(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . AntiCapitalist MeetUp: sustainability's vanishing point(s) [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2024-06-30 So my talk will focus on chapter one, then, by all accounts chapter one is a very difficult chapter. And for that reason, very controversial. Yeah. Marx said in the preface to the first edition, if you remember, beginnings are always difficult in all sciences. The understanding of the first chapter will therefore present the greatest difficulty. “I have popularized,” he says, “the passages concerning the substance of value “and the magnitude of value as much as possible. The section and the form of value is the most difficult. “My favorite preference, actually, the Volume I “is to the French edition.” I don’t know if you’ve noticed this or not. But he says, “the method of analysis which I have employed, “and which had not previously been applied “to economic subjects, “makes the reading of the first chapter rather arduous. “And it is to be feared that the French public “substitute the American public, “always impatient to come to a conclusion, “eager to know the connection “between the general principles and the immediate questions “that have aroused their passions “may be disheartened because they cannot move on at once.” Marx says “this is a disadvantage “I am powerless to overcome, unless it be by for warning and for arming those readers who zealously seek the truth. “There’s no royal road to science, “no easy road to science, “and only those who do not dread “the fatiguing climb of its steep paths “have a chance of gaining its luminous (indistinct).” So you probably have found chapter one to be a fatiguing climb. And I hope there will also be some looming assignments. So first, I wanna briefly describe the overall logical structure of chapter one that Marx alluded to in these prefaces. And the key point to understand about the logical structure is that there are three main aspects of Marx’s concepts of value. It’s a complicated concept, right? And these three aspects are substance of value, the magnitude of value, and the form of appearance. Value and so, I will briefly describe each one of these. First the substance of value, right? This is the common property of commodities, that determines their exchange values with other commodities, which Marx of course assumed to be the abstract labor required to produce commodities. So, that’s the substance of value, the common property that determines the exchange value. Right? Then the magnitude of value is quantitative, right? The quantity of the substance of value required to produce commodities, the quantity of abstract labor required, contained in commodities which Marx called the socially necessary labor time contained in commodity, right? So substance magnitude then the form of appearance of value, the money and prices, the observable phenomena, right? The substance and magnitude of value are not directly observable as such, in units of abstract labor, therefore, commodities require an observable form of appearance, so that the magnitude of each commodity can be compared and equated with the magnitudes of value of all other commodities. And this observable form of appearance is ultimately derived as money and money prices. Sections one and two of chapter one are about the substance and magnitude of value, section one is the most important. The title of section one is substance of value, the subtitle, substance of value, magnitude of value, right? In section three is about the form of appearance of value, its title is the value form, or exchange. The part I wanna emphasize is that there is a strict causal relation between these three aspects of value. Causal relation is that the substance and the magnitude of value are derived and presupposed in section one, one and two, and then the form of appearance of value is derived from the substance and magnitude of value in volume three. So I think it really helps us to understand this overall logical structure. And then the whole chapter I think, becomes more intelligible and perhaps less of a fatiguing climb, excuse me, my voice isn’t what it used to be at 19. Okay, so then one more kind of introduction, just to kind of preview and identify four important, controversial issues, involved in the interpretation of chapter one. So the first issue is in section one, Marx’s derivation of abstract labor, as the substance of value as the common property of commodities, that determines their exchange values. And the issue is, what’s the logic of this derivation? And is the derivation value acceptable? Second issue with respect to the magnitude of value, defined in Volume I, is this magnitude of value of property of each single individual commodity, or is the magnitude of value a property of multiple commodities possessed jointly together? Actually, I learned from an email from Michael (Heinrich) yesterday that perhaps we don’t disagree as much as I previously thought about that. And so I’m happy about that and will not concentrate on that as much. Third issue. And this is really, I think, the most important issue both between Michael and myself and the general Marxian scholarship, is the magnitude of value determined entirely in production, the production process or does it also depend at least in part on circulation and demand for a particularly product. And unfortunately, just the derivation in section three of money and prices is the necessary form of appearance of value. And for me, the main issue here is that this very important section is often overlooked or not discussed in any depth and I think it’s important in part in large part because of it’s difficulty and it seemed as so boring and detail, but it’s very important as we shall see. So, I will now review kind of section by section my interpretation of chapter one with substantial textual references, and then I will discuss at least one aspect in particular of Michael’s interpretation, this third issue is the determination of the magnitude of value in production and or exchange. Okay. So, section one, the substance of value abstract labor, the magnitude of value, socially necessary labor time. Section one begins with an analysis of a commodity as a general system of commodity exchange, and this general system is assumed to be mutually consistent, A is equal to B, and B is equal to C, and A is equal to C. And this property of mutual consistency implies that commodities are treated objectively as equivalent, exchange is the exchange of equivalents. Each commodity is in principle equivalent with all other commodities. And this relation of equivalence in turn implies that each commodity must possess some common property and possess this common property in definite quantities that determine the ratios in which commodities are equivalent with one another. Marx discusses an example of a relation of equality between two commodities, the famous corn and iron example, which he expressed in terms of an equation, right? Emphasizes the relation of equality between commodities, Marx says “whatever their relation of exchange may be, it can always be represented by an equation,” right? In which a given quantity of corn is equated with some quantity of a buyer. So, what does this equation signify? Marx says “it signifies that a common element “of identical magnitude exists in both of these things in the two (indistinct).” And Marx of course argued that this common property of commodities, that determines their exchange values is abstract labor, the substance of value. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/6/30/2247153/-AntiCapitalist-MeetUp-sustainability-s-vanishing-point-s?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/