Thanks for setting this up. I think we still have to tag comrades in the comments rather than the post for it to show up in their inbox. Unless mine is just being screwy.

So Marx's definition of Value as residue comes down to this, right (correct me please if I misunderstand, I've struggled here a while): We begin with all aspects/materials characteristics of commodities. Subtract all things which are different between commodities (which includes the aspects we could call use-value) and you are left with the common aspects. These aspects are: 1 exchanges value because the commodities still share the ability to be traded with one another and; 2 Value because all commodities were produced by some form of labour power which crystallizes in the commodity.

He calls it residue because exchange values are not inherent but socially determined while the labour power to produce it is inherent to the commodity. Am I missing something here?

I'll be 30 yards of Lenin.

This is what I am trying to keep in mind. This is also a reason why I don't really have much to say on it this week yet. I feel like thoughts are just starting to form. The parts about money for example are very thought provoking and have lead to some side-reading as well, but I can't form any coherent thoughts from them just yet.

I am trying to take this as a sort of primer and trust the process, very much appreciate the comments here as they help in forming thoughts about it a lot.

Chapter 1 Section 3 kicked my ass lol

Refutations of the labor theory of value often start with a claim that LTV means that if a laborer slacks off and is super inefficient in their production, that this will somehow make the commodity they produce more valuable. Another version of this argument is the claim that LTV means that the quality of the commodity doesn't affect it's value, or that literally useless commodities are supposed to have value.

If these people have read Capital, they didn't get past the first 3 paragraphs, because paragraph 4 is where the discussion of use value begins. It turns out, surprise, commodities actually have to be useful to people and of usable quality to have value, they don't just magically gain value because someone spent a lot of labor on processing or manufacturing it. A few paragraphs later, we get to discussions about the average labor power of society, and how that correlates to prices of exchange. I think what people get backwards about LVT is that, yes, inefficient productivity CAN cause a commodity to be very valuable and have a high price, but only when the average amount of labor required to produce or extract it is very high.

Marx's example of diamond extraction is prescient: diamonds were legitimately quite difficult to extract from the earth in that era, and so their value was high. In our modern age, automation in mining and synthetic diamond production have dramatically increased the productivity of labor of diamond mining, which has made them much less valuable. That's not because any particular worker was working super slowly and inefficiently, nor is it because of the use value of diamonds decreased (their use value has arguably increased, as they've found applications in industrial processes).

(I think it's not until vol 3 that Marx talks about monopolies, but that's an obvious elephant in the room when talking about diamonds)

Marx's writing style is perfect for getting in that reading zone where you aren't really internalizing anything but your brain is going over the words and telling you that you read them.

It's helpful to stop just about every sentence and ask, "what does that mean?"

@invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net @Othello@hexbear.net @Pluto@hexbear.net @Lerios@hexbear.net @ComradeRat@hexbear.net @heartheartbreak@hexbear.net @Hohsia@hexbear.net @Kolibri@hexbear.net @star_wraith@hexbear.net @commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net @Snackuleata@hexbear.net @TovarishTomato@hexbear.net @Erika3sis@hexbear.net @quarrk@hexbear.net @Parsani@hexbear.net @oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net @Beaver@hexbear.net @NoLeftLeftWhereILive@hexbear.net @LaBellaLotta@hexbear.net @professionalduster@hexbear.net @GaveUp@hexbear.net @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net @Sasuke@hexbear.net @wheresmysurplusvalue@hexbear.net @seeking_perhaps@hexbear.net @boiledfrog@hexbear.net @gaust@hexbear.net @Wertheimer@hexbear.net @666PeaceKeepaGirl@hexbear.net @BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net @PerryBot4000@hexbear.net @PaulSmackage@hexbear.net @420blazeit69@hexbear.net @hexaflexagonbear@hexbear.net @glingorfel@hexbear.net @Palacegalleryratio@hexbear.net @ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml @RedWizard@lemmygrad.ml joaomarrom@hexbear.net HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net impartial_fanboy@hexbear.net bubbalu@hexbear.net equinox@hexbear.net

Done

I would avoid Harvey altogether.

So, both the labor theory of value and "supply and demand" can both coexist in Marx's framework. They are compatible ideas. On the most basic level, cloth from a loom has a "use value." I can take the cloth and use it as a towel or a wash-cloth. Or, I can take the cloth, cut it up, and sew it together into a shirt, pants, etc. This "use value" is what basically determines the "demand" part of supply and demand. The "supply" part of supply and demand is basically determined by the labor that goes into making a thing. Someone has to plant the cotton, pick it, put it on the loom, dye it, transport it, sell it at the market, etc.

So, the higher a "use value" is, the higher the demand can be. And the more labor that has to go into making something, the lower the "supply" will be. This is a big, big oversimplification, of course. But to continue the cloth example, if you look at high-quality, durable blue jeans vs. a simple washcloth, the blue jeans have more "use value" to you as a consumer, so they can have a higher demand, increasing their price. You can then take the basic "use value" of the blue jeans and find its "exchange value" by looking at all sort of different things, including advertising, artificial scarcity, etc., which affect demand, and things like labor laws, monopolization, transportation infrastructure, etc. which affect supply.

The main difference between "exchange value" and price is that "exchange value" is independent of many complicating factors affecting price, like currency exchange rates, geographical differences in standard of living, etc. For example, the same blue jeans, with the exact same "use value" and "exchange value," might be sold at a higher price in New York City than Boise, Idaho, because people there are willing to pay more money for the same jeans. In a more online example, the exact same video game is sold at wildly different prices in different countries with different currencies. Discounts and sales affect prices even more drastically. But the existence of a coupon/discount does not change the "use value" of a game, or even its abstract "exchange value," just the price you pay for it.

This is actually a very subtle issue, with a lot of complicated details to work through. Here an entry about it from the literal "Encyclopedia of Marxism:"

Exchange-value differs from “price” in two ways: firstly, price is the actualisation of exchange-value, differing from one exchange to the next in response to a myriad of factors affecting the activity of exchange; secondly, price is the specific value-form, measuring the value of the commodity against money.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/e/x.htm#:~:text=Exchange%2Dvalue%20differs%20from%20%E2%80%9Cprice,of%20the%20commodity%20against%20money.

But to sum it up, Marx does believe in "supply and demand," which is perfectly compatible with the labor theory of value. It's just that labor determines the "supply" side of supply and demand. Because it is laborers who are ultimately "supplying" the raw materials, and the labor that goes into turning those raw materials into usable commodities. Hope this helps!

Section 1: The Two Factors of a Commodity: Use-Value and Value

There are two essential components of the commodity, value and use-value.

1. Use-value is the concrete, natural form of the commodity; its physical or measurable characteristics. Quality and quantity are determined by direct physical observation.
2. Value is the abstract, social form of the commodity. Its quality or substance is homogeneous, abstract human labor. Its quantity is socially necessary labor time (SNLT).

We infer value through exchange value, the relationship between two commodities such as "one shirt is worth two hats."

Mass and weight provide an almost 1-to-1 analogy to value and exchange value, respectively. Objects have mass, but we do not measure absolute mass. We always measure relative mass by comparing the mass of two objects. One of these objects might be a standard kilogram weight. So weight expresses mass, it allows us access to it, but only through relative measurements of different massive objects. When weighing a mass, all other properties besides mass are ignored; color, volume, texture, etc. do not affect the weight. All other qualities except mass are "abstracted" away, and the objects are considered only insofar as they are masses.

Like the above, exchange value expresses value, but only after abstracting away all the distinct characteristics (use value) of the commodities. When we abstract from the use-value of a commodity, we also abstract from the concrete kind of the labor that produced it. This leaves a "residue" of abstract labor, human labor as such. This is the substance that forms value, common to all commodities.

Exchange value tells us about equivalence in terms of both quantity and quality. It is only logical to compare two quantities if they are of like quality. Think of it like converting to the right "units" to add two lengths: You can't directly add 5 inches + 3 centimeters, so you convert one into the units of the other in order to add them as quantities of the same substance.

Section 2: The two-fold Character of the Labour Embodied in Commodities

When we abstract from the use-value of a commodity, we also abstract from the concrete kind of the labor that produced it. This leaves a "residue" of abstract labor, human labor as such. This is the substance that forms value, common to all commodities.

This is a small point, but this dichotomy between concrete/natural, abstract/social continues throughout Capital in various forms.

Marx's method is not like the modern scientific method in which one test an arbitrary hypothesis. Here, the hypothesis (or thesis, more properly) is identified by the internal logic of the object of analysis (here, the commodity). This immanent critique is one example of Hegel's influence on Marx. The reason this is important: Chapter 1 is not a hypothetical or a final model to accept or deny (like a marginal utility theory, e.g.). It is a set of observations first and foremost, with logical inferences in tow.

The appendix on the value form might be helpful.

”The analysis of the commodity has shown that it is something twofold, use-value and value. Hence in order for a thing to possess commodity-form, it must possess a twofold form, the form of a use-value and the form of value. The form of use-value is the form of the commodity’s body itself, iron, linen, etc., its tangible, sensible form of existence. This is the natural form (Naturalform) of the commodity. As opposed to this the value-form (Wertform) of the commodity is its social form.”

If commodities have a two-fold form, then there is correspondingly a two-fold form of the labor that produces them.

Just as commodities are viewed abstractly (via real exchange relations) as uniform value, abstracted from use-value, so also is the labor that produces value seen as a homogeneous human labor, abstracted from the particular trade or type of labor. Likewise, the type of labor that produces use-values or particular types of commodities, is itself a concrete labor of a definite kind like cotton spinning, baking, metalworking, etc.

Concrete labor produces concrete use values.

Abstract labor produces value.

While Marx hasn't gotten into any of that yet, I read this as foreshadowing that this labor theory of value will transcend all modes of production. That it isn't fundamentally changed whether a society is Feudal, Capitalist, or Communist.

No, the labour theory of value is only a thing in a society wherein the capitalist mode of production prevails. A communist society would be dealing with pure use-values while in a feudal society (not in the market-interstices) the focus was also use-values, not on value or its reflection exchange-value.

The quote you are commenting on specifically notes that the universal form of labour, independent of social development, is labour as creator of use-values. This labour is a constant for human society, whereas labour as a producer of value is specific to a world where the commodity-form is generalized.

The labour theory of value also doesn't acknowledge all work as labour, e.g. the persistent denial even to this day by many that housework, childcare, etc, is labour.

Marx seems to be of two minds on the LToV in Capital; sometimes he seems to actually genuinely believe that there is something fundamentally unique about human labour or that reproduction of labour-powers can be excluded from his analysis because family is a natural sphere, and sometimes he seems to be simply accepting the bourgeois definition of 'real' labour as a given for purposes of criticising it on its own terms and sees the concept of commodity-value as a purely social thing with "not an atom of matter".