In order to keep this manageable, I am starting a new thread as we begin the value section.
Our text for Capital is here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
Our previous thread is here:
http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=66490
As per our usual, the highlighted section is the one we are currently reading.A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.
This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says, “one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”[8]
As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.
Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.
This section on Value is perhaps the most important to retain. What Marx describes logically may also be understood historically (as is often true). When we talk about "crystals of this social substance", we can also think about the actual crystallization occurring at a certain point in human history.
1. Is it true that, "If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour"? Do they not have any other properties in common?
2. What is meant by, "Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour..."?
3. "...there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract." What is meant by this? What is "human labour in the abstract"? Is this a mere logical construction or does it have a historical basis?
4. Consider the wording in this sequence: "the residue of each of these products", "the same unsubstantial reality in each", "a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour". What is Marx talking about?
5. "When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values." Say what? What social substance? What did he just say?
These are very good questions. I'm going to work on answering these tonight. The first of the questions reviews our previous coverage and also sets a standard for moving on (Is what we've covered so far true..)
I'll take a shot....
1) As commodities these items have exchange value, which is derived from that labor.
2) In order to analysize this disparite labor we must homogenize it. In this way we can speak of labor in the abstract allowing us to deal with all forms of labor.
3) Well, it seems to be a logical construction to me. As far as 'historical basis' goes, I'm not quite clear, unless we are speaking about labor as a historical necessity of all humans.
4) Each phrase builds upon the previous, all commodities are the product of labor, this labor is apparently insubstancial, for the purpose of analysis all of this labor is equal.
5) This substance has no physical form yet it is 'real'(this confuses the shit out of me, how can the insubstancal be real?). In any case this substance is abstracted labor. Marx said that this abstracted labor is a real thing in society, it's basis really.(Yeah, I still got problems with this but crystals is a good metaphor.)
(Repeating myself it seems. But it seems that Marx does it a lot, driving home the point. I realize that with each slightly different repitition there is nuance which sometimes(often?) goes over my head.)
I am trying to bring to the surface some reasonable responses to these questions, too. But I don't think that Marx is describing anything that is necessitated by analysis. I do not think that the homogeneity of labor is posited "in order to analyze" labor, I think it is a fact in the process of the developing society, based upon the production of commodities.Originally Posted by blindpig
I'll take a shot....
1) As commodities these items have exchange value, which is derived from that labor.
2) In order to analysize this disparite labor we must homogenize it. In this way we can speak of labor in the abstract allowing us to deal with all forms of labor.
3) Well, it seems to be a logical construction to me. As far as 'historical basis' goes, I'm not quite clear, unless we are speaking about labor as a historical necessity of all humans.
4) Each phrase builds upon the previous, all commodities are the product of labor, this labor is apparently insubstancial, for the purpose of analysis all of this labor is equal.
5) This substance has no physical form yet it is 'real'(this confuses the shit out of me, how can the insubstancal be real?). In any case this substance is abstracted labor. Marx said that this abstracted labor is a real thing in society, it's basis really.(Yeah, I still got problems with this but crystals is a good metaphor.)
(Repeating myself it seems. But it seems that Marx does it a lot, driving home the point. I realize that with each slightly different repitition there is nuance which sometimes(often?) goes over my head.)
Also, I think that "for the purpose of analysis all of this labor is equal" is not right as far as that "purpose" goes.
1. Commodities have one other thing in common, I think. They are privately owned and function as the purpose for production. Commodities are produced for and in themselves for the profit of the owner of the means. That seems to be something that is held in common.
2. Since the "use value" of commodities are completely absent from their value as commodities, the particular labor needed to produce them is also of no particular value. The skill, time or effort required for a particular item is tied directly to that particular items use value - and so this too is "put out of sight".
I am still thinking about the rest - and may need to revisit the first two, as well...
Yeah, I got a real problem with insubstancial things, but I put it out anyway in the spirit of masochistic honesty. Mebbe I'll somehow get a grasp on this problem but if not soon I'll quit bringing it up as I feel I'm distracting.
What I'm wondering is how we distinguish feudalism from capitalism. This qualifies as a major historical transistion and involves the ascension of abstract labor..3) Well, it seems to be a logical construction to me. As far as 'historical basis' goes, I'm not quite clear, unless we are speaking about labor as a historical necessity of all humans.
I think the difference would be that in the feudal period labor was an obligation based upon a metaphysical premise(backed by 'cops') whereas in the nascent capitalist economy labor was exchanged for wages(backed by 'cops').
Also, in a sense (if you think about it), the nobility worked for a wage, received from the serfs. The serfs worked the land and in exchange for "protection" gave the nobility a share. I understand that it isn't exactly like this. One of the real differences would seem to be that everyone within the categories of feudalism was "protected" from want or privation as long as everyone behaved as they were called upon to. In capitalism, the workers work or they starve - there is no social protection of the individual by the group - it goes for the owners, too; if they fail they become workers or starve - no one gives a fuck. Of course, there are "charities" and and various "do-gooder" groups to help the indigent, but that is not a required or integral part of the social setup.
If it is true that commodities exchanged into the Stone Age (albeit, a very small number of them), then they predate private ownership or private property by several hundred thousand years. They certainly predate private property by thousands of years.
For the Greeks, the rise of private property is synonymous with the rise of slavery. The herds allowed for surplus labor (labor which created more than the cost of its reproduction) for the first time. The capture of slaves became the object of war. Also for the first time, the surplus product created by slaves ceased to be communally divided. It became the germ of ancient private property - accruing only to some. Yet, this surplus was not a commodity and did not enter into exchange.
I think what you write is true after the fact, when wealth presents itself as an "immense accumulation of commodities" but, by then, everything presents itself that way. Even "honor" is bought and sold as Marx jokes.
Last edited by anaxarchos; 02-29-2012 at 03:32 PM.
Yes.
The division of labor is also advancing as commodities come into their own. On the one hand, labor is more and more differentiated depending on the use-values it produces; on the other hand, it is more and more homogenized as its details are abstracted away from it to calculate the socially-recognized labor in the abstract which forms its value.
It is society itself which does this, not explicitly but implicitly... through exchange.
Last edited by anaxarchos; 02-29-2012 at 03:33 PM.
This is the hardest thing for me to keep in mind! I should print this out and wear it on my forehead...It is society itself which does this, not explicitly but implicitly... through exchange.
Both parts of this are important -- the fact that exchange is the driver (or the vehicle if you look at it differently) which forces (or carries forth) this development and also the fact that it is not an explicit development (just try to draw a chain of causation for all of the interwoven factors in involved..your brain explodes in about 2.4 femtoseconds). And for those who would want to construe explicitness as "planned" in any sense, the cacophony only gets louder.
That is why when liberals or conservatives talk about "managing" the system or making it "do" one thing or another, they are showing that they don't know what they are talking about. When Romney or Obama say they can "fix" the economy, I would love to be able to force either one to explain what is wrong. If they can fix it, they must know what the problem is. I wonder, if forced, what either would say?
Ha, that probably wouldn't help..they're great at telling you what's wrong from a symptomatic standpoint -- people don't have jobs (as an example). Its the systematic dimension they'd rather ignore (or, just as possibly, are entirely ignorant of..no requirement that the bagmen have any actual insight or depth. Probably better if they don't)
They are stunned by them. The invisible hand, the operation of the market, the fluctuations of prices, capital flows - all without human intervention or at least without human "planning" at the highest level... they fall down on their knees before it all. It all takes on near religious significance. More, it becomes a religious analogy with the creations of human imagination gaining complete dominion over human beings themselves.
The bees see the hive and the termites the mound for the first time and just KNOW that they are the creations of a higher power; something more than mere working bees or gnawing termites created this amazing boiling edifice. Is it not as plain as day?
Of course, their visions are selective. They see the motion of the inanimate quite clearly, while entirely missing the human element. They have no sense that the simplest acts of human survival or reproduction now set in motion thousands of "faceless" human beings on a global scale. They can no longer sweat on their own, scratch on their own or shit on their own and yet they create a cult of the "individual", now in opposition to their impossibly complete socialization.
This is their own blasphemy to the religion of their own making, bubbling up from their own hive.
It stuns me that they make fun of ancient religion and primitive symbolism. The Greeks of the gens and the Indians of the plains would both immediately conclude that they were impressively stupid human beings, even as they are impressively organized.
A couple go to their friend's farm for drinks. The husband leaves to use the bathroom and, upon flushing the toilet, he hears through the window a voice in the back yard saying, "This isn't piss and shit!" Shaking his head, thinking he had too much to drink, he returns to the others and says nothing.
Later, his wife has a bathroom visit too and, upon flushing, also hears the voice... "This isn't piss and shit!" from the back yard. She too makes a silent pledge that she should drink less and returns to the others, but remarks on the strange voice. Her husband immediately adds that he heard the voice too.
Their host laughs and replies, "Oh, don't worry about that, my friends..."
"That's just our skeptic tank!"
Hah... Now, there is one I've never heard.
1. While exchange value is the only form in which value manifests itself, it is here considered independently of its form. What does that mean?If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.
Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.
We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.
A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
2. Do not be confused by, "homogeneous human labour"... what we will later call "labor in the abstract". By abstract, we do not mean that it is a mere calculation which actually doesn't exist. Historically, this is a much closer approximation of human labor in our pre-history. It is the development of the division of labor and labor specialization which complicates the issue and forces this "reduction".
3. What is the scope of this calculation? It is nothing other than the scope of the market within which commodities exchange. When two markets are joined, so is the calculation of, "the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary". This is how the global reach of markets destroys all "local" foundations on which commodities exchange.
Commodities have value; the only source of this value is the human labor that created the commodities. Since the value between and among commodities is equatable, then the labor has to be, as well. In order for the disparate types and forms of labor to be gauged as equable it must be taken in the aggregate as homogenous human labor - without distinction of kinds and types - those cease to have any substance. If this is worded even closely to correctly, it is amazingly simple and powerful!
The calculation of, "the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary" is no longer based on the homogenous human labor of the US or Britain or France or Germany, but on all of these, plus Japan, China, South Korea, The Philippines, Costa Rica, etc., etc., etc. Homogenous human labor is approaching global configurations. Hasn't this worked to increase the profitability in the "value" of commodities, in an incidental way? And just like markets, won't this homogeneity of world-wide human labor reach a point of (what would you call it?) saturation?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
