Capital - Chapter 1 - Reduction of Complex to Simple Labour

[love detective]

No I meant what i said and dealt with it here - post 88 has knocked you out old man

 

[phildwyer]

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

Not just the radio, as you know. I´ve written a few books on the subject too.

I do not mention this because I expect deference. I mention it only because your main debating tactic consists of shouting ´he hasn´t read anything, he doesn´t know anything, he´s ignorant´ over and over again.

In an effort to make you stop doing this, and to make you engage in a debate instead, I have finally been forced to point out that your claims are demonstrably untrue.

Now, shall we carry on properly this time?

 

[love detective]

certainly - would you like to respond to post 88

(and all the other posts on the other thread that you have been unable to deal with)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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

I don't think so. We're still just dealing with value as something that involves agreement between people. Value as a socially mediated quality that exists at a social level. Economic value surely only exists at a social level, because an economy is simply a way of looking at a society. We can exchange things we've made, or things we've found. We can exchange things we've found for things someone else has made. We can exchange something we've stolen. We can pretend to own something and exchange it. The very idea of 'ownership' itself is a socially mediated thing too.

I'm not completely sure about the term 'alienation' in this context, but wouldn't it be right to say that the abstraction that 'value' is in this context - the context of the kind of value that can be attached to money - is precisely the abstraction of something that exists between people. Saying that this is 'alienation of life' is something of a leap.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

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.¨

I really don't understand what this means, sorry. Value is abstracted life?

 

[phildwyer]

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.

The issue of demand is a whole other matter. Marx has often been attacked for allegedly failing to acknowledge the role of demand in creating value, and it´s a criticism that seems at first glance to hold quite a lot of water.

However, if we take the concept of ´labor power´ to mean human life in general, then Marx´s labor theory of value can explain the influence of demand on value, since demand is also a human action.

(Just in case there may be a pedantic pointscoring posturer reading this, let me stress that I´m NOT claiming this as Marx´s own view, but rather as my reading of Marx)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I really don't understand what this means, sorry. Value is abstracted life?

I've seen phil present this argument before. Perhaps he'd like to clarify the endpoint now, which is that money has an autonomous will of its own and is the devil. Or do I have that wrong?

Problem is, as with the idea that language controls thought, that this leaves out half the story. What it is really saying, imo, is that we are social beings and part of the way we define ourselves is as part of that larger collective whole, and that we clearly only control that whole collectively.

I've had arguments in my brief foray onto other boards from this one with Americans who have a particular way of thinking about a collective that only involves them seeing it as something that controls them. They seemed not to see how they were also themselves a part of the process of making that collective. It does seem to me to be a peculiarly American way of thinking. It's not something I encounter so much with people from other parts of the world.

 

[phildwyer]

I really don't understand what this means, sorry. Value is abstracted life?

I´m trying to figure out what Marx means by ´labor power.´ He doesn´t mean individual acts of labor, rather he means the capacity for labor for a given duration. What he ultimately means is time. What the worker sells to the capitalist is his time. And there is no distinction between time and life. Therefore what the worker sells to the capitalist is not his labor but his time, his life, his SELF.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

And there is no distinction between time and life. Therefore what the worker sells to the capitalist is not his labor but his time, his life, his SELF.

How do you come to the conclusion that there is no distinction between time and life? They're two different things.

 

[love detective]

post 88 took the wind out of you didn't it phil - feel up to responding to it?

Or are you just going to try and avoid it by descending into even more absurdities here?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

post 88 took the wind out of you didn't it phil - feel up to responding to it?

Or are you just going to try and avoid it by descending into even more absurdities here?

I'm a bit puzzled by that quote. Doesn't that distinction between price and value have more of a moral weight than an objective, practical one?

 

[love detective]

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

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

If you're talking about the piece from Kliman, then if you look at it the answer to your question is there in the first sentence (and also the 2nd & 3rd last paragraphs)

Personally I don't find the complex/simple distinction of much analytical use (it both seems a bit clumsy and also somewhat redundant) and to an extent Marx probably didn't either as he basically introduces it and wraps it up within one paragraph (the one i quoted). It perhaps plays a part though in just assuming away any elements for confusion on the part of the reader when first reading it, i.e. it simplifies a part of the discussion and 'abstracts' away potential niggly points to clear the way to make the more substantive points, as the aim at this stage is not to let niggly bits of detail (however important they may be) get in the way of the essence of the points being made (or in the case of chapter 1, the points being stated).

Getting back on track. I tend to agree with you that the complex/simple distinction seems redundant when there is already the concrete/abstract notion. Is this literally the only paragraph in which Marx mentions it? Nowhere else, even in other writings outside Capital?

 

[phildwyer]

I don't think so. We're still just dealing with value as something that involves agreement between people. Value as a socially mediated quality that exists at a social level. Economic value surely only exists at a social level, because an economy is simply a way of looking at a society. We can exchange things we've made, or things we've found. We can exchange things we've found for things someone else has made. We can exchange something we've stolen. We can pretend to own something and exchange it. The very idea of 'ownership' itself is a socially mediated thing too.

I'm not completely sure about the term 'alienation' in this context, but wouldn't it be right to say that the abstraction that 'value' is in this context - the context of the kind of value that can be attached to money - is precisely the abstraction of something that exists between people. Saying that this is 'alienation of life' is something of a leap.

I take it that I´ve now answered this by (a) noting that the commodity sold by the worker is himself, and (b) pointing out the necessity of generalization from individual acts of labor, the generalization of individual acts of labor being human activity in general, aka Life. Is that fair enough, or do you need more?

But it´s worth adding here that only by understanding ´labor power´ as ´life´ does Capital make sense in the context of the history of philosophy. Marx thinks of ´labor power´as the real manifestation of Hegel´s Geist, and he thinks that the proletariat´s recognition of capital as its own externalized activity will bring about (or rather IS) the self recognition of Geist.

To say that the Hegelian heritage of Capital has been neglected in recent years is a serious understatement. But I don´t think one can understand Marx´s project unless we remember that Capital is an answer to the Phenomenology.

 

[love detective]

I also don't think one can understand Marx's project (defined here, as you do, as Capital) unless one has actually read it, something you haven't done

you seemed to have overlooked a response to post 88 though - i'm definitely off to bed now so you have some time to try and square that particular circle

night sweetie

 

[phildwyer]

How do you come to the conclusion that there is no distinction between time and life? They're two different things.

Not for human beings they´re not.

When you sell your time, you sell your life. Right or wrong?

Now, if it is true that the proletarian sells his life for money, a whole new set of problems emerges. For one thing, we really are talking about capital as alienated life, with all the ethical implications that involves. For another, the question of slavery arises.

That´s getting too far ahead though.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Not for human beings they´re not.

When you sell your time, you sell your life. Right or wrong?

Wrong. I sell my time, and my job becomes part of my life.

 

[phildwyer]

post 88 though

post 88 though

post 88 though

He just can´t take a hint can he?

As you´ve noticed, I´m reluctant to converse with you. This is not due to any concern that I may not be up to your standards, but simply because I don´t think you´re really interested in intellectual discussion.

What you are interested in, clearly enough, is finding out who has read the most, who is the cleverest, who has the biggest pencil etc. In my opening post today I told you that such matters did not interest me, and I invited you to drop them and instead participate in our discussion. But no... you came back with the same thing yet again. I haven´t read anything, I´m stupid, you´ve read everything, you´re clever... as soon as you find what you think is a good point you leap up and down screaming for a reply... although why you need any vindication from one whose capacities you affect to despise so thoroughly is a mystery to me....)

You are the most intellectually insecure person I´ve ever met.

 

[love detective]

you engaged in discussion, asserting a number of things, i engaged with you on that discussion and revealed what you were talking about to be nonsense

you then suddenly become 'reluctant to converse' about a point you yourself raised

funny that eh

 

[phildwyer]

Wrong. I sell my time, and my job becomes part of my life.

Your time is also part of your life though, right? So you sell part of your life every working day, and the difference between you (or me) and a slave is really one of degree, not of kind.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Your time is also part of your life though, right? So you sell part of your life every working day, and the difference between you (or me) and a slave is really one of degree, not of kind.

The line of reasoning seems a bit forced, tbh. "Your life is limited by time; therefore, in selling your time you are selling your life; therefore value is 'abstracted life'". All of that just seems to flow out of the way you set up the initial definitions. Plus, what on earth is abstracted life when it's at home?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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 got that bit.

I didn't mean moral in that sense. I've been reading the first three chapters myself today, and in this thread I've certainly been using the word value where Marx would say 'price'. However, I'm not convinced by the objective difference.

 

[phildwyer]

The line of reasoning seems a bit forced, tbh. "Your life is limited by time; therefore, in selling your time you are selling your life; therefore value is 'abstracted life'". All of that just seems to flow out of the way you set up the initial definitions. Plus, what on earth is abstracted life when it's at home?

It´s not that your life is limited by time, it´s that your life is time. Everybody`s is. So when you sell your time, you are selling a portion of your life. That seems a truism to me. Am I missing something?

As for ´abstracted life,´ it´s the same as abstracted anything. Why shouldn´t life be conceived in the abstract?

 

[phildwyer]

I didn't mean moral in that sense. I've been reading the first three chapters myself today, and in this thread I've certainly been using the word value where Marx would say 'price'. However, I'm not convinced by the objective difference.

Don´t be misled by Love Detective´s confused and confusing account. The difference between ´value´ and ´price´ is pretty straightforward. Price is a measure and an expression of value. So price will fluctuate for reasons that have nothing to do with value, and this further obscures the true source of value in labor power.

 

[love detective]

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

do you seriously stand by these previous comments as a correct interpretation of Marx's concepts of Price & Value?

1. Your assertion of Marx's view:-

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

1. Marx's actual view:-

the price of uncultivated land, which is without value, because no human labour has been incorporated in it

And again

2. Your assertion of Marx's view:-

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.

2. Marx's actual view:-

Hence an object may have a price without having value

Face it philip, you don't even have a solid grasp on the basic categories and concepts that Marx uses, which is why you run into all kinds of troubles when you try and employ them in any kind of analysis of your own. I suggest you join the reading group here and begin, as the others are doing, to undertake a serious engagement with it and start to get to grips with the basics before attempting to do anything else.

Saying you've been on the radio or had books published means nothing really, all I can go on is the words I see on my screen from you, but I do admit to shuddering at the thought of you being given any kind of platform to present these absurdities as being those of Marx's (especially the absurdities around abstract labour)

 

[love detective]

I got that bit.

I didn't mean moral in that sense. I've been reading the first three chapters myself today, and in this thread I've certainly been using the word value where Marx would say 'price'. However, I'm not convinced by the objective difference.

Not sure what you mean by it being a 'moral weight' then - marx's analysis of capital is an objective, not a moral one

Price and Value while related, are two distinct and objective categories that Marx employs in his analysis of capitalism - and when talking about the difference between them, as he does in that quote (i.e. the scope for not just a quantitative incongruence but also a qualitative incongruence) then this to is an objective difference, an objective difference between two objective categories - this is one area that even Phil and I would agree on

 

[butchersapron]

I got that bit.

I didn't mean moral in that sense. I've been reading the first three chapters myself today, and in this thread I've certainly been using the word value where Marx would say 'price'. However, I'm not convinced by the objective difference.

250 pages in a day. Not bad going.

 

[JimW]

It's taken me all year to get halfway through chapter four, and probably miss most of the point

 

[magneze]

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.

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.

 

[Blagsta]

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.

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.

...and I haven't even read Capital.