Kid of the Black Hole
09-16-2009, 06:33 AM
and I have one question that is dogging me. I think I will hold off on it for a bit though, because it is better to make sure everyone is comfortable with this.
Is 2a) regarding the division of labor just a procedural point for now?
Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
Dhalgren
09-16-2009, 06:46 AM
Thanks and please continue.
09-16-2009, 06:46 AM
Thanks and please continue.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
blindpig
09-16-2009, 07:54 AM
Musings on #2:
The exchange value of a commodity is the cumulation of the the labor involved, for a bolt of linen the labor of the farmer, the carter and the weaver is all included, in an abstract sense.
There must be exchange otherwise a product of labor only has use value. In primitive society there may be division of labor, perhaps according to sex, age or skill, yet there is no exchange value for all is held in common.
"Ya don't work, ya don't eat."
If I come across a stone in a creek bed very well formed by nature to be used as a hand ax it has use value despite there being no labor input. {but if one expends time specifically looking for such things is that not labor too?)
So far, so good. Curves ahead...
Edit:A tangent: what happens to the exchange value of a commodity when it is resold or is depreciated? What happened to that labor?
09-16-2009, 07:54 AM
Musings on #2:
The exchange value of a commodity is the cumulation of the the labor involved, for a bolt of linen the labor of the farmer, the carter and the weaver is all included, in an abstract sense.
There must be exchange otherwise a product of labor only has use value. In primitive society there may be division of labor, perhaps according to sex, age or skill, yet there is no exchange value for all is held in common.
"Ya don't work, ya don't eat."
If I come across a stone in a creek bed very well formed by nature to be used as a hand ax it has use value despite there being no labor input. {but if one expends time specifically looking for such things is that not labor too?)
So far, so good. Curves ahead...
Edit:A tangent: what happens to the exchange value of a commodity when it is resold or is depreciated? What happened to that labor?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
09-16-2009, 09:54 AM
Saying something is rare is the same as saying that much labor is expended without result, in order to "produce" (find), that which is found with little effort by the finder. And then, ya gots to pick it up and carry it.
You answered your second question with depreciation. To the extent that the commodity doesn't "wear" (get dated, etc.), the labor remains intact.
As far as primitive people go, there is no exchange and no private property internally. There are elaborate rituals to make sure it stays that way. Among the Indians of the North-West, for example, complex Potlatch rituals to distribute personal property were the norm, in a geography in which nature was quite favorable.
09-16-2009, 09:54 AM
Saying something is rare is the same as saying that much labor is expended without result, in order to "produce" (find), that which is found with little effort by the finder. And then, ya gots to pick it up and carry it.
You answered your second question with depreciation. To the extent that the commodity doesn't "wear" (get dated, etc.), the labor remains intact.
As far as primitive people go, there is no exchange and no private property internally. There are elaborate rituals to make sure it stays that way. Among the Indians of the North-West, for example, complex Potlatch rituals to distribute personal property were the norm, in a geography in which nature was quite favorable.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
09-16-2009, 11:12 AM
Yes... It is required for the logical derivation and is also historically accurate (logic conforms to life). But, it's still complicated because the social division of labor is required for commodity production, but commodity production, once begun, in turn gives an immediate impetus to the social division of labor.
09-16-2009, 11:12 AM
Yes... It is required for the logical derivation and is also historically accurate (logic conforms to life). But, it's still complicated because the social division of labor is required for commodity production, but commodity production, once begun, in turn gives an immediate impetus to the social division of labor.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
09-16-2009, 08:40 PM
"Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use value to the value of commodities."
1) "So far as they are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective expressions of essentially identical labour." But, we have already seen that the coat and linen are expressions of unlike labor, so far as they are useful. In considering the coat and linen as values, we are reducing labor to something which is obviously real but otherwise has no practical expression:
"Productive activity... is nothing but the expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour power."
"...the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general."
"It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual."
It is the commonality of this "human labour in the abstract" for all commodities which in turn creates the basis for value. Some observations:
1a) "Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given."
1b) "Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone. The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom."
In truth, mass production is nothing other than such a process, in which the skilled labor of the workshop craftsman is broken up into its component actions, each of which are then performed by unskilled laborers in combination. So too, the work of engineers is replaced, at least in part, by that of draftsmen with CAD systems, lawyers are supplemented by and partially supplanted by paralegals, and doctors by PAs, Nurses, technicians, and computer diagnosticians. In the real world, this reduction of skilled to less skilled or unskilled labor is a constant process, underscoring the equivalence of the two at some easily calculable ratio.
1c) "Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in the creation of the use values, coat and linen, precisely because these two kinds of labour are of different qualities; but only in so far as abstraction is made from their special qualities, only in so far as both possess the same quality of being human labour, do tailoring and weaving form the substance of the values of the same articles."
2) But coats and linen are not simply values but values of a definite magnitude. This difference in magnitude between different commodities is nothing other than the different quantity of this simple, abstract labor congealed in each, measured in labor time.
"While, therefore, with reference to use value, the labour contained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much? How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value."
3) Changes in the amount of simple labor congealed in either the coat or in linen, or both, will obviously change the proportions in which they stand in relation to each other.
4) We have been grinding along, and then, all of a sudden the following (with its corollary #4a):
"An increase in the quantity of use values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man. Nevertheless, an increased quantity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic movement has its origin in the twofold character of labour. Productive power has reference, of course, only to labour of some useful concrete form, the efficacy of any special productive activity during a given time being dependent on its productiveness. Useful labour becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products, in proportion to the rise or fall of its productiveness. On the other hand, no change in this productiveness affects the labour represented by value. Since productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms of labour, of course it can no longer have any bearing on that labour, so soon as we make abstraction from those concrete useful forms."
4a) "However then productive power may vary, the same labour, exercised during equal periods of time, always yields equal amounts of value. But it will yield, during equal periods of time, different quantities of values in use; more, if the productive power rise, fewer, if it fall. The same change in productive power, which increases the fruitfulness of labour, and, in consequence, the quantity of use values produced by that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased quantity of use values, provided such change shorten the total labour time necessary for their production; and vice versâ."
In points 4 & 4a, above, our pace of examination suddenly accelerates. It follows from the logical corridor we have been following, but the room that opens up is suddenly much larger than before. I won't stop because we are almost at the end of the section, but the above bears discussion.
And with a final repetition of the two-fold nature of the labor expressed in commodities, we are done with Section 2. Please do note the footnote at the very end of the Section.
What do you think?
First, is this still clear? Second, what does it mean?
09-16-2009, 08:40 PM
"Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use value to the value of commodities."
1) "So far as they are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective expressions of essentially identical labour." But, we have already seen that the coat and linen are expressions of unlike labor, so far as they are useful. In considering the coat and linen as values, we are reducing labor to something which is obviously real but otherwise has no practical expression:
"Productive activity... is nothing but the expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour power."
"...the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general."
"It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual."
It is the commonality of this "human labour in the abstract" for all commodities which in turn creates the basis for value. Some observations:
1a) "Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given."
1b) "Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone. The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom."
In truth, mass production is nothing other than such a process, in which the skilled labor of the workshop craftsman is broken up into its component actions, each of which are then performed by unskilled laborers in combination. So too, the work of engineers is replaced, at least in part, by that of draftsmen with CAD systems, lawyers are supplemented by and partially supplanted by paralegals, and doctors by PAs, Nurses, technicians, and computer diagnosticians. In the real world, this reduction of skilled to less skilled or unskilled labor is a constant process, underscoring the equivalence of the two at some easily calculable ratio.
1c) "Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in the creation of the use values, coat and linen, precisely because these two kinds of labour are of different qualities; but only in so far as abstraction is made from their special qualities, only in so far as both possess the same quality of being human labour, do tailoring and weaving form the substance of the values of the same articles."
2) But coats and linen are not simply values but values of a definite magnitude. This difference in magnitude between different commodities is nothing other than the different quantity of this simple, abstract labor congealed in each, measured in labor time.
"While, therefore, with reference to use value, the labour contained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much? How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value."
3) Changes in the amount of simple labor congealed in either the coat or in linen, or both, will obviously change the proportions in which they stand in relation to each other.
4) We have been grinding along, and then, all of a sudden the following (with its corollary #4a):
"An increase in the quantity of use values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man. Nevertheless, an increased quantity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic movement has its origin in the twofold character of labour. Productive power has reference, of course, only to labour of some useful concrete form, the efficacy of any special productive activity during a given time being dependent on its productiveness. Useful labour becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products, in proportion to the rise or fall of its productiveness. On the other hand, no change in this productiveness affects the labour represented by value. Since productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms of labour, of course it can no longer have any bearing on that labour, so soon as we make abstraction from those concrete useful forms."
4a) "However then productive power may vary, the same labour, exercised during equal periods of time, always yields equal amounts of value. But it will yield, during equal periods of time, different quantities of values in use; more, if the productive power rise, fewer, if it fall. The same change in productive power, which increases the fruitfulness of labour, and, in consequence, the quantity of use values produced by that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased quantity of use values, provided such change shorten the total labour time necessary for their production; and vice versâ."
In points 4 & 4a, above, our pace of examination suddenly accelerates. It follows from the logical corridor we have been following, but the room that opens up is suddenly much larger than before. I won't stop because we are almost at the end of the section, but the above bears discussion.
And with a final repetition of the two-fold nature of the labor expressed in commodities, we are done with Section 2. Please do note the footnote at the very end of the Section.
What do you think?
First, is this still clear? Second, what does it mean?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
PinkoCommie
09-17-2009, 05:05 AM
09-17-2009, 05:05 AM
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
Kid of the Black Hole
09-17-2009, 05:16 AM
Marx initially took to be an actual "antimony"/contradiction. (Not paradox because a paradox meant something else until guys like Bertrand Russell coopted the term. A paradox needn't be factually inconsistent, it was only a function of the reasoning/logic being used)
Anyway, what Marx wanted to know was why businesses are always trying to lower prices. Resolving this question was actually a significant breakthrough I think.
09-17-2009, 05:16 AM
Marx initially took to be an actual "antimony"/contradiction. (Not paradox because a paradox meant something else until guys like Bertrand Russell coopted the term. A paradox needn't be factually inconsistent, it was only a function of the reasoning/logic being used)
Anyway, what Marx wanted to know was why businesses are always trying to lower prices. Resolving this question was actually a significant breakthrough I think.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
blindpig
09-18-2009, 05:06 AM
This is the section where my frustration spikes.
Concerning skilled labor, what of the labor invested in developing said skill? That of both the learning worker and instructor(s)? I can see where this line leads to argument for greater valuation of skilled labor, how is this resolved?
Gotta mull this some more. I'll be back...
09-18-2009, 05:06 AM
This is the section where my frustration spikes.
Concerning skilled labor, what of the labor invested in developing said skill? That of both the learning worker and instructor(s)? I can see where this line leads to argument for greater valuation of skilled labor, how is this resolved?
Gotta mull this some more. I'll be back...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
blindpig
09-18-2009, 11:24 AM
Labor time is a constant, productive power, I'm guessing this refers to technique, mechanization and the like, modifies the amount of use-value being produced. The more shit we can make the cheaper that shit gets because labor is constant. $18.75 dvd players, anyone?(discounting the 'cheap' labor of Asia as by the time these devices were introduced there was virtually no production of such devices elsewhere.)
Concerning footnote#16, My initial tendency is to agree with Smith, as 'bout all of the jobs I've done have been wretchedly necessary usage of my time on Earth. I'm not quite clear what Fritz's beef with Smith was, mebbe failing to differentiate concrete labor(work) from abstract labor(labor). That I get, though working with the insubstantial makes me queasy.
Do I get it? Does it look like I get it? Kinda think so, though if so it feels a bit superficial.
09-18-2009, 11:24 AM
Labor time is a constant, productive power, I'm guessing this refers to technique, mechanization and the like, modifies the amount of use-value being produced. The more shit we can make the cheaper that shit gets because labor is constant. $18.75 dvd players, anyone?(discounting the 'cheap' labor of Asia as by the time these devices were introduced there was virtually no production of such devices elsewhere.)
Concerning footnote#16, My initial tendency is to agree with Smith, as 'bout all of the jobs I've done have been wretchedly necessary usage of my time on Earth. I'm not quite clear what Fritz's beef with Smith was, mebbe failing to differentiate concrete labor(work) from abstract labor(labor). That I get, though working with the insubstantial makes me queasy.
Do I get it? Does it look like I get it? Kinda think so, though if so it feels a bit superficial.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."