curt_b
10-08-2009, 04:23 AM
Thanks,
I was trying to write a happy ending way to early. A seeds of the new... kind of thing.
We can continue, your explanation puts me back on track.
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)...
Dhalgren
10-08-2009, 06:25 AM
It is so simple, so elegant, and so in your fucking face, and so hidden from the people...
10-08-2009, 06:25 AM
It is so simple, so elegant, and so in your fucking face, and so hidden from the people...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
meganmonkey
10-08-2009, 06:27 AM
I've developed this strategy of waiting till there's like 10 posts on a new section so most of my questions/confusions are addressed by the time I get here.
It was accidental at first but I may make a habit of it
I keep thinking about quality though. I think I need to get that outta my head for now. But I keep thinking about how a high-quality wool coat has higher relative value than a low-quality wool coat, and then trying to get into the intricacies of how much more labor must have gone into the production of the high-quality coat...and where does that fit into this 'social average' of congealed abstract labor...But really, I just have to look at those as two different commodities don't I?
But generally, quantity will inevitably trump quality in this system. Hell, brand-name labels will trump quality too.
I'm surprised that my mind is taking me in this more literal direction because I'm generally pretty good at abstraction, LOL. Maybe it's because it's getting cold here in Michigan and the thought of cheap crappy coats makes me shiver.
10-08-2009, 06:27 AM
I've developed this strategy of waiting till there's like 10 posts on a new section so most of my questions/confusions are addressed by the time I get here.
It was accidental at first but I may make a habit of it
I keep thinking about quality though. I think I need to get that outta my head for now. But I keep thinking about how a high-quality wool coat has higher relative value than a low-quality wool coat, and then trying to get into the intricacies of how much more labor must have gone into the production of the high-quality coat...and where does that fit into this 'social average' of congealed abstract labor...But really, I just have to look at those as two different commodities don't I?
But generally, quantity will inevitably trump quality in this system. Hell, brand-name labels will trump quality too.
I'm surprised that my mind is taking me in this more literal direction because I'm generally pretty good at abstraction, LOL. Maybe it's because it's getting cold here in Michigan and the thought of cheap crappy coats makes me shiver.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
10-08-2009, 11:17 AM
... with two significantly different prices, they are different use-values, no matter how it may seem to you or I. There is a social element to "objects of desire" as well, though as Marx said at the beginning, that is a separate study.
10-08-2009, 11:17 AM
... with two significantly different prices, they are different use-values, no matter how it may seem to you or I. There is a social element to "objects of desire" as well, though as Marx said at the beginning, that is a separate study.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
curt_b
10-09-2009, 07:11 PM
Let's move on before I forget what I've learned.
10-09-2009, 07:11 PM
Let's move on before I forget what I've learned.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
BitterLittleFlower
10-11-2009, 05:55 AM
please and thanks!
10-11-2009, 05:55 AM
please and thanks!
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
anaxarchos
10-11-2009, 10:56 PM
Section 3A - Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value
Part 3. The Equivalent form of value
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 01.htm#S3b
In comparison to the relative form, the equivalent form is almost passive:
"...The commodity linen manifests its quality of having a value by the fact that the coat, without having assumed a value form different from its bodily form, is equated to the linen. The fact that the latter therefore has a value is expressed by saying that the coat is directly exchangeable with it. Therefore, when we say that a commodity is in the equivalent form, we express the fact that it is directly exchangeable with other commodities.
When one commodity, such as a coat, serves as the equivalent of another, such as linen, and coats consequently acquire the characteristic property of being directly exchangeable with linen, we are far from knowing in what proportion the two are exchangeable. The value of the linen being given in magnitude, that proportion depends on the value of the coat. Whether the coat serves as the equivalent and the linen as relative value, or the linen as the equivalent and the coat as relative value, the magnitude of the coat’s value is determined, independently of its value form, by the labour time necessary for its production. But whenever the coat assumes in the equation of value, the position of equivalent, its value acquires no quantitative expression; on the contrary, the commodity coat now figures only as a definite quantity of some article.
For instance, 40 yards of linen are worth – what? 2 coats. Because the commodity coat here plays the part of equivalent, because the use-value coat, as opposed to the linen, figures as an embodiment of value, therefore a definite number of coats suffices to express the definite quantity of value in the linen. Two coats may therefore express the quantity of value of 40 yards of linen, but they can never express the quantity of their own value. A superficial observation of this fact, namely, that in the equation of value, the equivalent figures exclusively as a simple quantity of some article, of some use value, has misled Bailey, as also many others, both before and after him, into seeing, in the expression of value, merely a quantitative relation. The truth being, that when a commodity acts as equivalent, no quantitative determination of its value is expressed."
Marx notes what he calls 3 "peculiarities" in the above relationship...
The first peculiarity that strikes us, in considering the form of the equivalent, is this: use value becomes the form of manifestation, the phenomenal form of its opposite, value.
The bodily form of the commodity becomes its value form. But, mark well, that this quid pro quo exists in the case of any commodity B, only when some other commodity A enters into a value relation with it, and then only within the limits of this relation. Since no commodity can stand in the relation of equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into the expression of its own value, every commodity is compelled to choose some other commodity for its equivalent, and to accept the use value, that is to say, the bodily shape of that other commodity as the form of its own value.
In tailoring, as well as in weaving, human labour power is expended. Both, therefore, possess the general property of being human labour, and may, therefore, in certain cases, such as in the production of value, have to be considered under this aspect alone. There is nothing mysterious in this. But in the expression of value there is a complete turn of the tables. For instance, how is the fact to be expressed that weaving creates the value of the linen, not by virtue of being weaving, as such, but by reason of its general property of being human labour? Simply by opposing to weaving that other particular form of concrete labour (in this instance tailoring), which produces the equivalent of the product of weaving. Just as the coat in its bodily form became a direct expression of value, so now does tailoring, a concrete form of labour, appear as the direct and palpable embodiment of human labour generally.
Hence, the second peculiarity of the equivalent form is, that concrete labour becomes the form under which its opposite, abstract human labour, manifests itself.
But because this concrete labour, tailoring in our case, ranks as, and is directly identified with, undifferentiated human labour, it also ranks as identical with any other sort of labour, and therefore with that embodied in the linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is the labour of private individuals, yet, at the same time, it ranks as labour directly social in its character. This is the reason why it results in a product directly exchangeable with other commodities. We have then a third peculiarity of the equivalent form, namely, that the labour of private individuals takes the form of its opposite, labour directly social in its form.
http://www.stenudd.com/myth/greek/images/aristotle.jpg
Finally, we have the concluding quote about Aristotle, already mentioned by Dhalgren, which serves to illustrate the peculiarities we have noted:
In the first place, he clearly enunciates that the money form of commodities is only the further development of the simple form of value – i.e., of the expression of the value of one commodity in some other commodity taken at random; for he says:
5 beds = 1 house
is not to be distinguished from
5 beds = so much money.
He further sees that the value relation which gives rise to this expression makes it necessary that the house should qualitatively be made the equal of the bed, and that, without such an equalisation, these two clearly different things could not be compared with each other as commensurable quantities. “Exchange,” he says, “cannot take place without equality, and equality not without commensurability". Here, however, he comes to a stop, and gives up the further analysis of the form of value. “It is, however, in reality, impossible, that such unlike things can be commensurable” – i.e., qualitatively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something foreign to their real nature, consequently only “a makeshift for practical purposes.”
Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of any concept of value. What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is – human labour.
There was, however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing that, to attribute value to commodities, is merely a mode of expressing all labour as equal human labour, and consequently as labour of equal quality. Greek society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural basis, the inequality of men and of their labour powers. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities. The brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality.
There are a number of things to be discussed here, but we have already covered a lot of turf on the elementary form. I am hesitant to linger further unless there are questions...
10-11-2009, 10:56 PM
Section 3A - Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value
Part 3. The Equivalent form of value
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 01.htm#S3b
In comparison to the relative form, the equivalent form is almost passive:
"...The commodity linen manifests its quality of having a value by the fact that the coat, without having assumed a value form different from its bodily form, is equated to the linen. The fact that the latter therefore has a value is expressed by saying that the coat is directly exchangeable with it. Therefore, when we say that a commodity is in the equivalent form, we express the fact that it is directly exchangeable with other commodities.
When one commodity, such as a coat, serves as the equivalent of another, such as linen, and coats consequently acquire the characteristic property of being directly exchangeable with linen, we are far from knowing in what proportion the two are exchangeable. The value of the linen being given in magnitude, that proportion depends on the value of the coat. Whether the coat serves as the equivalent and the linen as relative value, or the linen as the equivalent and the coat as relative value, the magnitude of the coat’s value is determined, independently of its value form, by the labour time necessary for its production. But whenever the coat assumes in the equation of value, the position of equivalent, its value acquires no quantitative expression; on the contrary, the commodity coat now figures only as a definite quantity of some article.
For instance, 40 yards of linen are worth – what? 2 coats. Because the commodity coat here plays the part of equivalent, because the use-value coat, as opposed to the linen, figures as an embodiment of value, therefore a definite number of coats suffices to express the definite quantity of value in the linen. Two coats may therefore express the quantity of value of 40 yards of linen, but they can never express the quantity of their own value. A superficial observation of this fact, namely, that in the equation of value, the equivalent figures exclusively as a simple quantity of some article, of some use value, has misled Bailey, as also many others, both before and after him, into seeing, in the expression of value, merely a quantitative relation. The truth being, that when a commodity acts as equivalent, no quantitative determination of its value is expressed."
Marx notes what he calls 3 "peculiarities" in the above relationship...
The first peculiarity that strikes us, in considering the form of the equivalent, is this: use value becomes the form of manifestation, the phenomenal form of its opposite, value.
The bodily form of the commodity becomes its value form. But, mark well, that this quid pro quo exists in the case of any commodity B, only when some other commodity A enters into a value relation with it, and then only within the limits of this relation. Since no commodity can stand in the relation of equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into the expression of its own value, every commodity is compelled to choose some other commodity for its equivalent, and to accept the use value, that is to say, the bodily shape of that other commodity as the form of its own value.
In tailoring, as well as in weaving, human labour power is expended. Both, therefore, possess the general property of being human labour, and may, therefore, in certain cases, such as in the production of value, have to be considered under this aspect alone. There is nothing mysterious in this. But in the expression of value there is a complete turn of the tables. For instance, how is the fact to be expressed that weaving creates the value of the linen, not by virtue of being weaving, as such, but by reason of its general property of being human labour? Simply by opposing to weaving that other particular form of concrete labour (in this instance tailoring), which produces the equivalent of the product of weaving. Just as the coat in its bodily form became a direct expression of value, so now does tailoring, a concrete form of labour, appear as the direct and palpable embodiment of human labour generally.
Hence, the second peculiarity of the equivalent form is, that concrete labour becomes the form under which its opposite, abstract human labour, manifests itself.
But because this concrete labour, tailoring in our case, ranks as, and is directly identified with, undifferentiated human labour, it also ranks as identical with any other sort of labour, and therefore with that embodied in the linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is the labour of private individuals, yet, at the same time, it ranks as labour directly social in its character. This is the reason why it results in a product directly exchangeable with other commodities. We have then a third peculiarity of the equivalent form, namely, that the labour of private individuals takes the form of its opposite, labour directly social in its form.
http://www.stenudd.com/myth/greek/images/aristotle.jpg
Finally, we have the concluding quote about Aristotle, already mentioned by Dhalgren, which serves to illustrate the peculiarities we have noted:
In the first place, he clearly enunciates that the money form of commodities is only the further development of the simple form of value – i.e., of the expression of the value of one commodity in some other commodity taken at random; for he says:
5 beds = 1 house
is not to be distinguished from
5 beds = so much money.
He further sees that the value relation which gives rise to this expression makes it necessary that the house should qualitatively be made the equal of the bed, and that, without such an equalisation, these two clearly different things could not be compared with each other as commensurable quantities. “Exchange,” he says, “cannot take place without equality, and equality not without commensurability". Here, however, he comes to a stop, and gives up the further analysis of the form of value. “It is, however, in reality, impossible, that such unlike things can be commensurable” – i.e., qualitatively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something foreign to their real nature, consequently only “a makeshift for practical purposes.”
Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of any concept of value. What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is – human labour.
There was, however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing that, to attribute value to commodities, is merely a mode of expressing all labour as equal human labour, and consequently as labour of equal quality. Greek society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural basis, the inequality of men and of their labour powers. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities. The brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality.
There are a number of things to be discussed here, but we have already covered a lot of turf on the elementary form. I am hesitant to linger further unless there are questions...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
blindpig
10-12-2009, 06:09 AM
but he's cookin'. It's like one of those fancy sauces(which I've read about but never made), the sauce is reduced, then reduced again, something is added, then reduced again, it is the same thing, but more fully developed, it's nuances referring back to and more fully expressing the basic ingredients.
With the Aristotle quote I think I see where this is headed:
Equivalent value = congealed (abstracted) labor = money
10-12-2009, 06:09 AM
but he's cookin'. It's like one of those fancy sauces(which I've read about but never made), the sauce is reduced, then reduced again, something is added, then reduced again, it is the same thing, but more fully developed, it's nuances referring back to and more fully expressing the basic ingredients.
With the Aristotle quote I think I see where this is headed:
Equivalent value = congealed (abstracted) labor = money
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
curt_b
10-12-2009, 07:30 AM
And because, slave labor results in the same congealed human labor as wage labor (creating the value of a commodity), how can wages have anything concrete to do with value?
10-12-2009, 07:30 AM
And because, slave labor results in the same congealed human labor as wage labor (creating the value of a commodity), how can wages have anything concrete to do with value?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Reading Capital, continued (thread #2)...
blindpig
10-12-2009, 08:26 AM
and that is what Marx is describing. And there mebbe lies the reason that Aristotle could not reach the same conclusion as Marx, his understanding of production relationships was different.
10-12-2009, 08:26 AM
and that is what Marx is describing. And there mebbe lies the reason that Aristotle could not reach the same conclusion as Marx, his understanding of production relationships was different.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."