talk i gave on che guevara

Introduction on Che Guevara



Marx always, rightly, emphasised that ’the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class’ because, not only, is this a necessary precondition of political and, most importantly, economic transformation but it is only through the unity gained in the course of a revolutionary process that people, born and bred under the alienating rule of capital, twisted and tortured by poverty can throw off ’ the muck of ages’,that is, remove from their heads the heirarchical, sexist, racist, nationalist etc ideas promoted by this system. Without the active participation of the majority in the interests of the majority all the prejudices produced by their oppression remain and the result of the revolutionary process falls short of genuine socialism.



For a certain part of the 20th century, after the defeat of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalinism, Marx’s statement the the class must emancipate itself was compltely sidelined with many groups on the Left declaring that the ’buffer states’, i.e. the eastern european countries occupied by Stalinist forces and the end of the Second World War, were somehow ’workers states’.

To accept this was to accept that socialist revolution could be achieved without the active participation of the workers themselves.

Right across the world though workers struggles were deflected by stalinist leadership who followed the whims and dictates of the exploitative ’state capitalist’ regime in Moscow and so, where the workers themselves did not lead the struggle against imperialism (which was the basis of Trotsky’s theory of ’permanent revolution’, that is- the struggle for national liberation if conducted by the working class in the oppressed nation would spill over into a struggle for socialism) other forces occupied the vacuum. In many third world countries the struggle was led by members of the middle classes who resented the backwardness of their own states, despised imperialism and felt that the type of industrialisation followed by the USSR was something to be imitated.



This is the world, the context, that Che Guevara grew up and was active in.





Ernesto



Che was born Ernesto Guevara in Rosario, Argentina June 14th 1928 to a left leaning middle class family. He began medical studies in 1948 but by 1951 had decided to go on a round trip motorcycle journey through south america. The final goal of this tour with his friend, Alberto Granado, was to work in the San Pablo leper colony in Peru.

Noone is born a revolutionary it takes long process of questioning and development, changing circumstances transforms the ideas with which you face new circumstances which further develop those ideas and to this process Guevara was no exception. Che’s attitudes slowly became more and more radical after his encounters with miners, workers and peasants working and struggling wherever he arrived right across the continent. Che returned a very different young man, with a lot to consider, to complete his studies in 1953. Both Che and, his friend, Alberto were transformed in the course of the journey which brought them both to the conclusion that some sort of change was needed in south america, for Che this meant a series of continent wide radical social transformations and for Alberto, it meant embarking on a career as a doctor.



In Guatemala in 1954 the nationalisation of the american United Fruit Company brought a US backed overthrow of the left wing Arbenz government, which Che witnessed, and finally cemented once and for all Che’s view of the USA as an imperialist power whose influence in the south american region would always mean attempts to overthrow left leaning governments and movements and fund reactionary forces and the Right. Che escaped the coup through the Argentinian embassy and made his way to Mexico. While there Che was introduced to Fidel Castro in june 1955 through rebel Nico Lopez. Castro spoke to Che for hours and hours at their first meeting and convinced him to sign up for the ’26th of July’ movement.

It was from this group of rebels that he earned the nick name ’Che’ which was his most often used phrase as it’s the argentinian shorthand for ’pal’.

Just 82 of them set sail for Cuba in the little ship, the ’Granma’, and after some initial fighting with the government forces upon landing were left with only 22 rebels surviving.



Cuba



Batista’s regime in Cuba was well known for it’s absolute corruption, a haven for the mafia and organised crime. US backed Batista had first come to power in a coup in 1954 and had won an election two years later, followed once more by a coup. Batista converted Havana into a gambler’s and criminal’s paradise.

The rebels fought their way across the island and took power eventually in January 1959 with Castro’s army arriving victorious in Havana.

Guerilla warfare seemed vindicated. They seemed to have achieved the impossible, a small group of determined rebels had overthrown a government.

Che though in his economic writings after the seizure of power soon began to realise though that a ’spiritual’ transformation of the masses of people had not taken place and wrote continually about the fact that he believed that ’moral’ incentives were needed to encourage communal living and to develop a ’socialist’ culture. But it’s no accident that the Cuban revolutionaries inherited people with the ’old’ attitudes bacause the majority of people hadn’t particpated in the process of their own liberation and the complete transformation that this involves. Without that vital element the masses remain nothing but spectators to the establishment of regimes that claim to act in their name.

In 1964 he travelled to New York and the UN and on Dec 17th travelled to Paris then embarked on a 3 month tour of various countries including China. When he returned to Cuba he was dissatisfied with the ever increasing reliance on, and influence of, the Soviet Bloc and eventually dissappeared from Cuban public life.



Congo, Prague and Murder



The Congo had been a place of great suffering, a country were imperial powers had intervened to destroy a left wing government. Patrice Lumumba was elected prime minister but was overthrown in a coup by Mobutu. Orders from the Belgian government are now known to have been responsible for Lumumba’s death. When Che arrived in Congo the movement had been crushed. He supported the Marxist Simba group and worked with Kabila but soon realised the entire project was doomed to fail. The objective circumstances were against them, his philosophy of ’if you are a revolutionary, make a revolution’ was being dashed against the harsh realities of the world outside his victory against Batista in Cuba.

He left, disheartened, and went to Prague were he wrote down his Congo experiences and also wrote books on philosophy and economics.

Eventually Che made his way to Bolivia with a small group of about 50 guerillas, probably believeing that he could eventually move into Argentinian territory, but completely isolated and outgunned he was murdered. He had expected support from the Bolivian Communist Party but had soon realised they were ’stupid and disloyal’. With no way to connect with the growing strike movement of the working class in the cities he was easily captured by the Bolivian military which he had wrongly assumed were less capable but were in receipt of US and CIA advice.



The Role of Revolutionaries



If the emancipation of the working class has to to be at it’s own hand then what role do revolutionaries play in this process?

Working class consciousness is shaped by the class’s lack of power, is shaped by alienation, this in turn leads workers to accept, to a greater or lesser extent, the ruling ideas in society. As Marx remarked the ’ruling ideas of an age’ are the ideas of it’s ruling class. During periods of crisis and worker’s struggles sections of the class generalise beyond the immediate experience of that particular struggle but when struggles are defeated then those realisations are lost.

If revolutionaries can unite the forward section of the class in every struggle into one fighting party that can take the lead and guide the working class as a whole forward, making conscious the line of march and constantly bringing into question the system as a whole, then this party can argue contantly with the backward section of the class, argue against faith in the state and pass on the past lessons of the class’s victories and defeats. The party then acts as the ’memory’ of the class.

But that’s not all- Trotsky described how the working class lets off ’steam’ during a crisis but if that steam isn’t focused then it dissipates with no real effect, but if the steam is focused by a piston then it can pull a freight train. The steam is still the driving force, the piston gives it focus. The revolutionary party is the piston that guides working class action. The theories of this party are nothing other than the generalised experience of the class itself. The revolutionary party is that most militant section of the working class which leads and prepares for the seizure of power by the majority of the class.



Legacy



Che Guevara, despite the tragedy of his isolation from a mass workers movement, leaves us his inspirational will to fight, the will to carry on despite the odds, it’s that absolute determination that moves people across the world to this day.

From Bolivian miners marching with his image to the capital La Paz, to children in Palestine wearing Guevara t- shirts while throwing stones at Israeli tanks, its in these places that his image still means something, places were people fight on no matter what the odds.

But with a more organic view of the role of the revolutionary, as not only a ’tribune’ of the oppressed but as the best fighters of the class who encourage the fight back of the entire class,
for it is only when the majority of people act on their own behalf that we can both physically and mentally escape from the hold of Capital, then the victory of socialism is assured.

We can win this time and i’m sure that when we do Che would have whole heartedly approved of the fact that we eventually found the path to human freedom that he had searched so hard, and paid such a high price for.

The tragedy of Che Guevara was the tragedy of a whole century, with the terrible defeats suffered by the working class at the hands of Stalinism in the 20th Century the notion that the working class would emancipate itself was silenced by the victory parades of so called ’marxists’ across Eastern Europe. The Stalinists have fallen and so now the path is clear.

Revolution in the 21st Century...

R is for Revolution is the 21st century
(transcript of talk i gave)

When socialists talk about the possibility of revolution happening in the 21st century it’s not about a mere desire for revolution on our part, an ’ideal’ that popped into someone’s ’enlightened’ head which then inspires them to go off and one by one recruit people to change the world, or about trying to impose some such view that revolution will occur, its about deducing from reality itself those trends that inevitably push towards revolutionary situations whether we choose them or not.

In other words, to ask what is the nature of the capitalist economy? What kind of contradictions does it engender, does it create? And what kinds of actions does an anarchic economy of this sort constantly push people towards whatever they subjectively believe?
The Capitalist system as a whole is now in the midst of a severe crisis. In 2009 banks worldwide collapsed, the Irish government nationalised Anglo Irish Bank lumbering every household in the country with an extra 20,000 euro in debt.They raided the National Pensions Reserve Fund’s 17 or so Billion and handed half over to the banks.
The crash had been overdue for a long time, with rates of profit over the last two decades never recovering to their levels during the postwar ’golden age’ of capitalism which ended in the mid 70’s. This low rate of profit leading inevitably to Capitalists chasing profitable ventures, from dot com bubbles to the over inflated housing market. Neoliberalism since the mid to late 70’s has been a 30 year assault on the conditions of the international working class with the share of societies product going to profits constantly increasing at the expense of wages. Workers produce far more yet, in relation to their product, see returned far less.
So constant cuts were declared from the seat of every government while, at the same time political generalisation has been taking place on a massive scale in the last few years, in response, not only to the economic crisis, but has been developing since the mass mobilisations against the War on Iraq in 2003, and now, the protests against the slaughter in Gaza and the threat of economic collapse.

The threat of war looms constantly on the international horizon as capitalist states are ever more tempted to open up markets or solve economic problems militarily. We see U.S. ships parked in the Black Sea after the Georgian conflict pushing close to Russia and we see the Russian navy placing ships off the coast of Venezuela. The US army is positioned right across the Middle East. As recessions deepen war becomes an attractive way to grab another country’s resources and to stifle opposition to policy at home.
How will people respond? We can make the answer more concrete by lookin at how they have responded time and time again in periods of crisis in the past.


Worker’s democracy

In Paris in 1871, Russia 1905 and again in 1917, Hungary and Germany in1918,Limerick in 1919, Italy in1920 Spain in 1936, Hungary in 1956, Chile in 73, Portugal in 1974, Iran in 79 and Poland in 1980 we saw a form of self organisation emerge amongst the working class in response to various crisis - the workers circle,called a ’soviet’ in Russia, or ’condone’ in Chile, a ’Shora’ in Iran, a form of organic direct democracy.
At a certain point in every severe crisis the coordination of working class strikes and protests and the absolute necessity of self regulation of working class communities sees these community and workplace circles emerge as a direct outgrowth and natural continuation of the struggle. These forms of self organisation weren’t the creation of any marxist brain but time and time again are formed by the working class’s instinctive need for unity and for organisation in a time of massive crisis.

For example -The Commune of Paris in 1871 was a response to the betrayal of the Parisian workers into the hands of the Prussian army under Bismarck by the cowardly French Ruling class under the infamous Theirs. If the french ruling classes weren’t prepared to defend the city the workers decided that they would. They elected delegates from each area of Paris instantly recallable and mandated to follow the instructions of their electors, placed on the average wage to prevent corruption, they seperated the church and state declaring religion to be a private matter, they elected their judges, armed the population for self defence, food distribution was organised. They eventually suffered defeat as they couldnt spread the revolt to other towns. But those 2 months demonstrated the capability of the working class to self organise and it was from this that Marx generalised and worked out the developed form of his theory of the state.

Russia in 1905 and again during the revolution of 1917 saw Soviets arise. The first Soviet arose as a vehicle through which the workers could negotiate with the tsarist goverment but took on more and more the running of the daily lives of working class people until there arose a situation of dual power. The self governing working class alongside the institutions of the old power. The movement of 1905 was ultimately defeated but the Russian working class had taken on board lessons they would re-apply in 1917. Alongside parliament organs of working class self government superior in every way to the old power emerged once again after the February Revolution 1917. Lenin, in april, called for a challenge for power. ’All power to the soviets’ was his cry and it wasn’t until October that this slogan was fulfilled, with even Menshevik rivals of Lenin’s Bolsheviks declaring- ”what we have before us is nothing other than a rising of the working class”.


Dual Power

Two societies sit side by side during a crisis, one of slave owners the other of those who refuse to be slaves, the working class develops an urgent need, a need for a society of it’s own. When things reach this state, of Dual Power, then the choice has never been between the continuation of the movement from below and the old system, it becomes a choice between the fight to defend the organs of working class and community democracy against the rage and fury of the ruling class who will not accept any challenge to their economic dictatorship over the workers and society at large. So in 1917, for example, it was never a choice between Soviets and the official Constituent Assembly but between Soviets and reaction, the Assembly a cover for the forces of General Kornilov and others of his ilk to organise behind until they felt strong enough to destroy and root out all traces of worker’s democracy.
Trotsky once remarked that if the Russian Revolution hadn’t moved towards the seizure of power by the workers in October 1917 then fascism would have had a Russian name as opposed to an Italian. Fascism would have been born in Russia 1917 as opposed to Italy in the 20’s.

The same dynamic has developed again and again - in Chile in 1973, where the election of Salvador Allende backed by a strong workers movement in the workplaces was too much to bear for the likes of General Pinochet, the Chilean ruling class and their rotten friends in Washington. Here though workers never challenged for power to be transferred to their own organs, the cordones, but put their faith in the capitalist state. Time and time again a movement that puts it’s trust in the state has been crushed, the state is a weapon of the ruling class – judges, the civil service, the police, prisons etc are tools of oppression and Allende and the Chilean working people paid a terrible price to gain this knowledge with over 30,000 deaths. The defeat of the movement in Germany many years before saw humanity pay an even dearer price for failure to challenge the state, which ultimately, unleashed Nazi barbarism, first upon the worker’s movement and then, upon the Jews.


The 21st century

Can 21st century workers overthrow capitalism though? ’People have too much stuff’ is one of the arguments thrown back at socialists, but the question of the need for socialism isn’t just a quantitative question, that is a question of higher wages or a question of more things, its about the quality of life people have under capitalism, no matter how many TV sets a working class family acquire they still, as individuals when they go to work every single day, have absolutely no control over their lives. The 5 biggest corporations in the world are run by about 40 people employ hundreds of thousands of workers and have an output greater than the Middle East and Africa combined. Working class people have absolutely no say in the running of these or any enterprise that their labour builds. These giant corporations, which grow from the soil of competition as during every recession some firms go bankrupt and others buy them up thereby growing bigger, are completely unaccountable to the concerns of the thousands of lives they shape. Work is a dictatorship with a heirarchy of foots soldiers, managers and, at the top, the handful of ’generals’(who themselves are nothing but slaves to the blind forces of the market).

Anyway you can have two TVs in your house and still weep with fear when the bills arrive and fret over your children. You can have an iPod and still be so filled with hopelessness instilled in you by an absolute lack of prospects that you go out and commit acts of vandalism. Or you can internalise all this pressure and alienation and get stress related cancer when you hit middle age. This is the reality of working class life under capitalism in the ’best’ of times. Their booms never last though and all they seem to bring in hindsight are higher rents, higher food prices and stress from overwork.
But even from the point of view of standard of living we can see right now that the once common expectation that every working family could own a home is being stripped away with repossesions in Ireland (and the U.S. and U.K.) reaching record highs. There are 53,000 families on the housing waiting lists while 300,000 properties lie empty. The minimum expectations of most working class people can not now be fulfilled. Can they be sure that their children will have a better standard of living than they acquired? Not anymore.

The working class has always evolved and changed but the central aspect of working class existence, the fact that we have nothing to sell except our labour power, has not changed.
Once you’ve spent the share of your wages that goes on immediate consumption i.e. food, rent, bills and then maybe saved a little (which will now be impossible!) you are forced to return to work the next week and start the whole process again. Workers are still slaves to the economic necessity of returning to work, the choice is never ’will I work for a capitalist or not’ but ’which capitalist, out of necessity, must i work for’.
White collar workers work in conditions which more and more resemble the factory of old. Inputing numbers all day long. They too have nothin to sell except labour power. In fact yesterdays ’skilled’ workers have always been ’proletarianised’, engineers in the 1800’s were strangely seen at the time as a ’priveleged’ layer amongst workers but 30 or 40 years later they were at the forefront of union activity and worker’s struggles.


Conclusion

Women have entered the workforce in huge numbers in the last few years and have transformed society in the process as they no longer could accept the hold of the church over decisions relating to control of their own bodies and sexual attitudes. More people right across the face of this planet are working class than ever before. The working class of south Korea alone is bigger than the entire working class at the time Marx wrote. Units of Capital of massive dimensions and more concentrated then ever before exist now across state lines and borders linking people into a gigantic social productive process which need not be all in the name of the blind accumulation of profit, these enormous resources, unimagined in any previous age, if harnessed for social need could liberate humanity from so much unnecessary strife.

We have means of communication never before imagined, we can web chat instantly with people on the ground in warzones, we can relate news of struggle in a second to every single corner of the globe. Never has humanity’s bright future been so close to our grasp.
’The emancipation of the working class is the act of working class’ but we have seen that in the course of every massive movement from below a dual power situation arises. Protests, mass strikes, movements in the communities, on the streets, in workplaces get to the point where the goverment will attack from fear of losing control. We have to respond by defending our own forms of popular democracy, the revolution is a defence of the organic forms of working class self organisation that emerge in the course of every struggle.
Not only is revolution objectively possible but absolutely necessary as we balance on the brink of environmental collapse, permanent war and deep crisis in the economy.
21st century revolution not a fantasy….it is daily becoming a living breathing reality.

essay on commodity fetishism by james

THE THEORY OF COMMODITY FETISHISM

by JAMES O'TOOLE

1.Importance of the theory

"..an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre (Land) do their ghost walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things" (1)

One of the things that always struck me as being one of the most powerful arguments against Capitalism was the idea that human working activity was regulated through and by 'things', that 'Capital', the product of a productive relationship between people, could also be the producer of working relations between people, the idea that 'Value' was not only the product of human labour and particular productive relations but, in a Commodity society, is the regulator of Labour. Just stop and think about that for a second…just think about how obscene that is. The rule of 'things' over people.

Marx's theory of Commodity Fetishism is central to a complete understanding of much of his economic theory and represents a concrete expression and further development of his theory of Alienation.

We can see that the theory that "a definite social relation between men.." takes on "the fantastic form of a relation between things" not only is of utmost importance in unravelling the secrets of economic categories such as 'value' and 'capital' and demonstrating that these 'things' veil and bear productive relations amongst people but also is an important generalisation which is key to an understanding of consciousness under Capitalism.

2.Basis of Commodity Fetishism

'Every child knows', stated Marx in a letter, that a society that ceased to work would, in a very short period, starve to death, and so the fundamental basis of every society is this 'natural law'. So in any given type of society there must be a division of labour i.e. people appointed to different tasks based on his necessity of labouring on nature as a basis. In a commodity society where no overall plan exists and where the unity of society and the productive process is only established through exchange people are appointed to differing tasks according.not to need, but according to the profitability of each task. Obviously the product of each sphere must satisfy a particular need (that is have a use value) but what's important in this society is it's exchange value, the ability to exchange this commodity for any other or for a commodity that acts as a general equivalent (money).

A change in productive technique in a certain sector, an improvement of machinery. Leads to a change in the value of the product as less of society's total labour is expended on each unit.

This change in value leads to a drop in prices . We see that the fall and rise of value in different spheres on production would then lead, due to the profitability or non- profitability of a sphere of production to the transfer of workers. The 'thing' value . a product of human working activity, becomes a social regulator, it moves workers from one area to another.

"because of the atomistic structure of the commodity society, because of the absense of direct social regulation of the working activity of the members of society, the connections between, individual, autonomous,private firms are realised and maintained through commodities, things" (2)

In a Commodity society, like Capitalism, where there is no overall plan for production the connections between seperate commodity owners are only established through exchange. When Capitalist 'A' exchanges with Capitalist 'B' he not only enters into a direct relation with 'B' but also enters into indirect relations with all other members of society (with all manufacturers of the same product, with buyers of the product etc). The individual must take the market into account before he begins production ('is it profitable to produce a certain product?' and 'how much?' etc) and when he takes his product to market he is connected to all other producers of the same product ,for example, if there is an improvement in productive technique by one manufacturer of the same product ,which means the lowering of the value of the product, then he must introduce improved techniques (or sell his product below cost which would be suicide). We can see that a close connection is brought about only through exchange, through things.

Ownership of the thing 'Capital', itself the product of a relationship between capitalists and workers (a relationship established through ownership of the things 'labour-power' and 'capital' and realised by the exchange of a sum of value i.e. through a 'thing') directs it's onwer to set up particular set working relationships with other people. The capitalist must combine the elements of production which belong to 3 different classes under capitalism into one enterprise (Land, Labour-Power and Means of Production(factories,offices etc) belong to the Landlord,Worker and Capitalist). So we can see the Ownership of the thing 'Capital', not only is established by but ,establishes working relations between people.

This is the true horror of the Capitalist system, human labour is congealed in things which then come to rule over human labour.Fetishism then isnt just an aspect of social consciouness of thought under capitalsim i.e. it's not just an illusion or a habit that can be shaken off, commodity fetishism is the product of social being. It doesnt just 'seem' that human productive relations are realised through things or productive relations are 'hidden' under things. Human working relations in a commodity market society can only be realised through things, the things are the bearers of the relationship,but not only that, the things come to determine these relationships.

The Capitalist enters into a relationship with the Landlord through an act of purchase, he enters into a relationship with the worker through an act of purchase.The exploitation of the worker 'dissappears' under a seemingly fair exchange of one thing for another (variable capital, i.e.wages, for labour power). The exchange takes place between formally equal commodity producers and thus disguises class etc.

The owership of a 'thing' dictates how you enter into the productive process.Once 'things' posess a given social form they influence people shaping decisions and motivations. The capitalist 'glows' with the reflected glory of his capital because it reflects a given productive relationship amongst people which is realised in a thing. The capitalist is 'subsumed' (he is covered or integrated) under the thing 'capital'. It is no longer his human traits that matter, in the process of the production of commodities and human life he acts as the representative of capital.

Vulgar Economics (as Marx termed the economics of the bourgeois thinkers) sees Money, Capital, Value etc as attribute of things ,that is, from their purely material existance. Whereas Marx saw that these things had both a material content (a physical body) but also a social form (depending on which relations between people they realise). In Dialectics (a from of logic used by Marx and developed from the philospher Hegel) a particular thing should not only be examined as an isolated atom but we need to show it's relationship to the 'whole' and see it as a process in constant interaction with both the whole and the other parts. It's important to emphasise the difference between Marx's method and both Empiricist and Idealist methods. Marx took the material-technical process of production into account as the basis of his anaysis but it's important to remember that although you have to have use-value (the property of a thing to satisfy a need) before you can have exchange value that you cant reduce exchange value to use value. Exchange value represents a paticular productive relationship between people. And is not the attribute of the 'thing'.

For example, if you look at Money from the point of view of it's material existance you can examine the paper, you can point to the differences between coin and paper money but as soon as you turn to how money functions in society and the different relationships it bears and establishes then you get quite lost. But money is not just a symbol either because money is the bearer of certain social relationships. Money can serve various differing functions without any alteration of it's physical body. Money can serve as a Means of Payment , a Medium of Circulation or as a Hoard, each of these differing functions representing a different productive relationship.

Vulgar economy tries to find in the material existance of a thing it's social form and ends up assigning social properties to things.They believe Capital is a thing that has the property to produce Profit, Labour's return is Wages and Land produces Rent. Marx sarcastically called this the 'Holy Trinity'.As i quoted above this is the magical mystical world where Mister Capital and Mistress Land walk about as social characters and at the same time as mere things! This is no accident as this consciouness, assigning things social traits and the objectification of relations between people, is itself a product of commodity fetishism!

As we've already seen - Money, for example, isnt just a 'symbol' of productive relations nor can it be reduced to it's material existance. In the exchange of commodities money acts as a medium of exchange, it enables the transfer of goods. Paper money can enable this transfer of goods just a easily, in fact money's social function is indifferent to it's material existence.What matters is the productive relations amongst people it bears and, because profits for example are taken into account before production begins etc, establishes.

"The value of the worker rises or falls in accordance with supply and demand,and even in the physical sense his existence, his life,was and is treated as a supply of a commodity, like any other….as soon as it occurs to capital…not to exist any longer for the worker, he no longer exists for himself; he has no work, and hence no wages, and since he exists not as a man but as a worker, he might as well have himself buried, starve to death.." (3)

The system of class and human relations becomes a world of relations through things. If the bearer of the 'thing' labour-power cant enter into a relation with the owner of the thing 'capital' then he starves. Society functions as a whole only through exchange and we live under the blind tyranny of things.

3. Breaking Free

"there is both an objective and subjective side to this phenomena. Objectively a world of objects and relations between things springs into being (the world of commodities and their movements on the market).The laws governing these objects… confront him as invisible forces that generate their own power…Subjectively…a man's activity becomes estranged from himself, it turns into a commodity..just like any other consumer article" (4)

So how do we break out of this world of things and end the domination by 'dead labour' of 'living labour' and free ourselves from the rule of the market? The Objective rule of Commodity Fetishism and the Alienation from one's self and others?

Well in a world based on the sale of commodities one of those commodites (labour-power) has the unfortunate (for the capitalists) attribute of also being a human, a worker. According to the laws of the market the Capitalist is within his right as the purchaser of labour-power to try to squeeze as much from it as he can but the 'thing' labour-power is a worker's activity and he accompanies it wherever he goes, in work he argues day in and day out for a better deal for the sale of his labour.

"there is an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges .Between equal rights force decides." (5)

The very heart of the system belongs to a contradiction which constantly tears at the grip of commodity fetishism, Once the truth of the commodity 'Labour' is revealed it becomes possible to understand that human relations, and relations of class exploitation, are the truth of economic categories. But the smashing of the rule of 'things' is no shaking off of 'phantoms' Capital is a physical force and the rule of Capital and it's representatives can only come to an end through the revolutionary overthrow of the entire system.

notes-

(1)Marx Capital III p.830

(2)Rubin Essays on Marx's theory of value p.8

(3)Marx Economic Philosophical manuscript 1844 in Early Writings p.335

(4)Luckacs history and class consciousness p.87

(5)Marx Capital Vol I quoted in Luckacs ibid p.178