#abstract labor

[yngwrthr]

But the point is, “not only that the different magnitudes of commodity values are measured by expressing the values in the use value of one exclusive commodity, but at the same time that they are all expressed in a form in which they exist as the embodiment of social labor and are therefore exchangeable for every other commodity, that they are translatable at will into any use value desired.” The labor contained in the commodities “must be represented as social labor, as alienated individual labor”. However, this is only necessary in a commodity producing society. Only in such a society does the labor of the individual have to represent itself “as its opposite, impersonal, abstract, general — and only in this form social” labor. Of course even a socialist society would have to “keep accounts” of the labor power at its disposal, and would therefore have to reduce individual labor to “simple average labor”. However, it would not occur to it “to express the simple fact that the hundred square meters of cloth required one thousand hours of labor for their production… in the oblique and meaningless way that they have a value of one thousand hours of labor”.

Roman Rosdolsky, “The Making of Marx’s Capital”, Vol. I, trans. Pete Burgess, London: Pluto Press, 1980, p. 123.

[weil-weil-lautre]

Capitalism: Concept & Idea 1. Elena Louisa Lange: The Critical Function of “Abstract Labour”

[valuenotes]

“Marx’s labour theory of value is a further development and perfection of the labour theory of value as it emanated from the ‘classical’ school of political economy, and especially of Ricardo’s version. But the changes Marx brought into that theory were manifold. One especially was to be decisive: the use of the concept of abstract social labour as the foundation of his theory of value. It is for this reason that Marx cannot be considered as in any way an ‘advanced neo-Ricardian’. ‘Labour quantities as the essence of value’ is something quite different from ‘labour quantities as numéraire ’ –a common measuring rod of the value of all commodities. The distinction between concrete labour, which determines the use-value of commodities, and abstract labour, which determines their value, is a revolutionary step forward beyond Ricardo of which Marx was very proud; indeed he considered it his main achievement, together with the discovery of the general category of surplus-value, encompassing profit, rent and interest. It is based on an understanding of the peculiar structure of a society of commodity-producers, that is of the key problem of how to relate to each other the segments of the global labour potential of society which have taken the form of private labour. It represents, therefore, together with Marx’s concept of necessary labour and surplus labour (necessary product and surplus product), the key nexus between economic theory and the science of social revolution, historical materialism.”

Ernest Mandel, Introduction to Capital Volume I

[yngwrthr]

On the one hand, abstract labor creates and forms the value of commodities. The notion of abstract labor/ value provides the common ground for exchange. As products meant for exchange (commodities ), considered quantitatively, they represent relative value — e.g. 1 thick winter coat (A) is worth 8 short sleeve t-shirts (B) — i.e. they have exchange value. And the exchange value of A is equal to the exchange value of B. According to Marx’s law of value, commodities exchange on the market based on this “idea” of a substitute of equal value. And the basis of their exchange values is the amount of abstract labor wrapped up in their production, which is to say, as exchange value, they embody the expenditure of a certain quantity of “homogeneous” — abstract — labor. And while abstract labor creates value, it can be realized only in so far as the item actually is exchanged. (Bartering for qualitatively different use values doesn’t apply.)

On the other hand, I’m probably going to die alone and all the rest. Perhaps I have become uninteresting or boring, too single-minded or something, such that it may very well amount to a life sentence of solitary confinement. And I don’t know “What is to be done?” about that… 🙃

[yngwrthr]

As I read more, my analysis appears to be consistent with chapters 11-14 of Rubin’s Essays on Marx. Though, I — still — have not fully digested all of this — despite having read and re-read these chapters... I began today with ch. 14 on “Abstract Labor”, which refers back to ch. 11 on “Equality of Commodities an Equality of Labor”. Next comes ch. 12 on “Content and Form of Labor”; followed by ch. 13 on “Social Labor”. It seems that Rubin’s interpretation of Marx is that “socially equalized labor” is an appropriate way to characterize pre-capitalist social forms — but, as Rubin points out, “abstract labor” does not dominate until capitalism. Socialized labor occurs not only pre-capitalism but also under communist relations. 

Maybe it is beyond my pay scale to give an accurate analysis of the distinction Rubin makes — and attributes to Marx — between socially equalized and abstract labor. Rubin, though, seems to me to be correct and in line with Marx in his analysis. Another slow, careful read of ch. 11-14 would probably be helpful in sorting this out. But “at this point”, I don’t see the distinction between “abstract labor” and “socially equalized labor” other than the fact that abstract labor rather than socially equalized labor is (overwhelmingly) used to describe the substance of value in capitalist societies. However, and again this may be above my pay grade but, for me, both seem to reflect an amount of socially necessary labor time that lurks behind exchanges in all social forms, but is not dominate/ fully developed until capitalism and neither guides production nor is necessarily a focus of accumulation in pre-capitalist societies.. If this is the case, the difference seems merely semantic to me..

I’m amazed how perfect the citation (in Chap. 1; section 4 of Capital I): When Marx states that “..value appears IN PRACTICE”, he referring to the dominance of value as not only for “occasional” exchanges in pre-capitalist social forms but (in practice) the regulation of production as well as the impetus for accumulation in capitalism. I do not feel — and also don’t feel that Marx stated — that exchange is “always” regulated by socially necessary labor time. However, I feel there are instances where “socially equalized labor” — as the substance of value — was the center of gravity as measured by stones, “bars in the mind”, cattle, etc. Consequently, there was “value” and the “value form” before the emergence of capitalism. Moreover, I assert that, opposed to capitalist societies, the value basis of exchange was weakened by exchanges based largely and more often on supply and demand as well as concrete labor/ craftsmanship, etc.

Overall, I am thus asserting that there is a difference between “value” — which is present in (almost) all social forms and described by Marx’s “Law of Value”; and the fully developed form of value — which is synonymous with capitalism and described by value form theory. (And perhaps for a later discussion: Is there a distinction between commodities — existing in pre-capitalist societies — and the universal commodity form — exclusive to capitalism?.)

[yngwrthr]

Again, I am likely in the minority and (anachronistically) on the heels of Engels, but I feel Marx’s “Law of Value” (simply) asserts that “when” commodities are exchanged (pre-capitalist and capitalist) the “center of gravity”/ basis on which they are exchanged is their value/ “abstract labor”. However, commodities have, in general, been exchanged closer to their center of gravity/ value (embodied/ objectified labor) over time — particularly as communication and transportation has developed. Thus, for me, “value” emerges with the exchange of commodities in any mode of production — not just capitalism. Albeit, value “for itself” — production for the expansion of value — emerges with capitalism and the exploitation of the only commodity that can expand value, labor power. (Although, I am now reading the section on interest-capital in Vol. III where Marx notes that, similar to labor power, loaned capital is also a commodity that can increase rather than shed value when used; with interest taken from or as a portion of surplus value — which, of course, labor alone produces when set to work by “operating capital” not interest capital).

[yngwrthr]

As I put more of Marx’s value theory together, this is what I come up with — and this may require further discussion: I really like the idea from I.I. Rubin of thinking of value as having three (internally connected) dimensions of “substance”, “magnitude”, and “form”. As of today my interpretation is this:

1. Substance — the abstraction of concrete labor through commodity exchange.

2. Magnitude — quantitative equivalence made possible by exchange value; exchange value understood as the concrete manifestation of the form of value.

3. Value Form — universal exchangeability. The form of value in terms of the abstract form of labor.

Now, “internally connected” means that in terms of what is being analyzed — i.e. bourgeois capitalist social relations of commodity production and exchange — each dimension can only be properly understood in terms of the other two. So, the substance of value cannot be understood independently of the purpose of production — for exchange value. The magnitude of value (or the concrete “form” of value), which is exchange value, cannot be understood independently of “exchangeability” (the abstract value form) nor independently of abstract, generalized labor (the substance). Finally, the form of value, “exchangeability”, cannot be understood independently of substance and magnitude.

Right???

[yngwrthr]

Now to get back on my hobby horse: “Value” — again, understood in terms of the three dimensions. As a reminder: substance = abstract labor; magnitude = exchange value, amount of labor time; and form = exchangeability. The concept of abstract labor and value emerges with its foundation in commodity exchange. For example, communism — a classless society without exchange or money — is not production for value. A communist society could be understood in terms of production of use value, without any exchange — but this not “value” or “abstract labor”, though).

Value is only produced by “abstract labor”, with abstract labor as the “substance” of the social form of value. Look to Rubin’s “Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value”, p. 139, where he contends “abstract, or abstract-universal labor” is “socially equalized labor in the specific form which it acquires in a commodity economy”. And “Although abstract labor [value] is a specific property of commodity economy, socially equalized labor can be found, for example, in a socialist commune”. Rubin here is saying that abstract labor is the basis of exchange in commodity societies and socially equalized labor is something more general. “Socially equalized labor” does not produce value according to Rubin. It is difficult to sort out the differences (that are not simply “semantics”) but — Abstract labor does not exist after commodity production; socially equalized labor could exist after commodity production/ capitalism.

“Socially equalized labor” might be understood as a useful means for facilitating movement of goods in socialist societies, but this does not amount to anything like value or the “substance” of value — because there is no private ownership of one’s labor or exchange. Socially equalized labor can be applied to communal social forms, while the “substance” of/ value cannot. “Socially equalized” could be used to describe labor in a socialist economy, which abolishes value and is communally steered. Value is not the foundation of socialist society. While Marx’s notion of socially equal labor may be close to his notion of “abstract labor”, in a socialist society there may be a need of measuring “socially equalized” work hours involved in the amount of time it would take to produce all the goods necessary to satisfy social need — but this is not “value”, rather more like what Mandel refers to as “work hours”. Both of the two, however, do seem to reflect an amount of socially necessary work hours....