Still, no economist will deny that if the workers generally, that is, as workers (what the individual worker does or can do, as distinct from his genus, can only exist just as exception, not as rule, because it is not inherent in the character of the relation itself), that is, if they acted according to this demand as a rule (apart from the damage they would do to general consumption – the loss would be enormous – and hence also to production, thus also to the amount and volume of the exchanges which they could make with capital, hence to themselves as workers) then the worker would be employing means which absolutely contradict their purpose, and which would directly degrade him to the level of the Irish, the level of wage labour where the most animal minimum of needs and subsistence appears to him as the sole object and purpose of his exchange with capital

If workers save too much, capital stops. Saving is also an effective crisis fund for capital. Why? Because people would starve, labourers would die and revolt, heads would role. So you save, and you need to, so you don't starve if your life gets disrupted. That also stabilises capital - since if you starve you can't work, since you can't reproduce your own labour.

A comment about labour and capital. Despite capital being an advancement, corralling and accumulation of labour (as value), labour itself cannot be considered as someone's capital.

This alters absolutely nothing in the nature of the thing and gives no grounds whatsoever for concluding that – because the worker has to sleep 10–12 hours before he becomes capable of repeating his labour and his exchange with capital – labour forms his capital”

Expending labour power doesn't make more of itself. It also has a limit, your body and its needs. In contrast, acquiring labour takes labour power and creates products with it - in that regard you make a claim on "future time" by buying labour's time.

Observation: in that regard the advancement of capital is separation of humans from their lifespans. An severance of (life as self creation) and (life as self maintenance). In other words, the advancement of capital has alienation as a core dynamic. As both a structural and psychological moment.

“However, regarded more precisely, it becomes clear that the worker who exchanges his commodity goes through the form C–M–M–C in the exchange process. If the point of departure in circulation is the commodity, use value, as the principle of exchange, then we necessarily arrive back at the commodity, since money appears only as coin and, as medium of exchange, is only a vanishing mediation; while the commodity as such, after having described its circle, is consumed as the direct object of need. On the other hand, capital represents M–C–C–M, the antithetical moment."

M-C-C-M = have money, buy stuff and labour, labour works to make new stuff, sell new stuff
acquisition, production, sale (for profit), That's capital.
C-M-M-C = have labour, exchange for money, use money to buy commodity ; sale, work, acquisition (for reproduction). That's labour.

“Separation of property from labour appears as the necessary law of this exchange between capital and labour. Labour posited as not-capital as such is: (1) not-objectified labour [nicht-vergegenständlichte Arbeit], conceived negatively (itself still objective; the not-objective itself in objective form). As such it is not-raw-material, not-instrument of labour, not-raw-product: labour separated from all means and objects of labour, from its entire objectivity. This living labour, existing as an abstraction from these moments of its actual reality (also, not-value); this complete denudation, purely subjective existence of labour, stripped of all objectivity. Labour as absolute poverty: poverty not as shortage, but as total exclusion of objective wealth. ”

“The substance of value is not at all the particular natural substance, but rather objectified labour. This latter itself appears again in connection with living labour as raw material and instrument of labour.”

M-C-C-M requires C-M-M-C to work. Acquisition (M-C) in capital requires sale (C-M) in labour. Thus the divestment of labour from capital is simultaneously an interdependence; capital necessitates workers have no ownership of productive mechanisms (their own power and tools). It also necessitates total dependence of capital upon labour. The growth of wealth without work and the repetition of work without wealth.

The indifference of capital's growth to the specificities of the labourer's work equate value to toil. Abstracted, undifferentiated, dehumanised labour. Served in workday sized chunks.

“ As the not-being of values in so far as they are objectified, labour is their being in so far as they are not-objectified; it is their ideal being; the possibility of values, and, as activity, the positing of value. As against capital, labour is the merely abstract form, the mere possibility of value-positing activity, which exists only as a capacity, as a resource in the bodiliness of the worker. But when it is made into a real activity through contact with capital – it cannot do this by itself, since it is without object – then it becomes a really value-positing, productive activity.”

And in that regard labour only takes this character if it is part of capital advancement. It can only serve as a creator and circulant of value insofar as it produces value in the abstract; which is the constraint capital uniquely places upon it.

“the process of capital coincides with the simple process of production as such, in which its character as capital is quite as extinguished in the form of the process, as money was extinguished as money in the form of value. To the extent to which we have examined the process so far, capital in its being-for-itself, i.e. the capitalist, does not enter at all. It is not the capitalist who is consumed by labour as raw material and instrument of labour. And it is not the capitalist who does this consuming but rather labour. Thus the process of the production of capital does not appear as the process of the production of capital, but as the process of production in general, and capital’s distinction from labour appears only in the material character of raw material and instrument of labour”

From the perspective of a capitalist - someone who goes through the circuit of capital in the for M-C-C-M, the process of production occurs as the hole C-C step where sellable commodities are produced and old ones consumed through fabrication. In that regard, if you look at production from the view of capital, you will see the advancement of value (M-M), and labour only enters into it as the first C step (labour commodity as productive instrument and raw materials). Taking that perspective and not realising it construes production in general with the production of value. All production, thus, would take the form of capital's advance.

This is going to be a turbo long quote, but I think it's important for my understanding of Marx. I need to pick it apart. It is about what counts as productive labour.

“What is productive labour and what is not, a point very much disputed back and forth since Adam Smith made this distinction, [10] has to emerge from the dissection of the various aspects of capital itself. Productive labour is only that which produces capital. Is it not crazy, asks e.g. (or at least something similar) Mr Senior, that the piano maker is a productive worker, but not the piano player, although obviously the piano would be absurd without the piano player? [11] But this is exactly the case. The piano maker reproduces capital; the pianist only exchanges his labour for revenue. But doesn’t the pianist produce music and satisfy our musical ear, does he not even to a certain extent produce the latter? He does indeed: his labour produces something; but that does not make it productive labour in the economic sense; no more than the labour of the madman who produces delusions is productive. Labour becomes productive only by producing its own opposite. Other economists therefore allow the so-called unproductive worker to be productive indirectly. For example, the pianist stimulates production; partly by giving a more decisive, lively tone to our individuality, and also in the ordinary “sense of awakening a new need for the satisfaction of which additional energy becomes expended in direct material production. This already admits that only such labour is productive as produces capital; hence that labour which does not do this, regardless of how useful it may be – it may just as well be harmful – is not productive for capitalization, is hence unproductive labour. Other economists say that the difference between productive and unproductive applies not to production but to consumption. Quite the contrary. The producer of tobacco is productive, although the consumption of tobacco is unproductive. Production for unproductive consumption is quite as productive as that for productive consumption; always assuming that it produces or reproduces capital. ‘Productive labourer he that directly augments his master’s wealth,’ Malthus therefore says, quite correctly (IX,40); [12] correct at least in one aspect. The expression is too abstract, since in this formulation it holds also for the slave. The master’s wealth, in relation to the worker, is the form of wealth itself in its relation to labour, namely capital. Productive labourer he that directly augments capital."

It begins with the postulate:

Productive labour is only that which produces capital

There is then a contrast between labour which produces material use values and labour which does not, illustrated by piano and piano player:

Is it not crazy, Mr Senior, that the piano maker is a productive worker, but not the piano player, although obviously the piano would be absurd without the piano player? [11] But this is exactly the case. The piano maker reproduces capital; the pianist only exchanges his labour for revenue. But doesn’t the pianist produce music and satisfy our musical ear, does he not even to a certain extent produce the latter?

This seems to construe the productive labour as labour which produces material use values (pianos) rather than entertainment (pianist). Nevertheless the pianist's labour produces something, but does not therefore count as productive labour.

He does indeed: his labour produces something; but that does not make it productive labour in the economic sense; no more than the labour of the madman who produces delusions is productive. Labour becomes productive only by producing its own opposite.

Productive labour in the economic sense is only productive "by producing its own opposite", which is capital.

hence that labour which does not do this, regardless of how useful it may be – it may just as well be harmful – is not productive for capitalization, is hence unproductive labour. Other economists say that the difference between productive and unproductive applies not to production but to consumption. Quite the contrary. The producer of tobacco is productive, although the consumption of tobacco is unproductive. Production for unproductive consumption is quite as productive as that for productive consumption; always assuming that it produces or reproduces capital. ‘Productive labourer he that directly augments his master’s wealth,’ Malthus therefore says, quite correctly (IX,40); [12] correct at least in one aspect. The expression is too abstract, since in this formulation it holds also for the slave. The master’s wealth, in relation to the worker, is the form of wealth itself in its relation to labour, namely capital. Productive labourer he that directly augments capital.

If I've read this right, it says that the pianist's labour is not productive, but the piano maker's is. Why? I think it makes sense to look at this in terms of the advancement of capital M-C-C-M.

Transparently, a piano making business takes money, invests it in materials and labour, produces a piano, then sells it.

A pianist's labour, on the other hand starts with a commodity (labour power), which has a price (money) which the labourer gets for their service (money), which is used to get other commodities (foodstuff, etc).

The piano making business thus has M-C-C-M as a transition of stages, the pianist however has C-M-M-C as its transition of stages, only the former is an advancement of capital. Any material resources the pianist buys to continue playing reproduces their labour, rather than their money (tools, food, fuel, electricity).

A slave isn't a wage labourer, they don't receive a wage. So they can't have the M or M steps as part of their C-M-M-C labour transition. Perhaps slaves create wealth, which is converted to value through the circulation of the commodities' values constituting that wealth. I'm wondering, however, if it makes sense to consider slaves as "wage labourers with wage 0" from the perspective of capital. All of their labour is surplus labour, every moment of their labour is uncompensated work.

In that regard, you could still have slaves in M-C-C-M. You start off with money, you buy slaves and commodities, the slaves work with the commodities to produce more commodities, which are then sold for money. Then, the next time you want to make something, you don't have to buy the slaves, you just have to buy something to reproduce their labour. If Marx is construing the M-C step to necessarily to contain an exchange of wages, then he'd be right to exclude slavery from capital advancement on that basis.

Maybe generalising it is illuminating. If all workers were slaves, there'd be no wages and selling of labour, which would mean there'd be no C-M-M-C transition. If some workers were slaves and some were wage labourers, it seems you can have C-M-M-C active in the economy at large with slaves providing a competitive advantage over those capitalists which use wage labourers.

I'm not sure what to make of this.

If I've read this right, it says that the pianist's labour is not productive, but the piano maker's is. Why? I think it makes sense to look at this in terms of the advancement of capital M-C-C-M.

Transparently, a piano making business takes money, invests it in materials and labour, produces a piano, then sells it.

A pianist's labour, on the other hand starts with a commodity (labour power), which has a price (money) which the labourer gets for their service (money), which is used to get other commodities (foodstuff, etc).

The piano making business thus has M-C-C-M as a transition of stages, the pianist however has C-M-M-C as its transition of stages, only the former is an advancement of capital. Any material resources the pianist buys to continue playing reproduces their labour, rather than their money (tools, food, fuel, electricity). — fdrake

I think that's good!

I get this mental picture that the pianist is, for whatever reason, an individual and so yeah, that's how I'd parse the music maker from the piano maker.

But I think it's interesting to raise the history of the music industry! There's a Marxist history of music to be written in there that'd be very interesting -- the proletarianization of the musician from the Concert Hall to Basement Punk Rock shows. :D

A slave isn't a wage labourer, they don't receive a wage. So they can't have the M or M steps as part of their C-M-M-C labour transition. Perhaps slaves create wealth, which is converted to value through the circulation of the commodities' values constituting that wealth. I'm wondering, however, if it makes sense to consider slaves as "wage labourers with wage 0" from the perspective of capital. All of their labour is surplus labour, every moment of their labour is uncompensated work.

In that regard, you could still have slaves in M-C-C-M. You start off with money, you buy slaves and commodities, the slaves work with the commodities to produce more commodities, which are then sold for money. Then, the next time you want to make something, you don't have to buy the slaves, you just have to buy something to reproduce their labour. If Marx is construing the M-C step to necessarily to contain an exchange of wages, then he'd be right to exclude slavery from capital advancement on that basis.

Maybe generalising it is illuminating. If all workers were slaves, there'd be no wages and selling of labour, which would mean there'd be no C-M-M-C transition. If some workers were slaves and some were wage labourers, it seems you can have C-M-M-C active in the economy at large with slaves providing a competitive advantage over those capitalists which use wage labourers.

I'm not sure what to make of this. — fdrake

I think that when slaves are the basis of labor that's a different mode of production as the theory is stated -- but then, you're right that we have these dual economies then simultaneously feeding into one another. Is it still labor-time that's being extracted in slavery, or even more? If so, not in the manner of a firm which is purchasing labor. And I'm curious about the causes of slavery and its interaction with capital, in particular, because one way to put it would be to say that it's basically the theoretical limit of exploitation of labor time, but that's sort of restating it in terms of capital when slavery is frequently said to be part of older forms prior to even feudalism, so I imagine the general theory would have to treat it somewhat differently.

But then.. there's the reality of them not being separate at all, and how the practice evolved with the economic form of capital rather than being some ancient thing. Marx's positivism showing through, it seems.

A morning thought -- slavery, parsed in the form of capital, is actually treating person's as capital, more or less. In a way they are living machines, and just as labor is the origin of value in capital so that holds in the general theory, but the organism is different because the mechanisms of capital are defined such that liberal free exchange is the basis of the analysis.

The laborer is the origin of value, and so is the slave -- the social position within the organism changes, though, from alienated-worker to being owned as capital. I think that's how I'd parse slavery in capital now, at least.

Going through some of my highlights...

This bit helps me think about productive/undproductive, because it shows how the laborer is simultaneously the origin of productive value, but not the owner of productive value -- what he gets in exchange is equal to what it takes for his physical living body to show up to work tomorrow, but what the capitalist gets for this is the ability to direct value-production and keep the products/capital/etc. due to owning it.

p 322:

What the Worker exchanges with capital is his labour itself (the capacity of disposing over it); he divests himself of it. What he obtains as price is the value of this divestiture. He exchanges value-positing activity for a pre-determined value, regardless of the result of his activity. Now how is its value determined? By the objectified labour contained in his commodity. This commodity exists in his vitality. In order to maintain this from one day to the next...he has to consume a certain quantity of food, to replace his used-up blood etc.

i.e. The body with its capacities, and especially the capacity to work. The price of a worker is that body and work-able capacities -- which itself is obviously historically situated and geographically situated as well, so changes depending upon how much objectified labor is required to have a body with work-able capacities.

This is the sort of thing I think that the "raises all ships" sorts have in mind in accepting the mechanisms of capital -- sure, it's unfair, but the price of labor in absolute terms of objectified labor time increases over time while the relative value of the classes clearly diminishes, even though the lower classes of an industrial nation will have access to more objectified labor time than the lower classes of a colonial or neo-colonial nation.

But, anyways, that's why wages are unproductive -- the purchase "drops out" of the circuit of capital, rather than remaining within that circuit to continue to increase the cycle of capital. I think that's a good rough estimate for productive/unproductive -- it's productive if it happens in a firm, because then a capitalist owns the capital and pays a wage to extract labor time and add it to the circulating whole of capital value, whereas the worker takes goods out of that circulation to live. (generally speaking)

Hrm, hrm, hrm.... thinking more about slavery...

The United States provides a pretty good example of capitalism + slavery. I'm looking at p 354, right after the section title which starts "Labour does not reproduce the value of the material in which, and of the instruments with which, it works"

Marx uses the unit of thalers in this analysis.

Capital at 100 thalers, divided for a given working day into -- 50 for cotton, 40 for wages, 10 for instrument. Supposing the wages of 40 thalers is set at 4 hours and the capitalist sets the working day at 8 hours then there are 40 thalers of necessary labor time, 40 Thalers of surplus value. The capitalist starts with 100 thalers, then through one "cycle" we'll call it (since the numbers are exaggerated) ends up with linen which started with 50 thalers of value, then absorbed 80 thalers worth of labor time.

Here at the middle section of M-C-C-M, in particular the second -C-.

At the end of third part in the cycle, then, what started as 100 Thalers ends as 130 thalers worth of linen, and 10 thalers worth of fixed capital. Insofar that the capitalist is able to successfully exchange that linen, then they can start the process again with 130 thalers where they started with 100. (hence highlighting how exchange is just as important as production for the cycle of capital -- else you just have a bunch of linen)

So, in this, the production of cotton was slave-based, and linen was worker-based. Is there an economic reason for this? Are certain modes of labor, i.e. that which exploits the natural goods we want, somehow more economically feasible under slavery than capital, and vice-versa?

There's a part of me that wonders if there's a kind of equilibrium point between slave-labor as capital and wage-labor as worker markets where the reasons for the transition from slave economies to wage economies are economic in character, i.e. profit maximizing, but the particulars of an industry are what incentivizes the economic organism between the two modes.

For instance, in the south you had to pay slave-drivers, which were wage-workers in the system of exploitation, to make sure slaves continued. In a similar vein, fast food industries have long said they'd replace workers with machines, but in fact you have to pay for those machines and the people to maintain them and it actually ends up being cheaper to just hire a person than to implement that style business -- i.e. it's a good threat, but a bad economic model.

Part of me thinks slavery is partially bad for business, but not entirely. i.e. sometimes it's cheaper to have workers who manage their own bills, and sometimes it's cheaper to pay soldiers to force people to work.

My stumbling notes from where I left off last time at about 350 to...


There's a part where Marx is trying to do the step-wise thing I just did above, but I'm getting lost as he jumps around too fast for me. p 368-370, or the part right before Notebook IV.

p 376 has the most succinct sentence to drawing the distinction between surplus-value and profit:

Just now the original capital of 100 was: 50-10-40. Produced surplus gain of 10 thalers (25% surplus time) Altogether 110 thalers

There's some bits in there that I don't follow right now. Especially has Marx is bouncing around between examples -- it's going too fast for me to follow immediately. But here I can see what he's talking about -- to figure surplus-value you have to look at the working day and split it into labor's reproduction, and surplus-value, whereas profit is figured with respect to the total firm , i.e. start with 100 thalers capital, end with 110 thalers: surplus-value at a 25% increase, while profit is at a 10% increase in the set up to distinguish between the two.

p400 -- coming to understand SNLT as the costs of reproducing labor setting the price of labor.

(the production of workers becomes cheaper, more workers can be produced in the same time, in proportion as necessary labour time becomes smaller or the time required for the production of living labour capacity becomes relatively smaller. These are identical statements)

An interesting question -- how many distinct processes are there? I can draw meaning out of a passage, but I mean -- at the end of the theory. Here thinking about the phrase "realization process", "production process", "exchange process" -- etc.

Basically, what's the final process map look like? Which processes are embedded in which? is there a consistent map between theses processes at any point in time of Marx's writings, or is it more like there are fair interpretations of what's written, and a more experimental-scientific spirit would be required to pin down the best map?

In the realization process, for instance, Marx has three processes. But there are many sub-processes at work within the three processes of 1) capital has maintained its value by means of exchange of money for living labor, 2) production-process (sub-process) whereby surplus value is created and accumulated to a commodity, then 3) demonetization, the commodity as container of objectified labor time that, if mismanaged, all value could go away i.e. one man owns 130 thalers worth linen (supposing I'm doing that right. I had some questions about how to add, but it seems to fit with Marx's 140 thalers math where he's including the 10 thalers worth of equipment as total capital) that then decay because of mismanagement, that then must be re-monetized in order to become the form of value once again. ie. sold for money.



p 407:

The creation by capital of absolute surplus value -- more objectified labour -- is conditional upon an expansion, specifically a constant expansion, of the sphere of circulation. The surplus value created at one point requires the creation of surplus value at another point, for which it may be exchanged; if only, initially, the production of more gold and silver, more money, so that, if surplus value cannot directly become capital again, it may exist in the form of money as the possibility of new capital

Another process map in the next paragraph:

On the other side, the production of relative surplus value i.e. production of surplus value based on the increase and development of the productive forces, requires the production of new consumption; requires that the consuming circle within circulation expands as did the productive circle previously. Firstly, quantitative expansion of existing consumption; secondly: creation of new needs by propagating existing ones in a wide circle; thirdly: production of new needs and discovery and creation of new use values

A tripartite division of moments for a process of consumption which has to follow along the process of production -- i.e. if we decrease SNLT for a given commodity then, in order to realize exchange rather than just have even more linen, you have to expand the number of persons who are consuming that linen. Otherwise, you'll have the same profit rates from before, and some extra linen that will rot.

I like this paragraph. p 409

Thus, just as production founded on capital creates universal industriousness on one side -- i.e. surplus labour, value-creating labour -- so does it create on the other side a system of general exploitation of the natural and human qualities, a system of general utility, utilising science itself just as much as all the physical and mental qualities, while there appears nothing higher in itself, nothing legitimate for itself, outside this circle of social production and exchange. Thus capital creates the bourgeois society, and the universal appropriation of nature as well as of the social bond itself by the members of society. Hence the great civilizing influence of capital; its production of a stage of society in comparison to which all earlier ones appear as mere local developments of humanity and as nature-idolatry For the first time, nature becomes purely an object for humankind, purely a matter of utility; ceases to be recognized as a power for itself; and the theoretical discovery of its autonomous laws appears merely as a ruse so as to subjugate it under human needs, whether as an object of consumption or as a means or production. In accord with this tendency, capital drives beyond national barriers and prejudices as much as beyond nature worship, as well as all traditional, confined, complacent, encrusted satisfactions of present needs, and reproductions of old ways of life. it is destructive towards all of this, and constantly revolutionizes it, tearing down all the barriers which hem in the development of the forces of production, the expansion of needs, the all-sided development of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and mental forces

In all the side notes and thoughts, this paragraph was a great little conclusion -- that capital, in its totality, is a revolutionary force which upends all previous ways of life and values in its pursuit of growth. (next paragraph talks about its internalt contradictions which lead to self-destruction... I'm not so optimistic :P )

Reading though this notebook I'm struck by how much Marx's method resembles Aristotle's in that he's constantly responding to and summarizing previous economist's work, but then attempting to point out how they are a one-sided expression of his own general theory. "they got it right up to this point, where they disagreed with me" :D

Hrm, here's a quote that might also help with "contradiction" in Marx:

as use value it is absolutely not measured by the labour time objectified in it, but rather a measuring rod is applied to it which lies outside its nature as exchange value

use-value as any need within a social system which is actually satisfied (at least under capital, where exchange is necessary), exchange-value as realized price, rather than ideal price. Contradiction in that need is in units of number-commodity-consumed, and exchange is in units of labour-time (which has a relation to money through the system of circulation at a given time)

So there is a relation between two entities with different units -- one set of units influences the other, and so there's a kind of "contradiction" in that neither use-value is exchange-value or vice-versa, but their identity simultaneously relies upon one another. I.e. without exchange-value there'd be no general use-value, even in simple circulation (the original problem of two incommensurate goods becoming commensurate through a third good, time). But, simultaneously, without actually satisfying real needs, the use-value would not have an exchange value. It'd be unproductive labor of the sort that falls out of circulation without even being consumed.

Something like that. It's honestly still the most confusing part of Marx's system for me. There are times when I feel the move is natural and others when I don't, and still can't figure out a real rule to it. My guess is there isn't a real rule in terms of interpreting Marx, since Marx is a philosopher, but it still leaves the question there for anyone interested in Marx as a scientific system -- how to turn dialectics into something that's not just a philosophical move, but can actually be checked by others? Something that doesn't just rely upon a demonstration and a judgment call (though, that could also be the very thing that's needed, and leaving it at that unspecified level might be best!)

another contradiction at p 415:

The contradiction between production and realization -- of which capital, by its concept, is the unity -- has to be grasped more intrinsically than merely as the indifferent, seemingly reciprocally independent appearances of the individual moments of the process, or rather of the totality of processes

Though that seems to make sense from everything -- in Hegelian fashion we could say that the contradiction between production-realization is a more developed form of the contradiction between use-exchange value (or whatever the appropriate mapping would be ... as I said I'm pretty uncertain what The Big Marxist Map really looks like)

Probably stop there for today. Looks like I'll be ready for tomorrow after all! 35 pages to go.

Just my two cents in how anti-Marixists might respond to all of this:
That due to the general trend of the 20th century from the Progressive Era, post-WW2 programs, and just unfolding of the idea of protecting people's time (8 hour workday, labor laws, etc.), Marx's initial critiques, which were valid for the time have been somewhat overcome.

Then add to the idea that people can find value in their work, even if not making a profit and just a salary, takes care of the idea of alienation and even exploitation, as that seems to be based on the idea that people are complete pawns rather than satisfied producers of labor.

Now, mind you, I think all of the above I just wrote there is bullshit, but for reasons that are not Marxist. I am just giving you some counters people usually use. In other words, these critiques of exploitation and alienation, some might say (not me), have been generally overcome or moot.

Further, the idea of exploitation of labor from those without industrialized means of production ("indigenous and third world populations), though maybe true, seems inevitable with two so asymmetrically different lifestyles clashing. This could happen under any system. That is more ethical than necessarily economic. You either decide to destroy populations and their lifestyles or you don't. Certainly, the "socialist worker" isn't necessarily going to prevent this exploitation any more than the capitalist class. Also, if Marx sees historical trajectory as inevitable, then this stage of exploitation has to have gone through (lack of contingency in history) for this socialist utopia to finally unite the exploited populations.

Morning thought on Marx --

One thing I've expressed in this thread and have always found frustrating is how Marxism is for the workers, and yet it is simultaneously wed to one of the most esoteric philosophical movements, Hegelian dialectic. Not exactly the most approachable philosophy, like one might like a philosophy for the working class to be.

But, on the other side, this is a kind of double-bind frequently visited upon workers: if it's simple then the worker hasn't grasped the true complexity, and if it's too complicated then the worker is confused with themself and clearly can't grasp the true complexity.

So, in a way, this was the leading philosophical movement of Marx's training. To choose something else would be to treat the subject as if it were not worthy of philosophical thought, which would be a self-contradiction in terms of Marx's philosophical project. (and, also, one of the reasons I've always liked Marx as a philosopher -- he treated the bronze-souled subjects as worthy of philosophy!)

Now, I think, dialectic is out of fashion so it's frustrating for us to have to learn not just Marx but then this philosophical move that's largely been pushed to the side. But, really, that's just part of reading historical works. What's fascinating to me is how Marx's picture of capital, in spite of all this esoteric trapping, still rings true today.

What's fascinating to me is how Marx's picture of capital, in spite of all this esoteric trapping, still rings true today. — Moliere

I wanted to bring your attention to the critiques I brought above, and see if you have any answers to that:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/788907
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/788908

Sure

That due to the general trend of the 20th century from the Progressive Era, post-WW2 programs, and just unfolding of the idea of protecting people's time (8 hour workday, labor laws, etc.), Marx's initial critiques, which were valid for the time have been somewhat overcome. — schopenhauer1

I'd say this is too narrow a scope. It's been somewhat overcome, for whom? Events from the New Deal to now validates Marx's description of Capital -- class bifurcation from capital expansion that through its economic power has come to revolutionize democracy itself, putting it up for sale, undermining New Deal era social programs to continue to accumulate and create an industrial reserve army. While the labor aristocracy -- the AFL-CIO -- is comfortable with the relationship and the negotiated peace, it's pretty easy to see that the reason they're comfortable is they lost faith in people power and really only believe in conciliation to keep their position in the board room. So, contra Hannah Arendt's view that labor unions bring representation to the liberal capitalist state, and so finally gives political voice to people who work, I'd say these organizations have become absorbed by capital, and most working people simply don't have representation in the United States.

tl;dr - Marx is still relevant to the events we see today, regardless of how we parse the New Deal and whether having stock-options as payment is owning the means of production.

I'd say this is too narrow a scope. It's been somewhat overcome, for whom? Events from the New Deal to now validates Marx's description of Capital -- class bifurcation from capital expansion that through its economic power has come to revolutionize democracy itself, putting it up for sale, undermining New Deal era social programs to continue to accumulate and create an industrial reserve army. — Moliere

Again, in first world nations, look at the rise of the middle class from the mid-1800s. That fact cannot be denied, would be the reply. Development theory trumps Core-Peripheral (Marxist) theory etc.

tl;dr - Marx is still relevant to the events we see today, regardless of how we parse the New Deal and whether having stock-options as payment is owning the means of production. — Moliere

While I agree with this, I can see your mixed-economy liberal types would just say it is making sure the "tinkering" is adjusted for better wages, services, and opportunities.

I suppose I'm fine with disappointing the middle class tinkerers-from-afar, the policy wizards and focus group addicts. For one, if Marx is right, they aren't the agents of change: their position within the social organism is such that they'd defend it, even when they see the possibility of being eaten up by it, because how else are you going to live? Democrats focus on the middle class for a reason. It's the carrot whereupon a person can finally live an individual life, now having enough access to the goods produced by the economic machine.

So why bother tailoring it to a group of people that just want things to remain the same? Obviously they'd dislike Marx.

“The surplus value which capital has at the end of the production process – a surplus value which, as a higher price of the product, is realized only in circulation, but, like all prices, is realized in it by already being ideally presupposed to it, determined before they enter into it – signifies, expressed in accord with the general concept of exchange value, that the labour time objectified in the product – or amount of labour (expressed passively, the magnitude of labour appears as an amount of space; but expressed in motion, it is measurable only in time) – is greater than that which was present in the original components of capital. This in turn is possible only if the labour objectified in the price of labour is smaller than the living labour time purchased with it. ”

M-C-C-M; You only get profit if the labour time in the product is bigger than the labour time of the input. The price for a given amount of labour time held fixed, and also determined by the aggregate conditions of labour. The input also retains its prior value, as an exchangeable basket of materials in circulation.

“If one day’s work were necessary in order to keep one worker alive for one day, then capital would not exist, because the working day would then exchange for its own product, so that capital could not realize itself and hence could not maintain itself as capital. The self-preservation of capital is its self-realization.”

The advancement of capital - its growth, profit, thus demands "more time" is squeezed out of the worker than "required". Those are scarequotes. The value of a working day is determined by the value of the produced products. If a labourer only laboured enough to satisfy their own needs, they would produce a basket of products equal in value to the value of their labour in that time. Since exchange realises value into price. The value, as price, of that day's labour would be equal to the value, as price, of the products. An equality of embodied time.

Thus the only way for profit to be produced would be if the value of a working day is less than the value of the products produced within it. Thus surplus labour. And surplus value.

“The great historic quality of capital is to create this surplus labour, superfluous labour from the standpoint of mere use value, mere subsistence; and its historic destiny [Bestimmung] is fulfilled as soon as, on one side, there has been such a development of needs that surplus labour above and beyond necessity has itself become a general need arising out of individual needs themselves – and, on the other side, when the severe discipline of capital, acting on succeeding generations [Geschlechter], has developed general industriousness as the general property of the new species [Geschlecht] – and, finally, when the development of the productive powers of labour, which capital incessantly whips onward with its unlimited mania for wealth, and of the sole conditions in which this mania can be realized, have flourished to the stage where the possession and preservation of general wealth require a lesser labour time of society as a whole, and where the labouring society relates scientifically to the process of its progressive reproduction, its reproduction in a constantly greater abundance; hence where labour in which a human being does what a thing could do has ceased. ”

The expansion of capital is thus a growth of surplus labour. More surplus labour, more growth. "General industriousness" as a moral value promotes and enables the creation of surplus labour by workers and capitalists. Workers will want to work longer, or accept it. Capitalists will want to make that work more efficient. If the aggregate conditions of production become more efficient, the average labour time for society as a whole decreases for an average product. That simultaneously means more surplus labour per unit time at any given time, but also a devaluation of surplus labour as the socially necessary time for an average product's production has markedly decreased. This sets up a dynamic of competition, which Marx says later, that he will discuss later.

“The unit in which surplus value is calculated is always a fraction, i.e. the given part of a day which exactly represents the price of labour.”

“Thus the absolute sum by which capital increases its value through a given increase of the productive force depends on the given fractional part of the working day, on the fractional part of the working day which represents necessary labour, and which therefore expresses the original relation of necessary labour to the living work day. The increase in productive force in a given relation can therefore increase the value of capital differently e.g. in the different countries. ”

If a worker could reproduce themselves for half a day's labour, then they work half a day of surplus.
New production comes in for that workplace, it doubles production, thus doubles value production all else held equal. That means the worker can now work a quarter of a day. and 3/4 of the day is surplus. More surplus labour, more value. But this is expressible as a fraction, because the proportion of the working day which goes to surplus is the determinant of how much value multiplies from input to product through production.

The uneven development of productive processes allows value of products in capital to diverge from their global average locally.

“the more developed capital already is, the more surplus labour it has created, the more terribly must it develop the productive force in order to realize itself in only smaller proportion, i.e. to add surplus value – because its barrier always remains the relation between the fractional part of the day which expresses necessary labour, and the entire working day. It can move only within these boundaries. The smaller already the fractional part falling to necessary labour, the greater the surplus labour, the less can any increase in productive force perceptibly diminish necessary labour; ”

The uneven development is a feature of productive innovation, however its development has severe diminishing returns. If a worker could reproduce themselves at 1/100 of the working day, that means the surplus labour is 99/100 of the working day. A given worker's labour for a specific product thus imparts it 99/100 parts of surplus value.

For reproduction at 1/2 of the working day, that means 1/2 of the working day is imparted as surplus value.

An increase of added surplus value by 0.5% in both cases would mean 0.99*1.005 and 0.5*1.005 respectively. Which are 0.99495 and 0.5025 respectively. The difference in required working days in from each starting workday on are thus at 0.00505 and 0.0025. Which correspond to a 0.505% reduction and a 0.25% reduction. You thus need to reduce the required working day more, proportionally, when it's already lower to gain the same % increase in surplus value.

These changes in the required working day are called changes in relative surplus labour, and thus relative surplus value. Relative surplus value increases when the length of the required working day decreases.

The absolute amount of surplus value for that production process has not changed, since the length of the working day has not changed. Just the amount of value which is surplus changes. Thus the absolute surplus value has not changed, only its distribution has. Conflicts over the length of the working day thus correspond to conflicts of the distribution of surplus value; and thus, the apportioning of wealth societally.

A highlight here is that copying this exchange process, which would increase supply, does not change the surplus value extracted per product while holding the working day fixed. There's simply more product.

“Labour does not reproduce the value of the material in which, and of the instrument with which, it works. It preserves their value simply by relating to them in the labour process as to their objective conditions. This animating and preserving force costs capital nothing; appears, rather, as its own force etc."

Because wages are apportioned per workday, and not per surplus value unit created, surplus value thus costs nothing to obtain given the expenditure on wages. Because the production of surplus is a productive rather than exchange relation, and the ascription of wages for the working day depends upon the aggregate conditions of capital. Thus the maintenance and growth of capital, through labour, is capital's animating force. All value is, ultimately, surplus value. All money is, ultimately, a claim on another worker's time.

This preservation and growth is amplified when the materials are assumed "on hand" for the worker, since no amount of workday needs be spent to replenish the materials and means of production. Just in their use and expenditure. Initial investments in productive machinery, thus, increase the rate of production without incurring any changes in the workday for the labourers which use them. It does not touch their workday length, just required labour. Maintenance and installation is done by other workers.

In this regard the form of work done does not change the nature of the value of its products. The form of value is fixed in the aggregate relations of circulation, production and exchange. In the totality of capital. Work thus only transforms use values, while preserving the use values of the inputs in that society.

“t preserves the utility of cotton as yarn by weaving the yarn into fabric. (All this belongs already in the first chapter on production in general.) Preserves it by weaving it”

The production of fabric maintains the use value of cotton as yarn, all the while transforming cotton into yarn into fabric.

Quote from 414 as I pick it back up to prep for class:

(for we have not yet reached the aspect of capital in which it is circulating capital, and still have circulation on one side and capital on the other, or production as its presupposition, or ground from which it arises)

More a side note, but there are a lot of parenthetical notes like this throughout the text. A 2nd or 3rd reading project would be to pick out these "we have not yet reached the aspect..." to start drawing out these different aspects and their relations to one another. When do we reach the aspect of capital when circulation is no longer on one side and capital is on the other? What aspect are we at now?

For a first reading that's too much detail to ask after, I think, just noting something worth pursuing in drawing out The One Big Map of Marxism.

Also, noting a part of Marx which contradicts a thought I wrote earlier, where the concrete is how one resolves contradictions:

The contradiction between production and realization -- of which capital, by its concept, is the unity -- ...

So apparently concepts can unify contradictions in addition to concrete resolutions, so the directionality between ideal and concrete will not help in resolving "What are the rules for thinking dialectically, for sublating, or checking contradictories?"

Happens with me and Marx all the time.

Oh, Marx on slavery p 420 (awww yeah) -- apparently we're on the right track in our wonderings @fdrake:

What precisely distinguishes capital from the master-servant relation is that the worker confronts him as a consumer and possessor of exchange values, and that in the form of the possessor of money, in the form of money he becomes a simple centre of circulation -- one of its infinitely many centres, in which his specificity as worker is extinguished

There's a moving passage from My Bondage and My Freedom by Frederick Douglas where he rejoices in having a wage and feels like his very humanity is restored due to being this possessor of money and exchange values, to be valued at all and treated like a man. It stuck with me as a lesson that there's a difference between slavery and wage-dependence. Good to see that reflected here, I think.

Another bit on contradiction, though here I think it's a little different because he's talking about cross-purposes tendencies, or telos:

By its nature, therefore, it posits a barrier to labour and value-creation, in contradiction to its tendency to expand them boundlessly

p 423/424 provides a passage that suddenly makes sense of simple exchange for me -- this interpretation would have it that simple exchange is between commodities and commodities only, rather than for goods and services, which is the part of the economy that Marx believes bourgeois economists skip over.

...Hence that overproduction comes from use value and therefore from exchange itself. This is stultified form in Say -- products are exchanged only for products; therefore, at most, too much has been produced of one and too little of another. Forgetting; (1) that values are exchanged for values, and a product exchanges for another only to the extent that it is value; i.e. that it is or becomes money; (2)it exchanges for labour. The good gentleman adopts the standpoint of simple exchange, in which no overproduction is possible, for it is indeed concerned not with exchange value but with use value. Overproduction takes place in connection with realization, not otherwise

The labor-time is already there in the product and an equivalence of time is exchanged between two commodities, so no profit can take place there. But as soon as you have enough money to control the origin of value, i.e. labor, then the possibility for more than simple exchange comes about (though clearly not always, as the discussion about productive/unproductive labor makes apparent)


I kind of like the following quote for an absurd plaque:

In practical commerce, capitalist A can screw capitalist B — Karl effin' Marx

**

p432 has a lovely paragraph about the relationship between value and price -- not just a distinction, but a relationship -- more or less pointing that a cunning capitalist can split the surplus-value with the consumer to undercut other capitalists and ensure that the product sells (since unsold product is always worse than even selling it at a loss)

Marx talking about the general rate of profit on 435 has me putting together the dots: the general rate of profit is the rate of profit considered across the totality of capital, all the capitals put together, rather than the rate of a given firm. While that's what made sense to me it's nice to see some textual support.

It's honestly cracking up how much Marx brings up Proudhon to say how he's wrong. Proudhon really got under his skin. :D

p 456. So close. Might get the last 2 pages before class.

EDIT: Oh, yup. False alarm. Ready for class!

21MAR23 ending paragraph is right before the large title here.

(It will be shown later that the most extreme form of alienation, wherein labour appears in the relation of capital and wage labour, and labour, productive activity appears in relation to its own conditions and its own product, is a necessary point of transition – and therefore already contains in itself, in a still only inverted form, turned on its head, the dissolution of all limited presuppositions of production, and moreover creates and produces the unconditional presuppositions of production, and therewith the full material conditions for the total, universal development of the productive forces of the individual.)

(Also, looking at the number of pages ahead, this is about the halfway mark!)

I'll admit I didn't check the arithmetic yet. I feel like that's important, but not for a first reading. It'd be super interesting to try and parse the arithmetic examples with the bit that we ended on, with Capital I and Capital II

“ecause it presupposes that, despite the doubled force of production, capital continued to operate with the same component parts, to employ the same quantity of necessary labour without spending more for raw material and instrument of labour; † then, therefore, productivity doubles, so that he now needs to spend only 20 thalers on labour, whereas he needed 40 before.”

A note that increasing productivity incurs new constant capital costs. Constant capital being production material and other fixed expenditures. Variable capital is what is spent to acquire labour power.

(investing in lots of fixed capital - me) is only really useful when it acts on great masses, when a single machine can assist the labours of thousands. It is accordingly in the most populous countries where there are most idle men that it is always most abundant.

A good note that unemployment is a necessary feature of the conditions of production becoming more efficient. You need less labourers to produce the same surplus value. Note - though you may be able to have a higher net profit per advanced unit of capital if more workers are cheaper than (less workers + efficient production). Like outsourcing productive labour to Bangladesh is a means of increasing the surplus value to variable capital ratio for a firm based elsewhere.

“It is a law of capital, as we saw, to create surplus labour, disposable time; it can do this only by setting necessary labour in motion – i.e. entering into exchange with the worker. It is its tendency, therefore, to create as much labour as possible; just as it is equally its tendency to reduce necessary labour to a minimum. It is therefore equally a tendency of capital to increase the labouring population, as well as constantly to posit a part of it as surplus population – population which is useless until such time as capital can utilize it. ”

That outsourcing would thus be a change in the composition of capital - less constant capital and less variable capital when outsourced, more constant capital at home; keeping the rate of surplus value extraction per unit variable capital expenditure constant.

In general, to maximise surplus value, lengthen the working day and lessen the socially necessary labour per product.

“It is merely to be noted here in order to indicate how later developments are already contained in the general concept of capital. Belongs in the doctrine of the concentration and competition of capitals. – The devaluation being dealt with here is this, that capital has made the transition from the form of money into the form of a commodity, of a product, which has a certain price, which is to be realized. In its money form it existed as value. It now exists as product, and only ideally as price; but not as value as such.”

The tendency to lessen the socially necessary labour time per product decreases the living labour (time) required for its production for sale. When a good is produced for sale, capital "devalues" because it no longer has the money form of value with a distinct amount (investment into commodities), it takes on the form of a commodity which has a certain price. In that regard there is an inversion; in the first step M-C money stands as a potential for commodities which then becomes a commodity, in C-M commodities stand as a potential for money, which then becomes money. Initially M takes the form of an investment, then as a collection of commodity prices, but it must pass through a metamorphosis into a commodity, rather than a representation of a commodity's value.

This mirrors the transformation of living labour into objectified labour the transition from C-C (the dash) is a transmogrification of living labour (in production) to objectified labour (the potential value of the product which will be realised into price).

The C-M step also drops C out of the advancement of industrial capital simpliciter and into the circulation of commodities.

“The creation by capital of absolute surplus value – more objectified labour – is conditional upon an expansion, specifically a constant expansion, of the sphere of circulation. The surplus value created at one point requires the creation of surplus value at another point, for which it may be exchanged; if only, initially, the production of more gold and silver, more money, so that, if surplus value cannot directly become capital again, it may exist in the form of money as the possibility of new capital.”

That circulation requires other means of producing surplus value; other capital advancements. The spiralling growth of capital thus also requires the the expansion of circulation; as greater surplus value is realised, there must be greater circulation of commodities to realise it. The same holds for capital - to expand it must also more expansively circulate.

The circulation of commodities is of the form C-M-M-C, which is a labourer's wage relation to capital. Obtaining fixed capital is also a form of consumption. Thus consumption must increase along with circulation, and thus along with the growth of capital.

On the other side, the production of relative surplus value, i.e. production of surplus value based on the increase and development of the productive forces, requires the production of new consumption; requires that the consuming circle within circulation expands as did the productive circle previously.

The final step of that circulation is consumption; thus the growth of capital requires a tandem growth of consumption. More commodities must "drop out" of circulation in order for realisation to increase in scope.

These expansions are part of the spiralling growth of capital's circuits. However they are in tension with the nature of capital itself. In the following ways:

“(1) Necessary labour as limit on the exchange value of living labour capacity or of the woes of the industrial population;
(2) Surplus value as limit on surplus labour time; and, in regard to relative surplus labour time, as barrier to the development of the forces of production;
(3) What is the same, the transformation into money, exchange value as such, as limit of production; or exchange founded on value, or value founded on exchange, as limit of production. This is:
(4) again the same as restriction of the production of use values by exchange value; or that real wealth has to take on a specific form distinct from itself, a form not absolutely identical with it, in order to become an object of production at all.”

We want to decrease necessary labour while maximising exchange value, but necessary labour time is a constraint on exchange value.

We want to maximise surplus value, but the things that let us do that induce diminishing returns on reducing the necessary portion of the working day toward 0 - which can never be reached.

The need for commodities to turn into money through circulation; you need more circulation for any given production increase, where does it come from? It's just assumed to be there in an amount adjusted for the increase in surplus value through productive innovation, but must also be a distinct capital with sufficient money to circulate the new basket of products. 3 means that overproduction is a general state; there's always more commodities produced than can have their value realised. This is constant waste.


These mean capital necessarily has unsteady foundations. Necessarily may collapse. Crisis is baked in. These contradictions act as barriers, impediments, to capital's growth. Thus it must deal with them, but cannot remove them from its nature.

Not caught up, but nearly.

I'm glad he highlighted the disposable time quote -- goes back to communism is free time and nothing else.

An interesting thing Harvey is highlighting with respect to population. "Marx couldn't stand Malthus" -- when capital actually benefits from having population. And also it's interesting to think about population growth as a predictor of Marx's theories. That's the geographer's eye reading Marx at work.

"India has recently taken over China as the most populous country in the world." - I didn't know that. Looking at this it's plausible. I, for one, do not keep up on population rates on the regular as my day job, so it's believable.

I like his eye for labor reserves. Also I'd note on top of labor reserves, especially with respect to Africa, there are also raw resources as yet untapped by capital that are slowly making inroads that way.

Heh. Harvey explaining how Grandpa Marx hated the Lumpenproletariat -- the Gutterpunks are still welcome! Just ignore Grandpa then! ::lmao::

I can see how Harvey definitely disagrees with my thought that productive labor is within a firm too. Maybe best to keep the productive/unproductive question open @fdrake

There is no value without realization. If you work at something and you make a commodity and you can't sell it then the commodity has no value. The tendency in the Marxist tradition to fetishize production... no they equally important. You can't have realization without production, and you can't have production without realization. Value depends upon the contradictory unity....

Ahhhh! Nice. That's super cool to hear with all the questions I've been asking. You don't have to discuss realization in volume 1 of Capital because it's assumed away. That makes so much sense! Also why I'm confused so much in reading this, thinking back to Capital V1 :D "Barriers" were never mentioned, and here Harvey is saying "barriers" matter, which only occur in the field of realization.

"the thread of devaluation"

two forms of devaluation --

(1) you lose the value entirely. you make something take it to market and can't sell it. what then is lost. both labor put into it and also the constant capital was lost.

(2) you may partially lose the value, by selling it at a loss. Got back the raw materials, but not the labor, or whatever.

the transitions that go on from this to that point are potential places for devaluation -- every time there's a change from M to C to M.

First barrier to the realization process -- consumption capacity. Intensified because use-value does not have the boundlessness of value. Capital needs to take its spiral form and have an infinite growth. So you'll get a crisis of some kind from over-production.

"The creation of new needs and the discovery and creation of new use-values" -- I mean... eat it Hare! :D -- Marx clearly thought all needs were any use-values

"For the first time nature becomes purely an object for humankind, purely an object of utility... so as to subjugate it under human needs" I'm happy to see p409 pop up in lecture. To be honest, I'm much more on Marx's side in being happy to see human beings having power over nature. I prefer having choice to not having choice.

Hrm. I'd be interested in the data Harvey is mentioning. I knew in the United States that wages have decreased in terms of real purchasing power since 1980, but not that many countries are. "The credit system" basically baring the burdens of capitalist over-production, but with them saying "OK, we'll lend more to others not in debt, just to make sure we keep the boot on the face of the ones we already got with this scam" -- makes sense of micro-loans in Africa. And anti-socialist military interventions from the United States to Middle and South America.

Hrm. A reason to also question my distinction -- if the oligarchy absorbs all productive activity, then there's a reason to question that all firms are productive insofar that they turn a profit. There's the perspective from an organizer who wants the people to unite on the shop floor, which is what I've been expressing, and then there's the perspective of what everyone ought to be doing if we all did productive labor. I think I'm OK with services because I think we need services, and that services clearly support social structures in good ways (nurses, for instance. Or janitorial staff -- yeah you should clean your own home, but should we all individually clean an entire building, or should people be compensated for what clearly is necessary? Guess a has-been SEIU organizer would say those professions...)

Just going to listen now that we're at Q&A. I had a couple thoughts but not a good question yet. And I like to hear the people there ask questions. Not just a middle-aged man thinking on his own :).

Hell yeah. I'm glad to have you still along.

Oooo listening -- I'm glad he mentioned "experiences" as a thing that's being produced! Super exciting. The reason for inventions of superfluity is the need for expanding consumption! (I mean... there are industries not only doing cruise lines, there are industries built on selling cruise lines!)

Ever wonder why loot boxes became a thing in video games? Or, even, video games? The revolutionary power of capital!

Oooo listening -- I'm glad he mentioned "experiences" as a thing that's being produced! Super exciting. The reason for inventions of superfluity is the need for expanding consumption! (I mean... there are industries not only doing cruise lines, there are industries built on selling cruise lines!) — Moliere

Increasing the "rate of consumption" due to spectacles being transitory is a way of solving the "growth of consumption" required for the growth of capital - more consumption per unit time, and it's repeatable due to needing to buy access each time you see a spectacle. The same thing could be said about rentier capital maybe? It counts as self reproducing consumption of something transitory, an engagement. That might apply to software-as-as-service business models too...

yup!

I thought Harvey fielded the restaurant question fairly well. I'd point that person asking to the IWW as a realized place to go for restaurant organizing, and I guess this is also why I have this sympathy for service workers as being productive. It's not like those factory workers did everything. And now that women have become part of the workforce those roles have become more public than private than when Grandpa Marx was alive. ;) (EDIT: Should note, this being the internet, that I think this is a good thing from capital. Just noting differences in attitude towards what were considered "womens work" roles before they became firms)

Well... attack upon labor began as soon as the CIO had power and flexed it, but I'm biased.

ADDON: Taft-Hartley Act is the first thing I think of.
ADDON2:
"The Taft–Hartley Act amended the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), adding new restrictions on union actions and designating new union-specific unfair labor practices. Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns."

The tendency to lessen the socially necessary labour time per product decreases the living labour (time) required for its production for sale. When a good is produced for sale, capital "devalues" because it no longer has the money form of value with a distinct amount (investment into commodities), it takes on the form of a commodity which has a certain price. In that regard there is an inversion; in the first step M-C money stands as a potential for commodities which then becomes a commodity, in C-M commodities stand as a potential for money, which then becomes money. Initially M takes the form of an investment, then as a collection of commodity prices, but it must pass through a metamorphosis into a commodity, rather than a representation of a commodity's value. — fdrake

After Harvey's lecture yesterday evening, I realised there's an implication of devaluation that I missed. The same "devaluation" occurs when a product is not in circulation regardless of why. So when the EU's "butter mountain" accumulated, much of it couldn't be sold, it was thus out of circulation and therefore worthless.

Because capital's growth of production posits a corresponding growth of circulation to realise the value of produced goods, a break between circulation and capital is a disruption in realisation. Which is a potential for crisis.

When food is bought by a worker, is this not a devaluation? A commodity goes out of circulation to be consumed. I don't think this is a devaluation because the worker's consumption acts upon the use value, it does not zero the exchanged value through payment or remove the act of payment.

With capital itself, M-C-C-M, is the M-C-C transition a devaluation? Even when the commodities values are "maintained and renewed" by the workers? Marx has commented that the interaction of their work with the commodities, the capital flow it is part of, and that flow's relationship to circulation maintains and preserves the value; not the fact that workers assemble alone. The value added in their work is represented by the C-M relation, which requires a passage through circulation, and thus is a site for the relationship of capital and circulation to break down; a crisis of realisation.

Also thanks to @Moliere for highlighting something similar.

and for the next session's bookend.

21MAR23 lecture notes.

Haven't read the section yet, but still taking notes to share and listen for nuggets to think about while I do the reading.

"The recognition of capital is one of the themes of this section"

Marx is trying to name capital, give it a definition, and make it recognizable. From the previous capital is a process, not a thing.

Marx wants to name capital and the capitalist. So it's an exciting session but it's also a very complicated one because of the various ways Marx is trying to set up to understand the concept of capital.

"The true nature of capital emerges only at the end of the second cycle" -- that is at that point surplus-value has been used to create more surplus-value.... back in the chapter on money Marx talks about how we are ruled by abstractions, where no one is responsible.

The spiral form comes about when capital posits its presuppositions -- it presupposes labor and posits more labor through surplus value extraction.

Production -- Circulation: two moments that are separate and need to be separated, but then they merge. (after at least two cycles, so that surplus-value can be produced by means of surplus-value)

The circulation process as a whole incorporates the moment of production and now we are looking at a totality, or a unity.

There's a large section here about different modes of production through history. (this'll be interesting to me!)

The relationship to nature differed prior to capital. You cannot have a capitalist system that does not separate culture from nature, and which does not treat nature as a resource for exploitation. Whereas other economies people tend to see themselves as part of nature.

The whole conceptual apparatus of capital is to dominate nature, you figure out its rules and that permits us to rule -- these conceptual forms evolve from the economic engine requiring nature to become a resource.

This suggests there's something going on with the metabolic relations of nature -- capital works on the metabolic relations of nature. . . these transitions that have occurred deal with the understandings, ideas, and practices towards the metabolic relations of nature. If we treat everything from nature as a free gift then we can use them until they are gone. And we have this idea that it's not a good thing to do, but it would require a change in the mode of production, given this relationship between economies and nature. And capital cannot do this because it's committed to endless growth.

Conceptual apparatus for talking of transitions: barriers that exist, and dissolution. Capitalist mode of production dependend upon the dissolution of peasant forms, dissolution of institutional structures and modes of thinking of a peasant based society -- similar to the dissolution of the barriers to exchange.

Large discussion about disagreements between Stalin and Mao and interpreting China as a peasant society so Mao is leading a peasant rebellion and that's bad according to Stalin. "Oriental mode of production" came up but eh.

"Thus the old view, in which the human being appears as the aim of production, regardless of his limited national, religious, political character, seems to be very lofty when contrasted to the modern world, where production appears as the aim of mankind and wealth as the aim of production. In fact, however, when the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces etc.,created through universal exchange? The full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity's own nature? The absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming? In bourgeois economics -- and in the epoch of production to which it corresponds -- this complete working-out of the human content appears as a complete emptying-out, this universal objectification as total alienation, and the tearing-down of all limited, one-sided aims as sacrifice of the human end-in-itself to an entirely external end. This is why the childish world of antiquity appears on one side as loftier. On the other side, it really is loftier in all matters where closed shapes, forms and given limits are sought for. It is satisfaction from a limited standpoint; while the modern gives no satisfaction; or, where it appears satisfied with itself, it is vulgar" -- p. 488. Harvey went too fast for me to type it out so I grabbed my copy to type it out because when he was reading it it hit a lot of points.

We're at a halfway point, in a sense, so we'll be looking at what capital posits, now that we've covered what capital presupposes.

And onto Q&A. Work being what it is I'm gonna skip out here, and post notes.

I should have done bookend last week. I think I'll be able to catch up this week. But, I haven't even caught up with last week's reading yet much less this week's, so I'm going to hold on posting notes as I listen until I catch up on readings. (the lectures are saved, after all, so I'll take advantage of that.)

The next bookend, though, ending on page 584:

… Apart from the circumstance that the preparation of a larger quantity admits of a more effective division of labour and the employment of superior machinery, there is in this matter that sort of latitude, arising from a quantity of labour and capital lying unemployed, and ready to furnish additional commodities at the same rate. Thus does it happen that a considerable increase of demand often takes place without raising prices.’(73.)>

Finished up p 515 today. I can see why the 21MAR23 lecture was a bit big picture now -- this section is a detailed counter pre-history for the rise of capital meant to counter the myth perpetuated by economists that Capitalism is pre-history. So we get a story which spans from the slavery of the ancient world to Marx's day, largely focusing on German Feudal history but at a very big picture view.

For myself I think that I'm not satisfied with Marx's history :D. It's surely better than what he's countering. It's at least attempting to make Capital into something which arises out of the movements of history, something which isn't eternal but rather came about -- as opposed to not even the end of history, but re-interpreting old relations in capitalist terms. However, it follows along with his notion of stages too much for me. I tend to believe that Marx defines capitalism well, but I'm uncertain about the rest. And I tend to emphasize the abstract portions of Marx's theory rather than the elements where he distinguishes between proto forms of capitalism and the vestiges of feudalism. The jumps from feudal Europe in its vestigial forms of capital to capital look good to me -- though I want details for a true history rather than Marx's counter sketch -- it's the comparisons to the ancient world and slavery that always seem sort of hand wavey to me. It feels too anachronistic to call "slavery" a mode of production, especially as it lives on under capital.