This breakdown is really good. Especially with the interweaving of the quotes.

I have one but: I thought the first "C" in "M-C-C-M" was the purchase of the labor commodity. Fortunately, I think this doesn't really do much against your breakdown. Flip 'em around and it works. The commodity labor is purchased and then does work on raw materials with the instruments(means) to create a commodity to be sold on the market which then yields money, having been sold.

Another good Grundrisse quote, p 328/329 -- for thems who believe that workers are strictly factory workers making things:

Actors are productive workers, not in so far as they produce a play, but in so far as they increase their employer's wealth

What counts as a commodity can be, say, a Starbucks coffee. Service.

I have one but: I thought the first "C" in "M-C-C-M" was the purchase of the labor commodity. Fortunately, I think this doesn't really do much against your breakdown. Flip 'em around and it works. The commodity labor is purchased and then does work on raw materials with the instruments(means) to create a commodity to be sold on the market which then yields money, having been sold. — Moliere

That's interesting. M-C-C-M is given a directional connotation though right. A big deal's been made about money going the opposite way around the cycle than commodities. I agree with you that both make sense. Though maybe they should not.

Are the raw materials interpreted as commodities in your view? Are they there "before" this step of circulation?

That's interesting. M-C-C-M is given a directional connotation though right. A big deal's been made about money going the opposite way around the cycle than commodities. I agree with you that both make sense. Though maybe they should not. — fdrake

I agree there's definitely a direction to M-C-C-M -- I interpret it as the second moment in the process of circulation. The C-M-M-C moment is from the one side of the laborer, and the M-C-C-M moment is from the other side as the capitalist.

And maybe they should not -- I'm definitely still playing around, and only sharing thoughts here. I'm not firm on anything yet.

Are the raw materials interpreted as commodities in your view? Are they there "before" this step of circulation? — fdrake

Nope! I agree that the raw materials are a commodity. The means of production (the factory, the spinner) are a commodity, the raw materials (wool) are, and so is the living labor purchased. In order for raw materials, like gold or iron or what have you, to enter into the economic relation, even though they are there beforehand, they must be worked, so they have labor time invested in them.

Page 350 before class started today. Glad to hear some of the comments up front about how this section is when we hit a turning point, because that's what I was thinking -- that it started get interesting at this point.

I'm looking forward to being caught up next week, since it's a skip week.

Nope! I agree that the raw materials are a commodity. The means of production (the factory, the spinner) are a commodity, the raw materials (wool) are, and so is the living labor purchased. In order for raw materials, like gold or iron or what have you, to enter into the economic relation, even though they are there beforehand, they must be worked, so they have labor time invested in them. — Moliere

Oh I see. You're interpreting the first C as a composite of raw materials and labour, the - as the expenditure of labour power, and the second C as the output commodity. I think that's actually more correct. Because you need to buy+renew the means of production and labour in the M-C step; which would also make it consistent with the Capital volume 2 analysis I think!

Yup! that's what I was thinking. (though it being consistent with V2 is pure luck, since I've yet to get that far!)

"Money is a claim on future labour" is mindblowing.

:D

I agree. There's been a lot of bits like that throughout, for me -- where there's been a slog, but then there's something that finally clicks, and it really does change the way I look at things. Like money.

Though for me, I'd actually not want to de-emphasize the numbers as Harvey did. One of the things that would excite me is if I could utilize these to begin to understand a way of setting up formulas, make measurements, etc. -- that is, I'm interested in Marx, in addition to the many ways he's used, but in his original purpose: as a scientific project of economics. It's one of those questions that's always interested me.

But it's worth noting that Marx is a philosopher first, and has been read in many ways. And I like that Harvey says that too :D.

By the way, for 14MAR23, marxists dot org link and final paragraph:

Finally, the result of the process of production and realization is, above all, the reproduction and new production of the relation of capital and labour itself, of capitalist and worker. This social relation, production relation, appears in fact as an even more important result of the process than its material results. And more particularly, within this process the worker produces himself as labour capacity, as well as the capital confronting him, while at the same time the capitalist produces himself as capital as well as the living labour capacity confronting him. Each reproduces itself, by reproducing its other, its negation. The capitalist produces labour as alien; labour produces the product as alien. The capitalist produces the worker, and the worker the capitalist etc.

Though for me, I'd actually not want to de-emphasize the numbers as Harvey did. One of the things that would excite me is if I could utilize these to begin to understand a way of setting up formulas, make measurements, etc. -- that is, I'm interested in Marx, in addition to the many ways he's used, but in his original purpose: as a scientific project of economics. It's one of those questions that's always interested me. — Moliere

Same! We've got a shared interest in that. I did some work years ago on the value theory in Capital here! Lots of abstract algebra.

That's awesome.

Now, how to intregrate this into a formalization of Hegelian dialectic, and the beginnings of analytic Marxism will be complete! :D

"The labourer is not only producing surplus value, they're maintaining past value" - another mindblower.

Heh. While the reading material became more interesting, I have to say halfway through that makes the conversation less about the text. But that's not bad. I'm glad to hear the class talking and asking questions they're thinking about. If the book doesn't connect to our lives then it's purely academic. And, honestly, the text became more interesting so I don't need Harvey to connect as much in explaining why something is relevant. I'm just noting feelings.

"If you look at the statistics in Marx's times the largest category of labor was domestic service" -- that's interesting. And I like how Harvey is connecting that to how in Marx's time domestic labor was not organized by a firm, so it didn't seem relevant. But Harvey even mentioned the actor quote I posted, and noted how at the moment it didn't make sense where today it does. (hah! though he doesn't want to spend too much time on productive/unproductive... fair enough. It's kind of an "ad hoc" theory, looked at from a certain view, though I always like to note that it didn't take us long to figure out, in practice, what was productive/unproductive during COVID-19, so maybe that's why it's wise to not spend time on it -- it doesn't matter except as a political decision, rather than as theory)

Harvey has a wonderful mastery of Marx in his reading. He's so comfortable with all the texts and concepts he's fielding questions about difficult concepts with ease. And he's not fudging it: there are times I can tell the students in class (as an aside, the students questions have been great, and I admire the work they're putting in) have questions with some kind of hope, but Harvey is straightforward and doesn't mind dampening hopes in the name of a consistent and honest reading.

Very side note, but "labor is purposive activity" reminds me of Kant's aesthetics. I try to de-emphasize the Kant-Marx connection, now, because I've come around to saying their similarities make sense through the common influence of Rousseau. And I think that the angle of Rousseau has gone underemphasized -- no one wants to admit to Romantic influences, it's all about the Enlightenment! :D

Heh. posted my notes to respond, because I lost them last time when trying to respond.

But, yup! All that responsibility placed on you making so much sense.

Heyyy... question for you @fdrake -- question about "workers retain past value" -- that wasn't what I was thinking in the question. But yup, I like this too. In a sense I've looked at the Labor Theory of Value, since it uses an SI unit, as being a possible conservation law.

But yup, I like this too. In a sense I've looked at the Labor Theory of Value, since it uses an SI unit, as being a possible conservation law. — Moliere

I wrote about this here actually. There's some issues regarding logistics. How does transport add to socially necessary labour time? Does it? But I think it behaves very much like a conservation law. I think it follows from socially necessary labour time being additive, as a time, but products being made stagewise - assembly and production. Given that the SNLT of all commodities is fixed at a time point, a commodity's SNLT will be equal to the SNLT of its components plus their assembly costs. You can keep going down to the raw materials ("gifts of nature") which are unworked, and thus have no value, and thus no socially necessary labour time for their production. You end up getting an expression of each constituent in terms of time. So decomposition behaves like a linear operator (adding items to a recipe is linear), and so does valuation.

One rejoinder though, SNLT is time varying. So whenever there'd be a productive innovation, the SNLT of the input commodities to a productive process would retroactively degrade. Assuming the innovation occurs at an appropriate time.

ooo... nice question. "alienated labor -- alienated capital -- what is it they are alienated from?"

I'll admit that alienation is one of the harder concepts of Marx. "that capacity is alienated from the worker by going under the control of capital" -- perfect answer. The worker is there, and while they have capacity to do things, that capacity is owned by someone else. It was bought. And they don't control the process or product, either.

"Now, capital is alienated" -- interesting!

2 reasons -- the coercive laws of competition force capitalists to do things whether they like it or not. If child laborers are acceptable in a market, the other businesses which employ child labor will out-compete you. "in a market system, abstractions rule"

I've yet to do V3, but my understanding is that's where he tackles that very question and concludes that transit is a part of SNLT. (not read your posts there yet, definitely going to)

I think, in the most abstract sense, it does. If you think about a firm there are people who really just move things to where they need to be, when you think about it abstractly.

I think it gets really confusing because of the obvious conflict between "I drive things over here and back and don't make things, so what?", but then if they didn't do so the market wouldn't be expanded, and capital must expand.

I'm really interested that "species-being" came up. I thought that would drop dead.

My buddy would always made the joke that he's left of Marx because he didn't believe in a species-being, and only believed in freedom.

I think it gets really confusing because of the obvious conflict between "I drive things over here and back and don't make things, so what?", but then if they didn't do so the market wouldn't be expanded, and capital must expand. — Moliere

Yeah! I think Harvey referenced this too, that Marx towards the end of his life didn't find "productive labour" vs "unproductive labour" that useful a distinction. So the cleaners count as part of it, so do the logistics... I've not read all of Volume 3! Hardly any of it in fact.

Well, after we solve the foundations of analytic Marxism, maybe we can start a reading group ;)

Yes. Then revise all starting assumptions. It's dialectical.

:D Got a good belly laugh out of me.

Hrmm... they did say "next week" in the stream. I'm going to be straight and say, I'm catching up. That's a good opportunity. For thems following along and who have the companion and who want to chime in, that'd be the time to do so.

Or, well -- "time to do so" -- sounds annoyed. I don't care if you do chime in. Only noting I won't have all the clever banter I've been putting up :D -- maybe I'll focus more on interpretation, as I ought to.

For thems following along and who have the companion and who want to chime in, that'd be the time to do so. — Moliere

Or, well -- "time to do so" -- sounds annoyed. — Moliere

I am annoyed with those who are following along without reading. Nyeeeer. We've got time to catch up now.

:D

What can I say, I'm a big softie, and I'm just glad that anyone is following along.

Same. Also thanks for suggesting this. It's been fun so far!

Cheers!

(trying to adopt the phrase. this is the right time I believe)

The transformation of land into landed property, and its dependence on capital and wage labour.

“In the money market, capital is posited in its totality; there it determines prices, gives work, regulates production, in a word, is the source of production; but capital, not only as something which produces itself (positing prices materially in industry etc., developing forces of production), but at the same time as a creator of values, has to posit a value or form of wealth specifically distinct from capital. This is ground rent. This is the only value created by capital which is distinct from itself, from its own production. By its nature as well as historically, capital is the creator of modern landed property, of ground rent; just as its action therefore appears also as the dissolution of the old form of property in land.

“This latter himself then ‘clears’, as Steuart says, [47] the land of its excess mouths, tears the children of the earth from the breast on which they were raised, and thus transforms labour on the soil itself, which appears by its nature as the direct wellspring of subsistence, into a mediated source of subsistence, a source purely dependent on social relations.”

“We therefore always find that, wherever landed property is transformed into money rent through the reaction of capital on the older forms of landed property (the same thing takes place in another way where the modern farmer is created) and where, therefore, at the same time agriculture, driven by capital, transforms itself into industrial agronomy, there the cottiers, serfs, bondsmen, tenants for life, cottagers etc. become day labourers, wage labourers, i.e. that wage labour in its totality is initially created by the action of capital on landed property, and then, as soon as the latter has been produced as a form, by the proprietor of the land himself.

(Marx I cannot forgive you for the length of that sentence)

“There can therefore be no doubt that wage labour in its classic form, as something permeating the entire expanse of society, which has replaced the very earth as the ground on which society stands, is initially created only by modern landed property, i.e. by landed property as a value created by capital itself.”

This describes a historical progression. And a development of concepts. Running at the same time.

There was land. People worked the land. People got stuff from it. That's pre-capitalist agrarian labour. The people use the land, there's not really a notion of legal property entitlement or power relations to enforce it. People also lay claim to what they make out of the land and control its use.

Then some fucker claimed ownership of the land, turned the people into serfs upon it, and demanded tribute/tax from the serfs. That's serfdom for a property owner. There's a notion of property entitlement, and power relations to enforce those entitlements. Crucially, the labourers produce for the lord, who is deemed to already own what they later take. They no longer have claim to the land, they simply work it. Owning the land means owning a portion of its created products.

Then there's capitalist agrarian labour. The serfs now work the land to produce its products for exchange. They receive a wage. Those two things together make them wage labourers - production for profit where their labour is payed for. The land turns from a bunch of useful stuff to consume for the people who work it, into a bunch of products to sell. Selling the products allows reinvestment into the land and labourers. That's now a type of capital advancement. Once this is a possibility for the organisation of agrarian labour, it can and will be enforced by the proprietors of the land.

Capitalist agrarian labour presupposes prior developments of agrarian labour - like the creation of serfs through violent acquisition. It also posits for-profit production of the goods the pre-serf agrarian labourers produced for personal/collective consumption.

This transformation of land from use value productive to value productive is essential to the development of industrial capital. Industrial capital is posited by, and contained in, money capital. Despite the land itself and the work done upon it being an interruption of the circuit of exchange. M-C-C-M, the first "C-" is the interruption of production.

If you become the proprietor of land and labour power, you can do the "C-C-M" part of the chain to start circulation. That internalises the worked land and labourers into the circuit of industrial capital.

To the extent that land remains outside of for-profit production, it is a barrier for the expansion of capital. It is a hole in totality which must be filled. All such barriers are business opportunities.

It must be kept in mind that the new forces of production and relations of production do not develop out of nothing, nor drop from the sky, nor from the womb of the self-positing Idea; but from within and in antithesis to the existing development of production and the inherited, traditional relations of property. While in the completed bourgeois system every economic relation presupposes every other in its bourgeois economic form, and everything posited is thus also a presupposition, this is the case with every organic system. This organic system itself, as a totality, has its presuppositions, and its development to its totality consists precisely in subordinating all elements of society to itself, or in creating out of it the organs which it still lacks. This is historically how it becomes a totality.

The expansive spiral of capital advancement trends towards seizing all opportunities for its own growth. That includes starting new instances of the "C-C-M" chain through violence, imposition of land ownership, and forced production for profit using wage labourers.

On the other hand, if within one society the modern relations of production, i.e. capital, are developed to its totality, and this society then seizes hold of a new territory, as e.g. the colonies, then it finds, or rather its representative, the capitalist, finds, that his capital ceases to be capital without wage labour,

Creating a colony is thus a good business decision - if you're already a capitalist country, you can export your own country's total subordination to the circuit of capital into another. Changing their land into for-profit production opportunities. That requires alienating people from the land - by violence, eviction, imposing rent... . And turning them into wage labourers to, nevertheless, work the same land. The circuit of capital must alienate people from the land to tether them to it as wage labourers.

The paragraph continues:

“and that one of the presuppositions of the latter is not only landed property in general, but modern landed property; landed property which, as capitalized rent, is expensive, and which, as such, excludes the direct use of the soil by individuals. Hence Wakefield’s theory of colonies, followed in practice by the English government in Australia. [48] Landed property is here artificially made more expensive in order to transform the workers into wage workers, to make capital act as capital, and thus to make the new colony productive; to develop wealth in it, instead of using it, as in America, for the momentary deliverance of the wage labourers. ”

while different strategies can be used to produce this alienation of the colonised from their land, it nevertheless remains true that the expansion of industrial capital always requires more land. Which means it will devour any land not already part of its circuit. Which creates such a pressure for expansion it will devour the land of other societies. Colonisation is a necessary strategy for capital's development, and it can be achieved in more than one way.

This movement transforms production as an internal moment of the advancement of capital to an internalising moment of capital; its expansion posits more production. Production posits more owned land and more alienated labour. The "C-C-M" step is, precisely, an instance of the labourer's alienation from their land. And of course requires the initial "M-C" step of capital investment to be an instance of capital advancement. In that regard, violent imposition which severs workers from the land goes from a historical presupposition of capital into a posit for its continued expansion. And thus a necessity, for capital in its essence is a process of continuous expansion.