[from the thread, Marx's critique of the theory of value]:
``...It should be said that it is not Marx that systematically denigrates the social value of all unproductive labour, but capitalism. In pointing it out that Capitalism fails to put a value on a great deal of work that is socially useful but not profitable, he was condemning, not commending capitalism. This is a case of shooting the messenger...'' James Heartfield
-------------
This reminds me to mention that Richard Posner was on the PBS News Hour the other night. Jim Lerher was discussing his book about the decline of public intellectuals in US public life, and asked Posner why. Why did Posner see a decline in their work, their importance, and their influence.
I've forgotten Posner's answer, but it wasn't very good. From the little I remember I'll sound off anyway. And no I haven't read his book, so I am guessing. I'll leave it to Justin or somebody who has read it to correct me.
What Posner fails to see is that such works and lives have little or no social value in US society because it is so heavily dominated by neoliberal capitalist dogma. The US has been politically constructed to be this way. In our society, at the moment, all lives and work and their valuation are only reducible to their ability to adapt to and be absorbed by some production system. That is, to be productive, exploitable. In the case of public intellectuals that means the ability to write books that sell. Obviously massive, extremely critical and difficult to understand works, or those that require a great deal of background to follow are simply not big sellers, period. However, there are just enough exceptions around to creat a very limited cadre of intellectual stars, among whom, few will likely survive either their own or our life times.
While it might be necessary for public intellectuals to be rich or at least economically independent, or have a light enough or related job that provides time and forum, say in academia, that in itself is still not sufficient. The reason is the same. Publishers or media production systems are primarily interested in their own profits, whether they pay worth a dam or not. So the economic status of their labor producers is pretty much irrelevant to them.
Also Posner fails to see that the status of public intellectuals is related to a broader class of labor that includes all the humanities and arts and is slowly including most of the more abstract and theoretical sciences as well. None of these fields produce materials that are easily packaged, distributed and sold. Some don't produce work that is even reproducible in mass. And even if that can be done for certain collections of work, say music, well of course only certain kinds of music can be easily reproduced and has a mass market. Some kinds of work, such as the traditional visual arts depend on the uniqueness of their manual skills applied one to one, and are essentially unreproducible on a mass scale. Sure you can produce posters or prints, but that hardly qualifies as the same activity or labor.
There is of course the other half, the audience, the so-called consumers. Just as the political economy has both constructed and severely constricted intellectual labors, it has also constructed its consumers. In terms of intellect and sensibility this is essentially an artificial and destructive division, since often in these fields the highest quality of work depends oddly on decreasing or erasing most of the divisions between say performer and audience, producer and consumer, artist and viewer, writer and reader.
What such a relation really depends on in terms of its sophistication and articulation is the melding of roles and the inter-changeability between these roles. This interchange or reciprocity of a relation, the mapping back and forth between these theoretical elements is critical to the creative acts, their symbolic significance, and their communicative properties that all lay at the foundation of the experience and work. In order for the experiences of appraisal, enjoyment, and learning to take place, there has to be as little experiential or social or material difference as possible between the poles that constitute the totality of the creative work. Simply there is no painting without a knowledgeable and admiring viewer--one who is familiar enough with the materials and methods used to imagine their own ability to make the work.
In this particular case and for cultural and symbolic activities of all sorts, Berkeley was right, esse est percipi, to exist is to be perceived. I would amend this idea to say that symbolic activities only exist to the extent and scope of their articulated perception. Or if that seems too abstract, it can also be remembered for example, that most scientific evaluation is supposed to take place in a peer review system, where this more general principle is made into a ritualized social construct.
I just started Michael Perelman's Steal this Idea which goes into the thieving machinations of the capital dominated intellectual production systems. So it bares heavily on this entire topic. But I put it down temporarily to finish Esposito's Unholy War.
Chuck Grimes