oil/ltv/zizek

488 posts / 0 new
Last post
gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Jun 3 2010 02:15
revol68 wrote:
Say I was to accept the narrow operative definition of value, it still leaves us with a major problem, what will we call the labour of the housewive that not only reproduces herself but produces a surplus? Furthermore this labour surplus that can not be named, where does it go, how does it interact with all other social relations, what effect does it have on value? Does it exist in a bubble, in splendid isolation, or perhaps an alternative universe?

how is the 'unpaid' labor of a single worker any different? i don't understand how you conceptualize that housewives produce a surplus - are you implying that they produce a surplus for their spouses?

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 7 2010 13:24

like any other sustainable commodity exchange, it receives (in theory and socially) the value that is required to reproduce it, it is therefore exchanged at its value (its value in marxian terms at least)

on that basis marx held (or at least based his analysis on) this fundamental 'fanatical belief' that labour power is exchanged at its value, this is no way contradicts the obvious fact that labour power does not receive a value equivalent to the fruits that the use-value of expended labour creates

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 7 2010 13:36

And that's one of the central points of Capital - showing how even when labour is paid its full value, profit still arises from this 'fair and equal' exchange - that you don't need people selling things for more than they paid for them or any of the other silly accounting tricks which people attribute profit to, but which never really add up in aggregate, to show how exploitation occurs.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 7 2010 15:06

Revol, you really don't see how your statement is contradictory? And again you're moving the goalposts - all of a sudden we're factoring in price? In any case, what Catch said.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 7 2010 16:51
Quote:
my statement was that housework increases the real value of labour power

that may be your statement but the logic behind your argument however (which i'm not unsympathetic to) is that it reduces the value of labour power.

This was my translation of your position earlier:-

The argument being made is that 'unpaid' labour in the home reduces the value of labour power as the amount of commodities required for its reproduction is less than what it would be if the use value of that 'unpaid' labour had to be acquired in the commodity form. The next part from Revol is just poorly worded/expressed, and I presume the meaning of the point was that this 'unpaid' labour increases the value of that reproduced labour power to capital, i.e. the (potential) difference between total and necessary labour is increased, which is clearly in capital's benefit

Quote:
My point is that housework produces hidden value

where is it hiding?

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 7 2010 16:56
Quote:
where have i mentioned price

the implication is that if something is not exchanged at its value/price of production, then there is a deviation of it's price from value - a quantative incongruence as marx would call it

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 7 2010 17:01
Revol wrote:
my statement was that housework increases the real value of labour power not the actual value it receives from capital,

First of all you did not make that clear and secondly if there is a difference in the 'real value' of l-p and the 'actual value' workers receive as wages, then it is an issue of the price of l-p being lower than its value.

Oh, and you mentioned price in this snarky comment. Well at least, I understood it as you meant price because I assume you're familiar with basic Marxist concepts.

Quote:
Only if you have a fanatical belief that labour power always receives it's full value from capital.

Is it really so hard for you to accept that your formulation was contradictory and confusing?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 7 2010 17:16
Quote:
value versus exchange value

Do you mean price vs. exchange value?

Or use value vs exchange value?

gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Jun 7 2010 20:12

wouldn't this apply to any group of people who engaged in housework? For example, if i have a roommate, and we both contribute to the housework, would we both be increasing this hidden value by allowing the earlier extraction of a surplus, as you have phrased it?

btw, i think that you have a point about (though it is uncontroversial) housework reduces reduces the value of labor power reducing wage commodities that are required to the reproduce the worker socially - the question is, if this claim is true, does such a reduction offset the surplus value that the spouse would create if integrated within the production process?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 8 2010 01:29
revol68 wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Quote:
value versus exchange value

Do you mean price vs. exchange value?

Or use value vs exchange value?

No I mean value versus exchange value.

how on god's green earth could I possibly mean use value vs exchange value?

Well that's interesting, because Marx makes no real distinction between value and exchange value, so please explain what the difference is.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 8 2010 01:54
Mike Harman wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Quote:
value versus exchange value

Do you mean price vs. exchange value?

Or use value vs exchange value?

No I mean value versus exchange value.

how on god's green earth could I possibly mean use value vs exchange value?

Well that's interesting, because Marx makes no real distinction between value and exchange value, so please explain what the difference is.

Well Marx calls exchange value the 'presentation' of value, so there is at least a superficial distinction. Value exists theoretically without the act of exchange (anything that is measured according to a socially necessary labour time has value), but to speak of exchange-value where there is no exchange is nonsense.

Marx, C1 wrote:
In other words, the value of a commodity is independently expressed through its presentation [Darstellung] as 'exchange-value.' When at the beginning of this chapter, we said in the customary manner that a commodity is both a use-value and an exchange-value, this was strictly speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use-value or object of utility, and a "value." It appears as the twofold thing it really is as soon as its value possesses its own particular form of manifestation, which is distinct from its natural form. This form of manifestation is exchange-value, and the commodity never has this form when looked at in isolation, but only when it is in a value-relation or an exchange relation with a second commodity of a different kind.

A commodity in isolation cannot therefore have exchange value, but it most certainly has value. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 8 2010 02:43
Quote:
What a commoditiy can be traded for in other commodities is not strictly tied to the socially necessary labour time embodied within it.

That's the distinction between price and exchange value, not between value and exchange value.

A specific commodity may have more concrete labour invested in it than the current SNLT to produce commodities of that type, but that doesn't mean that it's value and exchange value differ, just that more labour was expended (for whatever reason) than socially necessary.

So you still need to explain how they differ, and how this corresponds to your argument, rather than just stating that this is the case.

Also it's very obvious that class struggle and a whole range of factors affect the price of labour power, but while Marx clearly states that the exchange value of labour power is socially determined across time and place (car and TV ownership not exactly common in 1870 but would be considered average in the UK), he generally tends towards a 'cost of living' estimate - once again, the quantity of commodities required for reproduction, and other things like rent, tax etc.

As we know, wage trends vs. cost of living trends vary quite a bit, and I'd say that's a reasonable example for the difference between the price of labour power and its exchange value, in as much as one can be found. However, that's got nothing to do with the 'value vs. exchange' value argument you're putting forward.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 8 2010 02:47
revol68 wrote:
it's pretty fundamental that a commodity can have an exchange value that is independent from it's value.

however I would argue that value is fundamentally determined by the exchange value of labour power which isn't determined by any constant or objective 'value' but by subjective class struggle, whereby capital and labour seek to impose an exchange value for labour power through various means. The fact that the working class does not simply seek to reproduce itself as it is but to further it's interests, to raise it's exchange value above it's value is fundamental in driving capitals development.

the notion of a definite value for labour power that it always recieves is a handy piece of abstraction that freezes an open ended process in order to show how exploitation happens within capitalism even on the bourgeois's own idealised economic terms.

Is this really the crux of your argument in this thread, because I honestly don't see anything controversial about it. I find it hard to believe in fact that 500 posts have been made debating this.
I agree with you that the exchange value is partially determined through class struggle, just like the exchange values of more trivial commodities are partially established through peaceful haggling/bargaining.
Equally I don't think that "socially necessary labour time" means a static definite value for labour power; Marx certainly doesn't claim that AFAIK, and goes out of his way even to emphasize the fluidity of the whole process of establishing a SNLT. So who is it that is claiming that the value of labour power is immutable?

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Jun 8 2010 05:10

There is a distinction between the concepts of value and exchange value.

Value is of course socially necessary abstract labour time.

Exchange value is the amount of one commodity exchanged for another. Thus, 10 yards of linen is the exchange value of the coat.

Exchange value is always just the specific amount of something that represents the value of something else.

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Jun 8 2010 05:09
Vlad336 wrote:
Is this really the crux of your argument in this thread

No, the crux of his argument in this thread is that housewives perform abstract labour, which is by definition impossible, since they only perform concrete labour.

Joseph, catch, Khawaga, and I just want him to admit he's defining value in a way different from Marx, but he insists on trolling and saying he's maintaining Marx's definition by basically rejecting it.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 8 2010 09:45
revol68 wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Quote:
What a commoditiy can be traded for in other commodities is not strictly tied to the socially necessary labour time embodied within it.

That's the distinction between price and exchange value, not between value and exchange value.

A specific commodity may have more concrete labour invested in it than the current SNLT to produce commodities of that type, but that doesn't mean that it's value and exchange value differ, just that more labour was expended (for whatever reason) than socially necessary.

So you still need to explain how they differ, and how this corresponds to your argument, rather than just stating that this is the case.

Also it's very obvious that class struggle and a whole range of factors affect the price of labour power, but while Marx clearly states that the exchange value of labour power is socially determined across time and place (car and TV ownership not exactly common in 1870 but would be considered average in the UK), he generally tends towards a 'cost of living' estimate - once again, the quantity of commodities required for reproduction, and other things like rent, tax etc.

As we know, wage trends vs. cost of living trends vary quite a bit, and I'd say that's a reasonable example for the difference between the price of labour power and its exchange value, in as much as one can be found. However, that's got nothing to do with the 'value vs. exchange' value argument you're putting forward.

Yes Catch just like labour power doesn't have value....

I suggest you reread Capital before making a bigger dick of yourself.

well i've read (and re-read) all of capital (unlike most on here) and I don't find anything wrong with what catch has said above - the only thing I would add is that class struggle not only determines the price of labour power but also its value (i.e. with labour-power there is just as much tendency for its price to determine its value as there is its value determining its price)

to be honest I think a lot of the confusion being used here is the definitions of the terms that people actually mean. now given most of this discussion is either about an interpretation of what marx meant, or an extension of this using marxian terms - the issues do tend to get clouded when those terms are given a different meaning, which is what I am getting from you revol - i.e. you are talking about the 'real' value of labour power - which in marxian terms, like all other commodities, is the value of the commodities required to reproduce it

I seem to get the impression that your definition of the 'real' value of labour power at times either includes 'unpaid' work that capital doesn't need to fund (hence your argument that unpaid work relating to reproduction of labour power actually increases the value of labour power, where it actually decreases the value of it) ot at other times actually means the value that is created through the productive consumption of the use value of labour - now there is nothing wrong with positing these things as being your definition of the real value of labour power, but in a discussion that (rightly or wrongly) takes marxian terms as they are defined by marx himself - this is bound to cause confusion from the get go

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 8 2010 10:03
revol68 wrote:
Yes this is the crux of the argument and mine is that capitalism a totalised social system indirectly contours and constitutes the labour of the housewife to it's needs. Capitals command of labour does not stop at the factory gates nor is it restrcited to the overt discipline of the manager and foreman.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this, however i'd say this is different to most of what you've been arguing on this thread

as an anology (althoug not a direct one, but one that serves a purpose), no one would disagree that capital does not control and direct all the elements that are required in order for capital to circulate and efficiently traverse its circuit, allowing its growth and reproduction - now this is vital to the very existence of capital so it therefore conditions it to its requirements, transport, communication, markets, credit system etc.. all are required to be subordinate to the needs of capital and all are required in order for capital to valorise etc.. - however no one would argue that value is actually produced within the sphere of circulation - circulation is fundamentally valuable to capital, but this doesn't mean it creates value in the marxian sense of the word

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the work done by housewives is not 'constituted and contoured' by capitalism, neither are they saying it's not valuable, all that they are saying is that on marx's terms, it doesn't produce value

another anology (again not perfect but hopefully useful) is of technology, now a machine as dead labour doesn't directly produce value - it can however lower the cost of producing individual commodities (i.e. the same value for a day's social labour is still created, this is just spread over a bigger quantity of things), this in turn (all other things being equal) reduces the value of labour power (in the same way that unpaid labour in the home does by reducing the value of commodities required for reproduction), which in turn widens the gap between value created by labour and the value capital has to pay for it - so very useful for capital we are all agreed, but not directl productive of value itself - so in both these instances the value created by 'socially abstract' labour remains the same, it's just that capital gets to keep a bigger slice of it for itself (due to the lowering of the value of labour-power) which can be cast back into circulation in pursuit of expanded reproduction (as opposed to being just consumed by labour in simple reproduction of labour)

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 8 2010 10:07

ok but to be fair you said it was

the crux of the argument

Quote:
it's only to oppose the notion that the housework of housewives can't be productive because it isn't abstract labour.

this again comes back to what I was saying above about definitions/marxian terminology - for marx value is abstract labour - so in that sense if something isn't abstract labour it's not productive of value - circulation isn't abstract labour, machines aren't abstract labour, nature isn't abstract labour, all these things aren't abstract labour and therefore not directly productive, they are bloddy useful though

anyway get your train oddpants

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 8 2010 11:33

@revol, the only person making a dick of themselves on this thread is you. Chucking around insults every time your bizarre logic is pointed out only weakens your already very weak arguments further.

Angelus Novus wrote:
There is a distinction between the concepts of value and exchange value.

Value is of course socially necessary abstract labour time.

Exchange value is the amount of one commodity exchanged for another. Thus, 10 yards of linen is the exchange value of the coat.

Exchange value is always just the specific amount of something that represents the value of something else.

That's fine as a clarification but I don't think the distinction between value and the form in which value is expressed is the distinction that revol was trying to make (although I also don't think he'll attempt to explain what he meant either going by previous posts on this thread). Marx's argument, (Vol 1. Chapter 1. ffs), is that exchange value is merely the form of appearance of value/SNLT (as opposed to being created by the sun or whatever) - so I'd stick by him "not making a real distinction" between the two - or if we say that the conceptual distinction between the specific/basic and the abstract/universal is a 'real distinction' then it's precisely made to show that they're the same thing in the end.

The conceptual distinction of the specifics of ten yards of linen = 1 coat vs. the abstract 10 hours of SNLT = 10 hours of SNLT, vs. the universal ten quid vs. ten quid, doesn't then mean that you can have a quantitative distinction between value and exchange value. Otherwise 10 yards of linen != 10 yards of linen.

So when revol says:

revol68 wrote:
it's pretty fundamental that a commodity can have an exchange value that is independent from it's value.

and

revol68 wrote:
What a commoditiy can be traded for in other commodities is not strictly tied to the socially necessary labour time embodied within it.

Then he is very clearly talking about price, even though he'll swear blind that he's not and call me a cunt. The price of different commodities may well vary from exchange value, so that you need to sell twelve yards of linen to get enough money to buy one coat in a specific instance, without either the exchange value of the linen or the coat changing (fashion, supply and demand etc.). However if this changes overall (so that 12 yards of linen = 1 coat), then it's usually going to be down to a change in the actual values of those items - improved productivity of labour etc. The 12 yards of linen today, is then equivalent to the 10 yards of linen yesterday due the same amount of value being distributed amongst a greater quantity of commodities, but this doesn't make 12 yards of linen and 10 yards of linen today the same.

So once again, explain how the value of labour power, and its exchange value, differ, thanks.

edit: crossposted with the past 5-6 posts, it looks like oisleep made similar points from the opposite direction though.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 8 2010 11:40
oisleep wrote:
ok but to be fair you said it was

the crux of the argument

you daft cunt he's not confined to the dour, orthodox definition of 'crux'! etc etc

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 8 2010 12:12

cruxless (odd)panties

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 8 2010 12:39

Here is the full argument of Zizek's rejection of the LTV (I already gave a link to Vercellone's essay on which Zizek relies)

Privatization of the "General Intellect" Slavoj Žižek, First as Tragedy, then as Farce (London: Verso, 2009), pp. 145-147:

Quote:
To grasp these new forms of privatization, we need to critically transform Marx's conceptual apparatus. Because he neglected the social dimension of the "general intellect," Marx failed to envisage the possibility of the privatization of the "general intellect" itself--and this is what lies at the core of the struggle over "intellectual property." Negri is right on this point: within this framework, exploitation in the classical Marxist sense is no longer possible, which is why it has to be enforced more and more by direct legal measures, that is, by non-economic means. This is why, today, exploitation increasingly takes the form of rent: as Carlos Vercellone puts it, postindustrial capitalism is characterized by the "becoming rent of profit." (See Capitalismo cognitivo, edited by Carlo Vercellone, Rome: Manifestolibri) And this is why direct authority is needed: in order to impose the (arbitrary) legal conditions for extracting rent, conditions which are no longer "spontaneously" generated by the market. Perhaps therein resides the fundamental "contradiction" of today's "postmodern" capitalism: while its logic is de-regulatory, "anti-statal," nomadic, deterritorializing, and so on, its key tendency to the "becoming-rent-of-profit" signals a strengthening of the role of the state whose regulatory function is ever more omnipresent. Dynamic deterritorialization co-exists with, and relies on, increasingly authoritarian interventions of the state and its legal and other apparatuses. What one can discern at the horizon of our historical becoming is thus a society in which personal libertarianism and hedonism co-exist with (and are sustained by) a complex web of regulatory state mechanisms. Far from disappearing, the state is today gathering strength.

To put it another way: when, due to the critical role of the "general intellect" (knowledge and social cooperation) in the creation of wealth, forms of wealth are increasingly "out of all proportion to the direct labour time spent on their production," the result is not, as Marx seems to have expected, the self-dissolution of capitalism, but rather the gradual relative transformation of the profit generated by the exploitation of labor-power into rent appropriated by the privatization of this very "general intellect." Take the case of Bill Gates: how did he become the richest man in the world? His wealth has nothing to do with the cost of producing the commodities Microsoft sells (one can even argue that Microsoft pays its intellectual workers a relatively high salary). It is not the result of his producing good software at lower prices than his competitors, or of higher levels of "exploitation" of his hired workers. If this were the case, Microsoft would have gone bankrupt long ago: masses of people would have chosen programs like Linux, which are both free and, according to the specialists, better than Microsoft's. Why, then, are millions still buying Microsoft? Because Microsoft has succeeded in imposing itself as an almost universal standard, (virtually) monopolizing the field, in a kind of direct embodiment of the "general intellect." Gates became the richest man on Earth within a couple of decades by appropriating the rent received from allowing millions of intellectual workers to participate in that particular form of the "general intellect" he successfully privatized and still controls. Is it true, then, that today's intellectual workers are no longer separated from the objective conditions of their labor (they own their PC, etc.), which is Marx's description of capitalist "alienation"? Superficially, one might be tempted to answer "yes," but, more fundamentally, they remain cut off from the social field of their work, from the "general intellect," because the latter is mediated by private capital.

And the same goes for natural resources: their exploitation is one of the great sources of rent today, marked by a permanent struggle over who is to receive this rent, the peoples of the Third World or Western corporations. The supreme irony is that, in order to explain the difference between labor-power (which, when put to work, produces surplus-value over and above its own value) and other commodities (the value of which is consumed in their use and which thus involve no exploitation) Marx mentions as an example of an "ordinary" commodity oil, the very commodity which is today a source of extraordinary "profits." Here also, it is meaningless to link the rise and fall of oil prices to rising or falling production costs or the price of exploited labor--the production costs are negligible; the price we pay for oil is a rent we pay to the owners and controllers of this natural resource because of its scarcity and limited supply.

At least Zizek has the decency to admit that he "critically transform[s] Marx's conceptual apparatus".

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 8 2010 15:30

zizek obviously hasn't read/understood the 200 odd page section on surplus profit/rent in vol 3 of capital - if he had he'd realise that he wasn't so much critically transforming marx's conceptual appartus but, in the main, unwittingly following it

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 8 2010 17:32

Right, that's Zizek's standard argument technique of accepting his opponents' position and attributing to them Zizek's (former) own position, and then knock them down. However I think in this case Zizek's position doesn't follow Marx's (which of course, isn't to say it's wrong).

Where to start with naming all the problems in this passage. Just the example of microsoft's profits; isn't it that they mainly come from the stock-market (,and hence not from rent)?

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Jun 8 2010 22:03
Mike Harman wrote:
Marx's argument, (Vol 1. Chapter 1. ffs), is that exchange value is merely the form of appearance of value/SNLT (as opposed to being created by the sun or whatever) - so I'd stick by him "not making a real distinction" between the two - or if we say that the conceptual distinction between the specific/basic and the abstract/universal is a 'real distinction' then it's precisely made to show that they're the same thing in the end.

Well, I had a discussion with oisleep and mikus about this on some thread here a couple of years ago, and they both insisted that exchange-value meant price and not value. I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the discussion you are having with revol, though.

dave c
Offline
Joined: 4-09-07
Jun 9 2010 00:40

This essay really clarifies the whole issue of the distinction between value and exchange-value: http://libcom.org/library/marxs-concept-intrinsic-value-andrew-kliman.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 9 2010 11:11
Quote:
Well, I had a discussion with oisleep and mikus about this on some thread here a couple of years ago, and they both insisted that exchange-value meant price and not value. I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the discussion you are having with revol, though.

can vaguely remember this - to the extent that we equated exchange value with price was i think more about the practical usage of both terms in that particular discussion, in that both of these things are "the mode of expression, 'the form of appearance', of a content (i.e. value) distinguishable from it" - perhaps this should be more refined and the distinction made that 'potential' price is obviously an expression in money tied to the intrinsic value, while exchange value isn't confined to being expressed in money terms alone, but these days if I want to buy a coat I don't rock up with 20 yards of linen looking for an exchange, which is why i think the distinction collapses down a bit

if i remember correctly though the main thrust of the discussion was about distinguishing intrinsic value (i.e. based on social labour) expressed in money from price actually achieved in exchange - and we used price and exchange value interchangably both to mean the actual price/exchange value achieved in actual exchange, i.e. realised exchange value - probably confusingly though, as at times I think I refer to price in the sense of 'potential' price being the intrinsic value expressed in money (not necessarily the actual price that an individual commodity would exchange at) and at other times i use price to refer to the actual amount of money a commodity is actually exchanged for (i.e. when talking about where price deviates from value, i.e. from intrinsic price) - so in that sense i'd say that 'potential price and exchange value expressed in money are the same (but I guess then i'm just warping the meaning of price to be something pre-exchange when it really should relate to actual exchange, so i guess i'm guilty of what I was accusing revol of earlier)

we were correct to distinguish exchange value from value (in terms of expression/form - content/substance) - but probably by doing this ended up lumping exchange value and price too close together, so although both of these things are essentially the same qualatative expression/form (when exchange value is talked about in money terms) , i.e. they are expressions of the underlying content, they can of course differ quantatively - so in that sense the quantative aspect of price and exchange value (expressed in money) can differ, even though their qualatative nature doesn't

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 9 2010 12:58
Quote:
However I think in this case Zizek's position doesn't follow Marx's

I wouldn't be so sure (or at least if he doesn't follow marx, he projects onto marx a deficiency/oversight that doesn't exist - i.e. he falsely accuses marx of not offering an explanatory framework for things like oil production, and then posits (rather crudely) something close to the framework marx actually outlined as a remedy for marx's supposed error/gap) , take this part of the passage for example

And the same goes for natural resources: their exploitation is one of the great sources of rent today, marked by a permanent struggle over who is to receive this rent, the peoples of the Third World or Western corporations. The supreme irony is that, in order to explain the difference between labor-power (which, when put to work, produces surplus-value over and above its own value) and other commodities (the value of which is consumed in their use and which thus involve no exploitation) Marx mentions as an example of an "ordinary" commodity oil, the very commodity which is today a source of extraordinary "profits." Here also, it is meaningless to link the rise and fall of oil prices to rising or falling production costs or the price of exploited labor--the production costs are negligible; the price we pay for oil is a rent we pay to the owners and controllers of this natural resource because of its scarcity and limited supply.

here zizek is arguing that due to private monopoly over non-reproducible resources extra-ordinary profits can be extracted in the oil industry - he seems to think that this startling realisation somehow signifies a gap in marx's political economy (and the related application of that to real life). however as i mentioned in a previous post, had he read/understood the 200 odd page section on surplus profits/rent in vol 3 of capital there is no way he would have been able to justify his angle on this. He seems to be suggesting in that passage that marx is wrong because of what we see in oil production today, but in marx's theory of rent (and of the surplus profit that forms the source of that rent) he deals with exactly the type of thing zizek raises (albeit it is applied to agricultural production, but in many places he states the view that everything he talked about is equally applicable to mining/other natural resources, and logically, given the conditions outlined, i.e. monopoly control over non-reproducible resources, it should be). This is pretty much the reason for starting this thread in the first place, i.e in my opening post I said:-

the lengthy section on surplus profit transformation into rent in vol3 of capital shows how the labour theory of value (and pretty much everything else contained in vol 1-3, production, accumulation, distribution, barriers to efficient accumulation, value production, prices of production formation, equalisation of profit, fictitious value, differences between production and distribution of surplus value, etc..) can and is applied to circumstances just like this [i.e. oil production] - that part of capital is pretty much a case study in the application of the whole edifice and general structure of marx's political economy to a specific historically determined instance, where all the perfect assumptions of an ideal type capitalist economy don't maintain

somewhere else on this thread I did quite a long post going into the detail of his theory of rent and the source/nature of surplus profit which instead of being sucked into a general societal equalisation of profit rate like most other sectors of the economy, is instead captured as rent.