this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)

theory

710 readers
42 users here now

A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for [email protected] will be removed.

The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We are reading Volumes 1, 2, and 3 in one year. This will repeat yearly until communism is achieved. (Volume IV, often published under the title Theories of Surplus Value, will not be included, but comrades are welcome to set up other bookclubs.) This works out to about 6½ pages a day for a year, 46 pages a week.

I'll post the readings at the start of each week and @mention anybody interested.

Week 1, Jan 1-7, we are reading Volume 1, Chapter 1 'The Commodity'

Discuss the week's reading in the comments.

Use any translation/edition you like. Marxists.org has the Moore and Aveling translation in various file formats including epub and PDF: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Ben Fowkes translation, PDF: http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9C4A100BD61BB2DB9BE26773E4DBC5D

AernaLingus says: I noticed that the linked copy of the Fowkes translation doesn't have bookmarks, so I took the liberty of adding them myself. You can either download my version with the bookmarks added, or if you're a bit paranoid (can't blame ya) and don't mind some light command line work you can use the same simple script that I did with my formatted plaintext bookmarks to take the PDF from libgen and add the bookmarks yourself.


Resources

(These are not expected reading, these are here to help you if you so choose)


@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

(page 5) 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different cultural epochs, but in a particular society it is given. More complex labour counts only as intensified, or rather multiplied simple labour, so that a smaller quantity of complex labour is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the outcome of the most complicated labour, but through its value it is posited as equal to the product of simple labour, hence it represents only a specific quantity of simple labour.15 The various proportions in which different kinds of labour are reduced to simple labour as their unit of measurement are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers; these proportions therefore appear to the producers to have been handed down by tradition. In the interests of simplification, we shall henceforth view every form of labour-power directly as simple labour-power; by this we shall simply be saving ourselves the trouble of making the reduction. p. 135

Is intensified/multiplied labor referring to the use of fixed capital in production? I.e. the machinery as dead-labor whose value is then transferred to the product through living labor, intensifying the value transferred into a commodity per unit of labor-time? Or to forms of labor which are more difficult/intensive/complex?

If the latter, is Marx always considering that 1 hour = 1 hour? I understand how this works in the abstract, but I guess I am just curious how this has implications for the later imagined association of "free men" (though perhaps I am subjecting his "parallel" to too much scrutiny):

We shall assume, but only for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time. Labour-time would in that case play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the correct proportion between the different functions of labour and the various needs of the associations. On the other hand, labour-time also serves as a measure of the part taken by each individual in the common labour, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. p 172

Both quotes from the Fowkes translation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is intensified/multiplied labor referring to the use of fixed capital in production? I.e. the machinery as dead-labor whose value is then transferred to the product through living labor, intensifying the value transferred into a commodity per unit of labor-time? Or to forms of labor which are more difficult/intensive/complex?

So the way I understand it is that more complicated work requires training and/or special talent to be done. An hour of brain surgery is not qual to a hour of ditch digging in terms of the value of the labor but it is still essentially the same thing. A brain surgeon has expended a significant amount of time to be capable of doing brain surgery so the value of the labor is multiplied and is worth more.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

So the way I understand it is that more complicated work requires training and/or special talent to be done. An hour of brain surgery is not qual to a hour of ditch digging in terms of the value of the labor but it is still essentially the same thing. A brain surgeon has expended a significant amount of time to be capable of doing brain surgery so the value of the labor is multiplied and is worth more.

This is how I read it the first time, but thought maybe I was misreading.

I wonder how this can be accounted for though. It doesn't figure into the chapter or his example he gives. On the scale of the entirety of social labor, these situations are outliers, so I'm fine with the blunt way he is using labor time, but once he invoked his example of a non-capitalist association I wanted more specificity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Take a drink, every time he says "in so far as".... tbh, I'm honestly a bit confused by his sentence structure at times but I can understand...

I am 2/3 of the way in...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

An audiobook can help to parse the long sentences. I’m listening to the one by Derek Le Page which is fantastic in that regard. He also reads the footnotes.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›