Format

  • Reading Volumes 1, 2, and 3 in one year. This will repeat yearly until communism is achieved. (Volume IV, often published under the title Theories of Surplus Value, will not be included, but comrades are welcome to set up other bookclubs.) This works out to about 6½ pages a day for a year, 46 pages a week.

  • I’ll post the readings at the start of each week and @mention anybody interested. Discuss the week’s reading in the comments.

  • Use any translation/edition you like.

Resources

(These are not expected reading, these are here to help you if you so choose)

  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    8·
    10 months ago

    At risk of spamming this thread (I have work tomorrow so getting my thoughts out now) I wanted to pose a starter question just to get some discussion flowing.

    What are use-value and exchange-value? Why does Marx highlight these two things and their relationship in the first chapter?

    • poopoobanana [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      7·
      10 months ago

      Use-value is the value of an object in the eyes of the consumer, the actual value that it provides when it is used. The use-value of an apple -> it nurtures your body.

      Exchange-value is the quantifiable value of an object in an exchange. How does the value apple measure against an orange? The exchange-value of an apple -> the number of socially necessary labor time to produce it (according to the labor theory of value).

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        7·
        10 months ago

        Nice. So use-value relates to use, and exchange-value relates to exchange. That’s a good starting point, but still seems a bit murky … both definitions refer to “value” but in seemingly different meaning… can you explain that difference in meaning?

        I think these two paragraphs give an initial description of the two, although Marx indicates it is incomplete:

        Use-value vs. exchange-value

        The utility of a thing makes it a use value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

        Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms. Let us consider the matter a little more closely.

        Two things that jump out at me:

        1. Marx oscillates between use-value being something commodities are and something commodities have as a property (being versus having). So depending on context, a commodity is a use-value, or it has use-value.
        2. Exchange-value is a relation between commodities, so unlike use-value, we are no longer talking about a single commodity in isolation.
        • Parsani [love/loves, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          Marx oscillates between use-value being something commodities are and something commodities have as a property (being versus having). So depending on context, a commodity is a use-value, or it has use-value.

          As a side note, we could extend this and say that something can gain a use-value as part of a historical process, right? For example, on the first page:

          The discovery of these ways and hence of the manifold uses of things is the work of history3

          3… The magnets property of attracting iron only became useful once it had led to the discovery of magnetic polarity.

          The magnet never changed, but through scientific development became useful.

          • ComradeRat [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            As a side note, we could extend this and say that something can gain a use-value as part of a historical process, right? … The magnet never changed, but through scientific development became useful.

            Yeah very much so.

            For example a lotta the aim of “production” in consumer societies as we have in the core is to make basically anything gain more use-values so there’s more opportunities to sell stuff and more possibilities to get higher prices from induced scarcity.

            This ties into Marx’s point ofc about stuff needing to be an object of utility to have value. Much as, if something is no longer useful it is no longer valuable, if something is suddenly useful it is suddenly valuable.

    • Sasuke [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      4·
      10 months ago

      trying to answer with only my copy of capital in front of me (disclaimer: i might be completely and embarassingly wrong here)

      use-value is something that fulfills a specific need (wool having a use-value in the production of yarn). it does not have to be a product of human labour, or be turned into a commodity, but it does need to have some sort of utility

      exchange value is independent of utility. yarn here does not contain value by being tied to a specific type of labour (i.e. weaving), it only gains value from the general expenditure of labour-power, and by its social relation to other commodities

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        5·
        10 months ago

        This is really good.

        In defining exchange value, you point to the way that commodities gain value but I think it could be a little more exact. Apologies in advance for emoji use but I find it easier to follow visually.

        Exchange-value is a relation between two commodities, e.g. “2 🍎 = 1 🍌”. That entire equation is an exchange value. This equation implies two things:

        1. Quantitative equivalence. There is a thing or “substance” that is common to both 🍎 and 🍌, and the amount of this substance in 1 🍌 is equal to the amount of the substance in 2 🍎
        2. Qualitative equivalence. That substance is qualitatively identical in both 🍎 and 🍌. This is required so that the quantity can be compared, like converting lengths to be in centimeters before they can be summed up.

        That third thing, the common substance is value. Value is the thing being expressed in an exchange value.

        As an analogy, instead of exchange value and value, think about weight and mass. Mass is the substance of an object which is expressed through its weight. When you put two objects on a scale, you abstract from the qualitative difference of the things and consider them only as masses.

        • Sasuke [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          4·
          10 months ago

          thank you for the explanation! the emojis really did help 🍎♥️🍌

          i know I’m skipping ahead in our reading here, but do we still use the term exchange value when talking about money?

          • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            10 months ago

            When Marx wants to emphasize that he is talking about money in particular, he will use the term price (exchange value in terms of the money commodity). But he will sometimes write exchange value when that distinction does not matter. He has a helpful tendency to repeat things, so he might say “such and such is the price, or exchange value with respect to money, of so-and-so…”