Is labor a commodity?
No. 1/89.I.2024
1. Introduction
Before us is the brochure by A. G. Tarasov “ Two interpretations of Marx’s formula of value. Labor power is not a commodity " [1].
The task that the author set himself mainly consisted of refuting “Marx’s statement about the exchange of goods according to the law of value between the capitalist and the hired worker.”
The work turned out to be medium-weight, easy to understand, pretending to be a scientifically detailed narrative, demonstrating a certain degree of familiarity of the author with dialectics and “Capital”.
Brochure structure
The author begins by studying the formula for the value of a capitalistically produced commodity w = c + v + m to determine whether the “old” or “new” value is contained in each of the terms. The reader is offered two interpretations of this formula as the only possible ones - v as “old” value or v as “new” value - and an analysis of their differences, followed by criticism of K. Marx for his contradictory synthesis of these interpretations. Based on the results of criticism, A. Tarasov comes to the conclusion that there is no exchange of goods between the capitalist and the hired worker; that they relate to each other through direct, naked exploitation. As the narrative progresses, the author, in separate sections, clarifies the concepts of the necessary product and the necessary cost, as well as “the place of the concept of justice in Marxist political economy.”
Following this, A. Tarasov demonstrates ten “extensions of the idea of labor as a commodity and its inconsistencies with the basic provisions of Marxist economic theory and general scientific truths.” As the narrative progresses, the author clarifies the necessary, from his point of view, relationship between dialectics and formal logic in thinking and points out the logical errors he discovered in the work of K. Marx.
Next, the author examines the mistakes of K. Marx and finds their genesis in dishonesty of research and in a bias towards philosophizing to the detriment of general scientific methodology.
Finally, the author briefly illustrates the conclusions: on several pages he describes a world where exploitation rules the roost without any purchase or sale of labor. Little text is devoted to the similarities and differences between different exploitative formations.
It should be noted that during the course of the narrative, a significant loss of respect for A. Tarasov for the scientific talents of K. Marx, who was “entangled in two pines,” is noticeable.
Abstracts
For this article, we will highlight the theses of A. Tarasov, which became the basis for denying the model of production of surplus value proposed by K. Marx.
First. Labor power is not a product of labor and, therefore, cannot be a commodity.
Second. Even if labor power were a product of labor, it nevertheless does not have the form necessary for a commodity (for example, it is not a separate thing) and, therefore, is not a commodity.
Third. Even if labor power were a commodity, this would not be enough, since there is no movement of “new” and “old” values, characteristic of commodity exchange relations. Consequently, there is no purchase and sale of labor power.
Fourth. Even if the movement of values corresponding to the process of commodity exchange occurred, this would not be enough, since there is no equivalence in the purchase and sale of labor power, which manifests itself in the form of surplus value. Consequently, there is no purchase and sale of labor power.
The principle of parsing a brochure
The author of this article does not set out to analyze absolutely everything that A. Tarasov expressed in his brochure. The volume of such work is a study of each paragraph, citing quotes and retelling the logic of the narrative from Capital, which for a hundred pages of brochure text would require ten times more text of criticism, and this is an excessive investment of time for this work.
Therefore, despite the self-confident tone of the brochure in some places, we will not analyze every moment of K. Marx’s criticism. In the end, it was precisely the four supporting theses shown above that led A. Tarasov to the conclusion that the only possible way of interaction between a worker and the owner of money is a special transaction where the worker’s labor is paid from the realized value of the product, and it is precisely the underpayment of the worker for this transaction is a method of exploitation.
In the second section, we will first of all refute the four theses, thereby rediscovering for A. Tarasov the purchase and sale of labor power as a potential basis for capitalist relationships, no less probable than the “special deal” he proposed. Then, in the third section, we will show the inconsistency of A. Tarasov’s conclusion - his hypothesis about direct exploitation, about the “shameless appropriation of the product of someone else’s labor.”
This should be enough for the author of the brochure to re-read the “Critique of Political Economy” again and figure out for himself: what kind of interaction between the worker and the owner of money is fundamental for the capitalist formation and how the production of surplus value generally works.
To help A. Tarasov and his supporters understand their mistakes, in conclusion we will show that they lie in the area of dialectical thinking, the application of which they are not conscientious enough.
2. Criticism of criticism by A. Tarasov. Labor power is not a commodity. There is no exchange of goods according to the law of value between the capitalist and the hired worker.
2.1. Labor in creating the workforce
Statement of a question
In this thesis, A. Tarasov appeals to the fact that a person’s ability to work is his natural ability and all that is needed for this is exclusively individual consumption, and not production, which does not occur. Well, since labor is not invested in the “production” of a person, then, by the definition of a commodity as a product of labor, labor power cannot be a commodity.
Theory
The work of developing a person as an adequate member of society capable of joint production activities includes not just individual consumption, but also the creation of products for his consumption, as well as the organization of all the necessary infrastructure for the socialization of a person, his training and inclusion in labor activity. Thus, the formation of a person in general and his labor force in particular is to a lesser extent the work of himself and, to a large extent, the work of many generations of the entire society.
There is no need to calculate the full costs of “producing” a person in this work. In the process of commodity production, when using the concept of variable capital, we mean only those costs that are necessary in the period of time used for commodity production. These are the costs that are required to restore the ability to work. These are the ones we will refer to in further research.
2.2. Commodity form of labor
Statement of a question
A. Tarasov is not the first author [2] who takes the initial definition of a commodity from the first chapter of the first section of the first volume of Capital, given for an “external object, thing,” and correlates it with the fact that labor power is not a separate thing, but only a human ability, inseparable from himself. And since labor power cannot be alienated from the owner, while any thing-commodity must have such an opportunity, then the statement “labor power is a commodity” contains a formal logical contradiction.
Theory
The essence of a product is not that it is an external thing. At a certain level of development of society, in connection with the emergence of private property relations, the movement of factors of production takes on the form of exchange, and so a commodity arises - a form of social relations regarding exchange.
What makes exchange possible other than the dominance of private property? Firstly, the object must be in demand for exchange, that is, it must be absolutely useful. Second, objects must be comparable on some basis. If we consider exchange as a whole, billions and billions of acts of exchange in different eras, then such a basis can only be the labor invested in their creation, which manifests itself through the average, socially necessary labor time.
Separately, it should be noted that the monetary form of goods that appeared over time made it possible, on this value basis, to measure objects that were not created by labor and were not originally goods, but nevertheless became goods.
Third, the object, whether it is a product of labor or not, must be intended for exchange and not for personal consumption.
Fourthly, exchange presupposes permanent (for example, for money during purchase) or temporary (for example, for the provision of services) mutual alienation of the exchanged objects.
How is the development of the concept of the commodity explored in Capital?
K. Marx actually writes that “a commodity is, first of all, an external object, a thing that, thanks to its properties, satisfies some human needs.” Here the expression “first of all” signals a further development of the concept, which is easy to trace in the subsequent narrative. First, the commodity is shown as a useful thing, then as value and exchange value. Next, the forms of value in development are examined: the monetary form is identified, opposed as exchange value to other goods as use values. Already in the third chapter, when considering money as a measure of value and when studying price, K. Marx discovers that thanks to price, not only material things can be carriers of the commodity form, as was seen at the beginning of the study, but also intangible ones (for example, conscience, honor ) and that the price of things without value can hide the value relationship.
Consequently, when considering commodity exchange relations, attention should be paid to the commodity form, and not to the materiality of the product. For the labor force, the following statements will be true.
Firstly, since there are no restrictions on the commodity form in the form of obligatory materiality, then the property can acquire a commodity form, which means that labor power can be a commodity.
Secondly, nothing can prevent the owner of something from selling the property of that something. If a buyer needs to cook rice, then the owner of a multicooker with many functions (operating properties), including the rice-cooking function, will have several ways to sell this property.
Thirdly, one’s own living property (labor power, honor, conscience) can be sold by the owner because he has the will, unlike a slow cooker or other dead thing. No one can stop him from selling all of himself.
Fourthly, it cannot be denied that the living property is in the human body and cannot be separated from it. We can say that with the purchase of one working day of labor power, the entire worker becomes a commodity body belonging to the capitalist, but only for the duration of one working day.
2.3. Movement of values during commodity exchange
Statement of a question
Since labor power is not a commodity, when calculating the value of a product, variable capital is not the old value, but the new one and, therefore, there is no purchase and sale between the capitalist and the worker. How did A. Tarasov manage to reach such formulations and conclusions?
A. Tarasov’s main tool is the distinction between the time of origin of value in relation to the time of the production process: the opposition of old value, as embodied past labor, which can be bought before the start of production, and new value, as “created by the new labor of a hired worker, the labor of transforming initial goods into a new product of greater value." According to A. Tarasov, the cost of a product must be made up of parts that are strictly related to either the old value or the new one. He finds such an attribution in K. Marx only partially: constant capital 'c' is the old value, surplus value 'm' is the new value, but variable capital 'v' does not fit into this scheme. A. Tarasov resolves the struggle between the logic of K. Marx and the logic of his scheme in favor of the latter and begins attempts to rediscover the truth in matters of the essence of exploitation. At this stage we will take his word for it, but we will check the resulting conclusions.
First of all, the author of the brochure examines variable capital 'v' strictly as old value, that is, he relates it, together with constant capital 'c', to the costs of capital for the purchase of products of past labor - means of production and labor power. A. Tarasov needs such an interpretation for two purposes. First, to refute this hypothesis: the author shows that even if the process of buying and selling can theoretically occur, in reality it does not occur, since labor power is not a commodity . He proves the latter (and we refute it) separately. Secondly, to gather arguments to fight against the logic of K. Marx. Thus, A. Tarasov comes to the idea that since the cost of costs, according to the formula for the value of the product w = c + v + m, must be transferred to the cost of the product, then under these conditions a hired worker during the working day produces only surplus value 'm' and that not dividing working time into necessary and surplus, there is no necessary and surplus product.
Having “broken” the logic of K. Marx and one of two possible interpretations of his scheme, A. Tarasov moves on to the only remaining option. Having defined variable capital 'v' as a new value, he attributes only constant capital 'c' to the cost of capital, which leads him to the idea that “there is a subsequent exchange of the necessary product for wages, and not a previous exchange of labor power for wages (purchase of labor power )… The worker’s wages are thus a share in the value of the produced goods: it is the worker who, through his labor, makes a contribution ‘v’ to the value of the goods and then receives this share in the form of wages.”
Thus, A. Tarasov comes to his final truth: the process of commodity exchange itself between the capitalist and the hired worker does not occur , regardless of whether labor is a commodity or not. In a more detailed form, this statement may sound like this: if something participating in the production process does not add its value to the final product of labor, then it is paid from the money from the sale of this product, and not through advanced capital. Or, as applied to labor power, this: since not the value of labor power (“old” value) is added to the product, but the value arising as a result of labor (“new” value), then labor power is not purchased by the capitalist, but is paid with a share in the cost of the goods produced.
In reality, the production process is structured somewhat differently and both options have the right to exist: standard hiring, which involves paying labor from variable capital, and an equivalent transaction based on the distribution of the realized value of the created product between the owner of the money and the worker in proportion to the contribution of each (the owner of the money invested constant capital, and the worker his labor). This means that the process of commodity exchange between a capitalist and a hired worker is fundamentally possible, which knocks one of his supports out from under A. Tarasov’s feet.
Here's how it works.
Theory
The advanced variable capital does not actually add its value to the product. The produced product actually includes only new value created by labor. Nevertheless, the process of purchasing labor power can occur according to the logic of the production process.
Of course, in the general case, the capitalist has no obstacles at all to purchasing anything that he considers important in the process of production. If he decides that in the steel process he needs a piper to motivate the steelworkers, then capital will be advanced into the musician. There is nothing stopping us from investing in the steelmakers themselves. However, you still need a solid reason for such an investment: a connection between the advance and the product produced. And not just a connection: A. Tarasov himself can easily find it for us and fit it into the framework of his scheme, but the same strong connection as in the case of constant capital 'c', which he has no doubt about. Understanding the structure of the production process and the movement of values will help us find such a reason.
First of all, we will unfold a visual scene showing the structure of the production process.
antitarasov_v2_IMAGE1
The condition for the existence of human society is the interaction of man with nature - the process of purposeful labor activity. The process of producing products useful for life is a combination of natural substances, human labor and products produced previously. The process of reproduction of society is the production of members of this society through a) their use of natural substances and useful products produced by other members of society and b) useful interaction with other members of society: education, joint labor activity, etc. Both processes are sides of one developing life process humanity.
Let's pause this movement and take a picture.
antitarasov_v2_IMAGE2
Let's use the example of K. Marx with the production of yarn (product 3) by a weaver (worker 2) from cotton (product 2), which in turn was created by a peasant (worker 1) from a substance of nature (cotton). Our task is to consider, using this example, the process of transformation of living labor. Why exactly will he provide the key to understanding issues related to the relationship between the capitalist and the worker? The fact is that the author of the brochure raises the question of exploitation under capitalist relations, and they are based on the concept of value, which is associated primarily with living labor.
What is cost?
It is easy to understand a man-made thing with useful, physically tangible qualities. Such things are the result of society's ongoing interaction with nature. It is more difficult to understand the intricacies of human relationships that occur through the use of things. In different historical conditions, such interactions take different forms, “imprinted” on things in the form of intangible, virtual qualities. Examples of such qualities can be the association of a thing with loved ones (pendant), geography of production, symbolism (flag) and, of course, the understanding that human labor has been invested in a thing (and this can be assessed in different ways: for example, you can distinguish between whose labor is invested - the labor of strangers or the labor of one’s own family).
In capitalist relations, and precisely in them, a thing, in addition to its physically tangible usefulness, requires such a quality as the ability to exchange for any other thing. What all produced things have in common is that they are products of labor. Thus, value is a form of relations regarding the exchange of things that acquire the quality of exchangeability through the distinction of the socially necessary labor expended on their (things) creation. The presence of this quality makes it possible to determine the quantitative manifestation of value - the proportion of exchange; the proportion in which one thing is expressed in another. Further we will use the word “value” as a quantitative component of the exchange value of a product.
Now let's return to the scheme of production of product 3 (yarn) for subsequent exchange and examine the process of transformation of living labor to determine costs at all stages of the process.
To create a new product, a combination of three elements of production is required : a worker, natural substances and products of past labor. By products of labor we mean objects of labor (raw material, i.e. processed) and means of labor (all material conditions, including tools, machines, units, land, work buildings). Substances of nature are important in matters of the consumer side of the matter, but they have no bearing on relations of value, since living labor is not spent on them.
The remaining elements are qualitatively different for the production process: they perform different production functions and have different qualities used in the production process.
From the point of view of production functions, the products of past labor are objects of labor that are reincarnated in a new product, and a person is the subject of labor who performs this reincarnation.
Such functions are performed due to special qualities that are important for the production process. The product of past labor can retain an unchanged form until its physical body is used to create a new product, to join it. Thus, the cotton is almost completely transferred to the yarn, and the spindle, as an inanimate intermediary between man, cotton and yarn, although it does not merge with the yarn, is physically worn out. A person is a subject who combines everything necessary in the process of rational creative activity. The frozen products of past labor and the substances of nature cannot unite themselves; here the most important quality is required - the ability to work, the ability to consciously transform the substances of nature. Man does not physically attach himself to the new product and is not an intermediary between cotton and yarn; he realizes his ability to work and carries out living labor.
In the production of a new product, all elements of production play a role, which means that each element will influence its cost in one way or another. The way in which value relations manifest themselves, that is, the way in which an element of production influences the cost of a new product, is determined by the quality of this element: the products of past labor influence in one way, and labor in another.
Consider the product of past labor. Let’s say a peasant worked 12 hours in cotton production and produced cotton worth 4 rubles. The frozen physical form of a product guarantees the invariability of the amount of living labor invested in its creation. Thanks to precisely this form, in our example, the living labor of a peasant, expended in the amount of 12 hours and creating value for 4 rubles, can be distinguished in the produced cotton in the same amount of 4 rubles, which means that the value of cotton is invariably equal to 4 rubles. When the cotton is used by the weaver in the production of yarn, its value will become in the same quantity, equal to 4 rubles, part of the cost of the yarn. However, in the formula for calculating the cost of yarn, which is made up of the cost of cotton and the value produced by the weaver, simply adding the value of the cotton component implies the entire previous path that the living labor of the peasant has gone through: 1) creation of value - the “expiration” of living labor from the peasant in value equivalent 4 rub., 2) “materialization” of it in cotton - “dissolution” of living labor and “materialization” in the form of the value of cotton, 3) “transfer” of the value of cotton to yarn - “destruction” of cotton at the moment of spinning and “expiration” of materialized material from it peasant labor and the “attachment” of the value of cotton to yarn. Thus, having gone all this way, the “new” cost of cotton, transferred to the cost of yarn, is quantitatively equal to the “old” cost of cotton production, corresponding to the amount of labor invested by the peasant in its creation. It is this value relationship, that is, the simple quantitative equality between the “new” and “old” costs of cotton, that is determined by the quality of this particular element of production.
This ratio will be determined differently for the worker. Unlike any inanimate produced product of labor, which always belongs to the owner of production, human labor power, that is, the ability to work, belongs not to the society that produced it, but to the person himself. Man is free to use his labor power in order to work and produce new value, and the relationship between this “new” living labor of man and the “old” living labor of society to “produce” this man is expressed as follows. These two living labors, firstly, are strictly interrelated : labor is a function of labor power (just as the operations of a machine are functions of the machine itself) and without the “old” there will be no “new”. The production element “labor power” is both a source of new value (as abstract labor) and a subject that adds the cost of cotton to the cost of yarn (as weaving labor, labor of a specific quality). Secondly, they are qualitatively different: the “old” one produces a person, and the “new” one produces a product, which means we cannot talk about transferring the value of the “old” labor to the product. Thirdly, following the qualitative differences, their quantitative values, cost equivalents, will differ. The value of labor power is not carried over to the value of the new product, and we cannot expect the simple quantitative equality which we saw in the case of the product of past labor.
We can show the above relationship using the example of the process of determining the cost of yarn, which can now be considered at several levels. First, the value of the yarn is the sum of the added value of the cotton and the new value created by the weaver. Secondly, if we discard the intermediary in the form of cotton from the exchange process (let’s imagine a full-cycle factory where yarn and all its elements are created - cotton, spindle, etc.), the cost of yarn is the sum of the value equivalent of the weaver’s living labor spent on creating yarn and the value equivalent of the peasant's living labor expended on the production of cotton. And finally, thirdly, yarn is a combination of various forms of living labor of society that appeared in the production process, and the labor forces of the weaver and peasant in the process of carrying out their functions (labor) are the source of new value in yarn.
Now we just have to look at the connection of the considered elements. The owner of production and its results is forced to take into account that a condition for the process of manufacturing a new product is the presence of all necessary production elements. The value that the capitalist will receive in yarn will consist of the “new” value added by the abstract labor of the weaver, and the “old” value added by quality weaving labor. The cotton will “destroy”, and the cost of its creation is 4 rubles. (which is equal to the value equivalent of the “materialized” labor of the peasant) the weaver will “add” an equal amount of yarn worth 4 rubles. The value equivalent of a weaver's living labor in money is not equal to the value he produced. Suppose the capitalist paid a salary of 5 rubles, while the weaver produced a value equal to 9 rubles during his 12-hour working day. The source of these 9 rubles. is a working weaver, whose labor power was bought by the capitalist at the price of “production” of this labor power equal to 5 rubles. The capitalist's joy is caused by the fact that these produced values (9 rubles) are higher than the cost of reproduction of the weaver's labor force (5 rubles).
Ultimately, there is no obstacle that would prevent the capitalist from acquiring cotton or weaver's labor: both elements are acquired at the cost of the "previous stage of production." It is thanks to this interconnected arrangement of the production process that the purchase of any of the elements of production becomes possible: if we can buy cotton, then we can also buy the weaver's labor power.
Errors in A. Tarasov’s interpretations
In the first interpretation, A. Tarasov examines variable capital 'v' strictly as old value, that is, he relates it, together with constant capital 'c', to the costs of capital for the purchase of products of past labor - means of production and labor. In our example, to produce yarn, the capitalist buys cotton at a cost of 4 rubles. and weaver's labor at a cost of 5 rubles. and adds exactly the same amount to the cost of the yarn. Thus, the cost of yarn consists of the cost of cotton 4 rubles, which as “old” is equal to the value produced by the labor of the peasant, and the weaver’s labor force equivalent to the cost of 5 rubles, which should simply be equal to (and not be a special function of) the cost , spent by society on the reproduction of the weaver's labor power. In this interpretation, A. Tarasov’s scheme does not miss the quantitative definition of the “old” value in the cost of cotton (with a qualitative misunderstanding of the production process), but completely collapses in the issue of purchasing labor. The error of this interpretation lies not only in the formula “labor power is not a commodity” and not only in the formula “the worker spends all his time creating surplus value m.” The main mistake is that labor power is taken with the quality of another element of production - the dead product of past labor. A. Tarasov bought cotton and weaver at the cost of their production and folded these values into yarn; thereby he used the weaver as an object and added to the cotton not the living labor of the weaver, but his body. In addition to this, A. Tarasov lost another worker - a subject for this unnatural production process.
In the second interpretation, A. Tarasov defines variable capital 'v' as a new value, and this means for him that there is not a purchase of labor power, but “the subsequent exchange of the necessary product for wages.” In this logic, since the capitalist cannot buy the weaver’s labor power at the cost of the weaver’s “production,” then the purchasing process cannot occur at all. And the point, it turns out, is not the very fact that all the value produced by the weaver is new, but that the old value of the weaver’s “production” is not transferred to the yarn in the same way as it happens with cotton. That is, for A. Tarasov, it is important in the process of purchase and sale to see the connection between the old value purchased by the capitalist and its embodiment in the new product. He finds such a connection between the cost of cotton and yarn, but not between the cost of labor and yarn. However, the fact that the value of labor power is not transferred to the value of the product of labor only means that when buying the labor time of a living person, the capitalist knows that his labor will produce more value than was expended. And “labor power” does not at all prove the absence of purchase and sale of goods. The problem is a misunderstanding of equivalence in exchange.
2.4. Equivalence in commodity exchange
Statement of a question
By exchange, A. Tarasov understands the exchange of equal for equal, and the appearance of surplus value for him is evidence of the absence of exchange.
Theory
The general model of the mechanism and process of commodity exchange really implies that two independent commodity producers exchange labor products of equal value. However, the description of the model is only the beginning of the study; the next step requires studying the work of the model in real conditions, in motion, at the level of the entire society; requires an explanation for the transformation of apparent initial equality into inequality.
At this stage, it will help us to understand how quantitative equivalence manifests itself and how ownership changes.
Quantitative equivalence in market conditions ceases to be a condition for the exchange of goods, because there cannot be mechanical equality where elements prevail. Due to its spontaneity and the subjective nature of market equivalence, the law of value manifests itself only in the end, breaking through systematic violations of equivalence in the real market, collapsing like a “ceiling on the heads” of the majority with outbreaks of “showdowns,” hyperinflation, economic crises and world wars. The fact that unequal exchange is the law of any market is shown in an accessible, detailed form by V. A. Podguzov [3][4].
For the commodity “labor power”, not only quantitative equivalence plays a role, but also the evolution of property rights.
Section 7 of the first volume of Capital begins with a study of property rights, with a model implying the equivalence of exchange. When considering an individual transaction between the owner of money and the owner of labor, K. Marx comes to the conclusion that the appropriation of surplus value itself is not deception. At the level of capitalist-worker relations, quantitative equivalence remains: the worker has received the value of his commodity, and surplus value is derived from the consumption of this commodity. The following analogy is appropriate here: if they sell a lamp with a genie and I paid the price for it, then my use of the magic of the genie is my business and does not break the deal.
At the next stage of the study, K. Marx reveals the secret of the transformation from equal relations between seller and buyer into self-perpetuating relations between master capitalist and subordinate worker, even while maintaining the appearance of an equivalent exchange in each specific transaction (and even with the theoretical compensation by the capitalist of the full price of labor power, which, of course, , does not occur under market conditions).
To reveal this metamorphosis, K. Marx considers capitalist production in a continuous stream of its renewal and, instead of an individual capitalist and an individual worker, takes their totality: the class of capitalists and the class of workers. In the general flow of production, the entire initially advanced capital generally becomes an infinitesimal value in comparison with the directly accumulated capital, that is, with the capital increased due to the surplus value poured into it.
Theoretically, at first, property rights were based on labor: a person alienates the product he produces. The capitalist advanced into the labor force the means that were obtained by his labor, and the worker alienated the labor power “produced” by labor. At the first stage, the purchase and sale transaction of labor power is voluntary, and its conditions are such that the product produced by the worker and all newly created value, including surplus, belongs to the buyer.
The change occurs not when the capitalist gets his gin in the form of surplus value, but when he advances surplus value into the reproduction of capital. At this point the deal changed: the capitalist invests funds that were not obtained by his labor; it uses the surplus value created by the labor of the worker. The quantitative equivalence of each individual transaction may even be preserved, but the entire model of exchange and the role of the participants in it has undergone a qualitative change, because the capitalist is no longer paying with his own money; he buys labor power with the money accumulated from the use of unpaid labor.
Now it works like this: part of the capital exchanged for labor power, firstly, is itself only part of the product of someone else's labor, appropriated without an equivalent; secondly, it must not only be compensated for by the workers who created it, but compensated with a new surplus. The content is that the capitalist again and again exchanges part of the already embodied labor of others, constantly appropriated by him without an equivalent, for a larger amount of living labor of others. From this moment on, property is separated from labor.
At the same time, it is important to understand that regardless of how the quantitative equivalence manifested itself and how the right of ownership changed in real conditions, the exchange did not cease to be an exchange; it only changed its quality in relation to the initially considered model.
3. Criticism of A. Tarasov’s conclusions. Non-economic exploitation
What is expected from a conscientious author after he has made the first denial and, as it seems to him, has convincingly defeated K. Marx? Of course, I would like to see the second negation - a true (in the author’s opinion), comprehensively examined picture of social capitalist relations.
Let us recall that only in the first volume of Capital did K. Marx show the reasons why capitalism became widespread and began to form the qualitative structure of society, its “physiognomy”. To do this, he based his reasoning on the categorical basis - those atoms and molecules from which further calculations are built: use value, exchange value, goods, the dual nature of labor, money, etc. Further, K. Marx developed a fascinating picture of the transformation of commodity exchange between hired by the worker and the capitalist into exploitation, into the alienation of the product, into the command of unpaid labor and into the concealment of exploitation through a transformed form of the value of labor power - wages. The next step in the narrative was the study of the mechanism of exploitation - capital, that is, money invested in the means and processes of exploitation. Here the reader first sees the genesis of capital, its initial accumulation, which arose thanks to the expropriation of direct producers, that is, the destruction of private property based on one’s own labor. The elements of the exploitation mechanism are shown further in the form of methods of struggle between capital and labor during the use of labor power - first through lengthening the working day, then through reducing the part of capital that is spent on labor power, through the modernization of the means of production and increasing the productive power of labor within strict limits , determined by the rate of profit (the labor that it costs to produce machines must be less than the labor that is replaced by their use). In the end, K. Marx shows the operation of the mechanism of exploitation in motion - the accumulation of capital, that is, the transformation of surplus value into capital, and the reproduction of the conditions of capitalist production, which is possible only in an endless cycle of accumulation.
What does A. Tarasov offer in return? To begin with, he defines the hiring of a proletarian by a capitalist as an agreement between partners in the production process, within the framework of which the hirer undertakes to give part of the value he creates to the capitalist. He then defines exploitation as a relationship between robber and robbed, in which the capitalist forces the worker to give up as much of the value he has created as possible. The essence of exploitation under any method of production for A. Tarasov is that the exploited worker creates the necessary product for his own feeding and a surplus for his exploiter. However, unlike pre-capitalist formations, under capitalism the boundary between necessary and surplus product is masked, and non-economic coercion is replaced by economic coercion, that is, the conditions of private ownership of the means of production, protected by bourgeois law, and the social nature of production with an extremely high level of division of labor.
These considerations are given only on the final few pages of the brochure. A. Tarasov does not provide any building blocks or descriptions of the mechanisms, reasons and conditions for this state of affairs, which actually negates the possibility of criticizing his picture of the world. He does this deliberately: “The capitalist, just like the slave owner did, shamelessly appropriates the product of someone else’s labor; and in order to understand and describe this, there is no need to invent the sale of labor power, just as this idea was not needed to understand and describe the relations between the slave owner and the slave, the feudal lord and the serf.”
Expanded reproduction of capitalist relations, displacing competition, centralization of capital - all these aspects of the development of the economic basis were scrupulously explained by K. Marx. This is what allows him to reveal the causes of phenomena and propose effective methods of struggle.
And what does A. Tarasov give in return? We can only speculate. In a scheme with direct exploitation and exchange only on conditions of equivalence, it is easy to assume that the concept of value is not needed at all for reasoning, and also that direct exploitation can be limited to some reasonable level of “appropriation of the product of someone else’s labor,” which means that the development of capitalism can stay. However, the ongoing centralization of capital cannot be ignored, which means it will have to be explained at least somehow: for example, by the increase in the greed of capitalists. And not only capitalists: since A. Tarasov has no fundamental difference between the motives of exploitation under different formations, then there is nothing else left but to refer to some “natural” property of a person in the field of domination over his fellow man. This is exactly how the lack of research into phenomena in motion, anti-historicism, reduces A. Tarasov’s reasoning to banal anti-scientific biologization, and relegates his hypothesis about the structure of capitalist relations to the category of speculation.
In addition, we will say that, having left the path of knowing the truth, a researcher cannot, sooner or later, not descend into idealism and anti-scientific conclusions. If the negative pole for A. Tarasov is exploitation, explained through biologization or other similar metaphysics, then at the positive pole, the pole of the fight against exploitation, he turns to the categorical imperative of I. Kant. In a separate note on justice, A. Tarasov reveals his idea of “general scientific methodology”: he refuses to study society in development, refuses to recognize the class nature of morality. Instead, he postulates an absolute, universal rule, the “rule of reciprocity,” governing human relationships. It should follow from this that the law of value must have a normative basis, and goods must be exchanged at value, on the basis of equality. Apparently, the introduction of this rule is the main goal of A. Tarasov’s struggle.
4. Conclusion
If A. Tarasov is not subject to excessive vanity, he should approach this section with the awareness that his conclusions about direct exploitation turned out to be false and that he now needs to re-read the “Critique of Political Economy” and consider the purchase and sale of labor power as the main type of interaction between proletarian and capitalist.
In addition, A. Tarasov should pay close attention to the dialectical method of thinking [5]. There is no doubt that the hygiene of basic storytelling logic must be maintained. Only a person who has not mastered the concept of value in its entirety, in motion and with all interrelations, and therefore resorts to formal logic, can call the statements “between the capitalist and the hired worker the relation of commodity exchange according to the law of value” and “between the capitalist and the hired worker the relation of exploitation” contradictory. to demonstrate logical problems that do not actually exist. Errors in dialectical logic when trying to propose a solution to social problems will invariably lead the author into idealism and an opportunistic swamp. It’s good that A. Tarasov decided that exploitation still occurs, that it is a negative phenomenon and that it is necessary to fight it. Another author [2], having made the same mistake in defining a product as A. Tarasov, came to the conclusion that private property is a condition for the existence of a communist society.
What mistakes were made in specific theses?
First. “Labor power is not a product of labor and therefore cannot be a commodity.”
The relationship between the individual and the general, between man and society has been lost.
Second. “Even if labor power were a product of labor, it nevertheless does not have the form necessary for a commodity (it is not a separate thing) and, therefore, is not a commodity.”
Firstly, the essence of the concept of “product” has been lost; it has not been studied in development. Secondly, the forms of matter - living and dead, their characteristics and the function of each in the process of value production are not distinguished.
Third. “Even if labor power were a commodity, this would not be enough, since there is no movement of values (“new” and “old”) characteristic of exchange. Consequently, there is no purchase and sale of labor power.”
The movement of living labor in the process of producing a product is lost, which means that the relationships in this process are broken, which is why the author retreats into formal schematism, which prevents him from discovering the truth.
Fourth. “Even if the movement of values corresponding to the exchange process occurred, it would not be enough, since there is no equivalence in the purchase and sale of labor power, which manifests itself in the presence of surplus value. Consequently, there is no purchase and sale of labor power.”
Here we see extreme formalism and superficiality in the reasoning: the author stopped at the initial model, at the level of exchange between individual producers, because of which he did not understand the essence of the law of value in a capitalist society and did not see the movement - the transformation of apparent initial equality in exchange into inequality.
Ya. Dubov
01/30/2024
1.Tarasov A. G. Two interpretations of Marx’s formula of value. Labor power is not a commodity . // 1.1) Tarasov A. VK page .
2.Yuferov S. Labor force analysis .
3.Breakthrough. Podguzov V. A. How to become a convinced supporter of “Breakthrough”?
4.Breakthrough. Podguzov V. A. Personality and the market .
5.Breakthrough. Ivanov A. On formal logic and metaphysics .
https://prorivists.org/89_antitarasov/
Google Translator