corwin

Capital Volume 1 Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 3

This section is called “The form of value or exchange-value”

Page 47: “Commodities come into the world in the shape of use-values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however commodities, only because they are something two-fold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value-form.”

Lurking within the physical form of a commodity is a value form; that is, it is an expression of value. It has value and may be treated (indeed, is treated, and was produced to be treated) as a container of value. Not all things that have value are commodities (ie, undeveloped land); but all commodities have value.

“The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity.”

Value is meaningless in a single, isolated commodity. It becomes important when that commodity is placed beside another of a different kind; then they enter into a relationship based on their values. The relationship is, to be precise, exchangeability.

“Everyone knows, if he knows nothing else, that commodities have a value-form common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use-values. I mean their money-form.”

Check. Even the most stubborn, ignorant adherent to the Chicago School is aware that commodities are traded for money, and (though he may never have thought about it) that money has little in common with the physical form of the commodity it is buying.

“Here, however, a task is set us, the performance of which has yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money-form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value-relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form. “

Why my girlfriend rocks

Reesa is recovering from surgery. Part of the recovery process has involved some household rearranging that made it impossible for me to write. Reesa and Nathan, while dealing with everything else, put enough effort into the problem that it’s now been solved, and I’m back to writing. That she took the trouble to fix this (with, by the way, no help from me) under these conditions is, um, impressive seems too weak.

Anyway, Tiassa is humming along; I hope to have a completed first draft within a couple of weeks. Those who didn’t want to wait an extra six months or so for it should thank Reesa and Nathan.

Capital Volume 1 Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 2 Post 5

Page 45: “If one coat represents x days’ labour, two coats represent 2x days’ labour, and so on. But assume that the duration of the labour necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled or halved. In the first case, one coat is worth as much as two coats were before; in the second case, two coats are only worth as much as one was before, although in both cases one coat renders the same service as before, and the useful labour embodied in it remains of the same quality. But the quantity of labour spent on its production has altered.

“An increase in the quantity of use-values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats, two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man. Nevertheless, an increased quantity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic movement has its origin in the two-fold character of labour. Productive power has reference, of course, only to labour of some useful concrete form, the efficacy of any special productive activity during a given time being dependent on its productiveness. Useful labour becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products, in proportion to the rise or fall of its productiveness.”

Here we have an important concept: the productiveness of labor. In other words, in a given society at a given time, how productive is average labor? It is easy to see in a given case: a man driving in nails with a rock is less productive than one using a hammer; and using a power hammer permits him to be even more productive. It is clear, then, that the introduction of the power hammer makes anyone using it more productive (that is, can accomplish more in a given time); it follows that the introduction of the power hammer makes the society more productive, albeit by a trivial amount. Increased productivity means less labor-time spent on a given commodity, which means a lower value, which translates (though we haven’t gotten there yet) to a lower cost.

“The same change in productive power, which increases the fruitfulness of labour, and, in consequence, the quantity of use-values produced by that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased quantity of use-values, provided such change shorten the total labour-time necessary for the production; and vice versa.

Page 46: “On the one hand all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour-power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expenditure of human labour-power in a special form and with a definite aim and, and in this, its character of concrete human labour, it produces use-values.”

And here we have an interesting footnote: “In order to prove that labour alone is that all-sufficient and real measure, by which at all times the value of all commodities can be estimated and compared, Adam Smith says, ‘Equal quantities of labour must at all times and in all places have the same value for the labourer. In his normal state of health, strength, and activity, and with the average degree of skill that he may possess, he must always give up the same portion of his rest, his freedom, and his happiness.’ (Wealth of Nations, b1 ch V.) On the one hand, Adam Smith here (but not everywhere) confuses the determination of value by means of the quantity of labour expended in the production of commodities, with the determination of the values of commodities by means of the value of labour, and seeks in consequence to prove that equal quantities of labour have always the same value. On the other hand, he has a presentiment, that labour, so far as it manifests itself in the value of commodities, counts only as expenditure of labour-power, but he treats this expenditure as a mere sacrifice of rest, freedom, and happiness, not as at the same time the normal activity of living beings. But then, he has the modern wage-labourer in his eye.” Engels makes the additional remark: “The English language has the advantage of possessing different words for the two aspects of labour here considered. The labour which creates Use-Value, and counts qualitatively is Work, as distinguished from Labour; that which creates Value and count quantitatively is Labour as distinguished from Work.”

Capital Volume 1 Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 2 Post 4

Page 44: “Just as, therefore, in viewing the coat and linen as values, we abstract from their different use-values, so it is with the labour represented by those values: we disregard the difference between its useful forms, weaving and tailoring. As the use-values, coat and linen, are combinations of special productive activities with cloth and yarn, while the values, coat and linen, are, on the other hand, mere homogeneous congelations of undifferentiated labour, so the labour embodied in these latter values does not count by virtue of its productive relation to cloth and yarn, but only as being expenditure of human labour-power.”

My impression is that Marx is taking the same point he made before, and simply coming at it from another angle, much like a mathematician might try to prove a conclusion in several different ways. The point is still this: that by abstracting from commodities the particular characteristics to leave only value, we are also abstracting the particular sort of labor that created them, leaving only human labor in the abstract. If there is another point here, I’m missing it.

Page 45: “Coats and linen, however, are not merely values, but values of definite magnitude, and according to our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the ten yards of linen. Whence this difference in their values? It is owing to the fact that the linen contains only half as much labour as the coat, and consequently, that in the production of the latter, labour-power must have been expended during twice the time necessary for the production of the former.”

Note that labor-power expended is how we get labor. Intuitively obvious, but worth paying attention to. I have the ability to labor, but it doesn’t actually change anything until I exert myself. Once I have done so, that labor, if it isn’t wasted, does something. Just as an electrical current through a working incandescent bulb transforms itself into light and heat, labor-power, when expended, transforms itself into something else–namely, value.

“While, therefore, with reference to use-value, the labour contained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much? How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value.”

Any commodity can be exchanged for any other because, with the correct adjustment of quantity, they can be made equal.

Among Others by Jo Walton

This book will be out next January. Let me get my major complaint out of the way: if you are going form a book as a series of journal entries, you need to always be aware of the state of mind of the writer at the time of making the entry. For example, if a car crashed into my house creating a fire from which I barely emerged alive, and I wanted to write a journal entry about it, I wouldn’t start the entry: “I got up around ten and made coffee, then checked my email. Heard from an old high school friend….” unless I was going for effect (which I probably would, but that isn’t the point). It would be more reasonable for me to say, “Holy fucking shit! I can’t believe I’m alive! Okay, let me tell you about MY day! Jesus. It was pretty normal until…” So, yeah, there are too many entries where I had trouble believing they were being written as they were.

All in all, that’s a pretty minor beef. Also, the thing is set in 1979-1980 in England and Wales, and other than vague mentions of Russo-American antagonism and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there is no feeling of what was, really a remarkable time in the British Isles and the world (the election of Thatcher, a horrible mine explosion, massive violence in Northern Ireland, Iran becomming an Islamic republic). I get annoyed with the notion that boarding schools and small towns are so isolated that events in the world don’t penetrate. I don’t buy it. But that, too, is pretty minor.

Those complaints aside, this is an amazing book. I mean, really amazing. Ever read one of those YA books that drops in the occasional mention of what is obviously a favorite book of the author’s in such a way as to give you the uncomfortable feeling that you’re supposed to like the character because the character likes that book, or maybe likes books, and you end up feeling manipulated? This ain’t that. This ain’t that at all. In this book, we follow Mor, aged 15, as she voraciously read sf just as we did, and it gives her bursts of insight just as it did us. The sf she is reading is part of who she is, and who she is becoming, and it is so real it hurts. Meanwhile, she’s involved in a magical battle involving faeries, a dead twin sister, and those who would use magic to twist others to their ends. And the insights from the books she reads and the magical battles keep bouncing off each other in ways that make my head spin. I need to read this a bunch of times just to start to figure it out.

The timing of her revelations, as we gradually learn about the key incidents of the past, is perfect. Forgive me for falling into cliche, but, “the deft touch of the master” is the only way to describe it.

A couple years ago, at Fourth Street Fantasy convention, Mrissa Lingan made the (to me) profound observation that characterization is a relationship, or a set of relationships–it’s not about this person, it’s how this person interacts with that person, and that one, and the other one. I’ve never seen a better example of that than this book–each set of relationships reinforces every other, and makes Mor stunningly real. Not to mention that the first person narrative is, to my mind, flawless; nailing the thought processes of a 15-year-old, very bright, articulate reader is a triumph. Also, it helps that I like her.

But there is one thing for which I will never forgive Jo Walton: As the book is set in 1979-1980, and as my first book didn’t come out until 1983, I will never get to hear what Mor thought of Jhereg, and that pisses me off!