9/16/2010:


In the words of capitalist societies themselves, the capitalist way of creation is merely a collection of commodities. A commodity is, simply speaking, a product that gratifies the needs and wants of a given society. It is assigned a numerical value based on the usefulness of this product, and this “use-value” is utterly independent from the amount of work and labor that was placed into the creation of this commodity. The “exchange-value” seems to purely be a value that exists only in the exchange of one good for another. Thus, the worth of a certain commodity must be expressed in terms of equality with other products. “Use-value” is expressed in the utility of an item, whereas “exchange-value” is removed from the usefulness of an item and is a measure of quantity. However, commodities have one universal attribute apart from this “use-value.” That is, they are produced through human labor. 

The amount of labor expended on the manufacture of these commodities is related to their “Value.” The worth of a product is inherently dependent upon the labor that has been embodied in it. Thus, the value is assigned by the amount of labor required to assemble the item. It is inversely proportional to how efficient and fruitful the producers are and directly proportional to the quantity. However, creating products for individual use does not necessarily create a commodity. An item becomes a commodity only when it is constructed for the benefit of the general public. It must be able to be exchanged for a given price or another item deemed to be the same value. Labor is then divided up into specialized sects in order to produce these commodities and is essential for the survival of humanity. Yet, any sort of “productive activity,” regardless of division, is an outflow of human labor. Skilled labor is then only equated to large quantities of unskilled and simple labor. The duration of work upon an object is correlated to the value of a product. A growth in the usefulness of a product leads also to the growth of material gain. 

Also, due to the social nature of commodity, the value of a produced good can only be understood in the relationship between products. By equating two commodities, the labor of each are also counted as equal. The labor itself does not generate value, but it is the product of that labor that creates value. Change in value correlates to the change in quantity of an object. A commodity is considered a strange concept in that manufacturers relate to each other through the relationship of their products. The peculiar aspect of this system is that usefulness of a particular item is known without having to assign a objective value on it, yet its “value” is only realized through exchange.

Lukacs

9/30/10:


Even the most sympathetic critics of the works of Lukacs turn away from his texts feeling disheartened and cynical, marking the turn towards Western relativism. However, despite the turn towards this ideal, there is still the dismissal of Marxism as a legitimate philosophical tradition in Western thought. It is, in essence “historical materialism,” which rails against culture and exposes class antagonisms. This Marxist dialectical tradition is thus rejected due to its inability to be reduced to a pure logical form. It is in this manner that Lukacs’s work is also rejected. Yet, Jameson asserts that the seemingly incongruous literary stages of Lukacs’s work actually are a continuous and novel examination of the narrative and its structures.

Lukacs first inspects literature using the common Hegelian method of interpretation of the abstract against the concrete. It is important to note that “alienation” and “abstract” are, in essence, descriptive of the same object, yet it is in the concept of the abstract that forces individuals to hold onto the idea of the concrete. In the art of pre-industrialized society, there was an immediate meaningfulness in the very outset of its element. In modern society, the technique of symbolism is now utilized as a method of delegating meaning to a seemingly dehumanized and unrelated element of art or literature. Thus, it is concluded that concreteness in art allows people to understand individual humanism and understand this feeling of totality.

In the Theory of the Novel, Lukacs begins his discussion of the opposition between meaning and the proceedings of simple daily existence through his discourse on the three basic stages of Greek literature. The first is the epic, which, in Lukac’s words, is the only source genuine narration. When the “Utopia” of this work begins to dismantle itself, there appears the Greek tragedy, which is no more than episodic sequences of crises, losing its narrative qualities. The last stage is simply Platonic philosophy, which has lost all narrative aspects and has become completely worthless. However, the modern novel has become a method to regain this lost narrative. Yet, the novel is problematic in the sense that the hero can never truly attain reconciliation with his environment. Thus, freedom can never be achieved by the hero of the novel, but rather by the novelist himself, for he attains reconciliation in writing the story.

Lukacs criticizes the middle-class philosophy in its form, thus laying the groundwork for a new Marxist theory of knowledge. This is a theory of “collective self-interest,” and this influence of class consciousness is felt in the form and how the details of reality are arranged. Thus, the initial and immediate meaning of objects manifests itself only when the connection between labor and production are once again revealed. Therefore, the idea of the concrete is described as the desire to return to the epic, to that narration. This is dependent upon the moments where society as a totality must be recreated. Lukacs’s work, then, is a structure where the relationship between narrative and totality are reaffirmed. Like Lukacs’s philosophical discourse, Marxism is above economic theory and is a way of recovering the self.

Written 10/30/10:

In essence, Sartre is ultimately concerned with freedom, not in the context of the individual self, rather with freedom or authenticity as experienced by the collective whole and the relationship of authenticity and others in society. In his book, Being and Nothingness, Sartre attempts to dismiss the illusion of “being.” By the end of this work, the “failure to be” sets the standard for a host of choices of lifestyle.

The lowest choices, in Sartre’s opinion, are those that confuse being with matter. They are the choices that often utilize material wealth and possession as a means of happiness and stability. Above these life choices are those that allow the realization that being is less tangible and less material, yet even in this concept, there is the ever-present illusion of being in that one becomes both the subject and the object. Yet, there is a higher mode of “life passion” that places its own freedom as an end, rather than aiming for self-objectification. In this state, there is the glimmer of authenticity, which is no longer attached to this delusion of being. However, authenticity is not in itself a condition, but it can only be understood against the context of a present state of inauthenticity.

This problem with authenticity is characterized in the political sphere through the regret and remorse, or the apprehension of regret and remorse, of the middle class. Remorse disconnects an individual with his or her own past, while the fear of remorse allows one to be afraid of the future. This concept of regret and fear of it is characteristic of Sartre’s works where his heroes long for the moment they become “marked men” and must free themselves from their own individuality and their past along with it. Through his works and novels, it is clear that authenticity is composed of a faithfulness to the present and an utter disregard for the future and that authenticity is seemingly dependent on historical circumstances. Sartre takes a Kantian view that freedom is not an individual construct but is one that takes into consideration the freedom of others. It is the attitude of the self that determines the attitude towards others. This new psychological idea of self-justification and “mauvaise foi” against privilege is how Sartre transforms his earlier ideals into a political theory. In a sense, authenticity is an abandonment of the ego and privilege to recognize that one is “made up of everyone else” and no better or worse than any.