RedMarx

A Forum
It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Welcome


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:48 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
Having currently embarked (again) on tackling Das Kapital (though first stopping off to read A Contribution), I will be compiling my thoughts and questions here.

1.

To start with, money. Specifically, paper money, or representative money.

I understand that paper money is supposed to be exchangeable for gold, and as such merely represents gold. I also understand that, despite what the law may say today, paper currency is still exchangeable for gold or, as Marx states, its value would fall tremendously. This is probably where my mistaken thinking comes in. Being of a somewhat mathematical background, this is all reduced to an equation in my mind that looks like this.

Gold = currency = All other commodities.

But as an equation, could it not simply be written as.

Currency = All commodities, gold included.

Thus in appearance, paper currency simply represents all commodities, gold included. It seems to me then that the knowledge that currency is based on gold can only be gained by retrospection, and much as money in general erases "every trace of a value-relation" so too does paper currency erase any trace of its special connection to gold.

However, in order for paper currency to be commensurable with all commodities, must not paper currency ITSELF be a commodity? In this case all other laws of commodities should also apply to it, including the determination of its exchange-value by the amount of labour-time embodied within it. This is where my thinking starts to become a bit less cogent. How is one to consider the amount of labour-time embodied within paper currency? Merely by the amount of time it would take to counterfeit such a piece of paper? That doesn't seem to make much, if any, sense to me.

The other possibility is that paper currency is not itself a commodity, but simply comes to represent not gold, but value in general, and that makes much more sense to me.

2.

I have a slight qualm with the method of presentation of surplus value. In the section that first introduces us to the equation M-C-M' Marx goes on to prove how exchange cannot generate surplus value. But I feel as though he has failed to demonstrate that M-C-M' creates surplus value. Could it not be that a Capitalist is simply very good at swindling people at buying high and selling low? The continuing concentration of wealth at the top of society would also seem to attest to the fact that no general surplus value is created, and merely transferred and concentrated at the top.

It would have been nice had he given some thought to proving that M-C-M' creates surplus value instead of simply assuming it. Overall I do think it is fairly clear that M-C-M' creates surplus value, but the further clarity that some proof would have had would've been nice.

3.

Continuing the complaints on the method of presentation. It would have been especially nice had Marx included an example by which he shows how the law that the means of production only transfer their value is asserted. Something simple between two capitalists where one tries to sell his product the more dearly than the other but cannot, and this having its roots at the cheapening of the means of production in some manner. It is not very intuitive that the means of production merely transfer their existing value and do not add any new value, or at least it wasn't to me. I had to think up some example for my own benefit in order to comprehend it the more fully.

4.

On the subject of increasing relative surplus value. This may be a slight stretch, but does the general prolongation of the life span of the working class increase relative surplus value? If a worker lives 20 years of productive life, he has 20 years to make all of his purchases, and some of these purchases are one time, or very few and far between, for example, his education or house. If a worker lives 40 years of a productive life, he now has 40 years to make these purchases. Instead of educating himself to work for 20 years, his one-time education payment would stretch to a utility of 40 years, this applies also to his house and etc. The net effect being the overall cheapening of necessary labour time by allowing for more time to pay/purchase/repay for one-time expenses.

Additionally, the diminution of the standard of living would also cheapen necessary labour time as well would it not? Thus adding another profitable facet to the business of war.

5.

When it comes to machines, I also thought it would have been very helpful for Marx to have given an example of a case where purchasing a machine was, and was not worth the labour saving. I found it somewhat difficult to wrap my head around this concept for some time. I finally understood it after making a few examples in my mind.

Basically, as I understand it, the variables under consideration are. A, how much the machine costs to purchase in labour. B, how much labour the machine will offset. C, how much the labour that is potentially offset currently costs compared to A. from there its simple to compare A and B and arrive at your conclusion.

That is where I stopped for this week, at Chapter 15. More thoughts next weekend!

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:48 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
Hi, Brole. Sure this is you? It sounds different. I'm fairly sure your gimmick was that you at least grasped certain fairly clear things, not that you just seemed to like things and then continually questioned them about everything.

Brole wrote:
I have a slight qualm with the method of presentation of surplus value. In the section that first introduces us to the equation M-C-M' Marx goes on to prove how exchange cannot generate surplus value.

Marx makes the point that surplus-value on a social level could have no existence in such a case, because it is only relative, and hence not, socially considered, surplus-value. You're assuming communism here. Obviously, in communism there is no value.

Obviously, expenditure in commodities is a loss, unless these commodities are merely there in order to produce surplus-value, and then one would have to ask what the nature of such a commodity was. It would obviously differentiate from money, which is merely the form of value or its preservation.

Brole wrote:
Thus in appearance, paper currency simply represents all commodities, gold included. It seems to me then that the knowledge that currency is based on gold can only be gained by retrospection, and much as money in general erases "every trace of a value-relation" so too does paper currency erase any trace of its special connection to gold.

Paper currency isn't money asserted as against money. You're again assuming communism, or that capitalism is abolished. Anyway, the displacement of the use-value of the money-commodity in favour of its use-value being taken as its use as money - which is in brief a lie - is an active act, and if this occurs in differentiated ways, then the ways in which each of these commodities reflects the money-relation is different. This is done, as it were, at their expense. One could therefore also surmise that paper currency could not be the only fundament, as then this would only be at the expense of its labourers or the exploitation of employees by employers - who represent money as opposed to labour-power - would be acknowledged, and in that sense you could not have such a society, and hence part of currency must have been something which was extracted, and hence itself having its use-value displaced in order to at its expense form money, rather than produced, which is merely the divestment of the labourer and could not be acknowledged as currency.

Brole wrote:
It would have been especially nice had Marx included an example by which he shows how the law that the means of production only transfer their value is asserted. Something simple between two capitalists where one tries to sell his product the more dearly than the other but cannot, and this having its roots at the cheapening of the means of production in some manner. It is not very intuitive that the means of production merely transfer their existing value and do not add any new value, or at least it wasn't to me. I had to think up some example for my own benefit in order to comprehend it the more fully.

I'm sure I've discussed this one a bit previously, but in any case if you're just asking for a paraphrase of Das Kapital, then that might be unclear. Who knows if you'd this vaguely have an issue with that as well. Such an example would be irrelevant, as they're asking about the role of the means of production on a social level, and as such they could just as well query any example, but this would only serve to answer possible objections without getting to the point. But price is not necessarily equivalent to value, anyway, which early comment you don't seem to question. In any case, capital is not to be taken as particular capitals, but as capital was, a social phenomenon, where the means of production were only the value that the overall capital brought through in the production and, in this, was erected as opposed to the proletariat, as this capital in continuance, which value is hence merely transferred to the product. Things which are apparently to passively represent capital (and as such cannot define capital, which was obscuring), are obviously to act like this in general. Obviously, though, capitalists producing raw materials might not be pleased with other capitalists, on behalf of capital, merely taking this value and asking for it from others, but how this would generally be got around is that in such fields capital was more closely associated with the labourers in it, such that people may have pretended that for instance miners were capitalists and been annoyed when they claimed otherwise, but this also presented a ready scapegoat, which was often attacked and requested to sell under their value. This was an overall tendency of capital, however, and not a fragmentation - capital never liked labourers. Marx is talking about production, and you're criticising him for not talking about consumption, though. Why.

Obviously, to give a worker things to do work with, and then immediately kick them out, would merely be to start paying them. This was unlikely in that form in capitalism, though, and is merely a sign of its non-functioning to allow things that might otherwise occur to slip through. It could be summarised as them being employed by a Socialist Industrial Union, albeit in defiance of the particular non-entities that 'reject' it.

In any case, though, this isn't a fundamental question, as the proletariat were required to do abstract labour or not to labour and hence in many ways just stole from the unemployed, but 'method of presentation' is not equivalent to 'method of illustration,' which is just drawings and more important to Roald Dahl. Marx may have perhaps overlooked that, as he presented capital as merely illusions and smoke-and-mirrors when it comes to the production process, and as essentially foreign to it, the task of the proletariat was not necessarily passive vis-a-vis that, but also to bring capital into the production process, perhaps through illusions, although this may be held to contradict some revolutionary essence of the proletariat in isolation, which does not exist either way. That production stood opposed to capitalism, and humanity generally, need not mean that the proletariat did, as they were merely producers modified capitalistically.

Brole wrote:
This may be a slight stretch, but does the general prolongation of the life span of the working class increase relative surplus value?

If it's pretend, then yes, as then the labourer merely exists as such and as surplus-value. If real, then no, as the labourer is not surplus-value, and doesn't even have to be employed.

Brole wrote:
Additionally, the diminution of the standard of living would also cheapen necessary labour time as well would it not?

If capital took on the proletariat in war, that would have been a revolution. So no, then. Capital only makes a virtue out of money, which is consumption and identified by it with happiness, to make a virtue out of suffering would make a contrary God, which it could not allow for, and hence raise a force against it. As it is only motivated by money, it will not itself do this. Hitler would have been fairly clear, for instance, that capital was merely trying to limit his ambitions - again - by making him reliant upon it for weaponry, and hence if he spoke against it would have meant it. Nazi Germany still stood for little, however, but capital mostly dislikes it for representing things hostile to this, and hates it as much as it does because it did this systematically and frequently. Socialists rarely disliked Nazi Germany for reasons at all related to capitalism, and of course they didn't, as the Nazis went after Jews for liking money, thus taking such options out of the way. Even Stalin could not escape that they were often just hated for being a bit like Hitler. Consider that George Orwell's anti-German posturing, and his offence against Russia, could not have done otherwise than co-exist, as ultimately he was just saying that Stalin was the enemy because he was like Hitler, but slightly different. This made him an ideologist, but the artificial separation there indicates some dissent about this. Hence, rather than being exalted, which is artificial - he is represented as different from the dramatic nature of thrillers and so on because as an ideologist he has to write his 'enemies' and make them the exciting part of his novel, but to do this would indicate support, and hence dissent - he was instead mostly bullied: people think that their grasp of the Soviet Union is sophisticated and deep because they aren't George Orwell.

Generally, a lower standard of living means less products, as more production then restores that anyway, in which sense such things can only be nominally taken advantage of when the nations are such already, and then their pre-history compared to capital is reduced to one of suffering, until capital was established. In that sense it would not have to be aware of any such things or try to enact something contrary to its purpose. The attempt to then function as normal, as if this lower standard of living meant only cheaper labour, would lead to a crisis. What you might have noticed is an attempt to outsource the results of the falling rate of profit, by which labourers are more and more excluded from the production process, and less able to negotiate, to other places.

Brole wrote:
When it comes to machines, I also thought it would have been very helpful for Marx to have given an example of a case where purchasing a machine was, and was not worth the labour saving. I found it somewhat difficult to wrap my head around this concept for some time. I finally understood it after making a few examples in my mind.

For whose advantage may they have given such advice? Marx didn't care to tell capitalists when to buy machines. They obviously didn't do it due to productive requirements - only labourers were so concerned with use-values and concrete labour - but rather either due to social pressure, in which case it is merely nominal or cosmetic, or because they were feeling under pressure and as a mode of discipline, or alternatively simply because there was something new and they could constrain it to capital, in which case they were not going to leave it out of capital, but only because it could and would submit. As such, if it couldn't, then they wouldn't. Making such things which were too advanced for capital was easy, especially when it was so insistent that everyone else produce in some form or other. It would not be nice about it, though, if you care about feelings.

Speaking of which, S. Artesian, could you explain to Broletariat how surplus-value was a thing in Marx's critique of capitalism?

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:41 am 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
ZeroNowhere wrote:
Speaking of which, S. Artesian, could you explain to Broletariat how surplus-value was a thing in Marx's critique of capitalism?


You mean relation, not thing, don't you?

Surplus labor, expressed in things as surplus product, is tautologically, a relation, opposed, contained, inherent in and determined by the necessary labor-- the time and effort needed to reproduce not just the laborer(s) but the conditions of labor, i.e. how social labor is organized. That "how" gets expressed, materialized, by and in a property form.

Surplus labor generates surplus value under certain historically specific conditions-- when labor has no use for the laborers save as a means of exchange for the means of subsistence, or an exchangeable token, sign, representative, symbol, equivalent to the means of subsistence. Then the necessary labor= value of the means of subsistence; surplus labor = value beyond that needed for the reproduction of the laborer as laborer. Surplus value, derived from a social condition of labor, materializes in things as private property.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 11:56 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
You might want to add quotation marks ("EdCullen") in the quote2 format. I'd edit them in, but in general am not motivated to use this website, given its current structure which is a bit of a joke, and would have been recognised as such by members when it was active.

[quote2="Sarteesian"]You mean relation, not thing, don't you?[/quote2]
I mean colloquially. To be a relation colloquially would only apply to the subdivision of surplus-value known as '***.'

[quote2="Sarteesian"]Surplus labor generates surplus value under certain historically specific conditions-- when labor has no use for the laborers save as a means of exchange for the means of subsistence, or an exchangeable token, sign, representative, symbol, equivalent to the means of subsistence. Then the necessary labor= value of the means of subsistence; surplus labor = value beyond that needed for the reproduction of the laborer as laborer.[/quote2]
Yep, although it might be misleading in part that labour is a means of exchange (this might sound like Angelus Novus, this is because it is totally novel), as the exchangeable token is rather labour-power, and the whole product of labour itself is hence appropriated by the capitalist, who renders it abstract labour. Outside of the interests of capital, it would not be abstract labour, and in this sense various reforms purporting to do away with the capitalist while maintaining the capitalist anarchy of the market are merely lying, which also tended to apply to taxes on the rich, etc. - obviously, the nature of the lie depends on who's saying it. One could say that production for the market was always tied to the bourgeois, as it required an external, social form to impose the character of abstract labour on a labourer, or make them give their labour this character, and hence the bourgeois and commercial were intrinsically linked. This would also apply, artificially, and perhaps usually in a mediated manner due to this, to other activities insofar as they were to have legitimacy in this order, and perhaps related to things such as employment, social recognition, careerism, normalcy, and so on as they were conceived in that order, and hence they would also require some form of artificial, pseudo-external bourgeois to force actors into this form of abstract labour or appearing to be so, which could apply just as much to courses, DeviantArt (the horses for the aforementioned), forums, and the things produced or written on these, as otherwise, and may have seemed a serious issue because if abstract labour is revealed to have no relation to things, then everyone else's legitimacy may seem to disappear as well, though they may prefer this. That lesser forms may take on the forms of higher to claim legitimacy need not be a surprise, that capital was also pervasive or found its way downwards made it intolerable even if people wanted something markedly different.

Anyway, though, that is correct, although you might wonder if 'necessary labour-time' wouldn't usually be a category confined to very few things, as usually labourers could not produce anything - from pornography to trashy novels some capitalist finds publishable to *** - and have it count as such, and in that sense in application to the particular labourer it can be slightly frayed a category. If labourers want money, then this money needn't be spent on things they need rather than, say, anything else money can buy, depending on their motive as workers, and hence to see it more as capital paying them for the continuance of their scheme might be slightly more exacting than the historical-account-of-labourer approach. You are still correct, however, in the sense that surplus-value only exists when none of labourers' labour is directly necessary, or in brief they have no motivation for doing it, such that some amount of irrationality did quite easily enter into proceedings. If all labour under capital was alienated, the labour itself was either motiveless or servile. This, by the way, is interesting, as it implied some foreign, extra-economic, motivation for doing it, and one which was rather specific, in their case.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:27 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
[quote2="ZeroNowhere"]as the exchangeable token is rather labour-power, and the whole product of labour itself is hence appropriated by the capitalist, who renders it abstract labour. Outside of the interests of capital, it would not be abstract labour, and in this sense various reforms purporting to do away with the capitalist while maintaining the capitalist anarchy of the market are merely lying, which also tended to apply to taxes on the rich, etc. - obviously, the nature of the lie depends on who's saying it.[/quote2]

Exactly right.

[quote2="ZeroNowhere"]Anyway, though, that is correct, although you might wonder if 'necessary labour-time' wouldn't usually be a category confined to very few things, as usually labourers could not produce anything - from pornography to trashy novels some capitalist finds publishable to *** - and have it count as such, and in that sense in application to the particular labourer it can be slightly frayed a category. If labourers want money, then this money needn't be spent on things they need rather than, say, anything else money can buy, depending on their motive as workers, and hence to see it more as capital paying them for the continuance of their scheme might be slightly more exacting than the historical-account-of-labourer approach. You are still correct, however, in the sense that surplus-value only exists when none of labourers' labour is directly necessary, or in brief they have no motivation for doing it, such that some amount of irrationality did quite easily enter into proceedings. If all labour under capital was alienated, the labour itself was either motiveless or servile. This, by the way, is interesting, as it implied some foreign, extra-economic, motivation for doing it, and one which was rather specific, in their case.[/quote2]

Very interesting-- the first part-- about 'necessary labour-time' being a slightly frayed category, is in itself a manifestation of "abstract labor"-- in that it is, in a sense "purposeless" to the producer, and the owner.

The second part, re extra-economic "motivation," gets us into some very interesting areas-- the conflict in the heart of capital between "free" [detached, floating, transient} labor, and compulsory labor.

Anyway, I formerly protest your removal from the admin board, and the banning of Noa.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:35 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
Reading the above dialogue made me wonder re: necessary labour/surplus labour. Considered as a total social whole, all of the necessary labour done by the working class and all of the surplus labour done. If say, 25% of the average working day is done on necessary labour and 75% of that time is done on surplus labour, could it also be said that 25% of all production is done on necessities of life and 75% of all production done on the luxuries of life?

Having now finished Capital Vol. 1 this week I have to say that I have a much better understanding of what people say when they express that Capital is basically the life story of value and how it first appears to us and we follow it through its various forms and see how it appears as surplus value then as capital and back again and how it originally came into being from primitive accumulation etc.

I was also a little surprised that crisis theory isn't expounded upon in that work, I guess I was expecting Vol 1. to contain more answers than it does, but I shall press on to Vol 2. next.

I did want to clarify though. The production of the reserve industrial labour army is a result of the increased productivity of capital and thus of the relative increase of constant capital as compared to variable capital. This then sheds variable capital in absolute numbers (sometimes
) creating the reserve industrial labour army.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 10:10 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
Broletariat wrote:
Reading the above dialogue made me wonder re: necessary labour/surplus labour. Considered as a total social whole, all of the necessary labour done by the working class and all of the surplus labour done. If say, 25% of the average working day is done on necessary labour and 75% of that time is done on surplus labour, could it also be said that 25% of all production is done on necessities of life and 75% of all production done on the luxuries of life?




25% of the workers time is absorbed producing the value equivalent to the necessities for the reproduction of the class of workers as workers, i.e. the wage.

All the product is appropriated by the capitalist class as value, regardless of its status as a "necessity" or "luxury." The remaining 75% of the production time is surplus value, although the product itself may be equally as necessary to the reproduction of society. Or not, in which case the surplus value goes unrealized.

Reducing production by 3/4, reducing product by 3/4, is not what's at stake. Abolishing the value relation, the compulsion for labor-power to present itself as a commodity, as value-producing is what's at stake. Then society can increase production while reducing the the working day.

EDIT: There isn't much "crisis theory" worked out in detail in any of the three volumes of Capital, although vol 3, IMO deals most clearly with the limits to accumulation. Theories of Surplus Value has a bit more on crisis. But really, Marx doesn't look upon "crisis" as the death agony of capitalism.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:54 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
sartesian wrote:
EDIT: There isn't much "crisis theory" worked out in detail in any of the three volumes of Capital, although vol 3, IMO deals most clearly with the limits to accumulation. Theories of Surplus Value has a bit more on crisis. But really, Marx doesn't look upon "crisis" as the death agony of capitalism.

This seems a strange way of phrasing it, as it seems to be paraphrasing Karl Marx's terminology when he says the opposite:

Karl Marx wrote:
...in keeping with the historical trend of our age is the fatal crisis which capitalist production has undergone in the European and American countries where it has reached its highest peak, a crisis that will end in its destruction, in the return of modern society to a higher form of the most archaic type — collective production and appropriation.

Karl Marx wrote:
A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis. It is, however, just as certain as this crisis.

Karl Marx wrote:
These contradictions lead to explosions, cataclysms, crises, in which by momentaneous suspension of labour and annihilation of a great portion of capital the latter is violently reduced to the point where it can go on. [...] Yet, these regularly recurring catastrophes lead to their repetition on a higher scale, and finally to its violent overthrow.


So far as Capital goes, however, generally speaking Marx did not locate crisis in its fully developed form in simple circulation or the circulation process of capital by itself, so it would make some sense that its treatment be revealed after these were treated sufficiently. In general, though, Marx treats crises as a manifestation of the contradictions of capital, and a result of the weakening of labour's position through the fall in the rate of profit, and in that sense obviously he views them as instrumental to the death-process of capital, or its forceful abolition, in some manner or other. In general, crises were seen as a necessary manifestation of the disharmony of capital with the new mode of production, wherever that is explicitly realised, and in that sense identified with the process of its end by necessity, although how this occurs in such circumstances may vary.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:10 am 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 619
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
I believe you were quoting from the introductions to one of the editions of capital- written during the early stages of the long deflation, and yes Marx says that.

But in Capital itself, "crisis" is viewed as a "short-term" occurrence in which capital attempts to "forcibly" resolve its contradictions.

In volume 3 it is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall that determines the historical limits to capitalism, and that tendency creates its own countervailing forces.

Outside of Marx's actual critiques of political economy, Marx certainly does hold to a "crisis" of capitalism preceding, or triggering, or accompanying its abolition. Within those critiques I don't think there's that much.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My thoughts and questions as I read Das Kapital
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:44 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
sartesian wrote:
Broletariat wrote:
Reading the above dialogue made me wonder re: necessary labour/surplus labour. Considered as a total social whole, all of the necessary labour done by the working class and all of the surplus labour done. If say, 25% of the average working day is done on necessary labour and 75% of that time is done on surplus labour, could it also be said that 25% of all production is done on necessities of life and 75% of all production done on the luxuries of life?




25% of the workers time is absorbed producing the value equivalent to the necessities for the reproduction of the class of workers as workers, i.e. the wage.

All the product is appropriated by the capitalist class as value, regardless of its status as a "necessity" or "luxury." The remaining 75% of the production time is surplus value, although the product itself may be equally as necessary to the reproduction of society. Or not, in which case the surplus value goes unrealized.

Reducing production by 3/4, reducing product by 3/4, is not what's at stake. Abolishing the value relation, the compulsion for labor-power to present itself as a commodity, as value-producing is what's at stake. Then society can increase production while reducing the the working day.

EDIT: There isn't much "crisis theory" worked out in detail in any of the three volumes of Capital, although vol 3, IMO deals most clearly with the limits to accumulation. Theories of Surplus Value has a bit more on crisis. But really, Marx doesn't look upon "crisis" as the death agony of capitalism.


I think you misunderstand my intention. I'm not so much asking that question with the intention of reducing production or product by 3/4ths, but more aiming at the question of the composition of social production and how it can be read simply out of the necessary labour time and surplus labour time.

Assuming I'm correct, in my example, 25% of production would be done for things the working class would have relative easy access to, whereas the other 75% of production would work out to be products only the bourgeois would be inclined to consume with any great frequency.

The idea being that the worker essentially has access, in this case, to 1/4th of the total social productive power. The worker obviously creates all value, but most of it is excluded from him/her.

Unrelated.

As I start into Capital Volume 2, I want to make sure I'm understanding Marx correctly here when he says.

"A capital’s time of circulation therefore limits, generally speaking, its time of production and hence its process of generating surplus-value. And it limits this process in proportion to its own duration. This duration may considerably increase or decrease and hence may restrict capital’s time of production in a widely varying degree. But Political Economy sees only what is apparent, namely the effect of the time of circulation on capital’s process of the creation of surplus-value in general. It takes this negative effect for a positive one, because its consequences are positive."

I didn't quite understand what was meant at first by positive consequences of a commodity having a longer circulation time. Is he referring to the positive economic implications of a longer time of circulation which tends to indicate a higher price? Quoted here

"The capitalist method of calculating profit, in which the negative cause figures a positive one, since with capitals in different spheres of investment, where only the time of circulation are different, a longer time of circulation tends to bring about an increase in prices, in short, serves as one of the causes of equalising profits."

Or is it that by focusing on the time of circulation political economy can ignore the time of production and hence deduce surplus value as coming from capital itself without labour time being factored in? Or both or more?

On my next point of confusion.

I really am lost as to how the turnover time of fixed capital figures into the bigger picture aside from helping the capitalist know how much to have in reserve. Is this merely a way to mathematically work out the amount of value transferred by fixed capital in order to be able to still isolate the numerical value of surplus labour in a given time unit?

Chapter 9 is where I'm at in Vol 2. currently for reference.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred