Once you have translated a line of English text, replace the English text with the new translation.
Please do not change the time codes.
0:00:01.569,0:00:02.840
» NEIL SMITH: Saatte kokea tänään jotain odottamatonta.
0:00:02.840,0:00:07.259
Aiomme keskustella David Harveyn kanssa
0:00:07.259,0:00:08.809
luennoista, joita hän on pitänyt
0:00:08.809,0:00:11.300
Pääomasta nyt kai jo liki 40 vuotta.
0:00:11.300,0:00:13.919
Minun nimeni on Neil Smith.
0:00:13.919,0:00:19.019
Opetan antropologiaa ja maantiedettä
City University of New Yorkissa,
0:00:19.019,0:00:21.640
ja David on ollut kollegani
siitä lähtien, kun hän saapui tänne,
0:00:21.640,0:00:25.199
mutta sitä ennen, kauan ennen sitä,
yli 30 vuotta sitten,
0:00:25.199,0:00:30.009
David opetti minua Johns Hopkinsin
yliopistossa Baltimoressa,
0:00:30.009,0:00:33.180
ja silloin luin Pääoman, josta olin
toki kuullut aiemminkin,
0:00:33.180,0:00:37.580
ensimmäisen kerran läpi,
ja tosiaan Davidin kanssa.
0:00:37.580,0:00:41.620
David, mikä innosti sinua
0:00:41.620,0:00:44.570
aloittamaan Pääoman lukemisen
0:00:44.570,0:00:46.830
oletettavasti aivan 1970-luvun alussa?
0:00:46.830,0:00:48.790
» DAVID HARVEY: Se oli yksi niistä
0:00:48.790,0:00:50.480
historiallisista hetkistä, jolloin
0:00:50.480,0:00:53.360
tuntui sopivalta tehdä niin.
0:00:53.360,0:00:56.320
Saavuin Englannista
0:00:56.320,0:00:59.770
kesällä 1969.
0:00:59.770,0:01:01.670
Tulin Baltimoren kaupunkiin, jossa
0:01:01.670,0:01:07.250
olivat 1968 puhjenneet
suunnattomat väkivaltaisuudet
0:01:07.250,0:01:11.240
Martin Luther Kingin murhan seurauksena.
0:01:11.240,0:01:14.660
Kansalaisoikeusongelma kaupungissa oli ilmeinen,
0:01:14.660,0:01:17.750
kuten rasismikin.
0:01:17.750,0:01:20.530
Vietnamin sota oli käynnissä,
0:01:20.530,0:01:21.970
ja sodan
0:01:21.970,0:01:24.030
vastustus lisääntyi.
0:01:24.030,0:01:27.620
Se oli hyvin, hyvin sekavaa aikaa…
0:01:27.620,0:01:29.560
Ja muistan,
0:01:29.560,0:01:32.330
luulisin, joulukuussa 1969
0:01:32.330,0:01:36.530
Mustien panttereiden johtaja
0:01:36.530,0:01:37.920
Fred Hampton murhattiin Chicagossa,
0:01:37.920,0:01:39.489
ja pian sen jälkeen,
0:01:39.489,0:01:41.700
toukokuussa 1970,
0:01:41.700,0:01:44.740
oli Kent Staten verilöyly.
0:01:44.740,0:01:48.020
Valtava opiskelijalakko, miljoonat
opiskelijat joka puolella maata
0:01:48.020,0:01:52.100
menivät kerta kaikkiaan lakkoon.
Ja sen jälkeen oli Jackson Staten verilöyly.
0:01:52.100,0:01:57.970
Tämä oli hyvin, hyvin sekavaa aikaa.
0:01:57.970,0:01:59.009
Kuitenkin tunsin,
0:01:59.009,0:02:03.119
ettemme täysin tienneet,
0:02:03.119,0:02:07.290
kuinka käsitellä tai selittää tätä.
0:02:07.290,0:02:11.800
Minut on koulutettu eräänlaiseksi
yhteiskuntatieteilijäksi, ajattelemaan asioita, enkä kyennyt
0:02:11.800,0:02:13.499
löytämään kehystä, joka
selittäisi kaiken, mitä oli tapahtumassa.
0:02:13.499,0:02:17.539
Niinpä sanoin muutamille jatko-opiskelijoille:
"Hei, miksi emme vain yksinkertaisesti lukisi Pääomaa?
0:02:17.539,0:02:18.770
Kun se kerran on kirja, jota emme ole lukeneet,
0:02:18.770,0:02:20.669
ehkä siinä on jotain,
0:02:20.669,0:02:21.980
joka voisi toimia."
0:02:21.980,0:02:25.829
Ja niin me muutamat
aloimme pitää Pääoma-lukupiiriä.
0:02:25.829,0:02:30.779
Ja niin se kaikki alkoi. Lukiessani sen ensimmäisen kerran
0:02:30.779,0:02:32.599
ymmärsin kirjan täysin väärin,
0:02:32.599,0:02:35.059
ymmärsin sen täysin väärin.
0:02:35.059,0:02:38.499
Olisin hämmentynyt, jos nyt kuulisin,
mitä sanoimme tästä kirjasta silloin.
0:02:38.499,0:02:42.679
Se oli kuin sokea taluttamassa
sokeaa läpi tämän valtavan tekstin.
0:02:42.679,0:02:45.509
Emme tienneet, mitä olimme tekemässä,
ja sitten ajattelimme: "Olemme lukeneet sen kerran.
0:02:45.509,0:02:49.189
Meidän on parempi lukea se uudestaan, koska
ilmeisesti emme olleet ymmärtäneet sitä ihan oikein."
0:02:49.189,0:02:51.799
Mutta yksi asia, jonka tästä opin oli:
0:02:51.799,0:02:56.359
Pääomaa alkaa todella ymmärtä
vasta, kun pääsee kirjan loppuun.
0:02:56.359,0:02:58.950
Se on hyvin vaikea aloittaa…
0:02:58.950,0:02:59.979
» NEIL SMITH: Joo.
0:02:59.979,0:03:02.049
» DAVID HARVEY: …ikään kuin puhtaalta pöydältä.
0:03:02.049,0:03:04.449
Niinpä päätimme seuraavana
vuonna yrittää lukea sen uudestaan,
0:03:04.449,0:03:05.800
ja niin teimme.
0:03:05.800,0:03:08.009
Ajattelin itsekseni:
0:03:08.009,0:03:10.700
Tämä on mielenkiintoista Nyt
aloin nähdä nousevan esiin rakenteen,
0:03:10.700,0:03:15.739
joka voisi auttaa minua selittämään, mitä oli tapahtumassa.
Niinpä ajattelin: minun pitää jatkaa sinnikkäästi.
0:03:15.739,0:03:18.010
Joka puolella oli ihmisiä,
0:03:18.010,0:03:21.079
kuten minä, jotka ikään kuin tunsivat
tarvitsevansa kehyksen, ja niin,
0:03:21.079,0:03:22.829
askel askeleelta
0:03:22.829,0:03:26.049
päädyin ajatukseen:
aion lukea tämän kirjan joka vuosi.
0:03:26.049,0:03:29.609
Ja tietenkin eräs asia, joka
tapahtuu, kun teet näin on,
0:03:29.609,0:03:33.289
että yhtäkkiä huomaat
itseäsi kutsuttavan marxistiksi.
0:03:33.289,0:03:37.059
Minulla ei ollut mitään käsitystä, mitä
marxisti tarkoittaa, enkä todellakaan
0:03:37.059,0:03:40.139
välittänyt siitä aluksi, mutta yhtäkkiä,
vain koska luet tätä kirjaa,
0:03:40.139,0:03:42.289
otat sen vakavasti,
0:03:42.289,0:03:45.709
ja haluat tietää enemmän siitä,
kuinka ymmärtää maailmaa näiden linssien
0:03:45.709,0:03:49.349
läpi, löydät yhtäkkiä itsesi tästä
poliittisesta nurkkauksesta. Ja hetken päästä sanot:
0:03:49.349,0:03:54.649
Jos tämä on, mitä olen, sitten
asia on vaan niin. Joten…
0:03:54.649,0:03:56.979
» NEIL SMITH: Luulen, että saattaisi olla hyödyllistä,
0:03:56.979,0:03:59.859
koska luennot ovat edessä,
0:03:59.859,0:04:02.680
jos voisit tehdä pienen yleiskatsauksen,
0:04:02.680,0:04:04.249
kertoa hieman,
0:04:04.249,0:04:11.290
mitkä ovat mielestäsi Pääoman
ensimmäisen osan keskeisimpiä asioita.
0:04:11.290,0:04:15.229
» DAVID HARVEY: Eräs asia, joka on
mielestäni hyvä tehdä,
0:04:15.229,0:04:16.359
ja yksi syistä,
0:04:16.359,0:04:20.750
miksi olen saanut paljon mielihyvää
opettamalla tätä kurssia tällä tavalla on,
0:04:20.750,0:04:24.639
että monet ova osallistuneet kursseille,
jossa he ovat lukeneet hiukan Marxia,
0:04:24.639,0:04:28.870
hiukan Weberiä, Durkheimia, ja sen sellaista,
he ovat lukeneet otteita Marxilta ja jotain sellaista,
0:04:28.870,0:04:31.620
mutta he eivät ole koskaan todella lukeneet Pääomaa kirjana
0:04:31.620,0:04:36.430
eivätkä nähneet sen fantastista kirjallista rakennetta.
Joten eräs asia, jota todella
0:04:36.430,0:04:38.139
haluan korostaa, on
0:04:38.139,0:04:40.349
kuinka hieno kirja se on lukea!
0:04:40.349,0:04:44.919
Kun ensin pääsee ohi kielen tuottamista
vaikeuksista ja ymmärtää käsitteet
0:04:44.919,0:04:50.120
ja niin edelleen, se on erittäin
dynaaminen teos, Se virtaa mainiosti.
0:04:50.120,0:04:54.840
Se virtaa alkupisteestä, joka on
vain yksinkertainen ajatus tavarasta.
0:04:54.840,0:04:59.190
Menet kauppaan, löydät tavaran,
ostat sen, viet sen kotiisi, syöt sen
0:04:59.190,0:05:03.629
tai puet sen päällesi, tai mitä tahansa,
0:05:03.629,0:05:08.710
ja alkaen vain tästä esineestä, jonka me
kaikki tiedämme, teos vie sinut askel
0:05:08.710,0:05:10.649
askeleelta eteenpäin
0:05:10.649,0:05:14.499
selvittäen kuinka kapitalistinen talousjärjestelmä toimii.
0:05:14.499,0:05:20.509
Ja sitten se tarjoaa mahtavia
oivalluksia vaikkapa siitä,
0:05:20.509,0:05:24.150
miksi on olemassa työttömyyttä
0:05:24.150,0:05:26.290
tai miksi käydään kamppailua ajasta.
0:05:26.290,0:05:28.309
Miksi kapitalistit yrittävät aina
0:05:28.309,0:05:30.529
kaapata sinulta aikaa.
0:05:30.529,0:05:33.270
Miksi elämme maailmassa,
0:05:33.270,0:05:35.050
joka on järjestetty
0:05:35.050,0:05:39.090
tietynlaisen aikakäsityksen ympärille,
0:05:39.090,0:05:43.150
ja mitä on sorto, jota on
olemassa kaiken tämän keskellä.
0:05:43.150,0:05:46.979
Minusta se on uskomattoman paljastava kirja.
0:05:46.979,0:05:53.979
0:06:05.360,0:06:09.099
No niin, tämän kurssin tavoitteena on
0:06:09.099,0:06:14.189
saada teidät lukemaan tämä kirja,
0:06:14.189,0:06:18.189
ja tehdä se niin hyvin kuin
mahdollista Marxin omilla ehdoilla,
0:06:18.189,0:06:20.869
mikä saattaa kuulostaa vähän naurettavalta,
0:06:20.869,0:06:22.789
koska ette ole lukeneet tätä kirjaa,
0:06:22.789,0:06:24.779
ettekä siis voi tietää,
0:06:24.779,0:06:26.749
mitkä hänen ehtonsa ovat.
0:06:26.749,0:06:31.630
Mutta yksi hänen ehdoistaan on, että luette
0:06:31.630,0:06:35.479
ja sillä tavalla saatte paljon
enemmän irti tästä kurssista,
0:06:35.479,0:06:38.349
siis lukemalla sovitut pätkät
0:06:38.349,0:06:42.029
ennen luentoja sen sijaan, että
vain tulisitte paikalle ja kuuntelisitte.
0:06:42.029,0:06:46.080
On myös toinen syy,
0:06:46.080,0:06:49.729
nimittäin teidän täytyy aina kamppailla
0:06:49.729,0:06:52.990
ymmärtääksenne jotain.
0:06:52.990,0:06:56.190
Kamppailemalla itsenne kanssa
0:06:56.190,0:06:58.379
voitte saavuttaa oman ymmärryksenne
0:06:58.379,0:06:59.880
siitä, mitä Marx tarkoittaa
0:06:59.880,0:07:04.520
ja mitä se tarkoittaa teille.
0:07:04.520,0:07:06.969
Joten haluan rohkaista
0:07:06.969,0:07:07.860
teitä kytkeytymään tähän kirjaan
0:07:07.860,0:07:11.699
ja tähän tekstiin.
0:07:11.699,0:07:13.749
Tehdessänne näin
0:07:13.749,0:07:18.099
syntyy kuitenkin hankaluuksia, koska
0:07:18.099,0:07:22.659
tätä kirjaa on hyvin vaikea
lähestyä ilman joitakin ennakkokäsityksiä.
0:07:22.659,0:07:25.050
Kaikki ovat kuulleet Karl Marxista,
0:07:25.050,0:07:30.209
ja kaikki tuntevat
termit marxismi and marxisti,
0:07:30.209,0:07:33.379
ja nuo sanat kantavat
0:07:33.379,0:07:35.509
mukanaan kaikenlaisia konnotaatioita.
0:07:35.509,0:07:41.370
Niinpä minun täytyy heti alussa
pyytää teitä hylkäämään monet noista
0:07:41.370,0:07:43.689
ennakkokäsityksistä, monet asiat,
0:07:43.689,0:07:47.289
joita luulette tietävänne Marxista,
ja vain yrittämään lukea tekstiä
0:07:47.289,0:07:52.179
saadaksenne selville, mitä
Marx todella yrittää sanoa.
0:07:52.179,0:07:55.229
Se ei tietenkään
0:07:55.229,0:07:59.270
ole helppoa johtuen
joukosta muita syitä,
0:07:59.270,0:08:03.679
joista haluan puhua johdantona.
0:08:03.679,0:08:06.870
Yksi näistä ennakkokäsityksistä, joiden
0:08:06.870,0:08:09.680
kautta yleensä lähestymme tällaista tekstiä,
0:08:09.680,0:08:13.610
aiheutuu tietynlaisesta
intellektuaalisesta historiastamme
0:08:13.610,0:08:17.449
ja tietynlaisesta
intellektuaalisesta järjestäytymisestämme,
0:08:17.449,0:08:21.009
ja esimerkiksi jatko-opiskelijoilla tätä
0:08:21.009,0:08:26.249
intellektuaalista järjestäytymistä hallitsevat
hyvin usein tietaanalakohtaiset koneistot
0:08:26.249,0:08:27.530
tieteenalan näkökohdat,
0:08:27.530,0:08:30.169
tietaanalakohtaiset asiat.
0:08:30.169,0:08:32.580
Niinpä ihmisillä on tapana
0:08:32.580,0:08:37.050
tavallaan lukea teosta oman
tieteenalansa näkökulmasta.
0:08:37.050,0:08:42.720
Eräs suurenmoinen juttu Marxissa on,
ettei hänellä koskaan ollut vakinaista virkaa
0:08:42.720,0:08:46.090
millään tieteenalalla, ja jos haluatte
lukea häntä oikein, teidän täytyy unohtaa
0:08:46.090,0:08:48.130
viran saaminen alallanne,
0:08:48.130,0:08:51.600
ei tietenkään pitkässä juoksussa,
mutta ainakin tämän kurssin ajaksi.
0:08:51.600,0:08:53.350
Teidän täytyy ajatella,
0:08:53.350,0:08:54.430
mitä hän sanoo
0:08:54.430,0:08:58.400
riippumatta tieteenalanne koneistosta,
0:08:58.400,0:09:03.270
jonka kanssa alatte ajatella asioita.
0:09:03.270,0:09:07.800
Toinen asia on, että itse asiassa
Pääoma osoittautuu hämmästyttävän
0:09:07.800,0:09:10.660
rikkaaksi kirjaksi viitaustensa osalta:
0:09:10.660,0:09:14.550
viittauksia Shakespeareen,
kreikkalaisiin, Balzaciin,
0:09:14.550,0:09:17.740
viittauksia kaikkiin poliittisiin
taloustieteilijöihin, filosofeihin,
0:09:17.740,0:09:21.100
antropologeihin ja niin edelleen.
Toisin sanoen
0:09:21.100,0:09:22.920
Marx turvautuu
0:09:22.920,0:09:25.950
valtavaan joukkoon lähteitä,
0:09:25.950,0:09:29.980
ja kun hän tekee niin, saattaa
olla jännittävää tavallaan keksiä,
0:09:29.980,0:09:32.140
mitä jotkin noista lähteistä ovat,
ja itse asiassa
0:09:32.140,0:09:36.700
jotkin niistä ovat melko vaikeita
jäljittää, ja olen etsinyt niitä jo kauan.
0:09:36.700,0:09:41.250
Mutta se on tavallaan hyvin
jännittävää, kun alat nähdä
0:09:41.250,0:09:42.589
joitakin
0:09:42.589,0:09:45.259
yhteyksiä. Esimerkiksi, kun aloin
ensimmäistä kertaa lukea Pääomaa, en ollut
0:09:45.259,0:09:48.850
paljonkaan Balzacin romaaneja.
Myöhemmin luin niitä ja sanoin itselleni:
0:09:48.850,0:09:51.690
"ai, tuosta Marx sen otti!",
0:09:51.690,0:09:55.550
ja sitten yhtäkkiä näkee
Marxin turvautuvan monin tavoin
0:09:55.550,0:09:57.400
täysin elämykselliseen maailmaan
0:09:57.400,0:10:00.570
täynnä Goetheä, täynnä
Shakespeareä ja niin edelleen.
0:10:00.570,0:10:01.510
Se on siis
0:10:01.510,0:10:04.710
tällä tavalla hyvin rikas teksti,
ja sitä alkaa arvostaa
0:10:04.710,0:10:06.359
mielestäni enemmän,
0:10:06.359,0:10:08.860
kun lakkaa sanomasta itselleen:
0:10:08.860,0:10:11.660
"keneen hän viittaa historiassa?" tai "kenestä
0:10:11.660,0:10:14.380
taloustieteilijästä hän puhuu?" ja niin edelleen.
0:10:14.380,0:10:17.260
Toinen asia, jonka huomaa
lukemalla Pääomaa tuolla tavalla,
0:10:17.260,0:10:19.930
on että se on itse asiassa hyvin mielenkiintoinen kirja.
0:10:19.930,0:10:22.460
Se on lumoava teos,
0:10:22.460,0:10:25.980
ja tässä törmäämme
uusiin ennakkokäsityksiin,
0:10:25.980,0:10:28.660
sillä monet teistä ovat jo
0:10:28.660,0:10:31.020
aiemmin lukeneet joitain Marxin kirjoituksia.
0:10:31.020,0:10:34.620
Ehkä luitte lukiossa
Kommunistisen manifestin.
0:10:34.620,0:10:37.710
Ehkä olette suorittaneet
jonkin mainion kurssin,
0:10:37.710,0:10:40.880
kuten vaikkapa "Johdatus yhteiskuntateoriaan",
josta kaksi viikkoa käytettiin Marxiin,
0:10:40.880,0:10:46.460
kaksi viikkoa Weberiin, muutama
viikko Durkheimiin ja muihin vastaaviin tyyppeihin.
0:10:46.460,0:10:48.910
Ehkä olette myös
lukeneet joitain otteita Pääomasta.
0:10:48.910,0:10:54.000
Poimintojen lukeminen Pääomasta on
kuitenkin täysin erilaista kuin lukea se kirjana,
0:10:54.000,0:10:58.269
koska jälkimmäisellä tavalla alkaa nähdä
näiden irrallisten palasten jollain tavalla
0:10:58.269,0:11:02.270
muodostavan paljon suuremman
ja laajemman kertomuksen,
0:11:02.270,0:11:05.430
ja se mitä haluan teidän yrittävän
saada tästä irti, on jonkinlainen ymmärrys
0:11:05.430,0:11:11.170
tästä suuremmasta kertomuksesta
ja ajatuksesta, sillä tällä tavoin Marx
0:11:11.170,0:11:14.040
uskoakseni haluaisi itseään
luettavan. Hän tuntisi inhoa,
0:11:14.040,0:11:15.230
jos joku sanoisi:
0:11:15.230,0:11:19.000
"Hei, sinun pitää ottaa poiminto tuosta luvusta"
tai "Sinun pitää lukea tämä luku", ja siten
0:11:19.000,0:11:20.080
Marxia voi ymmärtää.
0:11:20.080,0:11:23.680
Eikä hän varmastikaan olisi mielissään,
jos tietäisi, että hänelle on suotu kolme viikkoa
0:11:23.680,0:11:25.290
johdantokurssista yhteiskuntateoriaan.
0:11:25.290,0:11:27.440
Ja mielestäni teidänkin tulee inhota sitä,
0:11:27.440,0:11:30.280
koska sellaisesta saa hyvin
0:11:30.280,0:11:32.070
erilaisen käsityksen Marxista
0:11:32.070,0:11:35.290
kuin lukemalla
0:11:35.290,0:11:38.600
Pääoman kaltaisen kirjan.
0:11:38.600,0:11:43.120
Toinen asia, joka monesti tapahtuu,
0:11:43.120,0:11:49.320
että ihmiset alkavat
järjestellä ymmärystään uudelleen
0:11:49.320,0:11:52.930
tieteenalaansa liittyvän
tarkastelukulman ympärille. Saatatte sanoa:
0:11:52.930,0:11:56.380
"En ole hyvä taloustieteilijä, en
ymmärrä tätä taloustiedettä lainkaan,
0:11:56.380,0:11:59.190
joten en aio vaivautua
seuraamaan taloudellista perustelua
0:11:59.190,0:12:00.200
Aion vain
0:12:00.200,0:12:01.819
seurata filosofista perustelua".
0:12:01.819,0:12:02.819
Ja itse asiassa
0:12:02.819,0:12:04.830
on hyvin mielenkiintoista lukea
0:12:04.830,0:12:07.460
Marxia tuosta näkökulmasta.
0:12:07.460,0:12:11.290
Olen opettanut tätä kurssia
nyt vuodesta 1971 alkaen joka vuosi
0:12:11.290,0:12:12.780
yhtä lukuun ottamatta.
0:12:12.780,0:12:17.240
Joinakin vuosina olen pitänyt tämän
kahdesti ja joinakin jopa kolme kertaa.
0:12:17.240,0:12:20.880
Alkuvuosina opetin
tätä kaikenlaisille
0:12:20.880,0:12:22.310
eri ryhmille.
0:12:22.310,0:12:23.670
Eräänä vuonna opiskelijoina oli
0:12:23.670,0:12:27.430
koko filosofian osasto
silloisesta Morgan State
0:12:27.430,0:12:29.949
Collegesta, nykyisestä Morgan
State Universitystä
0:12:29.949,0:12:33.690
ja toisella kerralla kaikki jatko-opiskelijat
englannin kielen koulutusohjelmasta Johns Hopkinsissa.
0:12:33.690,0:12:34.579
Eräänä vuonna
0:12:34.579,0:12:38.960
opiskelijoina oli taloustieteilijöitä
ja niin edelleen. Itse asiassa pidin vaikuttavana,
0:12:38.960,0:12:43.170
että aina lukiessani kirjaa eri ryhmän
kanssa, he näkivät siinä eri asioita.
0:12:43.170,0:12:46.540
Opin tosiaankin paljon
tekstistä käymällä sitä läpi hyvin
0:12:46.540,0:12:49.670
erilaisista tieteenaloista koostuvien ryhmien kanssa.
0:12:49.670,0:12:52.680
Välillä se teki minut
hulluksi, mutta opin paljon.
0:12:52.680,0:12:55.100
Esimerkiksi eräänä vuonna
0:12:55.100,0:13:00.930
opetin Pääomaa ryhmälle Johns Hopkinsin
vertailevan kirjallisuudentutkimuksen koulutusohjelmasta.
0:13:00.930,0:13:03.630
Heitä oli suunnilleen seitsemän.
0:13:03.630,0:13:07.290
Aloimme käsitellä ensimmäistä lukua,
0:13:07.290,0:13:11.040
ja lopulta vietimme koko lukukauden sen parissa.
0:13:11.040,0:13:14.710
Se teki minut hulluksi. Sanoin:
"Hei, meidän täytyy päästä työpäivään asti
0:13:14.710,0:13:17.029
ja muihin keskeisiin asioihin".
Mutta he vastasivat:
0:13:17.029,0:13:20.690
"Ei, ei, meidän täytyy ymmärtää tämä oikein"
"Mitä Marx itse asiassa
0:13:20.690,0:13:23.870
tarkoittaa arvolla? Mikä
todella on tämä rahatavara? Mistä
0:13:23.870,0:13:26.070
fetiššissä on kyse?
Mistä tässä kaikessa on todella kyse?"
0:13:26.070,0:13:27.270
Ja se osoittautui…
0:13:27.270,0:13:30.830
Kysyin: "Miksi teette näin?"
He vastasivat työskentelevänsä
0:13:30.830,0:13:33.679
erääseen perinteeseen nojaten ja
mainitsivat nimen, jota en ollut silloin edes kuullut
0:13:33.679,0:13:37.430
mutta jota pidin idioottina, koska
hän aikaansai tällaista toimintaa.
0:13:37.430,0:13:39.980
Kyseessä oli Jacques Derrida,
0:13:39.980,0:13:44.240
joka vietti paljon aikaa Hopkinsissa
1960-luvun lopussa ja 1970-luvun
0:13:44.240,0:13:47.460
alussa ollen itse asiassa
0:13:47.460,0:13:50.890
vaikutusvaltainen vertailevan
kirjallisuudentutkimuksen koulutusohjelmassa.
0:13:50.890,0:13:53.100
Yksi asia, jota myöhemmin pohdin
0:13:53.100,0:13:55.150
kaikesta tästä oli, että…
0:13:55.150,0:14:00.080
He opettivat minua kiinnittämään hyvin
tarkasti huomiota Marxin kielenkäyttöön:
0:14:00.080,0:14:05.040
mitä hän sanoo, kuinka hän sen sanoo, mitä
hän tarkoittaa ja myös mitä hän jättää sanomatta.
0:14:05.040,0:14:08.160
Se on myös kamalan tärkeää.
0:14:08.160,0:14:12.800
Joten itse asiassa opin…
ja olen nyt hyvin kiitollinen tälle ryhmälle,
0:14:12.800,0:14:16.530
paitsi etten enää osoita
olevani idiootti samomalla, etten…
0:14:16.530,0:14:19.270
En ollut koskaan kuullut
Jacques Derridasta, ymmärrättehän.
0:14:19.270,0:14:23.380
Minuun siis vaikutti paljon,
0:14:23.380,0:14:28.170
että sain käydä tällaisen ryhmän
kanssa läpi pelkästään ensimmäisen luvun
0:14:28.170,0:14:30.100
äärimmäisellä tarkkuudella,
0:14:30.100,0:14:33.360
tutkien lähes joka sanaa,
joka lausetta, jokaista asiayhteyttä
0:14:33.360,0:14:34.910
ja niin edelleen.
0:14:34.910,0:14:38.860
Todellakin haluan saada teidät
työpäivään asti. Todellakin haluan
0:14:38.860,0:14:41.629
saada teidät koko kirjan läpi,
joten emme aio käyttää kaikkea aikaa
0:14:41.629,0:14:43.090
ensimmäiseen lukuun, mutta
0:14:43.090,0:14:46.580
tällä tavoin eri tieteenalat
voivat avata uusia näkökulmia,
0:14:46.580,0:14:51.300
sillä Marx todella kirjoitti tämän tekstin
0:14:51.300,0:14:55.890
noista monista eri näkökulmista,
joihin olen viitannut.
0:14:55.890,0:14:56.610
Meidän on
0:14:56.610,0:14:58.280
mielestäni tunnistettava,
0:14:58.280,0:15:03.330
kuinka nuo eri näkökulmat
leikkaavat toisiaan tekstin sisällä.
0:15:03.330,0:15:06.130
On itse asiassa kolme merkittävää
0:15:06.130,0:15:08.430
alaa, jotka ovat antaneet
0:15:08.430,0:15:10.550
inspiraatiota tälle teokselle,
0:15:10.550,0:15:13.790
ja niitä kaikkia Marx on
0:15:13.790,0:15:18.940
vienyt eteenpäin sitoutuen vahvasti
0:15:18.940,0:15:22.540
kriittiseen teoriaan ja kriittiseen anlyysiin.
0:15:22.540,0:15:27.890
Ollessaan melko nuori hän kirjoitti
pienen jutun eräälle toimittajakollegalleen
0:15:27.890,0:15:30.070
eräässä saksalaisessa lehdessä.
0:15:30.070,0:15:35.360
Kirjoituksen otsikko oli Säälimätön
arvostelu kaikkea olevaista kohtaan.
0:15:35.360,0:15:40.440
Se on hyvin vaatimaton kirjoitus,
ja ehdotankin, että luette sen,
0:15:40.440,0:15:42.780
sillä se on hurmaava.
0:15:42.780,0:15:45.640
Hän ei sano siinä,
0:15:45.640,0:15:46.680
että kaikki
0:15:46.680,0:15:50.800
ovat typeriä, aion haukkua kaikki
lyttyyn, tai että aion arvostella kaikki
0:15:50.800,0:15:51.790
hengiltä. Ei,
0:15:51.790,0:15:53.760
vaan hän sanoo, että,
0:15:53.760,0:15:57.050
on ollut paljon vakavasti otettavia
ihmisiä, jotka ovat ajatelleet asioita
0:15:57.050,0:15:58.760
tosi kovasti,
0:15:58.760,0:16:04.830
ja että he ovat ymmärtäneet joitakin asioita maailmasta.
Se, mitä he ovat ymmärtäneet, on meidän resurssimme.
0:16:04.830,0:16:09.540
Kriittinen metodi tarttuu siihen,
mitä nämä ihmiset ovat ymmärtäneet,
0:16:09.540,0:16:15.080
työskentelee sen kimpussa,
ja muuttaa sen joksikin muuksi.
0:16:15.080,0:16:18.200
Eräs asia, jonka Marx myöhemmin sanoi,
mikä mielestäni tuo hänen metodinsa mainiosti
0:16:18.200,0:16:19.750
ilmi, on
0:16:19.750,0:16:24.220
että tuo muutos tehdään ottamalla
0:16:24.220,0:16:26.699
hyvin erilaisia käsitteellisiä järjestelmiä,
0:16:26.699,0:16:32.370
jotka yhdistetään keskenään, ja
näin aikaansaadaan jotain mullistavaa.
0:16:32.370,0:16:36.790
Tämä on oikeastaan se, mitä hän tekee.
Hän ottaa hyvin, hyvin erilaisia traditioita,
0:16:36.790,0:16:38.340
yhdistää niitä,
0:16:38.340,0:16:39.800
hankaa niitä yhteen,
0:16:39.800,0:16:43.960
ja luo täysin uuden
tiedollisen rakenteen.
0:16:43.960,0:16:47.790
Kuten Marx sanoo eräässä esipuheessaan,
0:16:49.670,0:16:52.350
jos haluaa luoda uuden tiedollisen järjestelmän,
0:16:52.350,0:16:55.790
on uudistettava koko käsitteistö.
0:16:55.790,0:17:00.590
On uudistettava koko tutkimusmetodi.
0:17:00.590,0:17:04.939
Kolme järjestelmää, jotka hän yhdistää Pääomassa,
0:17:04.939,0:17:07.110
ovat nämä:
0:17:07.110,0:17:09.579
Ensimmäisenä on
0:17:09.579,0:17:12.180
poliittisen taloustieteen perinne,
0:17:12.180,0:17:17.640
1700-luvun ja 1800-luvun
alun poliittinen taloustiede.
0:17:17.640,0:17:20.010
Se on enimmäkseen englantilaista,
0:17:20.010,0:17:22.600
ei yksinomaan englantilaista, mutta se ulottuu
0:17:22.600,0:17:28.070
Lockesta, Hobbesista ja Humesta, totta
kai, Adam Smithiin, Ricardoon ja Malthusiin
0:17:28.070,0:17:32.180
sekä suureen joukkoon muita kirjoittajia,
joista merkittävimpiä on esimerkiksi Steuart.
0:17:32.180,0:17:35.880
Hän alisti kaikki nämä henkilöt
0:17:35.880,0:17:39.730
hyvin perusteelliselle kritiikille
0:17:39.730,0:17:45.040
kolmiosaisessa teoksessaan Lisäarvoteorioita.
0:17:45.040,0:17:48.240
Hänellä ei ollut valokopiokonetta
eikä internetiä tai mitään muuta
0:17:48.240,0:17:51.240
sellaista, joten hän
kopioi vaivalloisesti käsin
0:17:51.240,0:17:52.980
pitkiä katkelmia Adam Smithiltä,
0:17:52.980,0:17:54.770
joihin hän sitten kirjoitti huomautuksia,
0:17:54.770,0:17:59.290
pitkiä katkelmia Steuartilta,
0:17:59.290,0:18:03.390
ja jälleen jonkinlaisia huomautuksia niihin.
0:18:03.390,0:18:07.990
Itse asiassa sitä, mitä hän teki,
kutsutaan nykyään dekonstruktioksi.
0:18:07.990,0:18:10.210
Eräs asia, jonka opin
0:18:10.210,0:18:12.950
lukemalla Lisäarvoteorioita,
0:18:12.950,0:18:16.170
oli argumenttien purkaminen tällä tavoin.
0:18:16.170,0:18:18.340
Oikeastaan Marx ajatteli näin:
0:18:18.340,0:18:19.979
"Adam Smith väittää näin.
0:18:19.979,0:18:22.770
Mitä hän on jättänyt pois?
0:18:22.770,0:18:25.030
Mitä puuttuu? Mikä on se puuttuva
0:18:25.030,0:18:26.400
palanen,
0:18:26.400,0:18:28.299
joka auttaa pitämään kaiken kasassa
0:18:28.299,0:18:32.390
ja joka
muuttaa argumentin?"
0:18:32.390,0:18:34.470
Joten poliittinen taloustiede
0:18:34.470,0:18:37.750
on todellakin melko vahva
0:18:37.750,0:18:38.540
eräänä…
0:18:38.540,0:18:42.760
…eräänä osana kertomusta.
0:18:42.760,0:18:46.429
Tunnen poliittista taloustiedettä varsin
hyvin. Olen lukenut sitä paljon, ja se on
0:18:46.429,0:18:50.140
minulle kohtalaisen tuttua. Ehkä se
johtuu siitä, että tulen englantilaisesta
0:18:50.140,0:18:53.260
perinteestä ja tunnen oloni mukavaksi siinä.
0:18:53.260,0:18:56.080
Kun käymme kirjaa läpi,
0:18:56.080,0:18:58.960
annan teille hiukan
0:18:58.960,0:19:00.850
taustatietoa tästä,
0:19:00.850,0:19:02.960
jotta tietäisitte, mistä Marx on saanut inspiraatiota,
0:19:02.960,0:19:05.240
sillä hän ei aina mainitse sitä Pääomassa.
0:19:05.240,0:19:06.789
Jokin merkittävä ajatus,
0:19:06.789,0:19:08.830
joka on selvästikin otettu jostakin,
0:19:08.830,0:19:10.400
nousee esiin,
0:19:10.400,0:19:14.410
mutta Marx ei aina mainitse mistä.
0:19:14.410,0:19:15.820
Oli totta kai
0:19:15.820,0:19:21.420
joitain muitakin teoreettikkoja, jopa
yhdysvaltalaisia, mutta etupäässä ranskalaisia.
0:19:21.420,0:19:25.230
Oli siis olemassa myös ranskalainen,
jokseenkin erilainen, poliittisen taloustieteen perinne.
0:19:25.230,0:19:29.370
Marx viittaa siihen, mutta ylipäänsä
poliittinen taloustiede on eräs merkittävä ala,
0:19:29.370,0:19:32.920
jota hän käsittelee.
0:19:32.920,0:19:36.460
Toinen ala
0:19:36.460,0:19:39.770
on Saksan klassinen, kriittinen filosofia,
0:19:39.770,0:19:41.870
joka juontaa juurensa
aina antiikin kreikkalaisista asti.
0:19:41.870,0:19:45.660
Marx kirjoitti väitöskirjansa
0:19:45.660,0:19:50.040
Epikuroksesta, joten hän tunsi
erittäin hyvin kreikkalaista ajattelua
0:19:50.040,0:19:52.750
ja sitä, kuinka kreikkalainen ajattelu
0:19:52.750,0:19:56.230
kulkeutui saksalaisen
filosofian klassiseen perinteeseen,
0:19:56.230,0:20:01.340
Spinozan, Leibnizin ja tietysti Hegelin
0:20:01.340,0:20:04.390
sekä monien muiden kautta.
0:20:04.390,0:20:08.470
Tämä perinne on
myös äärimmäisen tärkeä.
0:20:08.470,0:20:13.390
Hän siis käyttää monin tavoin
saksalaisen kriittisen filosofian perinnettä
0:20:13.390,0:20:17.310
poliittisen taloustieteen
yhteydessä. Hän siis laittaa ne yhteen.
0:20:17.310,0:20:19.200
Marx myös turvautui
0:20:19.200,0:20:21.980
suuresti Kantiin.
0:20:21.980,0:20:23.760
Tämä perinne
0:20:23.760,0:20:27.660
on siis myös hyvin tärkeä. En ole kovinkaan
0:20:27.660,0:20:31.320
hyvin perehtynyt kyseiseen traditioon,
0:20:31.320,0:20:32.590
joten ne teistä,
0:20:32.590,0:20:36.620
jotka ovat siihen minua enemmän perehtyneet,
huomannette asioita, jotka menevät minulta ohi.
0:20:36.620,0:20:38.970
Tämä asian opin työskennellessäni
0:20:38.970,0:20:41.900
ryhmän filosofeja kanssa, jotka olivat
0:20:41.900,0:20:45.600
Hegelin kyllästämiä.
Niinpä sain hyvin hegeliläisen
0:20:45.600,0:20:49.720
kuvan siitä, kuinka Marx
menettelee. Tiedän siitä jotain,
0:20:49.720,0:20:50.870
mutta en
0:20:50.870,0:20:53.140
niin paljon kuin haluaisin.
0:20:53.140,0:20:57.170
Täytyy sanoa, että
tunsin myötätuntoa brittiläistä
0:20:57.170,0:21:00.700
taloustieteilijää Joan Robinsonia kohtaan, kun
hän sanoi todella paheksuneensa tapaa, jolla
0:21:00.700,0:21:06.880
Hegel työnsi nenänsä hänen
ja Ricardon väliin Pääomassa.
0:21:06.880,0:21:09.130
Tunsin myötätuntoa…
0:21:09.130,0:21:11.870
…ja jotkin…
0:21:11.870,0:21:15.929
…ongelmista, joita minulla on ollut
tutustuttuani Hegeliin.
0:21:15.929,0:21:19.340
Tavallaan tunnen myötätuntoa.
0:21:19.340,0:21:23.760
Itse asiassa sanon leikilläni, ja ehkä minun ei
pitäisi sitä sanoa, sillä järkytän kaikkia hegeliläisiä,
0:21:23.760,0:21:27.530
tosiaankin, on hyvä lukea
Hegeliä ennen kuin lukee Marxia,
0:21:27.530,0:21:32.730
sillä se tekee Marxin lukemisen melko helpoksi.
0:21:32.730,0:21:37.270
Joten ottakaa annos Hegeliä
ennen Marxia, ja kaikki menee hyvin.
0:21:37.270,0:21:38.990
Kolmas perinne,
0:21:38.990,0:21:41.750
jota hän käyttää ja johon paljon vetoaa,
0:21:41.750,0:21:46.070
on utopistisen sosialismin perinne.
0:21:46.070,0:21:48.570
Se on etupäässä ranskalaista,
0:21:48.570,0:21:52.460
vaikkakin oli Robert Owen
ja joitakuita muitakin brittejä,
0:21:52.460,0:21:54.100
tietysti Thomas More,
0:21:54.100,0:21:57.570
jotka putkahtavat aina
silloin tällöin esiin tekstissä,
0:21:57.570,0:21:59.900
mutta suuret sosialistiset ajattelijat…
0:21:59.900,0:22:10.180
…1830- ja 1840-luvulla Ranskassa oli
valtava määrä utopistista ajattelua.
0:22:10.180,0:22:15.510
Sellaiset henkilöt kuin Étienne Cabet, joka loi
ryhmän nimeltään ikarialaiset, jotka asettuivat
0:22:15.510,0:22:19.050
asumaan Yhdysvaltoihin 1848.
0:22:19.050,0:22:25.490
Proudhon, Saint-Simon, Fourier.
0:22:25.490,0:22:28.810
Marx tunsi erittäin hyvin, hän
vietti jonkin verran aikaa Pariisissa,
0:22:28.810,0:22:30.169
heidän teoksensa,
0:22:30.169,0:22:37.210
ja jos luette Kommunistisen manifestin, huomaatte
hänen olleen hieman turhautunut heidän teoksiinsa.
0:22:37.210,0:22:40.780
Hän ei pidä tavasta, jolla
0:22:40.780,0:22:46.800
utopistit määrittävät jonkinlaista
ihanneyhteiskuntaa ilman mitään ajatusta,
0:22:46.800,0:22:51.080
kuinka se voidaan toteuttaa.
0:22:51.080,0:22:54.810
Mitä Marx haluaa tehdä,
0:22:54.810,0:22:58.270
on yrittää muuttaa sosialistinen hanke
0:22:58.270,0:23:02.930
utopistisesta tieteelliseksi.
0:23:02.930,0:23:06.220
Mutta tehdäkseen
sen hän ei voi vain ottaa
0:23:06.220,0:23:09.490
englantilaista empirismiä, englantilaista
poliittista taloustiedettä ja sellaisia asioita.
0:23:09.490,0:23:14.760
Hänen täytyy määrittää uudelleen,
0:23:14.760,0:23:17.870
mistä tieteellisessä metodissa on kyse.
0:23:17.870,0:23:21.970
Hänen tieteellinen metodinsa
0:23:21.970,0:23:25.780
perustuu siis
0:23:25.780,0:23:29.490
sekoitukseen etupäässä englantilaiseen klassiseen
0:23:29.490,0:23:32.190
poliittisen taloustieteen perinteeseen
0:23:32.190,0:23:36.000
yhdistettynä lähinnä saksalaiseen
kriittisen filosofian perinteeseen
0:23:36.000,0:23:39.500
sekä utooppiseen virikkeeseen,
0:23:39.500,0:23:42.559
joka kysyy: mitä on kommunismi?
Mitä on sosialistinen yhteiskunta?
0:23:42.559,0:23:44.970
Kuinka voimme kritisoida kapitalismia?
0:23:44.970,0:23:49.660
Se on ikään kuin kolmas tekijä,
joka vie häntä eteenpäin.
0:23:49.660,0:23:52.710
Tunnen melko hyvin
0:23:52.710,0:23:56.549
ranskalaisen sosialistisen perinteen,
varsinkin tuolta ajalta, sen ajan
0:23:56.549,0:23:58.440
utooppisen perinteen,
0:23:58.440,0:24:02.560
ja ole jopa kirjoittanut siitä, joten… Olen
lukenut paljon noista ihmisistä, erityisesti
0:24:02.560,0:24:08.559
Fourier'sta, Saint-Simonista ja Proudhonista,
0:24:08.559,0:24:14.280
ja itse asiassa Marx ammentaa
heiltä enemmän kuin haluaa myöntää,
0:24:14.280,0:24:18.940
sillä hän haluaa tavallaan irtisanoutua
0:24:18.940,0:24:22.030
tästä peittelemättömän
utopistisesta perinteestä,
0:24:22.030,0:24:25.440
joka vallitsi 1830- ja
1840-luvulla ja jota hän piti
0:24:25.440,0:24:31.330
eräänä syynä vuoden 1848
vallankumouksen epäonnistumiseen Pariisissa.
0:24:31.330,0:24:35.330
Halutessaan irtisanoutua tästä kaikesta hän totesi:
0:24:35.330,0:24:39.820
"En aio tunnustaa heitä juurikaan",
0:24:39.820,0:24:44.049
mutta oikeastaan hän hyödyntää
heitä paljon, varsinkin Saint-Simonia,
0:24:44.049,0:24:50.390
mutta myös Fourier'ta negaation
kautta. Oikeastaan monet hänen ajatuksistaan
0:24:50.390,0:24:52.490
ovat Fourier'n kieltämistä.
0:24:52.490,0:24:55.820
Häntä ei siis voi todella ymmärtää,
ellei ymmärrä, kenen ajatuksia hän kieltää,
0:24:55.820,0:24:57.850
ja se on Fourier, samoin kuin
0:24:57.850,0:24:59.570
hän kieltää kertakaikkisesti
0:24:59.570,0:25:03.470
monien poliittisten taloustieteilijöiden
ajatuksia, varsinkin Malthusin, joita
0:25:03.470,0:25:05.220
hänen on erityisen
0:25:05.220,0:25:09.740
vaikea hyväksyä.
0:25:09.740,0:25:15.940
Nämä ovat siis keskeisiä ajatuksia,
jotka yhdistyvät tässä kirjassa.
0:25:15.940,0:25:18.610
Ehdotin kuitenkin, että
meidän pitäisi lukea sitä
0:25:18.610,0:25:23.550
Marxin omilla ehdoilla, mutta se aiheuttaa
0:25:23.550,0:25:28.220
myös koko joukon ongelmia,
mistä Marx itsekin oli tietoinen.
0:25:28.220,0:25:31.510
Hän huomautti kiinnostavalla tavalla
0:25:31.510,0:25:33.850
eräässä esipuheistaan,
0:25:33.850,0:25:41.900
nimittäin ranskalaisen painoksen esipuheessa,
0:25:41.900,0:25:46.029
kun oli ehdotettu, että
ranskalainen painos julkaistaisiin
0:25:46.029,0:25:51.140
sarjajulkaisuna. Ranskalaiset
julkaisevat mielellään teoksia feuilletoneina
0:25:51.140,0:25:55.170
siten, että lehti ilmestyy ja
siinä on kaksi ensimmäistä lukua…
0:25:55.170,0:26:00.370
ja seuraavalla viikolla…
tavallaan eräänlaisena sarjajulkaisuna.
0:26:00.370,0:26:04.220
Mitä Marx kirjoittaa (tämä on vuonna 1872),
0:26:04.220,0:26:08.270
hän sanoo: "Hyväksyn ajatuksenne "Pääoman"
käännöksen julkaisemisesta jaksoittaisina vihkoina.
0:26:08.270,0:26:11.570
Tässä muodossa tulee teos
työväenluokalle helpommaksi hankkia,
0:26:11.570,0:26:17.540
ja tämä näkökohta on
minulle kaikkia muita tärkeämpi.
0:26:17.540,0:26:20.460
Tämä on mitalin kaunis puoli,
0:26:20.460,0:26:22.940
mutta sillä on nurjakin puolensa:
0:26:22.940,0:26:26.120
erittelyn metodi, jota minä käytän
0:26:26.120,0:26:29.799
ja jota ei vielä ole
sovellettu taloudellisiin ongelmiin.
0:26:29.799,0:26:31.960
Se tekee ensimmäisten lukujen lukemisen
0:26:31.960,0:26:37.310
melko vaikeaksi ja on
pelättävissä, että ranskalainen yleisö,"…
0:26:37.310,0:26:38.770
(ja tämä käsittää myös teidät)
0:26:38.770,0:26:42.690
"…joka pyrkii aina maltittomana tulokseen,
haluaa kiihkeästi oppia tuntemaan yleisten
0:26:42.690,0:26:44.110
periaatteiden yhteyden
0:26:44.110,0:26:47.040
sitä itseään välittömästi
askarruttaviin kysymyksiin,
0:26:47.040,0:26:51.870
säikähtää eikä jatka eteenpäin,
koska se ei saakaan kaikkea heti alussa.
0:26:51.870,0:26:54.659
Tämä on se varjopuoli,
jolle en voi tehdä muuta
0:26:54.659,0:26:57.840
kiinnittää siihen aivan alusta huomiota
0:26:57.840,0:27:00.850
ja aseistaa täten totuutta etsiviä lukijoita.
0:27:00.850,0:27:04.490
Tieteen kukkuloille ei johda mitään valtatietä,
ja vain se voi toivoa saavuttavansa sen
0:27:04.490,0:27:06.759
kirkkaat huiput, joka ei
0:27:06.759,0:27:08.150
säikähdä uupumusta
0:27:08.150,0:27:12.710
sen jyrkkiä polkuja kiivetessään."
0:27:12.710,0:27:15.399
Koska siis olette kaikki kiinnostuneita
0:27:15.399,0:27:17.830
innokkaasti tavoittelemaan totuutta,
0:27:17.830,0:27:20.019
minun täytyy varoittaa teitä. Tosiaankin,
0:27:20.019,0:27:25.870
muutaman ensimmäisen luvun lukeminen on
erityisen uuvuttavaa. Se on erityisen vaikeaa,
0:27:25.870,0:27:28.740
mihin on muutamia syitä.
0:27:28.740,0:27:32.320
Yksi näistä on hänen
metodinsa, josta puhumme kohta.
0:27:32.320,0:27:35.640
Toinen syy liittyy
0:27:35.640,0:27:40.010
nimenomaiseen tapaan,
jolla hän perustaa tutkimustaan.
0:27:40.010,0:27:42.700
Tutkimuksessaan hän pyrkii ymmärtämään,
0:27:42.700,0:27:48.650
kuinka kapitalistinen tuotantotapa toimii,
0:27:48.650,0:27:55.159
ja hänellä on mielessään, että
tämä tulee olemaan valtava projekti.
0:27:55.159,0:27:59.290
Käynnistääkseen tuon projektin
0:27:59.290,0:28:05.850
hänen on kehitettävä käsitteistö,
joka auttaa häntä ymmärtämään
0:28:05.850,0:28:11.860
kaiken kapitalismissa vallitsevan monimutkaisuuden.
0:28:11.860,0:28:16.900
Jälleen eräässä johdannossaan hän puhuu,
0:28:16.900,0:28:20.050
kuinka hän aikoo hoitaa tuon.
0:28:20.050,0:28:28.320
Hän sanoo: "esitystavan",
0:28:28.320,0:28:31.610
ja nyt käsittelemme esitystapaa,
0:28:31.610,0:28:34.450
tämä on toisen painoksen loppusanoissa:
0:28:34.450,0:28:40.200
"esitystavan täytyy
muodoltaan erota tutkimustavasta.
0:28:40.200,0:28:43.230
Tutkimuksessa on
0:28:43.230,0:28:47.210
aine omaksuttava yksityiskohtia
myöten, eriteltävä sen eri kehitysmuodot
0:28:47.210,0:28:52.510
ja haettava esiin
niiden sisäinen yhteys.
0:28:52.510,0:28:57.580
Vasta kun tämä on tehty, voidaan
vastaavasti kuvata todellista liikettä.
0:28:57.580,0:28:59.950
Jos tämä onnistuu ja esitys
0:28:59.950,0:29:01.900
kuvastaa aatteellisessa muodossa aineen elämää",
0:29:01.900,0:29:04.380
se on kapitalistista tuotantotapaa,
0:29:04.380,0:29:08.090
"voi näyttää siltä kuin oltaisiin
0:29:08.090,0:29:13.910
tekemisissä apriorisen ajatusrakennelman kanssa."
0:29:13.910,0:29:15.809
Marx puhuu tässä siitä,
0:29:15.809,0:29:21.120
että hänen tutkimustapansa on
erilainen kuin hänen esitystapansa.
0:29:21.120,0:29:26.440
Hänen tutkimustapansa alkaa kaikesta
olemassa olevasta, kaikesta tapahtuvasta.
0:29:26.440,0:29:29.169
Aloitetaan todellisuudesta
kuten se koetaan, nähdään
0:29:29.169,0:29:31.500
ja tunnetaan.
0:29:31.500,0:29:33.660
Aloitetaan kaikesta tuosta.
0:29:33.660,0:29:36.440
Aloitetaan poliittisten taloustieteilijöiden,
0:29:36.440,0:29:40.669
kirjailijoiden ja kaikkien
muiden todellisuuden kuvauksista.
0:29:40.669,0:29:42.919
Aloitetaan kaikesta tuosta materiaalista,
0:29:42.919,0:29:46.559
ja sitten etsitään siitä
0:29:46.559,0:29:49.020
joitain yksinkertaisia käsitteitä.
0:29:49.020,0:29:51.380
Tätä hän kutsuu
laskeutumisen metodiksi.
0:29:51.380,0:29:53.040
Siinä laskeudutaan
0:29:53.040,0:29:54.980
havaitusta todellisuudesta
0:29:54.980,0:29:57.020
etsien joitain perustavaa
0:29:57.020,0:30:00.440
laatua olevia käsitteitä.
0:30:00.440,0:30:06.060
Heti kun on paljastettu ja
löydetty nuo perustavanlaatuiset käsitteet,
0:30:06.060,0:30:09.970
palataan takaisin pintaan
0:30:09.970,0:30:13.060
ja katsotaan, mitä
siellä on tekeillä, nähdään
0:30:13.060,0:30:16.980
että ulkokuoren,
josta aloitettiin, takana
0:30:16.980,0:30:22.670
on toinen tapa
tulkita tapahtuvaa.
0:30:22.670,0:30:26.070
Itse asiassa Marx
on uranuurtaja menetelmässä,
0:30:26.070,0:30:30.860
jonka ymmärrätte, jos olette
perehtyneet psykoanalyysiin.
0:30:30.860,0:30:34.490
Siinä aloitetaan
Freudin tapaan pintapuolisesta
0:30:34.490,0:30:37.380
käyttäytymisestä
etsien käsitteistöä.
0:30:37.380,0:30:40.710
Käsitteistö löydetään
ja se tuo meidät takaisin,
0:30:40.710,0:30:46.210
ja voidaan selittää: tuo henkilö toimii
noin ja se näyttää siltä, mutta itse asiassa
0:30:46.210,0:30:48.100
se tarkoittaa tätä.
0:30:48.100,0:30:51.549
Marx tekee samoin. Itse
asiassa hän on uranuurtaja tämän
0:30:51.549,0:30:54.510
metodin käytössä yhteiskuntatieteissä.
0:30:54.510,0:30:58.120
Aloitetaan ulkokuoresta
ja löydetään perustavat käsitteet.
0:30:58.120,0:31:03.330
Pääomassa hän aloittaa
näistä käsitteistä. Hän aloittaa
0:31:03.330,0:31:07.950
tutkimuksensa johtopäätöksistä:
0:31:07.950,0:31:11.580
mitkä ovat peruskäsitteeni?
0:31:11.580,0:31:14.480
Hän asettaa nämä käsitteet
0:31:14.480,0:31:18.029
esille hyvin yksinkertaisesti ja suoraan,
0:31:18.029,0:31:21.860
ja se todella näyttää aprioriselta
rakennelmalta. Kun sen lukee ensimmäistä
0:31:21.860,0:31:23.010
kertaa, sanoo:
0:31:23.010,0:31:25.540
Mistä nämä kaikki jutut tulevat?
0:31:25.540,0:31:29.720
Mistä hän on ne
saanut? Miksi hän tekee näin?
0:31:29.720,0:31:35.880
Puolet ajasta ei ole mitään
käsitystä, mistä hän puhuu näillä käsitteillä,
0:31:35.880,0:31:37.780
mutta vähitellen
0:31:37.780,0:31:44.340
eteenpäin jatkaessa alkaa ymmärtää, kuinka nämä
käsitteet valaisevat ympärillämme tapahtuvia asioita,
0:31:44.340,0:31:47.250
joten hetken päästä alkaa ymmärtää:
0:31:47.250,0:31:49.759
Tätä arvoteoria todella tarkoittaa.
0:31:49.759,0:31:52.390
Tästä arvotodistelussa on kyse.
0:31:52.390,0:31:56.799
Tuosta tässä
fetiššissä on todella kyse.
0:31:56.799,0:31:57.720
Tuota nämä
0:31:57.720,0:32:00.440
käsitteet tekevät.
0:32:00.440,0:32:04.110
Itse asiassa nämä
käsitteet ymmärtää vasta,
0:32:04.110,0:32:08.250
kun pääsee kirjan loppuun.
0:32:08.250,0:32:10.460
Tämä on hyvin outo strategia.
0:32:10.460,0:32:14.050
Tarkoitan että meille on tutumpi
strategia, jossa käsite taotaan selvästi
0:32:14.050,0:32:17.600
lukijan päähän jatkaen
sitten seuraavaan. Se on
0:32:17.600,0:32:21.240
kuin pala palalta rakentamista.
0:32:21.240,0:32:23.250
Marx pikemminkin
0:32:23.250,0:32:26.540
ikään kuin leikkelee sipulia.
Käytän tätä kielikuvaa, joka on huonosti valittu,
0:32:26.540,0:32:27.960
sillä kuten joku huomautti:
0:32:27.960,0:32:31.530
sipulin leikkaaminen saa
tavallisesti purskahtamaan itkuun.
0:32:31.530,0:32:35.320
Oikeastaan hän
aloittaa sipulin ulkopuolelta,
0:32:35.320,0:32:38.610
menee sen keskustaan,
selvittää mikä saa sipulin
0:32:38.610,0:32:41.210
kasvamaan ja palaa pinnalle.
0:32:41.210,0:32:45.020
Loppujen lopuksi siis
ymmärtää, mitä hän tarkoittaa,
0:32:45.020,0:32:48.380
vasta kun on tultu takaisin pinnalle,
0:32:48.380,0:32:52.310
hänen perustelunsa siitä,
mikä saa sipulin kasvamaan… kun aloittaa
0:32:52.310,0:32:54.880
sisältä ja menee ulospäin
näissä eräänlaisissa kerroksissa…
0:32:54.880,0:32:58.280
ja näin tehdään.
Käsitteet rikastuvat alati.
0:32:58.280,0:32:59.910
Jokin joka näyttää
0:32:59.910,0:33:03.029
hyvin karulta ja abstraktilta käsitteeltä
0:33:03.029,0:33:06.780
muuttuu asteittain yhä
runsaammaksi jatkettaessa eteenpäin.
0:33:06.780,0:33:08.890
Kyse on
0:33:08.890,0:33:11.430
käsitteiden laajenemisesta.
0:33:11.430,0:33:15.290
Lähestymistapa ei ole pala palalta,
johon useimmat ovat tottuneet, joten
0:33:15.290,0:33:19.520
se on eräs asia,
johon teidän täytyy tottua.
0:33:19.520,0:33:21.770
Se tarkoittaa, että teidän
0:33:21.770,0:33:25.540
täytyy roikkua mukana hullun
lailla ainakin kolme ensimmäistä lukua,
0:33:25.540,0:33:29.940
sillä ette luultavasti tajua
kovin hyvin, mistä siinä on kyse
0:33:29.940,0:33:31.039
ennen kuin päästään
0:33:31.039,0:33:33.790
kirjassa pitemmälle.
Sitten alatte ymmärtää,
0:33:33.790,0:33:34.950
kuinka nämä käsitteet
0:33:34.950,0:33:37.570
toimivat ja kuinka ne… ja sitten,
0:33:37.570,0:33:39.129
jos sopii, käytäntö
0:33:39.129,0:33:42.550
sen vasta osoittaa.
0:33:42.550,0:33:45.440
Ymmärrätte jotain sitten
0:33:45.440,0:33:49.150
kun alatte nähdä joitain
0:33:49.150,0:33:54.250
Marxin esille nostamia seurauksia.
0:33:54.250,0:33:57.270
Tähän liittyy myös hänen
valintansa kirjan lähtökohdaksi.
0:33:57.270,0:33:59.629
Kuten tulette näkemään,
näkökulma, josta hän aloittaa,
0:33:59.629,0:34:04.040
on tavaran käsite.
0:34:04.040,0:34:07.680
Tämä on hyvin outo
lähtökohta. Tarkoitan että
0:34:07.680,0:34:10.970
useimmille tulee Marxista mieleen
sellaiset sanonnat kuin "Koko tähänastisen
0:34:10.970,0:34:13.089
yhteiskunnan historia on
ollut luokkataistelujen historiaa."
0:34:13.089,0:34:17.499
Ajattelette siis: jaha, Pääoman
pitäisi siis alkaa luokkataistelulla.
0:34:17.499,0:34:21.789
En tiedä, mutta vasta jossain
sivulla 300 lienee jotain luokkataistelusta.
0:34:21.789,0:34:24.589
Se on hyvin
turhauttavaa niille teistä,
0:34:24.589,0:34:27.889
jotka haluavat päästä
käsittelemään luokkataistelua.
0:34:27.889,0:34:30.789
Miksei hän aloita rahasta?
0:34:30.789,0:34:33.349
Itse asiassa aikasemmissa,
valmistavissa tutkimuksissaan, hän
0:34:33.349,0:34:36.089
halusi aloittaa rahasta,
0:34:36.089,0:34:40.809
mutta sitten hän huomasi, että
oli yhä mahdottomampaa aloittaa rahasta.
0:34:40.809,0:34:44.269
Miksei hän aloittanut työstä?
0:34:44.269,0:34:47.739
Hän olisi voinut aloittaa
kaikenlaisista eri paikoista, mutta
0:34:47.739,0:34:49.109
hän päätti aloittaa tavarasta.
0:34:49.109,0:34:54.359
Lukemalla hänen valmistavia
kirjoituksiaan voi nähdä, että oli pitkä
0:34:54.359,0:34:57.519
jakso, noin 20 tai 30 vuotta, jolloin
hän kamppaili tämän kysymyksen kanssa.
0:34:57.519,0:34:58.859
Mikä on sopivin
0:34:58.859,0:35:00.479
aihe, jolla aloittaa kirja?
0:35:00.479,0:35:03.439
Mitä on tämän
sipulin keskellä?
0:35:03.439,0:35:05.190
Analysoimalla sitä
0:35:05.190,0:35:06.449
voi ymmärtää,
0:35:06.449,0:35:09.579
kuinka koko juttu toimii,
0:35:09.579,0:35:11.640
ja hän päätti aloittaa tavarasta.
0:35:11.640,0:35:13.859
Se on mielivaltainen lähtökohta.
0:35:13.859,0:35:17.249
Sen logiikkaa ei ymmärrä. Hän
ei selitä sitä. Hän ei edes vaivaudu
0:35:17.249,0:35:19.779
yrittämään vakuutella
valinnan oikeellisuudella vaan toteaa:
0:35:19.779,0:35:23.639
Aloitan tästä aiheen
käsittelyn. Aion käyttää
0:35:23.639,0:35:27.249
näitä käsitteitä.
0:35:27.249,0:35:31.979
Hyvin arvoituksellinen aloitus koko
jutulle. Hän ei yritä lainkaan vakutella.
0:35:31.979,0:35:35.619
Tuossa vaiheessa voi sanoa:
jos tälle ei ole mitään oikeutusta,
0:35:35.619,0:35:37.069
miksen vain luovuta?
0:35:37.069,0:35:39.420
Sitten juttu alkaa mennä
hieman monimutkaiseksi.
0:35:39.420,0:35:44.209
Kun pääsee kolmanteen lukuun,
jolloin useimmat, jotka yrittävät lukea
0:35:44.209,0:35:46.230
Pääomaa yksin, antavat periksi.
0:35:46.230,0:35:49.970
Kolmannessa luvussa tuntuu
siltä, että tämä on mahdotonta
0:35:49.970,0:35:50.909
eikä johda mihinkään.
0:35:50.909,0:35:55.239
Se on siis hyvin
vaikeaa tällaisista syistä.
0:35:55.239,0:36:00.309
Toinen syy, miksi se on vaikeaa,
0:36:00.309,0:36:04.179
on, kuten vihjasin, että
käsitteistö ei ole tarkoitettu
0:36:04.179,0:36:07.039
pelkästään Pääoman ensimmäistä osaa varten.
0:36:07.039,0:36:08.549
Se on tarkoitettu
0:36:08.549,0:36:13.519
viemään hänet pitemmälle
käsittelemään muitakin asioita.
0:36:13.519,0:36:18.009
Saatatte huolestua, kun kerron,
että Pääomassa on kolme osaa.
0:36:18.009,0:36:21.189
Jos siis todella haluatte
ymmärtää kapitalistista tuotantotapaa,
0:36:21.189,0:36:24.109
teidän täytyy lukea kaikki kolme osaa.
0:36:24.109,0:36:28.229
Ensimmäinen osa tarjoaa vain tietyn
0:36:28.229,0:36:30.199
näkökulman kapitalistiseen tuotantotapaan,
0:36:30.199,0:36:36.019
mutta vielä pahempaa on, että Pääoman kolme osaa on
vain noin kahdeksasosa siitä, mitä hänellä oli mielessään.
0:36:36.019,0:36:39.849
Grundrisseksi kutsutussa
valmistavassa tekstissä, jossa Marx
0:36:39.849,0:36:44.389
esitti erilaisia
hahmotelmia Pääomaa varten,
0:36:44.389,0:36:45.649
hän sanoo
0:36:45.649,0:36:50.229
aikovansa käsitellä
0:36:50.229,0:36:51.719
seuraavia asioita:
0:36:51.719,0:36:55.999
"1) Yleiset abstraktiset
määritykset, jotka siis enemmän tai vähemmän
0:36:55.999,0:37:01.049
koskevat kaikkia yhteiskuntamuotoja"
0:37:01.049,0:37:04.599
"2) Ne kategoriat, jotka muodostavat
porvarillisen yhteiskunnan sisäisen organisaation
0:37:04.599,0:37:08.079
ja joiden varassa
perusluokat lepäävät. Pääoma,
0:37:08.079,0:37:12.899
palkkatyö, maaomaisuus.
Niiden keskinäinen suhde.
0:37:12.899,0:37:14.669
Kaupunki ja maaseutu.
0:37:14.669,0:37:17.409
Kolme suurta yhteiskuntaluokkaa.
0:37:17.409,0:37:19.299
Vaihto näiden välillä.
0:37:19.299,0:37:20.519
Kiertokulku.
0:37:20.519,0:37:22.599
Luotto."
0:37:22.599,0:37:24.489
Hyvä aihe juuri nyt.
0:37:24.489,0:37:27.759
"(yksityinen).
0:37:27.759,0:37:31.650
3) Porvarillisen yhteiskunnan
keskittymisen ilmeneminen valtion muodossa.
0:37:31.650,0:37:34.249
Sen tarkasteleminen suhteessa itseensä.
0:37:34.249,0:37:36.909
»Tuottamattomat» luokat.
0:37:36.909,0:37:38.160
Verot.
0:37:38.160,0:37:39.499
Valtionvelka.
0:37:39.499,0:37:41.059
Yleinen luotto.
0:37:41.059,0:37:42.709
Väestö.
0:37:42.709,0:37:44.180
Siirtomaat.
0:37:44.180,0:37:47.699
Maastamuutto.
0:37:47.699,0:37:50.969
4) Tuotannon
kansainväliset suhteet.
0:37:50.969,0:37:52.869
Kansainvälinen työnjako.
0:37:52.869,0:37:54.589
Kansainvälinen vaihto.
0:37:54.589,0:37:56.039
Vienti ja tuonti.
0:37:56.039,0:37:57.230
Vaihtokurssi."
0:37:57.230,0:38:01.359
Toinen hyvä aihe.
0:38:01.359,0:38:02.209
"5)", loistava aihe,
0:38:02.209,0:38:07.759
"Maailmanmarkkinat ja kriisit."
0:38:07.759,0:38:08.440
Tämä oli siis
0:38:08.440,0:38:12.330
hänen Grundrissessä hahmottelemansa
suunnittelma siitä, mitä hän aikoi tutkia.
0:38:12.330,0:38:14.799
Tällaista hänellä oli
0:38:14.799,0:38:17.779
mielesään ja suunnitteilla
0:38:17.779,0:38:20.489
kirjoittaessaan Pääomaa.
0:38:20.489,0:38:22.279
Hän ei saanut sit koskaan valmiiksi.
0:38:22.279,0:38:24.259
Hän ei koskaan käsitellyt
0:38:24.259,0:38:26.390
useimpia noista aiheista.
0:38:26.390,0:38:27.940
Pääomassa on siis
0:38:27.940,0:38:29.999
vain alku tästä
0:38:29.999,0:38:33.449
valtavasta projektista,
0:38:33.449,0:38:35.639
josta hän vihjaa
0:38:35.639,0:38:37.360
monissa paikoissa:
0:38:37.360,0:38:41.950
Miten ymmärtää valtiota?
Miten ymmärtää kansalaisyhteiskuntaa?
0:38:41.950,0:38:46.849
Miten ymmärtää
maastamuuttoa? Miten
0:38:46.849,0:38:52.759
ymmärtää
valuutanvaihtoja ja niin edelleen.
0:38:52.759,0:38:56.979
Joten tässäkin meidän on ymmärrettävä,
0:38:56.979,0:39:00.109
että käsitteistö
0:39:00.109,0:39:02.119
on alussa…
0:39:02.119,0:39:06.709
hän suunnitteli sen todella
koko valtavaa projektia varten,
0:39:06.709,0:39:08.890
mutta oikeastaan se,
0:39:08.890,0:39:12.699
tarjoaa puitteet
Pääoman ensimmäiselle
0:39:12.699,0:39:14.020
osalle, joka
0:39:14.020,0:39:17.569
on vain yksi palanen
0:39:17.569,0:39:19.719
suunnitellussa palapelissä.
0:39:19.719,0:39:24.229
Ensimmäinen osa katsoo
kapitalistista tuotantotapaa
0:39:24.229,0:39:27.839
tuotannon näkökulmasta,
0:39:27.839,0:39:29.659
ei markkinoiden
0:39:29.659,0:39:34.279
eikä globaalin kaupan
vaan tuotannon näkökulmasta.
0:39:34.279,0:39:37.149
Teidän siis on hyväksyttävä,
että se mitä saatte tästä kurssista,
0:39:37.149,0:39:41.190
on Marxin analyysi kapitalistisesta
0:39:41.190,0:39:46.949
tuotantotavasta
tuotannon näkökulmasta.
0:39:46.949,0:39:50.459
Toinen osa käsittelee vaihtoa.
0:39:50.459,0:39:55.099
Kolmas käsittelee kriisien muodostumista,
0:39:55.099,0:39:59.959
pääoman jakautumista,
0:39:59.959,0:40:02.829
korkoja, vuokria, veroja
0:40:02.829,0:40:08.419
ja muuta sellaista.
0:40:08.419,0:40:10.929
Mutta sitten metodiin,
0:40:10.929,0:40:12.839
sen toiseen osaan,
0:40:12.839,0:40:18.259
joka on erittäin tärkeä
esitys- ja tutkimustavan suhteen,
0:40:18.259,0:40:23.809
ja se on Marxin dialektiikan käyttö.
0:40:23.809,0:40:27.999
Hän sanoi, jälleen esipuheessaan,
0:40:27.999,0:40:32.190
että dialektiikassa on
0:40:32.190,0:40:34.999
täysin erilainen
0:40:34.999,0:40:38.189
tapa analysoida.
0:40:38.189,0:40:45.189
Marxilta löytää tuskin lainkaan
kausaalista kieltä. Hän ei sano: tämä aiheuttaa tuon.
0:40:45.219,0:40:47.119
Hän sanoo lähes aina:
0:40:47.119,0:40:51.679
tämä liittyy dialektisesti tuohon.
0:40:51.679,0:40:55.119
Dialektinen yhteys
0:40:55.119,0:40:56.529
on sisäinen yhteys
0:40:56.529,0:41:01.069
eikä kausatiivinen, ulkoinen
yhteys. Se on sisäinen yhteys.
0:41:01.069,0:41:05.259
Marx puhuu tästä dialektisesta metodista
0:41:05.259,0:41:09.509
jälleen toisen
painoksen loppusanoissa.
0:41:09.509,0:41:11.619
Hän sanoo
0:41:11.619,0:41:21.209
omaksuneensa joitain ajatuksia Hegeliltä
0:41:21.209,0:41:24.900
mutta toteaa: "Dialektinen
metodini ei ainoastaan ole perustaltaan
0:41:24.900,0:41:29.479
erilainen kuin Hegelin metodi, vaan
se on tämän suoranainen vastakohta."
0:41:29.479,0:41:31.029
Luullakseni on olemassa keinoja,
0:41:31.029,0:41:34.579
joilla voidaan todeta, ettei tämä ole tarkalleen totta,
0:41:34.579,0:41:38.109
että itse asiassa Marx mullisti
0:41:38.109,0:41:42.269
dialektisen metodin eikä
vain kääntänyt sitä nurinpäin,
0:41:42.269,0:41:45.189
kuten joskus sanotaan.
0:41:45.189,0:41:49.069
Hän jatkaa ja sanoo: "Hegelin
dialektiikan mystifioivaa puolta
0:41:49.069,0:41:53.160
arvostelin jo noin 30 vuotta sitten."
0:41:53.160,0:41:58.689
Marx viittaa tässä
0:41:58.689,0:42:01.719
kirjoitelmaansa
0:42:01.719,0:42:05.159
Hegelin oikeusfilosofian kritiikkiä,
0:42:05.159,0:42:06.989
ja luulen, että tuo kritiikki,
0:42:06.989,0:42:09.999
jossa Marx määritteli
0:42:09.999,0:42:12.819
hegeliläiseen dialektiikkaan,
0:42:12.819,0:42:17.169
oli hyvin merkittävä.
0:42:17.169,0:42:19.959
Hän jatkaa puhuen
0:42:19.959,0:42:22.809
tästä mystisestä puolesta
0:42:22.809,0:42:27.739
ja tavasta, jolla
tämä Hegelin mystifioitu
0:42:27.739,0:42:29.789
dialektiikka tuli
0:42:29.789,0:42:34.729
muotiin Saksassa,
0:42:34.729,0:42:39.759
ja miksi hänen täytyi uudistaa se
0:42:39.759,0:42:43.619
tavalla, joka ottaa huomioon
0:42:43.619,0:42:50.619
jokaisen historiallisen
muodon ollen aina liikkeessä.
0:42:51.039,0:42:53.779
Hänen täytyi
uudelleenmuotoilla se
0:42:53.779,0:42:59.910
käsittämään myös
yhteiskunnallisen muutoksen.
0:42:59.910,0:43:04.859
And he then goes on to
talk about this as being,
0:43:04.859,0:43:09.099
"This dialectical method does not
let itself be impressed by anything, being
0:43:09.099,0:43:14.749
in it's very essence critical and revolutionary."
0:43:14.749,0:43:18.999
Now, what he's talking about here is,
0:43:18.999,0:43:22.639
he's going to use a
version of dialectical method
0:43:22.639,0:43:27.679
to establish relations between
0:43:27.679,0:43:29.979
elements within his system.
0:43:29.979,0:43:32.479
but he is going to do it in such a way
0:43:32.479,0:43:37.299
as to capture fluidity and motion.
0:43:37.299,0:43:41.959
Marx above all is incredibly, incredibly
0:43:41.959,0:43:44.419
impressed with the fluidity
0:43:44.419,0:43:48.739
and the dynamics of capitalism.
0:43:48.739,0:43:51.939
Now this is very weird,
because Marx is often
0:43:51.939,0:43:53.959
talked about as if he is a
0:43:53.959,0:43:57.979
static, structural analyst.
0:43:57.979,0:44:03.309
The weird thing is, when you read Capital,
you realize he sees the motion.
0:44:03.309,0:44:06.369
He sees the movement all of the time.
0:44:06.369,0:44:09.609
He is constantly talking about
0:44:09.609,0:44:14.939
that movement and that
movement is a dialectical movement.
0:44:14.939,0:44:16.710
So one of the ways in which
0:44:16.710,0:44:22.729
also you have to read Marx in Marx's
own terms is to try to grapple with
0:44:22.729,0:44:26.119
what he means by dialectics.
0:44:26.119,0:44:28.589
Because the problem is he never wrote
0:44:28.589,0:44:31.939
a tract on dialectics.
0:44:31.939,0:44:33.259
He never said:
0:44:33.259,0:44:35.499
'Okay, this is my dialectical method'.
0:44:35.499,0:44:36.630
There are hints of it.
0:44:36.630,0:44:38.800
If you really want to
understand his dialectical method,
0:44:38.800,0:44:42.259
you read Capital.
0:44:42.259,0:44:45.739
That's the best place to get it.
0:44:45.739,0:44:49.469
And when you've read
Capital very carefully you will come out
0:44:49.469,0:44:53.140
with a sense of how dialectical method works.
0:44:53.140,0:44:56.769
But again, this is going
to be a bit confusing because
0:44:56.769,0:45:01.249
you're probably not yet used
to dialectical reasoning, and the curious thing about
0:45:01.249,0:45:04.009
academia is that the more
well trained you are in a discipline,
0:45:04.009,0:45:06.549
probably less used you are
0:45:06.549,0:45:08.280
to dialectical method.
0:45:08.280,0:45:10.329
In fact young children are very dialectical.
0:45:10.329,0:45:12.449
They see everything in motion.
0:45:12.449,0:45:15.709
They see contradiction everywhere
and they are quite contradictory about everything.
0:45:15.709,0:45:18.609
Every contradiction goes
into everything else and
0:45:18.609,0:45:19.649
your kids say all kinds of
0:45:19.649,0:45:22.469
wondrous contradictory things to you.
0:45:22.469,0:45:25.819
And you kind of say 'Now you stop
thinking about that. You have to think rationally'.
0:45:25.819,0:45:28.619
So, actually, we train people
0:45:28.619,0:45:33.460
out of being good
dialecticians almost from day two.
0:45:33.460,0:45:38.519
But in fact dialectical method
is intuitively very, very powerful.
0:45:38.519,0:45:42.489
And in a sense what
Marx is doing is recovering
0:45:42.489,0:45:48.069
that incredibly intuitive
dialectical method and putting it to work,
0:45:48.069,0:45:51.400
both in terms of an
analytic schema, as we will see,
0:45:51.400,0:45:53.900
but also in terms of understanding
0:45:53.900,0:45:56.440
that everything is in process.
0:45:56.440,0:45:58.759
Everything is in motion.
0:45:58.759,0:46:01.889
Everything is defined in those terms.
0:46:01.889,0:46:03.879
He doesn't talk about labour.
0:46:03.879,0:46:07.900
He talks about the labour process.
0:46:07.900,0:46:09.289
Capital is not a thing;
0:46:09.289,0:46:13.549
it is a process; it is in motion.
0:46:13.549,0:46:18.209
Value does not exist unless it is in motion.
0:46:18.209,0:46:22.589
When things stop, value disappears,
0:46:22.589,0:46:27.269
and the whole system comes tumbling down.
0:46:27.269,0:46:28.769
And those of you who
0:46:28.769,0:46:32.410
remember very well what
happened in the aftermath of 9/11.
0:46:32.410,0:46:38.619
Most things stopped. Motion stopped.
0:46:38.619,0:46:41.869
Planes stopped flying. You
couldn't get through the bridges,
0:46:41.869,0:46:43.770
everything, and then in three days
0:46:43.770,0:46:47.099
suddenly everybody realized that
capitalism would collapse
0:46:47.099,0:46:50.420
if things didn't get in motion again,
so suddenly, you know, Giuliani
0:46:50.420,0:46:51.099
comes on and says:
0:46:51.099,0:46:54.299
'For god's sake, get out
your credit cards and go shop.
0:46:54.299,0:46:58.019
Go back to Broadway. Go back
and do this kind of stuff; go back.'
0:46:58.019,0:47:01.599
Bush even appeared on a TV
ad for the airline industry, saying:
0:47:01.599,0:47:04.509
'Get back and start flying.
0:47:04.509,0:47:07.719
Get back in motion.' You know.
0:47:07.719,0:47:12.919
In other words, capitalism is, as
Jack Kerouac would say, 'perpetually on the road.'
0:47:12.919,0:47:17.069
And if it's not always
on the road, then it's nothing.
0:47:17.069,0:47:21.650
So Marx is incredibly
appreciative of that. And it's very
0:47:21.650,0:47:25.559
strange to find him so
often depicted as this static
0:47:25.559,0:47:30.119
figure who's got it all worked out.
No, it's in motion and it's changing,
0:47:30.119,0:47:33.929
perpetually in motion.
0:47:33.929,0:47:35.609
So here, I think, too,
0:47:35.609,0:47:39.699
what Marx is trying to do
is to find a conceptual apparatus
0:47:39.699,0:47:44.640
that would help you to understand that motion.
0:47:44.640,0:47:47.329
And so, some of his concepts
0:47:47.329,0:47:49.539
are formulated in such a way
0:47:49.539,0:47:55.450
that they're about relations;
they're about transformative activity.
0:47:55.450,0:48:00.459
This is like this at this moment;
and it's like that in the next moment.
0:48:00.459,0:48:03.369
And this can get quite confusing,
0:48:03.369,0:48:06.599
but what he's trying to do is to get
behind the confusion, come up with a
0:48:06.599,0:48:08.130
conceptual apparatus,
0:48:08.130,0:48:10.089
a deep structure, if you like,
0:48:10.089,0:48:12.180
which is going to help you understand
0:48:12.180,0:48:15.959
all of that motion which
is going on around us perpetually.
0:48:15.959,0:48:20.029
And, particularly, the way in which motion is
0:48:20.029,0:48:27.029
actually instantiated within a
capitalist mode of production.
0:48:27.569,0:48:29.579
So, one of the ways
in which I think you have to
0:48:29.579,0:48:33.119
try to understand Marx is by appreciating
0:48:33.119,0:48:37.209
his dialectical method.
0:48:37.209,0:48:44.069
Now there are a lot of people, including
many Marxists, who really don't like his dialectics.
0:48:44.069,0:48:45.430
There is a whole sphere
0:48:45.430,0:48:48.189
called 'analytical Marxism,' for example,
0:48:48.189,0:48:50.819
which kind of says:
'You know, all of that dialectics…'
0:48:50.819,0:48:52.699
They actually like to call themselves
0:48:52.699,0:48:55.479
'no bullshit Marxists,'
0:48:55.479,0:49:02.599
because they just basically say:
'All that dialectics is just B.S.'
0:49:02.599,0:49:04.030
And then there are actually
0:49:04.030,0:49:09.390
other people who want to somehow or other
take something that's very dialectical and turn it into
0:49:09.390,0:49:12.809
a causative structure.
0:49:12.809,0:49:20.749
And in fact there's a whole positivist version
of what Marx says; that is, strip away the dialectics.
0:49:20.749,0:49:23.959
Now, this may be perfectly correct; I mean,
I'm not making an argument, saying, you know,
0:49:23.959,0:49:27.579
the analytical Marxists are wrong.
0:49:27.579,0:49:31.049
I'm not going to make an argument,
saying that people who turn it into
0:49:31.049,0:49:34.109
a positivist mathematical model are wrong.
0:49:34.109,0:49:36.779
Maybe they're right.
0:49:36.779,0:49:41.029
But what you have to do if you're
going to understand Marx's text in Marx's terms:
0:49:41.029,0:49:45.759
you're going to have to
grapple with the dialectic.
0:49:45.759,0:49:49.139
And it's fine afterwards
if you want to say 'Marx is wrong
0:49:49.139,0:49:52.239
the dialectic is wrong, I don't like it,
it doesn't work', this kind of thing.
0:49:52.239,0:49:53.309
That's fine.
0:49:53.309,0:49:57.619
But before you say that you've got to
understand what it is and how it is working.
0:49:57.619,0:50:01.410
So part of what we want to do
0:50:01.410,0:50:05.229
is to spend some time
0:50:05.229,0:50:08.659
recognizing that dialectical aspect of Marx,
0:50:08.659,0:50:14.269
and seeing how it works.
0:50:14.269,0:50:16.189
Now there is one
0:50:16.189,0:50:19.259
final point before we get to the break.
0:50:19.259,0:50:25.709
I asked to try to read Marx in
Marx's own terms but obviously I am your guide.
0:50:25.709,0:50:27.259
And so you going to read it
0:50:27.259,0:50:32.119
with my help and my terms
are going to be very important.
0:50:32.119,0:50:37.669
So one of the things I want to
say here is that of course my interest
0:50:37.669,0:50:41.339
in urbanisation, in uneven
geographical development, imperialism
0:50:41.339,0:50:44.059
and all those kinds of things,
0:50:44.059,0:50:48.549
that my interests have actually
0:50:48.549,0:50:53.529
become very, very important in terms of
0:50:53.529,0:50:55.659
affecting the way in
which I read this text.
0:50:55.659,0:50:56.549
In other words,
0:50:56.549,0:51:01.529
I've been through 30 odd years
of dialogue between me and this text.
0:51:01.529,0:51:04.949
And one of the reasons
I like to teach it every year is:
0:51:04.949,0:51:09.309
every year I ask to myself: 'How I'm
going to read it differently this year?
0:51:09.309,0:51:15.549
What about will strike me
that I didn't notice before?'
0:51:15.549,0:51:19.439
And new things strike me because
new events crop up, that is history
0:51:19.439,0:51:22.910
and geography change.
0:51:22.910,0:51:27.109
And so, there are certain things which arise,
and I can come back and I can look at Marx and say:
0:51:27.109,0:51:30.400
'Well, does he have anything to say about this?',
and sometimes you find something really acute
0:51:30.400,0:51:32.369
which he has to say about it,
0:51:32.369,0:51:35.239
sometimes not at all.
0:51:35.239,0:51:38.289
So, I have been through a long dialogue
0:51:38.289,0:51:41.849
and I used this way of thinking
0:51:41.849,0:51:47.949
many of these conceptional
apparatuses all of the time in the work I do.
0:51:47.949,0:51:54.159
And in the process, of course, I changed
the way in which I understand the text.
0:51:54.159,0:51:58.079
I suspect that if you could
get a recording of this class
0:51:58.079,0:51:59.759
from twenty five years ago,
0:51:59.759,0:52:01.130
you would find me saying
0:52:01.130,0:52:05.379
very different things
from what I'm saying now.
0:52:05.379,0:52:07.419
For a variety of reasons both
0:52:07.419,0:52:11.259
the historical climate has changed,
the intellectual climate has changed.
0:52:11.259,0:52:15.109
All sorts of issues have cropped
up which didn't exist before. Therefore,
0:52:15.109,0:52:17.289
you read it in a different way.
0:52:17.289,0:52:19.199
Interesting point:
0:52:19.199,0:52:23.649
in one of the prefaces Marx talks
about that process,
0:52:23.649,0:52:25.890
about how bourgeois theory
0:52:25.890,0:52:29.559
understood the world in a certain way
and then history moved on to make that
0:52:29.559,0:52:31.950
theoretical formulation redundant,
0:52:31.950,0:52:34.569
and that therefore ideas had to change
0:52:34.569,0:52:39.769
as circumstances change.
0:52:39.769,0:52:43.179
Or ideas had to be reconfigured.
0:52:43.179,0:52:44.690
So you're going to get
0:52:44.690,0:52:47.269
some of my reading in it, too.
0:52:47.269,0:52:49.370
And there's no way you
can avoid that, but
0:52:49.370,0:52:50.849
at the end of the day,
0:52:50.849,0:52:54.669
what I want you to do, is to come
to your own reading of it,
0:52:54.669,0:52:59.959
that is, engage with the text in
terms of your experience, both intellectual,
0:52:59.959,0:53:03.189
social, political,
0:53:03.189,0:53:05.599
and have a good time talking to the text,
0:53:05.599,0:53:08.130
and letting the text talk to you,
0:53:08.130,0:53:11.340
and appreciating the way
in which Marx tries
0:53:11.340,0:53:12.499
to understand the world.
0:53:12.499,0:53:17.020
Because above all I think this text is a
wonderful, wonderful exercise
0:53:17.020,0:53:19.149
in seeking to understand
0:53:19.149,0:53:21.299
what appears almost
0:53:21.299,0:53:24.039
impossible to understand.
0:53:24.039,0:53:25.900
So from this standpoint
0:53:25.900,0:53:30.919
you have to engage with the text.
And okay I'm going to be in your way a little of the time,
0:53:30.919,0:53:33.139
but I hope not too much
because at the end of the day
0:53:33.139,0:53:37.869
it is your business to really translate
0:53:37.869,0:53:40.089
what's going on in this text into
0:53:40.089,0:53:42.299
meaning in your own life.
0:53:42.299,0:53:43.490
That's what this book
0:53:43.490,0:53:46.490
is so great at. I think it will
speak to you in some way. Probably not in the
0:53:46.490,0:53:49.329
same way to you as it does to me.
0:53:49.329,0:53:52.219
And that is perfectly valid
0:53:52.219,0:53:54.420
and perfectly reasonable.
And I'd like therefore for you
0:53:54.420,0:53:58.549
to confront it in that kind of spirit.
0:53:58.549,0:54:03.799
Okay that's all I want to
say by way of introduction.
0:54:03.799,0:54:06.949
What I thought would be very useful
to do is just to read through this first
0:54:06.949,0:54:10.579
section with you and
try to give you an idea
0:54:10.579,0:54:17.809
what I mean about method and all the rest of it.
0:54:17.809,0:54:20.709
Okay, he starts off simply saying:
0:54:20.709,0:54:23.989
"The wealth of societies in which
the capitalist mode of production prevails
0:54:23.989,0:54:27.299
appears as an immense
collection of commodities;
0:54:27.299,0:54:28.739
(…)individual commodity(…)"
0:54:28.739,0:54:30.079
(…)elementary form.
0:54:30.079,0:54:31.699
Our analysis therefore begins
0:54:31.699,0:54:34.339
with the commodity."
0:54:34.339,0:54:36.099
Okay, this is the a priori
0:54:36.099,0:54:38.889
beginning point which
we've already mentioned.
0:54:38.889,0:54:40.789
But notice something
0:54:40.789,0:54:43.889
about the language: "appears".
0:54:43.889,0:54:48.549
Always watch out when
Marx uses the word "appear".
0:54:48.549,0:54:51.349
"Appears" is not "is",
0:54:51.349,0:54:53.889
"appears" means that
something else is going on,
0:54:53.889,0:54:58.410
and you better watch out and figure
out what that "something else" is.
0:54:58.410,0:55:02.899
And notice also that
0:55:02.899,0:55:05.259
he is exclusively concerned with
0:55:05.259,0:55:08.839
the "capitalist mode of production".
0:55:08.839,0:55:12.439
He's not concerned with ancient
modes of production or socialist
0:55:12.439,0:55:14.339
modes of production or
0:55:14.339,0:55:18.559
even hybrid modes of production.
He's going to be concerned with
0:55:18.559,0:55:20.329
a capitalist mode of production
0:55:20.329,0:55:23.589
in a pretty pure form.
0:55:23.589,0:55:26.670
And I think that is a very important
0:55:26.670,0:55:32.279
thing to remember when
we're reading through this text.
0:55:32.279,0:55:34.519
So this is a beginning point.
0:55:34.519,0:55:36.579
Now, when you think about it,
0:55:36.579,0:55:44.579
it's actually a very good beginning point.
0:55:44.709,0:55:46.209
Why? …How many of us
0:55:46.209,0:55:53.059
in this room have never had
any experience of a commodity?
0:55:53.059,0:55:56.949
Everybody has experiences of commodities.
0:55:56.949,0:55:59.509
Did you see one today?
0:55:59.509,0:56:01.579
Did you see one yesterday?
0:56:01.579,0:56:08.819
Are you constantly shopping for them?
Are you constantly wandering around looking at them?
0:56:08.819,0:56:13.529
The thing there is that
of what he's done is to really choose
0:56:13.529,0:56:16.509
a common denominator,
0:56:16.509,0:56:18.569
something that is common to us all,
0:56:18.569,0:56:20.619
something we know about.
0:56:20.619,0:56:24.219
We go into the shop, we buy it
0:56:24.219,0:56:27.639
and it's absolutely
necessary for our existence.
0:56:27.639,0:56:31.239
We can't live without consuming commodities.
0:56:31.239,0:56:35.169
We have to buy
commodities in order to live.
0:56:35.169,0:56:38.429
It's a simple relation as that,
so we start with that, and the other great
0:56:38.429,0:56:41.309
thing about it is,
0:56:41.309,0:56:44.439
and again I'll probably get
some flack for saying this, is:
0:56:44.439,0:56:48.119
it doesn't matter whether you're a man
or a woman or a Japanese or an ethnic
0:56:48.119,0:56:51.689
or a religious or
whatever it is, in other words:
0:56:51.689,0:56:52.699
this just very
0:56:52.699,0:56:57.619
simple kind of economic
transaction which you are looking at.
0:56:57.619,0:57:00.949
And then he says: Well, what kind of
economic transaction is it?
0:57:00.949,0:57:02.729
Well, the commodity is
0:57:02.729,0:57:08.199
something, he says,
0:57:08.199,0:57:11.849
which meets a human want or need.
0:57:11.849,0:57:13.200
and he says: I'm not
0:57:13.200,0:57:17.599
interested… and this is the cryptic
form of that … he says in the next paragraph…
0:57:17.599,0:57:20.119
OK, something external to us
0:57:20.119,0:57:24.920
which we then make ours in a way.
0:57:24.920,0:57:28.729
And it "satisfies human needs of whatever
kind. The nature of these needs whether
0:57:28.729,0:57:34.679
they arise, for example from the
stomach, or from the imagination, makes no difference."
0:57:34.679,0:57:38.159
In other words: he is not really interested in
psychologizing about it, he's laying it all aside.
0:57:38.159,0:57:42.439
Saying: I'm not really interested
0:57:42.439,0:57:47.269
in why people buy commodities.
They can buy it because
0:57:47.269,0:57:50.429
they want it, they need it, they desire it.
0:57:50.429,0:57:53.789
I can buy it for fun or
out of necessity or whatever. I'm not
0:57:53.789,0:57:56.900
interested in talking about all of that.
All I'm interested in is the very fact
0:57:56.900,0:58:01.599
of simply somebody buying a commodity.
0:58:01.599,0:58:04.279
And he then goes on and says: Well look at this.
0:58:04.279,0:58:09.159
How many commodities are there in the world?
0:58:09.159,0:58:12.269
Well, there are millions of them,
all made up of different qualities,
0:58:12.269,0:58:16.739
and we all kind of assess them in
terms of different quantitative measures.
0:58:16.739,0:58:20.549
And he again shunts this aside
and says: "The discovery of these ways
0:58:20.549,0:58:27.199
and hence of the manifold uses
of things is the work of history.
0:58:27.199,0:58:30.689
So also is the invention of socially
recognized standards of measurement for the
0:58:30.689,0:58:33.639
quantities of these useful objects.
0:58:33.639,0:58:36.749
The diversity of the measures for commodities
0:58:36.749,0:58:43.239
arises in part from the diverse nature of
the objects to the measured, and in part from convention.
0:58:43.239,0:58:46.419
The usefulness of a
thing makes it a use-value."
0:58:46.419,0:58:51.549
First big concept: use-value.
0:58:51.549,0:58:55.149
It's useful to you. I'm not interested in
discussing how it's useful to you. I'm not
0:58:55.149,0:58:59.249
interested in discussing
the history of use-values
0:58:59.249,0:59:02.669
or anything of that kind, or the way in which they
measure this kind of thing. All I'm interested in
0:59:02.669,0:59:04.429
is the concept of use-value.
0:59:04.429,0:59:10.919
Notice how he's abstracting very fast.
0:59:10.919,0:59:15.389
And he talks in one of the prefaces about
0:59:15.389,0:59:19.469
the problem for a social scientist, like himself,
0:59:19.469,0:59:24.789
is that you can't go into a labouratory
and isolate things and run experiments.
0:59:24.789,0:59:28.049
So what you have to do
in order to run an experiment
0:59:28.049,0:59:31.499
is to use what he calls:
'The power of abstraction.'
0:59:31.499,0:59:33.789
And you see immediately:
0:59:33.789,0:59:36.789
the commodity is central.
0:59:36.789,0:59:41.459
I'm abstracting from human
wants, needs and desires.
0:59:41.459,0:59:45.219
I'm abstracting from any
consideration of this specific
0:59:45.219,0:59:46.879
properties of things.
0:59:46.879,0:59:48.949
I'm just going to home in on the fact that
0:59:48.949,0:59:51.199
in some sense this commodity
0:59:51.199,0:59:58.199
has something called a use-value.
0:59:59.180,1:00:03.150
And this then immediately leads him into,
1:00:03.150,1:00:05.279
by the middle of
1:00:05.279,1:00:07.929
page hundred and twenty-six,
1:00:07.929,1:00:11.620
he says: "In the form of society
to be considered here" - i.e.
1:00:11.620,1:00:15.669
within a capitalist mode of production -
1:00:15.669,1:00:21.699
"they are also the material
bearers of exchange-value."
1:00:21.699,1:00:24.929
Again… watch this word "bearers",
1:00:24.929,1:00:27.549
a commodity is a bearer of something.
1:00:27.549,1:00:30.529
It's not to say: it "is" something.
1:00:30.529,1:00:36.259
It is a bearer of something
1:00:36.259,1:00:38.819
which we have yet to define.
1:00:38.819,1:00:41.169
And how do we think about it?
1:00:41.169,1:00:43.150
Well, when we look at exchange
1:00:43.150,1:00:48.939
processes, geographically, temporally,
1:00:48.939,1:00:52.679
what we find is an enormous kind of
1:00:52.679,1:00:56.589
process of exchange, of market exchange.
1:00:56.589,1:00:59.519
We see different ratios occurring
1:00:59.519,1:01:03.489
between shirts and shoes depending
upon the time, depending upon the place.
1:01:03.489,1:01:10.529
We see different quantitative
relations between bushels of wheat and
1:01:10.529,1:01:14.079
pairs of shoes and tons of
steel and that kind of thing.
1:01:14.079,1:01:19.849
So the first sight, what
we see in the world of exchange
1:01:19.849,1:01:26.709
is exchange-values which are
incoherent, they're all over the place.
1:01:26.709,1:01:30.400
As he says: "exchange-value
1:01:30.400,1:01:35.569
appears to be something
accidental and purely relative,
1:01:35.569,1:01:40.079
and consequently an intrinsic
value, i.e. an exchange-value that is
1:01:40.079,1:01:42.539
inseparably connected with the commodity,
1:01:42.539,1:01:50.890
inherent in it, seems to be a contradiction in terms."
1:01:55.159,1:01:56.689
We noticed something
1:01:56.689,1:01:58.990
about this world of exchange. That everything
1:01:58.990,1:02:04.869
is in principle exchangeable
with everything else.
1:02:04.869,1:02:11.089
And what this immediately implies,
as he says at page hundred and twenty-seven,
1:02:11.089,1:02:14.459
is that you are always in a position
having exchanged something for something else to
1:02:14.459,1:02:18.069
then exchange what you've
just got for something else.
1:02:18.069,1:02:19.209
In other words: You can just
1:02:19.209,1:02:21.409
keep on exchanging.
1:02:21.409,1:02:24.839
So a thing can keep on moving.
1:02:24.839,1:02:29.279
So it can be exchanged for all
the other commodities at some point.
1:02:29.279,1:02:32.649
And if that's the case, he then says
1:02:32.649,1:02:35.049
on hundred and twenty-seven,
1:02:35.049,1:02:40.049
"It follows from this that, firstly,
the valid exchange-values of a particular commodity
1:02:40.049,1:02:43.630
express something equal
1:02:43.630,1:02:47.669
and secondly, exchange-value cannot
be anything other than the mode of expression,
1:02:47.669,1:02:53.799
the form of appearance of
a content distinguishable from it."
1:02:53.799,1:02:56.349
That is: if I have a commodity in my hand,
1:02:56.349,1:02:58.559
I can't dissect it
1:02:58.559,1:03:03.469
and find out that element
inside of it that makes it exchangeable.
1:03:03.469,1:03:07.789
It's something else.
1:03:07.789,1:03:11.059
No. It is exchangeable for something else
and I can't find out what makes it exchangeable
1:03:11.059,1:03:13.189
just by looking at the commodity.
1:03:13.189,1:03:15.150
I have to look at the commodity
1:03:15.150,1:03:21.099
in motion. This is where
we start to get in motion, in movement.
1:03:21.099,1:03:24.029
I have to look at it.
1:03:24.029,1:03:24.859
And as it moves,
1:03:24.859,1:03:27.909
it is obviously expressing something
1:03:27.909,1:03:29.180
about exchangeability,
1:03:29.180,1:03:33.139
a commensurability in exchange.
1:03:33.139,1:03:36.479
It means that all things
are commensurable in exchange.
1:03:36.479,1:03:40.640
Why are they commensurable?
And what is that commensurability
1:03:40.640,1:03:42.459
made up of?
1:03:42.459,1:03:44.669
Where does it come from?
1:03:44.669,1:03:47.319
How is it defined?
1:03:47.319,1:03:51.849
And the commodity is the
bearer of that something.
1:03:51.849,1:03:54.409
But it is not inside of the commodity.
1:03:54.409,1:03:57.390
It is borne by the commodity.
1:03:57.390,1:03:58.870
It's a relation
1:03:58.870,1:04:00.379
inside of the commodity,
1:04:00.379,1:04:03.399
not a material thing.
1:04:03.399,1:04:06.569
He then goes through corn and iron
1:04:06.569,1:04:11.919
and gets into one of his geometrical examples,
1:04:11.919,1:04:14.360
but says crucially right
by the middle of the page:
1:04:14.360,1:04:18.769
"Each of them, so far as it is exchange-value,
1:04:18.769,1:04:24.789
must therefore be reducible to
this third thing," whatever it is.
1:04:24.789,1:04:28.809
And "this common element cannot
be a geometrical, physical, chemical or other
1:04:28.809,1:04:33.569
natural property of commodities,"
he says further down the page.
1:04:33.569,1:04:36.869
We're hitting something
here that is rather significant.
1:04:36.869,1:04:38.410
Marx is often
1:04:38.410,1:04:43.239
depicted as some sort of grubby materialist.
You know: Everything has to be material.
1:04:43.239,1:04:50.909
But here what we're seeing immediately: he's not
talking about the materiality of the thing at all.
1:04:50.909,1:04:54.289
You can inspect the materiality of the
commodity all you like, and you won't
1:04:54.289,1:04:55.729
find out the secret of its
1:04:55.729,1:04:58.190
commensurability and its exchangeability.
1:04:58.190,1:05:04.549
You won't find it.
1:05:04.549,1:05:08.869
And then he goes on to the
next page, hundred twenty-eight, to say:
1:05:08.869,1:05:12.689
"As use-values,
1:05:12.689,1:05:15.380
commodities differ above all in quality,
1:05:15.380,1:05:19.130
while as exchange-values they
can only differ in quantity,"
1:05:19.130,1:05:22.779
that is: how much of this
exchanges for how much of that,
1:05:22.779,1:05:27.939
"and therefore do not
contain an atom of use-value."
1:05:27.939,1:05:33.709
The commensurability that
he's talking about is not constituted
1:05:33.709,1:05:39.189
out of the utility of something.
1:05:39.189,1:05:42.999
Then he goes on to say: "If then we
disregard the use-value of commodities, only one
1:05:42.999,1:05:46.869
property remains…" and here
we're going to have another a priori leap.
1:05:46.869,1:05:48.379
What's the property?
1:05:48.379,1:05:52.079
They are all products of human labour.
1:05:52.079,1:05:55.919
That is what they have in common
1:05:55.919,1:06:04.369
and what exchange- and use-values
are bearers of is that quality
1:06:04.369,1:06:09.229
of being products of human labour.
1:06:09.229,1:06:11.599
But, he then immediately goes on to say:
1:06:11.599,1:06:14.159
What kind of labour is it?
1:06:14.159,1:06:16.899
Well, it can't be
1:06:16.899,1:06:20.599
based on the fact that
if I'm lazy and I take,
1:06:20.599,1:06:25.239
you know, fifteen days to make a shirt,
then indeed, you should pay, you know, the equivalent…
1:06:25.239,1:06:27.789
should be fifteen days of your labour,
1:06:27.789,1:06:32.079
when I can go and find somebody who has made a
shirt in three days, you know, I would exchange it
1:06:32.079,1:06:34.900
with somebody for 3 days of labour.
1:06:34.900,1:06:37.339
So he says on the bottom of that passage:
1:06:37.339,1:06:40.339
"They can no longer be distinguished,
1:06:40.339,1:06:43.999
but are all together
reduced to the same kind of labour,
1:06:43.999,1:06:46.739
human labour in the abstract."
1:06:46.739,1:06:50.559
Well, this is moving very fast, very cryptic.
1:06:50.559,1:06:51.349
Use-value,
1:06:51.349,1:06:52.659
exchange-value,
1:06:52.659,1:06:54.889
human labour in the abstract.
1:06:54.889,1:06:56.769
And here it comes:
1:06:56.769,1:06:59.660
"Let us now I look at the residue of the
products of labour. There is nothing left
1:06:59.660,1:07:01.000
of them in each case
1:07:01.000,1:07:03.999
but the same phantom-like objectivity;"
1:07:03.999,1:07:06.609
Marx loves all this stuff about phantoms and
1:07:06.609,1:07:10.009
werewolves and all that kind of
stuff. So you're gonna get a lot of that.
1:07:10.009,1:07:13.969
He's a great admirer of Shelley and
Frankenstein and all the rest of it,
1:07:13.969,1:07:16.779
so you'll get a lot of
that kind of language. It's great.
1:07:16.779,1:07:22.639
"they are merely congealed
quantities of homogeneous human labour,
1:07:22.639,1:07:26.459
human labour-power expended without
regard to the form of its expenditure.
1:07:26.459,1:07:29.989
(…)As crystals of this
social substance which is common to them all,
1:07:29.989,1:07:39.369
they are values, commodity values."
1:07:39.369,1:07:45.420
Okay, he's taken four pages to lay out
1:07:45.420,1:07:46.959
three fundamental concepts.
1:07:46.959,1:07:53.619
Use-value, exchange-value, value.
1:07:53.619,1:07:55.619
Value is what is passed on
1:07:55.619,1:07:58.909
in the process of commodity exchange.
1:07:58.909,1:08:05.629
It's the hidden element in a commodity that makes
1:08:05.629,1:08:13.819
all commodities in principle
exchangeable with each other.
1:08:13.819,1:08:19.309
So he then goes on to say:
Well, having abstracted from use-value
1:08:19.309,1:08:22.999
then we go back and
look again at exchange-value.
1:08:22.999,1:08:26.929
We then see exchange-value, as he says,
on the bottom of page hundred and twenty-eight,
1:08:26.929,1:08:29.289
"as the necessary mode of expression,
1:08:29.289,1:08:34.219
or form of appearance, of value."
1:08:34.219,1:08:37.650
Appearance, form of appearance; but
this time you're looking at it the other way.
1:08:37.650,1:08:42.049
That is there is something mysterious about
the exchangeability of all of those commodities.
1:08:42.049,1:08:47.759
There is something mysterious
about the way in which
1:08:47.759,1:08:52.639
all of those commodities could
be commensurable with each other.
1:08:52.639,1:08:56.389
And the mystery is that they're values,
1:08:56.389,1:08:58.560
But values are represented now
1:08:58.560,1:09:01.330
by exchange-value, so exchange-value,
1:09:01.330,1:09:03.069
i.e. how much you are actually get for
1:09:03.069,1:09:04.549
the product in the market,
1:09:04.549,1:09:06.250
is a representation of value,
1:09:06.250,1:09:10.749
is a representation of labour.
1:09:10.749,1:09:13.909
Now, when you go to the supermarket,
1:09:13.909,1:09:17.859
can you see the labour in the commodity?
1:09:17.859,1:09:21.719
But it has an exchange-value, right?
1:09:21.719,1:09:22.859
Again, Marx's point is:
1:09:22.859,1:09:26.969
Yeah, they are products of
labour but you can't see the labour,
1:09:26.969,1:09:29.499
you can't see the labour on the commodity.
1:09:29.499,1:09:34.949
But you get a sense of what it is
because it is represented by its price.
1:09:34.949,1:09:36.659
So that is, if you like,
1:09:36.659,1:09:42.269
exchange-value is a
representation of something else.
1:09:42.269,1:09:47.670
Now again: to say something is a
representation of something is not to say "is".
1:09:47.670,1:09:48.830
Because, as anybody would
1:09:48.830,1:09:52.170
quickly tell you, the difference
between the representation and what
1:09:52.170,1:09:55.710
actually something is, there can be quite a gap.
And Marx is going to spend quite a bit of
1:09:55.710,1:09:59.400
time talking about the nature of that gap between
1:09:59.400,1:10:06.400
value and its representation.
1:10:08.659,1:10:12.329
On hundred twenty-nine he says:
1:10:12.329,1:10:15.659
"A use-value, or useful article,
1:10:15.659,1:10:19.959
therefore, has value only because
abstract human labour is objectified
1:10:19.959,1:10:26.959
or materialized in it."
1:10:26.959,1:10:30.910
Objectified - a very important kind of concept.
1:10:30.910,1:10:37.619
A process, in fact a labour process,
becomes objectified in a thing.
1:10:37.619,1:10:42.630
This is an idea that's going to
become very important in Marx.
1:10:42.630,1:10:44.659
You have a thing
1:10:44.659,1:10:46.659
and then there is a labour process.
1:10:46.659,1:10:48.360
What's the relationship then
1:10:48.360,1:10:51.370
between the process and the thing?
This is going to come up
1:10:51.370,1:10:56.809
again and again and again in the text.
1:10:56.809,1:10:59.250
Processes and things,
1:10:59.250,1:11:05.409
the thing is a representation of the process.
1:11:05.409,1:11:07.849
You want a simple example of that?
1:11:07.849,1:11:10.369
If I set an examination right now,
1:11:10.369,1:11:13.909
I made you write out little
paper about what these concepts mean.
1:11:13.909,1:11:15.169
And then I graded you.
1:11:15.169,1:11:19.030
I'll be grading you on the thing.
1:11:19.030,1:11:23.790
What would it have to do with the
process that's going on in here?
1:11:23.790,1:11:28.150
I mean you might feel very, very outraged
1:11:28.150,1:11:33.849
when I graded you C or D or F, or something
like that, because you haven't quite got it yet.
1:11:33.849,1:11:37.149
When in fact you're struggling in the process,
1:11:37.149,1:11:41.909
the intellectual labour-process of trying
to command on what the hell is going on in this text.
1:11:41.909,1:11:43.959
It's a very important thing.
1:11:43.959,1:11:48.719
But if I try to test it as a thing…and actually,
1:11:48.719,1:11:52.119
education is full of this kind of problem.
1:11:52.119,1:11:54.249
Education is about a process,
1:11:54.249,1:11:58.599
it's about people learning things,
it's about process, thinking, all this kind of stuff.
1:11:58.599,1:12:02.149
And we are constantly testing how good
people are in terms of that process by the
1:12:02.149,1:12:04.029
things they make.
1:12:04.029,1:12:09.360
Dissertations, essays, papers,
1:12:09.360,1:12:12.669
multiple choice questions, all the rest of it.
1:12:12.669,1:12:16.320
So what Marx is doing here
is to say: Well, the representation,
1:12:16.320,1:12:18.469
i.e. the exchange-value,
1:12:18.469,1:12:21.960
is something which you can
really see, but it is
1:12:21.960,1:12:25.419
representing something which is value.
1:12:25.419,1:12:32.389
And as we will see, value is always in motion.
1:12:32.389,1:12:37.900
And that means that a
process is objectified in a thing.
1:12:37.900,1:12:40.980
A labour process, a potter making a pot
1:12:40.980,1:12:44.150
is finally objectified in a thing. And
it's the thing which is sold in the
1:12:44.150,1:12:47.000
market, not the process.
1:12:47.000,1:12:51.119
But the thing would not
exist without the process.
1:12:51.119,1:12:54.479
So the process has to be objectified.
1:12:54.479,1:12:58.059
There are some people who would
love to write a dissertation without ever
1:12:58.059,1:13:01.260
actually producing the thing.
1:13:01.260,1:13:03.449
You may come an say: Oh the process is great!
1:13:03.449,1:13:07.179
…Ah, yeah okay, PhD immediately…
1:13:07.179,1:13:09.560
…but of course, no, you've got to objectify it…
1:13:09.560,1:13:12.550
And as everybody knows who's
gone through this to some degree,
1:13:12.550,1:13:15.889
you can have great ideas and think it is
fantastic, and when you try to objectify it on paper
1:13:15.889,1:13:20.780
you say:
good god, what nonsense this is!
1:13:20.780,1:13:22.150
And so, you've got to…
1:13:22.150,1:13:25.130
so Marx is talking about that relationship.
1:13:25.130,1:13:26.159
That's right in…
1:13:26.159,1:13:27.989
that's implied in this, immediately in this
1:13:27.989,1:13:30.280
notion of objectification.
1:13:30.280,1:13:34.699
Human labour is objectified, materialized in
1:13:34.699,1:13:37.989
this thing called a commodity.
1:13:37.989,1:13:41.849
But then inside of that thing, the quantity
1:13:41.849,1:13:47.849
is measured by the duration
of the labour which is put into the thing. But…
1:13:47.849,1:13:51.969
And that itself has measures, which he said…
1:13:51.969,1:13:57.219
scale of hours, days etc.
1:13:57.219,1:13:59.199
Again, there's a reference here,
1:13:59.199,1:14:02.349
a coded reference,
if you like, to the the way in which
1:14:02.349,1:14:07.830
capitalist mode of production
sets up a certain notion of temporality.
1:14:07.830,1:14:14.570
Time, how does the capitalist mode
of production structure time?
1:14:14.570,1:14:18.060
And Marx is going to make an argument,
saying: you've got to understand that
1:14:18.060,1:14:24.280
a lot of it has to do with
the fact that time is money.
1:14:24.280,1:14:27.420
Time is connected to value in
a certain kind of way, and therefore even our
1:14:27.420,1:14:30.710
measures of time start to take on
1:14:30.710,1:14:33.950
a certain kind of allure, simply
1:14:33.950,1:14:40.950
because of the way in
which it capitalist mode of production works.
1:14:43.630,1:14:50.089
He then comes, down this paragraph, to say this:
1:14:50.089,1:14:56.039
"I'm really looking at
the total labour power of society
1:14:56.039,1:15:03.039
which is manifested in
the values of the world of commodities."
1:15:03.729,1:15:10.729
Now, where does this society exist,
and where does this world of commodities prevail?
1:15:11.469,1:15:12.850
Here you're not looking at
1:15:12.850,1:15:19.519
just one particular place, you're
actually looking at a global situation.
1:15:19.519,1:15:22.429
The world of commodities,
1:15:22.429,1:15:25.889
where is the world
of commodities right now?
1:15:25.889,1:15:29.690
It's in China, it's in Mexico, it's in Japan,
1:15:29.690,1:15:32.190
it's in Russia…
1:15:32.190,1:15:34.959
It's a global thing.
1:15:34.959,1:15:36.780
And he's looking at
1:15:36.780,1:15:39.429
society, in a sense,
1:15:39.429,1:15:42.820
the whole of the capitalist world.
1:15:42.820,1:15:47.679
So he's looking at the notion of labour,
1:15:47.679,1:15:50.639
and the measure of value,
if you like, is going to be
1:15:50.639,1:15:56.110
judged against that whole world,
it's not the specific
1:15:56.110,1:16:02.580
activity of a particular labour in a
particular place and time, now it's a whole world.
1:16:02.580,1:16:05.979
A global situation, even at this point,
1:16:05.979,1:16:08.499
and actually, there's a brilliant
1:16:08.499,1:16:11.719
sort of description of globalization, if
you want to call it that, in the
1:16:11.719,1:16:13.869
Communist Manifesto.
1:16:13.869,1:16:17.599
Where Marx talks about the impulsions
of the Bourgeoisie to create the world market
1:16:17.599,1:16:20.389
and the consequence of making that,
1:16:20.389,1:16:24.589
in which old industries get destroyed,
new ones get created, there's tremendous
1:16:24.589,1:16:26.189
kind of fluidity.
1:16:26.189,1:16:31.469
Marx was writing this in a context
where the world was opening very fast-
1:16:31.469,1:16:35.149
through the steamship and
the railways and all this kind of stuff
1:16:35.149,1:16:39.449
to a global economy.
1:16:39.449,1:16:43.159
And he understood very well the
consequences of that, which meant that
1:16:43.159,1:16:46.059
value was not something that was
determined in our backyard, but was
1:16:46.059,1:16:52.039
something which was determined
in the world of commodities.
1:16:52.039,1:16:55.439
And the result of that
is that we end up as he says:
1:16:55.439,1:16:58.340
"Each of these units,"
1:16:58.340,1:17:03.780
that is of homogenous labour-power,
1:17:03.780,1:17:07.289
"each of these units is the same as any
other to the extent that it has the
1:17:07.289,1:17:09.390
character of a socially average unit
1:17:09.390,1:17:13.109
of labour-power and acts as such(…)"
1:17:13.109,1:17:16.600
And here comes the crucial definition:
1:17:16.600,1:17:19.050
"Socially necessary labour-time
1:17:19.050,1:17:22.690
is the labour-time required to produce
1:17:22.690,1:17:27.209
any use-value under the conditions
of production normal for a given society and
1:17:27.209,1:17:32.569
with the average degree of skill and
intensity of labour prevalent in that society."
1:17:32.569,1:17:36.139
This is his first cut definition of value.
1:17:36.139,1:17:43.139
Value is socially necessary labour-time.
1:17:44.270,1:17:48.640
One of the reasons, I think, Marx thought
he could get away with this very cryptic presentation
1:17:48.640,1:17:52.249
of use-value, exchange-value and value
1:17:52.249,1:17:55.889
was because anybody who read Ricardo
1:17:55.889,1:18:00.409
would say: 'Yeah, this is pure Ricardo.'
1:18:00.409,1:18:08.499
And it is pure Ricardo, with however
one exceptional insertion.
1:18:08.499,1:18:15.019
Ricardo used the concept
of labour-time as value.
1:18:15.019,1:18:21.840
Marx uses the concept
of socially necessary labour-time.
1:18:21.840,1:18:25.420
And you should immediately
ask yourself the question:
1:18:25.420,1:18:28.420
What is 'socially necessary'?
1:18:28.420,1:18:31.699
How is that established?
1:18:31.699,1:18:34.550
He doesn't give any answer to it here.
1:18:34.550,1:18:38.429
And you only begin to get the
sense of the answer of that, when you are way on
1:18:38.429,1:18:40.969
the way through Capital.
1:18:40.969,1:18:43.389
In other words, what Marx has done
1:18:43.389,1:18:48.719
here, is simply set up the
Ricardian conceptual apparatus.
1:18:48.719,1:18:55.829
Repeat it, and in a sense say:
'Ricardo missed something out.'
1:18:55.829,1:19:03.039
It is not adequate the call value labour-time.
1:19:03.039,1:19:05.360
We have to insert that question mark:
1:19:05.360,1:19:07.759
What is socially necessary labour-time?
1:19:07.759,1:19:11.699
How is it determined? Who determines it?
1:19:11.699,1:19:14.579
And that is the big issue.
1:19:14.579,1:19:19.210
And I would submit it actually continues to
be the big issue in global capitalism,
1:19:19.210,1:19:24.279
who and how is value established?
1:19:24.279,1:19:27.729
I mean we all like to think we have our
own values and this kind of stuff, and everybody likes
1:19:27.729,1:19:31.519
to go on talking about values.
1:19:31.519,1:19:35.659
But Marx is kind of saying: 'Look,
there is a value which is being determined
1:19:35.659,1:19:38.469
by a process that we do not understand.'
1:19:38.469,1:19:41.090
And it's not our choice,
1:19:41.090,1:19:44.689
it's something that is happening to us.
1:19:44.689,1:19:46.210
And how it is happening
1:19:46.210,1:19:49.499
has to be unpacked. If you
want to understand who you are,
1:19:49.499,1:19:52.739
and where you stand in this maelstrom of
1:19:52.739,1:19:55.409
churning values and everything.
What you've got to do
1:19:55.409,1:19:58.270
is to understand how value gets created,
1:19:58.270,1:20:02.360
how it gets produced and with what consequences,
1:20:02.360,1:20:06.409
socially, environmentally, all the rest of it.
1:20:06.409,1:20:07.539
And if you think
1:20:07.539,1:20:10.780
you can solve the environmental
question of global warming and all that
1:20:10.780,1:20:13.440
kind of stuff without actually confronting
1:20:13.440,1:20:16.760
the whole kind of question of
who determines the value structure
1:20:16.760,1:20:19.819
and how is it determined by these processes,
1:20:19.819,1:20:22.980
then you got to be kidding yourself.
1:20:22.980,1:20:24.790
So what Marx in effect is saying:
1:20:24.790,1:20:28.699
You got to understand
what social necessity is.
1:20:28.699,1:20:30.550
And we've got to spend a lot of time
1:20:30.550,1:20:35.079
looking at what is socially necessary.
1:20:35.079,1:20:39.539
He immediately points out however
1:20:39.539,1:20:42.489
that value is not fixed.
1:20:42.489,1:20:46.280
I've mentioned already, he's
always on about the fluidity of things.
1:20:46.280,1:20:48.239
He says:
1:20:48.239,1:20:53.989
Of course value changes with productivity.
1:20:53.989,1:20:57.420
"The introduction of
power-looms into England, for example,
1:20:57.420,1:21:00.780
probably reduced by one half the
labour required to convert a given
1:21:00.780,1:21:04.489
quantity of yarn into woven fabric.
1:21:04.489,1:21:07.979
In order to do this, the
English hand-loom weaver needed
1:21:07.979,1:21:10.760
the the same amount of
labour-time as before;
1:21:10.760,1:21:14.530
but the product of his individual
hour of labour now only represented
1:21:14.530,1:21:16.280
half an hour of social labour,
1:21:16.280,1:21:17.660
and consequently fell
1:21:17.660,1:21:22.109
to one half of its former value."
1:21:22.109,1:21:27.690
Okay, so value is in
the first instance extremely
1:21:27.690,1:21:32.620
sensitive to revolutions in technology,
1:21:32.620,1:21:34.489
revolutions in productivity.
1:21:34.489,1:21:38.399
And much of Capital is going to
be taken up with the discussion
1:21:38.399,1:21:41.289
of those revolutions in productivity,
1:21:41.289,1:21:47.519
those revolutions in value-relations.
1:21:47.519,1:21:49.290
This leads into the conclusion then,
1:21:49.290,1:21:51.520
on the bottom of one twenty nine:
1:21:51.520,1:21:55.869
"What exclusively determines the
magnitude of the value of any article
1:21:55.869,1:21:59.279
is therefore the amount
of labour socially necessary,
1:21:59.279,1:22:03.179
or the labour time
socially necessary for its production."
1:22:03.179,1:22:06.479
There's your definition.
1:22:06.479,1:22:12.169
"The individual commodity counts
here only as an average sample of its kind."
1:22:12.169,1:22:13.809
Then he re-iterates.
1:22:13.809,1:22:17.149
You often find Marx doing this, by the way.
1:22:17.149,1:22:19.249
He repeats himself.
1:22:19.249,1:22:22.409
He kind of…figures if you didn't get the
1:22:22.409,1:22:23.979
hand-loom, the power-loom
1:22:23.979,1:22:27.260
example, so he is going to
1:22:27.260,1:22:30.599
hammer it home by pointing out
1:22:30.599,1:22:35.349
that the value of the commodity does
not remain constant, he says on hundred and thirty:
1:22:35.349,1:22:39.309
"…if the labour-time required for its
production also remained constant.
1:22:39.309,1:22:42.699
But the latter changes with every variation
in the productivity of labour." He then goes
1:22:42.699,1:22:46.480
on to talk about this. But, notice:
1:22:46.480,1:22:51.530
"This is determined by a
wide range of circumstances;
1:22:51.530,1:22:57.560
it is determined amongst other things by
the workers average degree of skill,
1:22:57.560,1:23:01.859
the level of development of
science and its technological application,…"
1:23:01.859,1:23:09.989
Marx is very hot on the significance of
technology and science to capitalism.
1:23:09.989,1:23:13.249
"…the social organization
of the process of production,
1:23:13.249,1:23:16.829
the extent and effectiveness of the means
of production, and the conditions found in
1:23:16.829,1:23:23.539
the natural environment."
1:23:23.539,1:23:30.320
Vast array of elements
which can impinge upon value.
1:23:30.320,1:23:35.139
Transformations in the natural
environment mean revolutions in value.
1:23:35.139,1:23:36.620
Technology and science,
1:23:36.620,1:23:39.159
social organization of production,
1:23:39.159,1:23:41.780
technologies, all the rest of it…
1:23:41.780,1:23:43.829
So, in fact, we've got
1:23:43.829,1:23:48.429
value which is subject to a powerful
array of forces, and he's not
1:23:48.429,1:23:52.119
here attempting a definitive categorization
of all of them, he just simply wants to
1:23:52.119,1:23:59.049
alert us, that this thing we're
calling value is not constant.
1:23:59.049,1:24:07.619
It is subject to perpetual
revolutionary transformations.
1:24:08.600,1:24:12.500
But then a peculiar thing happens.
1:24:12.500,1:24:16.659
Right in the last paragraph
on hundred and thirty one
1:24:16.659,1:24:19.849
he suddenly says:
1:24:19.849,1:24:22.610
"A thing can be a
use-value without being a value."
1:24:22.610,1:24:25.979
Okay, we can all agree on that.
1:24:25.979,1:24:29.520
We breathe air and so far we
haven't managed to bottle it, although,
1:24:29.520,1:24:36.449
we're beginning to, I guess, so…
1:24:36.449,1:24:42.219
A thing can be useful and
a product of human labour without being a commodity.
1:24:42.219,1:24:46.039
I grow tomatoes in my
backyard and I eat them…
1:24:46.039,1:24:48.749
Lots of people, even within capitalism, actually
1:24:48.749,1:24:52.749
produce a lot of things for themselves.
1:24:52.749,1:24:57.829
With a little help
from DIY and all the rest of it.
1:24:57.829,1:25:00.280
"In order to produce the latter,"
1:25:00.280,1:25:02.619
that is commodities,
1:25:02.619,1:25:03.809
"he must not only produce use-values,
1:25:03.809,1:25:08.530
but use-values for others."
1:25:08.530,1:25:13.050
Furthermore, just not simply
use-values for the lord, as a serf would do,
1:25:13.050,1:25:18.359
but use-values which are going
to go to others through the market.
1:25:18.359,1:25:20.460
So it's use-values
1:25:20.460,1:25:27.460
which you are producing,
which are going to be sent to market.
1:25:27.499,1:25:32.960
"Finally", he says, "nothing can
be a value without being an object of utility.
1:25:32.960,1:25:36.400
If the thing is useless, so is the labour
contained in it; the labour does not count
1:25:36.400,1:25:42.679
as labour, and therefore creates no value."
1:25:42.679,1:25:47.739
Now he seems to dismiss
and abstract from use-value earlier on.
1:25:47.739,1:25:48.980
Saying: 'I'm not concerned
1:25:48.980,1:25:53.050
with use-values, I'm not
interested in them, etcetera.
1:25:53.050,1:25:56.079
I abstract from them, I get to
exchange-value, and that gets me to
1:25:56.079,1:25:59.329
value. But now I've got
value, but now I'm saying:
1:25:59.329,1:26:03.289
it doesn't matter what kind of labour went
into something, if somebody doesn't want it
1:26:03.289,1:26:08.090
if it doesn't meet a human
want, need or desire, then it ain't value.'
1:26:08.090,1:26:10.949
So value is also dependent
upon it being a use-value,
1:26:10.949,1:26:13.309
for somebody, somewhere.
1:26:13.309,1:26:18.829
You have to be able to sell it.
So what he has done
1:26:18.829,1:26:25.829
is to suddenly bring
back use-value into the idea of value.
1:26:27.590,1:26:30.449
Now, there's a very interesting
1:26:30.449,1:26:31.980
kind of a structure that
1:26:31.980,1:26:34.530
goes on here. Goes like this:
1:26:34.530,1:26:39.909
And this is what I would like you to do: at
the end of almost every section you read
1:26:39.909,1:26:45.019
think about how the conceptional
apparatus is constructed,
1:26:45.019,1:26:47.999
and how it hangs together.
1:26:47.999,1:26:52.380
What we've got here is
something that goes like this:
1:26:52.380,1:27:00.679
We've got the commodity.
1:27:00.679,1:27:01.960
And we said, actually,
1:27:01.960,1:27:05.209
the commodity has a dual character.
1:27:05.209,1:27:13.309
It has a use-value.
1:27:13.610,1:27:20.610
It also has an exchange-value.
1:27:24.989,1:27:27.879
exchange-value is a
representation of something.
1:27:27.879,1:27:30.519
What is it a representation of?
1:27:30.519,1:27:36.739
It's a representation of value.
1:27:36.739,1:27:41.619
But value doesn't mean anything
1:27:41.619,1:27:47.239
unless it connects back to use-value.
1:27:47.239,1:27:50.989
What is value?
1:27:50.989,1:27:57.989
Socially necessary labour-time.
1:28:08.329,1:28:16.820
Now, if you own a house, are you more
interested in its use-value or its exchange-value?
1:28:16.820,1:28:23.820
Yeah, you're interested in both,
you'd like to have your cake and eat it.
1:28:27.469,1:28:28.699
Right?
1:28:28.699,1:28:34.999
This is sort of opposition here. If you want
to realize the exchange-value of something,
1:28:34.999,1:28:37.399
you can't have the use-value of it.
1:28:37.399,1:28:40.820
If you have the use-value of it then
it's difficult to get the exchange-value, unless you do
1:28:40.820,1:28:43.529
a reverse mortgage, or, you know,
all those kinds of things that people did
1:28:43.529,1:28:47.939
over the last few years.
1:28:47.939,1:28:50.830
But notice the structure:
1:28:50.830,1:28:53.719
Commodity, a singular concept
1:28:53.719,1:28:55.599
which has two aspects.
1:28:55.599,1:28:57.750
Now when you look at a commodity,
1:28:57.750,1:29:03.579
can you actually divide it in half and say:
that's the exchange-value and that's the use-value?
1:29:03.579,1:29:05.599
No, there's a unity.
1:29:05.599,1:29:09.260
But within that unity
there is a dual aspect.
1:29:09.260,1:29:11.079
And that dual aspect
1:29:11.079,1:29:15.999
allows us to define something, called
value, as socially necessary labour-time.
1:29:15.999,1:29:21.260
Which is what the use-value of a
commodity is a bearer of.
1:29:21.260,1:29:27.039
That's what it is a bearer of.
1:29:27.039,1:29:31.059
But, in order to be a value,
it has to be useful.
1:29:31.059,1:29:33.160
And of course, on this link
1:29:33.160,1:29:38.199
we'll see all kinds of
issues arising about supply and demand.
1:29:38.199,1:29:43.609
If the supply is too great, the value will go
down, if the supply is too little, the value will go up.
1:29:43.609,1:29:47.619
So there is an element here of
supply and demand involved.
1:29:47.619,1:29:51.320
Marx is actually not
terribly interested in that.
1:29:51.320,1:29:55.719
As he will say at various points, as he goes on,
1:29:55.719,1:29:59.170
what I'm interested in is, what happens when
1:29:59.170,1:30:04.599
supply and demand are in equilibrium.
1:30:04.599,1:30:07.949
When they are in equilibrium
I have to have a different kind of analysis
1:30:07.949,1:30:10.290
and the value of the commodities is fixed
1:30:10.290,1:30:13.869
by this socially necessary
labour-time, whatever that
1:30:13.869,1:30:20.610
social necessity is. So what you've got here
1:30:20.610,1:30:23.939
is something of this form,
which then allows us to talk about
1:30:23.939,1:30:27.849
the value of a commodity.
1:30:27.849,1:30:31.689
We can talk about commodity values.
1:30:31.689,1:30:33.420
We've got to the point where we understand:
1:30:33.420,1:30:36.420
commodity values are constituted
1:30:36.420,1:30:41.159
as socially necessary labour-time.
1:30:41.159,1:30:48.230
Now this is partly, what I would suggest,
1:30:48.230,1:30:53.579
is Marx's dialectical method working here.
1:30:53.579,1:30:59.539
Would you say that exchange-values cause value?
1:30:59.539,1:31:01.520
Would you say exchange-values
1:31:01.520,1:31:05.469
cause use-value, or use-value
is caused, or anything is caused by anything else?
1:31:05.469,1:31:09.530
This is an analysis which is not causal.
1:31:09.530,1:31:15.679
It's about relations, about dialectical relations.
1:31:15.679,1:31:21.119
Can you talk about exchange-value
without talking about use-value?
1:31:21.119,1:31:24.469
No you can't.
1:31:24.469,1:31:29.050
Can you talk about value without
talking about use-value? No you can't.
1:31:29.050,1:31:32.550
In other words, you can't talk about any
one of these concepts without talking
1:31:32.550,1:31:35.820
about all of the others.
1:31:35.820,1:31:39.690
This is what I mean about, you know,
beginning to sort of work through
1:31:39.690,1:31:43.119
the conceptual apparatus of the onion.
1:31:43.119,1:31:51.489
It's an organic, hanging together,
a set of relations, between these concepts.
1:31:51.489,1:31:54.849
But we've also seen, that we'll be
1:31:54.849,1:31:59.369
going to be talking about motion, about movement,
1:31:59.369,1:32:02.639
about the making of things, about labour processes,
1:32:02.639,1:32:08.009
which become objectified in use-values,
1:32:08.009,1:32:13.269
and which become represented by exchange-value.
1:32:13.269,1:32:17.179
So we've got a very interesting
1:32:17.179,1:32:21.270
kind of conceptual framework here,
which is not about causality at all.
1:32:21.270,1:32:23.630
It's about inner relations.
1:32:23.630,1:32:25.590
And by understanding
1:32:25.590,1:32:30.119
then we start to see also
certain tensions I've already mentioned.
1:32:30.119,1:32:31.939
That yes, it'd be very nice
1:32:31.939,1:32:36.699
to have use-value and
exchange-value at the same time.
1:32:36.699,1:32:40.159
But a lot of time we
are faced with a difficult choice.
1:32:40.159,1:32:43.380
Do I have the use-value, or do I
1:32:43.380,1:32:45.380
realize the exchange-value?
1:32:45.380,1:32:50.249
Or do I give up the
exchange-value and get the use-value?
1:32:50.249,1:32:54.609
And those are the daily decisions we
have to make when we go into the market, right?
1:32:54.609,1:32:55.629
Do I give up
1:32:55.629,1:32:58.960
the exchange-value…
money for this or do I not..?
1:32:58.960,1:33:01.730
Do I hang on to the money or what do I do?
1:33:01.730,1:33:08.239
So Marx has set up something,
that is explaining something, OK, already.
1:33:08.239,1:33:14.530
And even as he explains however,
he is not saying: this causes that.
1:33:14.530,1:33:17.250
So it's not a causal analysis.
1:33:17.250,1:33:18.459
This is where I'm beginning to…
what I want you to start to think about,
1:33:18.459,1:33:24.039
is a dialectical mode of argument.
1:33:24.039,1:33:26.980
Which is already revealing something about
1:33:26.980,1:33:31.320
the kinds of choices you
make when you go into the supermarket.
1:33:31.320,1:33:34.429
And the kinds of things
you see in the supermarket.
1:33:34.429,1:33:37.639
You're going to get a representation of
human labour in the supermarket. You're not
1:33:37.639,1:33:41.119
going to see the human labour.
You're going to get a representation.
1:33:41.119,1:33:45.590
You're gonna have to to deal with the
representation as it is objectified,
1:33:45.590,1:33:47.990
and as its value is represented,
1:33:47.990,1:33:52.260
and then you have to make a
decision about use- and exchange-value.
1:33:52.260,1:33:58.460
So this is a way of situating
what people do on a daily basis.
1:33:58.460,1:34:01.970
And you can see that
this apparatus, although Marx
1:34:01.970,1:34:05.679
doesn't take it in the
way that I'm taking it,
1:34:05.679,1:34:10.199
but if you think about it you see
immediately what this can help you understand.
1:34:10.199,1:34:14.219
So you just don't learn it as a formal abstraction.
1:34:14.219,1:34:15.869
You try to put sort of
1:34:15.869,1:34:19.809
meat on the bones of this,
by sort of thinking through.
1:34:19.809,1:34:23.260
Well, what does that actually mean?
1:34:23.260,1:34:28.840
How does that help me
understand things that are going on around me?
1:34:28.840,1:34:33.929
This is the kind of crucial sort of question
1:34:33.929,1:34:37.900
which this form of analysis sets up.
1:34:37.900,1:34:40.110
So my purpose reading through
1:34:40.110,1:34:43.939
this first section is
to give you some idea about,
1:34:43.939,1:34:47.540
if you like, create a model of
how you should try to read this.
1:34:47.540,1:34:49.470
It won't always work for you. But
1:34:49.470,1:34:53.579
what you should do at the end of every
section is: draw back, say: all right,
1:34:53.579,1:34:57.039
what kind of relationships
was he talking about here?
1:34:57.039,1:34:59.400
What do those relationships tell me
1:34:59.400,1:35:05.349
both about all of this stuff,
but also tell me about what's going on?
1:35:05.349,1:35:09.169
In my daily life, in other people's daily life,
what's going on in the market and all the
1:35:09.169,1:35:12.070
rest of it? What does it tell me?
1:35:12.070,1:35:14.880
Is it telling me anything?
1:35:14.880,1:35:18.300
And initially it will be very
hard to see what it might tell you, as you go on
1:35:18.300,1:35:21.499
Marx will start to tell
stories coming out of these relationships
1:35:21.499,1:35:23.999
and he'll spin outwards from this
1:35:23.999,1:35:29.360
into a far, far greater
understanding of the dynamics of this.
1:35:29.360,1:35:34.119
So this is the way in which he's working.
1:35:34.119,1:35:35.630
And I think what
1:35:35.630,1:35:38.499
I suggested to you is that
1:35:38.499,1:35:41.069
you should go back over this section
1:35:41.069,1:35:46.070
and look carefully at the way in which
these concepts unfold and how they work
1:35:46.070,1:35:50.030
in these sorts of terms.
1:35:50.030,1:35:52.550
Now generally speaking,
1:35:52.550,1:35:55.969
I've been talking all the time on this occasion,
1:35:55.969,1:35:58.839
as an introductory thing.
1:35:58.839,1:36:02.359
Rather necessary I
found out of bitter experience.
1:36:02.359,1:36:03.260
But I would like,
1:36:03.260,1:36:07.489
actually, to try to get
you to engage a little bit, so
1:36:07.489,1:36:09.790
in the future,
1:36:09.790,1:36:13.460
precisely because you've
read the text very carefully in advance,
1:36:13.460,1:36:17.239
you doubtless come with
all kinds of questions in your mind.
1:36:17.239,1:36:18.300
And so when
1:36:18.300,1:36:23.009
I'm talking about something and you don't
get it because it doesn't fit with what
1:36:23.009,1:36:26.619
you got, then interrupt me, Ok.
1:36:26.619,1:36:36.169
That's fine, but interrupt me about the text.
1:36:36.169,1:36:40.829
As he says about this in his
introduction to the French edition, you know,
1:36:40.829,1:36:45.729
people very often want to talk politics
1:36:45.729,1:36:49.349
in here, I love to talk politics.
1:36:49.349,1:36:52.959
But sometimes if you talk
all politics you forget the text,
1:36:52.959,1:36:56.280
and actually the politics
of this class is to get you to read the text
1:36:56.280,1:36:58.249
and understand the text.
1:36:58.249,1:37:01.570
If you want to discuss politics we go
down to O'Reilly's bar on 35th street afterwards
1:37:01.570,1:37:04.119
and discuss as much politics as you like,
1:37:04.119,1:37:06.709
over several beers and that's
1:37:06.709,1:37:08.799
part of the joy of this course.
1:37:08.799,1:37:12.819
This is…,
in here we wanna try to
1:37:12.819,1:37:14.520
keep it with the text.
1:37:14.520,1:37:18.909
But there are instances of the
sort that I sort of indicated here where
1:37:18.909,1:37:23.110
people might have a particular kind of
experience which actually is illuminated
1:37:23.110,1:37:26.209
by the framework of analysis.
And that's extremely helpful.
1:37:26.209,1:37:29.449
When people can kinda say:
yeah, that reminds me off,
1:37:29.449,1:37:33.079
you know, when I was working for
AT&T this happened etc, you know, and
1:37:33.079,1:37:36.929
this happened and this happened, and it is
exactly what Marx is talking about. In other words:
1:37:36.929,1:37:39.670
there are constant ways in which
1:37:39.670,1:37:43.520
this refers to experience. I don't
mind some of that, in fact, that's always
1:37:43.520,1:37:45.609
very, very useful, but really,
1:37:45.609,1:37:47.769
what we're trying to do
is try to make sure we
1:37:47.769,1:37:51.400
get through to the text, and we have also
1:37:51.400,1:37:54.890
a little bit more fluidity, so that
I'm not just preaching all the time
1:37:54.890,1:37:57.849
and telling all the time, a
little bit more fluidity so that you can get into
1:37:57.849,1:37:59.329
discussing some things. Now,
1:37:59.329,1:38:02.909
we have about ten minutes left
so if anybody wants to raise some
1:38:02.909,1:38:08.150
issues about what we've done?
1:38:08.150,1:38:12.909
»STUDENT: I was just wondering, because I think that,
in the philosophical tradition, when we speak of value,
1:38:12.909,1:38:15.689
you usually have this conception
of something that is absolute or that has
1:38:15.689,1:38:19.739
an independent existence grounded in reality,
1:38:19.739,1:38:23.149
and I'm wondering, whether
we can understand Marx's
1:38:23.149,1:38:27.359
definition of value as
socially necessary labour-time,
1:38:27.359,1:38:31.960
as itself, something that is socially
conditioned, and is there any way
1:38:31.960,1:38:38.489
that is totally outside,
might there be a social configuration
1:38:38.489,1:38:46.280
that we can imagine in which value is,
1:38:46.280,1:38:49.800
actually itself its representation,
1:38:49.800,1:38:53.689
when those two things are reconciled.
1:38:53.689,1:38:57.159
Or is value always, inevitably kind of a chimera?
1:38:57.159,1:39:00.969
»HARVEY: No, I think you gotta understand:
1:39:00.969,1:39:04.949
Marx's concept of value is
1:39:04.949,1:39:11.619
something which is internalized in the
processes of a capitalist mode of production.
1:39:11.619,1:39:15.380
And what he will say to you is: you may
have alternative values, and that's fine.
1:39:15.380,1:39:19.759
And you can dream about
them and want them, this kind of stuff.
1:39:19.759,1:39:26.219
But they don't mean very much,
unless you can transform
1:39:26.219,1:39:30.760
the real value system which is
governing our daily lives which is this one.
1:39:30.760,1:39:34.760
So Marx is not against, necessarily,
thinking about alternative values. And in
1:39:34.760,1:39:37.610
fact, I think, one of the big issues
1:39:37.610,1:39:43.380
which we face right now, is
precisely about what alternative values we
1:39:43.380,1:39:46.349
would like to see
1:39:46.349,1:39:49.060
operating in in the global marketplace.
1:39:49.060,1:39:52.709
Values of fairness…
1:39:52.709,1:39:57.559
and this is particularly coming up in
the environmental issue, for example.
1:39:57.559,1:40:01.820
People want to talk about
environmental values which should be
1:40:01.820,1:40:04.680
part in this. And the
answer again, as I suggested, is:
1:40:04.680,1:40:06.949
Marx would say: that's fine.
1:40:06.949,1:40:10.600
Well, he might not say that's fine, he had a
particular kind of aim of where he wants to go.
1:40:10.600,1:40:13.310
But I think, theoretically he would say:
1:40:13.310,1:40:18.090
that's fine. But in order to
make your notion of value work
1:40:18.090,1:40:21.979
you have to confront the one which is actually
1:40:21.979,1:40:23.820
dominating us in terms of
1:40:23.820,1:40:27.159
what's going on in the supermarket, how we're
living our daily lives and all the rest of it.
1:40:27.159,1:40:29.840
And we're talking about a value theory
1:40:29.840,1:40:32.059
which is implicated inside of
1:40:32.059,1:40:34.340
a capitalist mode of production.
1:40:34.340,1:40:40.260
Now, there's been a
categorical mistake in many instances,
1:40:40.260,1:40:43.979
precisely because value is located
in relationship to labour and labour processes,
1:40:43.979,1:40:49.589
that there's been a lot of
thinking in socialist societies of taking
1:40:49.589,1:40:54.229
Marx's labour theory of value
also almost as a normative device
1:40:54.229,1:40:56.439
to think about how
1:40:56.439,1:40:57.499
socialism should work.
1:40:57.499,1:41:00.150
But this is not what
Marx is saying, he's saying:
1:41:00.150,1:41:02.179
value is inherent
1:41:02.179,1:41:03.949
within a capitalist mode of production.
1:41:03.949,1:41:06.889
And we have to come to terms
1:41:06.889,1:41:08.879
with what that value is.
1:41:08.879,1:41:11.159
Now, there are alternative value theories.
1:41:11.159,1:41:12.810
And you know, you can
1:41:12.810,1:41:17.050
philosophize about them, think
about them and worry about them, socially,
1:41:17.050,1:41:18.939
politically, all the rest of it…
1:41:18.939,1:41:22.499
But his point is, as I suggested,
1:41:22.499,1:41:25.420
you've always got to come
back to confront this one,
1:41:25.420,1:41:28.570
because this is very basic to how
capitalist mode of production works.
1:41:28.570,1:41:29.119
And if you wanna
1:41:29.119,1:41:31.969
instantiate a different set of
values, then you've gotta
1:41:31.969,1:41:35.300
overthrow a capitalist mode of production.
1:41:35.300,1:41:38.280
And that's his revolutionary intent.
1:41:38.280,1:41:43.530
Sorry, there was a question here.
1:41:43.530,1:41:47.869
»STUDENT: Yeah, I just was wondering if
you could talk a little bit about how we should think
1:41:47.869,1:41:49.339
about objectification. Because, I know, the
preconceived notion I bring to it is
1:41:49.339,1:41:52.219
much more static in terms of,
1:41:52.219,1:41:54.480
as labour is objectified, it
moves away from the labourer
1:41:54.480,1:41:57.030
and there's this separation.
1:41:57.030,1:42:01.509
How can I think about that in terms of,
1:42:01.509,1:42:04.409
more process oriented?
1:42:04.409,1:42:08.270
»HARVEY: Well, again…
the thing is not…
1:42:08.270,1:42:11.159
…is not…, for instance:
1:42:11.159,1:42:13.189
Just to give you an example:
1:42:13.189,1:42:14.639
1:42:14.639,1:42:17.749
Let's suppose that labour produces a house.
1:42:17.749,1:42:20.090
Okay the labourers that
produced the house move away from it,
1:42:20.090,1:42:23.510
then maybe other labourers move in to it.
1:42:23.510,1:42:27.769
And then there's the issue of: is that
house then fixed forever in terms of
1:42:27.769,1:42:32.080
its value? Well, given the way
he set it up, the answer is no.
1:42:32.080,1:42:36.329
Because let's suppose
there are revolutions in technology
1:42:36.329,1:42:40.199
which suddenly make housing
production much easier.
1:42:40.199,1:42:44.480
Then you can go away from, I don't know,
shanty towns to sort of housing of a
1:42:44.480,1:42:47.300
different kind, and therefore there's a dynamic
1:42:47.300,1:42:50.900
involved in this, and therefore,
1:42:50.900,1:42:53.540
you know, this gets back to the fact that
1:42:53.540,1:42:57.699
something like a house has a use-value and
the use-value remains a long time and you can still
1:42:57.699,1:43:00.889
trade its exchange-value,
so it has a residual exchange-value.
1:43:00.889,1:43:02.019
So…,
1:43:02.019,1:43:03.930
so again there's a dynamic here,
1:43:03.930,1:43:05.370
so the thing
1:43:05.370,1:43:07.849
and the qualities of things are not fixed.
1:43:07.849,1:43:10.550
In fact, again, there's a lot of
1:43:10.550,1:43:14.989
dynamism in this. But again Marx,
by and large, is not going to be concerned about that
1:43:14.989,1:43:16.929
in Capital. He's going to sort of say:
1:43:16.929,1:43:21.589
OK, I'm gonna assume it's fixed for the moment.
1:43:21.589,1:43:24.000
But nevertheless, what
he's saying here is:
1:43:24.000,1:43:29.109
watch out!, it's always in motion,
it's never fixed, it's always changing, it's a dynamic
1:43:29.109,1:43:32.429
concept, not a static one.
And the objectification
1:43:32.429,1:43:37.189
is there, but again, the meaning
of the objectification itself changes over time
1:43:37.189,1:43:39.699
and according to place. So you know
1:43:39.699,1:43:45.199
there are all those elements within it.
1:43:45.199,1:43:46.779
» STUDENT: This particular vision of the capitalist
1:43:46.779,1:43:50.590
world that Marx deals with
1:43:50.590,1:43:52.469
diverges, I mean obviously
1:43:52.469,1:43:53.679
diverges with the modern day…
1:43:53.679,1:43:59.539
Specifically with the way in which laws, and
you know, create a proprietary… you know
1:43:59.539,1:44:01.769
only certain companies
can make one thing, and then,
1:44:01.769,1:44:06.690
corporations sort of
1:44:06.690,1:44:07.700
dominate the scene.
1:44:07.700,1:44:12.019
It's not a free market- protectionist laws,
1:44:12.019,1:44:15.800
…does that…
1:44:15.800,1:44:18.959
affect the values being purely
about the socially necessary labour-time.
1:44:18.959,1:44:21.800
»HARVEY: Well that's one of the
questions which you have to ask about. What is
1:44:21.800,1:44:23.989
socially necessary labour-time?
1:44:23.989,1:44:25.800
How is it determined?
1:44:25.800,1:44:30.120
To what degree is there a monopoly
power in the market which is determining it?
1:44:30.120,1:44:36.380
To what degree is there imperialist
politics which is determining it?
1:44:36.380,1:44:38.739
To what degree is there
1:44:38.739,1:44:41.189
colonial enslavement which is determining it?
1:44:41.189,1:44:42.130
In other words:
1:44:42.130,1:44:43.869
those are open questions.
1:44:43.869,1:44:47.479
And Marx is very much open to
1:44:47.479,1:44:49.459
discussing those sorts of questions
1:44:49.459,1:44:53.699
in principle. But again, what
we're going to look at is
1:44:53.699,1:44:57.359
Marx's conception of a pure
capitalist mode of production.
1:44:57.359,1:45:01.449
Which in many ways, as we will see,
is guided by the vision of classical
1:45:01.449,1:45:03.249
political economy.
1:45:03.249,1:45:06.510
In other words: classical political economy
1:45:06.510,1:45:09.969
assumes there were going to be perfectly
functioning markets and the state power
1:45:09.969,1:45:14.070
is going to be out of the way,
and there's gonna be no monopoly.
1:45:14.070,1:45:17.739
So Marx tends to say:
okay, let's assume that
1:45:17.739,1:45:21.469
the classical political economists are
correct and that's how the world is.
1:45:21.469,1:45:23.969
We will see examples where
1:45:23.969,1:45:27.659
that presumption gets him into difficulties.
1:45:27.659,1:45:29.699
But actually, there's nothing
1:45:29.699,1:45:33.320
in this conception that says you can't
consider all those things, because,
1:45:33.320,1:45:36.099
for me anyway, the category socially necessary
1:45:36.099,1:45:38.170
is something which is perpetually open,
1:45:38.170,1:45:39.650
is constantly changing.
1:45:39.650,1:45:41.659
What is socially necessary now?
1:45:41.659,1:45:45.650
as opposed to what was
socially necessary in 1850.
1:45:45.650,1:45:50.099
Very different. And so you know,
1:45:50.099,1:45:52.510
I would want you to think about this as
1:45:52.510,1:45:55.580
having a flexible reading in this,
but realize that Marx is using it
1:45:55.580,1:45:59.219
in a very specific way, in a very specific situation
1:45:59.219,1:46:03.340
for very specific purposes.
1:46:03.340,1:46:06.739
»STUDENT: Does socially necessary
imply the amount of labour required
1:46:06.739,1:46:10.729
for a labourer to reproduce him- or herself?
1:46:10.729,1:46:12.559
»HARVEY: Socially necessary
1:46:12.559,1:46:15.849
can include that kind of question.
1:46:15.849,1:46:19.290
As many socialist feminists pointed out in the
1:46:19.290,1:46:22.690
debates of the nineteen
sixties/nineteen seventies,
1:46:22.690,1:46:26.489
the whole question of socially necessary,
1:46:26.489,1:46:28.650
has to take into account
1:46:28.650,1:46:31.860
certain basic costs of reproduction
that are born inside of the household
1:46:31.860,1:46:35.369
and which may be
disproportionately born by women.
1:46:35.369,1:46:38.429
Even though, actually, if you look
at the whole history of the industrial
1:46:38.429,1:46:40.480
revolution, it was women's labour
1:46:40.480,1:46:44.070
in the factories that was
fundamental, as it is today. And most of
1:46:44.070,1:46:47.840
the global proletariat right now is women.
1:46:47.840,1:46:51.190
So the kind of social
reproduction aspect of it, and how to
1:46:51.190,1:46:53.289
integrate that into
socially necessary, has been
1:46:53.289,1:46:58.230
a contentious issue amongst Marxists.
1:46:58.230,1:47:01.690
And what you have to
remember by the way, is that Marx
1:47:01.690,1:47:07.969
was a little skeptical of this
term "Marxist". He once said: 'I am not a Marxist.'
1:47:07.969,1:47:11.489
What he meant by that, was, there
were a lot of things being said in his name, that were
1:47:11.489,1:47:13.639
not exactly what he had to say.
1:47:13.639,1:47:18.309
So again, that's one of the reasons
why I want you to think about this in Marx's
1:47:18.309,1:47:21.940
own terms. Because, you know,
1:47:21.940,1:47:24.139
it's very, it's very important to realize
1:47:24.139,1:47:28.309
how he expands this
notion of social necessity,
1:47:28.309,1:47:29.679
we will see.
1:47:29.679,1:47:32.889
How you might want to expand it,
is again something that is open
1:47:32.889,1:47:34.479
to discussion and debate.
1:47:34.479,1:47:37.039
How we should expand it,
1:47:37.039,1:47:41.719
in terms of a socialist project, or
socio-ecological project, or a social-
1:47:41.719,1:47:43.070
feminist project, or whatever.
1:47:43.070,1:47:44.899
How we should expand it,
1:47:44.899,1:47:47.730
again, is something very much up to us.
1:47:47.730,1:47:51.609
And I don't think Marx would want to be read
1:47:51.609,1:47:55.389
as someone providing a
gospel within which you
1:47:55.389,1:47:56.590
can find yourself.
1:47:56.590,1:48:00.110
It's not about confining mode of
argument, it's a matter of
1:48:00.110,1:48:03.469
liberating you to think about
all kinds of possibilities,
1:48:03.469,1:48:05.369
all kinds of alternatives,
1:48:05.369,1:48:08.780
all kinds of ways to go.
1:48:08.780,1:48:09.929
Just one more.
1:48:09.929,1:48:13.959
»STUDENT: Could you just
clarify very specifically
1:48:13.959,1:48:15.649
the difference between
use-value and exchange-value?
1:48:15.649,1:48:19.880
»HARVEY: Use-value is a shirt or a shoe,
1:48:19.880,1:48:21.889
whatever you use. The exchange-value is:
1:48:21.889,1:48:25.880
shirts and shoes in the market,
and about the prices on them,
1:48:25.880,1:48:30.099
put very simply. And it's…
1:48:30.099,1:48:33.419
I don't like to use the word price at this
point, because we haven't talked very much about
1:48:33.419,1:48:35.969
money. But when you get
further down the line
1:48:35.969,1:48:40.610
you see it's really about prices realized
in the market, and exchange-value is the price
1:48:40.610,1:48:43.769
of a commodity.
1:48:43.769,1:48:46.609
Okay, we should leave it there.
So thanks very much.
1:48:46.609,1:48:52.909
We don't meet next week, right?,
because…What is it?
1:48:52.909,1:48:55.679
» STUDENT: Labour Day.
» DAVID HARVEY: Oh, Labour Day, what a good idea.
1:48:55.679,1:48:57.739
Next time I want you to read
1:48:57.739,1:49:03.840
the rest of chapter one, and chapter two.
1:49:03.840,1:49:08.169
So we will get to the end
of chapter two. Chapter two is pretty short.
1:49:08.169,1:49:12.650
The rest of this chapter is very
curious for a variety of reasons. I mentioned
1:49:12.650,1:49:17.599
Marx's literary style. His
literary style changes from
1:49:17.599,1:49:23.369
crisp analytic, like you've seen here,
and that goes on for the next one,
1:49:23.369,1:49:27.419
to what I can only call
his kind of 'accountancy style',
1:49:27.419,1:49:29.869
which is deadly boring.
1:49:29.869,1:49:31.629
Where: 'this is worth two shillings
1:49:31.629,1:49:34.650
and that's worth three shillings,
1:49:34.650,1:49:38.269
and that's worth two and a half pence.
And if we add this to that we will end up with…'
1:49:38.269,1:49:39.269
Deadly boring.
1:49:39.269,1:49:42.980
So the third section is rather long
1:49:42.980,1:49:46.550
and rather boring of that style.
1:49:46.550,1:49:49.510
And he could have done
it much quicker in my view.
1:49:49.510,1:49:52.860
But it has some very important
insights in it. And so you're going to
1:49:52.860,1:49:53.810
find yourself struggling.
1:49:53.810,1:49:57.070
The last section of chapter one is the
fetishism of commodities, where it's
1:49:57.070,1:50:00.300
about werewolves and Robinson Crusoe,
1:50:00.300,1:50:04.489
in an incredible kind of literary
style. So you suddenly find in this chapter
1:50:04.489,1:50:08.159
you're going to have a big
sample of Marx's different writing styles.
1:50:08.159,1:50:09.479
And they are all together.
1:50:09.479,1:50:13.699
Now, if you wrote a PhD that way, people
would say: For god's sakes!, smooth this out,
1:50:13.699,1:50:15.320
you can't do that.
1:50:15.320,1:50:18.380
Which style you're gonna write in?
But he writes in different styles.
1:50:18.380,1:50:19.559
And he enjoys it.
1:50:19.559,1:50:21.810
And it's fun, actually, because you starts to say:
1:50:21.810,1:50:25.049
How on earth does this relate to that?
1:50:25.049,1:50:28.939
And what does this really mean?
So anyway, chapter one is like that.
1:50:28.939,1:50:30.369
Chapter two is relatively short,
1:50:30.369,1:50:33.389
and again fairly analytic.
1:50:33.389,1:50:36.969
Key concepts are laid out a bit like here. So
it's a step further along the conceptional apparatus.
1:50:36.969,1:50:42.199
Okay? So chapters one and two
1:50:42.199,1:50:45.859
for next time.
