brother cakes
09-01-2009, 03:18 PM
"In all societies in which there is a division of labour, there is a social surplus; what is different about bourgeois society is that surplus value takes the form of capital, and surplus value is in fact the essence of production in capitalism.– Only productive work, i.e., work which creates surplus value, is supported. All “unproductive labour” is eliminated."
This is only ideally the case, isn't it though? Yet a majority of the workforce is employed in unproductive labor. And in the past fifteen or twenty years there have been endless defenses of the new, dynamic knowledge economies, wind-dumpling economies, service economies, whatever you want to call them.
Bourgeois society reproduces in its own form everything against which it had fought in feudal or absolutist form. In the first place therefore it becomes a principal task for the sycophants of this society, and especially of the upper classes, to restore in theoretical terms even the purely parasitic section of these “unproductive labourers”, or to justify the exaggerated claims of the section which is indispensable.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... e/ch04.htm
What is Value?
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-01-2009, 03:44 PM
It does not refer to labor which does not produce "things", let alone "useless things". Unproductive labor is simply labor that does not produce commodities, and therefore does not contribute to surplus value (he is speaking from the standpoint of the capitalist). Examples of this are the costs associated with production but not directly contributing to it, such as accountants, security guards, vice presidents of personnel, and so on. Obviously, part of government infrastructure also qualifies (thus the complaints against "big government").
Most of the "service sector" certainly produces commodities and is therefore "productive" of surplus value. McDonald's makes hamburgers, H.R. Block prepares Tax Forms and Lawn Services sell mowing. All of these have been converted into enterprises productive of surplus value rather than simple deductions from the revenues of the capitalist.
Consider the whole quote:
In so far as those “unproductive labourers” do not produce entertainment, so that their purchase entirely depends on how the agent of production cares to spend his wages or his profit—in so far on the contrary as they are necessary or make themselves necessary because of physical infirmities (like doctors), or spiritual weakness (like parsons), or because of the conflict between private interests and national interests (like statesmen, all lawyers, police and soldiers)—they are regarded by Adam Smith, as by the industrial capitalists themselves and the working class, as incidental expenses of production, which are therefore to be cut down to the most indispensable minimum and provided as cheaply as possible. Bourgeois society reproduces in its own form everything against which it had fought in feudal or absolutist form. In the first place therefore it becomes a principal task for the sycophants of this society, and especially of the upper classes, to restore in theoretical terms even the purely parasitic section of these “unproductive labourers”, or to justify the exaggerated claims of the section which is indispensable. The dependence of the ideological, etc., classes on the capitalists was in fact proclaimed.
Of course, the position of the physician changes when he or she is employed by a health care combine selling "health service" commodities...
09-01-2009, 03:44 PM
It does not refer to labor which does not produce "things", let alone "useless things". Unproductive labor is simply labor that does not produce commodities, and therefore does not contribute to surplus value (he is speaking from the standpoint of the capitalist). Examples of this are the costs associated with production but not directly contributing to it, such as accountants, security guards, vice presidents of personnel, and so on. Obviously, part of government infrastructure also qualifies (thus the complaints against "big government").
Most of the "service sector" certainly produces commodities and is therefore "productive" of surplus value. McDonald's makes hamburgers, H.R. Block prepares Tax Forms and Lawn Services sell mowing. All of these have been converted into enterprises productive of surplus value rather than simple deductions from the revenues of the capitalist.
Consider the whole quote:
In so far as those “unproductive labourers” do not produce entertainment, so that their purchase entirely depends on how the agent of production cares to spend his wages or his profit—in so far on the contrary as they are necessary or make themselves necessary because of physical infirmities (like doctors), or spiritual weakness (like parsons), or because of the conflict between private interests and national interests (like statesmen, all lawyers, police and soldiers)—they are regarded by Adam Smith, as by the industrial capitalists themselves and the working class, as incidental expenses of production, which are therefore to be cut down to the most indispensable minimum and provided as cheaply as possible. Bourgeois society reproduces in its own form everything against which it had fought in feudal or absolutist form. In the first place therefore it becomes a principal task for the sycophants of this society, and especially of the upper classes, to restore in theoretical terms even the purely parasitic section of these “unproductive labourers”, or to justify the exaggerated claims of the section which is indispensable. The dependence of the ideological, etc., classes on the capitalists was in fact proclaimed.
Of course, the position of the physician changes when he or she is employed by a health care combine selling "health service" commodities...
Re: What is Value?
meganmonkey
09-01-2009, 03:57 PM
In the quote, productive labor is that which results in surplus value. Whether or not there is anything 'productive' or 'valuable' about it in the way we commonly use those words is not what this is about.
I don't see the 'service economy' as producing anything of value directly to me, or to any other member of the working class. However, as long as it does play a role in creating surplus value (ie profit, but not exactly as elucidated in another post or three), it is 'productive' in the context of this quote.
It is not ideally the case, it is inevitably the case, because the whole economy runs on the creation of this surplus value, this abstract money that can be traded as a commodity itself.
In another 15 or 20 years will this 'service economy' exist as productive labor? I don't know, it looks to me like it may be outliving it's usefulness to those interested in making profit, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, it will be eliminated if/when it fails to deliver the 'goods' (which, oddly, are rarely tangible or useful goods).
I think you are misreading the context of that quote.
Welcome to PI btw!
I'm learning a lot on this thread. I hope I make some sense here. I may have misread you. Or the quote itself for that matter.
09-01-2009, 03:57 PM
In the quote, productive labor is that which results in surplus value. Whether or not there is anything 'productive' or 'valuable' about it in the way we commonly use those words is not what this is about.
I don't see the 'service economy' as producing anything of value directly to me, or to any other member of the working class. However, as long as it does play a role in creating surplus value (ie profit, but not exactly as elucidated in another post or three), it is 'productive' in the context of this quote.
It is not ideally the case, it is inevitably the case, because the whole economy runs on the creation of this surplus value, this abstract money that can be traded as a commodity itself.
In another 15 or 20 years will this 'service economy' exist as productive labor? I don't know, it looks to me like it may be outliving it's usefulness to those interested in making profit, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, it will be eliminated if/when it fails to deliver the 'goods' (which, oddly, are rarely tangible or useful goods).
I think you are misreading the context of that quote.
Welcome to PI btw!
I'm learning a lot on this thread. I hope I make some sense here. I may have misread you. Or the quote itself for that matter.
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-01-2009, 05:22 PM
You are now one of exactly 12 people in the entire United States who can formulate ANY reasonable answer based on Marx's Capital. Congratulations.
I know 7 out of the other 11 and I suspect that one of the remaining four lives in Des Moines, but I haven't tracked the fucker down yet...
09-01-2009, 05:22 PM
You are now one of exactly 12 people in the entire United States who can formulate ANY reasonable answer based on Marx's Capital. Congratulations.
I know 7 out of the other 11 and I suspect that one of the remaining four lives in Des Moines, but I haven't tracked the fucker down yet...
Re: What is Value?
brother cakes
09-01-2009, 08:30 PM
A commodity—as distinguished from labour-power itself—is a material thing confronting man, a thing of a certain utility for him, in which a definite quantity of labour is fixed or materialised.
So, "uselessness" is out of the question, because every commodity has some usefulness, or else it wouldn't have been made, right?
And Marx seems to have a special disdain for doctors. I don't care for doctors either. *shudders*
09-01-2009, 08:30 PM
A commodity—as distinguished from labour-power itself—is a material thing confronting man, a thing of a certain utility for him, in which a definite quantity of labour is fixed or materialised.
So, "uselessness" is out of the question, because every commodity has some usefulness, or else it wouldn't have been made, right?
And Marx seems to have a special disdain for doctors. I don't care for doctors either. *shudders*
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-01-2009, 09:08 PM
In my volume, this is actually page 46:
1) We have established that commodities must have a use-value but that this use-value is something specific to the individual commodity. There is nothing in its use-value which is common to all commodities. Evidently, the rate at which commodities exchange with each other is not related to their use-value. "...the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value." In fact, in contrast to the concrete specificity of use-values, as exchange-values all use-values are the same: "...one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity."
2) What is this common "something" in all commodities which has nothing to do with their physical properties or their utility and yet, reduces all commodities to a simple equivalance, provided they be present in sufficient quantity? "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."
3) Now we quote extensively for a bit because Marx is on his game: "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."
4) Now comes a very famous paragraph:
"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."
What do we mean by "the residue of each of these products"? We mean that once we have abstracted away the concrete substance of the commodity, all we have left is that each is simply a product of labor. But this is no ordinary labor. It is also a "labor" which has lost its individual character - it is something which all labor of every different type, skill level, and intensity may be reduced down to. Commodities exchange because in addition to their physical properties as use values, each is "a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour" in different quantities. When looked at as "crystals of this social substance" (that is, homogeneous human labour), all commodities are simply values.
5) Now, Marx sums up what he has said:
"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."
We will not normally quote Marx so extensively, but it is worth noting that we have moved forward exactly one page. The above is the Labor Theory of Value in germ form - something which is logically complete but which Marx will develop in detail for the next three volumes.
Again, the span is short and the quotations are extensive because we have gotten to the punch line very early on... if only in rudimentary form.
Is this all clear?
Do you understand what he is saying?
What does he mean by "the same unsubstantial reality", for example?
anaxarchos
09-01-2009, 09:08 PM
In my volume, this is actually page 46:
1) We have established that commodities must have a use-value but that this use-value is something specific to the individual commodity. There is nothing in its use-value which is common to all commodities. Evidently, the rate at which commodities exchange with each other is not related to their use-value. "...the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value." In fact, in contrast to the concrete specificity of use-values, as exchange-values all use-values are the same: "...one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity."
2) What is this common "something" in all commodities which has nothing to do with their physical properties or their utility and yet, reduces all commodities to a simple equivalance, provided they be present in sufficient quantity? "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."
3) Now we quote extensively for a bit because Marx is on his game: "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."
4) Now comes a very famous paragraph:
"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."
What do we mean by "the residue of each of these products"? We mean that once we have abstracted away the concrete substance of the commodity, all we have left is that each is simply a product of labor. But this is no ordinary labor. It is also a "labor" which has lost its individual character - it is something which all labor of every different type, skill level, and intensity may be reduced down to. Commodities exchange because in addition to their physical properties as use values, each is "a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour" in different quantities. When looked at as "crystals of this social substance" (that is, homogeneous human labour), all commodities are simply values.
5) Now, Marx sums up what he has said:
"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."
We will not normally quote Marx so extensively, but it is worth noting that we have moved forward exactly one page. The above is the Labor Theory of Value in germ form - something which is logically complete but which Marx will develop in detail for the next three volumes.
Again, the span is short and the quotations are extensive because we have gotten to the punch line very early on... if only in rudimentary form.
Is this all clear?
Do you understand what he is saying?
What does he mean by "the same unsubstantial reality", for example?
anaxarchos
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-01-2009, 09:14 PM
... about the fact that so many commodities appear so ridiculous. Still, you are precisely right. They must have use-values or utility as a precondition of their entering into exchange. If you look at post #5, above, this exact conversation is in progress.
09-01-2009, 09:14 PM
... about the fact that so many commodities appear so ridiculous. Still, you are precisely right. They must have use-values or utility as a precondition of their entering into exchange. If you look at post #5, above, this exact conversation is in progress.
Re: What is Value?
blindpig
09-02-2009, 05:50 AM
Reading that I kept wanting to say 'money' is the abstracted, homogeneous, crystallized form of labor, and that money is capital. But Marx says 'value' and I know I'm getting ahead of things, mebbe way ahead. How bad is that?
'Unsubstantial reality', labor is invested(probably not the best word) in the commodity, yet is no where to be seen...shit, how do I avoid regurgitating a tautology?
I think I understand but it ain't coming out right, or mebbe I don't and that's why I'm struggling to express myself.
09-02-2009, 05:50 AM
Reading that I kept wanting to say 'money' is the abstracted, homogeneous, crystallized form of labor, and that money is capital. But Marx says 'value' and I know I'm getting ahead of things, mebbe way ahead. How bad is that?
'Unsubstantial reality', labor is invested(probably not the best word) in the commodity, yet is no where to be seen...shit, how do I avoid regurgitating a tautology?
I think I understand but it ain't coming out right, or mebbe I don't and that's why I'm struggling to express myself.
Re: What is Value?
Dhalgren
09-02-2009, 06:21 AM
with what is being produced, but with whether or not it is profitable to the owner/boss. I may be using "profit" inappropriately, but that is the idea, I think. Labor is "useless" to the capitalist if it is not providing "surplus-value" and has nothing to do with the item ultimately being created...
09-02-2009, 06:21 AM
with what is being produced, but with whether or not it is profitable to the owner/boss. I may be using "profit" inappropriately, but that is the idea, I think. Labor is "useless" to the capitalist if it is not providing "surplus-value" and has nothing to do with the item ultimately being created...
Re: What is Value?
Dhalgren
09-02-2009, 06:36 AM
"The same unsubstantial reality" is the basic, irreducible, attribute of "value" = human labor in the abstract. "Abstract" in that it is seen (used?) as an amalgam entity considered as one thing, apart from the human beings, as a group, who create it.
Is that even close?
09-02-2009, 06:36 AM
"The same unsubstantial reality" is the basic, irreducible, attribute of "value" = human labor in the abstract. "Abstract" in that it is seen (used?) as an amalgam entity considered as one thing, apart from the human beings, as a group, who create it.
Is that even close?