Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
en:the-commodity-and-communism [2022/08/12 10:54]
eaustreum [2.3.3 Individual and social value]
en:the-commodity-and-communism [2023/02/25 20:03] (current)
eaustreum
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== From the commodity to communism ======  ====== From the commodity to communism ====== 
  
-Peter Åström +Peter Åström ((This is an extended version of Varan, värdet och kommunismen, 
-((This is a slightly extended version of "Varan, värdet och kommunismen", //riff-raff// no. 10, April 2022.))+//riff-raff// no. 10, April 2022. Exact copies may be shared in accordance with 
 +[[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/|CC BY-ND 4.0]]. Many thanks to 
 +GE, HJ, AW, ALB, SF and AK for comments and suggestions.))
  
 ===== 1 Introduction ===== ===== 1 Introduction =====
  
-Capital is self-expanding value, dead labour that enslaves the living. It is therefore close at hand to make value and abstract labour the main target of social critique. If abstract labour is the root from which the categories of capital grow up -- wage labour, profit, etc. -- then it must be abolished for a classless state of things to be established. This could conceivably take place in a revolution where the means of existence are made available to all without restriction, since the compulsion to work for a wage then falls away. A social reorganisation that, on the contrary, relies on abstract labour would then constitute a dead-end or even a counter-revolutionary project. At least that was formerly the opinion of the undersigned.((See e.g. Peter Åström, "Crisis and communisation", //Sic// no. 1, 2011.))+Capital is self-expanding value, dead labour that enslaves living labour. It is 
 +therefore easy to see why some might wish to make value and abstract labour the 
 +main target of social critique. If abstract labour is the root out of which the 
 +categories of capital spring -- wage labour, profit, modern land rent, 
 +accumulation, etc. -- then it must be abolished for a classless community to be 
 +established. This could conceivably take place in a revolution where the means 
 +of existence are made available to all without restriction (gratis), since the 
 +compulsion to work for a wage then falls away. A social reorganisation that, on 
 +the contrary, relies on //work// as a distinct social activity, would retain 
 +abstract labour and thus constitute a dead-end. At least that was formerly the 
 +opinion of the undersigned.((See e.g. Peter Åström, Crisis and communisation, 
 +//Sic// no. 1, 2011.))
  
-Under the influence of the Arab Winter((That is the counter-revolution in the Middle East and North Africa from about 2012 and without end in sight. See +Under the influence of the Arab Winter,((That is the counter-revolution in the 
- [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Winter|Arab Winter]], //Wikipedia//.))I came to abandon this perspectivewhich emphasises the radically anti-capitalist side of the revolution.((As Henriksson mentionsI reacted negatively to ”The suspended step of commu­nisa­­­tion”, //Sic// no. 1, 2011; see especially pp. 152ff and 164. The author of that article saw the introduction of communism as dependant on the immediate abolition of value, which he assumed require combating all //measuring of labour time//any distinction between production and consumption as well as the notion of a //product//.)) I became convinced that the positive side must also be emphasised, not dismissed as mere speculation. Despite being completely unsustainable in the long term, the dynamic of the capitalist mode of production does in fact, in the normal case, satisfy basic human needs such as food, water and shelter. For communism to constitute a real alternative, it must therefore take seriously the question of how to secure material reproduction. Otherwise, one or the other reactionary perspective will surely be put forward instead, for example nationalism or religious fanaticism.+Middle East and North Africa that began in 2012. See 
 +[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Winter|Arab Winter]], //Wikipedia//.)) I 
 +came to abandon this perspective which rests on a peculiar form of 
 +anti-capitalism.((One of its more extreme proponentsthe author of 
 +[[en/sic1-the-suspended-step-of-communisation|“The suspended step of 
 +communisation]], saw the introduction of communism necessitating a 
 +situation of “chaos” in which all book-keeping is abolishedsince accounting 
 +for ‘products’ in itself supposes the separation between production and 
 +consumption.” //Sic// no. 1, 2011, pp. 154, 165.)) I became convinced that the 
 +positive side of the revolution must be emphasised, not dismissed as mere 
 +speculation. Calculation of productive resources including labour is crucial, 
 +for despite being completely unsustainable in the long term, the dynamic of the 
 +capitalist mode of production does in fact, in the normal case, satisfy basic 
 +human needs such as food, water and shelter. For communism to constitute a real 
 +alternative, it must therefore take seriously the question of how to secure 
 +material reproduction. If not, in the event of a social crisis, one or the other 
 +reactionary perspective will surely be put forward instead, for example 
 +nationalism or religious fanaticism.
  
-When, in the light of this revaluation, I returned to //Capital// and other writings, I made a discovery that should have been obvious from the very beginning: Marx does not take //value// as his point of departure but //the commodity//, which puts the question of the former in a very different light. This text, taking the commodity form as its point of departure, is an attempt to summarize important parts of Marx's analysis of capital so as to answer+When, in the light of this revaluation, I returned to //Capital// and other 
 +canonical writings, I realised something that should have been obvious from the 
 +very beginning: Marx does not take //value// as his point of departure but //the 
 +commodity//, which puts the question of the former in a very different 
 +light. The present article, taking the //commodity form// as its point of 
 +departure, is an attempt to summarise important parts of Marxs analysis of 
 +capital so as to answer
  
    * what is value;    * what is value;
    * what does the abolition of capital imply; and    * what does the abolition of capital imply; and
-   * how can a communist reorganization of social reproduction be envisaged?+   * how can a communist reorganisation of social reproduction be envisaged? 
 + 
 +The entire line of argument rests on logic reasoning, not because history is 
 +unimportant, but because the question of communism -- as I will try to show -- 
 +is intimately tied to the “internal organisation”((Karl Marx, //Marx’s Economic 
 +Manuscript of 1864–1865//, Leiden 2016, p. 898)) of the prevailing mode of 
 +production.
  
 ===== 2 The commodity ===== ===== 2 The commodity =====
  
-Marx begins his critical exposition in //Capital// and //A contribution to the critique of political economy// with an analysis of the single commodity, more precisely "the commodity form of the product of labour"((MECW 35, p. 8)). As pointed out by Ricardo, products of labour constitute by far the greatest share of all commodities, because "they may be multiplied […] almost without any assignable limit, if we are disposed to bestow the labour necessary to obtain them.”((David Ricardo, //On the principles +Marx begins his critical exposition in //Capital// and //A contribution to the 
-of political economy and taxation// (London 2002 [1821]), p. 6.)) On a higher level, production, exchange and consumption of commodities is the specific way in which social reproduction takes place in the capitalist epoch.((See for example MECW 28 p. 26 and “Notes on Wagner's Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomiein MECW 24, pp. 531--559.))+critique of political economy// with an analysis of the commodity, more 
 +precisely the commodity form of the product of labour((Marx/Engels Collected 
 +Works (henceforth MECW35, p. 8)). As pointed out by Ricardo, products of 
 +labour constitute by far the greatest share of all commodities, because they 
 +may be multiplied […] almost without any assignable limit, if we are disposed to 
 +bestow the labour necessary to obtain them.”((David Ricardo, //On the principles 
 +of political economy and taxation// (London 2002 [1821]), p. 6.)) On a higher 
 +level, production, exchange and consumption of commodities is the specific way 
 +in which social reproduction takes place in the capitalist epoch.((See for 
 +example MECW 28 p. 26 and “Notes on Wagners Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie” 
 +in MECW 24, pp. 531--559.))
  
 ==== 2.1 Use value ==== ==== 2.1 Use value ====
  
-A product of labour is, to begin with, the result of productive human activity which -- together with a larger or smaller amount of natural substrates -- turns it into something useful, a //use value//.((MECW 35, p. 51)) Its character as a use value or its use-value form "is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities".((MECW 35, p. 46)) On the other hand, a use value may be considered higher or lower depending on the degree to which other use values (and thus other labour processes) form a part of it as a precondition.((See MECW 30, p. 58.))+A product of labour is, to begin with, the result of human activity which -- 
 +together with a larger or smaller amount of natural substrates -- turns it into 
 +something useful, a //use value//.((MECW 35, p. 51)) Its character as a use 
 +value or its use-value form is independent of the amount of labour required to 
 +appropriate its useful qualities.((MECW 35, p. 46. Things can thus be useful 
 +without being products of labour.)) On the other hand, a use value may be 
 +considered higher or lower depending on the degree to which other use values 
 +(and thus other labour processes) form a part of it as a precondition.((See MECW 
 +30, p. 58.))
  
-Products of labour that satisfy human wants can be found in all human societies; they are a necessary part of human existence.(("As the former of use-values, as //useful labour//, labour is thereby the precondition of existence for man – independent of all social forms – and an eternal necessity of nature for the sake of mediating the material interchange between man and nature (i.e., human life).From the first chapter of the first German edition of //Capital//. See Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, London, 1976, pp. 7--40.)) From this general point of view, the determination as use value  "lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy."((MECW 29, p. 252. This is further developed on p. 270.)) Marx therefore discusses the concept of use value primarily from the point of view of present social conditions where the means of production are dispersed "among many independent producers of commodities",((MECW 35, p. 361)) the division of labour "is brought about by the purchase and sale of the products of different branches of industry"((MECW 35, p. 360)) and where the products are consumed not by the producers themselves but by "consumers". In order to be saleable, i.e. to function as a //commodity// in exchange, the product of labour must thus be useful to some buyer.(("Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use +Products of labour that satisfy human wants can be found in all human societies; 
-values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must +they are a necessary part of human existence.((As the former of use-values, as 
-not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values.MECW 35, p. 51)) The product of labour is //not use value for the producer//; its use value only emerges when it meets a buyer on the market.(("To //become// a use value, the commodity must +//useful labour//, labour is thereby the precondition of existence for man – 
-encounter the particular need which it can satisfy. Thus the use +independent of all social forms – and an eternal necessity of nature for the 
-values of commodities //become// use values by a mutual exchange of +sake of mediating the material interchange between man and nature (i.e., human 
-places: they pass from the hands of those for whom they were +life).” From the first chapter of the first German edition of //Capital//. See 
-means of exchange into the hands of those for whom they serve as +Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, 
-consumer goods. Only as a result of this universal //alienation// of +London, 1976, pp. 7--40.)) From this general point of view, the determination as 
-commodities does the labour contained in them become useful +use value lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy.((MECW 
-labour.MECW 29, p. 283)) Finally, the use value only exists as an object for consumption and "is realised only in the process of consumption."((MECW 29, p. 269))+29, p. 252. This is further developed on p. 270.)) Marx therefore discusses the 
 +concept of use value primarily from the point of view of present social 
 +relations where the means of production are dispersed among many independent 
 +producers of commodities,((MECW 35, p. 361)) the division of labour is brought 
 +about by the purchase and sale of the products of different branches of 
 +industry((MECW 35, p. 360)) and where the products are consumed not by the 
 +producers themselves but by consumers. In order to be saleable, i.e. to 
 +function as a //commodity// in exchange, the product of labour must thus be 
 +useful to some buyer.((Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of 
 +his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to 
 +produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for 
 +others, social use values.” MECW 35, p. 51)) The product of labour is //not use 
 +value for the producer//; its use value emerges only if and when it meets a 
 +buyer on the market.((To //become// a use value, the commodity must encounter 
 +the particular need which it can satisfy. Thus the use values of commodities 
 +//become// use values by a mutual exchange of places: they pass from the hands 
 +of those for whom they were means of exchange into the hands of those for whom 
 +they serve as consumer goods. Only as a result of this universal //alienation// 
 +of commodities does the labour contained in them become useful labour.” MECW 29, 
 +p. 283)) Finally, the use value only exists as an object for consumption and is 
 +realised only in the process of consumption.((MECW 29, p. 269))
  
 ==== 2.2 The form of value ==== ==== 2.2 The form of value ====
  
-The seller's use of the product of labour comes from what it can fetch by being  exchanged -- its //exchange value//.((Use value as an active bearer of exchange value becomes a means of exchange. Here the commodity is a use value for its owner +The sellers use of the product of labour comes from what it can fetch by being 
-only so far as it is an exchange value.)) In this function it presents itself in a //value form// that is separate from its bodily form.(("Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, etc. This is their plain, homely, +exchanged -- its //exchange value//.((Use value as an active bearer of exchange 
-bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something twofold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.MECW 35, p. 57.))+value becomes a means of exchange. Here the commodity is a use value for its 
 +owner only in so far as it is an exchange value.)) In this function it presents 
 +itself in a //value form// that is separate from its bodily form.((Commodities 
 +come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as 
 +iron, linen, corn, etc. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, 
 +however, commodities, only because they are something twofold, both objects of 
 +utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves 
 +therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as 
 +they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.” MECW 35, 
 +p. 57.))
  
-What interests us in this section is not any actual exchange of commodities -- especially not barter where commodity is exchanged directly for commodity -- but //commodity value//The latter is expressed in money through the price form. However, the form of money is complicated and requires its own explanation. We shall therefore begin by ignoring money and instead investigate commodity value by means of other commodities.+What interests us in this section is not any actual exchange of commodities -- 
 +especially not barter where commodity is exchanged directly for commodity -- but 
 +//the expression of commodity value//In everyday life, the latter takes the 
 +form of money through the price form. This form is complicated, however, and 
 +requires its own explanation. We shall therefore begin by ignoring money and 
 +instead investigate how commodity value is expressed through other ordinary 
 +commodities.
  
-The value form of a product of labour is completely absent when you look at it in isolation. Then only its bodily form, which gives it its specific properties of utility, appears. The value form shows up, however, as soon as the product of labour is placed in a relation of exchange to some other commodity-body.+The value form of a product of labour is completely absent when you look at it 
 +in isolation. Then only its bodily form, which gives it its specific properties 
 +of utility, appears. If placed in a relation of exchange to some other 
 +commodity-body, however, then it becomes apparent that the product of labour has 
 +something more to it.
  
-Below follows a summary and interpretation of Marx's value form investigation, from the simple form of value to the price form, without going into value as such. We assume, like Marx, that the commodity values are equal quantities, but what is important is that they are commensurable.+Below follows a summary and interpretation of Marxs value form investigation, 
 +from the simple form of value to the price form, without going into value as 
 +such. We assume, like Marx, that the commodity values are equal quantities, but 
 +what is important is that they are commensurable.
  
  
Line 55: Line 157:
 > 20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat. > 20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat.
  
-Here we see on the one hand that 20 yards of linen //is worth as much as// 1 coat. On the other hand the value of 20 yards of linen is expressed in the use value of some other arbitrary product of labour, a coat. The latter is //different// from the point of view of use value but still interchangeable with the linen and therefore //equal// to it. The relation expresses the commodity of the seller, 20 yards of linen, as specific //coat value//; its value appears in the shape of a coat. This may sound mysterious, but if we are to ignore the price form for now, then we cannot say that they both cost the same amount of money. We have only these two commodities -- two use values and a relation of exchange that expresses some kind of value. The linen does not need the coat in order to see that it is linen, but when the relation to the coat shows to the linen that it is something more than just linen, i.e. a useful thing, then this happens in the form of exchangeability for coats; it does not know anything else.+Here we see on the one hand a quantitative relation. On the other hand the value 
 +of 20 yards of linen is expressed in the use value of some other arbitrary 
 +product of labour, a coat. The latter is //different// from the point of view of 
 +use value but still interchangeable with the linen and therefore qualitatively 
 +equal to it. The relation expresses the commodity of the seller, 20 yards of 
 +linen, as specific //coat value//; its value appears in the shape of a 
 +coat. This may sound mysterious, but if we are to ignore the price form for now, 
 +then we cannot say that they both cost the same amount of money. We have only 
 +these two commodities -- two use values and a relation of exchange that 
 +expresses some kind of value. The linen does not need the coat in order to see 
 +that it is linen, but when the relation to the coat shows to the linen that it 
 +is something more than just linen, i.e. a useful thing, then this happens in the 
 +form of exchangeability for coats; it does not know anything else.
  
 === 2.2.2 Developed form of value === === 2.2.2 Developed form of value ===
  
-In the simple form of value, the value of linen was expressed but in an insufficient manner, for coat value is not an expression of value or interchangeability +In the simple form of value, the value of linen was indeed expressed although in 
-//in general// but only in relation to some arbitrary commodity separate from itself.((See "Ergänzungen und Veränderungen zum ersten Band des Kapitals”, in MEGA II.6, p. 25.)) By placing the linen in the same kind of exchange relation to //all other use values// this insufficiency is overcome and a new, developed form of value enters into it place.+an insufficient manner, for coat value is not an expression of value or 
 +interchangeability //in general// but only in relation to some arbitrary 
 +commodity separate from itself.((See Ergänzungen und Veränderungen zum ersten 
 +Band des Kapitals”, in MEGA II.6, p. 25.)) By placing the linen in the same kind 
 +of exchange relation to //all other use values//, however, this insufficiency is 
 +overcome and a new, developed form of value enters into it place.
  
 <code> <code>
Line 71: Line 190:
 </code> </code>
  
-When the product of labour 20 yards of linen is valued in the bodily forms of all other commodities, it assumes, in addition to coat value, a tea-, coffee-, corn-value, etc. Here, the linen presents itself as interchangeable for every other commodity, but its expression is complicated and ungainly because the product of labour valued is placed next to "a many-coloured mosaic of disparate and independent expressions of value."((MECW 35, p. 74)) In addition, the expression of value grows longer over time as new types of commodities continue to arise.+When the product of labour 20 yards of linen is valued in the bodily forms of 
 +all other commodities, it assumes, in addition to coat value, a tea-, coffee-, 
 +corn-value, etc. Here, the linen presents itself as interchangeable for every 
 +other commodity, but its expression is complicated and ungainly because the 
 +product of labour valued is placed next to a many-coloured mosaic of disparate 
 +and independent expressions of value.((MECW 35, p. 74)) In addition, the 
 +expression of value grows longer over time as new types of commodities come into 
 +the world.
  
  
 === 2.2.3 General form of value === === 2.2.3 General form of value ===
  
-If, at this point, the expression is reversed and we let the commodities individually be valued in linen, this new limitation is superseded. +If, at this point, the expression is reversed and we let the commodities 
 +individually be valued in linen, this new limitation is superseded.
  
 <code> <code>
Line 88: Line 215:
 </code> </code>
  
-Now the coats, tea, coffee, etc. each receive a //simple// as well as a //common// expression of value -- in the shape of linen. This does not apply to the linen itself, but the body of the linen serves as a value mirror to all other commodities.(("By counting as //the form of value// of all other commodities the //natural form// of the body of the commodity linen is //the form of its property of counting equally// (//Gleichgültigkeit//) or //immediate exchangeability with all elements of the world of commodities//. Its //natural form// is therefore at the same time //its general social form//.” +Now the coats, tea, coffee, etc. each receive a //simple// as well as a 
-Karl Marx, "The Value-Form: +//common// expression of value -- in the shape of linen. This does not apply to 
-Appendix to the 1st German edition of Capital, Volume 1", //Capital and Class//, No. 4 Spring 1978 [1867], pp. 130--150 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm>.)) Marx calls the specific role here assumed by the linen //general equivalent// in that the commodity presents itself as exchange value in general.((In the first edition of //Capital I// -- subsequently omitted -- Marx makes the obscure statement that here "the form of value corresponds with the concept of value". Karl Marx, "The Value-Form: +the linen itself, but the body of the linen serves as a value mirror to all 
-Appendix to the 1st German edition of Capital, Volume 1", //Capital and Class//, No. 4 Spring 1978 [1867], pp. 130--150 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm> or MEGA II.5, p. 43)) This is also the final form of value if one disregards its specific expression (e.g. linen).+other commodities.((By counting as //the form of value// of all other 
 +commodities the //natural form// of the body of the commodity linen is //the 
 +form of its property of counting equally// (//Gleichgültigkeit//) or //immediate 
 +exchangeability with all elements of the world of commodities//. Its //natural 
 +form// is therefore at the same time //its general social form//.”  Karl Marx, 
 +The Value-Form: Appendix to the 1st German edition of Capital, Volume 1, 
 +//Capital and Class//, No. 4 Spring 1978 [1867], pp. 130--150 
 +<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm>.)) Marx calls 
 +the specific role here assumed by the linen //general equivalent// in that the 
 +commodity presents itself as exchange value in general.((In the first edition of 
 +//Capital I// -- subsequently omitted -- Marx makes the obscure statement that 
 +here the form of value corresponds with the concept of value. Karl Marx, The 
 +Value-Form: Appendix to the 1st German edition of Capital, Volume 1, //Capital 
 +and Class//, No. 4 Spring 1978 [1867], pp. 130--150 
 +<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm> or MEGA II.5, 
 +p. 43)) This is also the final form of value if one disregards its specific 
 +expression (e.g. linen).
  
 === 2.2.4 The money form === === 2.2.4 The money form ===
  
-With the general form of value, the thing expressing commodity value may be chosen arbitrarily. In practice, however, the role as general equivalent is awarded a thing that, because of its specific properties, is well suited for it, for instance a precious metal that can be formed into arbitrarily large pieces and fused together again without being destroyed.((MECW 35, p. 100))+With the general form of value, the thing that expresses commodity value could 
 +be chosen arbitrarily. In practice, however, the role as universal equivalent is 
 +established by custom. Historically it came to be awarded things that, because 
 +of their specific properties, are well suited for it -- the precious metals 
 +which can be formed into arbitrarily large pieces and fused together again 
 +without being destroyed.((MECW 35, p. 100))
  
 <code> <code>
Line 111: Line 259:
 </code> </code>
  
-By switching places between the 20 yards of linen and 2 ounces of gold, all commodities (except gold) can still be expressed in a simple and for all other commodities common form of value. Here, moreover, we are faced with a relationship that is somewhat more consistent with history.+By switching places between the 20 yards of linen and 2 ounces of gold, all 
 +commodities (except gold) can still be expressed in a simple and for all other 
 +commodities common form of value.
  
-> Now the //specific// type of commodity with whose //natural form the equivalent form coalesces (verwächst) socially// becomes the //money-commodity// or functions as //money//. Its //specific social function// and hence its //social monopoly// becomes the playing of the role of general equivalent //within the world of commodities//.((Karl Marx, "The Value-Form: +> Now the //specific// type of commodity with whose //natural form the equivalent form coalesces (verwächst) socially// becomes the //money-commodity// or functions as //money//. Its //specific social function// and hence its //social monopoly// becomes the playing of the role of general equivalent //within the world of commodities//.((Karl Marx, The Value-Form: 
-Appendix to the 1st German edition of Capital, Volume 1", //Capital and Class//, No. 4 Spring 1978 [1867], pp. 130--150 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm>.))+Appendix to the 1st German edition of Capital, Volume 1, //Capital and Class//, No. 4 Spring 1978 [1867], pp. 130--150 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm>.))
  
 > The exchange value of commodities thus expressed in the form of universal equivalence and simultaneously as the degree of this equivalence in terms of a specific commodity, that is a single equation to which commodities are compared with a specific commodity, constitutes //price//.((MECW 29, p. 305)) > The exchange value of commodities thus expressed in the form of universal equivalence and simultaneously as the degree of this equivalence in terms of a specific commodity, that is a single equation to which commodities are compared with a specific commodity, constitutes //price//.((MECW 29, p. 305))
  
-In its role as equivalent, a money commodity cannot express its own value, but if cast into developed form (2.2.2), its value appears in relation to all other commodities in definite proportions (2 ounces of gold = 20 yards of linen or 1 coat, etc.) Thus, the expression appears if you read commodity prices backwards.((MECW 35, pp. 104--105)) Marx did not himself discuss the possibility of something other than a product of labour serving as measure of value and expressing commodity prices in a society. In the 1870s, the most important currencies were tied to the gold and it was thus natural to assume gold to function as money-commodity throughout //Capital//.((Strictly speaking, they were tied to the pound sterling which in turn was tied to gold.)) Today, the gold standard is abolished, but states can generally still uphold stable commodity prices thanks to their power of taxation as well as through the ownership of natural resources.((See Duncan Foley, "Marx’s Theory of Money in Historical +In its role as equivalent, a money commodity cannot express its own value, but 
-Perspective”, in Fred Moseley +if cast into developed form (2.2.2), its value appears in relation to all other 
-(red.), //Marx’s Theory of Money: Modern Appraisals//, pp. 36–49.))+commodities in definite proportions (2 ounces of gold = 20 yards of linen or 1 
 +coat, etc.) Thus, the expression appears if you read commodity prices 
 +backwards.((MECW 35, pp. 104--105))
  
-There is an important point to be made by looking at exchange value from the simple form of value to the price form: The analysis shows that as soon as products of labour start to relate themselves to each other as commodities, the money form is a logical development. Commodity exchange without money is therefore an absurdity.(("The difficulty in forming a concept of the money form, consists in +By the early 1870s, the most important currencies were tied to the gold and it 
-clearly comprehending the universal equivalent form, and as a necessary corollary, the general form of value, form C. The latter is deducible from form B, the expanded form of value, the essential component +was therefore natural for Marx to assume gold to function as money-commodity 
-element of which, we saw, is form A, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or +throughout //Capital//.((Strictly speaking, they were tied to the pound sterling 
-x commodity A = y commodity B. The simple commodity form is +which in turn was tied to gold.)) Today, the gold standard is abolished, but 
-therefore the germ of the money form.MECW 35, p. 81))+states can generally still uphold stable commodity prices thanks to their power 
 +of taxation and direct ownership of natural and industrial resources.((See 
 +Duncan Foley, “Marx’s Theory of Money in Historical Perspective”, in Fred 
 +Moseley (red.), //Marx’s Theory of Money: Modern Appraisals//, pp. 36–49. See 
 +also the 
 +[[https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/strategy/pricestab/html/index.en.html|Two per 
 +cent inflation target]] by the European Central Bank.)) Thus, it is not 
 +necessary for a specific product of labour to serve as measure of value and 
 +express commodity prices in a society, but this //function// of money is 
 +necessary and must be grounded in value relations. 
 + 
 +There is an important point to be made by looking at exchange value from the 
 +simple form of value to the price form: The analysis shows that as soon as 
 +products of labour start to relate themselves to each other as commodities, the 
 +money form is a logical development. Commodity exchange without money is 
 +therefore an absurdity.((The difficulty in forming a concept of the money form, 
 +consists in clearly comprehending the universal equivalent form, and as a 
 +necessary corollary, the general form of value, form C. The latter is deducible 
 +from form B, the expanded form of value, the essential component element of 
 +which, we saw, is form A, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or x commodity A = y 
 +commodity B. The simple commodity form is therefore the germ of the money form.” 
 +MECW 35, p. 81))
  
 ==== 2.3 Value ==== ==== 2.3 Value ====
  
-The value form has now been analysed for itself. The next step is to determine the substance and magnitude of value.+The value form has now been analysed for itself. The next step is to determine 
 +the substance and magnitude of value.
  
 === 2.3.1 The common third === === 2.3.1 The common third ===
  
-In the foregoing analysis of the value forms of the labour product, nothing was said about "what lies beneath these forms."((MECW 35, p. 91)) But what is the //value content// that is equal in two mutually interchangeable commodities that belongs to each of them //independently// of their relation to each other?+In the foregoing analysis of the value forms of the labour product, nothing was 
 +said about what lies beneath these forms.((MECW 35, p. 91)) But what is the 
 +//value content// that is equal in two mutually interchangeable commodities that 
 +belongs to each of them //independently// of their relation to each other?
  
-For Samuel Bailey, no such thing could exist.((MECW 32, pp. 312--314.)) According to him, Ricardo correctly spoke of //relative// value but then mistakenly came to treat value as something +For Samuel Bailey, no such thing could exist.((MECW 32, pp. 312--314.)) 
-//absolute// -- as the quantity of labour expended upon the production of two commodities, despite the fact that this labour quantity evidently may change for either one of them. If, for example, the value of commodity A increases, this only means that //the value is estimated// in exchange for B, C and so on in new proportions.((MECW 32, p. 316)) But, Marx replies,+According to him, Ricardo correctly spoke of //relative// value but then 
 +mistakenly came to treat value as something //absolute// -- as the quantity of 
 +labour expended upon the production of two commodities, despite the fact that 
 +this labour quantity evidently may change for either one of them. If, for 
 +example, the value of commodity A increases, this only means that //the value is 
 +estimated// in exchange for B, C and so on in new proportions.((MECW 32, 
 +p. 316)) But, Marx replies,
  
 > To //estimate// the value of A, a book for instance, in B, coals, and C, wine, A, B, C must be as value something different from their existences as books, coals or wine. To estimate a value of A in B, A must have a value independent of the estimation of that value in B, and both must be equal to a third thing, expressed in both of them.((MECW 32, p. 316)) > To //estimate// the value of A, a book for instance, in B, coals, and C, wine, A, B, C must be as value something different from their existences as books, coals or wine. To estimate a value of A in B, A must have a value independent of the estimation of that value in B, and both must be equal to a third thing, expressed in both of them.((MECW 32, p. 316))
  
-The value of a commodity, Marx continues, is furthermore not something absolute but+The value of a commodity, Marx continues, is furthermore not something absolute 
 +but
  
-> is to such an extent relative that when the labour time required for its reproduction changes, its value changes, although the labour time really contained in the commodity has remained unaltered.((MECW 32, p. 316. Here Marx refers to the individual commodity. What it "actually contains", both in terms of the footprint of the labour expressed in the body of the commodity and the labour time actually expended during its production, cannot change as long as the use value remains unaltered. If the //necessary// labour time changes for the commodity in question, then the //value// will change, since the arithmetic mean of all commodities now //actually contains// a different quantity of labour. See 2.3.3 below.))+> is to such an extent relative that when the labour time required for its reproduction changes, its value changes, although the labour time really contained in the commodity has remained unaltered.((MECW 32, p. 316. Here Marx refers to the individual commodity. What it actually contains, both in terms of the footprint of the labour expressed in the body of the commodity and the labour time actually expended during its production, cannot change as long as the use value remains unaltered. If the //necessary// labour time changes for the commodity in question, then the //value// will change, since the arithmetic mean of all commodities now //actually contains// a different quantity of labour. See 2.3.3 below.))
  
-Marx thus subscribes, albeit critically, to the tradition which holds that the magnitude of value, or the proportions in which commodities are exchanged for one another, depends on the necessary quantity of labour.((Or rather, the labour time required at any one time, on the average, to produce a new commodity. See e.g. MECW 28, p. 533.)) But how can A, a book, be equal to B, a certain quantity of coal, through their relation to labour which is //the same//, when we know that it is qualitatively //different// kinds of labour that produce the commodity-bodies book and coal, respectively.+Marx thus subscribes, albeit critically, to the tradition which holds that the 
 +magnitude of value, or the proportions in which commodities are exchanged for 
 +one another, depends on the necessary quantity of labour.((Or rather, the labour 
 +time required at any one time, on the average, to produce a new commodity. See 
 +e.g. MECW 28, p. 533.)) But how can A, a book, be equal to B, a certain quantity 
 +of coal, through their relation to labour which is //the same//, when we know 
 +that it is qualitatively //different// kinds of labour that produce the 
 +commodity-bodies book and coal, respectively?
  
-We have seen (2.2) that commodities as useful objects are created by labour. From this aspect, the labour that is expressed or leaves its mark on the product is simply "useful".((MECW 35, p. 51)) //Use value// is however distinct from //value// and the body of the commodity as such cannot be considered equal to either money or any other type of commodity. The qualitative differences of the kinds of labour that created them are thus a condition of existence for commodity exchange as such.(("Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.MECW 35, p. 52))+We have seen (2.2) that commodities as useful objects are created by 
 +labour. From this aspect, the labour that is expressed or leaves its mark on the 
 +product is simply useful.((MECW 35, p. 51)) //Use value// is however distinct 
 +from //value// and the body of the commodity as such cannot be considered equal 
 +to either money or any other type of commodity. The qualitative differences of 
 +the kinds of labour that created them are thus a condition of existence for 
 +commodity exchange as such.((Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value 
 +is not exchanged for another of the same kind.” MECW 35, p. 52))
  
 > In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently by individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, a social division of labour.((MECW 35, p. 52)) > In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently by individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, a social division of labour.((MECW 35, p. 52))
  
-When production is based //simultaneously// on an advanced social division of labour and private property, it can be organised neither communally nor as islands of self-sufficiency. A bridge is needed between the social and individual spheres of the system. The various enterprises must, to be viable, find their +When production is based //simultaneously// on an advanced social division of 
-niche in the social division of labour, so that the individual+labour and private property, it can be organised neither communally nor as 
 +islands of self-sufficiency. A bridge is needed between the social and 
 +individual spheres of the system. The various enterprises must, to be viable, 
 +find their niche in the social division of labour, so that the individual
 products of labour can be recognised as subsets of the total social products of labour can be recognised as subsets of the total social
-product. They do that only by appearing as commodities and by being valued in money. //Different kinds// of products of labour can then be considered //equally good// from a social point of view. And when they have been realised in money (i.e. sold) the value equivalent in the seller's hand does not reveal if it was weaving, tailoring or some other kind of labour that had shown itself to be a valuable contribution to society. Therefore, leaving aside for now those commodities where the price is far removed from the labour expended upon their production, we can +product. They do that only by appearing as commodities and by being valued in 
-say that a sum of money is labour in object form where the definite useful character is disregarded, //labour in general//.+money.((“[I]t is only on the basis of capitalistic production that products take 
 +the general and predominant form of commodities” MECW 35, p. 582.)) //Different 
 +kinds// of products of labour can then be considered //equally good// from a 
 +social point of view. And when they have been realised in money (i.e. sold) the 
 +value equivalent in the sellers hand does not reveal if it was weaving, 
 +tailoring or some other kind of labour that had shown itself to be a valuable 
 +contribution to society. Therefore, leaving aside for now those commodities 
 +where the price is far removed from the labour expended upon their production, 
 +we can say that a sum of money is labour in object form where the definite 
 +useful character is disregarded, //labour in general//.
  
-Here we seem to have discovered the common third thing, which, however, is not +Here we seem to have discovered the common third thing, which, however, is not a 
-a thing in the ordinary sense, but that which remains of a commodity after one has abstracted+thing in the ordinary sense, but that which remains of a commodity after one has 
 +abstracted
  
 > from all that which makes it to be really a thing. Any objectivity of human labour which is itself abstract (i.e., without any additional quality and content) is necessarily an abstract objectivity – a //thing of thought//.((Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, London, 1976, pp. 7--40. <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm>.)) > from all that which makes it to be really a thing. Any objectivity of human labour which is itself abstract (i.e., without any additional quality and content) is necessarily an abstract objectivity – a //thing of thought//.((Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, London, 1976, pp. 7--40. <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm>.))
  
-One can //think of// "labour in generalin the physiological sense since the human brain, muscles and so on are to some extent always consumed in the labour process, and requires rest, food and so on to be recreated,((See MECW 35, p. 54; MECW 28, pp. 226--227.)) but it is not the individually perceived effort that determines the proportions under which different commodities are exchanged.((There //is// a connection between physical and mental exploitation of the human organism and the value substance itself -- otherwise commodity value would not be limited to products of labour --, but it is impossible to estimate value creating labour by measuring for example the heart rate or the calorie consumption. First of all, the effort itself is only value creating if it is shown to be (or validated as) useful to others and otherwise simply a waste of energy. Secondly, different kinds of labour differ with regard to the //kinds// of bodily and mental abilities that are actually put to use, and therefore they cannot constitute the common third. For the latter point, see Michael Heinrich, //How to read Marx's Capital//, 2021, p. 84.). Human labour pure and simple must therefore be an abstraction also from specific physiological processes.)) On the contrary, these are "established by a social process behind the back of the producers, and appear to them consequently as given by tradition."((Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, London, 1976, pp. 7--40. <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm>)) And not simply any social process:+One can //think of// labour in general” in the physiological sense since the 
 +human brain, muscles and so on are to some extent always consumed in the labour 
 +process, and requires rest, food and so on to be recreated,((See MECW 35, p. 54; 
 +MECW 28, pp. 226--227.)) but it is not the individually perceived effort that 
 +determines the proportions under which different commodities are 
 +exchanged.((There //is// a connection between physical and mental exploitation 
 +of the human organism and the value substance itself -- otherwise commodity 
 +value would not be limited to products of labour --, but it is impossible to 
 +estimate value creating labour by measuring for example the heart rate or the 
 +calorie consumption. First of all, the effort itself is only value creating if 
 +it is shown to be (or validated as) useful to others and otherwise simply a 
 +waste of energy. Secondly, different kinds of labour differ with regard to the 
 +//kinds// of bodily and mental abilities that are actually put to use, and 
 +therefore they cannot constitute the common third. For the latter point, see 
 +Michael Heinrich, //How to read Marxs Capital//, 2021, p. 84. Human labour pure 
 +and simple must therefore be an abstraction also from specific physiological 
 +processes.)) On the contrary, these are established by a social process behind 
 +the back of the producers, and appear to them consequently as given by 
 +tradition.((Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park 
 +Publications, London, 1976, 
 +pp. 7--40. <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm>)) 
 +And not simply any social process:
  
-> The equalisation of the most different kinds of labour can be the result only of an abstraction from their inequalities, or of reducing them to their common denominator, viz., expenditure of human labour power or human labour in the abstract, and only exchange produces this reduction, by bringing the products of the most diverse kinds of labour into relation with each other on an equal footing.((Cf //Le Capital. Traduction de M.J.Roy, entièrement revisée par l’auteur. Paris 1872–1875//, MEGA II.7, p. 55 or Ergänzungen und Veränderungen” in MEGA II.6, p. 41. In the second German edition of //Capital// (and the English translations based upon it), this paragraph ends with "in the abstract", see MECW 35, p. 84. The English translation of the continuation was taken from Isaak Rubin, "Abstract Labour and Value in Marx’s System, //Capital and Class// 5, Summer 1978 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/abstract-labour.htm>.))+> The equalisation of the most different kinds of labour can be the result only of an abstraction from their inequalities, or of reducing them to their common denominator, viz., expenditure of human labour power or human labour in the abstract, and only exchange produces this reduction, by bringing the products of the most diverse kinds of labour into relation with each other on an equal footing.((Cf //Le Capital. Traduction de M.J.Roy, entièrement revisée par l’auteur. Paris 1872–1875//, MEGA II.7, p. 55 or Ergänzungen und Veränderungen” in MEGA II.6, p. 41. In the second German edition of //Capital// (and the English translations based upon it), this paragraph ends with in the abstract, see MECW 35, p. 84. The English translation of the continuation was taken from Isaak Rubin, Abstract Labour and Value in Marx’s System, //Capital and Class// 5, Summer 1978 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/abstract-labour.htm>.))
  
 === 2.3.2 The measure and double character of labour === === 2.3.2 The measure and double character of labour ===
  
-The commensurability between different kinds of commodities is the result of equating //qualitatively// different products of labour. +The commensurability between different kinds of commodities is the result of 
-The definite proportions are the expression of a //quantitative// dimension of the labour expended.+equating //qualitatively// different products of labour.  The definite 
 +proportions are the expression of a //quantitative// dimension of the labour 
 +expended.
  
-The value form, as we have seen, represents value in //bodies of commodities//, and in units that are suitable for these -- //numbers of// coats, //yards of// linen, +The value form, as we have seen, represents value in //bodies of commodities//, 
-//tons of// iron, gold and so on. If one of the bodies, for example gold, occupies the position of general equivalent, then all commodity values can be expressed in definite physical quantities of one and the same material. Money value is objectified labour but not labour itself. How is the latter measured?+and in units that are suitable for these -- //numbers of// coats, //yards of// 
 +linen, //tons of// iron, gold and so on. If one of the bodies, for example gold, 
 +occupies the position of general equivalent, then all commodity values can be 
 +expressed in definite physical quantities of one and the same material. Money 
 +value is objectified labour but not labour itself. How is the latter measured?
  
 > The quantity of labour itself is measured by its //temporal duration// and the //labour-time// in turn possesses a measuring rod for particular segments of time, like hour, day, etc.((Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, London, 1976, pp. 7--40. <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm>)) > The quantity of labour itself is measured by its //temporal duration// and the //labour-time// in turn possesses a measuring rod for particular segments of time, like hour, day, etc.((Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, London, 1976, pp. 7--40. <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm>))
  
-In order to use time as a measure of abstract commodity-producing labour, +In order to use time as a measure of abstract commodity-producing labour, all 
-all hours or days of labour must be equivalent, otherwise they cannot be given a common expression of value and price, and labour productivity (the concrete output per unit of time) cannot be compared.((It is often difficult to ascertain the proportion between two different sorts of labour. The time spent in two different sorts of work will not always alone determine this proportion. The different degrees of hardship endured, and of ingenuity exercised, must likewise be taken into account. There may be more labour in an hour’s hard work than in two hour’s easy business; or in an hour’s application to a trade which it cost ten years’ labour to learn, than in a month’s industry at an ordinary and obvious employment. But it is not easy to find any accurate measure either of hardship or ingenuity.” Adam Smith, //The Wealth of Nations// (New York 1991), p. 27.)) Marx himself mentioned as one of his unique contributions that he was the first to critically demonstrate +hours or days of labour must be equivalent, otherwise they cannot be given a 
-//the double character of labour//, that what appears in commodities as a //double form// +common expression of value and price, and labour productivity (the concrete 
--- use value and exchange-value -- is represented on the one hand by a concrete useful +output per unit of time) cannot be compared.((It is often difficult to 
-labour and an abstract value-forming labour, i.e. two aspects of one and the same labour.((See MECW 35, pp. 51–56 or the corresponding pages in //Le Capital//, pp. 25–29.))  +ascertain the proportion between two different sorts of labour. The time spent 
-However, such labour is itself an abstraction -- //simple average labour//. It "varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in +in two different sorts of work will not always alone determine this 
-a particular society it is given."((MECW 35, p. 54. On the contrary, Smith believed that labour is equal and +proportion. The different degrees of hardship endured, and of ingenuity 
-comparable between entirely different periods of history. Cf. //The Wealth of Nations//, pp. 31--32.)) Simple labour (and Marx explicitly refers to the English term //unskilled labour//) can be performed with only basic skills.((According to the ISCO-08 system, e.g. "Vehicle, Window, Laundry and Other Hand Cleaning Workers""Food Preparation Assistantsand "Labourers in Mining, Construction, Manufacturing and Transport", belong to "Major Group 9: Elementary Occupations". See "ISCO-08 Structure, index correspondence with ISCO-88<https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08>. In the EU-27 group of countries, 8.5 per cent of occupations belonged to this group in 2021. In Sweden, it was just 4.2 per cent  (//Ekonomifakta// <[[https://www.ekonomifakta.se/fakta/arbetsmarknad/sysselsattning/lagkvalificerade +exercised, must likewise be taken into account. There may be more labour in an 
--jobb-internationellt]]>).)) Moreover, the labour is assumed to take place under average intensity. That which is performed under higher or lower intensity must be multiplied by a factor to be transformed into simple labour. An hour of labour of say 20 per cent higher-than-average intensity that produce 20 per cent more use values of the same quality is then multiplied by 1.2. If this higher level of intensity becomes the norm in all branches of industry, however, then the factor must be reduced to 1 and loses its significance, although it can still be regarded as more (or less) intensive "in an international application of the law of value"((//Le Capital//, p. 453))corresponding to greater (or smaller) amount of money.+hour’s hard work than in two hour’s easy business; or in an hour’s application 
 +to a trade which it cost ten years’ labour to learn, than in a month’s industry 
 +at an ordinary and obvious employment. But it is not easy to find any accurate 
 +measure either of hardship or ingenuity.” Adam Smith, //The Wealth of Nations// 
 +(New York 1991), p. 27.)) Marx himself mentioned as one of his unique 
 +contributions that he was the first to critically demonstrate //the double 
 +character of labour//, that what //appears// in commodities as a //double form// 
 +-- use value and exchange-value -- is represented on the one hand by a concrete 
 +useful labour and an abstract value-forming labour, i.e. two aspects of one and 
 +the same labour.((See MECW 35, pp. 51–56 or the corresponding pages in //Le 
 +Capital//, pp. 25–29.))  However, such labour is itself an abstraction -- 
 +//simple average labour//. It varies in character in different countries and at 
 +different times, but in a particular society it is given.((MECW 35, p. 54. On 
 +the contrary, Smith believed that labour is equal and comparable between 
 +entirely different periods of history. Cf. //The Wealth of Nations//, 
 +pp. 31--32.)) Simple labour (and Marx explicitly refers to the English term 
 +//unskilled labour//) can be performed with only basic skills.((According to the 
 +ISCO-08 system, e.g. Vehicle, Window, Laundry and Other Hand Cleaning Workers, 
 +Food Preparation Assistants” and Labourers in Mining, Construction, 
 +Manufacturing and Transport, belong to Major Group 9: Elementary 
 +Occupations. See ISCO-08 Structure, index correspondence with ISCO-88” 
 +<https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08>. In the EU-27 group 
 +of countries, 8.5 per cent of occupations belonged to this group in 2021. In 
 +Sweden, it was just 4.2 per cent (//Ekonomifakta// 
 +<[[https://www.ekonomifakta.se/fakta/arbetsmarknad/sysselsattning/lagkvalificerade 
 +-jobb-internationellt]]>).)) Moreover, the labour is assumed to take place under 
 +average intensity. That which is performed under higher or lower intensity must 
 +be multiplied by a factor to be transformed into simple labour. An hour of 
 +labour of say 20 per cent higher-than-average intensity that produces 20 per 
 +cent more use values of the same quality is then multiplied by 1.2. If this 
 +higher level of intensity becomes the norm in all branches of industry, however, 
 +then the factor must be reduced to 1, i.e. loses its significance, although it 
 +can still be regarded as more (or less) intensive in an international 
 +application of the law of value”,((//Le Capital//, p. 453)) corresponding to 
 +greater (or smaller) amount of money.
  
-Different kinds of labour also differ in //complexity//, which has an impact on the magnitude of value. If we take a tailor's shop as an example, we can +Different kinds of labour also differ in //complexity//, which has an impact on 
-assume that one part of the work is carried out by apprentices, another by journeymen and a third by the master tailor himself. Even if everyone works equally hard, +the magnitude of value. If we take a tailors shop as an example, we can assume 
-the journeymen, who are fully trained in the trade, will on average get more done than the apprentices in the same period of time and the master probably even more. When differences in work performance is not due to labour-saving //technology// implemented in the objective conditions of labour but, as here,  +that one part of the work is carried out by apprentices, another by journeymen 
-//skill//, i.e. a subjective factor, then the effect is the same as if the work were performed with different +and a third by the master tailor himself. Even if everyone works equally hard, 
-intensity. There are tasks, however, that neither the apprentice nor the journeyman but only the master tailor //can// perform. As long as these constitute //necessary labour// there will be a need for specially qualified labour.+the journeymen, who are fully trained in the trade, will on average get more 
 +done than the apprentices in the same period of time and the master probably 
 +even more. When differences in work performance is not due to labour-saving 
 +//technology// implemented in the objective conditions of labour but, as here, 
 +//skill//, i.e. a subjective factor, then the effect is the same as if work was 
 +performed with different intensity.((See //Le Capital//, in MEGA II.7, p. 27, 
 +MECW 35, p. 54 and MECW 33, pp. 384--385.)) There are tasks, however, that 
 +neither the apprentice nor the journeyman but only the master tailor //can// 
 +perform. As long as these constitute //necessary labour// there will be a need 
 +for such specially qualified labour.
  
-Education or experience that contributes to a higher production output produces more labour per hour, so to speak, but only if the labour power is used +Education or experience that contributes to a higher production output gets 
-efficiently.(("All labour of a higher or more complicated character than average labour is expenditure of labour power +counted as more labour per hour, so to speak, but only if the labour power is 
-of a more costly kind, labour power whose production has cost more +used efficiently.((All labour of a higher or more complicated character than 
-time and labour, and which therefore has a higher value, than unskilled or simple labour power. This power being of higher value, its consumption is labour of a higher class, labour that creates in equal times +average labour is expenditure of labour power of a more costly kind, labour 
-proportionally higher values than unskilled labour does.MECW 35, p. 208. A master tailor creates more value exactly in his role as tailor master but not as a hand packer of finished trousers.)) So the apprentice, +power whose production has cost more time and labour, and which therefore has a 
-the journeyman and the master tailor not only receive different amounts of remuneration, but they also //create different amounts of value// during +higher value, than unskilled or simple labour power. This power being of higher 
-the same time. So-called skilled labour capable of performing //complex labour// +value, its consumption is labour of a higher class, labour that creates in equal 
-has a higher, refined //use value//, just as dead things can have it (stainless +times proportionally higher values than unskilled labour does.” MECW 35, 
-versus ordinary steel, for example), and if its particular properties are socially necessary, all the labour that is socially necessary for its +p. 208. A master tailor creates more value exactly in his role as tailor master 
-reproduction must be included in its value.((See MECW 28, p. 249.)) In the case of the price of labour power specifically, wages must be sufficient to purchase food, shelter, clothing and +but not as a hand packer of finished trousers.)) So the apprentice, the 
-other articles necessary to perform labour of a particular kind, but it must also be sufficient for the production of the worker's substitute.((See MECW 35, p. +journeyman and the master tailor not only receive different amounts of 
-182 and MECW 30, pp. 42–50. In a country like Sweden, highly qualified workers receive a relatively smaller monetary wage compared with other developed countries, e.g. the United States. An important reason for this is that in the former case, education and healthcare are financed by taxes to a much greater degree and must therefore not be paid for by the worker directly.))+remuneration, but they also //create different amounts of value// in the same 
 +period of time. Labour power capable of performing //complex labour// has a 
 +higher, refined //use value//, just as dead things can have it (stainless versus 
 +ordinary steel, for example), and if its particular properties are socially 
 +necessary, then all the labour that is socially necessary for its reproduction 
 +must be included in its value.((See MECW 28, p. 249.)) In the case of the price 
 +of labour power specifically, wages must be sufficient to purchase food, 
 +shelter, clothing and other articles necessary to perform labour of a particular 
 +kind, but it must also be sufficient for the production of the workers 
 +substitute.((See MECW 35, p.  182 and MECW 30, pp. 42–50. In a country like 
 +Sweden, highly qualified workers receive a relatively small monetary wage 
 +compared with other developed countries, e.g. the United States. An important 
 +reason for this is that in the former case, education and healthcare are 
 +financed by taxes to a much greater degree and must therefore not be paid for by 
 +the worker directly.))
  
  
 === 2.3.3 Individual and social value === === 2.3.3 Individual and social value ===
  
-The real value of a commodity is […] not its individual valuebut its social value; that is to saythe real value is not measured by the labour time that the article in each individual case costs the producer, but by the labour time socially required for its production.((MECW 35, p322))+Properly speaking, all products of the same kind form single massand their price is determined in general and without regard to particular circumstances. (Le Trosne//De l’intérêt social//)((Quoted by Marx in MECW 35, pp. 49--50.))
  
-The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour's social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value. +When Marx speaks of commodity value in general, i.e. without further 
-+specification, he refers to its //real// or //social// value. Its magnitude is 
-We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production. Each individual commodity, in this connection, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.((MECW 35, p. 49))+determined by the labour time required on average for the production of one 
 +unit.((“The real value of a commodity is […] not its individual value, but its 
 +social value; that is to say, the real value is not measured by the labour time 
 +that the article in each individual case costs the producer, but by the labour 
 +time socially required for its production.” (MECW 35, p. 322); “The labour time 
 +socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal 
 +conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity 
 +prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably 
 +reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into 
 +cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same 
 +time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour 
 +represented after the change only half an hours social labour, and consequently 
 +fell to one-half its former value. We see then that that which determines the 
 +magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially 
 +necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production. Each 
 +individual commodity, in this connection, is to be considered as an average 
 +sample of its class.” (MECW 35, p. 49).)) This //general// (social) 
 +determination cannot come from nothing, however, but is itself determined //with 
 +regard to// the //particular// (individual) circumstances. In fact, there is 
 +usually a long range of independent production processes, each of which requires 
 +different amounts of labour to produce commodities of one and the same kind, and 
 +it is therefore analytically useful to also speak of their //individual// 
 +values. When these goods exist on the market they have //the same value// and 
 +also //the same price// (which may be different from the former) if regarded as 
 +//identical from the point of view of use value//. In order to calculate, in a 
 +particular case, the labour expended in the production of a commodity, we must 
 +therefore take the total quantity of labour consumed individually -- both dead 
 +and living labour -- and divide it by the volume of production.
  
-> Properly speakingall products of the same kind form a single mass, and their price is determined in general and without regard to particular circumstances"((Le Trosne, //De lintérêt social//, quoted in MECW 35, pp49--50))+The dead labour //transferred// to the product is determined by the consumption 
 +of its respective components during productionincluding the used up raw 
 +materials, waste, wear and tear as well as depreciation of fixed capital.((Fixed 
 +capital is the part of capital advanced that can be reused over multiple periods 
 +of productione.g. machines and buildings. The remaining part (raw materials, 
 +labour power, etc.) is called circulating capital. See //Capital, Volume 2//, 
 +department 2.)) None of this can be measured in labour time in a process of 
 +production where these products are expended as means of production, but we can 
 +assume a labour quantity corresponding to the //purchase price//. This is 
 +because the latter represents the number of simple hours of labour required by 
 +the producer to //acquire// the means of production, regardless of what may be 
 +socially necessary to //reproduce// them.((Cf Andrew Kliman, //Reclaiming Marx
 +Capital// (Lanham 2006)p34. This assumption is part of the temporal 
 +single-system interpretation (TSSI) which is a reading of //Capital// that 
 +avoids the so-called transformation problem.))
  
-The //general// (social) determination cannot come from nothing, but +Let us take coat production as an example. We assume that all producers buy 
-is itself determined //with regard to// the //particular// (individual) +means of production at the same average market price but that there exist 
-circumstances. In factthere is generally long range of independent +individual differences with regard to the relative efficiency of the processes 
-production processes, each of which requires different amounts of labour to produce commodities of one and the same kind, but when these goods exist on the market they have //the same value// if they can be regarded as //identical from the point of view of use value//. In order to calculate, in a particular casethe labour expended in the production of a commoditywe must take the whole quantity of labour consumed individually -- both dead and living labour -- and divide it by the volume of production.+of production. In this situationthe producer who has particularly 
 +resource-efficient process can make do with relatively few yards of the raw 
 +material linen and thus transfer a relatively smaller amount of value to the 
 +product than the competitors. The //per-unit price// of the means of production 
 +is therefore given in advancei.e. socially determinedbut the quantity needed 
 +is determined by technical and organisational conditions at the level of the 
 +individual firm.
  
-The dead labour //transferred// to the product is determined by the consumption of its respective components during production, including the used up +Also labour power is purchased at a socially determined price that can be 
-raw materialswaste, wear and tear as well as depreciation of fixed capital.((Fixed capital is the part of capital advanced that can be reused over multiple periods of production, e.g. machines and buildings. The remaining part (raw materials, labour power, etc.) is called circulating capital. See //Capital, Volume 2//, department 2.)) None of this can be measured in labour time in a process of production where these products are expended as means of production, but we can assume a labour quantity corresponding to the //purchase price//. This is because the latter represents the number of simple hours of labour required by the producer to //acquire// the means of production, regardless of what may be socially necessary to //reproduce// them.((Cf Andrew Kliman, +assumed to represent the amount necessary to acquire the necessary means of 
-//Reclaiming Marx’s Capital// (Lanham 2006), p. 34. This assumption is part of the temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) which is reading of //Capital// that avoids the so-called transformation problem.))+subsistence. The size of the salary may differ depending on whether the labour 
 +capacity is of a simpler or more complicated kindif for example it is that of 
 +a journeyman or master tailorDuring the process of production, labour power is 
 +consumed, just like the raw materials, etc., but in contrast with the latter the 
 +labour power involved does not //transfer// its value to the product, but its 
 +//labour// creates a //new value//.((See MECW 35, pp. 321--324.)) A part of the 
 +new value covers the salary of the worker and the remainder constitutes 
 +//surplus value//.((The wage relation does not affect the character of new value 
 +but only its division between worker and non-worker. Someone who produces 
 +commodities by employing their own means of production owns the entire product 
 +-- use value and valueincluding surplus value -- but the laws of competition 
 +will make sure that the amount //realised// will differ from what was 
 +individually //produced//.)) This labour could theoretically be measured in 
 +hours, days, etc, but not without an estimation of both its intensity and 
 +complexity as well as conversion into simple hours of labour. It has already 
 +been mentioned however that in practice “only exchange produces this reduction” 
 +and the value contribution of living labour is therefore expressed in the price 
 +of the product.
  
-Let us take coat production as an example. We assume that all producers buy means of production at the same average market price but that there exist individual differences with regard to the relative efficiency of the processes of production. In this situation, the producer who has a particularly resource-efficient process can make do with relatively few yards of the raw material linen and thus transfer a relatively smaller amount of value to the product than the competitors. The //per-unit price// of the means of production is therefore given by advance, i.e. socially determined, but the quantity is determined by technical and organisational conditions at the level of the individual firm. +Let us now look at how, on the basis of the specific cases, we can arrive at a 
- +general determination, i.e. how a number of individually produced articles form 
-Also labour power is purchased at a socially determined price that can be assumed to represent the amount necessary to acquire the necessary means of subsistence. The size of the salary may differ depending on whether the labour capacity is of a simpler or more complicated kind, if for example it is that of a journeyman or master tailor. During the process of production, labour power is consumed, just like the raw materials, etc., but in contrast with the latter the labour power involved does not //transfer// its value to the product, but its //labour// create a //new value//.((See MECW 35, pp. 321--324.)) A part of the new value covers the salary of the worker and the reminder constitutes //surplus value//.((The wage relation does not affect the character of new value but only its division between worker and non-worker. Someone who produces commodities by employing their own means of production  owns the entire product -- use value and value, including surplus value -- but the laws of competition will make sure that what the amount //realised// will differ from what was individually //produced//.)) This labour could theoretically be measured in hours, days, etc, but not without an estimation of both its intensity and complexity as well as a conversion into simple hours of labour. It has already been mentioned however that in practice "only exchange produces this reduction" and the value contribution of living labour is therefore expressed in the price of the product. +a general, social value. In the example below we assume social production of 
- +identical coats and that the entire market consists of three producers that 
-Let us now look at how, on the basis of the specific cases, we can arrive at +supply the same number of items each. This production has a number of value 
-a general determination, i.e. how a number of individually produced +contribution categories” where the sum represents a coats total individual 
-articles form a general, social value. In the example below we assume +value. The mean value per category represents the socially necessary quantity of 
-social production of identical coats and that the entire market consists of three +labour expressed in money and the sum consequently the social value.((If we had 
-producers that supply the same number of items each. This production has +assumed that they supplied different quantities of commodities then the value 
-a number of "value contribution categorieswhere the sum represents a coat's total individual value. The mean value per category represents the socially +contributions of the three producers would have had to be weighted. One such 
-necessary quantity of labour expressed in money and the sum consequently the social value.((If we had assumed that they supplied different quantities of commodities then the value contributions of the three producers would have had to be weighted. One such example is provided under section 2.5.)) //The latter is the real commodity value, since it represents the total quantity of labour divided by the total quantity of articles, i.e. the amount of labour it costs society to produce one specimen of the commodity in question.//+example is provided under section 2.5.)) //The latter is the real commodity 
 +value, since it represents the total quantity of labour divided by the total 
 +quantity of articles, i.e. the amount of labour it costs society to produce one 
 +specimen of the commodity in question.//
  
 ^ Table 1. Individual and social coat value (pounds sterling) ^^^^^ ^ Table 1. Individual and social coat value (pounds sterling) ^^^^^
Line 246: Line 608:
 | Total                  |  2.08|  1.98|  1.94|     2.00| | Total                  |  2.08|  1.98|  1.94|     2.00|
  
-None of the processes of production in our example result in an //individual value// per unit which corresponds to the //social value//; one of them is above and two below the mean. Each individual coat forms material for the "congelations of undifferentiated human labour"((https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm)) that flows down and crystallises into the coat form that on the market is equivalent to 2 ounces of gold.(("In the expression of relative value: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat (or, x linen is //worth// y of coat), one must admit that the coat counts only as //value// or coagulation of labour, but it is precisely through that fact that the coagulation of labour counts as //coat//, and coat as the form into which human labour flows in order to congeal.Albert Dragstedt, //Value: Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, London, 1976, pp. 7--40.))+None of the processes of production in our example result in an //individual 
 +value// per unit which corresponds to the //social value//; one of them is above 
 +and two below the mean. Each individual coat forms material for the 
 +congelations of undifferentiated human 
 +labour((https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm)) that 
 +flows down and crystallises into the coat form that on the market is equivalent 
 +to 2 ounces of gold.((In the expression of relative value: 20 yards of linen = 
 +1 coat (or, x linen is //worth// y of coat), one must admit that the coat counts 
 +only as //value// or coagulation of labour, but it is precisely through that 
 +fact that the coagulation of labour counts as //coat//, and coat as the form 
 +into which human labour flows in order to congeal.” Albert Dragstedt, //Value: 
 +Studies By Karl Marx//, New Park Publications, London, 1976, pp. 7--40.)) The 
 +coat value in money is thus 2 pounds sterling. What it corresponds to in hours 
 +we do not know, but under our assumption it is as many as required to produce, 
 +say, 20 yards of linen.((Even if we could provide the number of man-hours and 
 +the exact level of intensity and complexity for each category, e.g. time spent 
 +sowing and harvesting flax, making shovels, etc.  we would have difficult 
 +regression problems, because a shovel embodies a certain amount of labour that 
 +went into mining and processing iron, which in turn was made possible because of 
 +a long series of other labour processes.)) If one would like to perform 
 +calculations in labour time, however, it is possible to //assume// a monetary 
 +value per hour, for example .1 pound sterling (2 shillings in Marx’s days), 
 +which gives 20 simple labour hours for one coat, 20 yards of linen or 2 ounces 
 +of gold.((This form of expression (money per hour) is called MELT (Monetary 
 +Expression of Labour Time) and has become a popular method for converting 
 +between money and labour time. “Multiplying labor-time figures by the MELT, we 
 +get dollar figures; dividing dollar figures by the MELT, we get labor-time 
 +figures.” Andrew Kliman, //Reclaiming Marx’s Capital//, pp. 25--26.)) 
 + 
 +If we assume that the three producers represent the conditions of coat 
 +production within a society, then these are reflected exactly in the value of 
 +the commodity. But what if e.g. producer III -- all else being equal -- 
 +withdraws its coats from the local market and sends them off to some other 
 +region? The same quantity of “undifferentiated human labour” will now, so to 
 +speak, flow down into two forms of coat instead of one -- one in the region of 
 +production and another in the more distant geographic location. What will happen 
 +to the commodity value in the first case? The answer follows by taking the mean 
 +value of I and II: (2.08 + 1.98) / 2 = 2.03; it rises by 1.5 per cent.((The 
 +market price will likely rise even more, because of the imbalance between supply 
 +and demand, which, for reasons of space, we cannot go into here. It should be 
 +noted, however, that //value// in this case has nothing to do with //market 
 +value//. The latter is a //price// for which a commodity may be sold if it lies 
 +within the interval of (the individual values of) those producing under the most 
 +and the least favourable conditions (see MECW 37, pp. 177--184). A market value 
 +that coincides with something other than the weighted average of the individual 
 +values constitutes a “false social value”. Karl Marx, //Marx’s Economic 
 +Manuscript of 1864–1865//, Leiden 2016, p. 817.)) In the latter case, the 
 +commodity value is determined by the labour supplied by III together with all 
 +other coat producers that direct their output to the more distant market. If III 
 +happens to be alone here, then the (real) value of the coat is determined 
 +entirely by its individual value, i.e. 1.94. This example shows that, 
 +technically, the value of a commodity is determined not by the conditions of 
 +production of such articles within a society (producers I, II and III) but by 
 +the conditions of production of those firms from which the supply on a 
 +particular market originate (e.g. producers I and II only), constrained by 
 +demand on the same market.((Only in this sense is value fully determined already 
 +at the level of production (cf. Andrew Kliman, “On Capitalism’s Historical 
 +Specificity and Price Determination: Comments on the Value-Form Paradigm”, in 
 +//[[https://copejournal.com/critique-of-political-economy-vol-1/|Critique of 
 +political economy]]//, vol. 1, September 2011).)) 
 + 
 +The fact that the (real) value of a commodity exists on the market does not mean 
 +that “the act of sale” is required to make social the labour expended upon a 
 +single commodity.((Cf Patrick Murray, “Avoiding bad abstractions”, in 
 +//[[https://copejournal.com/critique-of-political-economy-vol-1/|Critique of 
 +political economy]]//, vol. 1, September 2011.)) The latter does not have 
 +value because its owner happens to find a buyer, i.e. because of //particular 
 +circumstances//; it has value because there is //demand in general// for 
 +products of labour that can satisfy a particular social want. In other words, 
 +the (social) value is always identical for identical use values. Nevertheless, 
 +it is necessary to supply a finished product for the individual labour content 
 +to be recognised as socially useful. The stitches performed by the average 
 +tailor can therefore be considered socially useful and value producing only 
 +after they have been materialised in an actual commodity (a coat), not the 
 +moment they are performed. The individual labour that //was// expended in 
 +production thus //becomes// recognised as social labour of a definite 
 +quantity.((“The point of departure is not the labour of individuals considered 
 +as social labour, but on the contrary the particular kinds of labour of private 
 +individuals, i.e. labour which proves that it is universal social labour only by 
 +the supersession of its original character in the exchange process. Universal 
 +social labour is consequently not a ready-made prerequisite but an emerging 
 +result.” MECW 29, p. 286)) 
  
-The coat value in money is thus 2 pounds sterling. What it corresponds to in hours 
-we do not know, but under our assumption it is as many as required to produce, say, 20 yards of linen.((Even if we could provide the number of man-hours and the exact level of intensity and complexity for each 
-category, e.g. time spent sowing and harvesting flax, making shovels, etc. 
-we would have difficult regression problems, because a shovel embodies a certain amount of labour that went into mining and processing iron, which in turn was made possible because of a long series of other labour processes.)) If one would like to perform calculations in labour time, however, it is possible to //assume// a monetary value per hour, for example .1 pound sterling (2 shillings in Marx's days), which gives 20 simple labour hours for one coat, 20 yards of linen or 2 ounces of gold.((This form of expression 
-(money per hour) is called MELT (Monetary Expression of Labour Time) 
-and has become a popular method for converting between money and labour time. "Multiplying labor-time figures by the MELT, we get dollar figures; dividing 
-dollar figures by the MELT, we get labor-time figures.” Andrew Kliman, 
-//Reclaiming Marx’s Capital//, pp. 25--26.)) 
  
-If we assume that the three producers represent the conditions of coat production within a society, then these are represented completely in the value of the commodity. Socially necessary labour can then be derived from the technological level. But what if e.g. producer III -- all else being equal -- withdraws its coats from the local market and sends them off to some other region. Now the same quantity of "undifferentiated human labour" will, so to speak, flow down into two forms of coat instead of one -- one in the region of production and another in some other geographic location. What will happen to the commodity value in the first case? The answer follows by taking the mean value of I and II: (2.08 + 1.98) / 2 = 2.03; it rises by 1.5 per cent.((The market price will likely rise even more, because of the imbalance between supply and demand, which, for reasons of space, we cannot go into here.)) In the latter case, the commodity value is determined by the labour supplied by III together with all 
-other coat producers that //sell to// the more distant market. If III happens to be alone here, then the value of the coat is determined entirely by its individual value, 
-i.e. 1.94. It cannot therefore be the case that the value of a commodity is fully determined before or 
-independently of the social context in which commodities are confronted with consumers, i.e. at the moment of exchange.  
-This does not mean, however, that the latter -- as Murray puts it -- the moment of sale //actualises// the value of a commodity which had until then only a //potential// existence.(()) It is rather the //use value// of the commodity that is //not yet finished// until it reaches the consumer. By the way, a difference in location between articles turn them into qualitatively //different// use values, and the costs of transportation is also to be added to the commodity's value.((See MECW 36, p. 62.)) Murray has a point, though, if we consider the moment of exchange to be necessary not only for the //realization// of value (its conversion into money) but for the //validation// of its individual labour content. If one and the same enterprise produces coats and transport them to the end consumer, then the process of production is completed when it reaches the latter, but if it only manufactures the coats and sells them to a transport company, then the process of production is finished earlier.((Cf the debate between Kliman, Murray and others in ”On Capitalism’s Historical Specificity and Price Determination”, //Critique of political economy//, vol. 1, Sep­tem­ber 2011.)) 
 ==== 2.4 Production and redistribution of surplus value ==== ==== 2.4 Production and redistribution of surplus value ====
  
-Having investigated individual and social value, we shall now look closer at the components of the single commodity with regard to the distinction between paid and unpaid labour, as well as the latter's redistribution based on different forms of property.+Having investigated individual and social value, we shall now look closer at the 
 +components of the commodity with regard to the distinction between paid and 
 +unpaid labour, as well as the latters redistribution based on different forms 
 +of property.
  
-The life cycle of a single capital is best described from the point of view of the cycle of commodity capital, M – C – M′, that is from that a sum of money (M) is invested in the commodities means of production and labour power (C) until a value in money form (M′) is realised that is greater than the amount originally advanced. Should the value not be increased, it would be irrational to convert money into factors of production, since the product is made in order to be sold. Return on capital comes from surplus +The life cycle of an individual capital is best described from the point of view 
-value, but is in this specific form called profit.((Profit is divided between interest and profit of enterprise and the latter category into industrial profit +of the cycle of money capital, M – C – M′, that is from that a sum of money (M) 
-and commercial profit. See //Capital III//, parts 4 and 5. For the sake of simplicity, we shall in all examples assume that profit is equal to industrial profit and that the capital advanced is provided by the industrialist himself.))+is invested in the two commodity classes means of production and labour power 
 +(C) until a value in money form (M′) is realised that is greater than the amount 
 +originally advanced. Should the value not be increased, it would be irrational 
 +to convert money into factors of production, since the product is made only so 
 +that it can be sold. Return on capital comes from surplus value, but is in this 
 +specific form called profit.((Profit is divided between interest and profit of 
 +enterprise and the latter category into industrial profit and commercial 
 +profit. See //Capital III//, parts 4 and 5. For the sake of simplicity, we shall 
 +in all examples assume that profit is equal to industrial profit and that the 
 +capital advanced is provided by the industrialist himself.))
  
-We continue to use the coat industry and the producers I–III for our examples. In the following, we borrow from table 1 (2.3.3) but create a new categorisation. The value of the product (individual and social) is denoted //w//All dead labour is represented under the category of constant capital, //c//, and all living things under new value, //n//. The latter is then divided into +We continue to use the coat industry and the producers I–III in our examples. In 
-a paid part -- variable capital, //v// -- and two categories that +the following, we borrow from Table 1 (2.3.3) but create a new 
-representing the unpaid part -- produced surplus value, //s//, and +categorisation. The value of the product (individual and social) is denoted 
-realised profit, //p//. Here we also assume conditions in which the profit's +//w//Dead (materialised) labour is represented under the category of constant 
-share of both the value and the price of the individual commodity quantitatively coincides with that of surplus value.((We assume that the capital composition of the industry, i.e. the cost distribution between labour power and means of production, coincides with the composition of total capital +capital, //c//, and the materialisation of living labour under new value, 
-and that all capitals turns over in the same period of time. The latter implies +//n//. The latter is then divided into a paid part -- variable capital, //v// -- 
-that differences in depreciation costs (referred to above as "tool wear") +and two categories representing the unpaid part -- produced surplus value, 
-merely represent different degrees of efficiency with regard to fixed capital use.)) The sum of //c// and //v// +//s//, and realised profit, //p//. Here we also assume conditions in which the 
-in a commodity is called the cost price, //k//, and represents the amount that +profits share of both the value and the price of the individual commodity 
-the individual article has cost the capitalist.((See //Capital III//, chapter 1. The sum of //c// and //v// as capital advanced is usually referred to as //C//. In all examples provided here, //C// and //k// happen to coincide quantitatively, but it is important to be aware of the difference.))+coincides quantitatively with that of surplus value.((We assume that the capital 
 +composition of the industry, i.e. the cost distribution between labour power and 
 +means of production, coincides with the composition of total capital and that 
 +all capitals turn over in the same period of time. The latter assumption implies 
 +that differences in depreciation cost (referred to above as tool wear) merely 
 +represent different degrees of efficiency with regard to fixed capital use.)) 
 +The sum of //c// and //v// in a commodity is called the cost price, //k//, and 
 +represents the amount the individual article has cost the capitalist.((See 
 +//Capital III//, chapter 1. The sum of //c// and //v// as capital advanced is 
 +usually referred to as //C//. In all examples provided here, //C// and //k// 
 +happen to coincide quantitatively, but it is important to be aware of the 
 +difference.))
  
-The rate of surplus value, //s/v//, is assumed to be 50 per cent and expresses that +The rate of surplus value, //s/v//, is assumed to be 50 per cent and expresses 
-working conditions are the same across the three producers. The workers keep +that working conditions are the same across the three producers. The workers 
-two-thirds of the new value produced individually. The profit, //p//, +keep two-thirds of the individual new value in the form of wages. The profit, 
-is determined by the selling price, which coincides with the commodity value of 2 +//p//, is determined by the selling price, which coincides with the commodity 
-pounds sterling, minus the cost price, //k//.+value of 2 pounds sterling, minus the cost price, //k//.
  
 ^ Table 2. Components of the coat value (pounds sterling) ^^^^^ ^ Table 2. Components of the coat value (pounds sterling) ^^^^^
Line 297: Line 751:
 | //p//              |  0.18|  0.29|  0.31|        0.26| | //p//              |  0.18|  0.29|  0.31|        0.26|
  
-Table 1 showed that producer I "takes outa smaller value than what +Table 1 showed that producer I takes out” a smaller value than what it puts 
-it "puts inwhile the reverse is true for producer II and III. From +in” while the reverse is true for producer II and III. From Table 2 it becomes 
-Table 2 it becomes clear how producer I can nevertheless realise surplus value in the form of +clear how producer I can nevertheless realise surplus value in the form of 
-profit because //k// is less than the selling price. The rate of profit, //p/+profit because //k// is less than the selling price. The rate of profit, //p/ (c 
-(c + v)//, for the three producers is 10, 17 and 19 per cent respectively ++ v)//, for the three producers is 10, 17 and 19 per cent respectively (15 on 
-(15 on average).+average).
  
-Under unchanged conditions of production and demand fully maintained +Under unchanged conditions of production and demand this relationship could 
-this relationship could be reproduced year in and year out, but as the +hypothetically be reproduced year in and year out, but as the commodity category 
-commodity category itself reveals, the producers who contribute +itself reveals, the producers who contribute a relatively small (large) amount 
-a relatively small (large) amount of value-creating labour per article are favoured (disadvantaged) when they sell it at the higher (lower) social value. Those who are relatively +of value-creating labour per article are favoured (disadvantaged) when they sell 
-wasteful of labour also risk a devaluation of their capital, because +it at the higher (lower) social value. Those who are relatively wasteful in 
-if the selling price were to fall below the cost price, there would be no funds to +expending labour even risk a devaluation of their capital, for if the selling 
-support either the capitalist's individual consumption or to to pay the entire +price were to fall below the cost price, there would be no funds to support 
-cost of the means of production and wages. In the absence of a reserve fund, +either the capitalists individual consumption or to pay the full cost of the 
-a temporary increase in the price of any input is sufficient to make the individual +means of production and wages. In the absence of a reserve fund, a temporary 
-capital to shrink immediately, and, as already mentioned,  +increase in the price of any input is sufficient to make the individual capital 
-the purpose of production is lost if there is no profit to be made. +shrink immediately, and, as already mentioned, the purpose of production is lost 
-There is therefore a double +if there is no profit to be made.  There is therefore a double interest of every 
-interest of every commodity producer in //reducing the necessary +commodity producer in //reducing the necessary labour time//. Such a reduction 
-labour time//. Such a reduction takes place, among other things, by that the more efficient +takes place, among other things, by that the more efficient producers’ methods 
-producersmethods are adopted by the others and through research and +are adopted by the others and through research and development of entirely new 
-development of entirely new ways of reducing the necessary labour. +ways of reducing the necessary labour.  Normally, this leads to a levelling out 
-Normally, this leads to a levelling out of the differences in +of the differences in production conditions, but they cannot be completely 
-production conditions, but they can not be completely eliminated.+eliminated.
  
 We will now look at an example where a new category of unpaid labour is We will now look at an example where a new category of unpaid labour is
-expressed in the price of the individual commodity -- //land rent//. It appears when +expressed in the price of the individual commodity -- //land rent//. It appears 
-the existence of natural monopolies preserves differences in the conditions of production over time. It takes both dead and living labour to grow wheat for +when the existence of natural monopolies preserves differences in the conditions 
-for example, but some farmland gives a much higher yield at and +of production over time. It takes both dead and living labour to grow wheat for 
-equal labour input than others. The same is true of mining, oil extraction, +example, but some farmland gives a much higher yield at an equal investment than 
-etc.((See //Capital III//, departments 2 and 6 as well as MECW 31, pp. 250–389 and 457–551.))+others. The same is true of mining, oil extraction, etc.((See //Capital III//, 
 +departments 2 and 6 as well as MECW 31, pp. 250–389 and 457–551.))
  
 If demand is sufficiently high, agricultural land of even very low If demand is sufficiently high, agricultural land of even very low
 fertility can be exploited commercially. The average commodity price then comes fertility can be exploited commercially. The average commodity price then comes
 close to the individual value of the producer with the lowest yield per close to the individual value of the producer with the lowest yield per
-labour input (dead and living, i.e. capital advanced, C). As long as this land is needed to cover the market's //entire//+labour input (dead and living, i.e. capital advanced, C). As long as this land is needed to cover the markets //entire//
 demand for wheat -- i.e. to supplement the supply from the others --, then demand for wheat -- i.e. to supplement the supply from the others --, then
 the necessary labour of the producer who rents  the necessary labour of the producer who rents 
Line 345: Line 800:
 producers that the latter only make a normal (average) profit. producers that the latter only make a normal (average) profit.
  
-It was assumed above (2.2.4) that the //value// of 1 quarter of wheat is worth 2 pounds sterling and we shall keep this for our next example, but we now say that the //price// is at 3 pounds. We also assume the same relation between dead and living labour as for the coat but make the individual differences greater. The differences in individual profits are now no longer assumed to be due to the relative skills of the producers (economy of labour) but are fully determined by the //general rate of profit//. The latter category follows by dividing the surplus value by the capital invested in the whole economy, //s / (c + v)//. Since we assume the same relationship between +It was assumed above (2.2.4) that the //value// of 1 quarter of wheat is 2 
-//c// and //v// as in the coat industry, and this happens to represent +pounds sterling and we shall keep this assumption in our next example, but we 
-the average production conditions in society at large, we know that the general +now say that its //price// is at 3 pounds. We also assume the same proportion of 
-rate of profit is 15 per cent. The individual profits are the results of +dead and living labour as for the coat but let the individual differences be 
-multiplying the individual capital advanced with the general rate of profit, i.e.+greater. The differences in individual profits are now no longer assumed to be 
 +due to the relative skills of the producers (economy of labour) but are fully 
 +determined by the //general rate of profit//. The latter category follows by 
 +dividing the total surplus value by the total capital advanced in the whole 
 +economy, //s / (c + v)//. Since we assume the same relationship between //c// 
 +and //v// as in the coat industry, and this happens to represent the average 
 +production conditions in society at large, we know that the general rate of 
 +profit is 15 per cent. Each individual profit is given by multiplying the 
 +individual capital advanced with the general rate of profit, i.e.
  
 > //p = (c + v) • (s / (c + v)).// > //p = (c + v) • (s / (c + v)).//
  
-The price of production, //P//, is the price at which the commodity must be sold in order to replace both the means of production and the labour force and to generate the average profit, i.e. //c// + //v// + //p//. Ground rent, //r//, +The price of production, //P//, is the price at which the commodity must be sold 
-is then determined by the price of the commodity (3 pounds) minus //P//.+in order to replace both the means of production and the labour force as well as 
 +to generate the average profit, i.e. //c// + //v// + //p//. Ground rent, //r//, 
 +is then given by subtracting //P// from the price of the commodity (3 pounds).
  
 ^ Table 3. Components of the wheat price (pounds sterling) ^^^^^ ^ Table 3. Components of the wheat price (pounds sterling) ^^^^^
Line 369: Line 834:
  
 Agricultural producers I–III all make 15 per cent profit on their respective Agricultural producers I–III all make 15 per cent profit on their respective
-investments, which come from unpaid labour. Comparing the size of last component, ground rent, with the total capital advanced, //r / (c + v)//, +investments, which come from unpaid labour. Comparing the size of the last 
-we see that the mere ownership of the three plots of lands itself yields about 4, 80 and +component, ground rent, with the total capital advanced, //r / (c + v)//, we see 
-143 per cent return on the capital //invested by other people// (58 per cent on +that the mere ownership of land yields about 4, 80 and 143 per cent (58 per cent 
-average).((Land owners can be capitalists at the same time and so to speak +on average) return on capital //invested by other people// in the three 
-lease the land to themselves, but that does not make land ownership disappear as a distinct form of property.)) The value produced in the sector is just enough +plots.((Land owners can be capitalists at the same time andso to speaklease 
-to provide wage-earners and capitalists with a normal income. Ground rent +the land to themselves, but that does not make land ownership disappear as a 
-must therefore (in this examplecome from other industries, which is +distinct form of property.)) The value produced in the sector is just enough to 
-possible because the price of the commodity wheat exceeds the price of production.((For surplus value to flow out of an industry, it is sufficient that surplus value exceeds average profit and that the commodity is sold at a price below its value.))+provide wage-earners and capitalists with a normal income. Ground rent must 
 +thereforein this examplecome from other industries, which is possible 
 +because the price of the commodity wheat exceeds the price of production.((For 
 +surplus value to flow out of an industry, it is sufficient that surplus value 
 +exceeds average profit and that the commodity is sold at a price below its 
 +value.))
  
-Should the price of wheat fall to 2.9 pounds, ground rent disappears completely for landowner I. It is then in his interest to demand rent at the expense of a part of the profit and otherwise terminate the lease. Should the price rise, then all lands become +Should the price of wheat fall to 2.9 pounds, ground rent disappears completely 
-more profitable, but especially those of the poorest quality. If this situation persists for some time, it leads to poorer, unused agricultural land being brought into use. Should the price remain unchanged, it is consistently 50 per cent above the value, i.e. the amount that +for landowner I. It is then in his interest to demand rent at the expense of a 
-corresponds to the socially necessary labour of the industry. With new technical solutions labour productivity can increase also in industries where ground rent plays a major role, but they cannot eradicate differences in natural fertility and therefore not rent as an entirely passive source of income.+part of the profit and otherwise terminate the lease. Should the price rise, 
 +then all lands become more profitable, but especially those of the poorest 
 +quality. If this situation persists for some time, it leads to poorer, unused 
 +agricultural land being brought into use. 
 + 
 +With new technical innovations, labour productivity can increase also in 
 +industries where ground rent plays a major role, but they cannot eradicate 
 +differences in natural fertility and therefore not rent as an entirely passive 
 +source of income.
  
 > The identity of the market price for commodities of the same kind is the manner whereby the social character of value asserts itself on the basis of the capitalist mode of production and, in general, any production based on the exchange of commodities between //individuals//. What society overpays for agricultural products in its capacity of consumer, what is a minus in the realisation of its labour time in agricultural production, is now a plus for a portion of society, for the landlords.((MECW 35, p. 654)) > The identity of the market price for commodities of the same kind is the manner whereby the social character of value asserts itself on the basis of the capitalist mode of production and, in general, any production based on the exchange of commodities between //individuals//. What society overpays for agricultural products in its capacity of consumer, what is a minus in the realisation of its labour time in agricultural production, is now a plus for a portion of society, for the landlords.((MECW 35, p. 654))
  
-It is the surplus labour in commodity production, not the land itself, that makes the land owner rich. The latter can therefore "spend his whole life in Constantinople, while his estates lie in Scotland."((MECW 35, p. 612)) The same thing could be said of those who sell the commodity money capital to industrialists at an interest,((Cf //Capital III//, chapter 24)) but also the owner of entrepreneurial capital can live a life without hardship when the ownership is spread out between different industries and management has been handed over to paid agents with a mandate to reinvest (capitalise) part of the profits.+It is the surplus labour in commodity production, not the land itself, that 
 +makes the land owner rich. The latter can therefore spend his whole life in 
 +Constantinople, while his estates lie in Scotland.((MECW 35, p. 612)) The 
 +situation is similar for those who sell the commodity money capital to 
 +industrialists at an interest, i.e. provide loans,((Cf //Capital III//, chapter 
 +24)) but even the owner of entrepreneurial capital can live a life without 
 +economic hardship when the shares are spread out between different industries 
 +and management has been handed over to paid agents with a mandate to reinvest 
 +(capitalise) part of the profits.
  
-A not insignificant part of the value of a commodity is thus made up of unpaid labour which falls to the owner of the means of production.((In this discussion we have disregarded the costs of circulation (buying and selling, bookkeeping, etc.), but these also require their share of the surplus value contained in the commodity.)) A part of it is consumed +A not insignificant part of the value of a commodity is thus made up of unpaid 
-unproductively as revenue, in the form of servants, vehicles, jewellery, real estate, etc., while another is converted into additional capital. Whether the rate of surplus value is low or high, for example 30 or 300 per cent, the real wealth of society depends on //labour productivity//, i.e. "how much use value [...] [is] produced in a definite time, hence also in a definite surplus labour time."((MECW 35, p. 807))+labour which falls to the owner of the means of production.((In this discussion 
 +we have left out the costs of circulation (buying and selling, bookkeeping, 
 +etc.), but these also require their share of the surplus value contained in the 
 +commodity.)) A part of it is consumed unproductively as revenue, in the form of 
 +servants, vehicles, jewellery, real estate, etc., while another is converted 
 +into additional capital. But whether the rate of surplus value is low or high, 
 +for example 30 or 300 per cent, the real wealth of society depends on //labour 
 +productivity//, i.e. how much use value [...] [is] produced in a definite time, 
 +hence also in a definite surplus labour time.((MECW 35, p. 807))
  
  
 ==== 2.5 Competition and accumulation ==== ==== 2.5 Competition and accumulation ====
  
-It is up to the owner of an enterprise whether he wants to consume all the profit as revenue, but in that case he will eventually cease to be a capitalist, because competition between firms encourages accumulation.(("Except as personified capital, the capitalist has no historical value [...]. And so far only is +It is up to the owner of an enterprise if he wants to consume all the profit as 
-the necessity for his own transitory existence implied in the transitory +revenue, but in that case he will eventually cease to be a capitalist, because 
-necessity for the capitalist mode of production. But, so far as he is personified capital, it is not values in use and the enjoyment of them, but +competition between firms encourages accumulation.((Except as personified 
-exchange value and its augmentation, that spur him into action. Fanatically bent on making value expand itself, he ruthlessly forces the human race to produce for production's sake; he thus forces the development of the productive powers of society, and creates those material +capital, the capitalist has no historical value [...]. And so far only is the 
-conditions, which alone can form the real basis of a higher form of society [...]. Only as personified capital is the capitalist respectable. As such, he shares with the miser the passion for +necessity for his own transitory existence implied in the transitory necessity 
-wealth as wealth. But that which in the miser is a mere idiosyncrasy, +for the capitalist mode of production. But, so far as he is personified capital, 
-is, in the capitalist, the effect of the social mechanism, of which he is +it is not values in use and the enjoyment of them, but exchange value and its 
-but one of the wheels. Moreover, the development of capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to keep increasing the amount of +augmentation, that spur him into action. Fanatically bent on making value expand 
-the capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It compels him +itself, he ruthlessly forces the human race to produce for productions sake; he 
-to keep constantly extending his capital, in order to preserve it, but +thus forces the development of the productive powers of society, and creates 
-extend it he cannot, except by means of progressive accumulation.MECW 35, pp. 587--588)) Let us see why with another example.+those material conditions, which alone can form the real basis of a higher form 
 +of society [...]. Only as personified capital is the capitalist respectable. As 
 +such, he shares with the miser the passion for wealth as wealth. But that which 
 +in the miser is a mere idiosyncrasy, is, in the capitalist, the effect of the 
 +social mechanism, of which he is but one of the wheels. Moreover, the 
 +development of capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to keep 
 +increasing the amount of the capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, 
 +and competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by 
 +each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep 
 +constantly extending his capital, in order to preserve it, but extend it he 
 +cannot, except by means of progressive accumulation.” MECW 35, pp. 587--588)) 
 +Let us see why with another example.
  
-It has already been mentioned (see 2.4) that it is in the interest of every commodity producer to adopt the most successful methods of production. So far the implicit assumption has been that this is possible on the basis of the existing +It has already been mentioned (see 2.4) that it is in the interest of every 
-scale of production. +commodity producer to adopt the most successful methods of production. So far 
 +the implicit assumption has been that this is possible on the basis of the 
 +existing scale of production.
  
-There is room for many different kinds of improvement that reduce necessary labour without involving any +There is room for many different kinds of improvement that reduce necessary 
-additional costs, for example in the choice of input components or +labour without involving any additional costs, for example in the choice of 
-making the organisation of labour more efficient. However, it is often possible to quickly achieve productivity gains by investing in new instruments of production or founding entirely new factories.+input components or making the organisation of labour more efficient. However, 
 +it is often possible to quickly achieve productivity gains by investing in new 
 +instruments of production or founding entirely new factories.
  
 In the following example, we start from Table 2 and our coat producers. In the following example, we start from Table 2 and our coat producers.
-Previously, we assumed that all three supplied the market with an equal number of commodities and +Previously, we assumed that all three supplied the market with an equal number 
-therefore the total investment and production volume was not of interest to us. They will be now, when we shall assume that producer III increases his capital with new +of commodities and therefore the total investment and production volume was not 
-modern sewing machines and additional hands that operate them. Let's say that the original production volume was 100 coats per producer. III is now assumed to +of interest to us. They will be now, when we shall assume that producer III 
-increase the output by 20 per cent but his constant and variable capital +increases his capital with new modern sewing machines and additional hands to 
-grows by only 10 and 5 per cent respectively. At the same time, producers I and II stay with the existing productive capital and production volume. In addition, we assume that the market can absorb the industry's much larger +operate them. Lets say that the original production volume was 100 coats per 
-total product at the new slightly lower price of production.+producer. III is now assumed to increase the output by 20 per cent but his 
 +constant and variable capital grows by only 10 and 5 per cent respectively. At 
 +the same time, producers I and II carry on with the existing productive capital 
 +and production volume. In addition, we assume that the market is able to absorb 
 +the industrys much larger total product at the new slightly lower price of 
 +production.
  
 In the table below, //q// represents the production volume (number of coats) and In the table below, //q// represents the production volume (number of coats) and
-//C// the total capital advanced, //c// + //v//. The variables  +//C// the total capital advanced, //c// + //v//. The variables //w//, //s//, 
-//w//, //s//, //n//, //P// and //p// represent, as before, commodity value, +//n//, //P// and //p// represent, as before, commodity value, surplus value, new 
-surplus value, new value, price of production and profit. +value, price of production and profit.  We assume that the industry as a whole 
-We assume that the industry as a whole yields an average profit (15 +yields an average profit of 15 per cent. This allows us to determine the total 
-per cent). This allows us to determine the total quantity of //p// and //P// in +quantity of //p// and //P// in the same way as in Table 3. In Table 4, the 
-the same way as in Table 3. In Table 4, the individual price of production is determined by the producer's share of the total production volume of the industry multiplied by +individual price of production is determined by the producers share of the 
-the total price of production. In other words, all commodities are sold at the same social price. The individual profit can then be determined by +total production volume of the industry multiplied by the total price of 
-subtracting the capital invested from the individual price of production, +production. In other words, all commodities are sold at the same social 
-i.e. //p = P - C//.+price. The individual profit is then determined by subtracting the capital 
 +advanced from the individual price of production, i.e. //p = P - C//.
  
 ^ Table 4. Components of the coat industry (q = production volume; the rest = pounds sterling) ^^^^^ ^ Table 4. Components of the coat industry (q = production volume; the rest = pounds sterling) ^^^^^
Line 442: Line 957:
 | //p//              |   15.23|   25.56|   41.47|         82.26| | //p//              |   15.23|   25.56|   41.47|         82.26|
  
-Now, dividing the components in Table 4 by the production volume, Table 5 representing of the price components of the individual coat can be compiled.+Now, dividing the components in Table 4 by the production volume, Table 5 
 +representing the price components of the individual coat can be compiled.
  
-^ Table 5. Components of the coat price at the sale price 1.97 (pounds sterling) ^^^^^+^ Table 5. Components of the coat price (pounds sterling) ^^^^^
 ^ Component          ^     I^    II^   III^        Mean^ ^ Component          ^     I^    II^   III^        Mean^
-| //w//              |  2.08|  1.98|  1.85|        1.96| 
 | //c//              |  1.29|  1.18|  0.18|        1.21| | //c//              |  1.29|  1.18|  0.18|        1.21|
 | //v//              |  0.53|  0.53|  0.44|        0.50| | //v//              |  0.53|  0.53|  0.44|        0.50|
-| //C//              |  1.82|  1.71|  1.62|        1.71| 
-| //n//              |  0.79|  0.80|  0.67|        0.75| 
 | //s//              |  0.26|  0.27|  0.22|        0.25|  | //s//              |  0.26|  0.27|  0.22|        0.25| 
 +| //n//              |  0.79|  0.80|  0.67|        0.75|
 +| //k// (=//C//     1.82|  1.71|  1.62|        1.71|
 +| //w//              |  2.08|  1.98|  1.85|        1.96|
 +| //P//              |  1.97|  1.97|  1.97|        1.97|
 | //p//              |  0.15|  0.26|  0.35|        0.26| | //p//              |  0.15|  0.26|  0.35|        0.26|
  
-The value represented in the individual commodity and the price of production have +The //value// and the //price of production// represented in the commodity have 
-fallen from 2 to 1.96 and 1.97 pounds respectively (compared to Table 2). +fallen from 2 to 1.96 and 1.97 pounds respectively (compared to Table 2).  The 
-The investment by producer III in a relatively large amount of constant capital in relation to variable has the effect of bringing the value composition of the industry above the social average. This means that the profit and thus also +investment by producer III in a relatively large amount of constant capital in 
-the production price (which we assume here coincides with the selling price) +relation to variable has the effect of bringing the value composition of the 
-is slightly greater than the surplus value and value. Unaltered conditions of production here causes the rate of profit for producer I to fall from 10 to 8 per cent and for producer II from 17 to 15 per cent. For producer III who increased his capital, it rises from 19 to 21 per cent. For the sector as a whole, the rate of profit remains unchanged.+industry above the social average. This means that the profit and thus also the 
 +production price (which we here assume coincides with the selling price) is 
 +slightly greater than the surplus value and value. Unaltered conditions of 
 +production here causes the rate of profit for producer I to fall from 10 to 8 
 +per cent and for producer II from 17 to 15 per cent. For producer III who 
 +increased his capital, it rises from 19 to 21 per cent. For the industry as a 
 +whole, the rate of profit remains the same.
  
 If all 320 commodities (//q//) //cannot// be sold at the price of production but If all 320 commodities (//q//) //cannot// be sold at the price of production but
-just below, III still has much to gain from his investment. He can, for example, sell at a price that gives him the same rate of profit as before but +just below it, III still has much to gain from his investment. He can, for 
-results in a larger mass of profit. It gives him both a stronger position +example, sell at a price that gives him the same rate of profit as before but 
-on the market and a larger fund for individual consumption. Producers I and II +results in a larger mass of profit. This gives him both a stronger position on 
-will still be able to sell their coats at a profit but their rooms of  +the market and a larger fund for individual consumption. Producers I and II will 
-investment and individual consumption will be substantially reduced. Producer III may also aim to drive I and II out of the market by temporarily +still be able to sell their coats at a profit but their maneuvering room -- in 
-dumping the commodity price to a level just above the individual cost price, which +both investment and individual consumption -- will be substantially 
-means that for producers I and II it falls below the same level. Since +reduced. Producer III may also aim to drive I and II out of the market by 
-no producer can expect the others to refrain from accumulating, the +temporarily dumping the commodity price to a level just above the individual 
-safest bet is to reinvest at least part of the profits.((According to David +cost price (e.g. £1.65), which means that for producers I and II it falls below 
-Landes, in the period after the Napoleonic Wars, entrepreneurs in France, Belgium and Germany were sometimes reluctant to adopt the latest +it (and their capitals start to shrink). Since no producer can expect the others 
-production equipment. The cost of investment was greater than what an individual +to refrain from accumulating, the safest bet is to reinvest at least part of the 
-entrepreneur could afford or was willing to pay. Instead, inferior +profits.((According to the historian David Landes, in the period after the 
-equipment was purchased, sometimes second-hand, which was a contributing factor to +Napoleonic Wars, entrepreneurs in France, Belgium and Germany were sometimes 
-Britain retaining its leading position. See David S. Landes, +reluctant to adopt the latest production equipment. The cost of investment was 
-//The unbound Prometheus: Technological change and industrial development in +greater than what an individual entrepreneur could afford or was willing to 
-Western Europe from 1750 to the present, Second edition// (Cambridge 2006), +pay. Instead, inferior equipment was purchased, sometimes second-hand, which was 
-pp. 146--147.))+a contributing factor to Britain retaining its leading position. See David 
 +S. Landes, //The unbound Prometheus: Technological change and industrial 
 +development in Western Europe from 1750 to the present, Second edition// 
 +(Cambridge 2006), pp. 146--147.))
  
 ==== 2.6 Summary ==== ==== 2.6 Summary ====
  
-The single commodity has been examined from both a qualitative and quantitative +The commodity has been examined from both a qualitative and quantitative 
-aspect. The commodity form of the product of labour expresses a unity of opposites: use value and value. The former represents need satisfaction +aspect. The commodity form of the product of labour expresses a unity of 
-and the latter abstract human labour whose magnitude is determined by the +opposites: use value and value. The former represents need satisfaction and the 
-total amount of necessary labour divided by the volume of production. As a +latter abstract human labour whose magnitude is determined by the total amount 
-consequence of differences in individual conditions of production but +of necessary labour divided by the volume of production. As a consequence of 
-sameness in the social determination of value, commodity producers are led +differences in individual conditions of production but sameness in the social 
-to reduce the necessary labour time and thus the magnitude of value in relation to the quantity of use values. We also saw how productive labour +determination of value, commodity producers are led to reduce the necessary 
-becomes a source of surplus value for the owners of the means of production and finally how +labour time and thus the magnitude of value in relation to the quantity of use 
-competition forces producers to transform part of this surplus value +values. We also saw how productive labour becomes a source of surplus value for 
-into capital. The commodity form is thus the bearer of a historically specific +the owners of the means of production and finally how competition forces 
-social relationship.((Cf MECW 30, pp. 38--39.))+producers to transform part of this surplus value into capital. The commodity 
 +form is thus the bearer of a historically specific social relationship.((Cf MECW 
 +30, pp. 38--39.))
  
 ===== 3 Capitalism and communism ===== ===== 3 Capitalism and communism =====
  
-In this concluding part capitalist +In this concluding part capitalist production will be discussed in more general 
-production will be discussed in general terms, from the perspective of the reproduction and accumulation of the total product. Then follows a discussion on how a transformation of society could take place under conditions where +terms, from the perspective of the reproduction and accumulation of the total 
-the economic laws of capital have been abolished: communism, socialism or +product. Then follows a discussion on how a transformation of society might take 
-the "free association of producers".+place under conditions where the economic laws of capital have been abolished: 
 +under communism, socialism or the free association of produces”.
  
 ==== 3.1 The society of labour and its guarantors ==== ==== 3.1 The society of labour and its guarantors ====
  
-Since the interest in reducing necessary labour is built into the +Since the interest in reducing necessary labour is built into the capitalist 
-capitalist mode of production, it will affect the conditions of production in +mode of production, it will affect the conditions of production in all 
-all industries. The result is a general increase in labour productivity +industries. The result is a general increase in labour productivity in any 
-in any society dominated by this mode of production. Still, the +society dominated by this mode of production. Still, the total amount of labour 
-total amount of labour performed does not decrease accordingly. The working day in the +performed does not decrease accordingly. The working day in the developed 
-developed countries is shorter now than it was two hundred years ago, +countries is shorter now than it was two hundred years ago, but the requirement 
-but the requirement to work for a wage (or to get an education to become employable) continues to dominate the lives of the majority of people. In addition, the number of workers has constantly +to work for a wage (or to get an education to become employable) continues to 
-increased, partly in line with population growth, partly at the expense of other +dominate the lives of the majority of people. In addition, the number of workers 
-modes of production. At the same time, therefore, there is a tendency to //conserve value-creating labour// as the pillar of social production. Commodity producers, as we have seen (2.5), are driven to accumulate at least part of the +has constantly increased, partly due to population growth, partly at the expense 
-realised surplus value and thus often to //increase the scale of production//. An increase in labour productivity in one sector may therefore coincide with +of other modes of production. At the same time, therefore, there is a tendency 
-a maintained or temporarily increased demand for both dead and living labour. Despite of this, in the slightly longer term, fewer workers will be required in relation to the population as a whole to meet the demand for a specific kind of commodity. This does not lead to chronic unemployment but to so +to //conserve value-creating labour// as the pillar of social production. In the 
-so-called structural transformation where workers that have become redundant in one +capitalist epoch, commodity producers are driven to accumulate at least part of 
-sector are absorbed and put to work under new circumstances. In broad terms,  +the realised surplus value and to //increase the scale of production// (2.5). An 
-capitalist societies have moved from engaging labour +increase in labour productivity in one sector may therefore coincide with a 
-in agriculture to shifting it increasingly to manufacturing and then services.+maintained or temporarily increased demand for both dead and living 
 +labour. Despite of this, in the slightly longer term, fewer workers will be 
 +required in relation to the population as a whole to meet the demand for a 
 +specific kind of commodity. This does not lead to chronic unemployment -- we 
 +have seen historically -- but to so-called structural transformation where 
 +workers that have been made redundant in one sector are reabsorbed and put to 
 +work under new circumstances. In broad terms, capitalist societies have moved 
 +from engaging labour in agriculture to shifting it increasingly towards first 
 +manufacturing and then services.
  
-The re-employment of redundant workers is not an automatic process. A fundamental precondition of capitalist production is that the immediate producers (the workers) are propertyless, i.e. +The re-employment of redundant workers is far from an automatic process. A 
-separated from the means of production so that they cannot survive without selling their labour power to the owners of capital; this is what it means to be a //proletarian//. The state stands as guarantor of the continued ownership of the means of production by the non-workers. Unemployment creates +fundamental precondition of capitalist production is that the immediate 
-incentives to find employment, and as long as surplus value can be generated through +producers (the workers) are propertyless, i.e.  separated from the means of 
-putting proletarians to work, there will be a demand for their labour power.+production so that they cannot survive without selling their labour power to the 
 +owners of capital; this is what it means to be a //proletarian//. The state 
 +stands as guarantor of the continued ownership of the means of production by the 
 +non-workers. Unemployment creates incentives to find employment, and as long as 
 +surplus value can be generated by putting proletarians to work, there will be a 
 +demand for their labour power.
  
-The following table is an attempt to illustrate in a schematic way  +The following table is an attempt to illustrate in a schematic way capitalist 
-capitalist reproduction in terms of both value and use value. //t// represents time (in calendar years), //c// and //v// the +reproduction in terms of both value and use value. //t// represents time (in 
-total social capital, i.e. the amount of labour invested +calendar years), //c// and //v// the total social capital, i.e. the amount of 
-in the form of means of production and labour power in all branches of production; //w// and //s// the total value and  surplus value respectively; //q// +labour invested in the form of means of production and labour power in all 
-the volume of production and //l// the working population. The initial values are chosen arbitrarily. Both the population and the social capital are assumed to grow +branches of production; //w// and //s// the total value and surplus value 
-by 1 per cent per year, the volume of production by 2 per cent, and both the rate of surplus value, //s/v//, and the value composition, //c/v//, is kept at 100 per cent.+respectively; //q// the volume of production and //l// the working 
 +population. The initial values are chosen arbitrarily. Both the population and 
 +the social capital are assumed to grow by 1 per cent per year, the volume of 
 +production by 2 per cent, and both the rate of surplus value, //s/v//, and the 
 +value composition, //c/v//, are kept at 100 per cent.
  
 ^ Table 6. Accumulation (t = years; c, v, s, n, w = labour hours; q = production volume; l = number of working people in the population) ^^^^^^^^^^ ^ Table 6. Accumulation (t = years; c, v, s, n, w = labour hours; q = production volume; l = number of working people in the population) ^^^^^^^^^^
Line 537: Line 1083:
 |  30|  26.62|  13.31|  13.31|  26.62|  53.24|  69.12|  26.62|     259.65|    100.00| |  30|  26.62|  13.31|  13.31|  26.62|  53.24|  69.12|  26.62|     259.65|    100.00|
  
-The choice of numbers and rate of change can be debated, but we here get picture of a mode of production that constantly puts an equal proportion of the population into work despite the fact that a smaller one would have been enough to maintain the level of production, adjusted for population growth.+The choice of numbers and rate of change can be debated, but here at least we 
 +get the picture of a mode of production that constantly puts an equal proportion 
 +of the population to work despite the fact that a smaller one would have been 
 +sufficient to maintain the level of production, adjusted for population growth.
  
-In commodity production, productive labour creates an abstract form +In capitalist commodity production, productive labour creates an abstract form 
-of wealth -- commodity value -- the realisation of which provides an income for the various classes of society. At the same time, production is geared towards making this labour superfluous //in each individual case//. Technologies are continuously developed which are ever more efficient. They could be employed to reduce pollution and the extraction of resources, but the drive to constantly expand the total social product leads instead to catastrophic over-exploitation of the earth's ecosystems. This is how society evolves when the satisfaction of needs is merely a means to achieve the goal of constant expansion of value.+of wealth -- commodity value -- the realisation of which provides an income for 
 +the various classes of society. At the same time, production is geared towards 
 +making this labour superfluous //in each individual case//. Technologies are 
 +continuously developed which are ever more efficient. They could be employed to 
 +reduce pollution and the extraction of resources, but the drive to constantly 
 +expand the total social product leads instead to catastrophic over-exploitation 
 +of the earths ecosystems. This is how society evolves when the satisfaction of 
 +needs is merely a means to achieve the goal of constant expansion of value.
  
  
-==== 3.2 Early communism ====+==== 3.2 The lower phase of communism ====
  
-The commodity form carries the capitalist society within it, but also the seed of an entirely different kind. Capitalist expansion has swept away all previous modes of production and made humanity dependent on a world-wide network of production and communication. Production of commodities is now the obvious way to organise human labour and distribute its products, yet this takes place behind the backs of the producers. Taking conscious control of material production must entail that humanity establishes new social relations that abolish the logic of the commodity form. No one can say exactly what these will look like, but some general principles can be established on the basis that the profit motive and the compulsion to accumulate come to a halt. If this becomes a reality, the level of productivity achieved under capitalism and previous epochs could for the first time in history contribute to the liberation of humanity from the necessity of labour and at the same time put an end to the destructive exploitation of the natural environment. This requires, initially, that labour be reorganised on the basis of the //existing// technical conditions. Thus far, the productive powers have been used to keep humanity down in a contrived existence of necessity, but can now become a vehicle for emancipation.((Cf MECW 37, p. 807.)) As soon as the means of production come under the +The commodity form carries the capitalist society within it, but also the seed 
-control of the "associated producersand the obligation to accumulate is lifted -- not in one country but on a world scale -- a fundamental rupture with +of an entirely different kind. Capitalist expansion has swept away all previous 
-the old society has taken place and communism is established, no matter how much or little labour is still required for production. And no matter how the fruits of labour are distributed, there will be, as Marx put it, inevitable defects "in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society."((Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", in MECW 24, p. 87.))+modes of production and made humanity dependent on a world-wide network of 
 +production and communication. Production of commodities is now the obvious way 
 +to organise human labour and distribute its products, yet this takes place 
 +behind the backs of the producers. Taking conscious control of material 
 +production must entail that humanity establishes new social relations that 
 +abolish the logic of the commodity form. No one can say exactly what these will 
 +look like, but some general principles can be established on the basis that the 
 +profit motive and the compulsion to accumulate come to a halt. If this becomes a 
 +reality, the level of productivity achieved under capitalism and previous epochs 
 +could for the first time in history contribute to the liberation of humanity 
 +from the compulsion to work and at the same time put an end to the destructive 
 +exploitation of the natural environment. This requires, initially, that labour 
 +be reorganised on the basis of the //existing// technical conditions. Thus far, 
 +the productive powers have been used to keep humanity down in a contrived 
 +existence of necessity, but can now become a vehicle for emancipation.((Cf MECW 
 +37, p. 807.)) As soon as the means of production come under the control of the 
 +associated producers and the obligation to accumulate is lifted -- not in one 
 +country but on a world scale -- a fundamental rupture with the old society has 
 +taken place and communism is established, no matter how much or little labour is 
 +still required for production. And no matter how the fruits of labour are 
 +distributed, there will be, as Marx said, inevitable defects in the first phase 
 +of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth 
 +pangs from capitalist society.((Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 
 +in MECW 24, p. 87.))
  
-The existence of labour and surplus labour is not capitalism per se, any more than +The existence of labour and surplus labour is not capitalism per se, any more 
-production of things is the same as production of commodities. However, many of the forms of labour developed within capitalism are +than production of things is the same as production of commodities. However, 
-harmful to both the individual and society; they could be carried out under +many of the forms of labour developed within capitalism are harmful to both the 
-much freer forms. The notion of a product is hardly harmful in itself; that, however, is the case for many of the actual products of modern society whose production better stop or be radically transformed. Production as a whole will have to be reorganised. Some things need to be made in greater quantities -- especially in the poorest regions of the world --, but +individual and society; they could be carried out under much freer forms. The 
-on the whole, a controlled "downsizingof the economy is what needs to be put on the agenda. That is +notion of a product is hardly harmful in itself; that, however, is the case for 
-also what is required to stop global heating and the extinction of species. To illustrate this from the perspective of the total economy, we can continue the series above (Table 6), +many of the actual products of modern society whose production better stop or be 
-but assume that accumulation comes to a halt. Since +radically transformed. Production as a whole will have to be reorganised. Some 
-the additional capital and luxury consumption of the former property owners fall away +things need to be made in greater quantities -- especially in the poorest 
-we can assume a much lower "rate of surplus labour", say 1/3.((The products of the soil will cost society substantially less labour when land rent is abolished: "The determination of the +regions of the world --, but on the whole, a controlled downsizing” of the 
-market value of products, including therefore agricultural products, +economy is what needs to be put on the agenda. That is also what is required to 
-is a social act, albeit a socially unconscious and unintentional one. It +stop global heating and the extinction of species. To illustrate such a 
-is based necessarily upon the exchange value of the product, not upon +transformation from the perspective of the total economy, we can continue the 
-the soil and the differences in its fertility. If we suppose the capitalist +series above (Table 6), but assume that accumulation and population growth come 
-form of society to be abolished and society organised as a conscious +to a halt. Since the additional capital and luxury consumption of the former 
-and planned association, then the 10 quarters would represent a quantity of independent labour time equal to that contained in 240 shillings [instead of 600]. Society would not then buy this agricultural product at two and a half times the actual labour time embodied in it and the basis +property owners fall away we can assume a much lower rate of surplus labour, say 
-for a class of landowners would thus be destroyed. This would have the +1/3.((The products of the soil will cost society substantially less labour when 
-same effect as a reduction in price of the product to the same amount +land rent is abolished: The determination of the market value of products, 
-resulting from foreign imports. While it is, therefore, true that, by retaining the present mode of production, but assuming that the differential rent is paid to the state, prices of agricultural products would, +including therefore agricultural products, is a social act, albeit a socially 
-everything else being equal, remain the same, it is equally wrong to +unconscious and unintentional one. It is based necessarily upon the exchange 
-say that the value of the products would remain the same if capitalist +value of the product, not upon the soil and the differences in its fertility. If 
-production were superseded by association.MECW 37, p. 654)) The remaining surplus labour is what is needed to support the children, the elderly, +we suppose the capitalist form of society to be abolished and society organised 
-administrative activities and so on.((See Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha programme", in MECW 24, p. 85.)) This means that the annual labour time, as well as the means of production measured in the same unit, can in our example be cut to two thirds in one stroke, as illustrated in Table 7 below.+as a conscious and planned association, then the 10 quarters would represent a 
 +quantity of independent labour time equal to that contained in 240 shillings 
 +[instead of 600]. Society would not then buy this agricultural product at two 
 +and a half times the actual labour time embodied in it and the basis for a class 
 +of landowners would thus be destroyed. This would have the same effect as a 
 +reduction in price of the product to the same amount resulting from foreign 
 +imports. While it is, therefore, true that, by retaining the present mode of 
 +production, but assuming that the differential rent is paid to the state, prices 
 +of agricultural products would, everything else being equal, remain the same, it 
 +is equally wrong to say that the value of the products would remain the same if 
 +capitalist production were superseded by association.” MECW 37, p. 654)) The 
 +remaining surplus labour is what is needed to support the children, the elderly, 
 +administrative activities and so on.((See Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha 
 +programme, in MECW 24, p. 85.)) This means that the annual labour time, as well 
 +as the means of production measured in the same unit, can in our example be cut 
 +to two thirds in one stroke, as illustrated in Table 7 below.
  
 ^ Table 7. Accumulation halted and surplus labour reduced (t = year; c, v, s, n, w = labour hours; q = volume of production; l = number of working people in the population) ^^^^^^^^^^ ^ Table 7. Accumulation halted and surplus labour reduced (t = year; c, v, s, n, w = labour hours; q = volume of production; l = number of working people in the population) ^^^^^^^^^^
Line 576: Line 1170:
 |  40|  17.75|  13.31|   4.44|  17.75|  44.37|  48.38|  26.62|    181.76|    66.67| |  40|  17.75|  13.31|   4.44|  17.75|  44.37|  48.38|  26.62|    181.76|    66.67|
  
-A conscious and efficient management of labour will be crucial to accomplish such a reorganisation of production. It will undoubtedly be very different compared with that which takes place in a capitalist society. Without commodities and money, there is no obvious mechanism for reducing complex labour to simple. The future society can, however, //estimate// the amount of necessary labour in both concrete and abstract sense. It can see that particular forms of labour are needed in definite quantities to achieve //particular// results and draw +A conscious and efficient management of labour will be crucial to accomplish 
-certain conclusions about the amount of labour will then be expended //in general//, including the cost of education. It can also, conversely, start from the total amount of socially available labour time and evaluate the +such a reorganisation of production. It will undoubtedly be very different 
-potential useful effects.((Cf Friedrich Engels, //Anti-Dühring//, in MECW 25, pp. 294--295.)) Abstraction from the concrete side of labour therefore continues to take place, not just in thought but also practically in the planning of social  production.+compared with that which takes place in a capitalist society. Without 
 +commodities and money, there is no obvious mechanism for reducing complex labour 
 +to simple. The future society can, however, //estimate// the amount of necessary 
 +labour in both concrete and abstract sense. It can see that particular forms of 
 +labour are needed in definite quantities to achieve //particular// results and 
 +draw certain conclusions about the amount of labour will then be expended //in 
 +general//, including the cost of education. It can also, conversely, start from 
 +the total amount of socially available labour time and evaluate the potential 
 +useful effects.((Cf Friedrich Engels, //Anti-Dühring//, in MECW 25, 
 +pp. 294--295.)) Abstraction from the concrete side of labour therefore continues 
 +to take place, not just in thought but also practically in the planning of 
 +social production.((See Isaak Dashkovsky, “Abstract labour and the economic 
 +categories of Marx” 
 +<https://libcom.org/library/abstract-labour-economic-categories-marx-isaak-dashkovskij>.))
  
-There is no reason to believe, however, that decision-making on the basis of relative labour time costs alone can replace all the functions of money prices. The former will be one very important factor, another will be the relative scarcity of various natural resources, for even if two means of producing an article may be equivalent in terms of labour expenditure, one may be more sustainable or otherwise preferable than another.((Cf David Ramsay Steele, //From Marx to Mises// (1999) which contains many interesting reflections on the so-called economic calculation problem.))+There is no reason to believe, however, that decision-making on the basis of 
 +relative labour time costs alone can replace all the functions of money 
 +prices. The former will be one very important factor, another will be the 
 +relative scarcity of various natural resources, for even if two means of 
 +producing an article may be equivalent in terms of labour expenditure, one may 
 +be more sustainable or otherwise preferable than another.((Cf David Ramsay 
 +Steele, //From Marx to Mises// (1999) which contains many interesting 
 +reflections on the so-called economic calculation problem.))
  
 ==== 3.3 Developed communism ==== ==== 3.3 Developed communism ====
Line 586: Line 1200:
 > Freedom in this field [physical necessity] can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite.((MECW 37, p. 807)) > Freedom in this field [physical necessity] can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite.((MECW 37, p. 807))
  
-With the means of production held in common and the livelihood of the human species secured, it should be possible to go forward with a plan of de-accumulation or disinvestment, as proposed by Amadeo Bordiga in the early 1950s.((See for example Amadeo +With the means of production held in common and the livelihood of the human 
-Bordiga, //The immediate program of the revolution//, 1953, <[[https://www. +species secured, it should be possible to go forward with a plan of 
-quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/immediate_program_of_the_rev.htm]]> Cf also the "degrowth movement" ("décroissance" in French<[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth]]>). Just like the "globalisation movement" 20 years ago, this movement carries some communist tendencies within it but also strong elements of petty-bourgeois utopianism.)) +de-accumulation or disinvestment.((See Amadeo Bordiga, [[https://www. 
 +quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/immediate_program_of_the_rev.htm|The 
 +immediate program of the revolution]]” [1953], in //The science and passion of 
 +communism. Selected writings by Amadeo Bordiga (1912--1965)//, Chicago 2021, 
 +pp. 476--480. Camatte, inspired by the former, uses the term 
 +[[https://revueinvariance.pagesperso-orange.fr/glossaire.html|inversion]]. Bordiga’s 
 +list of measures were meant to be taken immediately after “the future taking of 
 +power in a country of the capitalist West” (ibid.). My view is that a programme 
 +of disinvestment will be difficult to put into action before the introduction of 
 +socialism. See also the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth|“degrowth 
 +movement”]] (“décroissance” in French). Just like the globalisation movement” 
 +at the turn of the millennium, this movement carries some communist tendencies 
 +within it.))
  
-Let's continue the series beyond the step illustrated in Table 7 but now assume a negative rate of accumulation, say -1 per cent. Continued +Lets continue the series beyond the step illustrated in Table 7 but now assume 
-technological advances will gradually reduce the workload further, +a negative rate of accumulation, say -1 per cent. Continued technological 
-although perhaps not as quickly as under +advances will gradually reduce the workload further, although perhaps not as 
-capitalism. Let us assume that labour productivity increases by half a +quickly as under capitalism. Let’s assume that labour productivity increases by 
-per cent per year. The result is shown in Table 8, where we use the same+half a per cent per year. The result is shown in Table 8, where we use the same
 denominations as before. denominations as before.
  
Line 605: Line 1231:
 |  90|  10.48|   7.86|   2.62|  10.48|  20.96|  36.46|  26.62|     136.98|    39.37| |  90|  10.48|   7.86|   2.62|  10.48|  20.96|  36.46|  26.62|     136.98|    39.37|
  
-With the development of communist production through the process of de-accumulation, the //necessity// of performing labour //in the service of society//, can be reduced considerably. +With the development of communist production through the process of 
-It will completely revolutionise today's notions of work/leisure and production/consumption. As Marx put it:+de-accumulation, the //necessity// of performing labour //in the service of 
 +society//, can be reduced considerably. It would completely revolutionise 
 +todays notions of work/leisure and production/consumption. As Marx put it:
  
-> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and thereby also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of common 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 abilities, to each according to his needs!((MECW 24, p. 87. Henriksson criticises +> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and thereby also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but lifes prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of common 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 abilities, to each according to his needs!((MECW 24, p. 87. Henriksson criticises 
-me for stepping back to "a revolutionary programme of 1920(see "Communist Values", //riff-raff// 10). The main inspiration, however, is to be dated 1875.))+me for stepping back to a revolutionary programme of 1920” (see [[en/communist-values.-or-a-positive-theory-of-socialism-a-propos-peter-astroem-s-critique-of-communisation-and-value-form-theory|“Communist values. Or a positive theory of socialism?”]]. The Swedish original appeared in //riff-raff// no. 10, 2022). The main inspiration, however, is to be dated 1875.))
  
 In terms of the end result, this perspective is no different from that In terms of the end result, this perspective is no different from that
-championed by the communisation current. However, the path to this end is different. The communisers, because of their particular notion of value, seem to identify the perpetuation of socially organised labour with the perpetuation of capital. This poses +championed by the communisation current. However, the path to this end is 
-extremely high demands on what a communist revolution must entail, since +different. The communisers, because of their particular notion of value, seem to 
-it implies an immediate leap to the higher phase of communism. Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of production, however, does not impose such a requirement on future society. If his theory is incorrect, it should of course be corrected, +identify the perpetuation of socially organised labour with the perpetuation of 
-but the arguments put forward in that direction are not very convincing in my opinion. For example, according to Endnotes, the second phase of communism is "more attractivethan the first.(("Communisation and value-form theory", Endnotes no. 2, 2010, p. 96)) That may well be the case, but isn't it also somewhat "attractiveto secure food supplies, health care, etc. which are +capital. This poses extremely high demands on what a communist revolution must 
-dependent on complex production and distribution networks? Henriksson warns +entail, since it implies an immediate leap to the higher phase of 
-of "planned state in which socialist engineering, rationality and +communism. Marxs analysis of the capitalist mode of production does not impose 
-instrumentality, instead of capital, dominates the individuals, the +such a requirement on future society however. If his theory is incorrect, it 
-immediate producers in particular."((Per Henriksson, ”Kommunistiska värden. Eller en positiv socialismteori?”, //riff-raff.// 10, p148))+should of course be corrected, but the arguments put forward in that direction 
 +are not very convincing in my opinion. For example, according to Endnotes, the 
 +second phase of communism is more attractive” than the first.((Communisation 
 +and value-form theory//Endnotes// no. 2, 2010, p. 96)) That may well be the 
 +case, but isnt it also somewhat attractive” to secure food supplies, health 
 +care, etc. which are dependent on complex production and distribution networks? 
 +Henriksson warns of a state-planned economy, where socialist engineering, 
 +rationality and instrumentality, instead of capital, rules and dominates the 
 +individuals, specifically the immediate producers.((Per Henriksson, 
 +[[en/communist-values.-or-a-positive-theory-of-socialism-a-propos-peter-astroem-s-critique-of-communisation-and-value-form-theory|“Communist 
 +valuesOr a positive theory of socialism?”]]))
  
-Such a risk is not non-existent but will hopefully be reduced as +This is a risk that should not be dismissed, but hopefully it could be reduced 
-the number of concerns that must be dealt with by the community decreases.((In his criticism of the views of the undersigned anno 2013, Henriksson conflates the categories of surplus value and +over time as the number of concerns that must be dealt with by the community 
-additional capital (section VIII, pp. 177--178). He therefore does not see before him +decreases.((In his criticism of the views of the undersigned anno 2013, 
-how it's possible for total surplus labour (or surplus value) to //decrease// from year to year, for example from 4 hours of surplus labour out of a total of 8 in year one to 3 hours of +Henriksson conflates the categories of surplus value and additional capital 
-surplus labour of a total of 6 in year two.)) The individual is not free if his or her life is subordinated to society -- whatever the degree of democracy -- but life outside of society is humanly impossible. One way or another, therefore, a new social organisation is bound to step in when the old one has reached the end of its tether.+(section VII). He therefore does not see before him how its possible for the 
 +total surplus labour (or surplus value) to //decrease// from one year to the 
 +next, for example from 4 hours of surplus labour out of a total of 8 in year one 
 +to 3 hours of surplus labour of a total of 6 in year two.)) The individual is 
 +not free if one’s life is subordinated to society -- whatever the degree of 
 +democracy -- but life outside of society is humanly impossible. One way or 
 +another, therefore, a new social organisation is bound to step in when the old 
 +one has reached the end of the road.
  
-==== 3.Value without commodities? ====+==== 3.Value without commodities? ====
  
-It has been debated in various contexts whether the categories of political economy could be observed in countries such as the Soviet Union. +It has been much debated in various circles whether or not the nominally 
-Some believe that an essentially different mode of production compared to +“socialist countries” such as the Soviet Union were governed by the capitalist 
-that in the West was here prevailing, because of the extent of state ownership and the lack of competition between independent enterprises.((This includes several value-form theorists who are +mode of production. After the October Revolution, the state, the classes and the 
-strongly influenced by Rubin. See e.g. Michael Heinrich, //Introduction to +wages system were not merely left intact; the modern proletariat was forcefully 
-the three volumes of Marx's Capital// (Monthly Review Press, 2012), chapter 12 and +created out of an otherwise mostly agrarian population. Mass industrialisation 
-Christopher Arthur, "Epitaph for the USSR: A clock without a spring", in //The New Dialectic and Marx's Capital// (Leiden/Boston 2004). Both consider +began at the end of the 1920s, not because it responded to the inhabitants’ 
-the capitalist mode of production having been abolished by +self-defined need for modernisation but it was brutally imposed from above in 
-the October Revolution although it was never replaced by socialism/communism.)) The contrast with 19th century Western Europe was certainly substantial +the name of “national interest”. The directors of the state-owned enterprises 
-although the influence of the state on the economy has increased there too. +were expected to expand production and the immediate producers work and shut 
-However, the fundamental character of social production is not determined by //who// is in charge of production but by //what// is managed and //how//, the +up. The development was therefore essentially the same as in Table 6, not Table 
-that is, by its dynamics and direction.+8. Some still argue that production was not at all governed by the same logic as 
 +that prevailing in the West, because of the extent of state ownership and the 
 +absence of independent enterprises and competition.((This includes several 
 +value-form theorists who are strongly influenced by Rubin. See e.g. Michael 
 +Heinrich, //Introduction to the three volumes of Marxs Capital// (Monthly 
 +Review Press, 2012), chapter 12 and Christopher Arthur, Epitaph for the USSR: A 
 +clock without a spring, in //The New Dialectic and Marxs Capital// 
 +(Leiden/Boston 2004). Both argue that the capitalism was abolished by the 
 +Bolsheviks but that it was never replaced by socialism/communism. Arthur takes 
 +the position of Hillel Ticktin that the Soviet Union was an inherently unstable 
 +“non-mode of production.))
  
-In the Soviet Union, the state, the classes and the wages system were not merely left intact; the modern proletariat was forcefully created out of an otherwise mostly +State ownership by itself does not stand in the way of capitalist development, 
-agrarian population. Mass industrialisation began at the end of the 1920s, not +as the fundamental character of social reproduction is determined not by who the 
-because it responded to the inhabitants' self-defined need for modernisation, +owner is but by the economic laws at work. What about the absence of independent 
-but because it was in the interest of the ruling class and compelled by (the +enterprises? Well, if abstract labour and value are to be understood exclusively 
-militarycompetition with the outside worldEnterprises had to make profit and the immediate producers work and shut up. The dynamic was therefore essentially the same as in Table 6not Table 7.+as a “substance held in common by one commodity with another commodity”,((Karl 
 +Marx, “Value-Objectivity as Objectivity Held in Common”, in Michael Heinrich, 
 +//How to read Marx’s Capital// (2021), p377.)) existing only in products of 
 +private labour made social by being exchanged for money on market -- then 
 +these categories probably did not exist within the Soviet Union, and 
 +consequently neither did surplus value and its sub-categories of profit, 
 +interest and rent.
  
-If by //value// one means products of labour from independent enterprises which, by exchanging them for money on a reasonably free market, are given social +If the substance of value is understood more broadly as //labour in general//, 
-recognition as abstract wealth -- then this category probably did not exist +howeverexisting in the social product controlled by the bureaucracy, it can be 
-in the Soviet Union, and consequently neither surplus value and its +argued that the means of production and the labour force constituted a social 
-sub-categories of profit, interest and rent. If one instead considers value +//capital//.((As Engels noted in //Socialism: Utopian and Scientific//: “The 
-as the //product of labour in general//,((Cf Dasjkovskij”Abstract labour and the economic categories of Marx” <https://libcom.org/library/abstract-labour-economic-categories-marx-isaak-dashkovskij>.)) one can +modern State, no matter what its form, is essentially capitalist machine, the 
-argue that the means of production and the labour force in the Soviet Union were treated as a social //capital// subjected to requirement for growth. From this point of view, the mode of production was oriented towards //self-expansion of value// and thus (state) capitalist.+state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national 
 +capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more 
 +does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it 
 +exploit. The workers remain wage-workers -- proletarians. The capitalist 
 +relation is not done away with.” MECW 24, p. 319.)) As for competition, foreign 
 +trade was limited, but the country as a whole was engaged in fierce military 
 +competition with the outside world and this required the development of a modern 
 +industry. From this point of view, production was oriented towards the 
 +//self-expansion of value// and thus (state) capitalist. As Aufheben((See 
 +[[https://libcom.org/article/what-was-ussr-part-iv-towards-theory-deformation-value|“What 
 +was the USSR? Part IV: Towards a theory of the deformation of value”]], 
 +//Aufheben// no. 9, 2000)) argues, however, the state enterprises were not 
 +driven by profit but by production targets and if the “Soviet system” was in 
 +some sense capitalist, it may therefore be more adequate to analyse it from the 
 +point of view of the circuit of productive capital. If we use the formula P 
 +... C′ – M′ – C′ ... P′,
  
-The following statement by Engels at least does not contradict this description.+> Capitalism [...] appears not so much as ‘production of profit’ but ‘production for production’s sake’. Capitalist production is both the beginning and the end of the process whose aim is the reproduction of capitalist production on an expanded scale. The commodity circulation (C′ -- M′ -- C′) now appears as a mere mediation. A mere means to the end of the relentless expansion [of] capitalist production.”((Ibid.))
  
-> The modern Stateno matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers -- proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with.((Friedrich Engels, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", in MECW 24, p. 319))+In contrast with Western capitalismsale (C -- M) and purchase (M -- C) were 
 +not decided on the market but by the central plan.
  
-Marx did not foresee the possibility of a state-capitalist development, but +Marx did not foresee the possibility of a state-capitalist development, but on 
-at one point he actually used the concept of value to describe a communist regulation of labour time.+at least one occasion he actually employed the concept of value when discussing 
 +the regulation of labour time under communism.
  
 > […] after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the bookkeeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever.((MECW 37, p. 838)) > […] after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the bookkeeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever.((MECW 37, p. 838))
  
-Such a definition, however, can only be applied to the total social product,((This is the context of the former quote. See MECW 37, pp. 818--819.)) for+Using the concept of value in this sense, however, could only work for the total 
 +social product,((This is also the context of the former quote. See MECW 37, 
 +pp. 818--819.)) for 
 + 
 +> Within the collective society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear here //as the value// of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labour.((Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, in MECW 24, p. 85)) 
 + 
 +In his “1857 Introduction”, Marx states that “the abstract category ‘labour’, 
 +‘labour as such’, labour //sans phrase//”, although existing in all societies, 
 +became “true in practice in this abstract form only as a category of the most 
 +modern society.”((MECW 28, p. 41)) We saw above (2.3.1) that commodity exchange 
 +effectuates the reduction of particular forms of labour into “human labour in 
 +the abstract”.((See also the //Grundrisse//: “For the person who produces an 
 +infinitesimal part of a yard of cotton, it is not a formal definition that it is 
 +value, exchange value. If he had not produced an exchange value, money, he 
 +would have produced nothing at all. Hence, this determination of value 
 +presupposes a given historical stage of the social mode of production and is 
 +itself a historical relationship arising out of that stage.” MECW 28, p. 183.)) 
 +In the Introduction, Marx discusses the category of labour in general from the 
 +point of view of modern wage labour “in which individuals easily pass from one 
 +kind of labour to another, the particular kind of labour being accidental to 
 +them and therefore indifferent.”((MECW 28, p. 41)) Dashkovsky argues that since 
 +this would be the case also in socialism, abstract labour would continue to 
 +exist in the future society.((“The absence of any specific dominant type of 
 +labour, easy transfer from one type of labour to another, loss of the connection 
 +of the labour process with determined individuals -- all this occurs under 
 +socialism in its highest development.” Isaak Dashkovsky, “Abstract labour and the 
 +economic categories of Marx” 
 +<https://libcom.org/library/abstract-labour-economic-categories-marx-isaak-dashkovskij>.))
  
-> Within the collective society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear here //as the value// of these productsas material quality possessed by themsince now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as component part of the total labour.((Karl Marx"Critique of the Gotha Programme"in MECW 24, p. 85))+In any case, as Marx stressed in one of his last writings, his analysis does not 
 +proceed from the //concept of value// but from something tangible//the 
 +commodity//.((“//De prime abord//, I do not proceed from ‘concepts’, hence 
 +neither from the ‘concept of value,’ and am therefore in no way concerned to 
 +‘divide’ it. What I proceed from is the simplest social form in which the 
 +product of labour presents itself in contemporary society, and this is the 
 +//‘commodity’.// This I analyse, initially in the //form in which it 
 +appears//. Here I find that on the one hand in its natural form it is a //thing 
 +for use//, alias a //use-value//; on the other hand, a //bearer of 
 +exchange-value//and from this point of view it is itself an 
 +‘exchange-value’. Further analysis of the latter shows me that exchange-value is 
 +merely ‘//form// of expression’an independent way of presenting the 
 +//value// contained in the commodityand then I start on the analysis of the 
 +latter.” Karl Marx, “Notes on Wagner’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie” in 
 +MECW 24, pp. 544--545.)) It is the internal contradiction of the commodity 
 +between use value and value which defines the law of movement of the currently 
 +existing societies and which I have tried to outline in this text. It may well 
 +be the case that the terms abstract labour and value should be reserved for the 
 +analysis of the capitalist mode of production.((“[W]e can see that in communist 
 +operational lifethe amount of work required for the production of individual 
 +objects of daily use means something quite different than ‘value’. And now it is 
 +quite possible [...] that in common usage, the ‘value’ of goods in communism is 
 +spoken of, although the term has acquired a completely different meaning. Here 
 +[...] we do not want to set a bad example by using an old word for new term, 
 +[...] so we speak of the //production time// of the goods.” Group of 
 +International Communists//Fundamental principles of communist production and 
 +distribution//Hamburg 2020 [1935], p. 108.)) It does not follow from this, 
 +however, that the existence of labour in general implies commodity production, 
 +compulsory accumulation or wage slavery.
  
-However, as Marx stressed in one of his last writings, his analysis does not proceed from the concept of //value// but from //the commodity//.(("//De prime abord//, I do not proceed from 'concepts', hence neither from the 'concept of value,' and am therefore in no way concerned to 'divide' it. What I proceed from is the simplest social form in which the product of labour presents itself in contemporary society, and this is the //'commodity'.// This I analyse, initially in the //form in which it appears//. Here I find that on the one hand in its natural form it is a //thing for use//, alias a //use-value//; on the other hand, a //bearer of exchange-value//, and from this point of view it is itself an 'exchange-value'. Further analysis of the latter shows me that exchange-value is merely a '//form// of expression', an independent way of presenting the //value// contained in the commodity, and then I start on the analysis of the latter." Karl Marx, "Notes on Wagner's Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie" in MECW 24, pp. 544--545.)) It is the internal contradiction //in the commodity// between use value and value which defines the law of movement of the capitalist mode of production and which I have tried to describe in this text. It may be true that for Marx the term "abstract labour" refers to something more specific than "labour in general" and actually presupposes commodities. From this does not follow, however, that the existence of "labour in general" in the broader sense implies commodity production, compulsory accumulation or wage slavery.+February 2023