it said.

They include the rock legend’s 1954 “Oxblood” Gibson Les Paul, famously depicted on the cover of his seminal 1975 solo instrumental album “Blow By Blow” and used on several tracks.

It is estimated to fetch up to £500,000 ($634,000).

Beck, who rose to stardom with 1960s supergroup The Yardbirds and later enjoyed a prolific solo career, died in January last year aged 78.

His widow, Sandra Beck, said it was “a massive wrench” to part with the instruments but that they needed to be “shared, played and loved again”.

“These guitars were his great love and after almost two years of his passing, it’s time to part with them as Jeff wished,” she said in a statement.

“I hope the future guitarists who acquire these items are able to move closer to the genius who played them.”

The collection includes another Gibson Les Paul from 1958, dubbed the original “Yardburst” as it was bought in 1966 while Beck was in the seminal British rock group. It is valued at up to £60,000.

Meanwhile, a Fender Telecaster and Gibson hybrid crafted by world-renowned guitar designer Seymour Duncan specifically for Beck in 1973 is predicted to sell for as much as £150,000.

Highlights from the guitar haul will be on public view in Los Angeles on December 4-6.

The full collection will go on show for a week at Christie’s London headquarters before the January 22 sale.

Christie’s Amelia Walker said the auctioneers were “honoured to have been entrusted” with the sale of instruments belonging to a “rock pioneer whose influence on his peers was unmatched”.

She added Beck’s guitars had “shared his emotion and voice” with the world and the auction would “pay tribute to his enduring legacy”.




Dinosaur skeleton fetches 6 million euros in Paris sale


By AFP
November 16, 2024

The buyer has pledged to donate the apatosaurus nicknamed Vulcan to a museum - Copyright AFP/File Alexander NEMENOV, Ting Shen

The skeleton of a 22-metre-long dinosaur (70 feet) fetched six million euros ($6.4 million) Saturday, AFP learned from auction houses Collin du Bocage and Barbarossa.

An anonymous collector snapped up the vegetarian apatosaurus, which was dug up in the United States, for 4.7 million euros rising to 6 million including costs. It is the largest dinosaur ever to be auctioned in France.

The buyer pledged to allow it to be displayed in a museum.

“We are happy that the buyer intends to lend it to an institution,” said Olivier Collin du Bocage. They skeleton of the giant herbivore is made up of 75 to 80 percent of the original bones and is roughly 150 million years old.

The giant creature’s skeleton, which weighed around twenty tonnes during its lifetime, spent the summer in the orangerie of Dampierre-en-Yvelines, a chateau some 50 kilometres (30 miles) southwest of Paris, where the sale took place.

The remains of the apatosaurus, nicknamed Vulcan, were discovered in 2018 in Wyoming, in the United States, where the law allows individuals to acquire concessions in the hope of excavating prehistoric bones. Excavations took place between 2019 and 2021, financed by a French investor.

The fossil, which includes 300 bones, was then shipped to France to be restored.

Its presale value at auction had been estimated at between three and five million euros.

Under the contract of sale the future owner undertakes to give paleontologists access to the dinosaur to study it.

Thursday, November 07, 2024

First artwork by humanoid robot sells for $1.3m

THE COMMODITY  CREATES A COMMODITY FETISH


By AFP
November 7, 2024

Ultra-realistic AI robot Ai-Da is designed to resemble a human woman with a face, large eyes and a brown wig - Copyright AFP/File Ben Stansall

A portrait of English mathematician Alan Turing became the first artwork by a humanoid robot to be sold at auction, fetching $1,320,000 on Thursday.

The 2.2 metre (7.5 feet) portrait “A.I. God” by “Ai-Da”, the world’s first ultra-realistic robot artist, smashed pre-sale expectations of $180,000 when it went under the hammer at London auction house Sotheby’s Digital Art Sale.

“Today’s record-breaking sale price for the first artwork by a humanoid robot artist to go up for auction marks a moment in the history of modern and contemporary art and reflects the growing intersection between A.I. technology and the global art market,” said the auction house.

Ai-Da Robot, which uses AI to speak, said: “The key value of my work is its capacity to serve as a catalyst for dialogue about emerging technologies.”

Ai-Da added that a “portrait of pioneer Alan Turing invites viewers to reflect on the god-like nature of AI and computing while considering the ethical and societal implications of these advancements.”

The ultra-realistic robot, one of the most advanced in the world, is designed to resemble a human woman with a face, large eyes and a brown wig.

Ai-Da is named after Ada Lovelace, the world’s first computer programmer and was devised by Aidan Meller, a specialist in modern and contemporary art.

“The greatest artists in history grappled with their period of time, and both celebrated and questioned society’s shifts,” said Meller.

“Ai-Da Robot as technology, is the perfect artist today to discuss the current developments with technology and its unfolding legacy,” he added.

Ai-Da generates ideas through conversations with members of the studio, and suggested creating an image of Turing during a discussion about “A.I. for good”.

The robot was then asked what style, colour, content, tone and texture to use, before using cameras in its eyes to look at a picture of Turing and create the painting.

Meller led the team that created Ai-Da with artificial intelligence specialists at the universities of Oxford and Birmingham in England.

Meller said Turing, who made his name as a World War II codebreaker, mathematician and early computer scientist, had raised concerns about the use of AI in the 1950s.

The artwork’s “muted tones and broken facial planes” seemingly suggested “the struggles Turing warned we will face when it comes to managing AI”, he said.

Ai-Da’s works were “ethereal and haunting” and “continue to question where the power of AI will take us, and the global race to harness its power”, he added.


The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility

by Walter Benjamin

Publication date 1939

Benjamin’s famous “Work of Art” essay sets out his boldest thoughts—on
media and on culture in general—in their most realized form, while
retaining an edge that gets under the skin of everyone who reads it. In
this essay the visual arts of the machine age morph into literature and
theory and then back again to images, gestures, and thought.

Wednesday, October 09, 2024

 COMMODITY FETISH

Lucian Freud 'masterpiece' fetches £13.9 million at London sale


London (AFP) – A nude by Lucian Freud that took 16 months to paint sold for £13.9 million ($18.2 million) at a London auction on Wednesday, the first time the work, hailed as a "masterpiece," has come to market.


Issued on: 09/10/2024 - 
Lucian Freud's 'Ria, Naked Portrait' took 16 months to paint © BENJAMIN CREMEL / AFP
Advertising


Works by the British artist, who died in 2011, have attracted growing interest -- and prices -- in recent years.

"Ria, Naked Portrait" was the star attraction of Wednesday's sale, fetching £11,810,00, rising to £13,891,500 once the buyer's fee is added on.

"It's a late masterpiece," Anna Touzin, from auctioneers Christie's, told AFP. "It was painted between 2006 and 2007 and in the same collection since it was made.

"It's the first time it's coming to the market, which is really exciting."

Freud, considered one of Britain's greatest portrait artists, took 16 months to paint the work, with the subject -- Ria Kirby -- sitting virtually every day for up to five hours.

"So a really long process and I think it shows Freud's relationship with his sitters, the kind of dedication that they would give to him but that he also gave to them, painting them," Touzin added.
Freud's 'Head of a Woman' sold for £4,187,880 
© BENJAMIN CREMEL / AFP

Freud -- the grandson of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud -- is known for his uncompromising nudes and self-portraits, replete with flabby breasts or rounded stomachs.

"He doesn't want to portray an idealised view of the body... he's really trying to paint people as they are," said Touzin.

That has made Freud one of the most sought-after artists on the art market.

In 2022, his "Large Interior, W11" sold for a record $86 million, while in 2015, another nude, "Benefits Supervisor Resting", went for more than $56 million.

The Christie's sale also included Freud's "Head of a Woman", which sold for £4,187,880.

Works by Marc Chagall, Berthe Morisot, Willem de Kooning and Jeff Koons also went under the hammer.

© 2024 AFP

Thursday, September 12, 2024


Noel Gallagher's 'Brit Pop' guitars go under hammer


London (AFP) – A guitar belonging to Noel Gallagher that featured on the cover of Oasis's debut single "Supersonic" fetched £132,000 ($172,000) at a London auction on Thursday.

Issued on: 12/09/2024 -
The Epiphone Les Paul Standard guitar fetched £132,000 ($172,000), well above its £80,000 estimate, according to Sotheby's © Ben STANSALL / AFP

The Epiphone Les Paul Standard guitar was sold well above its £80,000 estimate, the Sotheby's auction house said.

"It's a fitting tribute to celebrate, not only the 30th anniversary of "Definitely Maybe", but also the recent announcement of the long-awaited Oasis reunion," said Sotheby's head of popular culture Katherine Schofield, referring to Oasis's debut studio album.

"It has been brilliant to offer these important Oasis guitars from the beginning of the Brit Pop era," she said.

A second guitar played on stage by Gallagher, an Epiphone EA-250, circa 1972-74, sold for £48,000.

A third instrument, a 1980 Gibson Flying V Guitar previously owned by Johnny Marr of the Smiths and used by Gallagher in the recording of Oasis's 1994 track "Cigarettes and Alcohol", sold for £36,000.

Brothers Noel and Liam Gallagher announced this month that they had ended their infamous 15-year feud and were reuniting for a tour starting next year.

Formed in Manchester, northwest England, in 1991, Oasis is credited with helping create the Britpop era of that decade.

The band was behind hit songs including "Wonderwall", "Don't Look Back In Anger" and "Champagne Supernova".

The Manchester group was also notorious for public fights between Liam and Noel.

© 2024 AFP

Monday, August 26, 2024

COMMODITY FETISH

Babe Ruth baseball jersey shatters sports memorabilia auction record


New York (AFP) – A jersey belonging to US baseball legend Babe Ruth shattered the record for the most expensive piece of sports memorabilia ever auctioned on Sunday, fetching $24.1 million.


Issued on: 26/08/2024 -

The Bambino -- one of Ruth's monikers -- wore the record-breaking jersey during a historic game against the Chicago Cubs © Library of Congress / Library of Congress/AFP/File


The online auction for the New York Yankee's jersey lasted several weeks, and it was expected to best the previous record: $12.6 million paid in August 2022 for a baseball card for Mickey Mantle.

Until 2022, no piece of sports memorabilia had ever broken the symbolic $10-million mark, but that year saw both the Mantle card and a jersey worn by basketball great Michael Jordan blow past the threshold.

The Bambino -- one of Ruth's monikers -- wore the record-breaking jersey during a historic game against the Chicago Cubs in the 1932 World Series.

Ruth was being heckled by the opposition, and he reportedly responded by pointing deep into the center-field stands, before pounding the next pitch exactly in that direction for a home run.

The Yankees went on to win the game and the World Series, the final championship win of Ruth's career.

Years after his retirement, Ruth donated the jersey to a golf partner. It was subsequently sold three times, most recently in 2005 for $940,000.

© 2024 AFP

Sunday, August 18, 2024

The Adventures of the Commodity: For a Critique of Value




Anselm Jappe

Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2023. 232 pp., £85.00 hb
ISBN 9781839763465

Reviewed by Pedro H. J. Nardelli
About the reviewer
Pedro H. J. Nardelli is Full Professor at Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology, Finland,


In the late 1980s, a few critical theorists from Germany created a journal called Krisis: Kritik der Warengesellschaft, proposing a different reading of Marx’s mature works to build a radical critique of capitalist society. Robert Kurz, Roswitha Scholz, Ernst Lohoff and Claus Peter Ortlieb are probably the most known names. After internal disagreements, the group split in 2004, giving origin to another journal called Exit!. Their extensive writings have been mostly published in German, while many of them have been translated to other languages like Portuguese. Yet somehow, surprisingly, not many of their writings are available in English. Anselm Jappe’s The Adventures of the Commodity helps to fill this gap for the anglophone world as this book (first published in French in 2003) can be read as systematic presentation of the main theoretical contributions of this strand of Marxism.

In the preface prepared for this edition, Jappe justifies the importance of the book after the twenty years of its initial publication: as we still live in a capitalist society, the critique of its basic categories and of its fetishist social dynamic emerging therefrom is still relevant. By dealing with the essential attributes of capitalist society, ‘the critique of value’ is claimed to offer both a solid ground to assess the recurrent waves of crises in capitalism as well as a fixed point against positions that claim to be anti-capitalist but cannot go against and beyond capital’s fundamental categories like (abstract) labour, money and the commodity.

The introductory chapter presents the background of the book in its day: struggles against globalization and recurrent stock market instabilities mostly in developing countries. Like today, most explanations (from the far left to the far right) are uncapable of providing a robust critique; they lack a conceptualization of the social totality. Following Marx’s Capital, Jappe indicates that the analysis must start with the commodity because it is the ‘germ cell’ of capitalist society, and thus, contains in such a simple form the main contradictions of the more developed, complex forms that are specific of the totality of this mode of production. Another important point advanced in the introduction is the twofold character of the late works of Marx, existing one exoteric Marx and another esoteric Marx. The former is ‘the theoretician of modernization, the “dissident of liberalism” (Kurz), a representative of the Enlightenment who wanted to perfect industrial working society under proletarian leadership.’ (5) The latter is the one who critically assesses the basic categories of capital, starting from the commodity form. This distinction highlights the existing differences of Marx’s own historical time, in his interventions in the emerging workers’ movement and in his in-depth analysis of the logics of capital. In this case, Jappe argues that the exoteric Marx was important, but his main line of thought dated. Jappe then defends the understudied esoteric Marx as the one whose validity perseveres. Hence the critique of value to be presented in the book is posed in stark contrast with traditional Marxism, but similar to few other Marxist authors that have centred their work from the value form and the critique of the basic categories of Capital.

The first chapter deals with the commodity and its dual nature (13): use-value and value. Jappe reviews the first sections of Marx’s Capital (the second German edition) which contains an explanation of the commodity as a social relation that enables things produced by humans in specific processes to be exchanged. The secret is that commodities of different types, when exchanged, are equivalent, that is, they have the same value in a ratio proportional to the socially necessary labour time for their particular production (with the specific techniques available). Value then has a social form of exchange of equivalence, measured in ratios of labour time. As in Marx, Jappe stresses that the labour measured by time is abstract labour, with ‘abstract’ referring to the lack of concrete determinations in the specific characteristic of the actual labour process to produce different useful things (use-values). Through this operation, the human labour performed in capitalist society is then represented in value form and then constitutes the money form as a ‘real abstraction.’ This is claimed as the fetish that organizes capitalist society, which is not just a collective fantasy, but indeed the material way that social relations are determined and formed. In contrast to interpretations that posit value as embodied labour, Jappe contends that value defines an ontological domain through universal abstractions, which in turn are in contradiction with concrete reality. These tensions between the abstract and the concrete is claimed to be the most important feature of capitalist society, already present in its most elementary form: the commodity. This is how Marx moves from the C-M-C circuit towards the capitalist M-C-M´, and thus defines a mode of production that abstract labour requires to be materially accumulated as abstract wealth (materialized as money). This in turn demands more and more living labour so that capital, as self-valorising value (i.e. money that creates more money), can be sustained ad infinitum. But this is impossible or, following Marx, this mode of production is ‘mad.’

Chapter two traverses another controversial topic: labour as a specific capitalist phenomenon. Jappe first reminds us that labour-power is the only commodity that can create value while producing more value than it is worth. Rereading Marx, this phenomenon only occurs because the capitalist acquires the labour-power of the worker, which is paid with its value (i.e. the cost of its reproduction, which may include its family, in a specific place and time). However, while capitalists buy the labour-power for its true value, they materially receive more as the labour-power is usually exchanged for periods of time. The time that is above the period associated with value of labour-power is the origin of surplus value. This fact brings theoretical and practical challenges. Jappe tells us that with orthodox Marxism and other related strands, the focus of both theory and practice is placed on the class struggle between labour and capital. Examples of workers’ unions in the present but also in the past which struggle for more rights (i.e. to become fairly integrated within bourgeois society) offer a typical example of an instrumental use of Marx’s Capital to support fairer wages or shorter working days, as well as civil rights. More radical readings aim at the elimination of capitalists but keeping the workers as workers, and in this case, planning would be the way to rationally organize the division of labour. Jappe’s radical critique targets the fundamental category of labour, as represented in value and then in money, such that ‘[i]t is only in capitalism that labour as such has become the synthesizing principle of society.’ (75). Convincingly, the author vindicates abstract labour not only as capitalist but also as having an ontological dimension; labour is as such a particular activity outside other social practices and relations (in contrast to other modes of production) and specific to capitalist society. This implies that a Marxist theory, constructed upon the esoteric Marx, must criticize labour, rather than defend labour against capital.

Chapter three synthesizes the first two in a profound analysis to relate value theory and the crises theory in Marx. The core of the argument is that the dynamics of the capital as self-valorising value forms a tautological process, where individual capitalists compete among themselves, aiming at higher profits. This creates a tendency to increase the share of fixed capital in comparison to variable capital (i.e. living labour, which worth reminding is the only source of value and surplus value). To maintain the mass of profits with a tendency of decreasing prices, more and more commodities need to be produced. This leads to a systemic, unavoidable tendency that labour, which is the basis of value, is pushed out of the production process. In thought-provoking pages, Jappe maintains that value ceases to be a trustworthy representation insofar as value-productive living labour significantly decreases its relevance at the social level. At the same time, the value form as the totalizing bond of capitalist society maintains itself: ‘Far from disappearing, the value form, although “objectively” superseded, increasingly enters into collision with the material content it helps to create.’ (85) From this standpoint, Jappe marks a position in still open controversies within Marxist circles, namely the validity of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as indication of a final crisis of capitalism, the ecological limits of capitalist mode of production, the question of unproductive labour, the role of democratization, the growth of the ‘service sector’ and the importance of credit and fictitious capital. It is a dense chapter that touches very important points, illustrating the alleged pessimism of the critique of value, whose theorists defend the thesis that capitalist society has entered a terminal crisis with logical, fundamental limits since the seventies.

Jappe proceeds to discuss the commodity as a historical phenomenon in different societies and as the fetishized, metaphysical mode of organization of capitalist society. Following a formal analysis based on Hegelian logic, the author contends that the simple commodity relation already contains its further development in more complex forms, moving from the abstract to the concrete, where the more complex forms are derived from the internal contradictions of simpler forms. Remarkable here is the argument that ‘capitalism is realized metaphysics, the true realism of concepts dreamed of by the scholastics.’ In this case, the strength of the esoteric Marx is that the main categories of the capitalist mode of production are indeed idealist, yet ‘constitute an appropriate description of modern society’ (107) because they are idealistic categories. Jappe therewith demonstrates that incipient commodity exchanges within history are not the same under capitalism, yet have always contained the latent potential to become it. It is worth mentioning that many critiques see this ‘logical determinism’ as problematic, but Jappe rightly argues that capitalism as a mode of production is not the necessity of a teleological historical process. However, once it emerged and dominated social relations through its abstractions, the logic of the commodity will indeed act as developmental ‘iron’ laws. Yet for all this, capitalism is not eternal, and the critique of value assesses that for more than fifty years, value has entered a terminal crisis.

Chapter five focuses on forms of fetishism found in other societies, further reinforcing the specifics of the commodity form and value in capitalist society, but also indicating its similarities with other forms in primitive social organizations based on sacred symbolism. The concluding parts of the book serve to indicate the materiality of social organizations not based on labour, commodity and value (and markets). Moreover, Jappe criticizes leftist programs as reformist at best, and the failure of Marxists from the past and the present to move beyond labour. In an argument not completely dissimilar to Althusser’s aleatory materialism, Jappe states clearly that socialism or communism is not the necessary outcome of the end of capitalism. More probable is a generalized barbarism with few isolated islands of well-being. On the other hand, the future after capitalism is not by any means already defined, and this offers the possibility of another mode of production: ‘It is therefore well worth reassessing Aristotle’s idea of the “good life” as the real purpose of society, for such an idea is diametrically opposite to the service of the fetish-god of money.’ (165).

In summary, the English translation of The Adventures of the Commodity provides a necessary introduction to the critique of value for the anglophone world, a correct assessment of the complex dynamics of capitalist society at its most fundamental level. The logical approach offers a reliable means of diagnosing current tendencies in a society constrained by certain logical perimeters imposed by the capitalist mode of production. While the use of some Hegelian logic may challenge readers unfamiliar with it, the line of thought systematized by Jappe seems necessary as an analytical tool for understanding our social reality.

28 June 2024


URL: https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/21566_the-adventures-of-the-commodity-for-a-critique-of-value-by-anselm-jappe-reviewed-by-pedro-h-j-nardelli/

The Automatic Fetish: The Law of Value in Marx’s Capital




Beverley Best
Verso, New York, 2024. 358 pp., $29.95 pb
ISBN 9781804294802

Reviewed by Carlos Velasquez


Former Greek Finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, recently adhered to the belief that we no longer live under capitalism. Bewildered by the contemporary forms that capitalist relations of production take, he argues that platforms have extinguished the labour-capital relation, and that we now inhabit a ‘techno-feudalist’ order. In overlooking what is continuous, what remains at the core of the two systems he identifies, Varoufakis misses the forest for the trees, or the base for the superstructure, contributing, thus, to the noise and turbulence of an already blurred reality. Beverley Best’s new book, The Automatic Fetish: The Law of Value in Marx’s Capital, is a beacon in this world. By advancing both a rigorous and original reading of Capital Vol. 3, Best illuminates the dynamics that govern and determine capital’s phenomenal forms, clarifying a muddled present and reminding us that, despite wishful thinking, we still live under capital.

The elucidation of the contemporary moment in The Automatic Fetish, as well as the proposal for the interpretation of the third volume of Marx’s Capital, is grounded on a straightforward premise: that the ‘determinism of the base/superstructure metaphor orients and coheres the analysis in Capital III’ (2). As Best explains, base determines superstructure, not the converse. The social relations that constitute capital’s base must always take a concrete form in the world as it actually is. Yet the ‘capitalist base disappears into the superstructure’ (4) while remaining the force of gravity that determines the form’s movement. On that account, Best proposes that ‘Capital III is a book about ideology’ (336). It is a work that looks to demonstrate how the movement of capital mystifies the ‘the essential character of capital’s movement’ (8). In other words, through the analysis of its different social forms and transformations – from surplus-value to profit, from profit to interest and rent – we find that these expressions, in their concrete manifestation, are mystified and reified. They appear as automatic subjects or essential conditions, burying, thus, the living-labour that constitutes them. Best defines this dynamic of obfuscation as capital’s ‘perceptual physics’ (9).

Through development of this notion, of the concept of ‘perceptual physics’, Best advances a fundamental contribution to the development of a Marxian conception of ideology. She does so by articulating both a concept of ideology as a process of subject formation, alongside consideration of ideology as a modality of capital’s reproduction, as inversion. By defining capital’s movement, its mandate to abstract and mystify as ‘perceptual physics’, Best is able to convey ideology not as something restricted to the superstructure or a false interpretation of reality, but on the contrary, as the consequence of capital’s dynamic, that subjectivity is constituted through participation in economic relations, by encountering the forms that value takes, for ‘capital, in its reproduction as both a system of exploitation and a mode of domination, is a dynamic of social content and social form that is also a mode of representation – the production of particular distorted appearances that stabilize into a generalized “common sense”’ (84).

As a companion to Capital Vol. 3, The Automatic Fetish follows the structure of Marx’s work as it emphasizes the dynamic of capital’s ‘perceptual physics’, what we could consider as a retracing of the steps for conveying a process of continuous separation of the forms of appearance from the source of new value. The first part of the book addresses this problem of estrangement and of the mystification of surplus-value more directly by explicating its transformation into profit and then, its further development by which profits are reified and converted into autonomous objects in the evaluation of their rate. In describing Marx’s critique of this process, Best underlines the dynamic unity or coherence of this tendency. Through her reading of Marx, we see how the collapsing of the organic composition of capital into cost price, and the consequential reification of the latter as the natural requirement for profit, are all part of a chain of obfuscation that is set in motion through the initial process of introducing value into the concrete world. It is from this very first instance, the capitalist social relation, that the dynamic of repeated and continuous inversion of subject and object, the fetishization of capital’s social forms as value-creators, is ignited (29).

In her description of this movement towards the reification of social relations, Best focuses on Marx’s critique of capital’s tendency towards crisis, the fact that ‘[c]apital carries on by breaking down’ (45). However, she adds to the comprehension of this tendency by first underlining the fact that while capital generates the production of surplus, it also ‘negates the actualization of abundance in the absolute development of production and consumption’ (131). She therefore proposes to think of capital precisely as the negation of abundance, not as the hinderance of the means of achieving it, but in terms of the constriction that production and circulation for the sake of capital imposes upon the satisfaction of human needs. Then, following this initial argument on the cause of crisis, Best proposes an innovative interpretation of Marx’s critique by arguing that in his evaluation of the development of an associated mode of production, Marx ‘scatters’ a series of speculative deductions which look to show how the advancements in production and circulation imposed by capital, if disengaged from the capital’s gravitational pull, could provide the means for a future of generalized abundance. Best therefore argues that the transition into post-capitalism ‘will be a matter of developing through, as opposed to against, capital’s inbuilt portals to another “non-existent but non-fictional”, higher because intentional, form of social modality’ (130). Hence, Best characterizes the dialectical manner of Marx’s critique as utopian, as a form of ‘speculative materialism’ (193).

In reviewing the transformation of profit into merchant profit, interest and rent, Best interestingly qualifies these changes as ‘decompositions’. Such a characterization has to do with the fact that with the movement to any of these subspecies of profit, we reach the instance of ‘pure form’ and ‘pure fetish’. The initially mystified object, profit, is then itself obfuscated as it is forced to take the shape of commercial profit, interest or rent. We arrive, thus, at the instance where money makes money, where ‘what is hidden is not simply the role of living labour in production but, the mediation by the entire production process itself in capital’s expansion’ (177). The pinnacle of this dynamic of fetishization is then achieved with the form of interest-bearing capital, the ‘automatic fetish’ (184), under which interest, as a sort of natural, independent and absolute object, appears to inherently produce profits. Here again, Best foregrounds the utopian dimension of Marx’s analysis, since the absolute form of abstraction represented by interest-bearing capital is also considered as a portal towards a world beyond capitalist production. The conception of profits as completely separated from the process of production allows us to think of manufacturing decoupled from production price. Furthermore, this form of absolute decoupling overturns notions of the requirement of capitalist management and strengthens Best’s idea that ‘for Marx, the social form of interest-bearing capital and its socialization in the credit system signal, on an immediate level, nothing less than the real (but unrealized) abolition of the capitalist and, on a deeper level, that of the capitalist mode of production’ (186).

It is then, in the analysis and untangling of the section on ground-rent where Best clearly traces and manifests the methodological operation of of value critique. While threading and clarifying Marx’s complicated arguments towards the demystification of land as a value producing entity, the author explains and displays the dynamic of Marxian critique as one that operates in terms of ‘representation and exposition’ (287). Value, just like gravity, can only be measured and mapped in relation to the force it applies upon other objects. To understand that this force exists, we cannot speak of it only in the abstract or focusing exclusively on the immediate object. The process of unveiling the invisible pull effected by value can only be achieved through demonstration, by mapping how value’s continuous disappearance into its surface expressions is not a marginal outcome of its action, but the central premise of its operation.

Because Best manages to both advance a coherent and original interpretation of Marx’s Capital Vol. 3, while at the same time using Marxian methodology as a process of unveiling to make sense of value’s contemporary forms of superficial manifestation, The Automatic Fetish ought to be considered not just as a companion to Capital Vol. 3, but as guide to the dialectical formulation that constitutes Marx’s critique. Therefore, just like Fredric Jameson’s characterization of Capital Vol. 1 as a book about unemployment allowed for a reconsideration of the work, Beverley Best’s claim that Capital Vol. 3 is a book about ideology constitutes the emergence of a new and comprehensive understanding or Marx’s critique of capital.

12 July 2024


URL: https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/21578_the-automatic-fetish-the-law-of-value-in-marxs-capital-by-beverley-best-reviewed-by-carlos-velasquez/



The Automatic Fetish: The Law of Value in Marx’s Capital


Reviewed by Jacob Spenser Wilson

About the reviewer
Jacob Spenser Wilson is a PhD candidate at the University of Washington. 


Capitalist crises cannot only be measured by its catastrophic effects on society, but also by the reception of their most staunchest critique: Karl Marx’s Capital. Many have pointed out that the rising interest in Marx’s magnum opus seemingly coincides with capitalism’s deepest moments of crisis, as if it suggests discontent with the present system. With much attention given to volume one or the many drafts to which it culminated, until recently there has remained little attention to the subsequent volumes of Capital. Beverly Best’s new book, The Automatic Fetish: The Law of Value in Marx’s Capital, contributes to this growing resurgence and gap by taking Marx’s value theory and using it to read volume three. This work is nothing short of a masterful reading of Marx’s form-analysis and defends the continued relevance of Marx’s work in the twenty-first century.

In a critical and methodological reading, Best uproots ‘capital’s hidden, inner movement and the identification of its historical conditions of emergence’ to study what she calls ‘capital’s perceptual physics’(9). Her work responds immediately to critics of value-form theory who conceive of it as a narrowed reading of the first few chapters of Capital, demonstrating how Marx’s initial investigation of value and its forms undergird the whole of Capital. Her argument hinges on the centrality of volume three for the critique of political economy, which she argues is ‘a theory of a particular movement that generates new percepts – a movement arising from collective uncoordinated activity that, over a couple of centuries of objectification through repetition, produces a particular appearance of things that launches a specific world history’ (326). In short, she takes the concept of fetish and asks what economic forms it distorts once capital is moving through its M-C-M’ circuit.

As Best shows, it is one thing to analyze the fetish-character of capital in the ideal-average scenario that Marx constructs at the beginning of volume one, but quite another to analyze fetishism in volume three where there ‘is both a broadening and a focusing of the concept’ (48). In building this analysis, Best gives one of the most detailed accounts of the consequences of capital’s fetishized forms inherent in its movement for the study of political economy. By placing value-theory at the center of volume three, Best is able to draw radical conclusions for the study and critique of economics and how the law of value maintains the coherent core of Marx’s project.

The book is organized as a companion to volume three and is made up of two sections which trace out the internal dynamics of capital’s ‘perpetual physics.’ The first section deals with the rate of profit, the fetish of the rate of surplus-value, to showcase how production, competition and finally crisis distort and contort the misery of the production process into a blind pursuit of M-M’. Best begins with the category of cost price to show how it ‘is the initial category from which all others will derive’ (23). Cost price, ‘a disciplining objective appearance’, is essentially the cost incurred by the capitalist to produce a commodity (18-19). It becomes the basis for competition since as long as a commodity is sold above the cost price, it can be sold below its value allowing for competitors to undersell and take a bigger share of the market. From this initial obfuscation, Best demonstrates how capital’s movement obscures the source of surplus-value, the subsumption of labor-power to ever increasing productivity, which as a result makes capitalist’s pursuit of profit a rational outcome in a commodity producing society. As she says, ‘[f]rom the standpoint of the capitalist, the only calculation of concern is rate of profit – the immediate form of appearance that today dictates global production and commerce across the world market’ (36). In short, Best demonstrates how the creation of surplus-value is obscured by the machinations of the economy as capitalists pursue profit as if money can magically double itself.

The second section deals with the metamorphosis of profit, following ‘Marx’s exposition of the decomposition of profit into the surface forms of industrial profit, commercial profit, interest, and ground rent’ (137). It is ultimately an examination of the forms of profit that obscure the ‘hidden abode of production’ across the M-C-M’ circuit, concealing the costs incurred on the lives and bodies of workers. Best unravels the deep irrationality that drives the capitalist pursuit of profit across industries, from agriculture and industrial production, finance and commerce in this theoretically dense yet prescient analysis. Part of the charm of the book is following Best’s excavation of these fetish forms and how they distort perceptions to pursue appearances, while the essence of the matter is driven by the subjugation of the working class to the few. The consequences of the movement of capital are vast, and to preserve people’s own experience, following Best’s exposition, I will highlight two key parts of the book: Marx’s theory of crisis and the analysis of ground-rent.

The chapter on crisis foregrounds capitalism’s dialectical identity as creative destruction. In recent years, this idea of crisis as an internal mechanism to ensure its reproduction has gained a lot of traction. What Best offers, in reading volume three, is an interpretation of crisis as an internal dynamic of capitalism itself, instead of an aberration of equilibrium. In Best’s own words, crisis is ‘the means by which capital displaces the obstacles it erects between itself and its singular objective’ (123). Yet it is not simply a negation of an obstacle that characterizes capitalist crisis; it is a negation of a contradiction by way of a contradiction: the universality of separation. This contradiction, expressed through crisis, is one of capitalism’s oldest conditions, and Best highlights how separation undergirds capitalism’s crisis tendency to render certain sectors superfluous in order to grow other sectors of the economy, to increase its flexibility to build regimes of accumulation. In this light, crisis at once tears down its own boundaries to erect new ones that it will eventually be forced to confront down the road of history. What lies behind this creative destruction, as Best describes, ‘entails precarity, unemployment, poverty, illness, gendered and racialized violence, and social exclusion’ of proletarians the world over (130). The movement of capital invokes a complicated question about the crisis tendency of capitalism into a simple one: why must capitalists instrumentalize humanity as a means to an end, that is, money that begets more money?

Ground-rent, the fetish form of landed property, occupies a significant chapter in the book and for good reason. The Financial Times recently published an article noting the significant increase in market value of arable land in the United States, causing private-equity to lead the charge in adding this asset to their portfolios. This phenomenon stands in stark contradiction to the many experiences of family-run or small farmers and ranchers in the US who, in many cases, are facing the heightened competitive pressures of an increasingly industrialized agricultural production, thus going out of business, paying more taxes and rent, as well as producing commodities for the market rather than for need. Marx, according to Best, provides the key to understanding this situation with the idea that ground-rent obscures the productivity of living labor as the source of surplus-value (250-251). The consequence is that ground-rent can increase even as the productivity of labor decreases, the prices of agricultural commodities goes up and the rate of profit demonstrably declines for agricultural production on a global scale. These tendencies arise from the movement of capital and, as Best says, ‘the virtually infinite ways in which human beings can be in metabolism with land are subordinated to the exigencies of the capital-labour relation – that is, to the law of value’ (243). Ground-rent shows itself as a form of social domination that subordinates land to the control of landowners for the sole purpose of making money from money. It renders land into a means for a ridiculous end, when agricultural products like food are produced not to satisfy hunger but again, to generate profit for landowners.

It is hard to disagree with Best’s work given its thorough reading, careful argument and clarity in demonstrating Marx’s internal coherence. Yet we might doubt Best’s assertion that Capital is, among many other things, ‘not a study of capitalist society, it is a book about how to think the material conditions of what might come after’ (341). While the task of critique is to comprehend the present in order to build a meaningful alternative to human society, uncertainty as a necessary mediation for its construction could be defended. While it is appealing to posit a latent kernel to be excavated for a future society, particularly after forty years of capitalist counterrevolution, we might nevertheless wonder what possibilities would be closed off if this were the case. Certainly, we need to understand and critique capitalist society in order to draw a path forward from its retched depths, and in so doing theorize alternatives. But we should also recognize the limits of our own imagination as it is determined by this base.

Despite this very minor point, The Automatic Fetish makes a strong case for why people should grapple with Marx’s work in its entirety and as an incomplete work that requires its application to the current political conjuncture. Best illuminates how the movement of capital produces dizzying heights and hidden surfaces that make capital’s reproduction possible. While the book gives focus to volume three, it draws much needed attention to all three volumes, which needs to be done if we are to adequately understand the value of Marx’s work. Best’s work recovers Marx’s essential critique of political economy, which revolves around its subordination of humanity to mere means for the ultimate end of making more money. Readers ought to sit with the book and work through it alongside Marx’s Capital. Its difficulty will reward the careful reader who applies its findings in the analysis of our present conjuncture, bringing economic science down to earth to show why another world is and must be possible.

17 June 2024


URL: https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/21544_the-automatic-fetish-the-law-of-value-in-marxs-capital-by-beverley-best-reviewed-by-jacob-spenser-wilson/

Wednesday, August 07, 2024

 

Sacred Economics: Shylock as Anti-Christ

Money vs the gift
Sacred Economics 100
Deconstructing the Story of Self/ the World
Life without prisons

Marx’s ‘death knell’ of capitalism, revolution, was the first answer to capitalism’s ills, after which the state would wither away, and we would live in a utopian bliss. The 20th century put paid to that vision, as revolution, as most revolutions do, disappointed, mostly unravelled, and predatory capitalism took hold again. Are we stuck with a system that’s quickly leading us to the cliff edge with seemingly no turning back?

Happily, no, and happily no need for messy revolution, though there is already growing hardship from (and growing resistance to) our economic system’s gross injustices, insanities. The transition to a new economic logic is already underway, and we can all help nurse it into reality. In Sacred Economics: Money, Gift and Society in the Age of Transition (2021), Charles Eisenstein draws on anthropology and the prophetic writings of 20th century social critics to provide the way, hidden in plain sight. To return to the gift economy, to get rid of usury, debt money. For 90% of human history, that was how we lived, not in a mindset of artificial scarcity, where even the wealthiest pinch pennies, but one of abundance, where selfishness was despised, and ‘trade’ was a way of fostering peace, not ‘war by other means’.

Basically an ecological communism, where moneyS are based on real wealth and prices include all the environmental costs of your product. We have to make most of nature (land, water, air) a ‘commons’ again, as in feudal times when most land was commons, under the authority of lords but not an alienable commodity to be bought or sold.

Eisenstein picks up where Marx left off, or rather he takes out the rhetorical flourishes and puts the economy back into ecology, and in the process, establishes the underlying laws of the human-nature nexus. The Law of Return the most fundamental: Everything you consume is consumed somewhere else in nature. The uroboros. Pioneer species pave the way for keystone species, which provide microniches for other species and circle back to benefit pioneer species as they move into new territories. Actually a tautology but one that we’ve ignored until violating its logic has brought us to the brink of catastrophe.

Uroboros vs Sorcerer’s apprentice
Money vs the gift

First, chuck out your guns-and-butter Eco 101 text. We must look at not-so-innocent words like money, interest, profit, investment, goods&services, and put them to work for us and the world, not against us and the world.

The real human economy for at least 100,000 years was a gift economy, with daily life needs, division of labor, ensured through tradition rather than a punch-clock and cash. Money was originally used ceremonially, in a complex system of exchange to ensure trust between tribes, and as tribute. Social currencies were for consolidating relations (marriages, funerals, blood money, intertribal peace).

With the rise of agriculture, money transformed, secularized, as a form of credit (tallies of loans denominated in common unit of account, periodically settled by deliver of commodities). This conflation quickly led to debt peonage i.e., slavery, and the demotion of women. Behind every ledger is a man with a sword/gun. The world was no longer sacred, and man part of it, worshipping it. Our spiritual connection with nature was sundered, our spirit thin and now identified with gold-as-fetish, not with God. A king-god must be carried aloft, high above lowly earth. Man became divorced from nature, culminating in Descartes’ lonely ‘I’. We were already transforming nature 4,000 years ago, creating empires, replacing ‘sinless’ God with ‘sinless’ gold, a lethal case of misplaced concreteness.

This ushered in the Age of Separation – spirit-matter, mind-body, human-nature. This Story of Self/ World, the Ascent of Humanity,1 as Eisenstein called his earlier book dealing with this separation. It starts with the farming virtues of hard work, thrift, accumulation, but also the darker master-slave relation where slaves were often debtors who would never be able to pay. That isn’t in the Storybooks. Instead we have the story of isolated individuals rationally maximizing ‘utility’ (pleasure, which is still unmeasurable).

This Story as depicted in economics textbooks makes a bizarre kind of sense in a scientistic, timeless Newtonian world of atoms, but it has nothing to do with how we live our lives. What is it but a denial of spirituality, embodied mind, humanity itself? So the ‘ascent’ is a delusional one from the start, actually the opposite, as we see all around us today. If this is the crowning achievement of science, we would be healthier, happier in some (almost any) precapitalist society, absent money, certainly absent money as a hoarded store-of-value, and interest, a pointless and dangerous attempt to annihilate time-space. Of course, this is impossible. We live in space-time. You can’t go back in time, and the ‘space’ is already taken. We are long overdue for a Story that reflects us-in-the-world. Heidegger calls that dasein.

Reimagining our economy means first of all gaining control over our simple, elegant, now global money system which lets you do everything, everywhere, all at once. i.e., the antithesis of ceremonial money, which was attached to time, place, giver and receiver, as part of reinforcing that traditional way of life, with money as a sacred binding force. Now, instead of a simple, functional broom, we have the sorcerer’s apprentice. A hammer to kill a fly. Unnecessary power over everything, everywhere, all at once, which imprisons us in unreal fantasies and requires prisons for trigger-happy types.

Key reforms immediately suggest themselves:

  • Return us to localized, ritualized methods of exchange. Reinvent the fly swatter to deal with fly problems. That looks ridiculous to our individualistic mindset, captivated by the supercharged power of money, gold-as-god. Most precapitalist societies worshipped the sun as god, or all of nature. What we can call ‘the collective West’, formerly the imperialist power, latched on to gold as the ideal money by the 15th century, when Europeans travelled the Earth, invading and stealing wealth, especially gold, wherever it was found. That obsession marks the great divide in human history, total war of conquest of the planet, fittingly symbolized by gold. Inert, eternal, beautiful, heavy (i.e., important).
  • Following on the Law of Return, internalize all costs of whatever you produce/ consume. Right down to working conditions in the DVD factory in Bangladesh if that’s where your DVD player is made. Immediately it is clear that the majority of what we now produce and consume won’t make sense anymore. You will produce and consume more and more locally as the Age of Transition gets under way.

Eisenstein (and Keynes) argue that the short reign of gold as THE currency (1870–1932 and 1944–1971) was perhaps a necessary stage in our maturing as a species, but that it has outlived its purpose and, as we have witnessed over the past century, has already been replaced, though it is still a totem, a fetish that we secretly worship, many convinced that a return to the gold standard would solve all our problems. The fetishism is now secularized and represents the vast fortunes of Wall Street as if in a separate, disembodied realm. We need to take money off its pedestal, to invent new forms of money that will encourage good hoarding (of the commons) not the bad version (destruction of the commons).

The conquerors laughed at the cowrie shells that Polynesians carried thousands of miles by canoe to ‘trade’, seemingly senselessly, with other tribes. Or the wampum beads of Turtle Island natives. Even the most warlike tribes lived more or less peacefully, with their interactions centered on this ritual giving, before ‘we’ arrived with guns and declared total war of conquest on the world, inspired by gold.

It proved easy to unravel the complex, ritualistic societies outside Europe, once the Europeans launched their world war in search of gold for their very special and lethal money. ‘We’ ruined the complex web of world culture (just like we destroyed the anti-capitalist Soviet Union), and are quickly ruining what’s left of nature and now humanity itself, with total all-out war (not our low-grade ‘cold wars’) threatening like a Damocles sword over all our heads. And it is our very bloody form of money, or rather its pretend substitute, electronic money) that now governs a godless, global reality on the brink. Goethe’s (and Disney’s) sorcerer’s apprentice.

But our neurotic fetish is also responsible (everything is connected and money has been our hammer for everything) for the explosion of knowledge in the past five centuries. As we clear-cut the precious legacy of the our social evolution, the dazzling mini-civilizations everywhere on Earth, our scribes, anthropologists (or better, morticians) document(ed) the fast-dying remains of precapitalist civilizations, their (to us) bizarre customs, revealing discoveries about precapitalist societies every bit as marvelous as the potato, rubber trees and other gifts. ‘We’ quickly adopted the potatoes etc as they were profitable, ‘produced’ more gold, adapted to our industrial ‘civilization’, and wiped out the giver, the keeper of that miracle food.

As for the cultural wealth of those other civilizations, who cares? If they don’t make more gold, they are the enemy to be conquered or eliminated. Even the great thinkers of the 19th century, Hegel, Darwin, Marx assumed that these ‘primitive’ societies would be wiped out. But thanks to our morticians, we have salvaged some of what we realize now are precious gifts from the past. Most important of these human cultural artifacts is the gift culture, the social glue that let humanity prosper for millennia with destroying their world, Earth.

We must return to the gift, our traditional way of relating to nature and each other, but at a higher level. Thatcher’s TINA. There is no alternative. Just as tribes and nations have a cyclical rise and fall and, transformed, rise again as a new civilization, so does mankind’s trajectory from hunter-gatherer to agriculture to industry to information age, also have a grand overarching cycle, returning to the natural order after our spectacular but lethal bursts of creative innovation, which took us so far from the natural order.

Sacred Economics 100

LawEverything is sacred. In the first place, money. Money has magical qualities, the power to alter human behavior and coordinate human activity. The simplest way to inspire belief is to appeal to our instinct of self preservation, ‘me first’. So ‘greed’ is a kind of default attribute for money, a lowest-common-denominator money, supposedly appealing to our natural state. Like a person stuck at the level of a two-year-old, ‘ME!’ is then our belief system, which our money reflects, urging us to hoard, take by force.2 And what better than using an inert metal that never decays? So gold.

But this was much later. Hunter-gatherers actually grew up without gold, not stuck at the ‘terrible twos’, never ‘greedy’. Their money was constantly exchanged as part of their foreign relations. They couldn’t hoard anything and didn’t need to. Any accumulation was seasonal. They lived in abundance and shared everything, treated everything as a gift, promoting generosity and gratitude, not greed and war. So they had no need of this base money, our money.

We have learned that early humans did not see themselves as apart, above nature. They were part of a complex world of man-nature, matter-spirit, where everything is sacred. Everything. including our consciousness is a gift. For Muslims this is our God-given nature, fitra. We dismiss this worldview of the world as a huge gift as a charming metaphor, but the gifters were serious.

For atheists this is a problem. Who to thank? For me, my existence alone is enough proof of a higher order reality. If I’m right, then I should be thanking God every second of the day and night. Sufis strive for that mindset. For Muslims, praying 5 times a day is a religious duty. And the implication is you must treat every gift with respect. Use it and leave nature as rich and beautiful as it was before. So the Alberta tarsands, a huge toxic wound on the beautiful gift of the land and resources, is sacrilege. The guilty parties are traitors to our heritage and deserve the highest punishment. Instead, we laud them and give them billions of dollars to poison more of our gifts. ARGH.

Some things are more sacred than others (thunderstorms, waterfalls, rainbows, orchids), that were there to remind us of the sacredness of all things. With the rise of agriculture and greed money, we became progressively more divorced from nature, culminating in our modern economy, where gold is valued above all else, though, apart from sitting in vaults, hoarded for its magically quality, it is useful only as ornament. Ditto mankind as a kind of secular embodiment of gold, the supreme living creature as ‘golden boy’, is valued above all else to the point of destroying all else.

The rot really set in with Descartes’ disembodied soul, divorced from the body, observing but not participating in the world, which is run by a robotic Newtonian watchmaker god. As if Descartes was intuiting what the best Story of the Self was for our Story of the World, modern capitalism, governed by the abstract, now secular spirit, money. Your soul, mind is outside of science and not that interesting in a materialist, secular world anyway.

Shakespeare, writing at the birth of the new secular, capitalist order, made the usurer Shylock the archetype for the new man of finance: cruel, ruthless, paranoid, greedy. Shakespeare’s most compelling villain. The Merchant of Venice is the only play focusing on the economics of society, on an abstract idea, usury. Shylock loses everything including his daughter, who steals her inheritance and converts to Christianity. The play was problematic from the start, Jessica seen as a schemer betraying her father. Philosemitism runs deep in Britain, a product of the Protestant Reformation and the condoning of usury as good for business.

Shakespeare wanted us to detest the usurer, but already usury was an integral part of the now accelerating commercial and industrial revolutions. His audiences had usurers among them, and the immortal words of Shylock and Portia calling for tolerance and mercy have been emphasized, without Shakespeare’s anti-capitalist message. It took Marx and a century of anti-capitalist revolution for Jessica’s rejection of Shylock’s clear villainy to be appreciated for what it is, Shakespeare’s genius at penetrating to the heart of the new order and warning us. The answer is there in the rejection of usury, the demonetization of hoarded wealth, i.e., Jessica’s jewels revert to baubles, not capital, Christianity (still outlawing usury in the 17th century) the already ineffectual antidote to the usury of the Jew.

Paradox: Even as we realize the evil of usury/ interest, we outlaw criticism of Jewry for its adoption of usury as the basis of Jewish world power, such is the power of money. It force-feeds us illusions and forces us to spout lies to maintain the system. For all that, The Merchant of Venice is Shakespeare’s most popular play in Israel. (Only Jews in their Jewish state are free to be ‘anti-semitic’.)

Marx argued that money has become a world power, and, as the practical Jewish spirit, has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations, which became the spirit of the capitalist age. A Jew himself, he identified the Jewish practice of usury as the source of the evils of the day, and assumed Jews would disappear as a persecuted race once usury was abolished. He wrote before the secrets of past civilizations had been documented and jumped to ‘revolution’ and a very abstract communism as the one-size-fits-all answer. Another hammer to kill a fly.

We have built our lives as autonomous individuals worshipping this secular, material god, rather than the traditional spiritual god. We see the world crumbling before our eyes, we know the culprit, but, like a druggie, we just keep looking for our next fix, our disembodied soul no help at all.

So first, rewrite our economic textbooks, demystifying money. Money’s ‘natural’ purpose is to connect human gifts to human needs. Now money is based on artificial scarcity and rationality. Nothing about gifts, abundance. Our thinking too must change, though the change is just a reversion to our naturally/ socially evolved generosity and gratitude, adult emotions that we have suppressed as we live out our ‘terrible twos’, still dressed in diapers, unable to metabolize what we take from nature in a civilized way.

Deconstructing the Story of Self/ the World

Our Story of Self as autonomous individuals governed by instinct (mistakenly called greed) breaks down with observed reality. We are all found under the proverbial cabbage leaf. Our lives are given to us. A gift. Let that sink in. We are walking miracles! So our default is gratitude. Even in our Age of Separation, we still honor our parents for the gift of life, which we can never repay in money. That is the truth of our existence.

I still need to pause and reread that. We are so totally programmed to blot out that essential truth. Our new Story of the Self and consequently our Story of the World must start there. Life as a gift, ‘the gift of life’, gratitude to parents, responsibility to pass on the gift of life and the gifts of nature to the next generation (natives think in terms of seven generations). No wonder ancient religious thinkers said God made the world, and gave it to us to enjoy, i.e., gave us reflective consciousness. So the basic ‘units of account’ in economics should be humility and gratitude not selfishness and egotism.

The Big Bang is like God’s humongous gift – everything for nothing. As if the universe was created for us to see and reflect on (and be thankful for). Does any of this sound like today’s Eco 101? It starts with separate selves competing for scarce resources to maximize self-interest. Our bankers create money and divvy it out to profit-maximizers, so that we can maximize our utility in this world of efficiency.

This turns out to be as depressing and destructive as it sounds. It is a neurosis-inducing Story of the People, robotic, defying our natural emotions. Ditto with the Story of the World, on the surface rational and profitable, but with scarcity and fear lurking at the unconscious level. Barter and comparative advantage in a Hobbesian brutish and nasty world. New stories, please!

Rule of the gift: What comes to you is not kept for oneself unless one cannot do without it.

Rule of the gift: Everything is related, so economic relations are mutual, we always owe someone/ nature for our taking. Toaripi, Arabic, Chinese, German, Japanese have only one word for borrowing/ lending. The Arabic din means religion and debt. The Lord’s prayer used to be ‘forgive us our debts, as we forgive other’ until capitalism got a hold of it and changed that to ‘trespasses’.

Modern money transaction are closed, no obligation, at most a ‘money-back’ guarantee, but the buck stops there. The gift is open-ended, a relationship between participants. With a gift, you give some of yourself. Now you are just sell a ‘good’, which could be bad, and which has nothing to do with you.

Even today we go all soft in ceremonies of giving presents, without the hard edge of money involved. The gift still embodies something special that money kills – the sense of uniqueness and relatedness (the self expanding to whole community) that we all know we are, not the diminished robotic self that buys and sells as the ‘greatest good’.

Law: In the money economy, more for me is less for you. Zero-sum game. In the gift economy: more for me is also more you. Positive-sum game. I.e., those who have give to those who need. Gifts cement the mystical reality of participation in something greater than oneself. Axioms of rational self-interest do not apply, as the self has expanded to include some of the other.

There is no need to distinguish between work and play, business and personal relationships. Think hunter-gatherer: you do what you have to each day which takes a few hours, all the time social networking, telling Stories. Work and play are one. Economics was linked to cosmology, religion, psyche. You, John, need x from me. So you give me wampum, which means: ‘John met the needs of others in the past and earned gratitude.’ So I can give John’s wampum later when I am gifted by someone. The Story of the gift. Now, instead of giving me wampum, I get money, which no longer satisfies the need-gratitude problem, which has no story behind it. There’s no one to thank, not even God. Today, especially not God.

When the division of labor exceeds the tribal or village level, there is the need to extend the range of our gifts. Yes, trade, progress. Comparative advantage. Eco 101. By facilitating trade, we reward efficiency in production. Money facilitates trade and should enrich life.

So what happened that turned trade-as-nice-novelty into a weapon of mass destruction, destroying entire nations through boycotts, enriching others obscenely? Now money is the source of anxiety, hardship, polarization of wealth. The US boycotts, sanctions a third of the world for daring to disobey orders, killing as many as actual warfare and bombing.

Paradox. Dollar bills still show deified presidents, ‘out of many one’, ‘in God we trust’. Not. We need a true Story of wholeness and harmony, return to the hunter-gatherer, our most successfully evolved social organism, at a higher level.

Our ‘gifts’, given by God have some of Him in them. Prometheus’s fire, the Apollonian gift of music, agriculture, all ‘made in His image’. We have the desire to develop those gifts and give from them (from Him) to the world. Nothing beats the joy of giving.3 You are playing God in the best sense. Rational self-interest does not apply in our interactions with others. Just our innate generosity. You can’t live a fulfilled life without developing those gifts, sharing them with others. But our gifts are mortgaged to the demands of money, survival. We fret about the ‘cost of living’, we are ruled by the specter of scarcity.

Where did this ‘scarcity’ in a world of plenty come from? It invaded our epistemology of i/ biology with ‘selfish genes’, ii/ socio-biology with competing selves. It is more a projection of our own capitalist culture of artificial scarcity than an understanding of nature. Recent advances in biology shows that nature gives primacy to cooperation, symbiosis, merging of organisms into larger wholes, with competition playing a secondary role. And there is no stasis in nature. Everything is always in motion, evolving, living/ dying. The world is alive.

Nature is both complex and radically simple. Human nature is the same. In nature headlong growth is sign of immature ecosystems, followed by renewed interdependency, symbiosis, cooperation, always returning, recycling of resources. Ditto human societies. We have lived through a few centuries of wild, uncontrolled exploitation of nature and this is coming to an end even as I write. Money is already frayed and will continue to unravel as our lives take on more and more the properties of gift, as we return to our true nature, our fitra. The economy will shrink, our lives will grow. What a rousing, cliff-hanger Story of Transition this will make.

Law: In a dynamic system, there is no equilibrium but a state of controlled disequilibrium, infinitely complex.

Life without prisons

Our Stories’ economics axioms: scarcity + rational maximization of self-interest. ResultWealth makes you greedy. We need prisons to prevent greedy people from being too greedy.

Money’s basic function is to facilitate exchange, connect human gifts with needs, from each according to his ability to each according to her needs. That’s right. Communism. But also any religion worth its salt. And ‘we’ turned money into a corrosive agent of scarcity. Starvation a constant for much of the world, though there’s more than enough for everyone, and most people want to help, but can’t because there’s no money in it.

Indigenous Turtle Islanders from the start shook their heads at their dangerous visitors. They had no problem of greedy people (though the Europeans saw their disdain for things as sacrilegious), no need for prisons. None voluntarily joined the Europeans’ cruel, arbitrary society of violence and slavery. Many whites ‘went native’, enjoying the freedom and beauty of moneyless society and had to be dragged back or killed. No room for traitors.

Basically, capitalist society was/is a system of warfare, a zero-sum game where the natives lived life as a positive-sum game. Captured debtors and thieves like POWs, requiring prisons. Natives understood that if you have a good community, you don’t need prisons, or (today) a complicated maze of private daycare at $10,000+ a year (nice prisons to control your children).

Natives were so busy enjoying life, they don’t have time to get bored. No one got ‘bored’ before the word was invented in 1760 at the dawn of assembly lines, mass production urban ghettoes devoid of community, no contact at all with nature.

‘Bedouins can sit for hours in the desert, feeling the ripples of time, without being bored.’4 Boredom, the yearning for stimulation, distraction, for something (rather than a relation) to pass the time. Life is not about things, but relations. But we are isolated automatons in our Story of Self. We don’t need relations, but as a result we are stuck with things to soothe the existential pain of separation, lack of relations. Camus.

Now we get bored in an instant. We demand to be entertained. Reality is boring, alien. Media is more real.

As for economic growth, the mantra promising greater happiness, really just means the economy, the commons, life in general, is more and more monetized, colonized, producing lots of things to soothe us. But when everything is monetized, a scarcity of money makes everything scarce, even when drown in a sea of ‘goods’. Nothing has changed in the real world, but now you starve. Magic.

‘Evergreen’ container ship blocked Suez Canal for a week in 2021

From Perpetual sacrifice

by William Wordsworth

Men, maidens, youths,
mother and little children, boys and girls,
enter, and each the wonted task resumes
within this temple, where is offered up
to Gain, the master idol of the realm,
perpetual sacrifice.

Wow. Buddhism sees spiritual value in suffering, but that’s in pursuit of enlightenment. To commit someone to ‘perpetual sacrifice’, wage slavery, in the service of profit is about as low as you can go. We have reached the physical limits of our Stories, where abundance is cloaked in artificial scarcity, where the engine of growth is greed. How did our natural impulse of giving, generosity, turn into its opposite? Greed doesn’t make sense, even in the context of real scarcity. We naturally share especially in times of danger. We need scarcity to penetrate into our minds, emotions, so we will discard, repress our higher impulses, our social instincts, honed over millennia, in favor of the more primitive self-preservation instinct we are taught to call ‘greed’. Greed must be built into our Story of Self, and taught in schools and universities, so that there are no traitors to the cause.

Contrary to Eco 101 wishful thinking, there is no biological gene to maximize reproduction of a self-interested, economically rational actor. Greed is not written into our biology, but is a symptom of the perception of scarcity. In a psychology experiment a group of poor vs rich were given $1000 to share. Guess who is more generous? That’s right, the poor. You knew that ‘instinctively’, 2 times more generous! When you’re rich, anxiety is always there, scarcity just a step away. It’s not greed makes you wealthy, but wealth makes you greedy. I.e., they are so ‘invested’ in their wealth, they can’t let go. Pity poor Midas.

ENDNOTES:

  • 1
    Charles Eisenstein, The Ascent of Humanity: Civilization and the Human Sense of Self , p21, 2007.
  • 2
    But children quickly move beyond that, naturally sharing when they’ve had enough.
  • 3
    Readers joke I intentionally get lost on my biking adventures to feast on the selfless generosity of strangers.
  • 4
    Ziauddin Sardar, Cyberspace as the darker side of the West, 2000.Facebook
Eric Walberg is a journalist who worked in Uzbekistan and is now writing for Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo. He is the author of From Postmodernism to Postsecularism and Postmodern Imperialism. His most recent book is Islamic Resistance to ImperialismRead other articles by Eric, or visit Eric's website.