I finished the chapter and reading back towards section 2 really helped made me better understand it I think. I still have to like process it all. I liked how Marx mention of like saying how like 20 linen = 1 coat, mainly more so how like, that mainly reflected itself? I almost typed Lenin instead of lenin. Anyways, it's that it's own value is only found in a relation with another commodity, being reflected. that relation value was really neat. But it reminded me of a video I watched, where the person talked about like, how she discovered herself more through others or like relations through others.

anyways I was confused on something. Like from the footnotes? Mainly this part.

"26. It is by no means self-evident that this character of direct and universal exchangeability is, so to speak, a polar one, and as intimately connected with its opposite pole, the absence of direct exchangeability, as the positive pole of the magnet is with its negative counterpart. It may therefore be imagined that all commodities can simultaneously have this character impressed upon them, just as it can be imagined that all Catholics can be popes together. It is, of course, highly desirable in the eyes of the petit bourgeois, for whom the production of commodities is the nec plus ultra of human freedom and individual independence, that the inconveniences resulting from this character of commodities not being directly exchangeable, should be removed."

There was like more to it but I was more confused about that part? It was the footnote for this part in section 3 of chapter 1.

"Finally, the form C gives to the world of commodities a general social relative form of value, because, and in so far as, thereby all commodities, with the exception of one, are excluded from the equivalent form. A single commodity, the linen, appears therefore to have acquired the character of direct exchangeability with every other commodity because, and in so far as, this character is denied to every other commodity"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#26b

I'm not exactly sure what that footnote is saying? Is that passage just saying like, not everything can be like a universal exchangeability and emphasizing that? with like that footnote emphasizing that with the example in it about like catholics and popes? I dont understand what is meant by poles, or like, near the end about

"It is, of course, highly desirable in the eyes of the petit bourgeois, for whom the production of commodities is the nec plus ultra of human freedom and individual independence, that the inconveniences resulting from this character of commodities not being directly exchangeable, should be removed."

I'm not sure what that passage exactly saying then maybe like, petit bourgeois want commodities to be directly exchangeable? and to remove to that general form of value or money value? or just like removing any inconvenience that rise from things not being directly exchangeable and nothing to do with like the general form of value and stuff? or I dunno.

"Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson [Crusoe]’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution."

This is a suuuuuper interesting paragraph and actually totally different from all the others. Here Marx is "imagining" a better world, dabbling dareisay in utopianism, whereas in the rest of it he is analysing the real world. He even mentions a "definite social plan", i.e. planned economy.

The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. Note. This oft-quoted aphorism was included in the first English translation prepared by Engels and published in 1887. Readers should note that this observation is consistent with Marx's explanation above. There are numerous divergences between this English edition and the first German edition. [MIA]

Putting this here for the Fowkes folks who won't see it otherwise.

@Vampire@hexbear.net

Do you just read on your own time?

Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different cultural epochs, but in a particular society it is given. More complex labour counts only as intensified, or rather multiplied simple labour, so that a smaller quantity of complex labour is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the outcome of the most complicated labour, but through its value it is posited as equal to the product of simple labour, hence it represents only a specific quantity of simple labour.15 The various proportions in which different kinds of labour are reduced to simple labour as their unit of measurement are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers; these proportions therefore appear to the producers to have been handed down by tradition. In the interests of simplification, we shall henceforth view every form of labour-power directly as simple labour-power; by this we shall simply be saving ourselves the trouble of making the reduction. p. 135

Is intensified/multiplied labor referring to the use of fixed capital in production? I.e. the machinery as dead-labor whose value is then transferred to the product through living labor, intensifying the value transferred into a commodity per unit of labor-time? Or to forms of labor which are more difficult/intensive/complex?

If the latter, is Marx always considering that 1 hour = 1 hour? I understand how this works in the abstract, but I guess I am just curious how this has implications for the later imagined association of "free men" (though perhaps I am subjecting his "parallel" to too much scrutiny):

We shall assume, but only for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time. Labour-time would in that case play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the correct proportion between the different functions of labour and the various needs of the associations. On the other hand, labour-time also serves as a measure of the part taken by each individual in the common labour, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. p 172

Both quotes from the Fowkes translation.

Reading section 3 now. I got confused about the relation between relative and equivalent forms on the one hand, and use value and exchange value on the other. Marx:

The value of A, thus expressed in the use value of B, has taken the form of relative value.

Also Marx:

The opposition or contrast existing internally in each commodity between use value and value, is, therefore, made evident externally by two commodities being placed in such relation to each other, that the commodity whose value it is sought to express, figures directly as a mere use value, while the commodity in which that value is to be expressed, figures directly as mere exchange value.

Am I reading this wrong or is he saying that in the equation x A = y B, B figures directly as mere exchange value, but at the same time the value of A is expressed in the use value of B? This is not clear to me unfortunately. Not the only idea I do not fully understand, but this feels like an important point.

Take a drink, every time he says "in so far as".... tbh, I'm honestly a bit confused by his sentence structure at times but I can understand...

I am 2/3 of the way in...