Spring 1999
Capital, Volume 1
What is meant by
science? laws, abstraction, change.
·
science and laws: what is meant by "law"; what do laws determine;
what governs the laws?
p. 91 - "iron
necessity. The country that is more
developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own
future."
p. 92 - read
"Even when a society has begun to track down ... shorten and lessen the
birth-pangs."
Two points here 1) the
movement or development of a society has natural laws; 2) the succession is
linear.
p. 101 - read Russian
economist Kaufman: "For this is quite enough... but rather, determining
that will, consciousness, intelligence."
p. 101 - read
"But this is exactly what Marx denies ... its own laws."
·
not abstract laws but historical laws, evolution
·
science and abstraction
The power of
abstraction and biology
·
read p. 90: Because the complete body ... economic cell-form." What does abstraction mean here? How is the study of economics like biology?
·
compare to example of butryic acid and exchange of two different
commodities. Read p. 141: "In the
same way ... physical formation."
·
relate this to the capitalist mode of production in England and Germany. The physicist conducts experiments to study
the process in "its pure state."
"What I have to examine in this work is the capitalist mode of
production, and the relations of production and the forms of intercourse that
correspond to it." The question
is: how does capitalism in England or capitalism in Germany relate to
capitalism in its pure state?
·
Althusser, Reading Capital, Part II Appendix, pp. 194-98. The abstraction can be seen in two ways. One
might think of the abstraction as beginning with the actual conditions in
England and abstracting from them, purifying them -- as if Marx were moving
from the empirical to the ideal.
Abstraction as subtraction. But
Althusser claims the relation is just the opposite. Marx pursues the capitalist mode of production on a conceptual
level. "What I have to examine in
this work ...." The capitalist
mode of production is the "theoretical object." Read Althusser, p. 196. Althusser's notion of the "concept of
the real" is meant to pose the distinction from the ideal on one hand and
the empirical on the other. Related to
"the law of phenomena"? (p. 100).
·
Althusser also says in this regard that Marx discovered the concept of the
proletariat before discovering its empirical existence.
p. 92 - Träger, bearer
of economic categories: the structure of subjectivity. Read p. 92.
This is a form of abstraction, but also later we'll see its a mode of
representation.
·
See p. 126: use values bear exchange values.
·
p. 143: coat expresses in linen, gold-braided uniform.
·
dialectics and change
- opposite to
Hegelian: material and ideal. Read p.
102: "My dialectical method ... forms of thought." p. 103 "standing on its head" head metaphor = idealism.
p. 103 - idealist
"glorify what exists"; material change, fluidity: "it regards
every historically developed form as being in a fluid state."
p. 96 - political
economists view capitalist order as "absolute and ultimate form of social
production." Read p. 96.
Capital, Volume 1,
Part 1 (Chapters 1, 2, and 3)
"The wealth of
societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an
immense collection of commodities."
What is a
commodity? What is the value of a
commodity? How is that value
determined?
Definition #1: a
commodity is an external thing that satisfies a need (a need that might be
natural or socially determined) p. 125
This definition leads
directly to the conception of use-value, satisfying a need. It is the physical properties of the
commodity itself that is its use-value.
Use-values are qualitatively different: iron, corn, diamond. They form the material content of wealth in
all societies. They are incommensurable.
But in capitalist
societies each commodity also has an exchange value. "in the form of society to be considered here they are also
the material bearers [Träger]of ... exchange value" (p. 126).
Hence Definition #2: a
commodity in capitalist society is defined by its dual character, use-value and
exchange-value. "they are only
commodities because they have a dual nature (read p. 138).
·
primarily quantitative rather than qualitative; exchange values are defined by
their commensurability.
Abstraction and
expression:
·
abstraction from use-value (read p. 127 bot)
·
exchange value puts two incommensurables in common (read p. 127 top)
((· later Marx
will use "value" to mean "exchange-value"))
What is expressed by
exchange value and what is the common element that makes exchange-values
commensurable? Labor. The quantity of labor determines the
quantity of each exchange-value. But
all labors are different; they are concrete, material, particular, incommensurable.
The labor that can be
viewed purely quantitatively – as “human labor-power expended without regard to
the form of its expenditure” – is abstract labor. Read p. 128 top paragraph.
This is the real instance
of abstraction and expression. Read p.
135 bottom.
Quality concrete
labor (expression) —> use
value
| |
V V
Abstraction (Träger)
| |
V V
Quantity abstract
labor (expression) —> exchange
value
Darstellung and
Forschung:
Don’t get fooled by
the progressions of the argument. These
aren’t really causal relations just means of presentation:
1) use-value priority
2) development of
money, the “origin” of money.
a) Do
use-values have an existence autonomous from capital? (See p. 138: “Commodities come into the world ….” Natural form of commodities. It is an outside of capital? Spivak argues that use-value exists only in
relation to exchange value, that it is not an autonomous outside. Use-value is a rhetorical starting-point
that has to be canceled out once the argument is set in motion.
b) Is
a commodity really a thing? Expansion
of service industries and the dematerialization of commodities puts this
further into question. Is a video
cassette a service of a durable good?
Maybe commodities in general should be thought of not as things but as
services or really social relations.
(Affective labor).
c) Note
that abstraction is not all bad: commensuration leads to social unification.
1.3 The Value-Form, or
Exchange Value
·
The point here is to show the social "origin" of the money-form, or
really to demonstrate how money is socially constructed.
·
The value-form "can only appear in the social relation between commodity
and commodity" (139) -- or rather it's the sociality of exchange value
that leads to the money form. The interesting thing in this progression is
expression and sociality. What is an
adequate expression of abstract labor?
What is the social nature of commodities?
A: Relative and Equivalent
Forms
·
20 yards of linen = one coat
(relative form) =
(equivalent form)
commodity whose value
is expressed = commodity that expresses value
·
In commodity in relative form we see the movement from use value to exchange
value and from concrete to abstract labor in order to realize a qualitative
equivalence.
·
In commodity in equivalent form we move in the opposite direction. It is first exchange value and abstract
value and only second use value.
·
It needs a commodity of different quality before it to realize its value--this
is the social character. Expression
requires difference but what is expressed is what is common (abstract labor).
Read p. 140: the commodity can only express
its value in another - relation to the other is the social character of
commodities.
- read p.144 note:
Peter and Paul. Difference and commonality: In the face of the other
each recognizes its common essence.
Language as sociality: read p. 143 bot: abstract labor is the language
of commodities.
·
The value of commodities is "purely social" - read p. 149. Purely
social has two meanings:
1) it conceals a social relation (concrete
labor)
2) it expresses a social relation (among
commodities)
·
Hence 1st mystery (p. 149) - use / exchange
2nd mystery (p. 150) - concrete / abstract labor
3rd mystery (p. 151) - private / social labor
In each case the
second term appears as natural and the former appears as a product of it.
·
Aristotle example (p. 152) : incommensurability of objects and need for
commensurability for exchange. Aristotle couldn't recognize abstract labor
because of slavery (historical limitation).
Modern equality and exchange.
B: Expanded Relative
Form of Value
20 yards of linen = one coat = 20 lb of tea
= etc
Read p. 155. Two things are going on here:
1) movement toward an adequate expression of
abstract labor;
2) development of the society of
commodities. ·
Defect of expanded form: bad infinity, never stops. Or really: it is an inadequate expression - read p. 156: "it
is a motley ...."
C: General Form
one coat
20 lb of tea = 20 yards of linen
40 lb of coffee
·
Read p. 159-60: positive expression of abstract labor.
·
Read p. 159 "It thus becomes evident ...." Purely social existence of commodities. Again 2 meanings of social.
D: Money Form
the general equivalent
is excluded.
Chapter 1.4: Fetishism
1) What
is mysterious about the commodity? (pp.
163-65)
·
The dancing table (use value and exchange value), read pp. 163-164.
·
Progression from concrete labor to abstract labor to social relation between
the products of labor (commodities)
·
Reification - a social relation appears as a relation among things.
·
Metaphor of sight, not sufficient because light is external to the eye
·
Metaphor of religion: fetish - an inanimate object worshiped as if it had
magically qualities, or as if it were animated.
2) What
is the origin of the fetish-like character? (pp. 165-68) Valid only for capitalist society:
Darstellung and Forschung
·
reflection and reality, p. 168.
·
Robinson Crusoe as individual capitalist pp. 169-70.
·
Medieval production as not based on commodity fetishism, p. 170.
3) What political
economists do and don't understand, pp. 173-74. They treat it as eternal, p. 174n.
Again about the
fetishism of commodities: dual meaning of “purely social”
Part of the fetishism is that the commodity
tends to hide its own history and appear as something natural. What is hidden is the labor that went into
its production and the social relations implied in that labor. Dancing table appears as an autonomous
subject not the product of labor. Read
p. 187: “The movement through which the process has been mediated vanishes in
its own result, leaving no trace behind.”
·
Take a pencil for example. We encounter
as something natural and take its existence for granted. How was it produced, by whom, and
where? In a simple commodity are
contained a vast network of social organization. Think about this morning's breakfast.
Chapter 2 and Chapter
3.1
Exchange
1) Träger:
in what sense are humans guardians of the commodities? What is Marx's explanation for treating them
merely as "personifications of economic relations ... bearers of these
economic relations"? (p. 179 top).
2) How
is it that a product of labor "becomes" a commodity? Why was it not a commodity before? Read p. 181 bottom. A use-value must become a
non-use-value. Alienation.
3) Historical
origin of commodities and the development of money. How does this relate to the logical explanation Marx already
gave? Social and anthropological
explanations of the origin of commodities, pp. 182-83.
4) Money
appears as natural, money fetish, p. 187.
Reverse relation. money-form (price) -> social relation ->
abstract labor
Money
·
Money is "the direct incarnation of all human labor" (p. 187) and thus
"Money as the measure of value is the necessary form of appearance of the
measure of value which is immanent in commodities, namely labour- time"
(p. 188). What is the mystery of money? Why money fetish?
·
Money serves only in an ideal or imaginary capacity (pp. 189-90):
"relation with gold exists only in their heads" (p. 189).
·
attributes of gold that allow it to serve as money: uniformity and quantitative
divisibility (p. 184).
·
divergences of price and value (pp. 196-97, 202): overproduction,
supply/demand.
·
Alienation and metamorphosis (pp. 199-200).
"Money is the absolutely alienable commodity" (p. 205).
·
Metamorphosis of commodities = abstraction of labor (p. 204).
READ p. 199-200: what
is alienation here? What is the
antagonism between commodity form and money form? How does one "negate" the other?
Circulation
·
commodities are not exchanged directly for each other money stands between
them: C-M-C and then continue this out
C-M-C-M-C...