In the direct division (order and consent) the concreteness of the works performed is realized as such. It should not be produced as the producer's own immediate means of livelihood. It is the realization of a common will in the contract that raises and absorbs (sublimes) the wills of both.
There is no remainder of the commodity's specificity or concreteness, since quality (use value for Marx) is totally subsumed in quantity (abstract utility value). There was probably a more important reason for choosing the abstract material as work. The solution to the problem thus involves the historical analysis of interpellation that constitutes and is constituted by the capitalist order.
This is also related to the preservation of the dual nature of work and goods. He first drew the author's attention to the importance of the simultaneous existence of the concrete and the abstract in Marx's method. Value is the true essence or substance of an object, and an object, by having value, becomes an object of consciousness.” (paragraph 63, emphasis added).
Amariglio, Jack en Callari, Antonio (1989) 'Marxian Value Theory and the Problem of the Subject: The Role of Commodity Fetishism', Rethinking Marxism.
Marx, China, and Translation in the Postcolonial Condition: From “Linguistic Context” to “Sinification”
First, the subfield of "Sinicized Marxism Studies," like all fields and disciplines in the Chinese university system, is under the control of state authorities. As mentioned in relation to the Great Firewall, market dominance, especially in the age of big data, is one of the main motivations for today's state control of information flows. Sinification, a romantic building block of imperialist colonial modernity, inherits many assumptions from the colonial discourse of national character.
It is this quality of giving as a form of social relations that must be particularly interrogated with the sources of Marxism in relation to the general problematic of the postcolonial condition. The notion of the Sinification of Marxism enjoys a rich historical use (see Liu 2017 for a brief but comprehensive and thought-provoking account) dating back to a speech by Mao Zedong from December 1938. It is worth underlining in passing the importance of the intervention Althusserian in the problem of causality for our understanding of colonial-imperial modernity.
The main reason we should entertain the "Dirlik beyond Dirlik" gesture boils down to this: Dirlik's valiant attempt to situate Mao's "Sinification" of Marxism firmly within the practices of structural causality and overdetermination is thwarted by the stubborn residual power of the given stopped. Even though it is said to be 'overdetermined', the social, or practical, quality of the Self-Other relation is articulated in a completely transparent and unproblematic way to the completely heterogeneous register of the epistemological. Displaced to the epistemological representational level, the Self-Other relationship clearly falls outside the loop of the processual, relational ontology at the heart of Dirlik's Althusserian (and Jamesonian) methodological concerns.
This is what raised the issue of the language of the revolution to the most fundamental level (Dirlik 1996, 130). A little later, Dirlik reminds us that, "the first calls for the translation of Marxism into the language of the masses coincided with the emergence of a guerrilla strategy of revolution (and not by Mao, but by others in the Party)" (Dirlik 1996, 141). . First, it is essential to understand that the "language of the masses" was not a specific entity, but itself a site of intense struggle.
In other words, translation, not sovereignty, would be the model of the society to which Qu's common language would correspond. Second, the idea of translation as part of the revolutionary struggle actually means that negotiating social differences is at the heart of the revolutionary enterprise. Nothing is ultimately more theoretical than the institution of the nation-state as common sense everyday reality.
On a general level, it is a mystification of social struggle in the (post)colonial condition that takes the form of the given, usually national or. One might even venture the proposition that a theory of structural causality stripped of a translation praxis is a fundamental betrayal of the ideological critique it aims at.
Defend Das Kapital
Translation is not simply a process of introducing Marxism into the idiom of the Chinese masses, nor is it simply a means of transferring intangible goods across predetermined borders. Rather, it is an integral element in the composition of multitudes (and, I hope, of Marxism) and boundaries, without which multitudes would inevitably become nothing more than a form of givenness, readily available for enclosure and capture of value through boundary operations. capital-state connections. Today, this historical blind spot in Maoism has been magnified a thousandfold under Xi Jinping, justifying the subsumption of forms of the past into a capitalist regime of accumulation.
The architecture of the social theory of economic formations: a critique of social objectivity (The unified formation of objective logic and subjective logic). Despite the apparent absence of dialogue with contemporary Marxist thought outside of China, the work is still very much a part of the contemporary era. The heart of the interface lies in the historicity of the concept of ontogenesis, recalling the way in which ontology has become a central issue for contemporary Western theorists such as Antonio Negri, Alain Badiou, Gilles Deleuze and others (whose names are not cited not) by Xu).
Among the dominant assumptions of the text is the idea that China is separated from the West by an absolute and absolutely definable difference. It is clear that the work laid the groundwork for translation analytics, for which criteria are formulated that constitute the identity of the idealized Chinese reader or knowledge subject. A few hints are given regarding the author's self-description/dedication: “History, thought, language and culture – the Sinic Filiation – cultivated the state of the Great Unity.
Neither of the two sinograms that make up yujing is found in the commonly used term for context, mailuo (脉眝). Inspired by Samaddar, we can look at the ambivalence of the Chinese translation of "linguistic context" as an experiment in what happens when the postcolonial condition is articulated into a particular concept of a linguistic boundary mediated by a representational, spatial translation scheme. On the basis of this assumption, intellectual criticism eternally struggles with the question of relation.
To fully understand the relationship between regimes of accumulation and the apparatus of territorial and anthropological difference characteristic of the postcolonial condition, it is imperative to return to the moment of indeterminacy that characterizes translation both as an operation of valorization and as an operation of meaning -production. As for what this means for "China," the implications could not be clearer: Sinification, whether in relation to the anthropological encoding that occurs during the commodification of labor or during the production of knowledge, cannot be understood as an exclusively Chinese phenomenon or event, but must be understood as an integral part of the territorial and anthropological apparatus of difference central to the regimes of accumulation that characterize the postcolonial condition. The availability of disciplinary protocols that offer clear monetary and social rewards (and, of course, sanctions) for intellectual production is a strong incentive for individualization and identification in the construction of the desire to know.
It does not take long to discover that the ontological presuppositions of cultural individuality that form the basis of the discourse of Sinification in China are equally present in Western intellectual production. Our aim is to understand the postcolonial condition in light of the modern regime of translation and to understand how the regimes of accumulation are related to the apparatus of territorial and anthropological difference that characterizes the postcolonial world, while taking into account and learning from the extraordinary forms of experiments occurring in Chinese Marxism today, as in the past.
