{"id":14159,"date":"2020-07-15T19:21:54","date_gmt":"2020-07-15T23:21:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=14159"},"modified":"2021-06-28T19:59:08","modified_gmt":"2021-06-28T23:59:08","slug":"hagglund-this-life","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2020\/07\/15\/hagglund-this-life\/","title":{"rendered":"H\u00e4gglund This Life"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What Is Democratic Socialism? Part I: Reclaiming Freedom<\/a> July 15, 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Is Democratic Socialism? Part II: The Immanent Critique of Capitalism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Is Democratic Socialism? Part III: Life After Capitalism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx, Hegel, and the Critique of Religion: A Response March 15, 2021<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martin H\u00e4gglund<\/p>\n\n\n\n

July 15, 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I make clear, to be free is not to be free from <\/em>obligations but to be free to<\/em> recognize our obligations as ones to which we have bound ourselves and to which we hold ourselves. Thus, under democratic socialism there will be formal ways to establish the work that is demanded of us both as citizens and in terms of our professions as doctors, engineers, teachers, and so on. The crucial point, however, is that we will be compelled to work by virtue of our commitments \u2014 and the obligations they entail \u2014 rather than because we fear material deprivation. We will get up in the morning not because we are forced to labor to survive but because we can see that our work is meaningful and of vital importance to others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

While there will be property in a concrete sense there cannot, however, be private property<\/strong> in the abstract sense that transforms property into a commodity (or a means for producing commodities). The recognition of your property as<\/em> your property will be based on your right to its concrete specificity as valuable to<\/em> you and as useful for you in leading your<\/em> life, rather than on your right to its abstract value as a commodity that is bought and sold for profit. As long as the means of production are used for the sake of profit, our technology serves the commodification of both our labor and our leisure. But if we own the means of production collectively, we can pursue our technological development for the sake of our social freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because we are not producing for profit, we will be able to explore what we are able<\/em> to provide in light of the needs<\/em> of our society. Under capitalism we learn to produce in terms of \u201cWhat is profitable?\u201d whereas under democratic socialism we will learn to produce in terms of \u201cWhat enables social individuals to flourish and how can we satisfy our needs in a responsible way?\u201d<\/strong> The success of a product will then not depend on manipulative marketing strategies but on whether it can satisfy actual social needs, justify a high demand, and be produced in accord with standards (including environmental standards) for which we are responsible. Likewise, because we will not work for a wage, we will be able to ask ourselves what is meaningful and justifiable to do with our lives. Under capitalism we learn to work in terms of \u201cHow can I survive?\u201d or \u201cHow can I get rich?\u201d whereas under democratic socialism we will learn to work in terms of \u201cWhich occupations make sense for me to pursue, in light of my abilities and the needs of the society of which I am a part?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The measure of value in capitalist production is thus what Marx calls \u201csocially necessary labor time,\u201d<\/span><\/strong> which designates the quantity of time it takes for the average worker in a society to produce a given commodity. The socially necessary labor time<\/span><\/strong> is not an absolute standard that can be established in advance, but relative to the technological means of production and the efficiency of the labor that is performed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

If my workers produce commodities more efficiently than the social average, my profit margins will increase, since my labor cost for each commodity will be less than that of the average producer. This is why the drive to decrease labor costs \u2014 to devote as little resources as possible to the well-being of workers \u2014 is intrinsic to any capitalist enterprise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the surplus value<\/span> <\/strong>of our labor to be converted into profit, however, we must not only produce but also consume commodities, not only sell our labor-power but also buy the products of labor<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only the employment of living beings who earn a wage and buy commodities can give rise to a surplus of value<\/span><\/strong> \u2014 an overall \u201cgrowth\u201d of capital wealth \u2014 in the economy<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why wage labor is the source<\/em> of value in a capitalist economy and why socially necessary labor time <\/strong>is the measure<\/em> of value for commodities. The surplus of time that we produce makes it possible for us to be exploited in the social form of wage labor, which converts our surplus of lifetime into surplus value for the sake of profit and the growth of capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Clune and Keen, by contrast, cannot account for the source of surplus value, since they do not grasp that <\/p>\n\n\n\n

only living beings generate a surplus of time through the activity of self-maintenance, which can be transformed into surplus value only through the social form of wage labor.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Such exploitation of living labor is not optional under capitalism. As long as the measure of value is socially necessary labor tim<\/strong>e, machines cannot produce any value by virtue of their own operations. No matter how efficient a machine becomes, we cannot extract any surplus value<\/span><\/strong> from its operation except by exploiting the lifetime of someone who is operating the machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By contrast, if <\/em>we measured value in terms of socially available free time<\/strong>, then machines would<\/em> produce value for us by virtue of their own operations, since they would give us more time to lead our lives and thus make us wealthier in an existential sense. Under capitalism, however, the ultimate purpose of technologies is the exploitation rather than the emancipation of human labor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under capitalism, we must<\/em> find ways of employing people in wage labor, regardless of whether the work they do is needed and regardless of whether the work is meaningful for the ones who labor. Moreover, we must<\/em> get people to consume ever more commodities, regardless of whether they need the goods they consume and regardless of whether consuming the goods is fulfilling for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The principle \u201cfrom each according to her ability, to each according to her needs\u201d is not the imposition of an anonymous collective will, but a condition of possibility for owning the question of what matters to us and how we should care for one another.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That our collective purpose is profit is not reducible to an explicit ideology, a conscious belief, or a psychological disposition. Profit is our collective purpose not because of what we have to think<\/em> but because of what we have to do<\/em> under capitalism. We cannot maintain ourselves \u2014 cannot reproduce our lives \u2014 without the surplus value of wage labor that is transformed into profit and accumulated in the form of capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Hence, the critique of capitalism must be an immanent<\/em> critique. An immanent critique does not criticize a form of life in the name of an ideal that is imposed from the outside. Rather, an immanent critique locates a contradiction<\/em> between the avowed principles of a form of life and the actual practice it legislates for itself. Accordingly, Marx seeks to show that the production of value under capitalism is at odds with the principles of freedom and equality that are made possible by the capitalist mode of production itself. In contrast to societies that require slavery or serfdom to function, wage labor under capitalism is historically the first social form which in principle recognizes that each one of us \u201cowns\u201d the time of our lives. Moreover, our lifetime is socially recognized as inherently \u201cvaluable,\u201d insofar as we are compensated with a wage for the \u201ccost\u201d of our labor time, which is supposed to serve as a means<\/em> for us to achieve the end<\/em> of leading a free life. Yet the recognition of every person as an end in herself is necessarily contradicted by how we measure the value of our time under capitalism. Through the rights of the labor contract we recognize formally that the lifetime of every person is irreducibly her own and that it is inherently valuable. But by virtue of the same labor contract we still cannot treat our lives as ends in themselves, since our surplus of lifetime serves as a means for the end of accumulating surplus value in the form of capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea of the freedom and equality of all individuals is not a given intuition that has been available to human beings since the dawn of time; it is a fragile historical achievement that could not have gained a foothold in the first place without the advent of capitalism and liberalism. However, since Dean only ascribes negative significance to capitalism and liberalism, she must be assuming that the idea of general freedom and equality magically fell down from the skies to the working class. Like all vulgar materialists, Dean is the most na\u00efve idealist, since she refuses to see that capitalism is a historical condition of possibility for the idea of universal freedom and equality to which she herself must appeal in her critique of capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether we are capitalists or workers, the cultivation of our abilities and the satisfaction of our needs have no inherent value; what matters is whether our abilities and needs can be exploited for the sake of profit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

To lead a free life, it is not enough that we are exempt from coercion and granted the liberty<\/em> to make choices. Actual freedom<\/em> requires that we participate in fundamental decisions regarding the purposes that determine our range of choices and for the sake of which we lead our lives. Moreover, since all forms of choice and decision are social, we must be able to affirm our participation in social institutions not as a means to<\/em> our freedom but as the exercise of<\/em> our freedom. In short, to achieve actual freedom we must recognize ourselves in the laws to which we are bound<\/em>. This form of collective self-legislation does not require that I as an individual was part of originally instituting the laws, or that we actually vote about everything. However, we must be able to recognize the laws that govern our life as expressions of our own commitments and as in principle contestable or transformable through our democratic participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx\u2019s work systematically demonstrates that the overcoming of capitalism requires the determinate negation of private property.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

If there is buying and selling of commodities, there cannot be free association among the cooperatives, since they will be competing for profits rather than coordinating their interdependent production. To abolish buying and selling for profit is not to restrict our freedom (as Roberts has it) but to make possible coordination without domination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Hence, the cooperation that Roberts envisions requires a global form of life that is governed by the principles of democratic socialism. The principles cannot be posited as an ideal that is external to the lives we lead, since in that case they would have no grip on us. Rather, I make explicit how the principles are implicit in the commitment to equality and freedom through which we are already trying to justify our democratic practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The commitment to equality demands that we pursue our labor from each according to her ability, to each according to her need<\/span><\/strong>; the commitment to freedom demands that we measure our wealth in terms of socially available free time; and both of these demands can be met in practice only if we own the means of production collectively, employing and developing them for the benefit of our shared lives rather than for the sake of profit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nothing makes our predicament clearer than the climate crisis in which we find ourselves. By now it is a commonplace to say that \u201cwe\u201d are responsible for destroying the ecosystem to which we belong. The moralizing and psychologizing approaches seek to explain the ecocide with reference to our supposed \u201chuman nature,\u201d which is ascribed an inherent selfishness and greed. Yet the fundamental problem is neither selfishness nor greed but the form of social-historical life on which we all depend. Under capitalism, \u201cwe\u201d cannot actually own and take responsibility for the economic life that we ourselves reproduce through our practices. To sustain our form of life we must<\/em> prioritize doing what is profitable, even at the expense of doing what we know needs to be done. We may profess that we value our lives \u2014 and the life of other species on the planet \u2014 as ends in themselves. But as long as we produce for profit and work for a wage, we are in practice subordinating ourselves to a measure of value that treats all forms of life as means for the \u201cgrowth\u201d of capital wealth. No individual can break the hold of this measure of value on her own. Only organized collective action that overcomes private ownership of the means of production can achieve an emancipated form of life, where we will learn to be free<\/em> in mutual recognition of our dependence on one another and the fragile ecosystem of our shared planet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What Is Democratic Socialism? Part I: Reclaiming Freedom July 15, 2020 What Is Democratic Socialism? Part II: The Immanent Critique of Capitalism What Is Democratic Socialism? Part III: Life After Capitalism Marx, Hegel, and the Critique of Religion: A Response March 15, 2021 Martin H\u00e4gglund July 15, 2020 As I make clear, to be free … Continue reading “H\u00e4gglund This Life”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-zizek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14159","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14159"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14159\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15074,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14159\/revisions\/15074"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}