Reading Capital, continued (thread #3)...

[blindpig]

Obie: "Hey, I got 10 goat hides."

Pootie: "Well I got 60 polished ax heads."

Obie: "I could use an ax head."

Pootie: "Well, lemme see, 10 goat hides are worth 5 yards of linen and a polished ax head is worth 5 yards of linen so I'll give you one of my ax heads for your 10 goat hides."

Obie: "Wtf? Your 1 for my 10, sez who?"

(To be continued)

[Kid of the Black Hole]

It won't reproduce in a post correctly, but it is a ledger showing "The General Value Form". Probably easiest to just check the link

PS Have always kind of wondered how much Marx was drawing from the state of the art mathematics (infinite series, limits, calculus, etc) and also how much he was influenced by Hegel's thinking on the matter (false infinity)

[curt_b]

I was just getting ready to test myself, you're killing me:

B. Total or Expanded Form of value

z Com. A = u Com. B or v Com. C or = w Com. D or = Com. E or = &c.
(20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs tea or = 40 lbs. coffee or
= 1 quarter corn or = 2 ounces gold or = ½ ton iron or = &c.)

[anaxarchos]

Did I go to the next section too quickly?

[anaxarchos]

... thus the "...".

I figured I would split at 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D with each starting with the logical proposition. You could do it the other way...

Kiddo, I'm thinking about writing a short text on the Mesopotamians because they left behind evidence of all four forms, though the elementary form is very thin and the money thing, they only just get going (though it is fully developed by the time of Hammurabi). The problem is that they have "money" early on but mostly as "repository of value" which doesn't fit in here at all, logically. Their original "money form" is in these really large metallic rings which act as ingots - somewhere to park your value - and this well before it comes into usage as "universal equivalent" (and appears in "lighter" denominations: Shekels at .5 oz while Talents still weigh 10 pounds). In truth, the trade tables and big-money coexist for a spell. Interesting.

Can't comment on the math...

[Kid of the Black Hole]

can't tell if thats a pun or not ;)

This stuff is very disarming, which makes it hard for me to know if I have grasped the proper historical context or not. On the one hand it seems so straightforward, on the other hand it seems to allude heavily in the direction of concepts that are not simple but at least understood/understandable. Meanwhile on a third hand..even mostly knowing where hes going with all of this its difficult to really anticipate how he gets there. And then, absent all of that, there's the "deep" component that is hard to get a grip on

[Kid of the Black Hole]

I found it helpful to do a Cliff Notes style review, in question and answer form. I started from "What is use-value?" and went from there

I didn't make the questions up myself (might be kinda self-defeating I'm not sure), I found them somewhere online I think.

Don't overthink it..while a substantial amount of groundwork is being prepared, this material is not ineffable. Or, even if it is, we can take the Douglas Adams approach and see if we can't eff it after all..:)

[curt_b]

And flashed back to Mrs. Hornbeck's 7th grade algebra class. Too many memories of my math deficiencies came to mind. Carry on.

[PinkoCommie]

But is anyone still not clear on the excerpted text? If not, let's move forward.

[curt_b]

n/t

[blindpig]

The matching of theory and history is where this 'lights up' for me.

[Dhalgren]

Let's move...

[anaxarchos]

Section 3C. The General Form of Value
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...1/ch01.htm#S3b

Again, the entire text of the section is reproduced below (because it is short). In this section, the text is crying out to leap ahead. The next step, to the money form, is more than obvious. BUT, it is worth lingering for a moment.

For all its mystery, by the time we are done with Part C, the role of the money form is perfectly obvious. Once commodities in circulation have become a world of commodities, and once the limitations of the expanded form have become apparent (in ever bigger trade tables), the transformation of the whole to a general form is inevitable... and this, using the term of equivalence that was inherent in the elementary form. We now discover everything there is to know about the evolution of money... but without any mystery. No drama at all...

C. The General Form of Value

1 coat
10 lbs of tea
40 lbs of coffee
1 quarter of corn ================ 20 yards of linen
2 ounces of gold
½ a ton of iron
x Commodity A, etc.

1. The altered character of the form of value

All commodities now express their value (1) in an elementary form, because in a single commodity; (2) with unity, because in one and the same commodity. This form of value is elementary and the same for all, therefore general.

The forms A and B were fit only to express the value of a commodity as something distinct from its use value or material form.

The first form, A, furnishes such equations as the following: – 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, 10 lbs of tea = ½ a ton of iron. The value of the coat is equated to linen, that of the tea to iron. But to be equated to linen, and again to iron, is to be as different as are linen and iron. This form, it is plain, occurs practically only in the first beginning, when the products of labour are converted into commodities by accidental and occasional exchanges.

The second form, B, distinguishes, in a more adequate manner than the first, the value of a commodity from its use value, for the value of the coat is there placed in contrast under all possible shapes with the bodily form of the coat; it is equated to linen, to iron, to tea, in short, to everything else, only not to itself, the coat. On the other hand, any general expression of value common to all is directly excluded; for, in the equation of value of each commodity, all other commodities now appear only under the form of equivalents. The expanded form of value comes into actual existence for the first time so soon as a particular product of labour, such as cattle, is no longer exceptionally, but habitually, exchanged for various other commodities.

The third and lastly developed form expresses the values of the whole world of commodities in terms of a single commodity set apart for the purpose, namely, the linen, and thus represents to us their values by means of their equality with linen. The value of every commodity is now, by being equated to linen, not only differentiated from its own use value, but from all other use values generally, and is, by that very fact, expressed as that which is common to all commodities. By this form, commodities are, for the first time, effectively brought into relation with one another as values, or made to appear as exchange values.

The two earlier forms either express the value of each commodity in terms of a single commodity of a different kind, or in a series of many such commodities. In both cases, it is, so to say, the special business of each single commodity to find an expression for its value, and this it does without the help of the others. These others, with respect to the former, play the passive parts of equivalents. The general form of value, C, results from the joint action of the whole world of commodities, and from that alone. A commodity can acquire a general expression of its value only by all other commodities, simultaneously with it, expressing their values in the same equivalent; and every new commodity must follow suit. It thus becomes evident that since the existence of commodities as values is purely social, this social existence can be expressed by the totality of their social relations alone, and consequently that the form of their value must be a socially recognised form.

All commodities being equated to linen now appear not only as qualitatively equal as values generally, but also as values whose magnitudes are capable of comparison. By expressing the magnitudes of their values in one and the same material, the linen, those magnitudes are also compared with each other For instance, 10 lbs of tea = 20 yards of linen, and 40 lbs of coffee = 20 yards of linen. Therefore, 10 lbs of tea = 40 lbs of coffee. In other words, there is contained in 1 lb of coffee only one-fourth as much substance of value – labour – as is contained in 1 lb of tea.

The general form of relative value, embracing the whole world of commodities, converts the single commodity that is excluded from the rest, and made to play the part of equivalent – here the linen – into the universal equivalent. The bodily form of the linen is now the form assumed in common by the values of all commodities; it therefore becomes directly exchangeable with all and every of them. The substance linen becomes the visible incarnation, the social chrysalis state of every kind of human labour. Weaving, which is the labour of certain private individuals producing a particular article, linen, acquires in consequence a social character, the character of equality with all other kinds of labour. The innumerable equations of which the general form of value is composed, equate in turn the labour embodied in the linen to that embodied in every other commodity, and they thus convert weaving into the general form of manifestation of undifferentiated human labour. In this manner the labour realised in the values of commodities is presented not only under its negative aspect, under which abstraction is made from every concrete form and useful property of actual work, but its own positive nature is made to reveal itself expressly. The general value form is the reduction of all kinds of actual labour to their common character of being human labour generally, of being the expenditure of human labour power.

The general value form, which represents all products of labour as mere congelations of undifferentiated human labour, shows by its very structure that it is the social resumé of the world of commodities. That form consequently makes it indisputably evident that in the world of commodities the character possessed by all labour of being human labour constitutes its specific social character.


2. The Interdependent Development of the Relative Form of Value, and of the Equivalent Form

The degree of development of the relative form of value corresponds to that of the equivalent form. But we must bear in mind that the development of the latter is only the expression and result of the development of the former.

The primary or isolated relative form of value of one commodity converts some other commodity into an isolated equivalent. The expanded form of relative value, which is the expression of the value of one commodity in terms of all other commodities, endows those other commodities with the character of particular equivalents differing in kind. And lastly, a particular kind of commodity acquires the character of universal equivalent, because all other commodities make it the material in which they uniformly express their value.

The antagonism between the relative form of value and the equivalent form, the two poles of the value form, is developed concurrently with that form itself.

The first form, 20 yds of linen = one coat, already contains this antagonism, without as yet fixing it. According as we read this equation forwards or backwards, the parts played by the linen and the coat are different. In the one case the relative value of the linen is expressed in the coat, in the other case the relative value of the coat is expressed in the linen. In this first form of value, therefore, it is difficult to grasp the polar contrast.

Form B shows that only one single commodity at a time can completely expand its relative value, and that it acquires this expanded form only because, and in so far as, all other commodities are, with respect to it, equivalents. Here we cannot reverse the equation, as we can the equation 20 yds of linen = 1 coat, without altering its general character, and converting it from the expanded form of value into the general form of value.

Finally, the form C gives to the world of commodities a general social relative form of value, because, and in so far as, thereby all commodities, with the exception of one, are excluded from the equivalent form. A single commodity, the linen, appears therefore to have acquired the character of direct exchangeability with every other commodity because, and in so far as, this character is denied to every other commodity.[26]

The commodity that figures as universal equivalent, is, on the other hand, excluded from the relative value form. If the linen, or any other commodity serving as universal equivalent, were, at the same time, to share in the relative form of value, it would have to serve as its own equivalent. We should then have 20 yds of linen = 20 yds of linen; this tautology expresses neither value, nor magnitude of value. In order to express the relative value of the universal equivalent, we must rather reverse the form C. This equivalent has no relative form of value in common with other commodities, but its value is relatively expressed by a never ending series of other commodities. Thus, the expanded form of relative value, or form B, now shows itself as the specific form of relative value for the equivalent commodity.


3. Transition from the General form of value to the Money form

The universal equivalent form is a form of value in general. It can, therefore, be assumed by any commodity. On the other hand, if a commodity be found to have assumed the universal equivalent form (form C), this is only because and in so far as it has been excluded from the rest of all other commodities as their equivalent, and that by their own act. And from the moment that this exclusion becomes finally restricted to one particular commodity, from that moment only, the general form of relative value of the world of commodities obtains real consistence and general social validity.

The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special social function of that commodity, and consequently its social monopoly, to play within the world of commodities the part of the universal equivalent. Amongst the commodities which, in form B, figure as particular equivalents of the linen, and, in form C, express in common their relative values in linen, this foremost place has been attained by one in particular – namely, gold. If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we get...

Once we have many things to measure, it is certain that we will end up measuring them by one standard... and that standard itself will be transformed into a system that lends itself to becoming a standard of measure. The whole is almost anti-climactic, looking backwards.

[Dhalgren]

Gold is only valuable as the commodity shown on the right-hand side of the equation, above. It only has value in this position not in and of itself or as a "stand alone" commodity. Gold (and silver) has always been foisted off on everyone as some sort of "mystical" substance with inherent value. It is ludicrous that at my advanced age, I only now am beginning to grasp what "value" is and how money works...

[Kid of the Black Hole]

for two reasons, polemically speaking

1. Otherwise you fall into the trap of the "theorists" claiming that capitalism entered a "new stage" with the abolition of the gold standard (despite the absolute dearth of evidence to support this contention..a lack of evidence that does in this case prove exactly the opposite)

2. All kinds of mystified theories of money, including those professed by "Marxists" of every stripe. Most of which boils down to the question "Is money a commodity..?" (more than a commodity? something else entirely? etc etc)

Once you grapple with the above section of Capital, the fugue is (largely) dispelled.

Pretty cool huh?

EDIT: and all of the staples of Hegel fully come into play here. "Interpenetration of opposites", "determination by negation", and even "quanity into quality" in a certain sense

[anaxarchos]

Why? Because it is rare and you can get a lot of value in a small size. Because it is easily divisible. Because it doesn't rot and retains its value without rapid deterioration (although it is a little soft). What about silver? That works too, though the coins get a little bigger. How about copper? Well, the coins are really big, but I suppose that this would just speed up the evolution of symbolic money - copper certificates...

Anything really will do and many things have.

Ain't nothin' special about money. Midas is wrong. Though Midas is Minoan and dates from the very beginning of money. That must have been a shocker.

http://jamesbond007.net/advers/Goldfinger1.jpg

[Two Americas]

"It is not the exchange of commodities which regulates the magnitude of their value; but, on the contrary, it is the magnitude of their value which controls their exchange proportions."

So much for "supply and demand" and "buy low, sell high" and "bull markets" and so forth?

[Two Americas]

It is a socially assigned role for the commodity (gold has some advantages that suit it for the role as you say, yes.)

[PinkoCommie]

if you don't count the fluctuations in supply owing to mining. You'd probably be surprised to see how much is taken anew from the earth year over year. And then there is that pesky wear down and, even peskier, coin shaving...

I don't find it hard at all to see why so-called fiat currency that all the Paultard hate came into existence in short order.

Of course I once had a boss whose good buddy owned what seemed to be every pool table and juke box in Fort Worth. He ran $25,000 a day in quarters through his shop. That was kinda a pain in the ass as you might imagine.

[PinkoCommie]

but it is awfully, awfully early in the presentation to begin to ponder things affecting price - itself a concept yet to be introduced.

Scarcity has a clear effect on prices, but we're just not there yet. You could however peruse some older commentary that is germane both to your earlier post about the money commodity being able to be anything and about "supply and demand" - this is interesting to ponder over bearing in mind our national currecy's lingering status as the world reserve currency and our staggering national debt. Ah for simpler times:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ook02/ch02.htm