Blog – Page 7 – Joss Winn

Illustrating the value-form of the commodity i.e ‘the economic cell-form’

As I noted recently, Marx explicated the ‘value-form’ in four published texts. Although the texts can be demanding of the reader at times, the resulting theory is relatively straightforward. When discussing Marx’s work, some writers try to illustrate the progression of his argument, which I think is a good idea. Here are three illustrations I’ve come across. Let me know of any more.

This illustration of the ‘simple value-form’ is from Milios et al (2002: 25). I really like it.

This next illustration is quite different because it’s trying to show the unfolding of Marx’s argument (which includes the above ‘simple value-form’) in the first chapter of Capital. It’s from Harvey (2010: 26).

Harvey’s illustration is very high-level. My preference is for that of Cleaver (2000: 93). Again, it’s an illustration of the unfolding of chapter one of Capital, but provides just the right balance of abstract overview and essential detail so as to remain useful. It offers both the detail of Milios and the overview of Harvey.

Four versions of the value-form of the commodity i.e ‘the economic cell-form’

Marx’s theory of the “value-form of the commodity” was developed over four different published texts. I have linked to them below in chronological order. It’s very interesting to read them in succession in terms of how Marx tried to make it easier for the reader. There’s something to be gained from using each text and as such a later version does not necessarily supersede the former. My preference is to usually use the third version (the appendix to the first German edition of Capital) because it is structured in a very pedagogical manner, unlike the first version which is especially dense reading.

Always keep in mind Marx’s own reflections on this body of work, too:

“Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences. To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty. That which concerns more especially the analysis of the substance of value and the magnitude of value, I have, as much as it was possible, popularised. The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all, whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation. Why? Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both. But in bourgeois society, the commodity-form of the product of labour — or value-form of the commodity — is the economic cell-form. To the superficial observer, the analysis of these forms seems to turn upon minutiae. It does in fact deal with minutiae, but they are of the same order as those dealt with in microscopic anatomy.”

It would seem that the anatomy of capitalism is laid out in these four texts…

A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) (Chapter 1)
Capital (1867) 1st German edition (Chapter 1) See Preface, paragraph 3 & 4.
Capital (1867) 1st German edition (Appendix)
Capital (1873) 2nd German edition (Chapter 1) See Afterword, paragraph 2.

Slides for ‘Academic Identities’ conference

Here are our slides for the Academic Identities conference, 8-9th July 2014, Durham. The abstract is also below. A paper will follow sometime this summer.

Download these slides.

In this paper we analyse ‘academic labour’ using categories developed by Marx in his critique of political economy. In doing so, we return to Marx to help understand the work of academics as productive living labour subsumed by the capitalist mode of production. In elaborating our own position, we are critical of two common approaches to the study of academic labour, especially as they emerge from inside analyses of ‘virtual labour’ or ‘digital work’ (Fuchs and Sevignani, 2013; Newfield, 2010; Roggero, 2011).

First, we are critical of efforts to define the nature of our work as ‘immaterial labour’ (Hardt and Negri, 2000; Peters and Bulut, 2011; Scholtz, 2013) and argue that this category is an unhelpful and unnecessary diversion from the analytical power of Marx’s social theory and method. The discourse around ‘immaterial labour’ raised by the Autonomist or Operaismo tradition is thought-provoking, but ultimately adds little to a critical theory of commodity production as the basis of capitalist social relations (Postone, 1993; Sohn-Rethel, 1978). In fact they tend to overstate network-centrism and its concomitant disconnection from the hierarchical, globalised forces of production that shape our objective social reality (Robinson, 2004).

Second, we are cautious of an approach which focuses on the digital content of academic labour (Noble, 2002; Weller, 2012) to the neglect of both its form and the organising principles under which it is subsumed (Camfield, 2007). Understandably, academics have a tendency to reify their own labour such that it becomes something that they struggle for, rather than against. However, repeatedly adopting this approach can only lead to a sense of helplessness (Postone, 2006). If, rather, we focus our critique on the form and organising principles of labour, we find that it shares the same general qualities whether it is academic or not. Thus, it is revealed as commodity-producing, with both concrete and abstract forms. By remaining focused on the form of labour, rather than its content, we can only critique it rather than reify it.

This then has implications for our understanding of the relationships between academics and virtual work, the ways in which technologies are used to organise academic labour digitally, and struggles to overcome such labour. It is our approach to conceive of ‘academic labour’ in both its concrete and abstract forms and in relation to a range of techniques and technologies. The purpose of this is to unite all workers in solidarity against labour (Krisis-Group, 1999), rather than against each other in a competitive labour market.

References

Camfield, D. (2007) The Multitude and the Kangaroo: A Critique of Hardt and Negri’s Theory of Immaterial Labour. Historical Materialism 15: 21-52.

Fuchs, C. and Sevignani, S. (2013) What Is Digital Labour? What Is Digital Work? What’s their Difference? And Why Do These Questions Matter for Understanding Social Media?, tripleC, 11(2) 237-292.

Hardt, M. and Negri, T. (2000) Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Krisis-Group (1999) Manifesto against labour. Krisis.

Newfield, C. 2010. The structure and silence of Cognitariat. EduFactory webjournal 0: 10-26.

Noble, David F. (2002) Digital Diploma Mills. The Automation of Higher Education. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Peters, Michael A. and Bulut. E. (2011) Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor. New York: Peter Lang.

Postone, M. (1993) Time, Labor and Social Domination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Postone, M. (2006) History and Helplessness: Mass Mobilization and Contemporary Forms of Anticapitalism, Public Culture, 18(1).

Robinson, W.I. (2004) A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World. Baltimore, MA: John Hopkins University Press.

Roggero, G. (2011) The Production of Living Knowledge: The Crisis of the University and the Transformation of Labor in Europe and North America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Scholtz, T. (2013) Digital Labour. The Internet as Playground and Factory. New York: Routledge.

Sohn-Rethel, A. (1978) Intellectual and Manual Labour. New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Weller, M. (2011) The Digital Scholar: How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly Practice. London: Bloomsbury.

The Co-operative University: Labour, property and pedagogy

My paper for the conference, Governing Academic Life is available for download and I welcome comments here or via email. Thank you.

Abstract

We are witnessing an “assault” on universities (Bailey and Freedman, 2011) and the future of higher education and its institutions is being “gambled.” (McGettigan, 2013) For many years now, we have been warned that our institutions are in “ruins” (Readings, 1997). We campaign for the “public university” (Holmwood, 2011) but in the knowledge that we work for private corporations, where academic labour is increasingly subject to the regulation of performative technologies (Ball, 2003) and where the means of knowledge production is being consolidated under the control of an executive. We want the cops off our campus but lack a form of institutional governance that gives teachers and students a right to the university. (Bhandar, 2013)

Outside the university, there is an institutional form that attempts to address issues of ownership and control over the means of production and constitute a radical form of democracy among those involved. Worker co-operatives are a form of ‘producer co- operative’ constituted on the values of autonomy, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In most cases the assets (the ‘means of production’) of the co-operative are held under ‘common ownership’, a social form of property that goes beyond the distinction between private and public.

I begin this paper by discussing the recent work of academics and activists to identify the advantages and issues relating to co-operative forms of higher education. I then focus in particular on the ‘worker co-operative’ organisational form and discuss its applicability and suitability to the governance of and practices within higher educational institutions. Finally, I align the values and principles of worker co-ops with the critical pedagogic theory of ‘Student as Producer’.

Fragments of the working day

As I write, the fourth wall is crumbling. I am sitting in my office towards the end of a winter’s day. I hear pigeons nesting outside my window, see my bookshelves reflected in the darkness of the glass.

Today, I write to you as an academic from within an institution – ‘the university’ – which is being actively re-conceived, re-engineered and re-defined and likewise, to be an ‘academic’, a ‘lecturer’, a ‘scholar’, a ‘researcher’, a ‘teacher’, is subjectively different, even compared to just five years ago.

—

I am an academic. I sit, I read, I experiment, I design, I build, I think, I write, I stand, I teach, I listen. I am an academic. I create teaching resources, I run projects, I write grant applications, I attend conferences, I publish articles and books. I attend meetings, I create modules. I am an academic. I tutor, I mentor, I support, I liaise, I network, I sustain, I lead, I contribute, I develop, I consult, I plan, I organise, I strategise, I collaborate, I co-ordinate, I supervise, I manage, I negotiate, I champion, I influence, I evaluate, I appraise, I examine, I mark, I accredit. I am a teacher, a researcher, a scholar, an entrepreneur. I am an academic.

This is my work. This is my labour. This is how academic labour appears to us.

—

It is midday and I have been sat working on my article for four hours – mainly re-reading, editing and looking up references. Many academics write at home, away from the distractions of the campus, but I do not have the physical space at home for my books or for a separate room to work quietly and so I have to carve out time during the working day to read, think and write. I do work at home on a daily basis, reading and writing emails before breakfast or after dinner, responding to support requests from students and colleagues for software that I maintain, highlighting passages from journal papers I am reading, reviewing others’ work, but it is a more passive form of work, subject to our domestic routines.

—

I’ve just finished reading a memoir by the Japanese novelist, Haruki Murakami, where he writes about the great physical and mental effort that is takes to be a writer, requiring discipline to sit for several hours each day and write in a concentrated way. In his essay on ‘On Intellectual Craftsmanship’, the Sociologist, C. Wright Mills also writes about the discipline and effort required to craft a good piece of academic writing; the importance of “developing self-reflective habits”, of “systematic reflection” and the keeping of ordered notebooks. Note-taking in this way helps “build up the habit of writing. You cannot ‘keep your hand in’ if you do not write something at least every week.”

In a doctoral seminar I attended recently, we discussed C. Wright Mills’ essay and it occurred to me that all my notebooks and my files are here, on this blog, in public. There is barely anything else I can point to. Everything open to peer review.

An average set of notes here is 1296 words. 111,996 words in total. 97,020 words in the last 12 months. More elsewhere.

—

I write from 8am until 2pm. I forget to stand. I forget to drink. At night, my body aches.

In memory of a tree

“As in a dream, he shows her a point beyond the tree, hears himself say, ‘This is where I come from’, and falls back, exhausted.” ¹

I live a minute walk from the east side of Lincoln South Common but had never visited, nor even heard of, Cross O’Cliff Orchard until recently. The orchard is across the road (‘Cross O’Cliff Hill’) from the west side of the Common, so I took a half hour walk this afternoon to the orchard for the first time.

IMG_20140427_152806 — Click on the image to read the text and learn about Lincoln South Common.

On my way there, I was reminded of the recent disappearance of a favourite landmark. It was a large tree that sat on the highest south ridge of the Common and was bent into a distinctive shape, so much so that it was distinguishable from across the city. I have remarked on this tree to people for many years and noticed recently while walking home that it was suddenly absent from the landscape. Previously, to observe it was a sign that I was orientated towards home and now my ‘compass’ feels broken.

[Click the photos to see the full size image. The original images can be seen on Flickr. Thanks to the various people who have taken them.]

It seems that my landmark was cut down to make way for another anticipated landmark: Lincolnshire Bomber Command Memorial.

IMG_20140427_162128 — The Bomber Command planning notice.

I am, in principle, in support of large public pieces of art, and it would be wonderful to have one located so close to where I live, but I cannot find any enthusiasm for another war memorial, not least one called ‘Bomber Command’.

Angry and depressed by the loss of this tree, my tree, our tree on common land, my spirits were lifted as I entered the orchard.

IMG_20140427_153238 — “One of England’s few surviving traditional old orchards… at least 125 years old.”

The sun was warm and the trees were in full blossom. I felt like I had entered a secret world.

IMG_20140427_154220 — Under the canopy of some old trees.

IMG_20140427_153655 — Lots of young trees have been planted.

IMG_20140427_160027 — There were ‘Forget-me-not’ flowers everywhere.

I can’t wait to return with family and friends to enjoy food and drink together. We shall pass the old tree stump and remember its absence from our horizon towards home.

Co-operative university discussion at #DPR14

I led a discussion at the Discourse, Power and Resistance conference last week, which rested on the question of whether a ‘co-operative university’ is an appropriate and adequate response to the crisis of higher education. The discussion was rich and engaging and consequently my notes are sparse and banal, but I will try to collect a few thoughts here now.

The conference was comprised of academics, educators and activists who share a mutual sense of despair, anger, irritation, and fear for the future of higher education in the UK and elsewhere (the conference was 50% non-UK delegates). The opening keynote for the conference from Prof. Richard Pring set the tone by detailing and lamenting the various neoliberal reforms that have occurred across the education sector in the last two decades. While taking questions, one delegate asked the obvious question: “So, what is to be done?” Pring had no real answer, except to propose that a professional ‘council’ be established to protect the interests of the profession. Understandably dissatisfied with that response, someone else said that it required educators to engage in acts of subversion and that many of us are already doing so. We should recognise that the classroom still remains a space of relative autonomy. I wasn’t convinced by that. It may be the case, but those days are numbered. Finally, someone else appealed to us all to organise and strike.

In that context, our discussion the next morning about co-operative higher education had something to kick against. Might the idea of a co-operative university, or more generally, co-operative higher education in a variety of forms, be another, more adequate response to the question: “So, what is to be done?”? As I’ve noted before, I think it could be and the general tone among the 15-20 participants during our hour-long discussion was one of curiosity and interest.

I first introduced the idea with a handful of slides:

For a co-operative university? from Joss Winn

As you can see, I proposed that there are three ways to think about and plan for a co-operative university:

Conversion: Constitute universities on co-operative values and principles. Read Dan Cook’s report: ‘Realising the co-operative university‘.
Dissolution: Radicalise the university from the inside, starting with the relationship between academics and students. Read about Student as Producer.
Creation: Build experiments in higher education outside the financialised sector. Read about the Social Science Centre.

Throughout the discussion, I kept the slide containing the co-operative movement’s values and principles on the screen so as to establish some of the constitutional features of a co-operative university.

Participants spoke about their own efforts at establishing those values and principles in their current work, ranging from individual efforts in the classroom, the design of degree programmes and the establishing of formal centres within their institutions. Broadly, these came under the ‘Dissolution’ route and in my case I spoke about Student as Producer as such an example.

Given the news headlines over the last few weeks about the financial problems of the Co-operative Group UK, it was inevitable that this was brought up and participants rightly questioned whether the co-operative movement remained an oppositional, if not radical, response to capitalism. My own view is that despite the current crisis in the UK’s co-operative group, the co-operative movement as a whole, including its rich history and internationalism, has much to offer and inspire radical educators. I am under no illusion that it is the ‘answer’ to the crisis of capital, but the values and principles; the movements’ relationship with socialism and its members’ deep sense of politics; its commitment to education; and its variety of constitutional forms, do seem to offer a useful framework for pursuing democratic control over the future of higher education and its institutions. Yes, co-operatives necessarily operate within the logic of capital, but they exist in contestation with it. Since the movement’s origins, their very existence is a critique of capitalism in practice. One participant in the discussion remarked that it’s “impossible” to exist outside capitalism. Another responded: “The fact that it’s ‘impossible’ means that we should keep trying!”

Other points of discussion touched on the role of students, who are “increasingly self-commodifying” – how can we work with them to realise an alternative form of higher education? Where are the students at DPR? Does their opinion matter at this stage or is this more about academics determining their own future first and foremost? We should be “bold and resolute” with students. What is the university for? Knowledge? The re-production of labour power? What does work look like in the future? Some participants had “given up on the university” and saw the future as one, not in dialogue with the institution but with students. We were reminded that “there will be dangers” as we move forward.

Final call for contributions to a book on “Mass Intellectuality: The democratisation of higher education”

This is a final call for contributions to a book on “Mass Intellectuality: The democratisation of higher education” that Richard Hall and I are pulling together. More details are available here.

The book aims to provide international critiques and accounts of the crisis in higher education, with a focus on the creation of alternative forms. Its premise is that globally, higher education is increasingly unaffordable, its historic institutions are becoming untenable, and their purpose is resolutely instrumental. What and who have led us to this crisis? What are the alternatives? To whom do we look for leadership in revealing those alternatives?

The book’s starting point is that mass higher education is at the point where it no longer reflects the needs, capacities and long-term interests of society. An alternative role and purpose is required, based upon ‘mass intellectuality’ or the real possibility of democracy in learning and the production of knowledge.

We welcome anyone who is involved with and/or working on alternative higher education projects such as free universities, transnational collectives, occupied spaces, and co-operatives for higher education to contribute to the book. We also welcome those who are working inside the University to provide critical analyses of recent and existing efforts to develop alternatives to mainstream higher education.

If you would like to contribute to the book, please email me as soon as possible. We will then be in-touch about submitting an abstract connected to intellectual leadership in higher education by 10 May.

NOTE: whilst Richard and I both work in UK higher education, we would welcome a range of voices in the development of the book. International, critical engagements with intellectual leadership are central to this project.

Small gauge

Sometimes I find myself returning to film, wishing I still had my Bolex, Beaulieu or Nizo. Wonderful, mechanical, precision engineering you can hold in your hands.

Beaulieu4008 — Beaulieu 4008 ZM4 Super 8mm camera

The cost of film stock, processing and transfer to print or digital video is relatively expensive compared to digital video (approx. £70/3mins). However, artist films needn’t be long. Why not make films that are just a minute or two long?

Recently, while day-dreaming of Bolex Rex-5 cameras, I came across no.w.here, a critical film-maker’s haven, for laboratory facilities, telecine, and educational programmes. A wonderful looking past project brought Jonas Mekas to London to talk with young adults about “working with the diary film form as a cinema of free and poetic self-expression.”

It reminded me of a similar workshop I took part in at Image Forum, Tokyo, over two weeks in 1999. Each of us made a short film on 100 feet (2:45mins) of 16mm film. Mine was an exercise in film form, and a couple of years later the film ended up slotted into a longer film as shown below at 9:01 mins.

My workshop film is very simple. The camera remained static on a tripod and six different people took it in turns to stand in front of the camera. I started off by filming one frame of each of the six people as they rotated in front of the camera, and then two frames of each of them, and then three frames, and so on, up to 24 frames. The last time you see each person is for exactly one second or 24 frames. Or rather, it would be if you were watching the original projected film; the transfer to video changes the form temporally as well as materially. What should be exactly 75 seconds (1800 frames) becomes 72 seconds because PAL video runs at 25fps not 24fps. Given its entire purpose was to explore the exacting, mechanical and temporal attributes of film, its temporal form is technically destroyed when transferred to video.

It’s been over a decade since I worked with film, but I retain a strong attachment to small gauge (8, Super-8, 9.5 and 16mm) film and its social history. It can be the most beautiful and poetic of personal, artistic mediums. You may disagree, but have you seen films by Stan Brakhage, Peter Hutton, Nathaniel Dorsky or Jonas Mekas?

Take, for instance, Brakhage’s hand-painted films, or his more visceral ‘The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes‘, or ‘Window Water Baby Moving‘, or this extract below from Mekas’ ‘Walden/Diaries, Notes and Sketches’.

To show you these films as video, streamed on the web, is to offer you the content disembodied from the form. It is a lie. We know what the film is about but we don’t know what it is to see. This is no more obvious with Peter Hutton’s ‘At Sea’, which may be watched below, but not seen.

Financialising the university: What is to be done?

Andrew McGettigan concludes his article on financialisation and higher education with:

“I am frequently asked, ‘what then should be done?’ My answer is that unless academics rouse themselves and contest the general democratic deficit from within their own institutions and unless we have more journalists taking up these themes locally and nationally, then very little can be done. We are on the cusp of something more profound than is indicated by debates around the headline fee level; institutions and sector could make moves that will be difficult, if not impossible, to undo, whether it is negotiated independence for the elite or shedding charitable status the better to access private finance.”

This is a similar conclusion to that of Brenna Bhandar writing on the LRB blog:

“If there is anything alluring about property as a form, it lies in its mutability, its capacity to be something other than private and exclusive. It is in all our interests to support students, academic and support staff, outsourced cleaners and others in their struggles to reconfigure the ownership of the university, and seize democratic forms of governance the better to create and distribute the social goods that we produce collectively, in spite of current government policies and management strategies.”

There are three responses to this that I can suggest:

Conversion: Constitute universities on co-operative values and principles. Read Dan Cook’s report: ‘Realising the co-operative university‘.
Dissolution: Radicalise the university from the inside, starting with the relationship between academics and students. Read about Student as Producer.
Creation: Build experiments in higher education outside the financialised sector. Read about the Social Science Centre.