The issue of abstract and concrete labour is relatively simple. The two concepts are dealt with in a few very clear paragraphs at the beginning of Capital. But unfortunately it has, over the last couple of decades, been mystified by some Marxists. Misleading claims have been put about to the effect that :
- Abstract labour only exists under capitalism
- In socialist economies there is only concrete labour
- That there is no division of labour in non capitalist economies
Marx uses the concept on the second page of Capital where he writes:
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract. (Capital 1 Chap 1, page 28 )
So he is saying that each type of commodity has its own special physical qualities, and that these qualities are given to it by the special actions of the different types of labour : spinning, joinery, masonry. But if we consider commodities in general, bearing in mind that they exchange with one another, it can not be the specific character of labour the labour that made them that is important. It is the fact that they are all made by human labour. He says human labour in the abstract to emphasise that it is people doing it, whatever these people were doing.
It is a unique ability of our species, shared by no other species currently alive on this planet, to be able to apply ourselves readily to a vast variety of tasks. The combination of hands with large brains gives us this adaptability. It was only human labour that Marx considered as important in commodities.
At the time Marx was writing, we were not the only species working. There was a lot of horse labour going on in the English economy. In terms of physical effort probably more was done by horses than by people. I have seen figures for the horse population of late Victorian England as being 3.3 million, the human population was 21 million. A human male is hard put to sustain 75 watts of output, women and children considerably less. A horse power is 735 watts, so we can estimate that horses were delivering around twice as much work as people in Marx’s England.
But this work by our equine sisters was all traction. Horses were not spinning, engaging in cabinet making or bricklaying. There was no horse labour in the abstract; all they did was pull or carry riders.
The important thing to understand about commodities is that they were all produced by people working, irrespective of what kind of work people were doing. And because we are not concerned with exactly what they were doing, we can measure labour in units of time:
A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours. (Capital 1 Chap 1, page 29 )
Clearly if we are measuring labour in units of time, we are ignoring what the person was doing, and only taking into account that they were working at something.
The argument in Capital is in the context of commodities whose value, he says, comes from the division of labour. If we think about the division of labour, it is obviously human labour in general that is being divided between specific trades or professions. But the claim of some Marxists that abstract labour and the division of labour are something specific to capitalism does not follow. Just because Marx is writing about the division of labour under capitalism here, does not imply that capitalism is necessary for a division of labour. Indeed he explicitly makes this point:
To all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many different kinds of useful labour, classified according to the order, genus, species, and variety to which they belong in the social division of labour. This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labour. In the primitive Indian community there is social division of labour, without production of commodities. Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided according to a system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives mutually exchanging their individual products. Only such products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individuals. (Capital 1 Chap 1, page 30 )
So the argument goes that the division of human labour between different activities gives rise to the exchange value of commodities, but this only occurs if the division of labour occurs in a society of private individuals producing independently. In other social organisations, there can be a division of labour without commodities.
So there is every reason to suppose that a division of labour and therefore human work in the abstract will also exist in communist societies – even if there was no commodity production in them. We may hope that communist societies will tend to free people from a narrow subordination to this division of labour, so that people may vary their tasks either during the week or from year to year. This is what Marx was getting at when, many years earlier, he wrote
For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.(German Ideology, Ch 1)
The fact that one person may do different concrete tasks at different times abolishes neither the division of labour nor abstract labour as Marx points out in Capital :
There are, however, states of society in which one and the same man does tailoring and weaving alternately, in which case these two forms of labour are mere modifications of the labour of the same individual, and not special and fixed functions of different persons, just as the coat which our tailor makes one day, and the trousers which he makes another day, imply only a variation in the labour of one and the same individual. Moreover, we see at a glance that, in our capitalist society, a given portion of human labour is, in accordance with the varying demand, at one time supplied in the form of tailoring, at another in the form of weaving. This change may possibly not take place without friction, but take place it must.(Capital 1, page 31)
I am not quite sure where this prejudice about the abstract labour only existing under capitalism, and ceasing to exist in a future economy comes from. It clearly does not come from a straightforward reading of Capital. I suspect there exists a substantial number of Marxists who put off reading Capital for a while. In that period they ‘prepared themselves’ by reading commentators on Capital. Perhaps they read Heinrich, Rubin etc. But this means that by the time they read Marx, they already have certain ideas about what they should expect to find there. They read Marx through lenses they have borrowed. And these introduce a certain confirmation bias.
I always encourage people to read great thinkers in their own words first. Whether it is Einstein, Darwin or Marx you want to study, read them in the original first. Only read commentators afterwards. If you have read the original you are in a position to critically assess the commentators. If not, you may give excessive weight to the commentary.
Not trying to go too off-topic but you may enjoy those musings. For one I agree with your take on alienation and would like to double down on it.
“He says human labour in the abstract to emphasise that it is people doing it, whatever these people were doing.”
Here’s the tricky part: Most work people are doing to sustain our lives today actually was done by generations past. We have a moral obligation to leave as much or more than what we found but in a strict sense we have no blanket obligation to anyone in particular who is alive alive today. The objective we’re tasked with as individuals is to repsect our elders in the full sense, not to follow orders from elders but to improve their, our, legacy. Individual who’re not ready to live in this spirit continue to be disconnected from their work in a seriously concerning way. While individuals who are ready to live by this standard I believe would also feel compassion with those individuals who are not (yet or anymore) physically or mentally able to live by this principle.
“The important thing to understand about commodities is that they were all produced by people working, irrespective of what kind of work people were doing. And because we are not concerned with exactly what they were doing, we can measure labour in units of time”
We can do this but to live up to your human obligations, you wouldn’t want to discard the work on imagination of a better future for it is tremendous work of generations past that produced the foundations for the wealth of today. Deployment is important but so is discovery, creativity and connecting all kinds of disciplinces. To meddle is part of your duty. To create space for meddlers, to bring together what goes together is part of realizing the imagination.
“In other social organisations, there can be a division of labour without commodities.”
“the argument goes that the division of human labour between different activities gives rise to the exchange value of commodities”
Exactly! Say we have a planned economy: A group collectively gives a lot of credit to the plan and people as individuals act out the plan to tap into the credit one can gain by complying. Following the plan is in the foreground and satisfying actual needs of fellow people is in the background.
Work may be generally alienated for division of labor has been with us since mankind has been a thing. Alienation may just become extreme to the point of criticism in economies with particularly dysfunctional credit arrangements. (e.g. late stage capitalism; or ancient rome as Michael Hudson suggests: “Debt Slavery – Why It Destroyed Rome, Why It Will Destroy Us Unless It’s Stopped”)
Giving and taking credit is one of the most fundamental human features as we can deduct from the particularly strong moral authority that debt commands (Also see David Graeber on debt). Now some people at points in their lives do better in gifting economies, some do better in market economies. Let’s not forget the desire that drives the push for markets. Particularly young males may be compelled by the elegance of the fantasy of a self regulating market that absolves of all responsibility beyond its scope. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give em something to play with (markets), but rather share with em the broader landscape of relations that does exist (through e.g. public finance and commons and maybe planned work services for all the deployment work which nobody is really born to do, too).
“They read Marx through lenses they have borrowed. And these introduce a certain confirmation bias.”
I may have to bear that criticism as I tend to stick to Steve Keen’s lens. I have little care for the fantasy of Ricardo’s crafting, a market that could find prices with much of any authority. Markets find snapshots of local scarcities, also subject to how much people want to maniuplate scaricty (e.g. of land, labor, capital, credit) they can control. Ricardo’s framework fails to deliver a macro perspective for it does not study the economies of scale at work in reality nor the functions and dysfunctions of credit arrangements to fund development. The future is unknown and only attempting to realize the imagination could carve it out in more or less useful ways. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t better plan and share the work that is deploying solutions but that’s a fraction of the work we should feel morally compelled to take on.
Keep up the good work! Again nice to see you take a critical stance on people bringing too narrow a view of alienation.
I have a question on one of your recent books. “How the world works ”
On page 60 you mentioned proletarians within slave society. Can you expand on that in which way were they (wage labour and laborers) different in slave society vs. capitalist society?
The diagram on page 58 lists slave holders, Yeoman peasant farmers and wage estates in a cycle that manage to produce a ever increasing amount of tenant farms. When did the Wage labour estates form and what is the arrow from yeoman farmer to tenant farming listed “political dependence” mean?
Back to page 60. “while the distinction between between the slaves and freeman and the pride of the latter prevented any solidarity between the free peasant and slave. ” I find it hard to believe a simple emotion such as pride prevents solidarity between the slave and the non-landowning non-slaves especially for such a long time. I think that even if there was mutual cooperation there simply wasn’t enough power, technological knowhow to the freemen to counter the Calvary and the military apparatus of the slave owning aristocracy and it’s legion counterpart to seriously consider any significant conflict. I’m probably wrong but a simple emotion such as pride just seems inadequate to explain the lack of cooperation. Maybe we could look at the Hindu caste system and see if there’s solidarity with the untouchables and the laboring class there?
A good question. As far as I have read there is no historical record of a movement among the free workers that allied with slaves. The state of the slaveowners, at least for much of the republic was made up of freemen, and there are records of that army challenging the aristocracy, most obviously under Ceasar.