PhoebeAmis

SummaryofReading,WeekFive:Capital
PrefacesandChapterOne,Sections14
Sofar,nochemisthaseverdiscoveredexchangevalueeitherinapearlor adiamond.1 Marx starts his investigation with the single cell of the whole organic body2 of theeconomy:thesinglecommodity.Acommodityisathingthatbyitsproperties satisfieshumanwantsofsomesortoranother.WhenMarxstatesthatdesireisan extensionofwant,andthatdesire,astheappetiteofthemind,isasnaturalasthe hunger of the body, I think this forces me as a reader to admit no distinction between commodities serving as an immediate means of subsistence and commodities serving as articles of fancy. Therefore this accentuates the conclusion that wealth in capitalist societies is simply an accumulation of commodities,andthatnomattertheirsort,allcommoditiesarethesameinthat theiraccumulationiswealth,andtheirabsenceisnot. Ausevalueistheusefulnessofanobject,basedonitsmaterialproperties,toan individual.Theusefulnessoftheobjectisnotaffectedinanywaybytheamount ofhumanlabourrequiredinordertoappropriateitsusefulness.Theexchange valueofanobjectisinsteadtheabstractexpressionoftheproportioninwhicha quantity of that object is deemed equal to other (all other) proportions of quantities of objects. Marx suggests that this is deemed equal according to the buyers socially established commercial knowledge of commodities3. He argues that this in turn is derived from the amount of human labour congealed in the objectproducedbyit,andthusthatvalueistheembodimentofhumanlabour powerandthisismeasuredinduration,labourtime. However,thevalueofaparticularobjectisnotrelatedtothespecificamountof labourtimeittooktoproducethatspecificobjectbuttothatobjectingeneral.He usestheexampleoftheinventionofthepowerloominEnglandtoillustratethis point.Ayardofclothproducedbyhandweaverswillhavethesamevalueasa yard of cloth produced by the machine powerloom; the handwoven yard of clothwillnothaveahighervaluejustbecauseitembodiestwiceasmuchlabour timeasthelatter.Henceweseethatvalueisbasedontheaveragelabourtime takentoproduceitandthateachindividualcommodityistobeconsideredasan averagesampleofitsclass.4 Thus this Marx brings us to the point that in general, the greater the productivenessoflabour,thelessisthelabourtimerequiredfortheproductionof anarticle,thelessistheamountoflabourcrystallisedinthatarticle,andthelessis
1Page328 3page303 4page306

2PrefacetotheFirstGermanEdition,page295

itsvalue.5ThisleadstotheobservationsMarxmadeearlierinEstrangedLabour of1844;theworkerbecomesallthemorepoorerthemorewealthheproduces,the morehisproductionincreasesinpowerandrange6. Whenlabourfindsexpressioninvalue,itdoesnotpossessthesamecharacteristics thatbelongtoitasacreatorofusevalues7.Whenlabourisabstractedinthisway fromtheusevaluesitcreates,thelabourproductsexistenceasamaterialthing isputoutofsight8,andthusthecommodityisabstractedfromthelabourofthe masonorwhoeverproducedit. He adds that products of labour become (or do not become) commodities according to the social division of labour. Products only become commodities whenthesocialdivisionoflabourissothatobjectsareproducedbylabourthat iscarriedonindependentlyandfortheaccountofprivateindividuals9.Ifindthis tobethemostimportantpointfromwhichtoguidemyunderstandingofMarxs analysisofthecommodityandofbourgeoisproduction. Thevalueofacommodityistheexpenditureofhumanlabouringeneral.Inthis, Marx shows that we understand skilled labour merely as an intensification, or multiplication of unskilled, simple labour. He points out that the way in which differentsortsoflabourarereducedtothisbasesimplelabourgoesonbehind thebacksoftheproducersandthusappearstobefixedbycustom10. However the productive power may vary, the same labour exercised during equalamountsoftimealwaysyieldsthesameamountofvalue.Butitwillyield during equal amounts of time, different quantities of value in use. Marx later pointsoutthattherelativevalueofacommoditymayvaryandyetitsvaluewill remainthesame,andviceversa. Marx leads us to consider what makes a usevalue into a commodity. He states that though a table is made of the everyday material wood, as soon as it steps forwardasacommodity,itischangedintosomethingtranscendent11.Usevalues onlybecomecommoditieswhentheyexistastwothings;asbothobjectsofuse and,simultaneously,asdepositoriesofmaterialwealth. Commodities have a two fold nature because they exist in two forms. On one hand,theyhaveabodilyform,i.e.acoathasthebodilyformofbeingacoat,a garmentthatisusefulinthatitiswornbyamaninordertokeephimwarm.But italsohasavalueform.Thisformistheformthatittakesinrelationtothevalue ofothercommodities,andnotanatomofmatterentersintothecompositionof thevalueform12.Ivisualisethisasajarofadefinitevolume,intowhichallthe 5page307
6Page71,EconomicandPhilosophicManuscriptsof1844. 7page308 8page305

9page309
10page311 11page319 12page313

commoditiesintheworldaretoldtheyhavetofitthemselvesinto.Theformthe coatvalue moulds itself into out of the space is it left with as the other commodityvalueshemitintothatspace,becausetheyarealsotakingupspace of their own and moulding themselves as forms into this hypothetical space. The process that these little commodity valueforms are undergoing is a social process,eachoftheirformsisshapedinrelationtooneanother;valuecanonly manifestitselfinthesocialrelationofcommoditytocommodity13. Itisnotpossibletoexpressthevalueoflineninlinen.20yardsoflinenisnothing but 20 yards of linen. Therefore, in order to express the value of the linen, we must presuppose the existence of the linens equivalent, here the coat. Despite this,thevalueofthecoatisnothereexpressed,becauseitonlyservestoexpress the value of the linen. Following this, I would imagine this means I will need a separate hypothetical jar for each commodity, for the valueformblobs in each jarwillbeshapedrelativetoaparticularcommodity,therelativeform.Inmyjar, therelativeformissurroundedandthusshapedbyitsvariousotherequivalent forms.Thevalueofthecommodityinquestion(injar)isexpressedbythebodily form of the equivalent forms in the jar; the linens value is deemed in terms of the coat as a usevalue, i.e. the linens value is counted out as quantities or fractionsofcoats,withoutquestioningtheutilityofthecoatorwhetherthecoat iswantedornot. This shows that when placed in valuerelation to the linen, the coat signifies morethanwhenoutofthatrelation.(Likewhenapersonisofteninstantlyfound moreattractivewhenitisknownthattheyalreadyhaveaboyfriend/girlfriend, as oppose to when just being sized up simply in terms of appearance and personalityindependentoftheirrelationshipstatus.14) Marx points out that by making the coat the equivalent of the linen, we equate the labour embodied in the coat to that embodied in the linen, despite them beingqualitativelydifferent.Butcrucially,thoughhumanlabourcreatesvalue,it is not value itselfHuman labour only becomes value when congealed in an object. We only understand the value of human useful labour when it has an objectivematerialexistence.ThispointleadsMarxontoexplorewhathecalls thefetishismofcommodities. A commodity is a valueinuse because its properties can satisfy human needs andbecausethesesamepropertiesarethemselvestheproductofhumanlabour. Marx points out that as soon as men in any way work for one another, their labourassumesasocialform. In the bourgeois mode of production, the social character of the producers labourisexpressedonlyintheactofexchange,asinthesocialrelationbetween theproducts.Thisisbecauseproductsareproducedbyindividuals(orgroupsof individuals)workingindependentlyofeachother.Thelabouroftheindividualis
13page313 14MyflatmatecameupwiththisanecdotewhenwewerediscussingthisreadingandI

thoughtitwasquiteamusing.

only understood in its relation to the sum total of all labour when the act of exchange of commodities occurs. We only understand the social relations between producers and the value of human labour through the exchange of products as commodities15. He points out that in the feudal society of the EuropeanMiddleAges,theserfunderstoodtheperformanceofhislabourinthe expenditureofhisfeudallordastheexpenditureofhishumanlabourtime,and could understand this as being directly involved in the social relations of individuals,notasthefurtherabstractedsocialrelationsofproducts16.Thushe showsthelattertobeacharacteristicofthebourgeoismodeofproductiononly. Marxhasbeenshowingthatinbourgeoissociety,theprocessofproductionhas the mastery over men, instead of being formulated by him. He seems to be suggesting that in order for men to master the process of material production, andthusthelifeprocessofsociety17,menneedtobefreelyassociatedandhavea settledplan. A commodity will always contain both a usevalue and an exchange value. However, an object does not necessarily contain an exchange value because an objectisnotnecessarilyacommodity.Anobjectbecomesacommoditywhenitis transferredtoanother,whomitwillserveasausevalue,bymeansofexchange18. Meanwhile, whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour creates usevalues but not commodities19. He points out that Robinson Crusoeis: in spite of the variety of his work, [aware that] his labour, whatever its form, is but the activity of one and the same Robinson, and consequently, thatitconsistsofnothingbutdifferentmodesofhumanlabour The Robinson character shows an ability to accept the interdependency of the different modes of labour and to settle and organise these into a plan that ensures his survival. Marx seems to be suggesting that this is mirrored, very basically, in the domestic division of labour and distribution of produce within thepeasantfamily.Onwardfromthis,heseemstobeadvocatingthatthiscould be mapped onto a community of free individuals, who would consciously identify themselves as a community in the same way Robinson could identify himself as one and the same Robinson, and therefore regard their individual
15Thusinthebourgeoismodeofproduction,theindividualproduceronlyunderstands

his particular labour as useful when he sees that his product is useful to others. He understandsthesocialcharacterofhisparticularlabourasequaltoallotherparticular kindsoflabouronlybywayofunderstandingthatalldifferentarticlescanbeexchanged equallyasvalues. 16Page325 17Thelifeprocessofsociety,whichisbasedontheprocessofmaterialproduction,doesnot strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciouslyregulatedbytheminaccordancewithasettledplan.Page327 18Page307 19page307

labourasacombinedsumtotal,theproductsofwhichtobesharedaccordingto theirsettledplan.