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

[blindpig]

PinkoCommie
09-29-2009, 04:35 AM

Are you really going to debase yourself by associating yourself with such an outburst?

Gotta say, team fealty is wonderfully strong here.

Go Big Libs! Batterrrrrrr!! Batterrrrrrrr!

What an absolute embarrassment.

[blindpig]

Dhalgren
09-29-2009, 07:39 AM

and has no interest in understanding his work and how it applies to our own situation, in this time and this place. As TA said elsewhere, they are very much like Creationists, who disparage Darwin without ever understanding his work or even having any interest in understanding his work. To paraphrase a great human being, they are capitalist, running-dog, lackeys and it is good that they show themselves...

Eta: Let's get back to work...

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-29-2009, 08:16 AM

"No act of kindness will go unpunished..."?

Seriously, dude.

[blindpig]

Dhalgren
09-30-2009, 07:05 AM

recovered from the last few days of abject stupidity. Maybe a 3rd thread?

I am not being impatient, but every few pages I read (I sometimes have to re-read pages) a light comes on in my head and I discover that I am in a small closet; I go outside the closet and I am in a larger, darkened room. When the next light comes on, I find I am in a slightly larger closet and step out into a larger darkened room. I would really like to get this chechenka doll bull-shit behind me!

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-30-2009, 10:31 AM

I am at your service. I will continue right here and ask Tin to pare off Mr. Baseball's subthread, above. Otherwise, length alone will make us start a third thread. Logically, the first standalone part ends with Section 4, "Fetishism". It is quite close but we have a little more slogging to go.

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-30-2009, 10:31 AM

I am at your service. I will continue right here and ask Tin to pare off Mr. Baseball's subthread, above. Otherwise, length alone will make us start a third thread. Logically, the first standalone part ends with Section 4, "Fetishism". It is quite close but we have a little more slogging to go.

[blindpig]

Dhalgren
09-30-2009, 12:08 PM

I will keep my eyes peeled...

[blindpig]

(At this juncture a consolidation of 'time outs' for liberals, libertarians, new agers...bp)

Maat x2
SLAD x1
Code_Name_D x6

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-30-2009, 11:05 PM

Section 3A - Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... h01.htm#S3

In part 1 of Section 3A, we reproduce the entire text, because it is quite short:


A. Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value

x commodity A = y commodity B, or
x commodity A is worth y commodity B.

20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or
20 Yards of linen are worth 1 coat.



1. The two poles of the expression of value. Relative form and Equivalent form

The whole mystery of the form of value lies hidden in this elementary form. Its analysis, therefore, is our real difficulty.

Here two different kinds of commodities (in our example the linen and the coat), evidently play two different parts. The linen expresses its value in the coat; the coat serves as the material in which that value is expressed. The former plays an active, the latter a passive, part. The value of the linen is represented as relative value, or appears in relative form. The coat officiates as equivalent, or appears in equivalent form.

The relative form and the equivalent form are two intimately connected, mutually dependent and inseparable elements of the expression of value; but, at the same time, are mutually exclusive, antagonistic extremes – i.e., poles of the same expression. They are allotted respectively to the two different commodities brought into relation by that expression. It is not possible to express the value of linen in linen. 20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen is no expression of value. On the contrary, such an equation merely says that 20 yards of linen are nothing else than 20 yards of linen, a definite quantity of the use value linen. The value of the linen can therefore be expressed only relatively – i.e., in some other commodity. The relative form of the value of the linen presupposes, therefore, the presence of some other commodity – here the coat – under the form of an equivalent. On the other hand, the commodity that figures as the equivalent cannot at the same time assume the relative form. That second commodity is not the one whose value is expressed. Its function is merely to serve as the material in which the value of the first commodity is expressed.

No doubt, the expression 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat, implies the opposite relation. 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, or 1 coat is worth 20 yards of linen. But, in that case, I must reverse the equation, in order to express the value of the coat relatively; and. so soon as I do that the linen becomes the equivalent instead of the coat. A single commodity cannot, therefore, simultaneously assume, in the same expression of value, both forms. The very polarity of these forms makes them mutually exclusive.

Whether, then, a commodity assumes the relative form, or the opposite equivalent form, depends entirely upon its accidental position in the expression of value – that is, upon whether it is the commodity whose value is being expressed or the commodity in which value is being expressed.


What is going on here?

First Marx presents a simple equation ("x commodity A = y commodity B"). Then he establishes its equivalence with a logical assertion ("x commodity A is worth y commodity B"), making it clear that we are dealing in the realm of logic and not simple mathematics. Then, he begins to parse the logical proposition.

Commodity A has value. But that property cannot be expressed in commodity A by itself. It has to be set into a relationship with commodity B. In this relationship, the value of Commodity A is expressed, but only relatively... as a function of the value contained in commodity B. But B, is here only incidentally - to serve as an equivalent for the value contained in commodity A.

What is going on here?

Well, if we change the property (value) under consideration, all immediately becomes clear. Consider "length" as the property contained in 2 things. If we are considering my arm, it says nothing at all to say my arm has "length". But put it into comparison with floor tiles and that content changes:

"My left arm is the same length as three floor tiles." Now length has a practical expression.

This is the "form" of "length", with my arm serving as the relative form (the thing whose length is expressed relatively in something else) and the floor tile acting as the equivalent form (the thing which exists only to be compared to the length of my arm... as an equivalent).

Another way to say the same thing is that we have described how things are "measured", something Marx says implicitly here but will say explicitly in a moment. The original equation is the most elementary form in which value can be measured and, in fact, is the most elementary form from which all measurement originates.

OK, but why not use a standardized measurement of length, such as feet or meters? Because no such standardized measure exists yet, either logically or historically, in our exposition. On the contrary, it is from this form that a "standardized" system will evolve.

Of course, in this simplest, bipolar expression, it is entirely arbitrary as to which commodity is to be measured in terms of another, BUT, a single commodity cannot, "simultaneously assume, in the same expression of value, both forms."

This section is actually much simpler than it first appears, though its importance is as Marx asserts.

Everybody follow?

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
09-30-2009, 11:06 PM

Section 2 - The Two-Fold Character of the Labour Embodied in Commodities
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... h01.htm#S2

1) We saw in the previous section that commodities are products of labor and present themselves as a "complex of two things – use value and exchange value." We saw too, that the labor expended on them has the same two-fold nature. Now, we will develop the latter point. Before we begin, two issues:

1a) NOTE: Marx writes about the labor in commodities, "...so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this twofold nature of the labour contained in commodities." Marx usually marks whenever his own views sharply diverge from or develop previous theories of political economy. The corollary to what he is saying here is that he is not the first to describe the twofold nature of commodities as use-values and exchange-values. This goes far to explain why the various "debunkers" of Marx inevitably find themselves also dismissing classical political economy, with the rejection of Smith and Ricardo on "value" as a minimum requirement.

1b) NOTE: Marx further states that the two-fold nature of labor expressed in commodities, "...is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns." Again, Marx rarely makes such strong statements loosely.

2) Just as use-values of the same type may not enter into exchange with each other, so too, the concrete labor contained in them may not be of the same type ("To all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many different kinds of useful labour..."). A series of observations concerning this point follow:

2a) From this, it follows that that "division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities." The converse, however, is not true. A quite complex division of labor may exist without requiring the production of commodities. Thus we set the historical ordering of our logical derivation.

2b) Nevertheless, "In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently by individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, a social division of labour."

2c) "So far therefore as labour is a creator of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life."

2d) Finally, in considering use-values, "If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.[13] Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother."


We are now about two pages into Section 2 and are done with the useful labor which creates use-values. I am so familiar with this material that it appears straightforward and almost elementary... but, I don't trust my own perspective.

Is the above clear?