Capital Redefined

Front matter

Capital Redefined

A Commonist Value Theory for Liberating Life

S. A. HAMED HOSSEINI AND BARRY K. Gls e P ps] Q = = = m eed G) m

Contents

Acknowledgments xi Preface xii 1 Introduction: On the Necessity of Liberating Value from Capital 1 2 Beyond Capital: Away from Marx with Marx 10

A Metatheoretical Discussion 29 4 The Modular Architecture of Capital 42 5 Toward a Commonist (Labor) Theory of Value 60

6 Recharting the Debates on Labor Theory of Value in Light of

Preface

The current era is characterized by the pervasive dominance of capital, with its presence and power extending to every aspect of social life. The influence of capital has reached unprecedented heights, presenting a potentially perilous situation. It is well-known that capital controls economic activity, with corporations and affluent individuals wielding vast pecuniary resources and having enormous sway over financial markets, business decisions, and government policies. The insatiable greed and profit-seeking of corporations have resulted in an alarming concentration of wealth and power, leading to staggering levels of inequality and detrimental effects on health, education, and social mobility. Additionally, the all-encompassing grip of capitalism has inflicted severe ecological devastation, with carbon emissions, pollution, and biodiversity loss irreparably damaging the cycles of life and causing ecosystems to collapse (Panayotakis et al., 2021; Desai, 2023). All of this is occurring amid intensifying global economic competition and geopolitical tensions between established and emerging poles within the world capitalist system.

The fundamental drive of capital, the relentless pursuit of profit, paradoxically endangers its own ecological foundations while also opening new pathways for growth and expansion. Capital has become untamable within the necessary timeframe and scale imposed by the laws of nature, for example, in the field of Earth System Science (Armstrong McKay et al., 2022). The necessity of addressing the global ecological crises at their roots through radical structural changes has never been so imperative, and yet evidently impossible within the present structures of the dominance of capital.

Capitalism, as a socio-ecological formation with a global reach, inherently lacks the capacity to unite various actors, such as governments, businesses, and communities, to effectively address the worldwide existential threat of climate change driven by the expansion of capital. The post-Cold War order, allegedly built upon the ‘golden arches of peace,’ is on the brink of another historical phase of escalating international conflicts, consisting of a combined geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry between competing capitalist states and blocs in the context of an increasingly multipolar world order (Chomsky and Prashad, 2022). The realm of capital’s dominion now includes not only the sphere of physical commodity production but every other domain

Preface xiii of societal living where the so-called ‘value’ can be extracted, appropriated, and accumulated.

As the rich continue to amass capital, the penchant for funnelling funds into financial and extractive pursuits rather than into productive and communal goals has paved the way for a surge in financialized capital, exacerbating already-widespread global disparities. The vast accumulation of financial and non-financial assets worldwide, surpassing 530 trillion US dollars and amounting to over 650% of global GDP by the end of 2021 (Zakrzewski et al., 2022), is predominantly controlled by a select few who prioritize investing in lucrative and rent-seeking endeavors over ventures that may have greater social benefits but are deemed less profitable. This widespread trend has gained significant traction since the economic upheaval of 2008 (Hudson, 2015), further perpetuating the deep-seated inequities of our global economic landscape.

Most contemporary economic systems are profoundly influenced by the paradoxical idea of the ‘infinite growth’ of capital in the context of finite resources, whose intrinsic values are replaced with exchange values, prices, and profit margins. The pursuit of profit-driven ‘value’ production under the dominance of ‘capital’ has resulted in and will continue to lead to socially and ecologically unsustainable futures. Additionally, the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and industrial innovations disconnected from the intrinsic needs of societies and contemporary ecological imperatives further exacerbate these challenges.

The coming decades will be an era of increasingly militant and radicalized resurgences, entailing multiple social instabilities and intensifying social conflicts within and between states. This will entail encounters and rivalry between the strategies of alternative forms of capital and alternatives to capital. Polarization, mobilization, and contestation between these increasingly radicalized antipodal visions will shape the future of human social order and our species’ relationship with the planet. In our view, these characteristics are set to define the twenty-first century, and the outcome will determine the fate of all life on earth.

As we have argued in previous works, the global primacy of capital has reached an unprecedented and pivotal point in its history, which has serious implications for critical theory (Hosseini, 2020; Hosseini and Gills, 2020b; Hosseini and Gills, 2020a; Hosseini et al., 2020; Hosseini et al., 2022). Although the desire to understand capital has animated debates for the past two and a half centuries, its dynamics have been constantly changing, making it a complex and evolving system with significant flexibility and resilience over time and across different regions. Consequently, there remain unresolved debates and disagreements among scholars regarding the nature of capital. Given the pressing need for a genuinely sustainable and equitable future, it is crucial that we engage in introspective discussions about the essence of capital to reshape the frameworks that underpin our understanding of how capital xiv Preface comes into being and functions. As we will argue in the first chapter, it is now necessary to redefine capital through a transformative theorization of value, ‘beyond capital,’ to build a new reality that better serves humanity and works towards enhancing and preserving all life on Earth for the future.

The global financial crisis of 2008 was a turning point after which ‘the C word’ (capital/capitalism) found its way back to the center of critical social imagination and debate over the nature of capital. A shift in the political consciousness of these social forces is rapidly becoming a focal point in critical scholarly discourses that increasingly examine the systemic roots of the imminent socio-ecological calamities facing us during the twenty-first century. And this has resulted in a surge of attention to Marx’s legacy. An effective redefinition of capital is impossible without a sincere engagement with the seminal ideas and enduring legacy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

The groundbreaking contribution of Karl Marx to the theorization of capital and his insightful perspectives on the ‘logic’ of the historical expansion of capital, its inherent ‘contradictions,’ and ‘crisis tendencies’ are profoundly important. Marx’s legacy remains sufficiently powerful to be a point of departure or reference for every new serious debate on this issue. His theory of capital, since its inception, has served as a platform not only for later Marxist orthodoxies but also for numerous revisionists, reformists, and antagonists of his approach, interpretations, and prescriptions. However, alongside the recent revitalization of system-oriented transformative consciousness, some archaic lines of controversies around the nature and future of capital and capitalism, between different factions of the ‘old Left,’ including Marxist subdivisions, continue to influence emerging debates and their associated practices of action.

The effort to reunite critical theory with its Marxist roots in a dynamic way faces significant intellectual challenges. The emergence of poststructuralist, pluriversalist, and postmodernist criticisms of modernity and universalism has complicated the relationship between critical theory and Marxist value theory. In the second half of the twentieth century, some critical theorists challenged the limits of traditional Marxist analyses of labor, value, and class struggle and explored alternative frameworks that prioritize issues such as culture, identity, power, and discourse, leading to a distancing of critical theory from Marxist value theory.

The predominance of culturalism and post-modernism in critical social theory has transformed the general academic mindset in the global North. This tendency has been reinforced by the decline of collectivized labor in centralized mass production, the ascendancy of post-Fordist decentralized production, and the middle classes’ extended capacity to maintain their standard of living by working longer hours, importing cheap goods made from cheap natural resources produced by cheap labor, often in the global South, and the massive expansion of credit and finance systems facilitating significant personal and commercial debt.

Preface Xv

Although the rise of high-tech has brought about the decentralization of capitalist production relations and the acceleration of information circulation, it has not spelled the end of monopoly capitalism; instead, it has morphed into a more sophisticated and lethal version. The post-pandemic era is revealing a paradigm shift in the world’s capitalist system, where the organized life, or ‘life-domain,’ is facing an unprecedented existential threat, as the window to save the planet rapidly closes, highlighting the intrinsic value of life above all else. The impending apocalypse is acutely felt at the grassroots level, as evidenced by numerous recent movements representing a new generation of revolutionary tendencies that we call ‘Revolutions for Life’ or ‘Life Revolts’, led by subalterns who courageously risk their lives to defend the most precious and endangered entity: life itself.

All of this requires transformative social theory to catch up with the new unfolding of human conscience; an overdue ‘axiological turn’ requiring the centering of the imperative normativity of life in our critical ontological encounters with reality. The axiological turn is about giving primacy to the ‘true value’ that emanates from life and nourishes life. The true sources of value are all in commons form. Life itself is a commons, perhaps the most fundamental of them all after the cosmos. Life is a unity emerging out of a web of diversity. It is dynamic and in constant motion, cyclical yet self-enduring and self-flourishing, if its boundaries are not transgressed and if its capacities to thrive are not undermined, especially ironically in the name of ‘value’!

This book proposes a novel approach to theorizing capital and ‘capitalism’ by incorporating the ‘normativity of life’ into its critical analysis and recognizing the absence of inherent true value in capital. It challenges the prevailing belief that capital is the ultimate source of worth and redirects our attention to the flourishing of life and the preservation and enhancement of its thriving capacities. This transformative perspective calls for a fundamental re-evaluation of our socio-economic and political systems, aiming to transcend the destructive contradictions and deficiencies of capitalism.

Redefining capital necessitates redefining ‘value’ in the process. Although the notion of value has been neglected in most modern social theories (Pitts, 2021), Marx’s assertion that “value forms the foundation of capital” (Marx, 1993: 421) remains as relevant as ever. This, however, raises the question of how to redefine capital while also acknowledging the value of socio-ecological relations in shaping it. These relations should not be seen simply as a context or precondition, but rather as a set of interrelated causal mechanisms that are embedded in and against capital. Merely contemplating the socio-ecological, cultural, and (geo-)political dimensions of capitalist functionality as the vital conditions for economic exploitation, without theorizing their re/ construction in the process of capitalist value production, is inadequate to grasp the complex challenges posed by capital, and the prospects for profound conflicts and paradigm shifts.

xvi Preface

Redefining capital and value entails revisiting and expanding upon Marxian conceptions while deploying a new perspective inspired by a new discourse on the ‘commons’ and ‘commoning’ developed here in the form of a ‘modular conceptual framework.’ This framework, built on a critical realist ontology, conceptualizes capital as an ensemble of multiple interrelated socio-historical (infra)processes, rather than as an analytically isolated inner structure of ‘the capitalist system’ (see Chapters 3 and 4). This perspective goes beyond the limitations of productivism, economism, and the post-value turn while emphasizing intersectional and ecological dimensions and complex relationships with post-capitalist alternatives and transformative movements.

This book reflects on the strengths, potentialities, and limitations of the Marxian tradition of understanding capital in terms of value. It then argues for expanding on these limitations and proposes relevant solutions by presenting a new normative value theory that prioritizes the sources of life as commons and their intrinsic value. Thus, offering a commonist value theory. This theory encompasses both critical and analytical elements. According to this new theory, the ultimate sources of what we call ‘true value’ are precisely the organized life’s condiciones sine quibus non, which under capitalist relations are perverted into the causal sources of what we call ‘fetish value’ as the essence of capital (Hosseini, 2022a).

True value is sustainably (re)produced only through the commoning modes of living and interconnecting. A commons, whether material or immaterial, naturally occurring or manufactured, is a living organism made up of communities of interconnected and interdependent entities. In normal conditions, the activities of these entities borrow their vitality from the entirety of the commons and, in return, contribute to the survival and thriving of the whole, inclusive of all individual (living) entities. One for all, all for one, and unity in diversity — this is how true value is regenerated.

Under the supremacy of capital, however, the so-called modern civilization emerged as a development through which not only were commons expropriated, but also de-commonized, losing their essence as commons. Capitalism has now become capitality, a life-killing mode deeply coded into the genetics of our daily lives, thanks to its axiological primacy. Only a profound (re-) commonization of our modern socio-ecological relations can liberate life from the immense grip and power of capital; a transformative process that holds the potential to effectively transcend the predicament of mere survival, while also transforming ubiquitous capitalist relations.

On the Necessity of Liberating Value from Capital!

At the heart of our intellectual journey in this book lies the profound realization that in order to redefine capital, we must first engage in a transformative discourse that places (redefining) value at its very core. In the face of an imminent convergence of ecological and social crises, it becomes increasingly evident that the immense influence wielded by capital is at the core of these threatening upheavals, jeopardizing the future stability and well-being of (extra-)humanity. To navigate the treacherous waters of the present crises, we must acknowledge that the redefinition of capital necessitates a profound reassessment of its very foundation. Value, as the driving force behind capital, holds the key to unlocking new possibilities and transforming our understanding of economic and social systems. By critically examining the concept of value in a capitalist social formation, we gain insight into the processes and mechanisms by which capital exerts its power and influence. By gaining this insight, we can identify the limitations and negative consequences of the current model and seek alternative approaches that prioritize (extra) human well-living and genuine ecological sustainability. The re-evaluation of value is a crucial step in challenging the dominant capitalist paradigm and envisioning alternative models of social and economic organization.

To begin our argument: if we accept the proposition that any quality necessary or advantageous for the survival and self-fulfillment of organized life (human and non-human) is of undeniable ‘value’ and if we consider capitalism as a socio-ecological formation under which all the ultimate sources of this ‘true value’ are now at stake, it would then become imperative to retheorize ‘value’ and its ultimate sources, not only to reflect this dire reality but also to manifest the potential for real human liberation. The ultimate sources of ‘true value’ have been depleted regarding their capacities to sustain life: ‘Mother nature’ (as the commoning source of /iveability) is seriously ill, and ‘labor’ (as a re/productive, creative, and life-enhancing commons) is typically overexploited, alienated, and/or made superfluous, while ‘communal solidarity and convivial coexistence’ are severely damaged. Global ‘high-tech’ and information technology complexes now exist to confuse and distract the masses (using highly sophisticated “weapons of mass distraction’), conditioning people to behave through their swelling sense of resentment, fear, and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003340386-1 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND license.

even hatred of the Other. Meanwhile, while emancipatory movements strive to harness their prefigurative potential, they frequently encounter substantial structural barriers both internally and externally, hindering their ability to fully actualize their goals.

Key historical processes that generate crises include the hyper-exploitation of labor and of the environment, underinvestment in necessary infrastructure, paired with over-concentration of wealth, capital, and power. Parasitic accumulation is a defining feature of the conditions outlined above, and it provokes acute systemic crises. All are present to a high degree in today’s world system, and we are indeed in a general world system crisis. The reality of capital delegitimizes any analytically objective perception of ‘value under capital’ as (true) ‘value.’ Therefore, a fundamentally new line of theorization is needed, where value is defined from a more-than-human societal perspective, within a normative frame of reference. This new notion of value, referred to as true value, is based on the negation of capital, understood as a life-negating value in operation, i.e., a fetish (value) sold to us as (true) value (Hosseini, 2022a).

This necessary retheorization of value will have significant implications for our relationship with capital and capitalism. It is time to move beyond the acceptance of the notion of value as dictated by capital.’ It is time to differentiate between ‘fetish value’ (functioning as negative value in society) and ‘true value,’ the former being the product of capital and the latter being capital’s prey but also its antidote. This, we believe, is a matter of historical necessity in our theoretical praxis (action-oriented theorization as part of our historical praxis).

In this book, we introduce the term ‘fetish value’ to distinguish our conception of value from that of classical political economy and its Marxian critique, encompassing Marx’s idea of (commodity) value but extending beyond it, as we will elaborate. Fetish value should not be confused with Marx’s ‘fictitious value’ that refers to ‘fictitious capital’ as its embodiment versus ‘real value’ embodied in productive capital. While keeping the notion of value within the contours of production relations, David Harvey instead prefers the notion of ‘anti-value’ (Harvey, 2018b).° To avoid confusion, we have chosen to use the terms ‘fetish value’ (not to be confused with Baudrillard’s concept either) and ‘true value’ instead (see Chapter 2).

The history of capitalism has been tightly associated with the history of colonialism (-imperialism) and (European/Western) Enlightenment-induced modernity. Their coexistence has certainly not been a coincidence. The three have functioned interdependently, yet, relatively autonomously, and thus, the latter two (colonialism and Western modernity) could theoretically continue to exist and contribute to a downward spiral of the decline of modern civilization even in the absence of the dominance of capital (as arguably they did under the Fascist and Communist states of the twentieth century). Perhaps it is this historical association, however, that has resulted in the mutation of each of them in recent centuries, morphing into modern phenomena with essential differences compared to their primordial (or ‘precapitalist’) historical forms. And yet, in our view, it is the nature of this association that has received the least amount of theoretical effort. Regrettably, this book is not about theorizing the triad association, and for a good reason. To make the theorization of this association possible, first, we need to redefine capital since the existing notions can hardly be related to colonialism and modernity beyond simple descriptions of their historical coexistence. The focus of this book is thus on redefining capital and capitalism in order to meet the aforementioned prerequisite initially.

Colonialism and modernity each have their own embedded mechanisms, which have already been the subjects of meticulous critical investigation, and theorization, over the past century; mechanisms like rationalizing, instrumentalizing, standardizing, anthropomorphizing, classifying, codifying, and universalizing under the modernist paradigm, and mechanisms such as extracting, confiscating, occupying, dispossessing, enclosing, patenting, exploiting, subjugating, orientalizing, de-identifying, enslaving, and creating relations of dependency under the colonialist-imperialist paradigm (premodern, modern, or postmodern). Not all these mechanisms can be brought into a single theory within the scope of this book. Our goal is mostly to outline the principles of a new framework that can be later extended further through future argumentations by incorporating as many mechanisms as possible into more detailed and synthesized analyses.

In recent decades, critical theorists have made numerous attempts to move beyond the traditional understanding of capital as a ‘social process’ in which money generates more money by extracting the ‘surplus value’ produced within capitalist commodity production relations. In the conventional Marxian framework, capital is indeed theorized as a ‘societal process’ through which surplus value (in both real and fictitious forms) is produced and controlled via ‘unsustainable’ and ‘un-sovereign’ ways of exploiting labor (both manual and intellectual) as the ultimate source of (commodity) value. Land (in the form of landed properties), ‘reproductive labor’ (which is essential for the reproduction of labor), and ‘nature’ (which provides ‘free gifts’ such as energy sources, mineral resources, the atmosphere, the earth’s bio-capacity, fertile soil, water, etc.) are all considered to be necessary conditions for wage labor.

A growing number of revisionist voices which have not abandoned value theory have already been arguing for widening the notion of value to include uncommodified forms of labor/work. They normally forget, however, that value in Marx’s Capital is capitalist (commodity) value. Thus, the work of nature, the subaltern, communities, and the life-makers can only be validly analyzed if our value theory differentiates between their value when they are outside and inside capitalist production and exchange relations. The challenge at hand is to address the ambiguity that arises from adhering to the Marxian labor theory of commodity value while simultaneously broadening the definition of value under capital to include the intrinsic value of uncommodified qualities (Foster & Burkett, 2018).