Capital - Chapter 1 - Reduction of Complex to Simple Labour

[love detective]

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.

i've read 1844 manuscripts yes, and we're not discussing arguments relating to historical events in france though nor what he thought about Epicurus (the notebooks which made up capital vol 1 to 3 were put together between 5 and 15 years after the grundrisse btw) - and if you think these things give you any kind of insight into volume 2 or 3 then that just shows how ignorant you are of them

now despite your attempts to once again switch the discussion away from an area you've been caught out on, the simple fact remains, you are not qualified to judge whether someone's interpretation of subjects contained in volumes 1 to 3 of capital is correct or not when you have not even read volumes 1 to 3 of capital - it's as simple as that. I know academic standards are not exactly high in general but you certainly set the bar at a low level don't you

I'll repat again, you have not read volumes 1 to 3 of Capital

 

[phildwyer]

I'll repat again, you have not read volumes 1 to 3 of Capital

I'll repat again, you have not read volumes 1 to 3 of Capital

I'll repat again, you have not read volumes 1 to 3 of Capital

I'll repat again

I'll repat again

I'll repat again

I'll rrr... rrr... repat again

On and on and on he mithered.... Look, much as I'd like to continue this discussion, and easy as it would be for me to trump your unseemly crowing, this really is neither the time nor the place for your endless repetitive prating. Shape up or ship out. In short I must agree with magneze here:

Put your dick away ffs.

 

[love detective]

you just keep on relying on other people's (mis)/intepretation's of a book to work out whether someone else has misinterpreted a book you've never read - sure fire way of getting things right there philip - academia eh, that noble and exacting profession

face it, you get torn to shreds every post you make here (have i mentioned before that you're not fit for purpose philip?)

edit: and i saw your edit, pretty sneaky little retraction that one eh philip

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Any structuralist or post-structuralist, or even Chomsky.

Sorry, I know I said I'd leave this, but I don't recognise what you said in any of Chomsky's ideas about language, which are something I know a little about. He simply doesn't address the question you pose, but I'm pretty sure he would disagree with it.

This is from a while ago, but it's a flavour of how Chomsky's thinking does not accord with your idea:

The abstractness of linguistic structure … suggests that in both perception and learning the mind plays an active role in determining the character of the acquired knowledge.

Your conception of language acting upon individuals is misguided. To tie this into the thread, your conception of money acting upon individuals is also misguided.

Actually fuck it. You're trolling. You're throwing out names in the hope that nobody else will know enough about them to pull you up on it.

 

[phildwyer]

Sorry, I know I said I'd leave this, but I don't recognise what you said in any of Chomsky's ideas about language, which are something I know a little about. He simply doesn't address the question you pose, but I'm pretty sure he would disagree with it.

This is from a while ago, but it's a flavour of how Chomsky's thinking does not accord with your idea:



Your conception of language acting upon individuals is misguided. To tie this into the thread, your conception of money acting upon individuals is also misguided.

Actually fuck it. You're trolling. You're throwing out names in the hope that nobody else will know enough about them to pull you up on it.

WTF? Why do you say that?

Chomsky's linguistic theory develops out of structuralism, or rather his critique of structuralism. He also believes that the structure of language is hard-wired into the physical structure of the brain, which is a bit of a structuralist idea itself.

I don't see how the article you cite refutes such a reading of Chomsky either. I think you owe me an apology.

 

[love detective]

keep reading that secondary literature phil, one day you may even be able to tackle the primary texts

anyway, that's me for today, girlfriend's home from work now and I don't want her knowing i've been cavorting with a strange man on the internet all day

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Chomsky's linguistic theory develops out of structuralism, or rather his critique of structuralism. He also believes that the structure of language is hard-wired into the physical structure of the brain, which is a bit of a structuralist idea itself.

I don't know much about structuralism. However, Chomsky doesn't really hold that view any more, as you ought to know. Even when he did, he didn't say what you said.

 

[phildwyer]

I don't know much about structuralism. However, Chomsky doesn't really hold that view any more, as you ought to know. Even when he did, he didn't say what you said.

Yes he does. And his notion of linguistic competence/performance is directly derived from Saussure's langue/parole distinction.

Is this a new idea for you?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Chomsky? Really? Please, new thread.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He reduced it to the idea that recursion is universal. This is currently disputed, as it is claimed that the Piraha language is not recursive. There was a good article in the New Scientist about this a couple of weeks ago.

To give Chomsky some credit, though, he has always been very tentative in his claims. Unlike you!

Anyway, this really really is a derail now.

 

[phildwyer]

I´m going to carry on with this thread for a bit. Partly because it´s fun for myself, but also because I think it´s important to jettison some deeply embedded but erroneous interpretations of Capital, especially the hoary canards trotted out by Love Detective. Above all, the concept of ¨labor¨ needs explaining if it is not to be abandoned as outdated. I want to return to the OP, because it raises a point that many people get stuck on.

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?

In my original response, I suggested that we approach this problem by considering the value of commodities that are not the products of labor. I pointed out that their value is nevertheless the product of labor, because it is calculated according to abstract labor power, rather than concrete labor.

Love Detective was puzzled by this argument, and gave the standard objection (in his own unique style natch)

yet more nonsense from philip on this one - so the value of commodities that are not the product of labour derive their value from the abstraction of the labour (that doesn't exist) in those commodities

I think he was aiming for sarcasm, but in fact this is indeed exactly what happens. The value of products that are not produced by labor is produced by the mental act of abstracting from acts of concrete labor.

This fact is centrally important because it puts yet further pressure on Marx´s concept of ¨labor,¨ moving it further away from ¨production¨and closer to ¨life.¨

 

[phildwyer]

Just to clarify, I´m referring to ´simple´ rather than ´abstract´ labor when I say it is equivalent to ´life´for Marx

¨It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual.¨

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think he was aiming for sarcasm, but in fact this is indeed exactly what happens. The value of products that are not produced by labor is produced by the mental act of abstracting from acts of concrete labor.

I can see the sense in that idea. What conclusions can be drawn from it, though. Is it even a bad thing?

 

[magneze]

I suggested that we approach this problem by considering the value of commodities that are not the products of labor. I pointed out that their value is nevertheless the product of labor...

Sorry, what? Makes no sense to me. The value of commodities that are not the products of labour is nevertheless the product of labour?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Sorry, what? Makes no sense to me. The value of commodities that are not the products of labour is nevertheless the product of labour?

I think he means there are some commodities that, whilst not directly the product of labour, have a value attached to them that is.

 

[phildwyer]

Sorry, what? Makes no sense to me. The value of commodities that are not the products of labour is nevertheless the product of labour?

Yep.

The value of a commodity can be the product of labor without the commodity itself being a product of labor.

Take an uncultivated piece of land for example. No labor has produced it, but it still has a value. That value still comes from labor power, as all value does. But because no labor has been expended in producing the tree, the value of the tree cannot be derived from the labor that went into making the tree. It can only be derived from an abstraction from concrete labor. This abstraction, of course, is a purely mental operation.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Yep.

The value of a commodity can be the product of labor without the commodity itself being a product of labor.

Take an uncultivated piece of land for example. No labor has produced it, but it still has a value. That value still comes from labor power, as all value does. But because no labor has been expended in producing the tree, the value of the tree cannot be derived from the labor that went into making the tree. It can only be derived from an abstraction from concrete labor. This abstraction, of course, is a purely mental operation.

In the example of the piece of land though, is the value not derived from the labour that would be necessary to commodify it if one were to bring it to market?

 

[phildwyer]

I can see the sense in that idea. What conclusions can be drawn from it, though. Is it even a bad thing?

The importance of this point is that it moves the debate onto a different level.

First we need to reach an unerstanding of what Marx means by ´abstract labor,´ which Marx also refers to in this chapter as ´labor as a whole,´ ´labor as such,´ ´general labor´ and so on. As far as I can see, he basically means human life.

If that is true, then we are dealing with the alienation not of labor but of life.

As I say, that moves the debate onto a whole different level. It moves beyond the narrow sphere of ´economics´ and becomes literally a matter of life and death.

I´m not going to go beyond the text though, so I won´t extrapolate my thoughts just yet. I´m wondering whether anyone sees any problem with my identification of Marx´s ábstract labor´with life in general?

(Or talk about something else, I don´t mind either way...)

 

[magneze]

I'd take issue with an uncultivated piece of land having value. Are you actually talking about price? These are different things.

 

[love detective]

Because phil has not actually read capital, he does not realise that as well as mixing up Marx's category of Price with Value he's actually went completely mad

I think Phil's latest comments are actually quite dangerous to anyone trying to get to grips with Capital - i'm not sure whether Phil is deliberately trolling with this latest one or if it's just because he genuinely misunderstands the subject matter, most likely it's both

I am not going to continue to point out and debunk his mistakes at length though as I feel anyone reading this will just put it down to bitching between two men who should have better things to do - however I would ask that someone else who has a sound grasp of Marx's theory of value (possibly danny or butchers) come along and debunk this latest nonsense from Phil - purely so those who are just setting out in getting to grips with Capital are not misled by this patent nonsense

Phil, I don't mind when you try to troll me or whatever, that's just part of the fun of messing about on message boards, but you are now deliberately misrepresenting the work of someone you have not properly read and are deliberately trying to mislead those who are actually doing something you haven't done, which is to actually, properly read and understand the thing

 

[phildwyer]

In the example of the piece of land though, is the value not derived from the labour that would be necessary to commodify it if one were to bring it to market?

That´s one interpretation. Or some people have a recourse to SNALT here. As far as I can see, though, either of those solutions still involves a mental act of abstraction that turns specific acts of labor (eg ploughing the field) into a concept of general, undifferentiated labor.

Again, for a human being, what would general, undifferentiated labor look like? What would it be? Could it be anything other than bare life?

 

[phildwyer]

I'd take issue with an uncultivated piece of land having value. Are you actually talking about price? These are different things.

No, I´m talking about value, not price. The land must have value before it can have a price, because price is a measurement of value.

 

[magneze]

Ok, here's how I see an uncultivated piece of land from the perspective of Capital. It's price is mediated by the value, supply and demand. As no labour has been expended then its price is mediated only by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then a piece of cultivated land will always have more value than a piece of uncultivated land because of the labour expended upon it increases its value.

 

[magneze]

No, I´m talking about value, not price. The land must have value before it can have a price, because price is a measurement of value.

You want to re-read the first chapters of Capital IMO. That's not at all what I got from it. Whilst there is a link, it's not as simple as that.

 

[love detective]

I´m not going to go beyond the text though,

posibly reading the text might be a good step before you attempt to go beyond it

I´m wondering whether anyone sees any problem with my identification of Marx´s ábstract labor´with life in general?

yes, it shows a complete and utter inability to even understand the basic concepts of Marx's abstract labour and therefore his theory of value

Abstract labour in the sense that Marx talks about it is specifically tied to a historically specific form of social relations, i.e. capitalist social relations and the production of use values, by alienated wage labour, for sale as commodities. Therefore it cannot be equated with 'life in general' as life in general is an a-historical eternal thing whereas capitalist social relations, to which the concept of abstract labour equates, is not

this issue has already been addressed in an earlier post here

 

[phildwyer]

Phil, I don't mind when you try to troll me or whatever, that's just part of the fun of messing about on message boards, but you are now deliberately misrepresenting the work of someone you have not properly read and are deliberately trying to mislead those who are actually doing something you haven't done, which is to actually, properly read and understand the thing

Shall we just stop this nonsense right now? I know I´ve done my share of it in the past, but it is getting a bit old now eh?

I´m not going to get into silly competition about who has read most Marx. To your claims that I am ignorant of him I can only respond that the World disagrees with you. In fact just last week I was interviewed for over an hour about Marx´s theory of money on the radio (I´ll happily send you a link if you want) which I bet is more than you can say.

Now, shall we just stick to talking about Marx´s text, rather than each other?

 

[phildwyer]

You want to re-read the first chapters of Capital IMO. That's not at all what I got from it. Whilst there is a link, it's not as simple as that.

There´s not really much point in just saying ´no, you need to read it again.´

If you disagree with my reading, try to explain why.

 

[love detective]

You want to re-read the first chapters of Capital IMO. That's not at all what I got from it. Whilst there is a link, it's not as simple as that.

absolutely - the guy is just trolling now - the below from chapter 3 has already been quoted on this thread to dispell these absurd notions

Magnitude of value expresses a relation of social production, it expresses the connexion that necessarily exists between a certain article and the portion of the total labour-time of society required to produce it. As soon as magnitude of value is converted into price, the above necessary relation takes the shape of a more or less accidental exchange-ratio between a single commodity and another, the money-commodity. But this exchange-ratio may express either the real magnitude of that commodity’s value, or the quantity of gold deviating from that value, for which, according to circumstances, it may be parted with. The possibility, therefore, of quantitative incongruity between price and magnitude of value, or the deviation of the former from the latter, is inherent in the price-form itself. This is no defect, but, on the contrary, admirably adapts the price-form to a mode of production whose inherent laws impose themselves only as the mean of apparently lawless irregularities that compensate one another.

The price-form, however, is not only compatible with the possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude of value and price, i.e., between the former and its expression in money, but it may also conceal a qualitative inconsistency, so much so, that, although money is nothing but the value-form of commodities, price ceases altogether to express value. Objects that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, honour, &c., are capable of being offered for sale by their holders, and of thus acquiring, through their price, the form of commodities. Hence an object may have a price without having value. The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quantities in mathematics. On the other hand, the imaginary price-form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real value-relation; for instance, the price of uncultivated land, which is without value, because no human labour has been incorporated in it.

As we can see, the above from Marx contradicts entirely what phil has tried to assert as Marx's view below

Take an uncultivated piece of land for example. No labor has produced it, but it still has a value

No, I´m talking about value, not price. The land must have value before it can have a price, because price is a measurement of value.

 

[love detective]

Shall we just stop this nonsense right now? I know I´ve done my share of it in the past, but it is getting a bit old now eh?

I´m not going to get into silly competition about who has read most Marx. To your claims that I am ignorant of him I can only respond that the World disagrees with you. In fact just last week I was interviewed for over an hour about Marx´s theory of money on the radio (I´ll happily send you a link if you want) which I bet is more than you can say.

Now, shall we just stick to talking about Marx´s text, rather than each other?

oh i didn't realise you'd been on the radio before - in that case i take everything back, that negates all the shite and ignorance you've been spouting here about it then - why didn't you tell me you'd been on the radio before, the radio eh

and by the way puffing up the fact that you are supposed to be an expert on this is not actually working in your favour here, while someone like me who is not an academic and has had no formal education since leaving at school at 16 can run rings around you on it, does not make the category of expert looks like something to be praised

 

[phildwyer]

Abstract labour in the sense that Marx talks about it is specifically tied to a historically specific form of social relations

No it isn´t. If it were, it wouldn´t be abstract would it?

Perhaps you mean that the necessity to conceive of human labor in the abstract only arises in a large scale system of exchange? That would make more sense.