âEven amid the current outpouring of scholarship on Marx, leftist philosopher Søren Mauâs Mute Compulsion: A Marxist Theory of the Economic Power of Capital stands as a significant contributionâ
âthe book meticulously develops a theory of what Mau calls âeconomic power,â a form of capitalist domination that is not strictly bound to notions of class and, unlike the forces of violence or ideology, that acts upon subjects indirectlyâ
âMau details how economic power shapes the terrain of social reproduction, influencing subjects by determining material conditionsâ
âsubjects of economic domination are not directly restrained or blinkered by false consciousness, as they are often understood in the context of post-Marxism. Rather, they are subjugated by the oblique logics of capitalâ
âForced to conform to capitalâs demands, people are dominated insofar as, per Mau, âthe worker wants to live.ââ
âIâd first like to ask about the origins of Mute Compulsion. As you note in the book, the title comes from a passage in Volume I of Marxâs Capital: âthe mute compulsion of economic relations seals the domination of the capitalist over the worker.â How did your reading of Marx, and of this passage specifically, lead to the theorization ofâ
âI got the idea for the book not from that passage in particular but from reading works by scholars from the German âNew Marx-Readingâ or Neue Marx-LektĂźre (NML) tradition, especially Michael Heinrich, as well as from reading political Marxists, especially Ellen Meiksins Woodâ
âMarx only uses the expression âmute compulsionâ in that specific passage, and in other places he talks, for example, of âinvisible threads,â which I also briefly considered as a title for the book.â
âthe power of capital cannot be reduced to class domination, since it also includes mechanisms of domination that everyone is subjected to, although in very different waysâ
âThere has been a tendency to think about power as something that has two fundamental forms, namely violence and ideologyâ
âIn my book, I argue that economic power is a form of power that can neither be reduced to violence nor ideology. In contrast to violence and ideology, economic power doesnât directly address the subjugated part in a relationship of domination. Instead, it addresses the environment of the subject, which means that it functions by shaping the material and social environment in a way that forces people to act in a certain wayâ
âThis is distinct from violence, which addresses the subject directly as a body, as well as from ideology, which addresses the subject by shaping the way in which it thinks or perceives itself and its surroundingsâ
âYour book also addresses the concept of value in Marx. You argue that, for Marx, the labor theory of value is not a matter of reading the true price of labor but, instead, about illuminating the very essence of valuation as an expression of dominationâ
âHere I follow what can broadly be termed value-form theory, an approach that interprets Marxâs theory of value not as a theory that attempts to explain prices but a theory about the social form of labor in capitalism or, in other words, a theory about how social labor is organizedâ
âOne of the unique things about capitalism is that production is organized by private and independent producers who exchange their products on the market. This is what the theory of value explains and tries to analyze, and with regards to power, the crucial thing is that such a system generates certain standards that everyone must live up to in order to surviveâ
âIt does so by means of abstract and impersonal market pressuresâ
âSo the theory of value is basically a theory of how the market is not an apolitical transmitter of information but a mechanism of domination that generates impersonal commandsâ
âValue is a concept that highlights the horizontal relationships between units of production rather than the vertical class relations, even though the latter are presupposed by the formerâ
âThe theory of value is a theory of how social labor is organized by means of real abstractions such as money, which subjects everyone in capitalist society to the demands of capitalâ
âAs a Marxist, I obviously donât think that writing books is what is going to initiate the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism â especially not writing a book as abstract and theoretical as Mute Compulsion. On the other hand, it would be meaningless to write a book about capitalism if I didnât believe that it could, at least potentially, be useful for combating the world of capitalâ
âI think we should be careful not to derive political tactics and strategies from the kind of abstract theory that I develop in Mute Compulsion, so in my view, the political utility of the book lies rather in the fact that it offers a conceptual framework that can hopefully be put to use in strategically relevant analyses of concrete situationsâ
âBut although it is by no means necessary to understand the capitalist system in order to destroy it, I think that a certain understanding of the enemy can be useful when fighting that enemyâ
âIf there are any strategic perspectives to draw from my analysis of the economic power of capital, it would probably be to underline the importance of building new, communist forms of collective reproduction at the same time as weâre dismantling capitalismâ
Navigation
Backlinks
There are no backlinks to this post.