Very proud of us all who have kept it going. We’ve gotten into a nice groove now. We looked at the labour theory of value, and how all commodities are commensurable by measuring the labour time. We saw that money is a commodity (gold) used to measure value. We learned that surplus value isn’t generated by trade, because that would cancel out over the economy. We saw that surplus value comes from the variation between the value of the food etc. required to MAKE a day’s labour, and the value of the work done in that day. We have learned the general formula of capital, and how capital differs from money. Not only am I proud of you, Stalin would be proud of you.

Let’s use this shared activity as an excuse to also build camaraderie by thinking out loud in the comments.

The overall plan is to read Volumes 1, 2, and 3 in one year. (Volume IV, often published under the title Theories of Surplus Value, will not be included in this particular reading club, but comrades are encouraged to do other solo and collaborative reading.) This bookclub will repeat yearly. The three volumes in a year works out to about 6½ pages a day for a year, 46⅔ pages a week.

I’ll post the readings at the start of each week and @mention anybody interested. Let me know if you want to be added or removed.

Just joining us? It’ll take you about 8½ or 9 hours to catch up to where the group is.

Archives: Week 1 – Week 2 – Week 3 – Week 4

Week 5, Jan 29-Feb 4, we are reading Volume 1, Chapter 9, and from Chapter 10 we are reading section 1 ‘The Limits of the Working Day’, PLUS section 2 ‘The Greed for Surplus-Labour’, PLUS section 3 ‘Branches of English Industry without Legal Limits to Exploitation’

In other words, aim to get to the heading ‘4. Day Work and Night Work. The Shift System’ by Sunday

Discuss the week’s reading in the comments.

Use any translation/edition you like. Marxists.org has the Moore and Aveling translation in various file formats including epub and PDF: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Ben Fowkes translation, PDF: http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9C4A100BD61BB2DB9BE26773E4DBC5D

AernaLingus says: I noticed that the linked copy of the Fowkes translation doesn’t have bookmarks, so I took the liberty of adding them myself. You can either download my version with the bookmarks added, or if you’re a bit paranoid (can’t blame ya) and don’t mind some light command line work you can use the same simple script that I did with my formatted plaintext bookmarks to take the PDF from libgen and add the bookmarks yourself.

Resources

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

  • Kolibri [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    5·
    5 months ago

    I saw this while reading Ch.9.

    The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slave-labour, and one based on wage-labour, lies only in the mode in which this surplus-labour is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the labourer

    and it reminded me of this from near the end of Ch.1

    spoiler

    Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution.

    but in which just like, it seems like that surplus labour in like a socialist mode, would like go back to the community and follow that centrally planned economy? Along with like being extracted differently, which wouldn’t be exploitive but like someone working to contribute to their community, or like what Marx said here

    Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      3·
      5 months ago

      Yes, in a transitional socialist mode (Lenin’s lower stage of communism) we would likely still produce for exchange, but more equitably such that you only get out of it what you put into it in terms of labor. Marx saw this as an improvement but still limited by the “narrow horizon of bourgeois right”, namely, the bourgeois insistence that people only receive what they “deserve” instead of just producing what people need without qualification.

      A communist society would not concern itself with what people deserve. It would focus on satisfying all need.

      A communist society would not simply be a fairer production of commodities. It would abolish the commodity altogether, because private property would be abolished (and there cannot be exchange without private property). It is not about using taxes to make things more equitable, because that is far too vague; it is not, in practice, possible to tax the problem away.

      Marx wrote on exactly this topic in his Critique of the Gotha Program1, one of the last works he produced in his lifetime, so ostensibly it comes from his most mature theoretical standpoint. This was a critique of a political platform for a socialist party that ultimately never came to fruition.

      1 Start from here (ctrl+F): “The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.”

      • Kolibri [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        5 months ago

        Thanks, and thanks for pointing towards Marx’s Critique of the Gotha program. I had a question about that, If it’s okay? Mainly just to see if I’m understanding right? In like the general/broad sense.

        spoiler

        What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

        Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

        so with what you said like with this part “we would likely still produce for exchange, but more equitably such that you only get out of it what you put into it in terms of labor”, in a communist society, like with that part you said and with Marx quoted above. With commodities gone, instead like, a communist society is looking more at labor directly? there is still that exchange, like you and Marx says, but it’s that content and form that been changed? or altered? So with that like one section above, someone would still have to do like I dunno a 40 hour shift, but they receive that same amount of labor back with like that “certificate” representing that same amount of labor or like, labor power used during that 40 hour shift? After those deductions Marx mentioned of course. Not only that, but as Marx points in that section, people will still be paid differently since people are different, and have different capabilities and abilities, and of course each form of labor is still different? and of course some people will work more, while others less? much like how it is in our capitalist mode of production

        and with this all, there would be no commodities because like you said “It would abolish the commodity altogether, because private property would be abolished”. And that generally due to like the means of production now being own in “common”? Under like the dictatorship of a proletariat or like a workers/people government right? Also like, abolishing private property will take time to wouldn’t it? Since it can’t happen just by a decree. And would slowly be abolished under that lower phase of communism/that transitional phase that is socialism?

        and going back to like things being made. so if something was made in a communist society, its being made to satisfy that need in society and like that use-value? where as in a capitalist society, a thing is only made not just due to that use-value but mainly it’s exchange-value and to increase the personal wealth of the capitalist, a commodity, and to take that surplus value for themselves. where as in a communist mode of production, not only when a thing is made, not only is it not a commodity because private property not a thing anymore, that exchange-value has changed in content and form like Marx said, and it is only that labor looked at into it?

        and going back to like that workers/people government or dictatorship of the proletariat. That central planning would generally resolve to this part below from Marx, that I’m gonna quote. along with like managing the things above, Like the deductions or dealing with looking at the value of labor more directly? while also like trying to satisfying all the needs of society?

        spoiler

        In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

        and with that. At first like people will still have to work like I dunno 40 hour shifts, but over time, that stuff will go down? From like 30 to 20 to whatever? And people are still gonna be like paid a wage, but over time, like that wage will also slowly go away to? or certificates or whatever that form will be? but like with what Marx’s says here “all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly”. In which, over times as things like the means of production are more developed, like with technology, there would be more to go around, and thus reducing things?like if less labor power was needed to make something, that would reduce that cost, and also reduce labor time put into it? along with like, maybe allowing for more of that things to be produced to? making more of that abundance

        I hope I’m understanding Marx right.

        and to add, that last part, these are some the goals of AES states like China, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, that they’re working towards? along with past socialist states. To get to that higher phase of communism. In their own way due to their own material conditions? And to eventually make this part fully realized? “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

        sorry, I hope I’m not being too much! Thanks for like, taking the time to respond and deal with me on here for past stuff.

        • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          I’m happy to respond, I like talking about this stuff clearly :)

          I’ll make a few general points that I think will cover most of your questions. Then I’ll read back and see if I still need to answer any questions more directly.

          In that section, Marx does 3 things at once in order to critique a line from the Gotha program:

          1. Takes the line to its logical conclusion to demonstrate its absurdity. (Much like how he critiques political economy in Capital.)
          2. Suggests features of a hypothetical transition out of capitalist society.
          3. Discusses features necessary for a communist society.

          After showing why #1 is absurd, he suggests #2 as a better way to think about it, and finally he brings in #3 to remind everyone what a post-capitalist society would look like.

          The Gotha program states: The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor."

          All the stuff about deductions, that is part of argument #1, showing how impossible it is to build a fair society on the basis of commodities. Who decides what is fair?1 The law of value is “fair” from the standpoint of the bourgeoisie, because equivalents are exchanged. And in an earlier section, the Gotha program also demands “undiminished proceeds of labor” which is at odds with fairness, because fairness would require deductions (diminished proceeds) for the maintenance of the state, for helping the needy, etc.

          After showing in #1 why the program is vague, he acknowledges in #2 that nevertheless, the transitional society immediately emerging from capitalist society would be stamped “economically, morally, and intellectually” with capitalist characteristics. Note morally: people would retain a capitalist morality, like deserving only in proportion to contribution. It will take time to actually transition, from the economic base all the way up to modes of thought, religion, morality, etc. So in the meantime it would likely make sense, even without private property, to organize the distribution of the social product through some sort of labor certificate that works sort of like money, except that it cannot be hoarded nor acquired through exploitation.2 This would not be an end in itself, just an intermediate stage.

          Labor certificates would still be flawed because they still attempt to distribute products based on fairness, but that fairness is not really fair. Each person may receive equal pay for equal work, but this does not recognize the inequality between persons. For example, one person might have an Olympian physique and be able to work a lot more than someone else who has a physical disability. It reminds me of the quote by Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

          The function of value is to resolve a contradiction, that in capitalism all social labor takes the form of individual private labor. There has to be a determination, for each private labor, how much it counts as social labor. Private labor is not immediately social, it is mediated by a social form, by money/value. In a society without commodities and without value, it becomes possible for labor to be immediately social, for 1 hour of your personal labor to count as 1 hour of social labor, without needing validation by tossing the product of your labor into a market of commodities.

          so if something was made in a communist society, its being made to satisfy that need in society and like that use-value?

          Yes. Communism would be the production of use-value alone. Or said another way, value disappears at the same time as the commodity.3

          At first like people will still have to work like I dunno 40 hour shifts, but over time, that stuff will go down? From like 30 to 20 to whatever?

          That’s the idea. In capitalism, profit is not proportional to material productivity (of use-value), only value productivity. So the need to labor will never decrease in capitalism, no matter how advanced our technology becomes. It becomes possible to reduce labor in a communist society in which needs are being met, since profit is no longer the driving force.

          and to add, that last part, these are some the goals of AES states like China, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, that they’re working towards? along with past socialist states. To get to that higher phase of communism. In their own way due to their own material conditions? And to eventually make this part fully realized?

          Exactly!

          1

          Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is “fair”? And is it not, in fact, the only “fair” distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about “fair” distribution?

          2

          This labor certificate is often confused with a slightly different concept used by the utopian socialists like Proudhon, Owen, and Fourier. They advocated for abolishing money within capitalism, on the basis of private property, and substituting in its place a labor-voucher. For 10 hours of concrete labor one would receive a 10-hour voucher. Marx criticized this heavily in The Poverty of Philosophy because he believed money, as the embodiment of abstract labor, to be absolutely necessary for capitalism. Money cannot be replaced by labor-vouchers without abolishing the need for money, i.e. abolishing private property.

          3

          “…the gradual transformation of such products into commodities, proceeds pari passu with the development of the value form.” — Capital chapter 1

          The commodity and the value form are intrinsically linked. Remove one and you remove the other.

          • Kolibri [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
            3·
            5 months ago

            Thanks and I think a lot of that helped clicked some things in place? In a way it sounds like money/value seems like a middle-man? just getting in the way of things in terms of social labor. Also going to private property, at what point does a socialist state decide to take one form of private property and seizes it under the state and abolishing it? A country that comes to mind about this is China

            and I ask about private property because of this from Engels

            “Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.”

            • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              3·
              5 months ago

              In a way it sounds like money/value seems like a middle-man

              Yep, a necessary middle-man that can’t be done away with within capitalism.

              Engels quote

              Sounds right to me. There is not one single way it happens though, which is why he uses phrases like “in all probability.”

              Later in volume 1, Marx will talk about concentration and centralization of capital. We see this occurring in huge corporations like Amazon and Walmart. This tendency makes revolution more and more possible as it would only take the nationalization of a few corporations, not countless small businesses.

              I’m not an expert on China, but from what I understand, it is following the socialist path about as well as one could expect. It is building its industry and making itself independent of Western capitalist nations. It has nationalized major industries or kept them within narrow bounds.

              • Kolibri [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
                2·
                5 months ago

                oh right yea, I wasn’t thinking about the like, concentration and centralization of capital with this stuff with like nationalization. and yea for sure, China really amazing with like everything so far what they have done. It would be neat to see what China is like I dunno, 50 years from now. I can’t really imagine.

    • Vampire [any]@hexbear.netOPMEnglish
      3·
      5 months ago

      that surplus labour in like a socialist mode, would like go back to the community and follow that centrally planned economy?

      Also known as tax