Capital - Chapter 1 - Reduction of Complex to Simple Labour

[love detective]

"Human labour-power in its fluid state [...] creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value in its coagulated state, in objective form. The value of the linen as a coagulated mass of human labour can be expressed only as an 'objectivity', a thing which is materially different from from the linen itself and yet common to the linen and all other commodities."
.

note those lines phil - objective form, can be expressed only as an objectivity

and apologies to all for derailing yet another thread - we should probably be banned from these, it's folk like danny that are required to shepherd people through this

 

[love detective]

No, value is created through a process of abstraction from the individual acts of labor performed in production. That, to repeat (with apologies to those who know this stuff already) was Marx's advance on the political economy of Smith and Ricardo.

And once again, abstraction is a purely mental process.

Actually, Marx's advance on classical political economy is best summed up in his own words in a letter to engels (although i agree that the formulation of abstract labour, as a result of real processes not mental abstractions is regarded as an advance on classical political economy)

The best points in my book are:-

1) the two-fold character of labour, according to whether it is expressed in use-value or exchange value (all comprehension of the facts depends upon this). It is emphasised immediately in the first chapter;
2) the treatment of surplus value independently of its particular forms as profits, interest, ground rent, etc.

you might also be interested in the text in the link above, especially this bit:-

Now by ‘abstract labour’ Marx does not mean, as is commonly thought, some mental generalisation, some mere product of the mind. If this were so – if abstract labour is conceived of as merely a category arrived at by picking some common element found in all labour – then one would be forced inexorably to the conclusion that if abstract labour is a mental image, then so too must be its product, ‘value’. Only concrete labour, producing empirically available use-values would have the status of ‘real’ labour.

Let us, therefore, try to explore in more detail Marx’s notion of abstract labour. The products of labour take the form of commodities when these products are made for exchange on the market. As such, they are the products of autonomous private labour, carried out independently of each other. Each person carries out one determinate form of labour as part of a social division of labour. Of course we must remember that if this social division of labour were a planned one, the products of individual labour would not take the form of commodities. While the production of commodities is impossible without a division of labour, a division of labour is perfectly possible in the absence of commodity production – as in the case cited by Marx of a patriarchal peasant society. Further, under commodity production labour is not immediately social; it becomes social labour only through the mediation of exchange relations on the market.

Now in exchanging products men equalise them – that is, the market, as an objective process, abstracts from the physical-natural aspects in which one use-value differs from another; and in so doing the market abstracts from that which serves to differentiate this labour, Thus:

"Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all . . . human labour in the abstract" (I)

and

"The labour . . . that forms the substance of value is homogeneous labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power. The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of society, and takes effect as such."(I)

From these quotations alone, it should be clear that in the formation of abstract labour we are not dealing with a mental process, but something that takes place in the actual process of exchange itself.

 

[phildwyer]

Do me a favor, LD? Just think about it?

For if you think about it even for a second you will surely see that no process of abstraction can ever take place outside the human mind. The verb "to abstract" refers to something only the human mind can do. Right? Are you with me?

 

[phildwyer]

i agree that the formulation of abstract labour, as a result of real processes not mental abstractions is regarded as an advance on classical political economy

I can't stand much more of this.

Look. All abstraction is mental. You will never find any abstraction going on in the world of nature. Will you? Nor will you find any abstraction in the process of exchange, other that which is manifested in the human minds of the participants.

But we've spent too long on this. Love Detective, if you can point to a process of abstraction taking place outside the human mind, do so now. If you cannot, then the time has come for you to shut up about it.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Do you mind taking this to a dedicated thread? It's already sprawled over a number of unrelated ones.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can't stand much more of this.

Look. All abstraction is mental. You will never find any abstraction going on in the world of nature. Will you? Nor will you find any abstraction in the process of exchange, other that which is manifested in the human minds of the participants.

But we've spent too long on this. Love Detective, if you can point to a process of abstraction taking place outside the human mind, do so now. If you cannot, then the time has come for you to shut up about it.

You two are at crossed purposes, I think. Yes, abstraction can only take place in a mind. But the thing that gives the abstraction of 'value' a value is that people share the same abstracted idea about it, is it not? So money 'finds' its value in exchange precisely because this is a point at which two minds' abstract calculation of value are found to agree. I don't think it matters too much what you call this shared abstract calculation of value - but it is no longer purely subjective.

I'd make an analogy perhaps with language. A private language is of no use to us - we need to use words in a way that has a shared meaning. A language does not exist except in human minds, yet it can only exist when it is shared across more than one mind.

(Apologies for pursuing the derail)

 

[phildwyer]

I'd make an analogy perhaps with language.

That would be an excellent analogy. It's recently been made by many economists (eg Dierdre McClusky), philosophers (eg Jean-Joseph Goux) and literary critics (eg Marc Shell). Language and money share the same blend of objective and subjective characteristics, as well as many other factors in common.

The point is that neither language nor money are parts of nature. They are both parts of culture: human inventions, and as such ought to be subject to the human will. We can see how the analogy between money and language--and indeed representation in general--works when we consider the concept of "exchange-value," which originates as pure representation: the perception of the value of commodity B as "Really Present" (to use Marx's analogy) in the physical body of commodity A, even though it is not physically present.

This, according to Capital chapter 1, is the conceptual and historical origin of exchange-value's autonomous, performative power--the power the is eventually incarnated in money. Originally money is a mere means to the end of commodity exchange. In late capitalism however, neither money nor language nor representation in general is content to remain a means to an end, or even subject to the human will at all: rather they all acquire a subjective will of their own and try to impose their will upon ours.

This development has taken place in every sphere: from aesthetics, with the rise in the late C19th/ early C20th of nonreferential genres like impressionism (tendencies which are intensified in postmodernism); to economics, with the movement away from bullionism (the belief that financia value is literally incarnated in precious metals), through banknotes (which announce their own status as symbol but are supposed to somehow refer to precious metals), through the abandonment of the gold standard to the purely invisible (and many would say fictional) money of today.

This is the process that mainstream economists and the people who half-understand them, such as Love Detective, endorse with their myopic theories. What we need however is a means to reduce money and representation in general to our will once again.

(Apologies for pursuing the derail)

Up to a point. It's going to be hard to avoid questions of representation in general as we discuss this chapter, since Marx discusses them so much and with such importance. But I'll happily move on if everyone else wants to.

 

[love detective]

I can't stand much more of this.

Look. All abstraction is mental. You will never find any abstraction going on in the world of nature. Will you? Nor will you find any abstraction in the process of exchange, other that which is manifested in the human minds of the participants.

But we've spent too long on this. Love Detective, if you can point to a process of abstraction taking place outside the human mind, do so now. If you cannot, then the time has come for you to shut up about it.

the fundamental problem is that you don't understand Marx's concept of abstract labour - you are lazily applying a standard definition of the word abstract and deriving your conclusions from that

Let's take a look at what Rubin has to say on the matter from his 'essays on Marx's theory of value' (chapters 13 & 14 if you're interested)

The equalization of labor in a commodity economy is not established by some previously determined unit of measurement, but is carried out through the equalization of commodities in exchange

It is not necessary for us to seek a practical standard of value which would make possible the equalization of the products of labor on the market. This equalization takes place in reality every day in the process of market exchange. In this process, spontaneously, a standard of value is worked out, namely money, which is indispensable for this equalization. This market exchange does not need any type of standard which is thought up by economists. The task of the theory of value is completely different, namely to grasp and explain theoretically the process of equalization of commodities which takes place regularly on the market

Thus we must not limit ourselves to the characteristic of labor as equal, but must distinguish three types of equal labor, as we mentioned in Chapter Eleven:

1) physiologically equal labor

2) socially equalized labor

3) abstract, or abstract-universal labor, i.e., socially equalized labor in the specific form which it acquires in a commodity economy.

Although abstract labor is a specific property of a commodity economy, socially equalized labor can be found, for example, in a socialist commune. Abstract labor does not only fail to coincide with physiologically equal labor but cannot be identified with socially equalized labor at all (see, above, Chapter Eleven). Every abstract labor is social and socially equalized labor, but not every socially equalized labor can be considered abstract labor. For socially equalized labor to take the specific form of abstract labor characteristic of the commodity economy, two conditions are necessary, as was accurately shown by Marx: It is necessary that: 1) the equality of different kinds of labor and of individuals expresses "the specific social character of private labor carried on independently" (C., I, P. 74), i.e., that labor become social labor only as equal labor, and 2) that this equalization of labor take place in a material form, i.e., "assumes in the product the form of value"(Ibid.). [13] I, the absence of these conditions, labor is physiologically equal. It can also be socially equalized, but it is not abstract-universal labor.

If some writers erroneously confuse abstract labor with physiologically equal labor, other writers commit an equally unacceptable, though not as crude, error: they confuse abstract labor with socially equalized labor. Their reasoning can be reduced to the following terms: the organ of a socialist commune, as we have seen, equalizes labor of different forms and individuals, for the purpose of accounting and distribution of labor, i.e., it reduces all labor to a general unit which is necessarily abstract; thus labor acquires the character of abstract labor. [14] If these writers insist they are right in calling socially equalized labor "abstract," we can recognize their right to do this: every writer has the right to give any term he chooses to a phenomenon, even though such arbitrary terminology can be very dangerous and creates great confusion in science.

In Marx's theory of value, the transformation of concrete into abstract labor is not a theoretical act of abstracting for the purpose of finding a general unit of measurement. This transformation is a real social event. The theoretical expression of this social event, namely the social equalization of different forms of labor and not their physiological equality, is the category of abstract labor. The neglect of this positive, social nature of abstract labor has led to the interpretation of abstract labor as a calculation of labor expenditures in a physiological sense, namely a purely negative property of abstracting from the specific forms of concrete labor

Abstract labor appears and develops to the extent that exchange becomes the social form of the process of production, thus transforming the production process into commodity production. In the absence of exchange as the social form of production, there can be no abstract labor.

It's funny how most writers on the subject have the same conclusion as me eh Phil - not the crude philosophically reductionist version that you've cooked up (through an overtly literal, some may say autistic, interpretation of the word abstract) as a substitute for actually getting to grips with the topic - perhaps as you make your way through the other two volumes of capital (or indeed ever understand the first) and you look at things from a slightly different perspective you will see things differently

 

[love detective]

Do you mind taking this to a dedicated thread? It's already sprawled over a number of unrelated ones.

To be fair, the topic is quite closely related to what your OP was about, I can see why Phil is happy with your post however as it gives him another excuse not to engage with the substance - apologies though if you feel your thread has been ruined by my contributions (and phil's 'contributions')

 

[littlebabyjesus]

neither money nor language nor representation in general is content to remain a means to an end, or even subject to the human will at all: rather they all acquire a subjective will of their own and try to impose their will upon ours

You literally believe this?

Just because something isn't under the control of any one individual, that doesn't mean it has its own subjective will. I can't change the English language on my own, as others need to agree with my new meanings. But I can introduce new ways to use words - and indeed new words - whose meaning is implied through metaphor. And they might catch on. That's how languages change. The process doesn't require language to have its own will, though. Simply, it is a dynamic system, with as many potential agents for change as there are speakers, but where change can only occur where there is agreement between more than one of those agents for change. I don't see the necessity nor the justification for introducing the idea that the system has its own subjective will. What explanatory value does that idea have?

 

[phildwyer]

It's funny how most writers on the subject have the same conclusion as me eh Phil

It's not surprising at all that most people misinterpret Marx, especially in view of the iron grip that Leninist materialism exerted over the world of institutional Communism for 50 years.

But really, quoting Rubin as though he's the last word, the final authority, just shows your complete and utter naivete on such matters. There are plenty of far more luminous authorities who agree with me: Kojeve, Levinas, Lukacs, Adorno, Debord, Baudrillard and so forth--you should read them.

 

[love detective]

putting aside your inability to demonstrate that they do agree with you - they all have presumably read all of capital (vol 1-3) though, you haven't have you?

 

[phildwyer]

Just because something isn't under the control of any one individual, that doesn't mean it has its own subjective will. I can't change the English language on my own, as others need to agree with my new meanings. But I can introduce new ways to use words - and indeed new words - whose meaning is implied through metaphor. And they might catch on. That's how languages change.

No it's bleeding not. No linguist believes that language changes through the subjective intention of individuals as you suggest here. On the contrary, many linguists believe that the very concept of an individual is itself a function and creation of language.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No it's bleeding not. No linguist believes that language changes through the subjective intention of individuals as you suggest here. On the contrary, many linguists believe that the very concept of an individual is itself a function and creation of language.

You don't necessarily have to have intention - sorry, I probably implied that you do. Language is a never-ending, imperfectable process of discovering shared meanings. So it can change simply as a result of one idea of the shared meaning becoming more prevalent than another without any individual even knowing that this is happening.

 

[phildwyer]

You don't necessarily have to have intention - sorry, I probably implied that you do. Language is a never-ending, imperfectible process of discovering shared meanings. So it can change simply as a result of one idea of the shared meaning becoming more prevalent than another without any individual even knowing that this is happening.

Most academic specialists would claim that it's the other way around: that changes in the linguistic system bring about changes in ideas, including the idea of the individual beings who use the system.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Name one.

 

[phildwyer]

putting aside your inability to demonstrate that they do agree with you - they all have presumably read all of capital (vol 1-3) though, you haven't have you?

Just volume 1, have skimmed sections of the others. A deficiency admittedly. but less restrictive and limiting evidently than your own ignorance of the tradition to which I allude above...

 

[magneze]

This thread is increasingly irrelevant to chapter 1 as far as I can see.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry. I'll leave it.

 

[phildwyer]

Name one.

Any structuralist or post-structuralist, or even Chomsky.

 

[love detective]

Just volume 1, have skimmed sections of the others.

definitely the best type of person to judge who has, and who has not, misinterpreted marx's body of work as a totality then is someone who hasn't even read said body of work - now that is pompous!

classic that you are telling me to 'read' others when you haven't even read that which you claim other people are misinterpreting

 

[phildwyer]

definitely the best type of person to judge who has, and who has not, misinterpreted marx's body of work as a totality then is someone who hasn't even read said body of work - now that is pompous!

And you yourself have read "Marx's body of work as a totality" have you?

 

[love detective]

This thread is increasingly irrelevant to chapter 1 as far as I can see.

the OP's question was answered in the first few posts - IWNW asked a few more questions which were answered (with references to the relevant pieces of the text) and that was that - you asked a question (that wasn't really relevant to chapter 1 either) as well and danny answered it

Sorry if you feel that something has been lost by this little tet a tet (is that the right word?) but it's just a message board, these things happen

 

[love detective]

And you yourself have read "Marx's body of work as a totality" have you?

I've read Capital volumes 1 to 3 yes, numerous times in fact

And given all our arguments/discussions are on topics contained within those three volumes then I think it is remarkable that you are going about saying who has or who has not misinterpreted Marx when you haven't even read what they are supposedly misinterpreting (this is especially true when we talk about credit and interest bearing capital - your rambling about marx's take on these topics certainly does exude the air of someone who has never went near volume 3, let alone understood it)

 

[phildwyer]

this little tet a tet (is that the right word?)

Well it's certainly offensive...

 

[love detective]

i honestly don't know what it means, but it just felt right

 

[magneze]

A quick thread starter here. The heterogeneous forms of concrete-labour such as tailoring, weaving, computer programming etc, are made comparable by assuming that all forms of labour are multiples of 'simple labour'. But how does this process happen? Is it just an abstract assumption to make the labour theory consistent? Does Marx speak of this issue anywhere else?

That's how I took it - it's an assumption so that when labour is represented by other concepts later on there's no temptation to think "well, a bakers time is more than a bus drivers" and bring that into the equation.

 

[phildwyer]

I've read Capital volumes 1 to 3 yes, numerous times in fact

And given all our arguments/discussions are on topics contained within those three volumes then I think it is remarkable that you are going about saying who has or who has not misinterpreted Marx when you haven't even read what they are supposedly misinterpreting (this is especially true when we talk about credit and interest bearing capital)

Have you read the Grundrisse, the 1844 Mansucripts, the 18th Brumaire, the Theses on Feuerbach, the Phd. dissertation? I have. I've also read the canon of philosophical commentary on Marx, of which you are clearly totally ignorant.

I think that gives me a far more profound knowledge of Marx than Capital 2 and 3 could--certainly to judge by the ignorance that you, who claim to have read them, display in all matters economic.

 

[magneze]

Put your dick away ffs.

 

[phildwyer]

i honestly don't know what it means, but it just felt right

I think it's actually tit a tit...