Comrade:CommieOrion

Hello! My name is Orion, and I go by They/Them pronouns. I am a Marxist-Leninist, I have been studying it since August of 2022. I am unfortunately not apart of any orgs within the USA since I am a minor, but I plan to join the FRSO as soon as I am able to.

"Workers of the world, unite!" - Marx

Capital Notes

Section 1

Commodities satisfy human needs/wants (Something that is sold, or exchanged, that fulfills a need or want. ie Food, Books, MOP, etc.)

It doesn't matter how commodities manifest, it could be food or MOP*

*MOP being Means of Production

Every commodity can be seen from either quantity and quality

As use-values, commodities differ above all in quality, while as exchange-values they can only differ in quantity, and therefore do not contain an atom of use-value.

Usefulness of an object is USE-VALUE

Usefulness isn't in a vacuum, it is tied to the physical properties of the commodity

Properties are independent of the amount of labour put into the object.

Assume you're dealing with definite quantities (ie Yards of Linen)

Use-Values are only realized in use or in consumption.

Exchange-Value

A quantitative relationship (Between 2 commodities it can be represented by and equation)

Use-Value of one kind for the Use-Value of another kind

Changes with time and place

(ie Coats in MN Winter compared to Coats in Arizona Summer)

A commodity can have MANY exchange values depending upon the other commodities that are being exchanged

Yet the exchanged items (Z gold for example), represent the exchange value for the original commodity (Quarter of Wheat)

This means that X Y or Z must be mutually replaceable or of equal magnitude

For example 1 quart of Corn == X cwt of Iron. A ratio, equal to a 3rd thing, which is neither of those commodities (ONLY shows up in comparision)

Both of these commodities' exchange values MUST be reducible to this third thing

This common element cannot be a geometrical, physical, chemical or other natural property of commodities. Such properties come into consideration only to the extent that they make the commodities useful, i.e. turn them into use-values.

Within the exchange relation, one use-value is worth just as much as another, provided only that it is present in the appropriate quantity.

Products of Labour

Concrete Human Labour (Methods don't matter)

Scholaring, Hammering, Coding, Etc

Human Labour is a consequence of Directed Human Effort with the use of brains, nerves, and muscles

Consequently Labour manifests in MANY different forms, it encompasses all

Marx says concrete labor is different in the sense that what is done to accomplish a task in each work is different. Hitting a hammer is different from writing code. But what they have in common is that they are all labor, and this Marx calls "abstract labor"

Abstract Human Labour is equal to commodity value

A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because abstract human labour is objectified [vergegenständlicht] or materialized in it.

How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? By means of the quantity of the ‘value-forming substance’, the labour, contained in the article. This quantity is measured by its duration, and the labour-time is itself measured on the particular scale of hours, days etc.

Socially Necessary Labour = The Average Time required (given the conditions of a society, education, technology, etc) to produce a use-value

Doesn't have to be an object, can be care, maintenance, etc

Lazy Workers DON'T produce more valuable labour, see Socially Necessary Labour

The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour-time required for its production also remained constant.

In general, the greater the productivity of labour, the less the labour-time required to produce an article, the less the mass of labour crystallized in that article, and the less its value.

Inversely, the less the productivity of labour, the greater the labour-time necessary to produce an article, and the greater its value.

The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productivity, of the labour which finds its realization within the commodity. (Now we know the substance of value. It is labour. We know the measure of its magnitude. It is labour-time. The form, which stamps value as exchange-value, remains to be analysed. But before this we need to develop the characteristics we have already found somewhat more fully.)

A thing can be a use-value without being a value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not mediated through labour. Air, virgin soil, natural meadows, unplanted forests, etc. fall into this category. A thing can be useful, and a product of human labour, without being a commodity.

He who satisfies his own need with the product of his own labour admittedly creates 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. (And not merely for others. The medieval peasant produced a corn-rent for the feudal lord and a corn-tithe for the priest; but neither the corn-rent nor the corn-tithe became commodities simply by being produced for others. In order to become a commodity, the product must be transferred to the other person, for whom it serves as a use-value, through the medium of exchange.)

**Finally, nothing can be a value without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value**