Chapters 1-2

Discussion

chapter 1

- commodities have use-value and value. there use value is their physical utility to humanity - a table for eating off etc - so is concerned with the quality of the commodity. value, which manifests itself in exchange value, is something different and independent of the material form of the commodity, and only concerned with quantity.

- the reason we know that value is so, is because for say a table to be worth four earrings, they must have something in common to equate them, but they have no physical properties in common. or none that are relevant - i suppose the earrings might have diamonds and so contain carbon like the wood, and the atoms of both are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons, but these obviously don't affect why 4 earrings are considered to be worth one table, especially when we compare either one to some other commodity.

- thus the only common property left to them is the amount of labour expended in their creation, which therefore must be the substance of value. labour is measured in time, so it must be some measure of labour time, but since the commodity will have to compete with others of it's like, it must be socially necessary labour time - the average time it takes to make one of a given commodity, so just taking a year to make a shoe doesn't necessarily mean the shoe will be worth more. furthermore, since only commodities with diffrent use-values - produced by different types of useful labour - can confront each other as values, so the labour time making up value must be abstract human labour, since otherwise different types of labour eg welding and crochet could not be equated.

- value can only manifest itself in a commodity to commodity relation, and has an elementary form when it is exchanged for just one other commodity, eg x comA for y comB, where comA is in relative form and comB in equivalent. in this state, comB serves only to express the value of comA, its own value is not expressed (though the inverse is implied, in which it's value would be expressed). thus the value of comA must express its value in the use-value/bodily form of another commodity, it can't do it alone. if the value of com B is constant, the rel. value of A expressed in B rises and falls with the value of A, if the value of A is constant the rel. value varies with that of B, and if both vary by the same amount in the same direction, the rel value remains constant. and since in the equivalent form, the use-value of B becomes that of being exchangeable for A, of representing A's value, the specific useful labour that made it now expresses abstract human labour.

- if the elementary form is expanded to a series of comparisons with every available commodity all with a in relative form, we get the expanded form of value. in this form it is clear that it is exchange determining value not vice versa since it make no difference which commodity acts as equivalent.

- when we reverse the equations, we get the general form of value, with A serving as equivalent to all commodities. now the values of all are manifested in one, differentiating value from the use-value of any one commodity, and all commodities are brought into relation with each other. the commodity chosen as this universal equivalent must be socially recognised as such. since this one commodity that functions as uni equivalent, the manifestation of the values of all commodities, and so of the human labour that produced them, the labour that produces it (the u.e.) becomes the manifestation of all abstract human labour. and of course, now only the u.e. can be in the position of equivalent and so directly exchangeable with other commodities, while the u.e. cannot take the relative form - if it does we've gone back to the expanded form.

- when one particular commodity becomes the universal equivalent for all other commodities, monopolising this position, it passes from the general to the money form. and the elementary form of a commodity with money becomes the price form for that commodity.

- ah, at last, fetishism, and my favourite quote so far is the one about tables standing on their heads as commodities and sprouting grotesque ideas from their wooden brains, its genius. anyway, that's his introduction for saying that the mystical character of commodities can come from neither their use-value nor human labour since both have some grounding in material reality, so it must arise from the commodity form itself.

- since all sorts of human labour is expressed equally as values, the social character of labour (the fact that it is production for those other than the producer) appears only as a social relation between things, the products of the labour of producers, rather than between the producers themselves. thus the fetishism of commodities, inseperable from the production of commodities, has its origin in the social character of the labour that produces the commodities.

- things are only commodities because they are the product of the labour of private individuals/groups of individuals carrying on independent work. the sum of their labour forms the labour of society but since they have no social contact until they exchange products, the social character of the labour of each is only shown in the exchange, creating an indirect relation between the producers and a direct one between the products. so to the producers their relations appear as social relations between things and material relations between person.

- the distinction in a commodity between use-value and value only becomes important when things are produced specifically for exchange as then their value must be taken into account before production. at this point the labour of the individual acquires a 2-fold character: 1) it must satisfy a social want so as to remain part of the collective labour of society - the product must be useful to others; 2) it can satisfy the producers wants only insofar as the mutually exchangeability of all kinds of useful labour is an established social fact so that the labour of each ranks equally with that of all - an equalisation that can only come about from the abstraction from their inequalities - all products of labour must have value.

- the quantities of value in each commodity vary continually independently of the will, foresight and action of the producer, as their own social action appears to them to take the form of the action of objects with rule the producers rather than being ruled.

- the social division of labour is constantly reduced to that required by society because, despite accidental and constant fluctuations in exchange relations, the labour time socially necessary constantly reasserts itself.

- he then explains why bourgeois economy sucks - we naturally study social life as it has been established - and looks at various other hypothetical economies. first there is the stranded lone islander who must apportion his time according to difficulty of tasks and necessity of their products; the middle-ages where everyone was dependent, social relations were clear and not mystified in commodities, for instance 4 hours work personally by the serf for his lord was just that, his personal labour time of a definite quantity spent in service of the lord - so relations of labour were mutual personal relations; a peasant family where labour is distributed according to age, sex, ability etc., each being a clear portion of the labour power of the whole family; and finally a community of free individuals with common ownership of production, with the labour of each consciously applied as part of the total social labour, producing a total social product that is then partly reinvested and partly distributed among members according to labour performed. in the last case labour time would be distributed according to a social plan to maintain the proper proportion of work to be done and also serve as the measure of the portion of the total product an individual would be entitled to - perfectly transparent relations.

- there's a bit about religion being reflex of the real world, and so the life process of society which is based on material production will remain mystical until production is done by freely associated individuals and consciously regulated by them in accordance to a social plan, but we have to go through a long and painful process before the conditions for this will spontaneously arise.

- the chapter ends with more slagging off of bourgeois economy, that it is clear from looking at it that is comes from a society where the process of production has the mastery of man rather than vice versa, and a final bit to say that nature has nothing to do with exchange value.

chapter 2:

- since commodities can't go to the market themselves, their owners must take them, and they in turn must recognise the other owners' rights as private proprietors. they exist for each other only as representatives of their respective commodities, and we'll find that those who appear on the economic stage are only the personification of the economic relations that exist between them (in other words, the book that follows won't read like an issue of class war).

- from the point of view of a commodity, any other commodity will do to express its value, but of course this is not so for the owner. for the owner, their own commodity's only use-value is that of being a depository of exchange value with which to obtain something of actual use-value - all commodities are non-use-values for their owners and use-values for their non-owners. to change hands and become use-values, commodities must first realise their value in the act of exchange. but first they must prove that they are use-values and whether the labour congealed in them is useful for others is only proved in exchange (i didn't really understand that bit).

- on one level, each owner only wants to exchange their commodity for one of use to themselves, so exchange is only a private matter. on the other hand they want to realise the value of their commodity regardless of whether or not it is of use to the new owner, which is purely social. for the owner their own commodity is the universal equivalent, but since this is true for every owner, there is no real universal equivalent, so products only confront each other as use-values. they can only come into relation as values (and so as commodities) by comparing to some other universal equivalent.

- he then repeats his account of the appearance of the money form, saying that at same rate products become commodities one special product becomes money. then comes an account of how things become commodities: first they are surplus articles to a communities needs exchanged on the boundaries, then as need for foreign products becomes established the constant competition of exchange establishes exchange as a normal social act until some portion of products are produced specifically for exchange. then proportion in which articles exchangable becomes dependant on production itself and we have values.

- in direct barter a commodity a means of exchange to the owner, an equivalent to others only insofar as it is a use-value for them so their value form is not yet independent of their use-value or the individual needs of exchanges. as the quantities of available commodities increase and are exchanged on a larger scale, a universal equivalent becomes necessary. to begin with it is temporary which commodity is the u.e. but it soon attaches itself to certain kinds: either the most important article of exchange from outside or to an object of utility that forms a large portion of indigenous wealth.

- as exchange expands further and value comes to embody abstract human labour, the money form attaches itself to commodities with physical properties suited to the functions of money. since money is the embodiment of abstract, undifferentiated, equal human labour, the material must have the same physical properties in every sample. since differences in value are purely quantative, the material must also be easily divisible and reunitable. gold and silver fit this rather nicely.

- the commodity chosen then has a twofold use-value: its normal use-value (gold for tooth fillings etc) and formal use-value of a specific social function. the money form is not an inseperable part of the object, just the form under which certain social relations manifest themselves and in this sense every commodity is a symbol as it is the material envelope of the human labour that created it. he then has a go at 18th century explanations of society for declaring that the material form assumed by the social qualities of labour under a definite mode of production are mere symbols implying that these characters are just arbitrary fictions sanctions by the so-called universal consent of mankind.

- the equivalent form does not imply the determinatin of a commodities value, so though gold may now be money we still don't know the value of gold since like every other commodity it can only express its value in other commodities, and its value is still determined by the amount of abstract human labour required to produce it. the quantitive determination of its value takes place at the point of production so by the time it is in circulation as money, this value is already a given. so despite appearances, gold becomes money because all other commodities express their values in it, commodities don't express their values in gold because it is money. gold and silver become the direct incarnation of all human labour.

- so in conclusion, in the form of society under examination the behaviour of men is purely atomic: relations to one another in production assume a material character independent of their control and conscious individual action. this manifests itself first in all products being commodities, then one commodity is stamped as money. the riddle of money then is just the most glaring form of the riddle of commodities.