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

[blindpig]

Kid of the Black Hole
10-06-2009, 08:33 AM

I think Pinko was posing this very question about Aristotle a while back. Not sure if he was asking for elaboration on this passage or if he was confused about it or what. But I do remember it coming up

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
10-06-2009, 10:15 AM

... an angry one.

[blindpig]

BitterLittleFlower
10-06-2009, 04:35 PM

When I'm thinking about me, something I want to know, regardless the applications that knowledge may have to the greater good, I get timid; if I'm not thinking about me, look out, I ran out in the road to stop two cars coming from the opposite direction when my cat was crossing (he never crossed the road again)...when the president of the state wide union said teachers might have to accept merit pay and ill defined what union was, I called him out...but ask a question for myself? pulling teeth...

[blindpig]

BitterLittleFlower
10-06-2009, 04:43 PM

I actually selected wool and linen as I thought they might have similar value regarding labor, sheering/reaping, spinning and weaving for both, tailoring similar. Interesting about the different value for the cloths you mention.

So as an artist, it goes that a painting which takes maybe a month would have more value than an artist's print which resulted from an artistic process, but has become mass produced to a degree? I guess aesthetic value would be use value in each?

Sorry so long here, I'm having difficulties posting...

On edit, regarding art, I like the artist printmakers who pull their own prints a lot, they do the artistic drafting, the processing, and the production, and their work is more art for the people, though the labor is pretty intensive. The printmakers I've known have huge arms...especially the stone lithographers...the muralists are others that truly create art for the masses...

[blindpig]

BitterLittleFlower
10-06-2009, 04:46 PM

wrinkly as sin...

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
10-06-2009, 10:58 PM

Section 3A - Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value
Part 2. The Relative Form of value
(b.) Quantitative determination of Relative value
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 01.htm#S3b

We now continue with the relative form as quantity, something we have already anticipated in our discussion:

"Every commodity, whose value it (the Relative Form) is intended to express, is a useful object of given quantity... And a given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. The value form must therefore not only express value generally, but also value in definite quantity...

The equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are worth one coat, implies that the same quantity of value substance (congealed labour) is embodied in both; that the two commodities have each cost the same amount of labour of the same quantity of labour time. But the labour time necessary for the production of 20 yards of linen or 1 coat varies with every change in the productiveness of weaving or tailoring. We have now to consider the influence of such changes on the quantitative aspect of the relative expression of value."


I. Let the value of the linen vary,[20] that of the coat remaining constant. If, say in consequence of the exhaustion of flax-growing soil, the labour time necessary for the production of the linen be doubled, the value of the linen will also be doubled. Instead of the equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, we should have 20 yards of linen = 2 coats... The relative value of commodity A, i.e., its value expressed in commodity B, rises and falls directly as the value of A, the value of B being supposed constant.


II. Let the value of the linen remain constant, while the value of the coat varies. If, under these circumstances, in consequence, for instance, of a poor crop of wool, the labour time necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled, we have instead of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, 20 yards of linen = ½ coat... Hence, if the value of commodity A remain constant, its relative value expressed in commodity B rises and falls inversely as the value of B.


III. Let the quantities of labour time respectively necessary for the production of the linen and the coat vary simultaneously in the same direction and in the same proportion. In this case 20 yards of linen continue equal to 1 coat, however much their values may have altered. Their change of value is seen as soon as they are compared with a third commodity, whose value has remained constant. If the values of all commodities rose or fell simultaneously, and in the same proportion, their relative values would remain unaltered. Their real change of value would appear from the diminished or increased quantity of commodities produced in a given time.


IV. The labour time respectively necessary for the production of the linen and the coat, and therefore the value of these commodities may simultaneously vary in the same direction, but at unequal rates or in opposite directions, or in other ways. The effect of all these possible different variations, on the relative value of a commodity, may be deduced from the results of I, II, and III.

"Thus real changes in the magnitude of value are neither unequivocally nor exhaustively reflected in their relative expression, that is, in the equation expressing the magnitude of relative value. The relative value of a commodity may vary, although its value remains constant. Its relative value may remain constant, although its value varies; and finally, simultaneous variations in the magnitude of value and in that of its relative expression by no means necessarily correspond in amount.[21]"

After the loaded subsection we have just reviewed, this one is almost a relief, no?

[blindpig]

Dhalgren
10-07-2009, 07:14 AM

This seems straightforward and concise. (Yippee!)

[blindpig]

blindpig
10-07-2009, 07:45 AM

and 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.

or

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.

or

I'm off track.

Hard getting my head around my working the same hours, producing more goods but having my labor being less valued. Same for the opposite. Too literal minded, I guess.

Does relative value have anything to do with selling price? I think so.

[blindpig]

curt_b
10-07-2009, 07:46 AM

Actually, this is the part that has traditionally given me trouble, but this exercise is beginning to show me why.

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".

Of course, relative value is always perverted by Capital through a variety of profit making actions. If we fast forward to a 21st century Socialist economy, we are not limited to using only duration when considering the reward for labor. I'm not talking about education, physical aptitude, etc, rather the onerous or dangerous nature of a task.

Marx here is offering a proof not a prescription for a good political economy. Yes?
The duration thing has always been a problem for me. I think what I written above is better than my previous understanding.

BTW, the one reason I think this thread is so successful, is that the internet forces one to read and write, a very different learning experience than listening or conversing. Except for TA who must type faster than I talk lol.

[blindpig]

Dhalgren
10-07-2009, 08:42 AM

Karl, here is talking about where value comes from, not what some particular commodity is valued on a particular day in a particular location, but what is the source of all value in any commodity, period. And remember the labor he is talking about, once it gets to the "value" part is "abstract labor" not "physical labor"; so there are no "conditions" or "circumstances" that come to bare - because the "labor" has become "abstract". Does that make sense?