Tuesday, 26 February 2019

Theories of Surplus Value, Part III, Chapter 20 - Part 67

The individual concrete labour that goes into the production of any use value is thereby distinct. The tailoring labour of worker A that goes into one pair of trousers they produce, is different in quality and quantity from the tailoring labour they embody in some other pair of trousers. It is also different in quality and quantity to the tailoring labour of worker B. Moreover, the tailoring labour, in aggregate, is distinct from the concrete labour, in aggregate, of all other types of worker. It is only when all of this individual concrete labour is alienated, and is aggregated into one mass of general labour that it turns into its opposite, general, abstract social labour

“Thus the labour of individuals has to be directly represented as its opposite, social labour; this transformed labour is, as its immediate opposite, abstract, general labour, which is therefore represented in a general equivalent, only by its alienation does individual labour manifest itself as its opposite. The commodity, however, must have this general expression before it is alienated. This necessity to express individual labour as general labour is equivalent to the necessity of expressing a commodity as money. The commodity receives this expression insofar as the money serves as a measure and expresses the value of the commodity in its price. It is only through sale, through its real transformation into money, that the commodity acquires its adequate expression as exchange-value. The first transformation is merely a theoretical process, the second is a real one.” (p 136) 

Suppose I produce a chair intended for my own use; in other words, as a product rather than as a commodity. This chair is both a use value, and a store of value. As a use value, it represents wealth. It is something that provides me with utility. But, the chair, as a product of my labour, also represents a quantity of value. On condition that the chair is not used, so as to suffer any diminution of its use value, by wear and tear, and so long as it suffers no depreciation, as a result of exposure to the elements, over time, it will continue to be a store of value. If it took 10 hours of my labour to produce, it will continue to represent 10 hours of value. But, of course, a chair, to provide me with utility is intended to be used, and, as it is used, it will gradually lose some of its use value. Its value is rather like a revenue. In other words, although, unlike the immediate labour I might undertake to collect food, to consume, the chair represents past labour, its use value is consumed piecemeal. 

No comments: