#labor time

[yngwrthr]

Increased productivity and greater intensity of labor both have a similar effect. They both augment the mass of articles produced in a given time. Both therefore shorten that portion of the working day which the worker needs to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent. The minimum length of the working day is fixed by this necessary component, which is however itself capable of further contraction. If the whole working day were to shrink to the length of its necessary component, surplus labor would vanish, something which is impossible under the regime of capital. Only the abolition of the capitalist form of production would permit the reduction of the working day to the necessary labor time. But even in that case the latter would expand to take up more of the day, and for two reasons: first, because the worker’s conditions of life would improve, and his aspirations become greater, and second, because a part of what is now surplus labor would then count as necessary labor, namely the labor which is necessary for the formation of a social fund for reserve and accumulation. The more the productivity of labor increases, the more the working day can be shortened, and the more the working day is shortened, the more the intensity of labor can increase. From the point of view of society the productivity of labor also grows when economies are made in its use. This implies not only economizing on the means of production, but also avoiding all useless labor. The capitalist mode of production, while it enforces economy in each individual business, also begets, by its anarchic system of competition, the most outrageous squandering of labor power and of the social means of production, not to mention the creation of a vast number of functions at present indispensable, but in themselves superfluous. The intensity and productivity of labor being given, the part of the social working day necessarily taken up with material production is shorter and, as a consequence, the time at society’s disposal for the free intellectual and social activity of the individual is greater, in proportion as work is more and more evenly divided among all the able-bodied members of society, and a social stratum is more and more deprived of the ability to shift the burden of labor (which is necessarily imposed by nature) from its own shoulders to those of another social stratum. The absolute minimum limit to the shortening of the working day is, from this point of view, the universality of labor. In capitalist society, free time is produced for one class by the conversion of the whole lifetime of the masses into labor time.

Karl Marx, “Changes of Magnitude in the Price of Labor Power”, in Capital, Vol. I, trans. by Ben Fowkes, New York: Penguin, 1990, pp. 666-667.

[repairio]

OH BABY

[yngwrthr]

On the basis of communal production, the determination of time remains, of course, essential. The less time the society requires to produce wheat, cattle, etc., the more time it wins for other production, material or mental. Just as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity of its development, its enjoyment and its activity depend on the economization of time. Economy of time, to this all economy ultimately reduces itself. Society likewise has to apportion its time in a purposeful way, in order to achieve a production adequate to its overall needs; just as the individual has to distribute his time correctly in order to achieve knowledge in proper proportions or in order to satisfy various demands on his activity. Thus, economy of time, along with planned distribution of labor time among various branches of production, remains the first economic law on the basis of communal production. It becomes law, there, to an even higher degree. However, this is essentially different from a measurement of exchange values (labor or products) by labor time. The labor of individuals in the same branch of work, and the various kinds of work, are different from one another not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. What does a solely quantitative difference between things presuppose? The identity of their qualities. Hence, the quantitative measure of labors presupposes the equivalence, the identity of their quality.

Karl Marx, “Grundrisse”, Nicolaus’ ed., Chapter on Money, pp. 172-173.

[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]

It is an undoubting fact that machinery is not as such responsible for “setting free” the worker from the means of subsistence. It cheapens and increases production […] And this is the point relied upon by our economic apologists! The contradictions and antagonisms inseparable from the capitalist application of machinery do not exist, they say, because they do not arise out of machinery as such, but out of its capitalist application! Therefore, since machinery in itself shortens the hours of labor, but when employed by capital it lengthens them; since in itself it lightens labor, but when employed by capital it heightens its intensity; since in itself it is a victory of man over the forces of nature, but in the hands of capital it makes man the slave of those forces; since in itself it increases the wealth of the producers, but in the hands of capital it makes them into paupers, the bourgeois economist simply states that the contemplation of machinery in itself demonstrates with exactitude that all these evident contradictions are but a mere semblance, present in everyday reality, but not existing in themselves, and therefore having no theoretical existence either. Thus he manages to avoid racking his brain any more, and in addition implies that his opponent is guilty of the stupidity of contending, not against the capitalist application of machinery, but against machinery itself. No doubt the bourgeois economist is far from denying that temporary inconveniences may result from the capitalist use of machinery. But where is the medal without its reverse side! Any other utilization of machinery than the capitalist one is to him impossible. Exploitation of the worker by the machine is therefore identical for him with exploitation of the machine by the worker. Therefore whoever reveals the real situation with the capitalist employment of machinery does not want machinery to be employed at all, and is an enemy of social progress!

Karl Marx, “Machinery and Large-Scale Industry”, in Capital, Vol. I, trans. by Ben Fowkes, New York: Penguin, 1990, pp. 568-569.

[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]

Hi Folks,

So, I’m re-reading Carol Gould’s analysis of “Grundrisse” in her book “Marx’s Social Ontology”. On p. 64 Gould says about the pre-capitalist (Gould lumps slavery and feudalism together as “pre-capitalist”) stage of social development:

“Labor is not measured in terms of time, but rather in terms of its qualitative differentiation as expressed in the various use values of the goods produced. In these societies there is no clear distinction between necessary working time and superfluous working time, that is, laboring time beyond production for needs, since virtually all production is production for use or need”.

Moving on to capitalism, Gould says:

“The possibility of time as a measure for labor arises in this second stage (capitalism). Labor becomes qualitatively undifferentiated; any part of it is like any other part. The measure of this abstract labor is time, but time now conceived as itself a universal and homogeneous quantity”.

I think this reading of Marx supports the view that he did not set out to prove that labor underlies value — rather, he only set out to reveal the social construct of “abstract labor” as the basis for “exchange value” as it operates in capitalism.

Another way of posing the issue involved here might go something like this: Do capitalism and abstract labor emerge together? Or, if according to my position and Gould’s position, there was no abstract labor in pre-capitalist stages, what are the actual historical, political, economic, and social conditions in which capitalism and abstract labor arise? I am guessing that you guys may have some informed thoughts about this.

I feel it’s a helpful start to return to Marx’s comment that it was not possible for Aristotle to understand/ develop the concept of the law of value — that commodities are exchanged (for example five beds for a house) on the basis of embodied labor — because so much of production and distribution was based on slavery — where there is no exchange and thus no “value”? Consequently, the concept of abstract labor and value emerges during the capitalist mode of production with its foundation in exchange.

[yngwrthr]

I still find myself obsessed with the value question — and also want to resume my systematic reading of Capital III.

In reading Capital III (163/ International Pub.) I found another “handle" for discussing value. Here Marx indicates that in Capital I and II he dealt only with the “value of commodities” (or c+v+s). But Marx indicates that “now” in Vol. III he has “singled out” cost-price (k or c+v) from the "DEVELOPED FORM” or price of production (c+v+s or k+s).

So — of course! — what I would like to say/ hypothesize is that the “part of value’/ c+v or k can be found in pre-capitalist societies while the “developed form” emerges in the capitalist social form. This then reinforces what we have referred to as value in its “undeveloped form” in pre-capitalist societies vs. value in its developed form in capitalism. (And I would also like to continue our discussion as to whether it makes sense and ties to a foundation in Hegel to call the undeveloped form “value in-itself” and the developed form “value for-itself”.)

Moreover, l don’t feel it is just a matter of semantics whether we limit the use of the term value to the developed form of value — or not. In particular, I feel that maintaining the notion of value as existing “pre-capitalist” (as cost-price/ k or perhaps value in-itself) is important in that it distinguishes Marx from contemporary “socialists”, as well as Proudhon, whose project I feel attempts (the impossible) to eliminate the “developed form” of value while retaining the undeveloped form of value. In other words; Proudhon and most socialists proffer to continue paying for labor time — through labor chits or money — and, so to adequately provide workers with their wants and needs, to exchange commodities on the basis of their undeveloped value/ their cost price (c+v)/ value in-itself(?) instead of including s in the price (of production). As any surplus value would be democratically distributed it can then be asserted — absent a notion of value in its undeveloped form — that value has been eliminated (as s has been extracted from the developed form of value in c+v+s or k+s). This, of course, opposes Marx’s more radical call to eliminate exchange as such and thus value in both its undeveloped (k) and developed forms (c+v+s) by eliminating exchange for both labor time and for commodities/ necessities of life. As Marx asserts, maintaining “undeveloped value” by rewarding labor time and continuing an exchange or purchase of commodities inevitably leads to the re-emergence of value in its developed form. For example, as the necessities of life increasingly become less costly in industrialized societies, previous reimbursement for labor power is more “valuable” and can purchase more or be hoarded.

Consequently, failing to distinguish between value in its undeveloped (pre-capitalist) and developed (capitalist) form appears to maintain exchange based on “value” and reinforces false notions of communism; particularly by fetishizing exchange and stifling an understanding of a society where distribution is based on “each according to their ability to each according to their need”.