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

[blindpig]

curt_b
10-05-2009, 01:42 PM

So, trade (or the potential for trade) eliminates the use value of a product from consideration, leaving only value considered as an expression of a relationship to another product. Because the only thing the items have in common is the abstract labor embedded in them, their existence as commodities and their value, even in the market place, lies in that labor.

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
10-05-2009, 02:11 PM

Change, "...even in the market place", to "by the time they come into contact with each other in the market place, they exist only as values... mere congelations of abstract human labor differing only in quantity."

[blindpig]

anaxarchos
10-05-2009, 03:42 PM

"We see, then, all that our analysis of the value of commodities has already told us, is told us by the linen itself, so soon as it comes into communication with another commodity, the coat. Only it betrays its thoughts in that language with which alone it is familiar, the language of commodities. In order to tell us that its own value is created by labour in its abstract character of human labour, it says that the coat, in so far as it is worth as much as the linen, and therefore is value, consists of the same labour as the linen."

What we learned when we considered the commodity by itself ("...all that our analysis of the value of commodities has already told us")... that it is a product of labor, that it has a two-fold nature, that this two-fold nature consists of it being both a use-value and a value, that as a value it is abstracted away from all it's physical characteristics as a use-value, that this duality is a reflection of the two-fold character of the labor contained in it, and that the labor which creates value is human labor in the abstract - all of this which we have gone to pains to discover... All of this is apparent ("is told us by the linen itself") the minute that two commodities come into relation with each other. The one commodity becomes the measure of the other and as such reveals that both consist of the same commensurable "stuff", human labor reduced to a commonality, differing only in the quantity of that stuff congealed in each.

More... at the point at which commodities enter into "communication" with each other, it is only this value form which remains, with its content apparent only in relation to another commodity.

Why do we care?

Because this transformation is the nexus of Political Economy. That which enters into exchange precisely because it is a use-value, emerges into the world of commodities exclusively as a value. That which starts out as qualitatively different, ends up being qualitatively identical and differing only in quantity. That which had no existence apart from its bodily form, is now nothing apart from its value form, and that expressed relatively, in another acting as its measure of value.

From this set of contradictions, we are going to construct all the rest...

[blindpig]

meganmonkey
10-05-2009, 04:18 PM

"Turn your last sentence on its head: Because exchange is based on quantity, all qualitative distinctions have already disappeared"

That was an a-ha! moment :shocked:

[blindpig]

BitterLittleFlower
10-05-2009, 04:37 PM

and actually comment on, the rest still decipherin', and much appreciated...

[blindpig]

BitterLittleFlower
10-05-2009, 04:41 PM

and a wool jacket are identical in value? and use value? (I'm really scared shitless to ask a question here, but so be it)

[blindpig]

Kid of the Black Hole
10-05-2009, 04:46 PM

(ie the wool jacket might be worth more or less than the linen coat) but they are identical in that it is an apples to apples comparison

As for use-values there is actually no way to make use-values "identical" or, to word it a bit differently, "commensurate". The process we are detailing is one where commodities begin having only use-value but enter into a relationship whereby they are left as having only value.

[blindpig]

meganmonkey
10-05-2009, 05:07 PM

They may be identical in use-value, if they serve the same purpose. They may or may not be identical in value - it could be that 2 wool coats equal a linen one...but there is a way to compare them and define their value in relation to one another.

And that comes from the labor involved.

[blindpig]

PinkoCommie
10-05-2009, 05:23 PM

why the forces of reaction would have a problem with this.

"But I am so much better educated. And my skills are rarified. How could *I* be commensurable with a lowly ___________?"

Just sayin'

And BTW, I'm increasingly glad I slogged through all this - and many times - well before this online dialogue got going. I'd have been hating it, watching all you smart fuckers "getting there" in a timeframe that would have left me thoroughly LOST. I won't be well and truly fucked again until sometime around the 'working day' (pop quiz notwithstanding).

You rock, collectively of course. And I lurk with a big happy

What was that you said about sun shining through parting clouds, MM? I hate to slip into the evangelist role, but I can with complete confidence say now that I am convinced the single smartest thing Anaxarchos ever said to any of us on this board is that we should familiarize ourselves with the first few chapters of Capital.

LONGGGGG day tomorrow - 500mi + 6 hours of work. I'll check in during the coming couple of daze though...



No wonder he is smiling.

[blindpig]

Two Americas
10-05-2009, 07:07 PM

We should take our time and make sure everyone understands that. (Well stated, perfectly clear, simple, yet people are having difficulty - perhaps because it contradicts so much we have been told.)

"We see, then, all that our analysis of the value of commodities has already told us, is told us by the linen itself, so soon as it comes into communication with another commodity, the coat. Only it betrays its thoughts in that language with which alone it is familiar, the language of commodities. In order to tell us that its own value is created by labour in its abstract character of human labour, it says that the coat, in so far as it is worth as much as the linen, and therefore is value, consists of the same labour as the linen."