Capital - Chapter 1 - Reduction of Complex to Simple Labour

[magneze]

^ That's a great explanation.

 

[Blagsta]

No doubt someone will be along in a minute to tell me I'm wrong, lol

Maybe I should try and read Capital, I think I have a grasp of the main concepts and argument. Might be more productive than arguing the toss on the internet with the likes of dwyer.

 

[JimW]

^ That's a great explanation.

Not enough linen or coats to be canonical.

 

[Blagsta]

Not enough linen or coats to be canonical.

I'm shit at making coats too. My grandad used to work in a linen mill in Belfast though, does that count?

 

[JimW]

I'm shit at making coats too. My grandad used to work in a linen mill in Belfast though, does that count?

I'm failing to come up with a crap pun on flax, so I'll just have to say yes.

 

[Blagsta]

well you can prove anything with flax, can't you

 

[littlebabyjesus]

250 pages in a day. Not bad going.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't, eh? The version I'm reading has 33 chapters and 8 parts, so the first three chapters constitute part 1. Maybe you thought I meant the first three parts?

I'm far from convinced by his labour theory of value. It's a 'moral' case in the sense that 'real' value is not something that can really be discovered. And once labour begins to be paid different wages, you have a chicken and egg situation: does that extra wage money constitute price or value? I also think his conception of money is flawed, if not just wrong - at least for our time when money is entirely credit-based, a system of promises. In part two, he does use this set up to provide a very good analysis of the role of the merchant, though, so I'll leave off there.

 

[butchersapron]

You said the first three chapters. The first three chapters are 250 pages long. The first three parts of chapter one are about 140 pages. What have you read? This is important when you're dismissing partial cases - as you are. And on a massive hideous misunderstanding at that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I thought I made it clear. The version I'm reading has 33 chapters in 8 parts. Clearly the words 'chapter' and 'part' are reversed from the version you have. But I shall leave off commenting further. I'm not dismissing it. I'm just not convinced by it.

 

[butchersapron]

I still want to know what you've read - where have you read up to? Which part - you've not been clear on this at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have read part/chapter 1 and am about half way through part/chapter 2. In my version, that's the first 5 chapters. In yours it's probably the first five sections. I shall refrain from commenting further for a bit, though.

 

[butchersapron]

But what section - what page ffs? Do you mean that you've read part of the opening section - The Commodity? If so how much? (And why say three chapters?) Or do you mean you're part way through the first two sections - i.e you're now reading The dual character of the Labour embodied in commodities? (same question).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Part I: Commodities and Money
Ch. 1: Commodities
Ch. 1 as per First German Edition
Ch. 2: Exchange
Ch. 3: Money, or the Circulation of Commodities
Part II: The Transformation of Money into Capital
Ch. 4: The General Formula for Capital
Ch. 5: Contradictions in the General Formula of Capital
Ch. 6: The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power

Up to and including Ch5.

 

[butchersapron]

So you did read 270 pages in a day then?

 

[love detective]

And once labour begins to be paid different wages, you have a chicken and egg situation: does that extra wage money constitute price or value?

For Marx, wages have nothing to do with value. Value comes from the expenditure of labour activity through the production of use values for others, it doesn't come from, or correlate with, wages paid. An increase or decrease in wages, all other things being equal, does not impact one iota on the value created by that labour.

and anyway, this thread and the others like it are around gaining a correct understanding of Marx's analysis of capitalism - if once, having gained that understanding, you come to the conclusion that it is flawed or inappropriate that is fine, no one is saying because Marx wrote it then it must be right. The discussion here is at a much further stage back than that however, it is about correctly understanding what Marx meant, so you can then evaluate and draw your own conclusions about it, from it

If after spending one day reading Capital, you feel confident enough about your fundamental understanding of Marx's project, viz a vis the 3 volume of capital (let's leave TSV out of it for the moment), to pronounce him wrong and flawed, and that his analysis of capitalism contained in those 2,500 pages is actually a moral one, then fair enough, that's your right to do so. But don't be surprised if people disagree with you, and at that point, you have to actually explain why you think that is the case.

As for Phil, I think the only possible explanation for his absurdities is that, not only has he not read volumes 2 & 3 of capital, but he hasn't actually read volume 1 of capital either. My suspicion is that he has read the first three chapters, misinterpreted/misunderstood them and everything else that comes from him is mere projection based on literal/autistic interpretations of the words used by Marx without actually understanding what he meant by them. Anyone who has read volume 1 will tell you that you don't have a proper understanding of the first three chapters until you've actually finished the book, and this fits perfectly with the (mis)understanding of that volume displayed here by Phil. I've noticed that in all the discussions about Capital, he never actually joins in on any of them which go beyond the first three chapters - he has nothing to say about relative/absolute surplus value, accumulation of capital, simple/expanded reproduction, primitive accumulation, etc.. So once again I would ask the others in the reading group if they would be patient and give Phil some time to catch up so they may help him gain a better understanding of the work he's trying to grapple with

 

[littlebabyjesus]

well as I said above, part 2 is making a lot more sense to me than part 1 did. The system of analysis he sets up in part 1 starts to bear fruit in part 2 in his analysis of trade and the role of merchants. That's why I said I would hold off on my doubts about part 1.

This is not the first theory of value I have come across, though, so yes, I can have my misgivings this early on. I shall hold off as I will see what he does with it later.

 

[butchersapron]

no - it is a completely objective one, as explained in the quote itself (and to be fair, if you read it in the context of actually reading those chapters, as magnzee has clearly done, it would make even more sense - as you would then have more context around the categories & concepts being introduced) edit: the inclusion of things like honour/conscience within the wider point do not mean it is a moral point being made, it's just making the point that, contrary to what phil asserts, things can have a price without a value

i'm off to bed now, i'd caution anyone who wants to understand this stuff to tread very carefully when reading the stuff phil has come out with today - and as i said, it would be good if someone other than me (butchers, danny) could come along and debunk his latest lunancy

Sorry mate, not bothered with this. I'll reply to fozzie or IWNW stuff, but this...naH.

 

[phildwyer]

You are (deliberately?) misrepresenting Marx's notions of concrete Vs abstract labour. Concrete labour is an actual person doing an actual job, i.e. me making a table. Abstract labour is this job considered across society (so still tied to a specific form of social relations), but not a particular person making a particular table. It would take me ages to make a table as I'm shit at woodwork. However, it doesn't take as much time/effort to make a table in general in our society with our set of social relations.

That is exactly my own view of the matter. Where do you find me saying something different?

 

[Blagsta]

That is exactly my own view of the matter. Where do you find me saying something different?

Why did I ever take you off ignore? you're clearly just taking the piss

 

[phildwyer]

What you say all sounds fine as a theory. My issue is that you're claiming it as what Marx is saying. It isn't. Love detective has already quoted the bits that directly contradict you. Whilst you're using the same terms as Marx, you are using them in different ways.

That´s a fair enough comment.

I´d suggest though, that no one has access to what Marx really meant. Every reading is a reinterpretation. I think it´s a mistake to try to recapture Marx´s original meaning, because that is impossible. We can only read him through the lens of our own historical situation, which is not the same as his.

 

[phildwyer]

Why did I ever take you off ignore? you're clearly just taking the piss

Why do you think that? Seriously, I´m interested.

 

[phildwyer]

I also think his conception of money is flawed, if not just wrong - at least for our time when money is entirely credit-based, a system of promises.

That´s what money seems to be in our time. Marx´s analysis shows that is not what it really is. The problem however, as you have noticed, is that our society competely disregards what money really is, and instead operates on the erroneous assumption that it is what it falsely appears to be.

 

[phildwyer]

As for Phil, I think the only possible explanation for his absurdities is that, not only has he not read volumes 2 & 3 of capital, but he hasn't actually read volume 1 of capital either.

Why don´t you just stop this futile one-upmanship and debate my ideas instead?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't know about that. Marx goes into a lot of detail in part 1 chapter 3 to outline how money in his day worked - or as I would put it 'seemed to work' - ie based on quantities of real stuff. He mentions credit briefly. But I would suggest that today's money is entirely based on credit. I'd also suggest that the 'real' basis for money in former times was always a mere device: few people had any use for gold - its value as a medium of exchange was always symbolic.

 

[phildwyer]

there's only one set of confused & confusing accounts being put forward here Phil, and that's by the person who has not read capital

You just won´t drop it will you? Why this mad obsession with proving that I haven´t read anything? It reveals a deep-seated intellectual insecurity that you should have overcome by now.

And apart from anything else, you´re lying here. As I´ve just told you, I´ve read all of volume one and skimmed parts of 2 and 3. Not perfect admittedly.

I have however read a great deal of the philosophy to which Marx was responding in his work, which you have not done. And I would argue that in order to understand Capital volume one it is more important to have read Hegel´s Phenomenology than to have read volune 2 and 3 of Capital.

But I´m not going to berate you for not having read Hegel, although I do think it prevents you from understanding Marx. Instead I´ll respond to your words here. You ought to return the favor.

 

[love detective]

Why don´t you just stop this futile one-upmanship and debate my ideas instead?

i've been debating your 'ideas' across several threads - you have been unable to respond to any of my points with any kind of credible response (not to mention the countless ones you downright refuse to even attempt to answer), each time you are caught out and pushed to explain yourself, you resort to your whiney crap and simply assert you are right in the face of evidence which proves the contrary, and now you claim to be able to interpret Marx better than Marx himself could

cranks & fakes like you are not worth any more of my time i'm afraid

 

[phildwyer]

I don't know about that. Marx goes into a lot of detail in part 1 chapter 3 to outline how money in his day worked - or as I would put it 'seemed to work' - ie based on quantities of real stuff. He mentions credit briefly. But I would suggest that today's money is entirely based on credit.

I agree with you there. But there´s a sense in which it always was. The tendencies that have culminated in late capitalism are present in embryonic form in the most basic act of exchange. The ability to perceive the symbolic Real Presence of Commodity B within the physical body of Commodity A is the seed from which all the most arcane forms of fiat money spring.

I'd also suggest that the 'real' basis for money in former times was always a mere device: few people had any use for gold - its value as a medium of exchange was always symbolic.

It was always symbolic, but no-one understood this until the seventeenth century. Until then people retained a primitive, fetishistic view of value as somehow inhabiting the physical bodies of precious metals.

 

[phildwyer]

i've been debating your 'ideas' across several threads - you have been unable to respond to any of my points with any kind of credible response (not to mention the countless ones you downright refuse to even attempt to answer), each time you are caught out and pushed to explain yourself, you resort to your whiney crap and simply assert you are right in the face of evidence which proves the contrary, and now you claim to be able to interpret Marx better than Marx himself could

cranks & fakes like you are not worth any more of my time i'm afraid

You are a profoundly insecure and embittered man. A pity.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I've been thinking a little more on the issue of complex-to-simple, and concrete-to-abstract reductions. I always get a little annoyed at theories that are overly abstract and detached from a material foundation, and these concepts at first niggled at me because I could not see that attachment. However, there are a few paragraphs in what I have read so far, that indicate a possible way in which a connection to physical processes can be grasped. It revolves around the issue of the technical, and social divisions of labour.

As far as I understand, the technical division of labour occurs within a production process - Adam Smiths famous example of a pin factory separating the manufacture of pins into a few dozen stages would be an example. In other words, a production process that contains several steps has those separate steps performed be different people. The result is that a capitalist can employ relatively unskilled workers to produce a commodity that in previous times may have been produced by a skilled artisan. The social division of labour, on the other hand, is when the production of different commodities are carried on in separate branches of the economy - some people specialising in programming, others in manufacture, others in the services etc; one firm making jackets, another mining iron ore, etc etc.

My thought was that it is possible to understand the distinction between complex-simple, and concrete-abstract, by focusing on one type of division of labour or the other. If the process of reducing complex to simple occurs within an industry, then is it possible that it is the technical division of labour that provides the material expression of this reduction? I mean, the whole point of dividing the production of a particular commodity amongst serval stages is to reduce what is a complex process into several simple ones. There is a literal reduction of complex to simple.

Similarly, it appears to me that, if the transformation of concrete-labour to abstract-labour takes place at the moment of exchange, and the social division of labour acts as a pre-requesite for widespread commodity exchange, then it is in a sense, this division that is the material process that lies behind the concrete-abstract reduction.

Do you think there is any validity to these random brain-ejaculations of mine? Or am I just getting confused?

 

[love detective]

yes you are on the right lines here (and you shouldn't be surprised that you can attach things to a physical process as these are generally how the concepts are derived in the first place)

In general though, you should be surprised if you're not annoyed at what seems like an 'overly abstract & detached from material foundation' analysis, in the first three chapters of Capital. It's been mentioned a lot of times before, but in these sections a lot of stuff is just presented as though it's a priori true - with little reasons or even hints as to why Marx thinks these are true

This comes down to a difference between his method of exposition (i.e. starting Capital with some fairly abstract concepts) and method of enquiry (i.e. the real world observations that leads to these concepts developing)

So while in Capital it may looks like the abstract stuff comes before (or in the absence of) the concrete, this is just how it's setout - the method of inquiry, i.e. the way he got to those concepts is very much the real/concrete analysed and then the concepts built around it

This diagram below gives a pretty good overview of Marx's dialectical method of enquiry, which should give you some comfort as to how the things you are reading in those early three chapters actually came around



So briefly:-

Moment 1 is the observation of the concrete and the appropriation of the material in detail

Moment 2 sees that material used to develop first simple abstract concepts and then on to more complex/richer concepts to establish a 'totality of thoughts', it's the logical construction of the essence and the interconnected organic whole, i.e. the understanding of the inner connections and them as a totality

Moment 3 continues the logical process, but not in terms of essence, but in terms of how that essence appears, how to explain that appearance and the various forms in which the essence is manifested, and indeed how that totality of that essence must appear

So Moments 2 & 3 are still theory and conceptual at this stage, Moment 4 then goes on to relate the concepts that have been generated to the real concrete world, the testing stage so to speak. Here is when the 'concept of the real' and the 'concrete in the mind' (i.e. the abstract thought developed in moments 2 & 3) is reconciled to the real objective concrete, which is also a return to the starting point and the point of departure again as the process goes on and on.

As Marx says of this process in the afterword to volume 1:-

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

This moment 4 in the whole thing is the real test of the results of the power of the abstraction (done in steps 2 & 3) and thus is absolutely critical. An example of this process in action is highlighted by Marx in a letter to Engels in the year Capital Vol1 was first published

As regards Chapter IV, it was a hard job finding things themselves i.e., their interconnection. But with that once behind me, along came one Blue Book after another just as I was composing the final version and I was delighted to find my theoretical conclusions fully confirmed by the facts. Finally, it was written to the accompaniment of carbuncles and daily dunning by creditors!