blindpig
10-07-2009, 10:17 AM
Yeah, keep drifting into the literal.
Ya got all of these values subsumed into the realm of abstract value, their value relative to each other varying according to their various circumstances, but it all comes out in the sauce.
Can't help it I'm a primitive, we're the most obdurate sort of materialist, ya know?
Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
10-07-2009, 12:35 PM
...you are onto one of the most fundamental driving forces of capitalism itself. You have, admittedly in germinal form, tripped across the the reason why capitalism immediately unleashes "the productive forces slumbering" under the surface of human society, and puts to shame all Egyptian pyramids... how capitalism not only builds Coliseums but actually several in each small town, and this, not as its greatest creations, but as incidentals. You have also explained why no matter how many times they bury Marx, they can't keep him dead. Let's consider the problem more closely.
Remember that when we derived abstract human labor, we abstracted away from the concrete, specific labor which creates products or use-values. But, we also abstracted away from the specific characteristics, productivity and intensity of the individual worker. What we are left with is a social average... the value which congeals in each individual commodity is an average of the amount of labor which congeals in all of the commodities produced of that type - labor of average duration and intensity - regardless of the individual circumstances surrounding the production of a single commodity. Now, think about your two examples in light of this, starting with the latter...
"new machines have been installed, the product can be produced much faster, or the man leans on the workers harder, deriving the same effect. The value of each unit is reduced because it takes less labor(time) to produce them. Yet the relative value remains the same."
Which is why capitalism constantly revolutionizes production. New machines produce 10 widgets per hour yet the "average" is five widgets. The relative value remains the same because the value of all widgets has not changed. The capitalist is making twice as much and will continue to do so... so long as his increased productivity is not matched by others sufficient to reduce the overall average. Once the new average reflects the new productivity, the process begins anew... or even before. You have just described "competition" and our capitalist is trying to stay "ahead of the game", as they all are. Of course, there are limits to increasing the intensity of labor... but not so in the introduction of machinery.
Now let's consider the other example:
"the boss hasn't allowed for proper maintenance of the machinery, they're running like crud, taking more time to produce the product. There is more labor(value) in the product, yet the relative value remains the same."
Consider a machine shop. It normally produces five widgets per hour... but, the tools and bits are old... or the furnish is not quite right (though cheap)... The tools keep breaking or they require constant resharpening. Instead of producing 5 widgets, the actual average is three. Yet the relative value has not changed. Our capitalist is failing... Why did he do this? Perhaps he was not competitive enough to replenish his capital. Perhaps other sectors offering greater return seduced his capital. It makes no difference. His belt is rusting.
What is true of the individual capitalist can also be true of national capital. Perhaps cannibalization is sustained by tariffs, or monopoly pricing... for a time. But the underlying engine is inexorable. Sooner or later...
We are now a couple of dozen pages into the book but we are already describing, again in germinal form, real life... and that in a way which is rarely understood by even the few. And, we we are only anticipating a little.
They should have burned the proofs of this book...
10-07-2009, 12:35 PM
...you are onto one of the most fundamental driving forces of capitalism itself. You have, admittedly in germinal form, tripped across the the reason why capitalism immediately unleashes "the productive forces slumbering" under the surface of human society, and puts to shame all Egyptian pyramids... how capitalism not only builds Coliseums but actually several in each small town, and this, not as its greatest creations, but as incidentals. You have also explained why no matter how many times they bury Marx, they can't keep him dead. Let's consider the problem more closely.
Remember that when we derived abstract human labor, we abstracted away from the concrete, specific labor which creates products or use-values. But, we also abstracted away from the specific characteristics, productivity and intensity of the individual worker. What we are left with is a social average... the value which congeals in each individual commodity is an average of the amount of labor which congeals in all of the commodities produced of that type - labor of average duration and intensity - regardless of the individual circumstances surrounding the production of a single commodity. Now, think about your two examples in light of this, starting with the latter...
"new machines have been installed, the product can be produced much faster, or the man leans on the workers harder, deriving the same effect. The value of each unit is reduced because it takes less labor(time) to produce them. Yet the relative value remains the same."
Which is why capitalism constantly revolutionizes production. New machines produce 10 widgets per hour yet the "average" is five widgets. The relative value remains the same because the value of all widgets has not changed. The capitalist is making twice as much and will continue to do so... so long as his increased productivity is not matched by others sufficient to reduce the overall average. Once the new average reflects the new productivity, the process begins anew... or even before. You have just described "competition" and our capitalist is trying to stay "ahead of the game", as they all are. Of course, there are limits to increasing the intensity of labor... but not so in the introduction of machinery.
Now let's consider the other example:
"the boss hasn't allowed for proper maintenance of the machinery, they're running like crud, taking more time to produce the product. There is more labor(value) in the product, yet the relative value remains the same."
Consider a machine shop. It normally produces five widgets per hour... but, the tools and bits are old... or the furnish is not quite right (though cheap)... The tools keep breaking or they require constant resharpening. Instead of producing 5 widgets, the actual average is three. Yet the relative value has not changed. Our capitalist is failing... Why did he do this? Perhaps he was not competitive enough to replenish his capital. Perhaps other sectors offering greater return seduced his capital. It makes no difference. His belt is rusting.
What is true of the individual capitalist can also be true of national capital. Perhaps cannibalization is sustained by tariffs, or monopoly pricing... for a time. But the underlying engine is inexorable. Sooner or later...
We are now a couple of dozen pages into the book but we are already describing, again in germinal form, real life... and that in a way which is rarely understood by even the few. And, we we are only anticipating a little.
They should have burned the proofs of this book...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
Dhalgren
10-07-2009, 12:45 PM
absorb this (me especially)? What the pig was describing was actually a portion of the blood-stained arena of capitalist competition...Jesus, it is hideous in its beauty...
You're right, they should have burned the proofs and scattered the ashes...
10-07-2009, 12:45 PM
absorb this (me especially)? What the pig was describing was actually a portion of the blood-stained arena of capitalist competition...Jesus, it is hideous in its beauty...
You're right, they should have burned the proofs and scattered the ashes...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
10-07-2009, 12:52 PM
... but I still gotta say: nope.
Everything Marx writes in Capital and 99.9% of what he writes altogether is about capitalism. The unstated objective of his work is not, "a good political economy" but the elimination of political economy altogether. At a relatively recent stage in human existence, commodities come to exist. Rapidly, they create a human society in which commodity production is the sole organizing principle, with its essential products being class society on the one hand and an increasingly intense struggle, on the other, between the needs of humans and the ever more alien "needs" of their creations. There is nothing to "fix". Commodity production has to go... and with it, those political classes which emanate from it.
"Thus far, Capital has been a logical proof demonstrating that abstract human labor is the only thing that relative value can be an expression of. Since abstract labor can not be understood in anyway that takes into account the specific type or condition of the labor congealed in a commodity, duration is the only available measuring tool. But, this is not a description of functioning political economy, it serves to prove that whenever "commodities encounter each other" relative value (even in time of scarcity) would, in its natural state, be determined by the duration of "labour time".
Exactly the opposite is true. This is precisely a "description of functioning political economy" as it actually exists. There is no "specific type or condition of the labor congealed in a commodity", whatsoever. It is noted only historically.
10-07-2009, 12:52 PM
... but I still gotta say: nope.
Everything Marx writes in Capital and 99.9% of what he writes altogether is about capitalism. The unstated objective of his work is not, "a good political economy" but the elimination of political economy altogether. At a relatively recent stage in human existence, commodities come to exist. Rapidly, they create a human society in which commodity production is the sole organizing principle, with its essential products being class society on the one hand and an increasingly intense struggle, on the other, between the needs of humans and the ever more alien "needs" of their creations. There is nothing to "fix". Commodity production has to go... and with it, those political classes which emanate from it.
"Thus far, Capital has been a logical proof demonstrating that abstract human labor is the only thing that relative value can be an expression of. Since abstract labor can not be understood in anyway that takes into account the specific type or condition of the labor congealed in a commodity, duration is the only available measuring tool. But, this is not a description of functioning political economy, it serves to prove that whenever "commodities encounter each other" relative value (even in time of scarcity) would, in its natural state, be determined by the duration of "labour time".
Exactly the opposite is true. This is precisely a "description of functioning political economy" as it actually exists. There is no "specific type or condition of the labor congealed in a commodity", whatsoever. It is noted only historically.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
Dhalgren
10-07-2009, 01:34 PM
As long as you are there to say, "See how simple this is?" We all say, "Damn, that is easy!" But otherwise I am trying to figure out this freaking construct that looks like one of Escher's bad dreams; and I finally get to an "Aha!" moment and what I have is some arabesque-looking mess that would stun Dali...What IS it that makes this seem so hard when it is actually rather simple? I love this study, but the frustration level can get pretty high, sometimes...
10-07-2009, 01:34 PM
As long as you are there to say, "See how simple this is?" We all say, "Damn, that is easy!" But otherwise I am trying to figure out this freaking construct that looks like one of Escher's bad dreams; and I finally get to an "Aha!" moment and what I have is some arabesque-looking mess that would stun Dali...What IS it that makes this seem so hard when it is actually rather simple? I love this study, but the frustration level can get pretty high, sometimes...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
blindpig
10-07-2009, 03:00 PM
And I thought.....well, ok then.
Mmmm, acorns...truffles...snort.
10-07-2009, 03:00 PM
And I thought.....well, ok then.
Mmmm, acorns...truffles...snort.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
10-07-2009, 03:59 PM
... which is another reason to hate him.
We are exactly half a chapter away from a chapter devoted to, "what IS it that makes this seem so hard when it is actually rather simple." (Section 4. The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof)
10-07-2009, 03:59 PM
... which is another reason to hate him.
We are exactly half a chapter away from a chapter devoted to, "what IS it that makes this seem so hard when it is actually rather simple." (Section 4. The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
10-07-2009, 04:08 PM
You did do all that... And the duality is stunning: each owner of capital is in the position of trying to "beat" the system on whose operation their own survival depends. It is exactly the same as the merchant who works tirelessy to "buy cheap and sell dear", though the merchant could not exist if commodities, on average, did not exchange at their value.
There ain't no greed, human nature, conspiracy or collusion which could get close to this little contradiction which is in the nature of commodities from the outset.
10-07-2009, 04:08 PM
You did do all that... And the duality is stunning: each owner of capital is in the position of trying to "beat" the system on whose operation their own survival depends. It is exactly the same as the merchant who works tirelessy to "buy cheap and sell dear", though the merchant could not exist if commodities, on average, did not exchange at their value.
There ain't no greed, human nature, conspiracy or collusion which could get close to this little contradiction which is in the nature of commodities from the outset.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
Two Americas
10-07-2009, 04:43 PM
It would side-track us right now, but the question is a good one. Why is something so simple and straightforward so difficult for people?
I think people assume that it is difficult going in - "economics is way over my head." (No accident - we have been trained to think that.) People then look for the anticipated complexity and brace themselves for the difficulties, and that becomes a distraction and a barrier, and that itself makes the material seem more complex and difficult than it actually is. But as I said, that discussion is probably best left for later.
10-07-2009, 04:43 PM
It would side-track us right now, but the question is a good one. Why is something so simple and straightforward so difficult for people?
I think people assume that it is difficult going in - "economics is way over my head." (No accident - we have been trained to think that.) People then look for the anticipated complexity and brace themselves for the difficulties, and that becomes a distraction and a barrier, and that itself makes the material seem more complex and difficult than it actually is. But as I said, that discussion is probably best left for later.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
Two Americas
10-07-2009, 05:01 PM
Each sentence is a gem.
"At a relatively recent stage in human existence, commodities come to exist."
"Rapidly, they create a human society in which commodity production is the sole organizing principle, with its essential products being class society on the one hand and an increasingly intense struggle, on the other, between the needs of humans and the ever more alien 'needs' of their creations."
"There is nothing to 'fix.'"
"Commodity production has to go... and with it, those political classes which emanate from it."
Damn.
10-07-2009, 05:01 PM
Each sentence is a gem.
"At a relatively recent stage in human existence, commodities come to exist."
"Rapidly, they create a human society in which commodity production is the sole organizing principle, with its essential products being class society on the one hand and an increasingly intense struggle, on the other, between the needs of humans and the ever more alien 'needs' of their creations."
"There is nothing to 'fix.'"
"Commodity production has to go... and with it, those political classes which emanate from it."
Damn.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."