Das Kapital (volume 1 chapter 1)

[peaccenicked]

'craic' sounds like crack is Irish for fun.
The key to the comprehension of marx's political economy is in chapter one. We face the hegelian thought of Marx put in its most concrete form. The unit
of capitalism, the 'commodity' passes from specific to universal application.
Here is the passage that probably causes most difficulty
"The relative form and the equivalent form are two intimately connected, mutually dependent and inseparable elements of the expression of value; but, at the same time, are mutually exclusive, antagonistic extremes — i.e., poles of the same expression. They are allotted respectively to the two different commodities brought into relation by that expression. It is not possible to express the value of linen in linen. 20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen is no expression of value. On the contrary, such an equation merely says that 20 yards of linen are nothing else than 20 yards of linen, a definite quantity of the use-value linen. The value of the linen can therefore be expressed only relatively — i.e., in some other commodity. The relative form of the value of the linen pre-supposes, therefore, the presence of some other commodity — here the coat — under the form of an equivalent. On the other hand, the commodity that figures as the equivalent cannot at the same time assume the relative form. That second commodity is not the one whose value is expressed. Its function is merely to serve as the material in which the value of the first commodity is expressed"
This is perhaps one of the most significant breaks with traditional thinking of all time in the arena of political economy.
I have some questions myself I will bring up later,
but the whole first chapter is here.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...867-c1/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm)

[peaccenicked]

I think the hardest thing to see is the polarisation between the equivalent and relative form of value. At first they appear as two different characteristics. One of the quantity of the product in itself(equivalent) and the other the exchange value(relative). It is only in there interaction does the polarisation manifest itself. There is a parallel in modern physics where there is agreed that there is no such thing as a noble particle. All the sub atomic particle are defined by their relations to the others. Even if they have opposing natures.
With Marx, it is at the point of exchange that the contradictions manifest themselves in the concrete
I wonder if anyone is having difficulties with this?


(Edited by peaccenicked at 9:02 pm on Jan. 14, 2002)

[HardcoreCommie]

The coat is not an equivalent of linen at all. It has Value added due to labor.

Probably the most significant break in thought in the area of political economy comes in Hobbes Leviathan:

"the value of all things contracted for: and therfore the just value, is that which they be contented to give."

[peaccenicked]

I think you have completely missed the point . Marx is seeing both the linen and the coat as commodities. He is looking at the process whereby different things become equivalents in the market place, not at the production of commodities.
Your quote from Hobbes is idealistic. Every con man in the world would certainly be with content with it. It is no breakthrough at all, in my opinion. It diminishes
Aristotle rather than adds to his thinking.

[HardcoreCommie]

first we never mentioned aristotle or his conceptions of justice...

In any case I agree, i don't think I understand Marx's point.

Is he saying that if a coat is made of twenty yards of linen, then the worth of twenty yards of linen is the coat. That's what I understood it as, and I would have to disagree. Please enlighten me, and explain how aristotle, who is unmentioned, relates to Hobbes (who was a great critic of aristotle).

[El Che]

Great topic Peacenicked. I`ve read Das kapital frist chapter and understode it reasonably. However there is understanding something and then there is understanding something. To try and achive the later i have decided to read it again before going any further. Its complexity is turly confounding and thought provoking.

Now to more concrete issues of the work:



On the other hand, the commodity that figures as the equivalent cannot at the same time assume the relative form. That second commodity is not the one whose value is expressed. Its function is merely to serve as the material in which the value of the first commodity is expressed"

But if one commodity figures as the equivalent and the other expresses its value on it because it can not express it on its self, then is it not reasonable to assume that the coats also express there value on the linon? If they are equivalent then both sides of the equasion are mutaly expressing there "value" in the merchandise form in each other. But marx denies this, he says that the for the coat to express its value on the linon the equasion has to be inverted which in turn means you need a new equasion.One in which the coats figure in the relative insead of the equivalent form. He gives these and other equasions especific names that i cannt recall. Now i understand what he says but i dont know the reason for it, i dont understand why the equasion in question isnt mutualy relative and mutualy equivalent.


Another intersting concept is "worth" and "value". Worth to be the value of use of something, and value to be a different property inherit to the "merchandise form" which the atom or the unit of the capitalist system. These are all terms that are not easy to grasp in the full sense. Marx says without capitalism there is no Value because the same is a consequence of the relations between products in the marchandise form. Another way to put it would be: there is a especific type of value that items only have as long as they are part of the trade system, as long as they are a unit in this system they have to have a value that express on each other through the equasions above mentioned. Now one would think this to be logical, but the introduction of a new concept, "worth", confuses everything up again. Worth to be understood as the value (here value has a different meaning than above obviously) of the product when the product is not in the merchandise form. So in other words when the product is not being used for trading with other products it has another value, that is now called its worth. The difference between the two being the about of labor despended by the producers of that product. This amount of labor that conferes and extra value, and that constitutes the the main concrete emperical difference between "value" and "worth" is not present in worth. Or rather does not contribute to "Worth". Or rather when acessing "worth" the amount of labor despended is not a factor. Because worth is the magnitue of value of a product not in the merchandise form and as a consequence, worth representes only the products "value of use". "worth" is "value of use" the terms are equivalent in the marxist analises. So only the inherity usefullness of the product, that derives for its intrinsic properties, factores in "worth". There for amount of labor despended in its construction or gathering or whatever does not factor.

Now to assume that i fully understand what i above have written would be a mistake. I know the theory and am only repeating it, but i dont fully understand it, and modesty aside, i am sure not many truely understand it. I also may have comitted some errors in relegation of some of the marxist theories so i recomend to those un familiar this the theories that they should frist read marx before reading discutions on marxism, at risk of being even more confounded.

Please continue discussing this because it is paxionaly interesting. And disregard HardcoreCommie he only wants to derail this thread and make it steril and stupidificating like the rest of the threads sabotaged my the Che-Lives right wing discution murder terrorist group. In sort, please ignore Hardcore and continue discussing Marx. Many thanks.


(Edited by El Che at 7:19 pm on Jan. 14, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 7:22 pm on Jan. 14, 2002)

[El Che]

PLEASE IGNORE HARDCORECOMMIE!!!!!!!

[peaccenicked]

"He further sees that the value-relation which gives rise to this expression makes it necessary that the house should qualitatively be made the equal of the bed, and that, without such an equalisation, these two clearly different things could not be compared with each other as commensurable quantities. "Exchange," he says, "cannot take place without equality, and equality not without commensurability". (out isothV mh oushV snmmetriaV). Here, however, he comes to a stop, and gives up the further analysis of the form of value. "It is, however, in reality, impossible (th men oun alhqeia adunaton), that such unlike things can be commensurable" — i.e., qualitatively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something foreign to their real nature, consequently only "a makeshift for practical purposes." "
'he' here is Aristotle. What I am saying is that hobbes is
less revealing than Aristotle. Here has grasped the essential nature of money. For a breakthrough to occur you have to do better than earlier thought.
The key expression about the coat is "under the form of an equivalent" ie not as part of the maufacturing process. He could have used a different commodity but was also in the process of explaining absract and concrete labour.
ElChe, I think i know what you are trying to get at
I hope this helps. In the equation at only one point can either value be a use value, the other being an exchange value, even in reversing the equation. I hope
this sets you right it seems to me that's what will help it click in, but get back to me on it. As to worth and value
I am still thinking that through I will post my conclusions
soon. As to hardcore commie. He is bringing out the best in me. At least at the moment.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 9:59 pm on Jan. 14, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:10 pm on Jan. 15, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

As to worth, I am not so sure,but I think you have
got the essence of the exchange value/use value dichotomy. 'Worth' as far as I can see in Marx is not
a specific category which means something in itself
that adds to our theoretical understanding. Worth
is used as it is in common language to signify use value
and when used in the context of the market its exchange value.
Sometimes we can get into the habit of making things
harder than they are to understand than what they are actually, then you realise you understood it well enough
to begin with. Don't worry it is something that everyone
does. If you ask the people who went over this with me
they would be laughing, I did it all the time.
The important matter here is the previous problem
of the expression of equivalents. I hope I have helped.
If there is anything else you want to explore in this or
in the rest of the chapter, perhaps the most important aspects, are abstract labour, the universal equivalent,
and commodity fetishness, but it is all good and interesting stuff.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:38 pm on Jan. 14, 2002)

[El Che]

I am still rereading the frist chapter, and i read many things simultaniously so it will take me a while. But its good that i have found someone to discuss it with.

[El Che]

"On the other hand, it is precisly the abstraction of there values of use that caracterises the relation of trade. Within this relation, a value of use is worth precisly the same as any other, provided they are in the right proportion."


Its a subtile difference but you get my point that values of use only figure in the relation of trade as the material suport for the value of trade.

[peaccenicked]

Yes. It is a well put point. It underscores Marx's statements on the twofold nature of the commodity. I
am encouraged by your interest.
On a wider point, the study of 'capital' has been a tremendous personal gain, we see his methodology
close up and that in itself puts you in a great position
to understand later works of importance. For instance
Lenin's "Imperialism:the Highest stage of Capitalism"
Cleaver's "The Degradation of Work in the twentieth century".
It makes Chomsky easier to read as
it sharpens up wits. It also allows us to wade through the guagmire of what has been written about Marx by
various modern social scientists. It is a myth that the social sciences developed independently of Marxism.
It was a reaction to marxism. Ever since they have been trying to strip it of it's revolutionary content. Many anarchists have accomadated this but not all but if you
are being taught Marx at college. Beware! that you are not left with an empty box that you can only show hostility towards. Much like the way the anti communists
on this site have been suckered by capitalism.

[DaNatural]

Ive read I believe the first chapter of Capital, its been so long i dont remember. I put the book down however because Marx's arguments are too long and exaustive. I understand that this was needed in order for him to get his point across, but at the moment I just dont have the patience for it. Another thing which I dont think can be denied is the fact that this book honestly hurts a person's brain and pretty much made me wanna sleep. He spends page upon page comparing the linen to the coat and how the value of each relates. I'm sorry but comparing these 2 things isn't much fun for me. I commend u guys for reading it thoroughly. In the future when i have no school or ample amount of time, I will read it. Peace.

[peaccenicked]

I can sympathise with your point of view. It is not an easy read and it does cause headaches as it contains
such a wealth of material which is intensely packed.
If you treat it like a dickensian novel about a weaver and a tailor, where the plot is how money becomes a substance and how that in turn distorts peoples minds.
it is more like a detective novel. It is difficult to read without having some familiarity with the plot but when
you have the time, it is a useful, if not masterfully scripted peice.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:42 pm on Jan. 15, 2002)

[El Che]

quote from peacenicked
but if you
are being taught Marx at college. Beware! that you are not left with an empty box that you can only show hostility towards. Much like the way the anti communists
on this site have been suckered by capitalism.

I stoped studing when i was younger so i am still in high school dispite my age, i take night classes. My study of marx is done autodidactly. That is one of the reasons i feel i should read it over and especialy the frist chapter since it is the fundamental base for understanding his works. So as i`ve said it is fortunate for me to find someone to discuss it with as it may help me understand.

Da natural, form what i`ve heard the frist chapter is the hardest one so dont be discouraged by it! Read foward and perhaps you will find the rest more interesting.

[DaNatural]

Thanks for the encouraging comments el che, once my semester is over in april i will definantly get back on it. One thing I did find interesting which I beleive is one of the main points of the book, is how Marx systematically shows how things relate to each other and how money eventually comes into play. I could be wrong but I beleive heshows that surplus value cannot be added on to products. And that this is pretty much, for lack of a better word, bullshit. Because only the material and labour spent should bewhat the product is worh, no more no less. peace.

[peaccenicked]

That is about right.