I'm not sure how I will develop this series of posts. On the one hand, there is an urge to go through with a section-by-section commentary, but on the other hand, my time and your patience are both scarce. Further, I make no claims to expertise on the subjects I discuss, although I have made considerable effort to educate myself. So I will try to cover more ground here as I work my way through this weighty tome. I will also rely on an assumption that you have read my previous posts so I do not need to repeat myself about Marx's variation on the labor theory of value, etc. as this irregular theme hopefully continues.
Read the introduction to this series here.
Part 1
Book I, Part I, Chapter I, Section 2: The Twofold Character of the Labour Embodied in Commodities
Marks begins by reiterating his theory of use-value and exchange-value. He goes on to illustrate by example a comparison of value as a ratio as if these can be fixed against one another arbitrarily. He does note that commodities must satisfy a particular want, and that,
Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use-value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.
However, he persist in his assertion that prices signal some form of equivalence that can be determined as a ratio between goods, and that this in turn applies to the labor necessary to produce them. This is a non sequitur if ever there was one, and does little to increase my faith in Marx as an economic analyst. he continues to insist that human labor must be seen as an abstract.
In contrast, we see people trading in cars for new cars, book shops where people trade paperbacks, and even clothing exchanges where people literally exchange coats, in the real world today. There is no homogeneity in any category of commodity beyond perhaps the level of raw materials. Size, cut, durability, fashion, and personal preference all play a role in things as mundane as even coats.
Likewise, labor is as diverse as the pool of laborers who seek employment. If you have worked in any real job, you know there are slackers and go-getters. There are competent workers and those who barely meet the minimum requirements. The more skill a job requires, the fewer capable people there are.
I question the mathematical fetish for rations and aggregates exhibited here. He does attempt to mathematically assess the value of skilled versus unskilled labor, but it rings hollow. A footnote citing Adam Smith serves to muddle more than it clarifies, too. Why does Marx seem to have no knowledge of more contemporary economic thought? The Austrians have done yeoman's work in tracing the various schools of economic thought, in particular those related to market economics. Marx seems oblivious in comparison.
Book I, Part I, Chapter I, Section 3: The Form of Value or Exchange Value
Here, Marx rightly notes that value is not an intrinsic property of any commodity.
The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will. Yet in so far as i remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it.
Marx says this value is the embodiment of labor, whereas the Austrians contend value is the subjective opinion of the individual assessing it based on personal preferences, marginal utility, and other factors. Marx again uses his labor price ratio as an equivalent value ratio, and expounds further for several pages. He finally arrives at his discussion of money based on his idea of labor value and equivalent exchange.
The universal equivalent form [of labor] is a form of value in general. It can, therefore, be assumed by any commodity.
His explanation is neither sophisticated nor satisfactory, though. In the 19th century, silver and gold were still directly used as money, and he simply asserts that gold is used by custom. He is, at least thus far, apparently unconcerned with the barter problem of double coincidence of wants, since he already seems to consider all labor and commodities interchangeable in his model as an assumption. he also seems unconcerned with the specific properties of precious metals that led to their adoption as money, including scarcity, fungibility, divisibility, portability, etc. For Marx, it seems an arbitrary distinction based solely on equivalent labor input, despite lacking any evidence aside from his own supposition.
Book I, Part I, Chapter I, Section 4: The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof
Perhaps I have been entirely misguided in my criticism thus far. Perhaps I suffer from a fetish, an obsession, an irrational belief.
Marx finishes the chapter with a rambling essay on the mystical character of commodities and value, with the conclusion that exchange value is a mystical sort of fetishism that overlooks the simple labor inputs as the true value determinant in the commodity itself.
...[W]henever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labor, the different kinds of labor expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic.
Here Marx concretely defines exchange as a zero-sum game of equivalent universal value defined by labor input alone. As such, one could conclude that any deviation without a change in the labor process is, by definition, exploitation. As I have noted before, this completely ignores the concepts of mutually-beneficial exchange, marginal utility, subjective value, and other subtle concepts in favor of his own fetishization of labor inputs.
Before the end, even Marx tries his hand at Crusoe Economics, something far better explored later by other economists. He finally attempts to frame history, politics, religion, and his value theory into a magnificent declaration that utterly fails to say anything of substance on any of those subjects separately or as a whole.
Addendum: I should note that this book has now mentioned a third economist, David Ricardo, for what it's worth. Ricardo's work is from the early 19th century, about five decades before Marx's own Das Kapital was first published, so he was a relative contemporary in comparison to Smith and Barbon.
Ricardo was a proponent of the labor theory of value, so he missed the mark like Marx. He also had some useful insights, including his exploration of comparative advantage and support for free trade. however, he also warned of impending systemic unemployment due to technological advancement during the industrial age, and while mechanization did disrupt the economy, it had no such adverse effect in the long run.
Am I overlooking a key insight, misinterpreting the text, or otherwise mistaken? What do you think of this more abbreviated overview of each section? Feel free to add your own comments. If you don't have a HIVE account, you can join via PeakD here. I'll even delegate some Hive Power so you can comment more.