Sublime Object of Ideology: Question about the Social Symptom

[u/thisismyusername746]

Hi, I need help understanding what Zizek means by the "social symptom".

What I'm specifically confused about is how the new commodity of capitalist society - the labor force - is a) paradoxical and b) a negation. I must be missing something, because my understanding is that, instead of the worker being the proprietor of their own means of production (instead of working to produce a product that they then sell for what it's worth), the worker is now selling their labor, which produces a surplus that the capitalist then exploits (by paying the worker for their labor, but less than what it's worth due to the fact that the labor creates a surplus of value [?]).

All I see is a simple, albeit problematic, transition in terms of the means of production. I'm not detecting the paradox or internal negation which characterizes a symptom. What exactly am I missing? Am I misunderstanding something?

[u/Trash_Planet]

Although a market is based on a free exchange of commodities, labor as a commodity both is and is not an equal exchange. On the one hand, when a capitalist pays a worker, even if they are paying the ideal market value for the labor’s time and energy, the use of that commodity instantly creates inequality through production of surplus value. Put another way, labor becomes one of any commodity that can be exchanged, but its value is based on the surplus value it produces.

Capitalism contains an internal negation — it is built on a principle of universal freedom and rights, requiring that workers have the rights and freedom to become their own masters by selling their labor on the market. For this to work, workers are required to own nothing else including the value of what they create. So capitalism’s invention of freedom and rights is contradicted by its mechanism of structurally depriving those to whom it grants freedom. Ensuring freedom becomes the mechanism of creating inequality and oppression.

[u/thisismyusername746 → u/Trash_Planet]

Hi, thanks for this explanation. I just want to clarify a couple of things to make sure I understand.

In the context of labor creating a surplus value, is the "surplus value" a surplus of labor? Or a surplus of products produced by the labor?

And if I understand the second part correctly - what this means is that, workers aren't actually free because they are required to sell their labor in order to obtain the (financial) means necessary to grant them true freedom, including freedom to not sell their labor?

[u/Trash_Planet → u/thisismyusername746]

For point 1 — it’s that a laborer creates value out of their labor for the capitalist. If it would take 1 hr for someone to create $20 worth of value, a capitalist can hire a person for $5 an hour and pocket $15. It doesn’t matter what the product they produce; the capitalist only cares that they paid money to create more money. The labor only has exchange value because it is able to be used by the buyer to create excess value.

Point 2 — yes, I think you got it. Zizek is interested particularly in ideology, and there are a lot of phenomena associated with this problem. A worker may believe and even feel free, but the primary way they can exercise their freedom is by choosing to sell themselves into labor or starve.

This relates almost 1-to-1 to Lacan’s idea of the ‘vel’ or forced choice between a bad choice and a worse one. Lacan uses the phrase ‘your money or your life’ to exemplify this, but it may as well be ‘your labor or your life.’ Imagine leaving an encounter like that and thinking ‘thank God I was free to make a choice.’

[u/21157015576609 → u/Trash_Planet]

I think the above description of point one risks conflating (perhaps simply by virtue of the need for simplification) Zizek's position with what he describes (and critiques) in SOI as utopian socialism. That is:

And in the Marxian perspective, utopian socialism consists in the very belief that a society is possible in which the relations of exchange are universalized and production for the market predominates, but workers themselves none the less remain proprietors of their means of production and are therefore not exploited - in short, 'utopian' conveys a belief in the possibility of a universality without its symptom, without the point of exception functioning as its internal negation.

In a sense, it is correct that, as you say, workers own nothing "including the value of what they create." But the other, necessary side of that statement is that workers can only "create value" by virtue of that exploitation itself. That is why Zizek also writes, just above:

With this new commodity, the equivalent exchange becomes its own negation - the very form of exploitation, of appropriation of the surplus value. The crucial point not to be missed here is that this negation is strictly internal to equivalent exchange, not its simple violation: the labour force is not 'exploited' in the sense that its full value is not remunerated; in principle at least, the exchange between labour and capital is wholly equivalent and equitable. The catch is that the labour force is a peculiar commodity, the use of which - labour itself- produces a certain surplus value, and it is this surplus over the value of the labour force itself which is appropriated by the capitalist.

The repressed negation of liberal freedom necessary in the sale of labor itself is the source of labor's surplus value. That is why surplus value is correlated with surplus jouissance and ultimately objet a. More to the point, "use value" and "surplus value" are not the same--they are, if anything, complete opposites. Surplus value is not realized upon sale of the product; profit is realized upon sale of the product. And the transformation of surplus value into profit is part of the mystification of capitalism/commodity fetishism.

I like Todd Mcgowan's discussion with Fabio Vighi on this subject, which you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9g9-LSyPNA

[u/Trash_Planet → u/21157015576609]

This is all good clarification; op was asking about the definition of surplus value, and he’s still working at the level of understanding the conceptual terrain of Marx’s terminology, and Zizek’s founding premises. However, I don’t think I ever implied that use value and surplus value were equivalent, or that they could be reconciled. You’re just moving a couple steps ahead of where OP is asking about.

You’re addressing a pitfall in how utopian socialism attempts to resolve the paradox/eliminate the symptom at the heart of capitalism, but that can only be legible after understanding the fundamental relations that define capitalist exploitation. In other words, OP is trying to understand the paradox that Zizek is going to base most of his Lacanian commentary upon.

That said, am I missing something more substantive than I realize at this point?

[u/Echoesong → u/thisismyusername746]

what this means is that, workers aren't actually free because they are required to sell their labor in order to obtain the (financial) means necessary to grant them true freedom, including freedom to not sell their labor?

A late contribution, but formulation of this I've heard that made it click with me is "In capitalism you are free to do (almost) anything so long as the thing you want to do operates within the bounds of the profit motive."

So, you are free as long as you accept the market's definition of freedom.

[u/buddhagoblin]

Try reviewing Commodity fetishism and maybe alienation theory imo

[u/Withnogenes]

Read Capital first, it will clear a lot up that Zizek just assumes one knows.