|
|
|
| Revealing the Twofold Character of the Labor, Analyzing the Forms of Value, and Critiquing Fetishism: Logical Progression and Dialectics of the “Commodities” Chapter in Capital |
| Cui Chenxi Liu Zhaofeng |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In order to respond to the discussions concerning the relationship between abstract labor and value form, value substance and value form, value form and the nature of fetishism, exchange value and value form, as well as the relationship between Marx’s analysis of value form and his theory of the critique of fetishism, and to present the rich connotations of Marx’s dialectics, it is necessary to analyze the logical structure of the “Commodities” chapter in Capital.
By inquiring into the sameness within the difference of various commodities, the twofold character of the labor is revealed. In Capital, Marx begins his exposition and analysis with the commodity as the starting point. Labor as concrete labor is difference (qualitative distinctions), while labor as abstract labor is sameness (quantitative variations without qualitative distinctions); the difference in use value arises from the difference in concrete labor, whereas the sameness in exchange value arises from the sameness of abstract labor embodied in it. The response to the inquiry into the sameness within difference discusses value substance only in the sense of abstract labor (general), without yet addressing how labor is manifested as value, and therefore still cannot explain the specificity of the commodity.
Further analysis of the value form addresses how labor, as abstract labor, is manifested as value. Marx proposes the roundabout way of value manifestation, which is the key to grasping the theory of value form. The value of one by the use value of the other, this unique, materialized, and indirect form of abstract human labor’s expression is the value form. This does not yet explain what kind of labor it is that created value, and why it does so, nor does it distinguish between commodities and non-commodities.
Finally, through the critique of fetishism, the question of what kind of labor it is that created value, and why it does so is addressed, and on this basis, the historicity of labor manifesting as value is revealed, along with a critique of the fetishistic conception held by bourgeois economists who eternalize value. Once commodities appear as commodities, or once labor products possess the value form, they acquire a mysterious character. Only by placing the value form within a specific social formation and examining it from a temporary perspective can a clear critical stance on fetishism be achieved.
The logical progression of Marx’s analysis of the commodity contains a rich and profound dialectic: in terms of the relationship between phenomenon and essence, the dialectic in the analysis of the commodity in Capital examines the value form (phenomenon) of abstract labor as the substance (essence). In terms of the relationship between content and form, it explores the combination and separation of the material content of production and its specific social form. In terms of revealing the historicity and temporality of the commodity, the dialectic in the analysis of the commodity in Capital is a historical dialectic, embodying a historical consciousness.
The dialectic in Marx’s analysis of the commodity is a constructive dialectic, rich in historical content and characterized by concreteness. Only by employing a dialectical mode of thinking and carefully analyzing the “inverted” world of commodities can we truly grasp the brilliance of Marx’s dialectic.
|
|
Published: 26 February 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
