Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...

[blindpig]

Kid of the Black Hole
09-27-2009, 05:05 PM

you have already assumed the existence of money for one thing. More fundamentally, you have already assumed a social system of excahnge in general. You have assumed that in some way the value of the axe can be quantified for exchange purposes.

Discussing value forces you to posit questions regarding the whys and wherefores of social relations and the systems that such relations entail. You said elsewhere that value can't be quantified..and yet, exactly that quantification happens zillions of times per day all around you.

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-27-2009, 09:40 PM

There ain't no percentage in accumulating use-values. Two axes, three? One fish is dinner. Two is really full. Three? Thirty? It's a smelly long house. If you could dry them or smoke 'em, it's something but there is still no basis for "greed". That takes widespread trade, a "community of commodity producers", the ability to transform use-values of one type into use-values of all types. In passing, we eliminate the need and obligation to work, and we get personal service. The whole is well less than 10,000 years old... out of one million years.

A nature without an expression - for a million years - is no nature at all. It's a gesture.

More, we know that trade exists... so, some level of stability also exists. The world of stolen use-values seems to have limited appeal from the get go, as is supported from the ritualized nature of the weapons of war... if such exist at all.

The bullshit Abrahamic stories of "human nature" are contemporary news (describing events as they were evolving then) and are very similar to Greek fables: nostalgic laments to the passing of the Gens and the genuine "freedom" of the primitive constitution. They are like Midas stories. And of course, Midas was the King of the Minoans, who were constantly stuck in a state of "old values" undermined by new-fangled wealth.

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-27-2009, 09:44 PM

The whole process from this point to money is still lengthy, though.

(I mean, historically)

[blindpig]

Code_Name_D
09-27-2009, 09:57 PM

It’s possible one could “sell” and ax for money. But why couldn’t he sell his ax for something else entirely, like food or for a skill that he lacks. He could be selling his ax to a man who doesn’t have the skill to make his own ax.

A tribe that has extra axes might have something to barter with for treaties or rights of passage with other tribes.

Even the perception of need is not necessary. He might give an ax to a youth as a right of passage, or to a friend as a birthday present.

He might be contributing to the whole. A hunting injury might prevent him from going out and hunting. So he stays at home and makes axes, freeing up time for the younger fitter hunters who now can invest more time towards hunting.

The problem here is that you are attempting to argue from an absolute. Labor begets capital and capital is the product of the exploitation of labor.

But labor might have another definition. The use of labor is a needed component to transform natural resources from an unusable form, to a usable form.

[blindpig]

Dhalgren
09-28-2009, 09:16 AM

right?

"The social division of labour causes his (the Weaver) labour to be as one-sided as his wants are many-sided. This is precisely the reason why the product of his labour serves him solely as exchange-value. But it cannot acquire the properties of a socially recognised universal equivalent, except by being converted into money."

So, because his "wants" are "many-sided" he therefore uses his labor to create enough of a commodity (linen) to exchange for all his "wants". Money (or gold) only comes in as "a socially recognised universal equivalent".

And in Marx's own words we have moved to "wants" as opposed to "needs" (although he may be using them interchangeably?).

As Marx said, people created coats for thousands of years without anyone being a "tailor", but after someone became a tailor or a weaver or a blacksmith or a wagon maker, there arose the possibility of becoming wealthy from the labor of others - a possibility that did not exist in that particular manner before...

Is this close?

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-28-2009, 09:39 AM

We talked about it in passing, up-thread (or maybe in the last one). The division of labor is a precondition for commodity exchange but, exchange in turn gives tremendous impetus to its further evolution. The same thing that causes someone to use "his labor to create enough of a commodity (linen) to exchange for all his wants" also causes others to to create enough of another commodity.

It is an interesting thing.

Wants and needs are interchangeable, mainly because Marx is not interested in the world of use-values... BUT, there is an implied transition from bare existence to the production of surplus, which enables exchange but also enables a broader universe of use values.

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-28-2009, 10:53 AM

I know you like to talk about economics. You could learn a lot here and I am more than willing to talk to you... But, it will take some work on your part. You have missed the point of the section. You did think about it , which is good, but you thought about a phrase. The various uses for an axe which you can think of are largely irrelevant. The question revolves around a specific form that axes take at a certain point in human history. As a physical tool, axes are like any other product of labor... a million year history. As commodities, a product produced for exchange, they acquire an entirely new set of characteristics.

Want to try, again?

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-28-2009, 11:36 AM

One day, an "Indian" has a brilliant idea. Instead of running after rabbits, he will make a bow and arrow. The Indian goes hungry for two days while others hunt and voila... The next day, he catches three times as many rabbits as anyone else. Now the other Indians ask him how it is done. He becomes an overseer of bow and arrow production, rather than a hunter. He is the first capitalist and the bow and arrow are the first capital. Samuelson loved that stupid story.

Of course:

1) The Indian wouldn't go hungry (food was communal).
2) Bows and arrows are not invented in two days by one guy.
3) The Indian would not have any call on the bow and arrow even as he wouldn't have any less call on food (there was no private property).
4) If he were to come up with conditions for teaching people how to make tools, they would kick the ever-loving shit out of him.

In truth, it is ridiculous. None of this would ever occur among indigenous people. These are modern Samuelson attributes projected backward in time.

Robinson Crusoe is a better attempt at taking completely modern attitudes back to simpler times in order to attempt the derivation of economic categories. All old Robinson needs is two people in order to invent chattel slavery. Subsequently, he "proves" that all of the categories of modern economics issue forth from that same "invention". They absolutely love Robinson...

They don't do so well with actual ancient history, archeology or anthropology, though. Those old people just don't get it. Dumb fucks.

[blindpig]

Code_Name_D
09-28-2009, 04:44 PM

I am all ears, and want to learn.

“You did think about it, which is good, but you thought about a phrase.”

Sorry, but I have judged from a bit more substantial body of evidence than just one fraise. The prevailing wisdom of this board recently is that any commodity represents the transfer of wealth from the labor class (the manufacturer of the ax in this case) to the ruling class (the person “purchasing” the ax).

This argument is far too simplistic of course, which is why I called it out. What I am not waiting to see however is that weather this is actually an accurate augment postulated by socialism. If it is, then we’ve got a debate on our hands. If it is not, then you are trying to educate the wrong people on this board.

Ideas like this amount to nothing more than capitalist-bashing, and is the sort of argument one would expect from creationists or flat earthier. And I continue to harbor doubts that it is a legitimate part of socialist theory. But it certainly is a widely held view point of many socialist. And not just from those on this board either, but on other boards, from other posters, and even from Wichita’s own socialist chapter.

“The various uses for an axe which you can think of are largely irrelevant. The question revolves around a specific form that axes take at a certain point in human history. As a physical tool, axes are like any other product of labor... a million year history.”

I am not entirely sure what you mean by “million year history.” If the form of the ax is irrelevant, then so be it. It’s then nothing more than a widget – a fictional product used to examine economic ideas. But to examine it in a specific point in time is a bit puzzling. I might entertain the consideration of the widgets use, utility, or value from any specific point in time; from the point of its production to the point of its full consumption (when the widget/ax is no longer able to serve any function). But to do so over a million year span? This I am curious to see elaborated.

“As commodities, a product produced for exchange, they acquire an entirely new set of characteristics.”

I am not sure I agree. A commodity is nothing more than a product (or service) waiting for consumption. As a result, its definition can be a bit hard to nail down. Any product used for consumption is a good definition, and certainly a common one. But how dose the being a commodity endow any product with new characteristics?

A cave man may craft a stone ax to use for hunting, and then gives it to his sun or grandson. The ax then gets lost some where, only to be uncovered a million years later by passerby of some means who sells it at an auction for a million dollars, in turn being resold and resold until it becomes part of a donated foundation to a research facility that studies stone axes.

Throughout the exercise, the ax itself remains unchanged. But many aspects of its relationship to the outside world have changed. Utility wise, when it was first crafted and used, it represented the best technology, only to become an obsolete relic in the world of steel axes. But its rarity a million years later, not its manufacture, turns it into a commodity. But was it manufactured with the intent of being a product for exchange?

And then when it is donated to a university for study, it becomes a commodity of a whole other sort. It ceases to be an object of monetary value and becomes one of scientific value.

It is here you idea of examining any widget in any specifically given point in time becomes problematic. To place any commodity into any economic perspective, one must examine the ax as it moves from point A to point B, and then to point C. Without time, it has no utility at all, but is just a sharp rock on a stick. For the cave man to use it as a tool, he needs time. For the aristocrat to trade it, he needs time. And for a scientist to study it, he needs time.

Outside time, any product has not characteristic at all, let alone at the point of production.

But perhaps your elaboration will fill in the gaps?

[blindpig]

PinkoCommie
09-28-2009, 05:11 PM

I am not entirely sure what you mean by “million year history.” If the form of the ax is irrelevant, then so be it. It’s then nothing more than a widget – a fictional product used to examine economic ideas. But to examine it in a specific point in time is a bit puzzling. I might entertain the consideration of the widgets use, utility, or value from any specific point in time; from the point of its production to the point of its full consumption (when the widget/ax is no longer able to serve any function). But to do so over a million year span? This I am curious to see elaborated.

You only need to bust your train of thought into two shorter trains.

The first sentence refers to the long human history of using an ax before it was ever offered up as a commodity.

Your second and third sentences are fucking great and betray an almost innate grasp of this stuff right outta the gate.

As a commodity at the point of exchange, the ax is not being USED as an ax. It's not exactly a fiction. I think vessel is perhaps a good subsitution. It is the carrier of value, its value in the marketplace.

As for your contemplation of time, that is all very good once the ax has fallen out of the market and resumed its place as a USE VALUE, one that will eventually be consumed as you very rightly note.

He just confused you by making his reference to time without sufficient detail for you to see where he was coming from. Absent that confusion, you are doing Great

edit - its/it's