Confused, Capital Vol. 1 Ch. 1

[Ostrinski]

In general, the greater the productivity of labor, the less the labor-time required to produce an article, the less the mass of labor crystallized in that article, and the less its value. Inversely, the less the productivity of labor, the greater the labor-time necessary to produce an article, and the greater its value.Ok, so the less useful labor output necessary to produce something, the less its value, because more is being produced with the same amount of labor time and labor output. Makes sense.

But then he says a few pages later:

If the productivity of all the different sorts of useful labor required, let us say, for the production of a coat remains unchanged, the total value of the coats produced will increase along with their quantity.Doesn't this contradict the first passage? Wouldn't labor have to be less productive for the value to increase? That is what he said in the first passage. You can't have an increase in value if productivity is not being hampered.

But then he goes on right after that to say:

But now assume that the duration of the labor necessary for the production of a coat is doubled or halved. In the first case, one coat is worth as much as two coats were before; in the second case two coats are only worth as much as one was before, although in both cases one coat performs the same service and the useful labor contained in it remains of the same quality.This is more consistent with the first passage, but not with the second because on one hand he is saying that productive stagnation will result in value increase, and then on the other he says only lesser productivity can increase value.

What am I missing? Thanks in advance. This is bugging me.

[Dunk]

In the second instance over which you're confused, he's saying that if the socially necessary labor time required to produced coats remains unchanged, the total value of all coats produced will increase along with the quantity of coats produced. But when the socially necessary labor time gradually decreases for the production of a commodity - in this case, a coat - as it does in the real world, the total value of all coats produced decreases.

[Caj]

If the productivity of all the different sorts of useful labor required, let us say, for the production of a coat remains unchanged, the total value of the coats produced will increase along with their quantity.


I think he's just saying that as the coats increase in quantity, the total value of all of the coats produced will be larger. The value of each individual coat, however, will remain the same.

[Ostrinski]

In the second instance over which you're confused, he's saying that if the socially necessary labor time required to produced coats remains unchanged, the total value of all coats produced will increase along with the quantity of coats produced. But when the socially necessary labor time gradually decreases for the production of a commodity - in this case, a coat - as it does in the real world, the total value of all coats produced decreases.Yes, I understand that. But since productive amplification is needed to reduce value, wouldn't that mean that productive regression is needed to increase it, not productive stagnation?

[Ostrinski]

I think he's just saying that as the coats increase in quantity, the total value of all of the coats produced will be larger. The value of each individual coat, however, will remain the same.Ah, now I see it. It's how he worded it that had me confused. I feel like a dumbass now :lol:. Thanks for pointing that out.

[u.s.red]

If same amount of (socially necessary) labor is used to produce 20 coats as is used to produce 10 coats then the total amount of value will increase as the quantity increases, I think.

However, if a smaller amount of labor is used to produce 20 coats than before, then the value of the coats will be less and the individual coat will be cheapened. Moreover, all coats, whether produced by the more productive method or not, will be cheapened.

I think this is why capitalist produced commodities have such a short shelf life.

[Marvin the Marxian]

Ah, now I see it. It's how he worded it that had me confused. I feel like a dumbass now :lol:. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yeah, the key phrase there is "the total value of the coats produced", which refers to adding up the value of each individual coat. So if there are 500 coats and each coat has a value of 10 labor-hours, the total value would be 5000 labor-hours.

[Deicide]

Ah, now I see it. It's how he worded it that had me confused. I feel like a dumbass now :lol:. Thanks for pointing that out.

This is what's pissing me off about reading Capital. It's almost as bad as reading Hegel.. Almost..

[EvoMorales]

This is what's pissing me off about reading Capital. It's almost as bad as reading Hegel.. Almost..

Once you get past the first three chapters it's fairly smooth sailing. Read the first three chapters though. I have heard others say they should just be skipped until the end. This is wrong. Read them. Understand them. Fight with them. Once you grasp, or gleam, their meaning you have paved the way for Marx's most in-depth and complete analysis.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I will conquer this one day. One day.

I once decided to read it when I was like 17 or 18 and was first getting into Marxism. Big mistake, fell at the first hurdle/chapter!

[pluckedflowers]

The first few chapters are the most difficult. Once you get through those it's not nearly so difficult. And you will find that there are some really great, entertaining and/or funny moments in the text.

[Nikolay]

I will conquer this one day. One day.

I once decided to read it when I was like 17 or 18 and was first getting into Marxism. Big mistake, fell at the first hurdle/chapter!

I tried to read it when I was 16 (17 now), and I only got through like 20-30 pages. I will get through it someday in the future, though. xD

It truly is a masterpiece, but sadly a very dense masterpiece.

[Railyon]

When I first attempted to read it, I stopped at chapter 3 (figures, eh?).

On my second attempt I tried to push beyond that just to get over with it, and it gets easier. It's basically just those first three chapters that give readers any substantial trouble. The thing is, you have to read Capital twice to really understand those chapters as it all falls into place once you progress further into the book.

[SpatialDisplacement]

When I first attempted to read it, I stopped at chapter 3 (figures, eh?).

On my second attempt I tried to push beyond that just to get over with it, and it gets easier. It's basically just those first three chapters that give readers any substantial trouble. The thing is, you have to read Capital twice to really understand those chapters as it all falls into place once you progress further into the book.

Wait 'til you get to volume 2 :p Volume 2 is 500 pages of the first 3 chapters! Terribly boring, but a lot of insight nonetheless.