The dialectic of labor power and the essence...

The dialectic of labor power and the essence of capitalist exploitation

In the article “Why Marx Was Wrong about Workers and Wages” on the website of The Mises Institute, Austrian School of economics:

•  Marx is credited with the statement "labor is a commodity." This is a mistake. Marx always calls "labor power" a commodity, and never calls "labor" a commodity.

•  The author of the article sometimes calls "labor" a commodity, and sometimes "labor power." This is incorrect. Labor, according to Marx, is not a "commodity". Confusing "labor power" and "labor" is a mistake.

•  Marx's statement that "labor power is a commodity" is criticized. This is a wrong criticism.

What is a “commodity”, according to Marx? A “commodity” is an ontological “entity” that has only one fundamental property: “value”. The remaining properties of the "commodity" are secondary. Marx's position: A commodity always has a "value", everything that has a "value" is a "commodity". "Value" is the fundamental property of a "commodity".

In some circumstances we may attach special importance to some secondary property of the "commodity". Attention to this property does not make it "fundamental", but it shows that it is "relevant" in the given circumstances.

From Marx's position that "the fundamental property of a commodity is value, other properties are secondary", it follows:

•  The division of commodities, for example, into "virtual" and "real" is relevant in the specific circumstances of "classifying transactions", but is irrelevant in the circumstances of "calculating income".

•  The investment of emotions, "individual preferences and values" by a person in the production of a commodity (Ludwig von Mises) is relevant in some circumstances of considering the labor process, but becomes irrelevant in other circumstances of consideration.

•  The division of objects into "goods" and "services" is relevant in the circumstances of distinguishing "things" and "processes", but becomes irrelevant in the circumstances of "setting a price".

Dialectics of "circumstances", examples:

– Are “service” and “commodity” different? – Yes. – Can we consider them “the same”? – Yes, under certain circumstances. – What are these circumstances? – When we abstract from external forms, leaving only the fundamental property, which is “value”, in these circumstances “service” and “commodity” are the same for us.

– “Money” and “commodity” are different. But in banking circumstances, money is “commodity that the bank sells.”

– Are you the same person as 20 years ago? - Yes, the same. No, different. - Both answers are correct. We choose the answer depending on the circumstances.

This is dialectical logic.

The principle of identity of dialectical logic states: "An object is equal to itself and at the same time not equal to itself."

Is Austria now and 100 years ago the same or different objects? Austria is equal and not equal to itself. Depending on the circumstances of consideration.

The same thing happens with "commodity":

•  "commodity" in the form of "service" is equal to itself and not equal to itself (is a full-fledged "service").

•  commodity "labor power" is equal to itself, being a full-fledged "commodity" that the seller-worker brings to the market, and not equal to itself, being an extremely virtual entity.

Imagine that the worker is an "electric battery". By selling "labor power", he sells "battery charge".

Please note: The capitalist does not need the “battery” itself. The capitalist needs the "energy" of the battery to produce goods.

When you need a "portion of energy" to light your flashlight, you buy an "electric battery". You buy a portion of energy "in the form" of an electric battery.

Dialectics:

By form "battery", by content "portion of energy".

Is it a battery or a portion of energy? - It is a battery. And at the same time it is a portion of energy. In the form of a "battery".

The formula of dialectics:

That which is not that, but at the same time that.

You cannot buy a "portion of energy" except in the form of a "metal cylinder", in the form of a "battery".

You need a flashlight to shine, but you cannot buy the "glow of a flashlight", you need to buy a "charge of electrical energy". But you can also buy a "charge"... only in the form of a "metal cylinder".

To get "that", you need to get "not-that", then you will get "that". Because you cannot get the "that" you need in any other way. However, getting "not-that", which gives you "that", you can consider it as "that" in the form of "not-that".

This is a brief description of the essence of dialectics.

When you buy a "portion of electrical energy", you buy it in the form of a "battery". When you buy "labor power", you buy it in the form of a "worker-battery".

You bought an electric battery, it lights you for 8 hours. You bought a worker-battery, it "lights" you for 8 hours (gives off energy).

You do not pay extra for light! You pay once when you buy an electric battery. When you buy a "metal cylinder", you do not pay extra for the "spots of light" that the battery produces. When you buy a "worker-battery", you do not pay extra for the "spots of light" that the "worker-battery" produces. The "spots of light" that the worker-battery produces are "goods". More precisely, "values".

First circumstance:

A worker-battery, just like an electric battery and any commodity under capitalism, costs as much on the market as it costs to produce this commodity.
Let's clarify: The "value of a commodity" consists of the "new value" created in the process of producing the commodity, and the "old values" created earlier and transferred to the commodity in the process of production (raw materials, parts, tools). The "value" of a commodity is the sum of the "old" and "new" values. The monetary expression of "value" is "price".

We can say that Marx represents "value" as an "energy clot" that permeates the "commodity." This "clot" is created in the process of the worker's labor, in the process of "burning" his "labor power".

Thus, the “value” of a commodity is the sum of “energy clots”: created in the last production process (“new” value) and those created earlier and transferred to the commodity (“old” values).

"Value" is an "energy clots" of different sizes, measured in money. The monetary expression of "value", according to Marx, is "price".

According to Marx, "value" is the basis of "price". On a developed market, the “price of a commodity” fluctuates around the “value”, tending towards it.

Second circumstance:

No seller can sell his commodity on the market above its “value”, above “the sum of the values” spent on the production.

No buyer will buy goods above their "value" ("overpriced"). Especially when these goods are intended for further production (raw materials, parts, labor power). Because by buying above the "market price", he becomes uncompetitive and goes bankrupt.

Combining these two circumstances, we get:

"Worker-battery" costs as much as "production of the worker-battery" costs.
More precisely: The value of the commodity "worker-battery" is equal to the sum of the values spent on its production. The price of the commodity "worker-battery" on the developed market is equal to its "value".

The worker has no opportunity to sell the commodity “labor power” (existing in the form of “worker-battery”) at a price higher than the cost of producing this commodity (food, clothing, rest).

So:

The capitalist buys the "worker-battery" at the market price, and then does not pay extra for the "light spots" ("values") produced by the "battery".

The capitalist buys the commodity "worker-battery" at a price equal to its value. The market prohibits any exchange of unequal values.

The capitalist gets the "light spots" for free. He sells them on the market and receives money, part of which covers the costs of production (including the purchase of the "worker-battery"), and part remains with the capitalist as "profit".

The worker has no rights to the "light spots". The buyer who bought the "battery" is not obliged to pay the seller extra for the "light spots".

This is the essence of "capitalist exploitation".

The worker will always work for food, housing and other needs, and the market will minimize all these costs. The capitalist will always receive all the goods produced on the fair basis that the one who bought the "battery" is not obliged to pay extra for the "spots of light".

Dialectics of use-value:

When we buy a "thing", we do not pay extra for the "function". The "function" is attached to the "thing" for free.

Using Marx's terminology: The buyer of a commodity receives "use-value" (the function, usefulness of the thing) for free in addition to the "value" that he "buys" (i.e. "receives by exchanging it for an equivalent value").

The capitalist buys “labor power” (“value”) and receives its “use-value”, its “ability to create value”, for free.

The "labor power" is unique. Only it is capable of creating "value". This is its unique "use-value".

The capitalist pays honestly for the "battery". The fact that the "battery" creates "spots of light" does not impose any additional obligations on it: the seller of the "battery" has no right to demand additional payment for the "spots of light" it creates ("values").

The dialectical contradiction between the "value" and the "use-value" of a commodity is the ontological root of "capitalist exploitation".

Alexander Klein
November 6-13, 2024

https://docs.google.com/ + document/d/1jyCXDhddPISUX7DqKfsQAzc7Lp9D3gDD/edit

2025, June 28