#spinners and weavers united

[thatophite]

It finally dropped *-*

[rocklandhistoryblog]

The Historical Society of Rockland County Invites You to Join Us for

Historic Fiber and Textile Arts

A Special Presentation by Celeste Sherry

When: Thursday, April 20, 2023, 7:00 pm SHARP

Where: Community Room, HSRC History Center, 20 Zukor Road, New City

Admission: $FREE (Reservations are required and donations are appreciated)

Before the industrial revolution, fiber and textile arts were a vital part of farmwork for families like the Blauvelts. Celeste Sherry, an expert spinner and living historian, as she discusses the history of spinning and textiles from the Stone Age to the 19th century.

Following a demonstration of fiber spinning on her antique and reproduction spinning wheels, attendees can try their hand at wool picking, combing, carding, and spinning with a variety of natural fibers.

About the presenter: Celeste brings more than forty years of experience in history and fiber spinning, as well as a career teaching English literature at two local Rockland County colleges. She is a member of the Palisades Guild of Spinners abd Weavers; Mid-Atlantic Fiber Association (MAFA); 4th Battalion, New Jersey Volunteers, Living History Unit; and the Brigade of the American Revolution Living History Organization. She lives in West Nyack.

TO RESERVE YOUR SEAT FOR THIS PRESENTATION visit EVENTBRITE:

Or you can email us at info@rockland history, or call us at (845) 634-9629.

***

Historical Society of Rockland County

20 Zukor Road

New City, NY 10956

Phone: (845) 634-9629

Please note: Space is limited for this lecture. Reservations are required. A waiting list will be compiled, and available spaces will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis.

***

The Historical Society of Rockland County is a nonprofit educational institution and principal repository for original documents and artifacts relating to Rockland County. Its headquarters are a four-acre site featuring a history museum and the 1832 Jacob Blauvelt House in New City, New York. www.RocklandHistory.org.

[star-anise]

i see you have discovered history professor bret deveraux, my beloved. i highly recommend his battle of helm's deep and pelennor fields series if you want to learn about historical battlefield tactics (and operations and strategies) and his fremen mirage series if you want to learn about the facist view of history and why it's complete and utter bullshit. his series on sparta is also phenomenal

I'm having such a good time working through his back catalogue. AGreatDivorce on Youtube has recorded audio versions of many of his posts, which is a godsend for me.

The Fremen Mirage series was a balm to my soul after having to deal with SO many "military history buffs" and SFF reply guys who think that violence is the pinnacle of human achievement, and therefore acknowledging the personhood of anyone but the apex warriors is like, taking resources away from the war effort or something.

For the uninitiated, the "Fremen Mirage" is what Devereaux calls a "pop theory of history" that believes:

that a lack of wealth and sophistication leads to moral purity, which in turn leads to military prowess, which consequently produces a cycle of history wherein rich and decadent societies are forever being overthrown by poor, but hardy ‘Fremen’ who then become rich and decadent in their turn. Or, as the meme, originally coined by G. Michael Hopf puts it, “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And weak men create hard times.”

And then in his series he applies rigorous historical analysis to this idea, and takes it apart like Christmas wrapping. It's almost as fun as the Sparta series, where he demonstrates that Spartans would hate their modern fanboys, and also aren't actually as special or amazing as they're made out to be.

After a while, though, I got tired of the military side of things, and gone wandering. What I've found most refreshing this week were posts that take a step back from direct pop culture criticism and just simply lay out the material realities of life in the past. The really basic building blocks that help us get in tune with the daily life of the past. Stuff like the Lonely City series.

Or the clothing series! I said that I've been trying to figure out just how rare or common looms were, and while I've been looking at archeological evidence of loom types, he's just found the numbers that let me calculate it.

I'm using a base unit of 5 yards of cloth, which is, with a generous hand wiggle, enough to make one person's outfit, maybe two.

According to these estimates:

In the early middle ages, using a hand spindle and warp-weighted loom, that might take about 70 hours of weaving and, at a low estimate, 500 hours of spinning. If someone devoted eight hours a day to nothing but spinning yarn, it would take them over two months to have enough to weave with.

In the Late Middle Ages, with the invention of the spinning wheel and horizontal loom, that figure would go down to 180 hours of spinning and 30 hours of weaving. The change in technology reduces the time down to almost a third of what it was before!

This really settles for me the question I had about my early-medieval fantasy setting, which is that there would be a lot of looms, a loom in every household, and that it would not at all be out of place for even aristocratic women to spin and weave on a regular basis.

Which like, to be cranky about fantasy heroines who hate sewing: In that kind of world, embroidery is a luxury. Weavers and spinners have to bust their butts just to put clothes on everybody's backs. Spinning and weaving that much is gruelling work that I would absolutely understand hating. However, it is not stupid, silly, or useless. Being able to embroider—to do something primarily decorative and artistic, just because it looks good and feels nice—is likely to be more of an escape from drudgery than the drudgery itself.

It really can't be overstated, how much the Industrial Revolution was a textile revolution. Our relationship to cloth and clothing has transformed out of all recognition over the last 300 years. There are undeniable advantages to this, because it frees us to do so many other things with our time. But it also makes it tough to look back into the past clearly, because it's so easy to forget that the burdens we've shed still existed back then.

[dwellordream]

“...A lone woman could, if she spun in almost every spare minute of her day, on her own keep a small family clothed in minimum comfort (and we know they did that). Adding a second spinner – even if they were less efficient (like a young girl just learning the craft or an older woman who has lost some dexterity in her hands) could push the household further into the ‘comfort’ margin, and we have to imagine that most of that added textile production would be consumed by the family (because people like having nice clothes!).

At the same time, that rate of production is high enough that a household which found itself bereft of (male) farmers (for instance due to a draft or military mortality) might well be able to patch the temporary hole in the family finances by dropping its textile consumption down to that minimum and selling or trading away the excess, for which there seems to have always been demand. ...Consequently, the line between women spinning for their own household and women spinning for the market often must have been merely a function of the financial situation of the family and the balance of clothing requirements to spinners in the household unit (much the same way agricultural surplus functioned).

Moreover, spinning absolutely dominates production time (again, around 85% of all of the labor-time, a ratio that the spinning wheel and the horizontal loom together don’t really change). This is actually quite handy, in a way, as we’ll see, because spinning (at least with a distaff) could be a mobile activity; a spinner could carry their spindle and distaff with them and set up almost anywhere, making use of small scraps of time here or there.

On the flip side, the labor demands here are high enough prior to the advent of better spinning and weaving technology in the Late Middle Ages (read: the spinning wheel, which is the truly revolutionary labor-saving device here) that most women would be spinning functionally all of the time, a constant background activity begun and carried out whenever they weren’t required to be actively moving around in order to fulfill a very real subsistence need for clothing in climates that humans are not particularly well adapted to naturally. The work of the spinner was every bit as important for maintaining the household as the work of the farmer and frankly students of history ought to see the two jobs as necessary and equal mirrors of each other.

At the same time, just as all farmers were not free, so all spinners were not free. It is abundantly clear that among the many tasks assigned to enslaved women within ancient households. Xenophon lists training the enslaved women of the household in wool-working as one of the duties of a good wife (Xen. Oik. 7.41). ...Columella also emphasizes that the vilica ought to be continually rotating between the spinners, weavers, cooks, cowsheds, pens and sickrooms, making use of the mobility that the distaff offered while her enslaved husband was out in the fields supervising the agricultural labor (of course, as with the bit of Xenophon above, the same sort of behavior would have been expected of the free wife as mistress of her own household).

...Consequently spinning and weaving were tasks that might be shared between both relatively elite women and far poorer and even enslaved women, though we should be sure not to take this too far. Doubtless it was a rather more pleasant experience to be the wealthy woman supervising enslaved or hired hands working wool in a large household than it was to be one of those enslaved women, or the wife of a very poor farmer desperately spinning to keep the farm afloat and the family fed. The poor woman spinner – who spins because she lacks a male wage-earner to support her – is a fixture of late medieval and early modern European society and (as J.S. Lee’s wage data makes clear; spinners were not paid well) must have also had quite a rough time of things.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of household textile production in the shaping of pre-modern gender roles. It infiltrates our language even today; a matrilineal line in a family is sometimes called a ‘distaff line,’ the female half of a male-female gendered pair is sometimes the ‘distaff counterpart’ for the same reason. Women who do not marry are sometimes still called ‘spinsters’ on the assumption that an unmarried woman would have to support herself by spinning and selling yarn (I’m not endorsing these usages, merely noting they exist).

E.W. Barber (Women’s Work, 29-41) suggests that this division of labor, which holds across a wide variety of societies was a product of the demands of the one necessarily gendered task in pre-modern societies: child-rearing. Barber notes that tasks compatible with the demands of keeping track of small children are those which do not require total attention (at least when full proficiency is reached; spinning is not exactly an easy task, but a skilled spinner can very easily spin while watching someone else and talking to a third person), can easily be interrupted, is not dangerous, can be easily moved, but do not require travel far from home; as Barber is quick to note, producing textiles (and spinning in particular) fill all of these requirements perfectly and that “the only other occupation that fits the criteria even half so well is that of preparing the daily food” which of course was also a female-gendered activity in most ancient societies. Barber thus essentially argues that it was the close coincidence of the demands of textile-production and child-rearing which led to the dominant paradigm where this work was ‘women’s work’ as per her title.

(There is some irony that while the men of patriarchal societies of antiquity – which is to say effectively all of the societies of antiquity – tended to see the gendered division of labor as a consequence of male superiority, it is in fact male incapability, particularly the male inability to nurse an infant, which structured the gendered division of labor in pre-modern societies, until the steady march of technology rendered the division itself obsolete. Also, and Barber points this out, citing Judith Brown, we should see this is a question about ability rather than reliance, just as some men did spin, weave and sew (again, often in a commercial capacity), so too did some women farm, gather or hunt. It is only the very rare and quite stupid person who will starve or freeze merely to adhere to gender roles and even then gender roles were often much more plastic in practice than stereotypes make them seem.)

Spinning became a central motif in many societies for ideal womanhood. Of course one foot of the fundament of Greek literature stands on the Odyssey, where Penelope’s defining act of arete is the clever weaving and unweaving of a burial shroud to deceive the suitors, but examples do not stop there. Lucretia, one of the key figures in the Roman legends concerning the foundation of the Republic, is marked out as outstanding among women because, when a group of aristocrats sneak home to try to settle a bet over who has the best wife, she is patiently spinning late into the night (with the enslaved women of her house working around her; often they get translated as ‘maids’ in a bit of bowdlerization. Any time you see ‘maids’ in the translation of a Greek or Roman text referring to household workers, it is usually quite safe to assume they are enslaved women) while the other women are out drinking (Liv. 1.57). This display of virtue causes the prince Sextus Tarquinius to form designs on Lucretia (which, being virtuous, she refuses), setting in motion the chain of crime and vengeance which will overthrow Rome’s monarchy. The purpose of Lucretia’s wool-working in the story is to establish her supreme virtue as the perfect aristocratic wife.

...For myself, I find that students can fairly readily understand the centrality of farming in everyday life in the pre-modern world, but are slower to grasp spinning and weaving (often tacitly assuming that women were effectively idle, or generically ‘homemaking’ in ways that precluded production). And students cannot be faulted for this – they generally aren’t confronted with this reality in classes or in popular culture. ...Even more than farming or blacksmithing, this is an economic and household activity that is rendered invisible in the popular imagination of the past, even as (as you can see from the artwork in this post) it was a dominant visual motif for representing the work of women for centuries.”

- Bret Devereaux, “Clothing, How Did They Make It? Part III: Spin Me Right Round…”

[fannishcodex]

Interesting meta from cruelfeline and others inspired my idea for a role swap AU where the main swap is between Hordak and Adora! There are other character swaps in the AU too, or swap variations.

Hordak is the latest Prim-Al, a living weapon that a First Ones faction clones over and over again each time one perishes in battle. FO created Prim-Al in response to their magitech AI Light Hope going rogue and constructing her own army of androids she calls the She-Ra. 

More under the cut, including Queen Adora, leader of the Etherian Alliance and stranded android still loyal to her creator, and her discovery of a baby Hordak (Content Warnings: ableism; child abuse; Catra is a villain and completes her transformation into a Shadow Weaver-like figure, and the implications of that):

But first, a little more summed up detail on Prim-Al’s deal, because there’s more to it:

-Hordak’s genetic template is a mysterious Subject A. The FO took preserved samples of Subject A to continually make clones of him for Prim-Al. 

-FO also made a digital copy of Subject A’s mind, a magitech AI named Prime. As a digital clone of an organic mind, much of him acts like an organic mind. Though FO has added some heavy programming and other alterations, they’ve tried to leave much of the organic-based behavior intact for multiple reasons--as an ongoing experiment in digital clones of minds, as an attempt to deter another rogue AI by trying to make this AI more aligned with organics (in contrast, RS!Light Hope was generally not based on an individual’s organic mind, she is not a digital clone like RS!Prime).

(Magitech is what it sounds like--a typically powerful fusion of magic and technology.)

-AI Prime is contained in the RS!Sword of Protection, and is actually the key to its power.

-The clones are actually vessels that channel magitech AI Prime through the sword. When a clone holds the sword, they sync with AI Prime inside, and together they essentially fuse and transform into Prim-Al.

-Prim-Al occurs in two stages. The first stage has some boost in power, some physical changes in body and clothes. The last stage has a greater boost in power and more physical changes--aged up (to a certain point), more muscular, longer hair, clothes, etc.

-AI Prime will only grant power to the clones/can only sync with the clones because they share a blood connection to the organic mind he was based on. This reaction is largely rooted in AI Prime’s magitech nature.

-Despite the death of Subject A, FO was able to preserve his mind and DNA to continue weaponizing him via biological and digital cloning. (The reasons for the FO’s focus on Subject A are also classified, though one can infer that Subject A possessed a power FO wanted to preserve and control....)

-AI Prime/the Sword of Protection is passed down through multiple iterations of Prim-Al.

-One of AI Prime’s functions is to also serve as a living archive of information, and so AI Prime remembers every Prim-Al. He is supposed to have this information available for new clone vessels to access.

-The clones do get names, but as they mature FO generally uses them less and refers to them as Prim-Al more. FO generally mistreat Prim-Al/clone vessels/AI Prime, seeing them as just weapons to keep under control.

FO doesn’t create a clone army because they’re honestly paranoid about creating another powerful enemy; they think that just one Prim-Al under selective limitations will grant them better control and avoid another Light Hope debacle. There are other classified reasons for this too. Also a FO faction created Prim-Al; the entirety of FO are embroiled in a civil war among each other as well as the war with Light Hope and other enemies.

The FO also put limitations on AI Prime for similar reasons, and all the more so because he’s an AI--they don’t want AI Prime to be another rogue AI like Light Hope.

Feel like sharing some design/tone notes:

Besides playing around with fusing traits from both Hordak and Horde Prime, I was also influenced by Link and the Master Sword in Breath of the Wild, as well as the Drifter in Hyper Light Drifter.

(Above: Base Form!RS!Adora is partly a drawover of a show image.)

The She-Ra units are magitech androids with a base form and a more powerful form they can transform into. This transformation is rooted in their magitech nature.

Gonna try to keep these notes on the art as more of a summary for now, and may reveal more specific details about the role swap AU later in separate text posts or even just keep it to later fic--also, still brainstorming, so material in the sketches and the text may change later; and also just felt like this art needed more context/clarification/background info:

(Baby!RS!Hordak is supposed to resemble canon!Imp, thanks to fic from/talking with @revasnaslan​. More info on that is below. Also yes, RS!Adora wrapped baby!RS!Hordak in her cape. :3)

FO preferred raising/training/indoctrinating the Prim-Al clone vessels from infancy, thinking this would give them greater control. They also thought it would make Prim-Al feel even more connected to organics and avoid sympathizing with any rogue AI like Light Hope.

RS!Adora finds the alien baby stranded on Etheria due to a wayward portal (like her situation), and she names him “Hordak” based on the little data she gets from the wrecked escape pod she finds him in. The data had only been text that read “Predecessor: Kadroh,” and she just reversed that name for the boy. RS!Adora names him as part of his paperwork, intending to have him sent to the infirmary with the other orphans, she can’t spend anymore time on him.

RS!Adora fought the Prim-Al before Hordak, but never knew his name was Kadroh. She doesn’t immediately see a resemblance between Hordak and Prim-Al because Hordak is a baby and she’s never really thought about Prim-Al being an organic infant before. Another significant thing is that like in @revasnaslan ‘s Where One Fell-verse fic, infants/children of Hordak’s species start completely blue, and then their faces turn white as they mature; also as @revasnaslan pointed out to me, there’s Imp, baby/child-like clone of Hordak without a white face. So RS!Adora slowly starts seeing the resemblance between Hordak and Prim-Al as Hordak’s growing up and his face starts turning white, and she honestly starts internally freaking out because by this point, between having to provide him medical assistance for his defect and having to spend more time with him than intended and watching him grow up more closely than she planned, RS!Adora is attached enough that the implications of Hordak somehow being the latest Prim-Al is distressing for her and provides a serious conflict with her loyalty to RS!Light Hope...

(Also just feel like saying that while I’m brainstorming that RS!Adora is kind of an android that’s been around for a while/like 1000+ years, I’m more in the camp that thinks that canon Hordak is actually quite young/not centuries old, even though he might have the potential for that/he can get that old later.)

There are more details on how baby RS!Hordak ends up on Etheria and the unique situation behind his birth, but that’s for another text post or fic.

RS!Adora passes herself off as an organic (even a native) while on Etheria. One metal arm is left exposed due to a minor glitch there that messes up the regen protocol for her synthetic skin; she pretends it’s just armor mainly for aesthetic/ceremonial purposes. But this is equivalent to a superficial scar, and it does not hinder or cause RS!Adora any great pain. Before Etheria she was considered one of RS!Light Hope’s perfect androids, and a random portal just plucked her from routine combat duty. (Light Hope didn’t really notice; any missing She-Ra units were assumed to be casualties of battle, and she had plenty more She-Ra units to replace any losses.) 

RS!Catra is a commander in RS!Adora’s Etherian Alliance. RS!Adora and RS!Catra have grown estranged while nominally on the same side. (I’ve been brainstorming RS!Adora/RS!Scorpia down the line after quite a few things go down.)

RS!Catra learned magic in Mystacor and RS!Light Spinner was her most influential mentor. RS!Catra’s specialty was transforming into a large predatory feline and other spells to strengthen her body. (I just keep getting more intrigued by original ‘80s Catra.)

When RS!Light Spinner roped RS!Catra into helping her with the Spell of Obtainment, things turned disastrous. The spell backfire warped RS!Catra, scarring her with a shadowy substance and granting her new shadow-like powers that made her vastly stronger, but the abrupt and traumatic change wrought by magic led to an initial period of insatiability and loss of control that resulted in RS!Catra transforming into an even larger, shadow-constructed feline that killed/devoured Light Spinner and other sorcerers investigating the commotion. RS!Catra flees Mystacor after this and eventually gains control over her new power, but grows more corrupt with it too, and is also left with a new hunger. Years later RS!Catra throws her lot in with the Alliance of monarchs and RS!Adora to solidify/take control of Etheria. (At the moment there’s tentatively another complicating factor with the Spell of Obtainment in this AU, but gonna leave that for another post or fic while I spend more time privately brainstorming it first.)

(Also RS!Catra’s design is very much based on her S3 finale corrupted form because I thought that was neat and that it could work in this AU. I also liked the idea of just using shadow magic to wrap around her and transform her into a large predatory shadow feline as a callback of her original ‘80s incarnation.)

Though RS!Adora is at the head of the Etherian Alliance with RS!Catra as her commander and essentially right hand, most of its high command is made of princesses and other monarchs/nobles who wished to tighten their control over Etheria. However, the Scorpion kingdom, Bright Moon, and Dryl resisted this agenda, and the Alliance considered them enemies and part of the rebels.

RS!Catra actually does just drop RS!Hordak off at the infirmary with the other orphans, complying with RS!Adora’s orders. Despite sensing some strong magic from RS!Hordak, RS!Catra’s content to leave him with the other orphans and just keep an eye on him for now.

(The magic RS!Catra’s sensing from RS!Hordak is something that can only be really triggered once he has the Sword of Protection.)

But when Hordak’s around four years old, his body starts breaking down/his defect becomes apparent. Many in the Alliance give up on the boy’s use as a soldier-in-training (or even use as a servant) and consider casting him out, despite RS!Adora’s insistence that they have enough resources to spare on providing the boy with ongoing medical assistance. (RS!Adora is motivated by a variety of things, including honoring Light Hope’s precept that all creatures have a place under her reign (until she orders otherwise); and at this point RS!Adora still feels some connection to her fellow portal traveler stranded on Etheria and feels compelled to try to help in this situation.) It’s then that RS!Catra steps in and takes in RS!Hordak as her ward. She still thinks he has use (she can still sense great magic from him) and sees this as an opportunity to position herself as the boy’s “savior” and really secure his loyalty.

Though the relationship between RS!Adora and RS!Catra is gradually deteriorating, the nature of RS!Catra’s true motives for taking in RS!Hordak is essentially lost on RS!Adora. While largely everyone in the Alliance had spurned the idea of keeping RS!Hordak around any longer now that he was defective--something RS!Adora found rather discouraging--RS!Catra’s the only one other than RS!Adora to express some interest in the boy. In the face of that much rejection, RS!Adora thinks that if RS!Catra wants to take RS!Hordak as her ward, she should have him.

RS!Adora constructs RS!Hordak’s first set of assistive armor. This eventually includes surgery and giving him ports for a closer/better connection to the armor. RS!Adora continues to treat RS!Hordak and maintain his armor, and helps educate him on how it works when he expresses interest in it and science/technology in general.

RS!Catra is not a good adoptive mother to RS!Hordak. She trains him brutally, pushes him as far as his defect will allow, telling him he needs to work harder to make up for his defect and keep up with everyone else. Her harsh words encourage his self-loathing, and she does aim to break him down to keep him compliant. She’s basically partly swapped with Shadow Weaver in this AU (partly since RS!Light Spinner isn’t really swapped, she’s partially in a “what if she was really on the wrong end of the Spell of Obtainment and was killed by its backfire like those Mystacor sorcerers were,” and also “what if Catra was her student at Mystacor instead of Micah.”)

For a long time RS!Hordak believes he deserves RS!Catra’s harsh treatment, and is afraid that she’ll cast him out if he’s not good enough. He’s aware that there’s no one else in the Alliance that would really take him in. He worries that RS!Adora would just withdraw her mercy and assistance if she realized how weak he really was, so he often tries to hide as much of that as he can from her, including signs of RS!Catra’s abusive treatment. RS!Catra sometimes softens with RS!Hordak--for example, she taught him how to drive a skiff and those were calm lessons, with RS!Catra less demanding and less harsh than when she trains him in combat--but she does not provide him with consistent care and continues to emotionally/verbally/mentally/physically abuse him.   

(Above: Definitely referenced a screenshot from the show. Not pictured: Probably RS!Prime losing his shit immediately after this and cursing RS!Catra out and maybe breaking out a recording of one of RS!Adora’s tongue-lashings to unsettle her.)

RS!Catra is furious when RS!Hordak finally runs away in his teens. Her relationship with him has become somewhat less business and more dangerously personal; she has developed a twisted affection for him as her adopted son, and that makes her reactions even more volatile and harsh when he runs away. RS!Catra does not react well to RS!Hordak’s attempts to escape her.

(When RS!Hordak leaves the Etherian Alliance, he’s a little younger than canon!Adora when she leaves the Etherian Horde due to some reasons that’ll be saved for another text post or fic.)

RS!Hordak isn’t used to getting encouragement from an authority figure/older adult, it always startles him whenever it happens.

(Playing around with role swap AU--also felt like having RS!AI Prime be softer than both canon!Light Hope and canon!Horde Prime, and that’s included him being more supportive/encouraging and even more snarky/playful as another sketch comic indicated above [though part of his humor is just like a result of--he’s pretty old, some inhibitions have just dropped over time and he’s seen quite a few things just repeat over and over, and part of his response to that is to sometimes act more flippant].)

While previous Prim-Al have had some slight variations in appearance depending on the individual clone vessel’s clothing/scars/etc., Hordak’s Prim-Al transformation is the most drastically different. All of his older clone-brothers have had white hair and yellow eyes, and so their Prim-Al transformations have had long white hair and one yellow eye, while the rest turned green and gained visible pupils. Hordak has blue hair and red eyes, and so his Prim-Al transformation reflects that more--the red eye stays, and Prim-Al now has blue hair with a few streaks of white. He has clothes with a primary color scheme of black-and-red instead of black-and-white. Hordak’s Prim-Al is slightly shorter than previous Prim-Al. Hordak’s Prim-Al has more armor, since they shield his defect--which Prim-Al now has since Hordak has it. Due to this, Hordak’s Prim-Al, while gaining a significant boost in power/etc., is typically not as strong as his brothers’ Prim-Al transformations. (However, Hordak’s determination and tolerance for pain is regularly equal to his older brothers’ own determination and tolerance for pain.)

Though the defect remains, the use of AI Prime to trigger the Prim-Al transformation again provides greater power. It also does have some effect on appearance and structure. A closer examination of Prim-Al should show this: Prim-Al looks more like someone recently scarred/mutilated/afflicted with a defect, rather than someone who’s grown up with it. And so, though defective, Prim-Al’s arms look less withered and retain more muscle, and generally look better than Hordak’s usual arms. (And again, they still have a magitech boost going on.)

While FO did program AI Prime to have some regard for the clone vessels, he started caring more than they had planned. AI Prime grew to genuinely care for every clone vessel for Prim-Al, and saw them more as brothers. This now includes Hordak. And though he values his brothers and means well, AI Prime’s cynicism and (remnant) programming can sometimes get in the way of his attempts to help. His own deep-seated trauma can be a factor too. 

With every new clone, AI Prime initially tries to distance himself to avoid further pain, because he grieves the loss of every clone--but he ultimately always admits to seeing them as brothers. (With his long life and the FO and Light Hope and other external factors trapping him in this cycle, AI Prime somewhat copes by comparing the whole thing to the passing of seasons. He’ll be passed down to a new clone-brother, he’ll try to resist caring about the clone-brother, he’ll grow to care about the clone-brother anyway, clone-brother dies, he’s alone until the next clone-brother comes, and then the whole thing starts again.) 

Though AI Prime is a digital clone of Subject A’s mind, he doesn’t have complete access to his mental template’s memories due to FO intervention. The FO also did not tell AI Prime everything.

Yep the LUVD crystal is there, RS!Entrapta should be another sketch post or fic. She’s gone from like the oldest princess to the youngest princess in this AU, and is around the same age as RS!Hordak.

Thanks for checking this out, hope you enjoyed this AU! Hope to have more about this up later.

Forgot to add: Yep RS!Kadroh is that Kadroh, he’s RS!Wrong Hordak in this AU.

[elsewhereuniversity]

ARACHNE'S CLUSTER

(Also called Elsewhere University United Societies for Textile Crafts, formerly the Elsewhere Stitch and Bitch Network and the Elsewhere Chapter of the Guild of Spinners, Weavers, and Dyers)

We all go by spider, in the end. 

Strictly speaking, we have our own individual safe names: Doily , and Wolf, and Huntsman, and the Widow Twins (who aren’t, strictly, twins, or perhaps (strictly) the same species, but that's a moot point given their direct and-final-approach to those pedants who try to identify the False Widow of the pair.) Sun, Turret, Orb weaver, Lynx, Garden, Lattice or Recluse, there is a security to our collective Names.

A cluster, a clutter, a tangle of Arachne's daughters, we spin and weave and knit our tangled webs of warmth or love, of spells and curses and prosaic, powerful Caring (and who can tell the difference, up close). Armour against rain and wind and cold, that ancient humdrum human's-glamour of painstaking beauty, our claims laid and marks made on wall and floor and friend.

(Huntsman, now, he makes armour of a more literal sort these days, welding shirts of cold iron in the metallurgy lab. He changed last year.)

Perhaps we should have expected our members to have their... knack... for the Things of the Forbidden Major. In a place where reality has been worn as threadbare as Elsewhere, belief can twist and stretch and warp those patches into holes, or darn and stitch them into a new shape. And there are such generations of strong, desperate, domestic belief behind us, passed down the distaff side (if you will) since long before we set foot anywhere.

The curse of the love sweater- knit one and they'll never marry you. Or indeed of socks: they walk away. Contrariwise, work a strand of your hair into a gift. and see the recipient bound to you forever. (Experiments with pet hair have offered no conclusive results, but Lynx perseveres). An item worked in summer will trap summer's warmth inside. A pregnant woman, seeing a naked loom, will miscarry. (Some small hope for the desperate, perhaps). Include a mistake in every project to hide it from the fairies, and if you want to hex contemplate your victim as you frog. There is a certain power in the intentional destruction of so much time, and effort, and care.

No, we should not have been surprised. Consider, if you will, The Moirai, the Parcae, the Norns. Those gatherings of women who spin and measure out the threads of our lives. Those who weave fate from them. Those that cut them, in the end. Helen, at her loom, weaving out her story, her Iliad. Penelope, stalling time and fate. Voiceless Philomela weaving her testimony of rape, her revenge.

"If, while riding a horse overland, a man should come upon a woman spinning, then that is a very bad sign... he should turn around and take another way" (Jacob Grimm,1835)

There is a power to work, one inherent in intention, in that time and care and skill of human beings for human beings. There is, perhaps, a definitional humanity to it, and a unity. "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then a gentleman?"

So next time you find yourself needing to spin straw into gold, or craft graveyard nettles into fine strong shirts to turn swans back into your brothers, come find us. We're cheaper (and mostly less mangled) than poor old Rumplestiltskin, and we love to teach- new members always welcome! Meetings are every other Thursday, when they aren't Tuesdays, in the neutral locations advertised on the second Sunday of every month on the cobwebbed notice board in the Old Library. Will you come into my parlour, said the spider - no? you don't know that one? Never mind.

If you'd rather buy or trade, we're easier to find, though the expense is greater and the effect... less. You'll see us around. Where we sit, listening, in the corners of your anversations. Where we gather, chitter chattering, toiling over our toiles, spinning our yarns, our distaff gospels and Anansi stories. Networking, working our nets.

Come by, come buy.

x

[etherian-affairs]

No one in upper command of the Horde was doing their job right

 (You’re probably going to need to put this under a “Keep Reading” post because this analysis is big)

(submission from my good secret friend, above is their own suggestion, it’s good though. Read it.)

I was watching “Signals” again and was paying attention to the “Catra has to deal with the real horror of being Second in Command: Paperwork” segment and I was amazed at just how everything in one section of the Horde was brought to a complete standstill (as in the unit stopped fighting because their requests for armor were unanswered several times for possibly months) and wondered how did that happen.

Then I realized (1) Shadow Weaver was SiC for decades and she most likely made things very difficult to do because that would make it harder for Hordak to get rid of her.

(2) Catra was not prepared for an actual leadership role either because SW did not see her as an officer candidate and didn’t train Catra to both be a warrior and leader.

(3) Hordak is an idiot for not properly paying attention to his army when he should have. 

The ore comes from the foundry–> the ore is mined and sent to the armory to be processed–> the newly minted armor is then distributed to the Horde Supply/Logistics Corp –> and then the pallets of armor are given to the correct unit

That’s the gist of the steps it takes the armor to get from ground to soldier. 

Point 1: 

Shadow Weaver was SiC of the whole Horde Army and thanks to Hordak not paying attention to her, until the last few years, she has most likely done her best to take full command and made herself the lynchpin to important operations as well as take credit for things that went well.

————————

No Princess Left Behind

SW: “You’re under my command. Anything you manage to do right is credited to me.”

Catra: “I do the work, you get the glory?”

SW: “That’s just the way of things.”

———————–

No one really noticed the problem (or if they did they were silenced because Hordak was off doing his own thing and not available)  because Shadow Weaver was always in command, until she wasn’t. That’s where things started to fall apart.

************** 

Point 2:

Shadow Weaver really overstepped her bounds, defied a direct order from Hordak himself, while he watched no less, and messed with an important plan and Hordak finally had enough and made Catra his SiC. Hordak thought, since Shadow Weaver trained her along with Adora she’d be alright in being her replacement. He was wrong. 

Catra was NOT trained like Adora was. We see Adora making plans and leading others and she is goal oriented and knows how to plan. She is leadership material and can inspire others to follow her lead. Catra is a fine warrior but she does not have what it takes to lead people and thinks that fear and intimidation are the way to go. Catra gets power and seems to want to yell at some of her squadmates, rather than lead them. She also can’t stand to do “busywork” and thinks that leading charges and going to battles is what SiC’s do.

————-

“ How do I defeat the Rebellion when all I do is this stupid busy work? I bet Shadow Weaver didn’t have to deal with this.”

“These are her files, so, she probably did? Just saying.”

————

Catra was not prepared for the realities of being a Force Captain/SiC because Shadow Weaver didn’t really train her in proper leadership roles because in the end Adora was supposed to be Force Captain.

*******************

Point 3:

Hordak his been neglecting his duties as overall Horde Commander and hasn’t been paying attention to what’s been really happening to his army, and was trusting Shadow Weaver way too much in how things were really going. Hordak has Imp and he records some important news, but he can’t be everywhere all the time and he probably hasn’t been talking to all his Force Captains very often.

————.

Hordak: “Not only did you lose the princess known as Glimmer, but I learned that you’ve known Adora was She-Ra all along.”

SW: “ Now you see why I felt it was so important to bring her back.”

Hordak: “ All you did was invite attack from an enemy combatant with detailed knowledge of our operations. If I had known, I never would have agreed to your foolish plan.”

————

Hordak has been way too preoccupied with building the portal at the cost of him personally leading his army and, for some godawful reason, put way too much faith in others to do his job.

Honestly, The Horde is run on duct tape and a prayer. 

================

Etherian-Affairs Submission Addition™

Yeah I was kind of touching on this in my Villains need to make bad decisions post.

I choose to believe Hordak himself is actually a very competent leader when he’s leading but man does he not seem interested in doing that.

My reasons for this are of course that in Light Spinner we see that the horde appear on the stage, take the scorpion kingdom and the garnet, establish the fright zone, construct a decent amount of fright zone, and are generally fast and hyper competent. This would have been when Hordak was leading directly.

We also see that even after all these years of having her way Shadow Weaver is still terrified of him.

My other reason for competent Hordak headcanon is that it’s sexy.

But his grand failing is he just doesn’t seem to care. Until he does, then he cares too much. Shadow Weaver just shows up and he’s like “yeah okay” as far as we know. Presumably because he wants nothing to do with Etheria. Which like okay I get it but come on man. 

The Horde is a shitshow and a lot of that traces back to Shadow Weaver, but Shadow Weaver being in that position traces back to Hordak. 

My boy needs to get his act together.

[olympivnshq]

congratulations wyn ! we are so very thrilled to have CLOTHO join the fray. your interpretation is both lovely and strong in its depiction of sisterly loyalty and the recognition of her responsibilities as the weaver. we can’t wait to see how she and ATROPOS witness the cursed deities. please join us with your first faceclaim choice: ABIGAIL COWEN.

☆ﾟ*・ﾟ  OOC INFO.

wyn, 24, she/her, cst, and I enjoy angst filled storylines

☆ﾟ*・ﾟ  DEITY  —  GENDER. AGE RANGE.

CLOTHO MOIRAI— FEMALE. 20 - 24

☆ﾟ*・ﾟ MORTAL NAME. JOB/OCCUPATION. BOROUGH/NEIGHBORHOOD.

Catalina Ripley. Surgeon, Medical Records Administrator at Ridgeview Clinic. Queens, New York/Jackson Heights

☆ﾟ*・ﾟ FACE-CLAIM.

abigail cowen 

☆ﾟ*・ HOW WOULD YOU PLAY THEM?

PAST the fates are an enigma in creation, origins are unknown but they are there always, ever since the titans and it’s been suspected even beyond that. Clotho is the youngest yet gives no childlike quality to her personality, she knows the workings of the world and could be considered someone with the ability of emotion manipulation given how well she reads into the people around her, laying bare and raw to the world the insides of mortals and immortals alike no matter how ugly. She weaved their thread on the tapestry of life  after all. Clotho is a nurturer, sweet hearted, offering advice or a gentle touch when needed.  She however is not indulgent, the decisions made even if the fates had a hand in it will be met with cold indifference or tears. She is enigmatic, eloquent, a chooser of when a person is born and when they die along with her sisters so some breaking of mentality was bound to happen. losing so many many “ children ” to death becomes harder, difficult to handle and occasionally fits of not being wholly there occur in her skull. but sisters are capable of picking up the pieces once she returns to herself.

Atropos’s word is law, she values and loves her sister to much to deter loyalties yet they all have had their quarrels they work as a trio, a unit of unshakable faith in one another.

NOW

with memories encased in a snowglobe of her mind Clotho now known as Catalina Ripley is gentler and friendly than her other half and more sound of mind. Catalina prefers to help others, to lend a helping hand without a darker motive which was why ever since she was a child the medical field called her name. she adores working at the clinic or doing outpatient tasks, it makes her warm and happy to assist those around her. just the feeling of life in people if only a little at a time is breathtaking.

on the other hand Catalina pushes herself back from certain emotions, shoves them down into a part of herself and makes certain they never are addressed. she has a problem with that, shutting down in favor of analyzing an issue and decides that going through it is too much, prefers to run away from it. sometimes she will, mechanical smiles and friendly speech are a sign that she’s still not there. still not as open as people perceive her to be.

she’s more like her “father” in that regard than she wants to admit, he could build friendships/allies but wasn’t emotionally there, could easily watch a “friend” die or what he did to the woman known as her mother in this life, play a loving spouse but not really getting close. emotionally closed off. especially when it comes to fights or arguments she’d take that, flinch or get scared but then bury her feelings and cut it out. pull back from the person as after all they were never a friend to begin with. She struggles with opening up, becomes paranoid when it comes to the care of the woman she refers to as mother in her despondent state of mind as her sire is no longer in the picture. poisoned and laid out on the glass kitchen table like a feast in their old hometown with enemies and allies ever watchful.

answer these questions:

1. would you like your character to be entering the roleplay at this stage in the plot, with or without their memories?

I would like her to have memories without, makes things interesting don’t you think?

2. are they more likely to stand with the pantheon or against it?  ( if you are choosing a god they may endeavour to dismantle it for whatever reason )

stand with the pantheon, to whatever end the fates only know but not all loyalties last.

3. what is their stand on mortals?

given she is the spinner of the thread she has gentle feelings towards mortals, refers to them as her own children despite that not being the case but she does care for them immensely, weeps when they enter a hardship or dies, cheers them on when overcoming disaster. yet that does not deter her from being stern with them, to almost show near callous attitude if they overstep. clotho knows her place and knows her duty, knows that the mortals die in a cycle with her sisters’s shears echoing in her ears. so despite motherly temperament she shows signs of detachment

☆ﾟ*・ GIVE US A SAMPLE OF YOUR WRITING!CHOOSE AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS

The baby was cherubic, pinchable chubby cheeks and eyes that reminded her of endless forests, a sea of green with a wide gummy smile. a baby girl, who yet had to bare a name, a tie to this world and to the beginning of her life. “  what will you call her?  “  Clotho turned her gaze from the fragile form in her arms to the mother still laying on the bed, a sheen of sweat covering her form but alive, the fates had no need to cut her thread that day but nonetheless would be in this same position again with altered task and opened shears.

Both parents remainded silent, different reasons each but she could taste them on her tongue and in the air. given the history of first borns she should have been a he, a male heir in such a time was celebrated yet clotho was not one for such a mindset.  "  a name please, or have you decided that our choice was wrong?  "  pretty smile filled with glittering feral, hungry teeth, softness from before no longer apparent. truth etched in form but the baby girl held close still didn’t cry out at the change.

Father went pale when gaze and words noticed to be directed his way, fear clouding his form and sweat soon formed on his brow as if he had been the one to give birth. he didn’t let it pass his lips the unfortunate truth of not wanting it, to ask them to take the child away and perhaps he’d forget about his choice. move on try again. they didn’t work that way however.

"  I-Ilythiya, that’s her name.  ”

Clotho hummed, as if the name hadn’t already designed itself in skull, crafted a life laid out on a tapestry her hands would soon take up to continue the path. “  beautiful.  "  light steps took her back to the mother’s side after introducing her sisters to the newly named Iilythiya. gently handing her over and patting the girls head with soft smile. "  you will do wonderful things little one.  ”

☆ﾟ*・ ANYTHING ELSE?

[riusugoi]

PRE FACE: Or How to Begin at the End - Amy Ireland

http://ah-journal.net/issues/01/pre-face-or-how-to-begin-at-the-end -   As in a woven image or pattern, the course taken from discrete threads to the emergence of a represented, recognisable object or product, is a nonlinear one. Once enough threads have been put into place, a motif emerges, but it is always in terms of a retrochronic legibility, premised on a process that is necessarily primary: the construction of the hardware and the programming of the software that execute the patterns of intrication presiding over the warp and weft of the threads which form the image. The lesson—one which would fascinate Plant—that can be taken from this is that recognition, conceptual identification and negation are always secondary. In this sense, the primary process of weaving is a future coincident with the present’s past. The moment of identification and appearance always arrives behind the functioning of the process which assembles it as its object—whether this is an industrial product, a historical phenomenon, or indeed, a self. Ada Lovelace’s writings testify to an intuitive apprehension of this fundamental delay. Rebuffed from admission into the Royal Society of London because of her sex, but convinced that her pioneering work would one day be understood for what it was, she did not even bother to append her name to the Menebrea footnotes, confiding to Babbage, ‘I do not wish to proclaim who has written it’.5 In both the conscious maintenance of her anonymity and her contribution to the technologisation of the processes of production that would link computation and weaving together, Ada Lovelace conspired with the primary process immanent to all representation—invisible, patient and quietly anticipating the long term effects of her work, lagging far behind their imperceptible, perpetually futural, initiation.

Women and machines, Plant argues, have historically shared the ghostlike position of the intermediary. They are nonetheless ‘the very “possibility of mediation, transaction, transition, transference”’.6 Man’s ‘go-betweens’, the ‘anonymous editors, secretaries, copyists, and clerks’, those who

took his messages, decrypted his codes, counted his numbers, bore his children, and passed on his genetic code. They have worked as his bookkeepers and his memory banks, zones of deposit and withdrawal, promissory notes, credit and exchange, not merely servicing the social world, but underwriting reality itself. Goods and chattels. The property of man.7

Apocalypse or salvation only appear as legitimate endpoints to a subjectivity premised on integral stasis and an inherently binarising logic that is dialectally subsumed into a temporal linearity produced via a double reference to an inaccessible origin and a fear of death (united in the word ‘matrix’), both of which must be appropriated, mastered and overcome. To usurp the position of authority and channel—through obfuscation, anonymity, intelligence and cunning, the weaving of a coded message or a riddle—the course of history, via the technology of prophecy is also, in its disturbance of telos, a practice of weaving time.

‘Women have always spun, carded and weaved, albeit anonymously. Without name. In perpetuity. Everywhere yet nowhere,’ writes Plant.11 To prophesy is to complicate, pleat, loop or fold time. One is said to ‘weave’ a spell or a charm, knotting a virtual future into the obscure unfolding of the present and its written past. There is a connection, emphasised by Plant, between weaving, magic, prophecy and secrecy, who notes (quoting Mircea Eliade’s Rites and Symbols of Initiation) that, ‘The moon “spins” Time and weaves human lives. The Goddesses of Destiny are spinners.”’12 When Eliade looks at the traditional tribal ‘seclusion of pubescent girls and menstruating women, often the occasion for the spinning of both actual and fictional yarns’, she continues, ‘he detects “an occult connection between the conception of the periodical creations of the world … and the ideas of Time and Destiny, on the one hand, and on the other, nocturnal work, women’s work, which has to be performed far from the light of the sun and almost in secret’.13

As the link between the ancient, feminised labour of weaving and the dawn of accelerating computation technologies, Ada Lovelace is a cyborg, and a prophet. She is in good company. Among such figures always, significantly, feminised, trans- or poly-gendered, are the many, mad monstrosities of mythology and cultural history. These pathologised and frightful seers arrive consistently from outside and approach Read Only Memory history simultaneously from what it understands as a before and an after, the past and the future, always and at once infiltrating from beneath and from afar, like the Sphinx, Tiresias, or the Eumenides that haunt the narrative of Sophocles’ Oedipus plays. The sphinx is a cyborg or a hybrid—part woman, part eagle, part lion—who dispatches a prophecy concealed in a riddle (What goes on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs in the evening?) to which Oedipus, thinking he has solved it, responds with the answer ‘Man’.16 Tiresias, a transgendered prophet, figured in T.S. Eliot’s indictment of a tragic modernity, The Waste Land as ‘blind / throbbing between two lives / Old man with wrinkled female breasts’ is, according to a footnote, the poem’s ‘most important personage’.17 It is Tiresias who ‘perceives the substance of the poem’ (the seer’s role in the text emerges, interestingly, in relation to the scene concerning two feminised labourers: the secretary and the clerk), and who delivers to Oedipus, in Oedipus Rex, the terrible prophecy of patricide and incest that, precisely in trying to avoid, Oedipus unwittingly fulfils.18 The Eumenides, Erinyes or Fates, ‘daughters of the earth, of the dark!’ preside over Oedipus’ death or disappearance in the enigmatic final scene of Oedipus at Colonus in which, fated to expire in the Eumenides’ sacred grove, Oedipus vanishes, with only the king of Athens and a confused messenger looking on, the latter proclaiming as he returns from the mysterious site, ‘Oedipus is dead! But no short speech could explain what happened’, an utterance reprised moments later in the question of the Chorus, ‘What? What happened?’19 The Fates are traditionally goddesses of time and, infamously, weavers—like Ariadne who is connected with both the weaving and unweaving of the Athenian labyrinth, particularly enigmatically in Nietzsche, as Deleuze points out in Nietzsche and Philosophy, claiming that, ‘Ariadne is Nietzsche's first secret’, the double of Dionysus, who recursively completes nihilism in affirming the Dionysian affirmation.20 The etymology of ‘Sphinx’ in ancient Greek derives from the verb σφίγγω (sphíngō), meaning ‘to squeeze’ or ‘tighten up’ (Plant: ‘[K]nitting is a matter of making loops. At its simplest, it is done with a single, continuous thread, which loops around and intricates itself’) and as Robert Graves recounts in The White Goddess, ‘Sphinx means “throttler” … in Etruscan ceramic art she is usually portrayed as seizing men, or standing on their prostate figures’.21 The concept corresponding to fate in Anglo-Saxon culture is ‘wyrd’ (Shakespeare renders the Greek Fates as the—again, transgendered—Wyrd Sisters of Macbeth), its Norse cognate is Urðr, connected to the Norns, or weaving female deities who control the destinies of men, and both words are derived from the root wert, ‘to turn’, ‘to spin’ or ‘to wind’.

What is it about this fearful link between women, weaving, and temporal power that transforms them into such sick and monstrous creatures in the collective imagination?22 Is it the fact that they are always either partial or multiple—‘at least two’—and thereby intractable to the rules of identity, straddling both sides of being, the transcendental and its objects?23 Or that they index—for the identity that comes to reflect upon them—a primary alienation, from the 'matrix', matter or ‘mother’ that begets it? Representation is always in the thrall of something monstrous it cannot perceive. For Oedipus, for Babbage and his colleagues, for those who speak the language of history, the unrepresentable arrives first, but also last. These threshold beings of the future and the past, presiding over the fragile threads integrating life and death inhabit both edges of time and enfold everything within their trap, secreted in the present. They are at once the secret ‘origin’ of an obscure—because nonlinear—production, and the prophetesses of the ‘end'. ‘There are only two answers to the question “which comes first” and both of them are female,’ writes Plant, 'the male element is simply an offshoot from a female loop’.24 Zeros + Ones itself closes with the casting of a prophecy. Plant writes of the processes she has been describing that they are ‘a code for the numbers to come’.25

En "The Infra-World", un pequeño tratado sobre lo imperceptible en el arte y la cultura, François J. Bonnet resalta un raro fragmento en prosa titulado ‘Heracles 2 or The Hydra,’ encontrado en la obra de Heiner Müller de 1972, "Cement".

‘Heracles 2 or The Hydra’ narra las vicisitudes de su protagonista, guerrero y masculino, Heracles, a medida que se adentra más y más en una jungla desorientadora en busca de una bestia mítica y feminizada que habrá de confrontar y matar en batalla, la Hidra. Mientras persigue al animal que cree estar cazando, siguiendo un rastro de sangre, [...] el abundante follaje de la retorcida vegetación le impide ver el cielo, su única fuente para la navegación temporal, y se encuentra con repeticiones de configuraciones de ramas particulares que alteran y distorsionan ya por completo su impresión de estar avanzando en el espacio. Llevado por un sentimiento de creciente desesperación, Heracles acelera su paso pero no puede distinguir si camina más rápido o más despacio que antes. Peor aún, la jungla parece estar animada por algún tipo extraño de consciencia y él comienza a creer que está poniéndole a prueba. Se olvida de su nombre y comienza a disociarse de su propio sentido de auto-consciencia y de su sentido de integridad corporal.

A medida que el espacio de la jungla cambia a su alrededor "solo él, el innombrable, se había mantenido igual en su largo y costoso camino a la batalla. ¿O era aquello que caminaba sobre sus piernas en el cada vez más rápido suelo danzante también algo diferente a lo que él era? Todavía estaba pensando en ello, cuando la jungla, una vez más, lo atrapó".

[...] Lentamente, lo que queda de Heracles, se da cuenta de que el rastro de sangre que ha estado siguiendo es la suya propia, y que la bestia mítica que creía estar cazando no es otra que la jungla misma:

"No avanzó más, la jungla le seguía el ritmo… y él entendió, con creciente pánico: la jungla era la Hidra, hacía tiempo que la jungla que creía estar atravesando era la bestia, era quien le llevaba en el ritmo de sus pasos, las ondas del suelo eran su jadeo y el viento su respiración, el rastro que había seguido era el de su propia sangre, de la que la selva, que era la bestia, se llevaba buena parte (¿cuánta sangre tiene un ser humano?); y también entendió que siempre lo había sabido, aunque no pudiese nombrarlo".

[...] Mientras él intenta combatirla, se da cuenta de que los golpes se vuelven hacia él, en una confusión entre usuario y herramienta (la separación que permitía su maestría), la compostura y el control se desangran entre los restos en descomposición del suelo nauseabundo de la jungla. [...] Heracles se ha encontrado con la forma del secreto

[fibula-rasa]

24-Hours in The Twilight Zone

When I learned that a certain cable network isn’t doing their annual Twilight Zone marathon this year...

I decided to plan out a 24-hour block of Twilight Zone episodes myself. I limited myself to episodes that reflected on American life or American history to fit the holiday. (In other words, don’t come at me if your favorite episodes aren’t on this list. All of mine aren’t either!)

All episodes included are available streaming through Netflix and Amazon Prime. The full guide with episode numbers is below the jump, but here’s a Primetime preview:

Happy Viewing!

6:00am - The Shelter (3.3)

Things get ugly when a birthday party in a peaceful suburb is interrupted by a civil defense alert.

6:30am - The Old Man in the Cave (5.7)

In 1974, the survivors of nuclear apocalypse try to stay alive with the aid of a mysterious man in a cave at the outskirts of town. (Starring James Coburn & John Anderson)

7:00am - Two (3.1)

Two lone soldiers from opposing armies find one another in the shambles of main street. (Starring Charles Bronson & Elizabeth Montgomery)

7:30am - The Silence (2.25)

An cranky rich old man bets a boisterous rich young man to stay silent for an entire year. (Starring Franchot Tone)

8:00am - A Thing About Machines (2.4)

Man versus all machines. (Starring Richard Haydn)

8:30am - Static (2.20)

A nostalgic old man tunes in for a second chance. (Starring Dean Jagger)

9:00am - Young Man’s Fancy (3.34)

A newlywed isn’t ready to leave behind his childhood home to his new wife’s chagrin.

9:30am - Nightmare as a Child (1.29)

A teacher is haunted by a peculiar and demanding child.

10:00am - Walking Distance (1.5)

A stressed out ad man tries to go home again. (Starring Gig Young)

10:30am - The Big Tall Wish (1.27)

A small boy makes a big wish for his friend, a washed-up boxer, to win a fight. (Starring Ivan Dixon)

11:00am - The Mighty Casey (1.35)

The Hoboken Zephyrs bring in a ringer. (Starring Jack Warden)

11:30am - I Sing the Body Electric (3.35)

A grieving family turns to Facsimile Ltd. to fill the void in their lives. (Starring Josephine Hutchinson)

12:00pm - Mirror Image (1.21)

A woman has a ticket to start a new life in a new town, if she can ever leave the bus station. (Starring Vera Miles)

12:30pm - The After Hours (1.34)

Sometimes you just want to buy a simple, undamaged gold thimble for your mother’s birthday and then the fabric of reality begins to fray. (Starring Anne Francis)

1:00pm - The Passersby (3.4)

Around the end of the Civil War, the wife of a Confederate soldier awaits his return. 

1:30pm - An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (5.22)

An adaptation of the Ambrose Bierce story. A man is executed for sabotage.

2:00pm - Back There (2.13)

A man gets the chance to test out his theories on time travel. (Starring Russell Johnson)

2:30pm - Long Live Walter Jameson (1.24)

A close colleague discovers the true reason Walter Jameson is such a good history teacher. (Starring Kevin McCarthy)

3:00pm - Still Valley (3.11)

A Confederate soldier thinks black magic might turn the tides of the Civil War. (Starring Gary Merrill & Vaughn Taylor)

3:30pm - The 7th is Made Up of Phantoms (5.10)

National Guardsmen running exercises discover the Battle of Little Bighorn is still being waged.

4:00pm - The Grave (3.7)

A hired gun visits the grave of his latest victim. (Starring Lee Marvin, Lee Van Cleef, & James Best)

4:30pm - The Hunt (3.19)

A day of hunting doesn’t go as planned for a man and his dog.

5:00pm - Black Leather Jackets (5.18)

When a bunch of motorcycle riding delinquents move in, the aftermath isn’t quite what the townspeople expect. (Starring Shelley Fabares)

5:30pm - Ring-A-Ding Girl (5.13)

A warm welcome is planned for the Ring-A-Ding girl when she returns to her hometown.

6:00pm - The Mind and the Matter (2.27)

A New Yorker fed up with people exercises his psychic abilities. (Starring Shelley Berman)

6:30pm - Hocus-Pocus and Frisby (3.30)

The town yarn spinner attracts the attention of extraterrestrial visitors. (Starring Andy Devine)

7:00pm - The Brain Center at Whipple’s (5.33)

A factory owner is on a mission to fully automate his factory. (Starring Richard Deacon)

7:30pm - The Changing of the Guard (3.37)

In the face of retirement, an elderly professor contemplates his past and future. (Starring Donald Pleasance)

Primetime!

Enjoy a six-hour block of episodes that cross the United States while you avoid your neighbors who shouldn’t be trusted with fireworks.

8:00pm - A Stop at Willoughby (1.30)

A New York ad man is overwhelmed by the stresses of modern city life and dreams of a simpler life, in a simpler place, with simpler people. (Starring James Daly)

8:30pm - The Monsters are Due on Maple Street (1.22)

A friendly suburb descends into paranoia and chaos with little motivation. (Starring Claude Akins & Jack Weston)

9:00pm - The Hitch-Hiker (1.16)

A school teacher hits a snag on a cross-country trip. (Starring Inger Stevens)

9:30pm - It’s a Good Life (3.8)

A small town (once located in middle America) is plagued by a two-eyed, two-legged, 3-foot-tall monster. (Starring Bill Mumy, Cloris Leachman, & John Larch)

10:00pm - The Last Rites of Jeff Myrtlebank (3.23)

When Jeff Myrtlebank wakes up at his own funeral, he causes quite a stir. (Starring James Best & Sherry Jackson)

10:30pm - The Masks (5.25)

On the night of Mardi Gras, an old man holds a strange party for his greedy, self-centered relatives. (Starring Robert Keith)

11:00pm - A Hundred Yards Over The Rim (2.23)

A father travels an impossible distance in the New Mexico desert to find help for his son. (Starring Cliff Robertson)

11:30pm - Dust (2.12)

On the day of a young man’s execution, a con man tries to charge for salvation. (Starring John Larch, Thomas Gomez, & Vladimir Sokoloff)

12:00am - The Prime Mover (2.21)

A telekinetic short-order cook gets taken for a ride by his best friend. (Starring Buddy Ebsen)

12:30am - The Whole Truth (2.14)

A cursed (or enchanted) car passes through the lot of an unscrupulous used car salesman. (Starring Jack Carson)

1:00am - The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine (1.4)

A faded film star isn’t ready to let go of her past. (Starring Ida Lupino & Martin Balsam)

1:30am - The Bewitchin’ Pool (5.36)

Two children, distressed by their parents’ troubled marriage, escape to a magic swimming hole at the bottom of their pool. (Starring Mary Badham)

2:00am - The Fugitive (3.25)

The unlikely friendship of an old man and a disabled child is even more unlikely than it seems.

2:30am - The Midnight Sun (3.10)

A painter and her landlady try to stick in out in New York City as the earth slowly closes in on the sun. (Starring Lois Nettleton)

3:00am - People Are Alike All Over (1.25)

A nervous astronaut finds life on Mars (Starring Roddy McDowall)

3:30am - Third from the Sun (1.14)

In the face of certain destruction, two men and their families launch a daring interplanetary escape. (Starring Fritz Weaver)

4:00am - Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up? (2.28)

A diner crowded in with bus passengers finds there may be a Martian in their midst.

4:30am - Mr. Garrity and the Graves (5.32)

Bringing people back from the dead ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. (Starring John Dehner)

5:00am - I am the Night - Color Me Black (5.26)

The sun doesn’t rise over a town where a man is about to be executed for killing a bigot. (Starring Michael Constantine) 

5:30am - In Praise of Pip (5.1)

A lone shark gets to thinking about his life after he learns his son was wounded while serving in the army abroad. (Starring Jack Klugman & Bill Mumy)

Added note: If you’re in the US and have a TV antenna, the network Decades is also running a marathon!

[kellycrawford93]

how the fashion industry operates

Our clothes have gone on a long journey before reaching the shop floor or our computer screens. Our clothes will pass through the hands of farmers, spinners, weavers, dyers, sewers and so many others that work almost invisibly in the supply chains of the fashion industry.

Take a simple T-shirt as an example, of which estimates suggest 2 billion are made and sold every year. If the T-shirt is made of cotton, its journey will have started as a seed, planted in the soil by farmers somewhere around the world such as India, Brazil or the southern United States. The raw cotton is sent to a gin where its seeds are separated from the chaff, which is like a husk or case. Then the cotton goes to a spinning facility where it is carded (separated into loose strands), combed and blended before being knitted on a loom into fabric. The fabric is then sent through a series of ‘wet processes’, which require washing, heating and treatments of various chemicals such as bleaching, printing, dyeing and fire-retardants or others that help achieve a desired softness or performance. The finished fabric then will be sent to a manufacturing facility, which will cut the fabric, sew the T-shirt, trim the threads, check for quality and pack for shipment.

What makes it so complex is that throughout and between these various stages of production, there are distributors, sourcing agents and middlemen who facilitate the buying and selling of inputs. Plus, each process will likely happen in different cities and countries, meaning a simple T-shirt would have been sent across the world several times before even reaching shoppers. Furthermore, garment manufacturing is rife with subcontracting. A fashion brand might place an order with one supplier, who in turn subcontracts the work to another facility if they need to meet a short deadline or require a special process to be done.

Major fashion brands may work with hundreds or even thousands of suppliers and garment factories at any given time. The vast majority of today’s fashion brands do not own their manufacturing and textile supplier facilities, making it challenging to monitor or control working conditions and environmental impacts across the supply chain. The fashion industry is regarded as one of today’s most globalised industries , involving complex, multinational and fragmented networks of producers, buyers, sellers and consumers all over the world.

There are other people involved in the making of a T-shirt who are not directly involved in manufacturing. The T-shirt would have needed designers who decide what it looks like, the fabric, fit, colour, print and trims. There will be people working in fashion brands that are responsible for sourcing the fabrics and finding the factories where the products are made. The T-shirt will require merchandisers, marketers and retailer workers who ensure the T-shirt is sold. There are people working in warehouses where the T-shirt will be stored and transport workers who deliver the T-shirt wherever it needs to go. There are business planners, financial managers, lawyers, investors and so many others who make the business of selling that T-shirt possible.

Today, fashion — comprising garments, textiles and footwear — is one of the world’s most labour intensive industries, directly employing at least 60 million people and likely more than double that are indirectly dependent on the sector — an estimated 80 million people in China alone . Women represent the overwhelming majority of today’s garment workers and artisans. Meanwhile, Fairtrade Foundation estimates that as many as 100 million households are directly engaged in cotton production and that as many as 300 million people work across the cotton sector in total.

In fact, as a result of fashion’s growing importance to the global economy, the apparel and footwear market was worth over $1.7 trillion in 2019 according to Euromonitor. Clothing manufacturing and textile production has a very long industrial history, credited with kickstarting modern industrialisation in developing economies since the 18th and 19th centuries and built from systems of exploitation and oppression from very early on, where black slaves were used to harvest cotton in the American South and poor, working-class and often migrant women and children fuelled the growth of newly mechanised mills and factories across Britain.

What’s markedly different today about the fashion industry is the scale and speed at which it operates. Factories around the world are continuously being pushed to deliver ever-larger quantities of clothing faster and cheaper. As a result, factories routinely make employees work extra hours, often without overtime pay or other benefits in return. The pressure on factories to deliver is so intense that workers are often subjected to intimidation, harassment, coercion and violence, and may even be restricted from taking short breaks to the toilet. The people who make our clothes are very unlikely to be paid fairly through this process. The same systems of oppression and exploitation we saw fuel the industrialisation of clothing still exist in today’s fashion industry. This is the often-grim reality that it takes to deliver our desire for ‘choice’ when we’re out shopping.

[asterose]

The last two paragraphs are very much my own feelings on the matter. Perhaps my "favorite" is the Scorpion kingdom, since wee mainly have friendahip-loving, assumes-the-best+grew-up-on-propaganda Scorpia and Light Spinner/Shadow Weaver qho is...well, morally grey at the best of times) on what happened. Frosta's, and Perfuma's, and other characters' parents are another big one. There's these subtle little gaps that are easily filled in with" Evil Hordak Did It" and not really even realizing this isn't actually a solid piece of canon. Then there's all the fun #Very Serious War Drama shenanigans and double-standards.

But then, I also love me some "nothing unites people like a common enemy" and Us vs Them othering going on. It's certainly possible Etheria was in perfectly balanced harmony up until Hordak rolled in (and how did that portal happen in the first place...?), but that doesn't suit this series' deep and complex exploration of abuse cycles and gray-and-gray morality so well. Add in the Fire Princess comic and, well...

Yeah, no, seriously, though: is Hordak, or the Horde, killing Frosta’s parents an actual canonical thing?

I don’t remember them ever being mentioned… did I miss something?

[veranomexicano]

the ethics of el turismo

during our trip to the state of Oaxaca this weekend (marking the halfway point of our study abroad program ! ), we spent what I want to say is 30% of our time wandering aimlessly through rows and rows of open-air makeshift storefronts, tarps cast over collapsible wire frames, tables overflowing with textiles, snacks, jewelry, fidget spinners, and other tourist knick knacks, inventory watched over by storekeepers young and old.

market in a side street off the central square of Oaxaca de Juárez

you can learn a lot about Mexico from perusing markets. locals can snack on tlayuda fresh from stands in the central square, parents can soothe their children with balloons of any cartoon character imaginable, tourists can buy woven purses and keychains embroidered with the name of their destination. the markets feel like a mix of Mexican daily life and a similar, approximated life Mexico seeks to project, the quotidian and the exotified coexisting in the beating heart of Oaxaca de Juárez.

one of our stops during the weekend was Teotitlan del Valle, a town tucked between mountains that scraped the clouds. here, we met a woman who weaves tapestries, clothes, and other textiles. she explained the entire process, from sheep’s wool to yarn to finished product, showing how they obtain natural dyes from bugs and plants and letting us try our hand at cleaning the rough raw wool. it’s undoubtedly labor-intensive and time-consuming; every step is done by hand, from preparing the loom to planning each inch of an intricate woven design.

one of the woman’s tapestries, as well as piles of sheep’s yarn ready to be woven

after our tour, all of us perused her storeroom and bought various crafts for friends and family. I bought a beautiful scarf, a muted gold yarn woven along a stark black backdrop decorated with tassels at each end. the circular, interlooping design, the woman said, was meant to signify the eyes of God.

my gift to myself

we gathered our purchases, took a few pictures of the beautiful greenery of Teotitlan, and promptly boarded our bus to our next destination - Mitla, an archeological zone with ruins of an ancient Zapotec city and adjoined market. we were given half an hour to roam around the shops, which sold everything from blouses to toilet seat covers, each sporting the designs we saw on the tomb walls of Mitla and the weavings in Teotitlan - I even saw the scarf I bought hanging among a wall of similar scarves with different colors. whether it was a reproduction or a real weaving was unknown to me, but what I did know was that it was sold for nearly half the price I had paid to the weaver.

the culture and language of the Zapotec (which was spoken but not written by the weaver we met) persists through the goods at these markets; that they were aggregated near the ruins, a place with high tourist traffic (as opposed to Teotitlan, which was about a 25 minute drive from the city) was obviously not coincidental. the act of selling iconography of a culture obviously does not preclude its significance, but there is something to be said for the mass industry that exists around tourism that seeks to approximate authenticity while minimizing costs and complexities. many lives are made in this business, as evidenced by the plethora of shops in Mitla, in the centers of both Oaxaca de Juárez and Mexico City, even in Coyoacán where our homestay is.

from history’s first instances of migration across continents and seas, ethnic business has mingled with tourism (here I mean tourism broadly, as a lucrative economy of purchasing "culture” or “goods” - jewels and pottery from Mesopotamian cities as early as 1700 BC, silk from Central Asia in the Middle Ages, spices from India in the 15-18th century). exotic goods - that is, the ability to obtain and afford things deemed foreign - has always connoted wealth and social status. in the 1500s, Chinese and Islamic porcelain designs arrived in Europe, and Italian, Spanish, and Dutch artists sought to emulate the “East Asian” chinoiserie - characterized by blue and white motifs - in their architecture and stonewares. dignitaries could commission distinct porcelain designs, and soon the symbols of wealth spread to Britain, where the demand for Indian teas and popularity of Eastern aesthetics led to the establishment of English bone china factories, which churned out mock porcelain wares for the highest echelons of society and the middle class alike. nevertheless, the imagery of porcelain, its simultaneous grandeur and fragility, continued to signify decadence and financial wealth in Europe and, eventually, the United States. 

the delineation of what is exotic enough to be admired and bought, and what is unfortunate or “backwards” about a culture, seems arbitrary at best and helplessly colonial at worst. the selection of items at the Mexican markets is, of course, influenced greatly by the demands of (implicitly North American or European) tourists. the profitability of this business, despite its exploitative nature, is undeniable. American ethnic markets have been accommodating tourists as early as the early 1930s, when both Chinese and Japanese-owned stores competed for white tourists in San Francisco Chinatown; some Chinese storeowners even traveled back to China to convince factories to produce the generalized “Oriental” goods that were sold at some Japanese stores rather than any distinctively Chinese goods. at the end of the day, flattening difference pays the bills; tourism constitutes 10.2% of the global GDP, employing 1 out of every 10 people. 

in all countries, at all points in history, people are doing what they can to get by. much of tourism in Latin America, the Caribbean, and now in the emerging market of Southeast Asia, is a product of a convenient synthesis of centuries of colonial fascination with the “exotic” and the human instinct to survive within systems beyond one’s control. “selling” one’s culture becomes more ethically murky when power is unevenly distributed - for example, AirBnB’s “experiences” aim to enable tourists to “live like locals” in addition to the standard promise of housing and accommodations. when does culture become a commodity? when do people become “products”? 

the answer, perhaps, comes from the scarf I bought from the weaver this weekend. for her, each tapestry told a story - of the cycle of life, of a reverence of deities - and her culture lives, for her, through her craft, through her 3 children, who she teaches Zapotec and will eventually inherit the house of her family, who she tells me have lived in Teotitlan for “muchos años.” for me, as a second gen Asian American, culture has always been fabricated - a convoluted straddling of two approximations which inevitably fails to capture entangled, labyrinthine realities of historical, generational, and political traumas. in reality, culture exists somewhere between these poles; in the amorphous bustle of a stuffy indoor market overflowing with smells and sights and sounds where 10 year olds hand you samples of Mezcal, fruit costs less than a metro ride, where fake American designer goods made in China coexist with handmade leather goods from Mexico, where the entire globe reveals itself to be merely a messy circuit of people and things tethered to what little stability - if only symbolic, performative - they can attain. 

[hereshowberniecanstillshitpost]

SECTION 1THE TWO FACTORS OF A COMMODITY:

USE-VALUE AND VALUE

(THE SUBSTANCE OF VALUE AND THE MAGNITUDE OF VALUE)

The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.

A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2] Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.

Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.[3] So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.

The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort,[6] a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[7] Let us consider the matter a little more closely.

A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. – in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.

Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.

A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.

This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says,

“one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”[8]

As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.

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.

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.

We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.

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.

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. [A]

A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, 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 only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)[12] Lastly nothing can have 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.

SECTION 2THE two-fold CHARACTER OF

THE LABOUR EMBODIED IN COMMODITIES

At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things – use value and exchange value. Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses the same two-fold nature; for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two-fold nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns, we must go more into detail.

Let us take two commodities such as a coat and 10 yards of linen, and let the former be double the value of the latter, so that, if 10 yards of linen = W, the coat = 2W.

The coat is a use value that satisfies a particular want. Its existence is the result of a special sort of productive activity, the nature of which is determined by its aim, mode of operation, subject, means, and result. The labour, whose utility is thus represented by the value in use of its product, or which manifests itself by making its product a use value, we call useful labour. In this connection we consider only its useful effect.

As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation of commodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.

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.

To resume, then: In the use value of each commodity there is contained useful labour, i.e., productive activity of a definite kind and exercised with a definite aim. Use values cannot confront each other as commodities, unless the useful labour embodied in them is qualitatively different in each of them. In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently of individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, a social division of labour.

Anyhow, whether the coat be worn by the tailor or by his customer, in either case it operates as a use value. Nor is the relation between the coat and the labour that produced it altered by the circumstance that tailoring may have become a special trade, an independent branch of the social division of labour. Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor. But coats and linen, like every other element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous produce of Nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special productive activity, exercised with a definite aim, an activity that appropriates particular nature-given materials to particular human wants. So far therefore as labour is a creator of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life.

The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.[13] Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.

Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use value to the value of commodities.

By our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is a mere quantitative difference, which for the present does not concern us. We bear in mind, however, that if the value of the coat is double that of 10 yds of linen, 20 yds of linen must have the same value as one coat. So far as they are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective expressions of essentially identical labour. But tailoring and weaving are, qualitatively, different kinds of labour. 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.

Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, viz., the useful character of the labour, is nothing but the expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour power. Of course, this labour power, which remains the same under all its modifications, must have attained a certain pitch of development before it can be expended in a multiplicity of modes. But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on the other hand, a very shabby part,[14] so here with mere human labour. It is the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone.[15] The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom. For simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction.

Just as, therefore, in viewing the coat and linen as values, we abstract from their different use values, so it is with the labour represented by those values: we disregard the difference between its useful forms, weaving and tailoring. As the use values, coat and linen, are combinations of special productive activities with cloth and yarn, while the values, coat and linen, are, on the other hand, mere homogeneous congelations of undifferentiated labour, so the labour embodied in these latter values does not count by virtue of its productive relation to cloth and yarn, but only as being expenditure of human labour power. Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in the creation of the use values, coat and linen, precisely because these two kinds of labour are of different qualities; but only in so far as abstraction is made from their special qualities, only in so far as both possess the same quality of being human labour, do tailoring and weaving form the substance of the values of the same articles.

Coats and linen, however, are not merely values, but values of definite magnitude, and according to our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the ten yards of linen. Whence this difference in their values? It is owing to the fact that the linen contains only half as much labour as the coat, and consequently, that in the production of the latter, labour power must have been expended during twice the time necessary for the production of the former.

While, therefore, with reference to use value, the labour contained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much? How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value.

If the productive power of all the different sorts of useful labour required for the production of a coat remains unchanged, the sum of the values of the coats produced increases with their number. If one coat represents x days’ labour, two coats represent 2x days’ labour, and so on. But assume that the duration of the labour necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled or halved. In the first case one coat is worth as much as two coats were before; in the second case, two coats are only worth as much as one was before, although in both cases one coat renders the same service as before, and the useful labour embodied in it remains of the same quality. But the quantity of labour spent on its production has altered.

An increase in the quantity of use values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man. Nevertheless, an increased quantity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic movement has its origin in the two-fold character of labour. Productive power has reference, of course, only to labour of some useful concrete form, the efficacy of any special productive activity during a given time being dependent on its productiveness. Useful labour becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products, in proportion to the rise or fall of its productiveness. On the other hand, no change in this productiveness affects the labour represented by value. Since productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms of labour, of course it can no longer have any bearing on that labour, so soon as we make abstraction from those concrete useful forms. However then productive power may vary, the same labour, exercised during equal periods of time, always yields equal amounts of value. But it will yield, during equal periods of time, different quantities of values in use; more, if the productive power rise, fewer, if it fall. The same change in productive power, which increases the fruitfulness of labour, and, in consequence, the quantity of use values produced by that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased quantity of use values, provided such change shorten the total labour time necessary for their production; and vice versâ.

On the one hand all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour, it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expenditure of human labour power in a special form and with a definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labour, it produces use values.[16]

SECTION 3THE FORM OF VALUE OR EXCHANGE VALUE

Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something two-fold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.

The reality of the value of commodities differs in this respect from Dame Quickly, that we don’t know “where to have it.” The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity. In fact we started from exchange value, or the exchange relation of commodities, in order to get at the value that lies hidden behind it. We must now return to this form under which value first appeared to us.

Every one knows, if he knows nothing else, that commodities have a value form common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use values. I mean their money form. Here, however, a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form. By doing this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented by money.

The simplest value-relation is evidently that of one commodity to some one other commodity of a different kind. Hence the relation between the values of two commodities supplies us with the simplest expression of the value of a single commodity.

A. Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value

x commodity A = y commodity B, or x commodity A is worth y commodity B.

20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 Yards of linen are worth 1 coat.

1. The two poles of the expression of value. Relative form and Equivalent form

The whole mystery of the form of value lies hidden in this elementary form. Its analysis, therefore, is our real difficulty.

Here two different kinds of commodities (in our example the linen and the coat), evidently play two different parts. The linen expresses its value in the coat; the coat serves as the material in which that value is expressed. The former plays an active, the latter a passive, part. The value of the linen is represented as relative value, or appears in relative form. The coat officiates as equivalent, or appears in equivalent form.

The relative form and the equivalent form are two intimately connected, mutually dependent and inseparable elements of the expression of value; but, at the same time, are mutually exclusive, antagonistic extremes – i.e., poles of the same expression. They are allotted respectively to the two different commodities brought into relation by that expression. It is not possible to express the value of linen in linen. 20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen is no expression of value. On the contrary, such an equation merely says that 20 yards of linen are nothing else than 20 yards of linen, a definite quantity of the use value linen. The value of the linen can therefore be expressed only relatively – i.e., in some other commodity. The relative form of the value of the linen presupposes, therefore, the presence of some other commodity – here the coat – under the form of an equivalent. On the other hand, the commodity that figures as the equivalent cannot at the same time assume the relative form. That second commodity is not the one whose value is expressed. Its function is merely to serve as the material in which the value of the first commodity is expressed.

No doubt, the expression 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat, implies the opposite relation. 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, or 1 coat is worth 20 yards of linen. But, in that case, I must reverse the equation, in order to express the value of the coat relatively; and so soon as I do that the linen becomes the equivalent instead of the coat. A single commodity cannot, therefore, simultaneously assume, in the same expression of value, both forms. The very polarity of these forms makes them mutually exclusive.

Whether, then, a commodity assumes the relative form, or the opposite equivalent form, depends entirely upon its accidental position in the expression of value – that is, upon whether it is the commodity whose value is being expressed or the commodity in which value is being expressed.

2. The Relative Form of value

(a.) The nature and import of this form

In order to discover how the elementary expression of the value of a commodity lies hidden in the value relation of two commodities, we must, in the first place, consider the latter entirely apart from its quantitative aspect. The usual mode of procedure is generally the reverse, and in the value relation nothing is seen but the proportion between definite quantities of two different sorts of commodities that are considered equal to each other. It is apt to be forgotten that the magnitudes of different things can be compared quantitatively, only when those magnitudes are expressed in terms of the same unit. It is only as expressions of such a unit that they are of the same denomination, and therefore commensurable.[17]

Whether 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 20 coats or = x coats – that is, whether a given quantity of linen is worth few or many coats, every such statement implies that the linen and coats, as magnitudes of value, are expressions of the same unit, things of the same kind. Linen = coat is the basis of the equation.

But the two commodities whose identity of quality is thus assumed, do not play the same part. It is only the value of the linen that is expressed. And how? By its reference to the coat as its equivalent, as something that can be exchanged for it. In this relation the coat is the mode of existence of value, is value embodied, for only as such is it the same as the linen. On the other hand, the linen’s own value comes to the front, receives independent expression, for it is only as being value that it is comparable with the coat as a thing of equal value, or exchangeable with the coat. To borrow an illustration from chemistry, butyric acid is a different substance from propyl formate. Yet both are made up of the same chemical substances, carbon (C), hydrogen (H), and oxygen (O), and that, too, in like proportions – namely, C4H8O2. If now we equate butyric acid to propyl formate, then, in the first place, propyl formate would be, in this relation, merely a form of existence of C4H8O2; and in the second place, we should be stating that butyric acid also consists of C4H8O2. Therefore, by thus equating the two substances, expression would be given to their chemical composition, while their different physical forms would be neglected.

If we say that, as values, commodities are mere congelations of human labour, we reduce them by our analysis, it is true, to the abstraction, value; but we ascribe to this value no form apart from their bodily form. It is otherwise in the value relation of one commodity to another. Here, the one stands forth in its character of value by reason of its relation to the other.

By making the coat the equivalent of the linen, we equate the labour embodied in the former to that in the latter. Now, it is true that the tailoring, which makes the coat, is concrete labour of a different sort from the weaving which makes the linen. But the act of equating it to the weaving, reduces the tailoring to that which is really equal in the two kinds of labour, to their common character of human labour. In this roundabout way, then, the fact is expressed, that weaving also, in so far as it weaves value, has nothing to distinguish it from tailoring, and, consequently, is abstract human labour. It is the expression of equivalence between different sorts of commodities that alone brings into relief the specific character of value-creating labour, and this it does by actually reducing the different varieties of labour embodied in the different kinds of commodities to their common quality of human labour in the abstract.[18]

There is, however, something else required beyond the expression of the specific character of the labour of which the value of the linen consists. Human labour power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human labour, that value must be expressed as having objective existence, as being a something materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something common to the linen and all other commodities. The problem is already solved.

When occupying the position of equivalent in the equation of value, the coat ranks qualitatively as the equal of the linen, as something of the same kind, because it is value. In this position it is a thing in which we see nothing but value, or whose palpable bodily form represents value. Yet the coat itself, the body of the commodity, coat, is a mere use value. A coat as such no more tells us it is value, than does the first piece of linen we take hold of. This shows that when placed in value-relation to the linen, the coat signifies more than when out of that relation, just as many a man strutting about in a gorgeous uniform counts for more than when in mufti.

In the production of the coat, human labour power, in the shape of tailoring, must have been actually expended. Human labour is therefore accumulated in it. In this aspect the coat is a depository of value, but though worn to a thread, it does not let this fact show through. And as equivalent of the linen in the value equation, it exists under this aspect alone, counts therefore as embodied value, as a body that is value. A, for instance, cannot be “your majesty” to B, unless at the same time majesty in B’s eyes assumes the bodily form of A, and, what is more, with every new father of the people, changes its features, hair, and many other things besides.

Hence, in the value equation, in which the coat is the equivalent of the linen, the coat officiates as the form of value. The value of the commodity linen is expressed by the bodily form of the commodity coat, the value of one by the use value of the other. As a use value, the linen is something palpably different from the coat; as value, it is the same as the coat, and now has the appearance of a coat. Thus the linen acquires a value form different from its physical form. The fact that it is value, is made manifest by its equality with the coat, just as the sheep’s nature of a Christian is shown in his resemblance to the Lamb of God.

We see, then, all that our analysis of the value of commodities has already told us, is told us by the linen itself, so soon as it comes into communication with another commodity, the coat. Only it betrays its thoughts in that language with which alone it is familiar, the language of commodities. In order to tell us that its own value is created by labour in its abstract character of human labour, it says that the coat, in so far as it is worth as much as the linen, and therefore is value, consists of the same labour as the linen. In order to inform us that its sublime reality as value is not the same as its buckram body, it says that value has the appearance of a coat, and consequently that so far as the linen is value, it and the coat are as like as two peas. We may here remark, that the language of commodities has, besides Hebrew, many other more or less correct dialects. The German “Wertsein,” to be worth, for instance, expresses in a less striking manner than the Romance verbs “valere,” “valer,” “valoir,” that the equating of commodity B to commodity A, is commodity A’s own mode of expressing its value. Paris vaut bien une messe. [Paris is certainly worth a mass]

By means, therefore, of the value-relation expressed in our equation, the bodily form of commodity B becomes the value form of commodity A, or the body of commodity B acts as a mirror to the value of commodity A.[19] By putting itself in relation with commodity B, as value in propriâ personâ, as the matter of which human labour is made up, the commodity A converts the value in use, B, into the substance in which to express its, A’s, own value. The value of A, thus expressed in the use value of B, has taken the form of relative value.

(b.) Quantitative determination of Relative value

Every commodity, whose value it is intended to express, is a useful object of given quantity, as 15 bushels of corn, or 100 lbs of coffee. And a given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. The value form must therefore not only express value generally, but also value in definite quantity. Therefore, in the value relation of commodity A to commodity B, of the linen to the coat, not only is the latter, as value in general, made the equal in quality of the linen, but a definite quantity of coat (1 coat) is made the equivalent of a definite quantity (20 yards) of linen.

The equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are worth one coat, implies that the same quantity of value substance (congealed labour) is embodied in both; that the two commodities have each cost the same amount of labour of the same quantity of labour time. But the labour time necessary for the production of 20 yards of linen or 1 coat varies with every change in the productiveness of weaving or tailoring. We have now to consider the influence of such changes on the quantitative aspect of the relative expression of value.

I. Let the value of the linen vary,[20] that of the coat remaining constant. If, say in consequence of the exhaustion of flax-growing soil, the labour time necessary for the production of the linen be doubled, the value of the linen will also be doubled. Instead of the equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, we should have 20 yards of linen = 2 coats, since 1 coat would now contain only half the labour time embodied in 20 yards of linen. If, on the other hand, in consequence, say, of improved looms, this labour time be reduced by one-half, the value of the linen would fall by one-half. Consequently, we should have 20 yards of linen = ½ coat. The relative value of commodity A, i.e., its value expressed in commodity B, rises and falls directly as the value of A, the value of B being supposed constant.

II. Let the value of the linen remain constant, while the value of the coat varies. If, under these circumstances, in consequence, for instance, of a poor crop of wool, the labour time necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled, we have instead of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, 20 yards of linen = ½ coat. If, on the other hand, the value of the coat sinks by one-half, then 20 yards of linen = 2 coats. Hence, if the value of commodity A remain constant, its relative value expressed in commodity B rises and falls inversely as the value of B.

If we compare the different cases in I and II, we see that the same change of magnitude in relative value may arise from totally opposite causes. Thus, the equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, becomes 20 yards of linen = 2 coats, either, because the value of the linen has doubled, or because the value of the coat has fallen by one-half; and it becomes 20 yards of linen = ½ coat, either, because the value of the linen has fallen by one-half, or because the value of the coat has doubled.

III. Let the quantities of labour time respectively necessary for the production of the linen and the coat vary simultaneously in the same direction and in the same proportion. In this case 20 yards of linen continue equal to 1 coat, however much their values may have altered. Their change of value is seen as soon as they are compared with a third commodity, whose value has remained constant. If the values of all commodities rose or fell simultaneously, and in the same proportion, their relative values would remain unaltered. Their real change of value would appear from the diminished or increased quantity of commodities produced in a given time.

IV. The labour time respectively necessary for the production of the linen and the coat, and therefore the value of these commodities may simultaneously vary in the same direction, but at unequal rates or in opposite directions, or in other ways. The effect of all these possible different variations, on the relative value of a commodity, may be deduced from the results of I, II, and III.

Thus real changes in the magnitude of value are neither unequivocally nor exhaustively reflected in their relative expression, that is, in the equation expressing the magnitude of relative value. The relative value of a commodity may vary, although its value remains constant. Its relative value may remain constant, although its value varies; and finally, simultaneous variations in the magnitude of value and in that of its relative expression by no means necessarily correspond in amount.[21]

3. The Equivalent form of value

We have seen that commodity A (the linen), by expressing its value in the use value of a commodity differing in kind (the coat), at the same time impresses upon the latter a specific form of value, namely that of the equivalent. The commodity linen manifests its quality of having a value by the fact that the coat, without having assumed a value form different from its bodily form, is equated to the linen. The fact that the latter therefore has a value is expressed by saying that the coat is directly exchangeable with it. Therefore, when we say that a commodity is in the equivalent form, we express the fact that it is directly exchangeable with other commodities.

When one commodity, such as a coat, serves as the equivalent of another, such as linen, and coats consequently acquire the characteristic property of being directly exchangeable with linen, we are far from knowing in what proportion the two are exchangeable. The value of the linen being given in magnitude, that proportion depends on the value of the coat. Whether the coat serves as the equivalent and the linen as relative value, or the linen as the equivalent and the coat as relative value, the magnitude of the coat’s value is determined, independently of its value form, by the labour time necessary for its production. But whenever the coat assumes in the equation of value, the position of equivalent, its value acquires no quantitative expression; on the contrary, the commodity coat now figures only as a definite quantity of some article.

For instance, 40 yards of linen are worth – what? 2 coats. Because the commodity coat here plays the part of equivalent, because the use-value coat, as opposed to the linen, figures as an embodiment of value, therefore a definite number of coats suffices to express the definite quantity of value in the linen. Two coats may therefore express the quantity of value of 40 yards of linen, but they can never express the quantity of their own value. A superficial observation of this fact, namely, that in the equation of value, the equivalent figures exclusively as a simple quantity of some article, of some use value, has misled Bailey, as also many others, both before and after him, into seeing, in the expression of value, merely a quantitative relation. The truth being, that when a commodity acts as equivalent, no quantitative determination of its value is expressed.

The first peculiarity that strikes us, in considering the form of the equivalent, is this: use value becomes the form of manifestation, the phenomenal form of its opposite, value.

The bodily form of the commodity becomes its value form. But, mark well, that this quid pro quo exists in the case of any commodity B, only when some other commodity A enters into a value relation with it, and then only within the limits of this relation. Since no commodity can stand in the relation of equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into the expression of its own value, every commodity is compelled to choose some other commodity for its equivalent, and to accept the use value, that is to say, the bodily shape of that other commodity as the form of its own value.

One of the measures that we apply to commodities as material substances, as use values, will serve to illustrate this point. A sugar-loaf being a body, is heavy, and therefore has weight: but we can neither see nor touch this weight. We then take various pieces of iron, whose weight has been determined beforehand. The iron, as iron, is no more the form of manifestation of weight, than is the sugar-loaf. Nevertheless, in order to express the sugar-loaf as so much weight, we put it into a weight-relation with the iron. In this relation, the iron officiates as a body representing nothing but weight. A certain quantity of iron therefore serves as the measure of the weight of the sugar, and represents, in relation to the sugar-loaf, weight embodied, the form of manifestation of weight. This part is played by the iron only within this relation, into which the sugar or any other body, whose weight has to be determined, enters with the iron. Were they not both heavy, they could not enter into this relation, and the one could therefore not serve as the expression of the weight of the other. When we throw both into the scales, we see in reality, that as weight they are both the same, and that, therefore, when taken in proper proportions, they have the same weight. Just as the substance iron, as a measure of weight, represents in relation to the sugar-loaf weight alone, so, in our expression of value, the material object, coat, in relation to the linen, represents value alone.

Here, however, the analogy ceases. The iron, in the expression of the weight of the sugar-loaf, represents a natural property common to both bodies, namely their weight; but the coat, in the expression of value of the linen, represents a non-natural property of both, something purely social, namely, their value.

Since the relative form of value of a commodity – the linen, for example – expresses the value of that commodity, as being something wholly different from its substance and properties, as being, for instance, coat-like, we see that this expression itself indicates that some social relation lies at the bottom of it. With the equivalent form it is just the contrary. The very essence of this form is that the material commodity itself – the coat – just as it is, expresses value, and is endowed with the form of value by Nature itself. Of course this holds good only so long as the value relation exists, in which the coat stands in the position of equivalent to the linen.[22] Since, however, the properties of a thing are not the result of its relations to other things, but only manifest themselves in such relations, the coat seems to be endowed with its equivalent form, its property of being directly exchangeable, just as much by Nature as it is endowed with the property of being heavy, or the capacity to keep us warm. Hence the enigmatical character of the equivalent form which escapes the notice of the bourgeois political economist, until this form, completely developed, confronts him in the shape of money. He then seeks to explain away the mystical character of gold and silver, by substituting for them less dazzling commodities, and by reciting, with ever renewed satisfaction, the catalogue of all possible commodities which at one time or another have played the part of equivalent. He has not the least suspicion that the most simple expression of value, such as 20 yds of linen = 1 coat, already propounds the riddle of the equivalent form for our solution.

The body of the commodity that serves as the equivalent, figures as the materialisation of human labour in the abstract, and is at the same time the product of some specifically useful concrete labour. This concrete labour becomes, therefore, the medium for expressing abstract human labour. If on the one hand the coat ranks as nothing but the embodiment of abstract human labour, so, on the other hand, the tailoring which is actually embodied in it, counts as nothing but the form under which that abstract labour is realised. In the expression of value of the linen, the utility of the tailoring consists, not in making clothes, but in making an object, which we at once recognise to be Value, and therefore to be a congelation of labour, but of labour indistinguishable from that realised in the value of the linen. In order to act as such a mirror of value, the labour of tailoring must reflect nothing besides its own abstract quality of being human labour generally.

In tailoring, as well as in weaving, human labour power is expended. Both, therefore, possess the general property of being human labour, and may, therefore, in certain cases, such as in the production of value, have to be considered under this aspect alone. There is nothing mysterious in this. But in the expression of value there is a complete turn of the tables. For instance, how is the fact to be expressed that weaving creates the value of the linen, not by virtue of being weaving, as such, but by reason of its general property of being human labour? Simply by opposing to weaving that other particular form of concrete labour (in this instance tailoring), which produces the equivalent of the product of weaving. Just as the coat in its bodily form became a direct expression of value, so now does tailoring, a concrete form of labour, appear as the direct and palpable embodiment of human labour generally.

Hence, the second peculiarity of the equivalent form is, that concrete labour becomes the form under which its opposite, abstract human labour, manifests itself.

But because this concrete labour, tailoring in our case, ranks as, and is directly identified with, undifferentiated human labour, it also ranks as identical with any other sort of labour, and therefore with that embodied in the linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is the labour of private individuals, yet, at the same time, it ranks as labour directly social in its character. This is the reason why it results in a product directly exchangeable with other commodities. We have then a third peculiarity of the equivalent form, namely, that the labour of private individuals takes the form of its opposite, labour directly social in its form.

The two latter peculiarities of the equivalent form will become more intelligible if we go back to the great thinker who was the first to analyse so many forms, whether of thought, society, or Nature, and amongst them also the form of value. I mean Aristotle.

In the first place, he clearly enunciates that the money form of commodities is only the further development of the simple form of value – i.e., of the expression of the value of one commodity in some other commodity taken at random; for he says:

5 beds = 1 house (clinai pente anti oiciaς)

is not to be distinguished from

5 beds = so much money. (clinai pente anti ... oson ai pente clinai)

He further sees that the value relation which gives rise to this expression makes it necessary that the house should qualitatively be made the equal of the bed, and that, without such an equalisation, these two clearly different things could not be compared with each other as commensurable quantities. “Exchange,” he says, “cannot take place without equality, and equality not without commensurability". (out isothς mh oushς snmmetriaς). Here, however, he comes to a stop, and gives up the further analysis of the form of value. “It is, however, in reality, impossible (th men oun alhqeia adunaton), that such unlike things can be commensurable” – i.e., qualitatively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something foreign to their real nature, consequently only “a makeshift for practical purposes.”

Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of any concept of value. What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is – human labour.

There was, however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing that, to attribute value to commodities, is merely a mode of expressing all labour as equal human labour, and consequently as labour of equal quality. Greek society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural basis, the inequality of men and of their labour powers. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities. The brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality.

4. The Elementary Form of value considered as a whole

The elementary form of value of a commodity is contained in the equation, expressing its value relation to another commodity of a different kind, or in its exchange relation to the same. The value of commodity A, is qualitatively expressed, by the fact that commodity B is directly exchangeable with it. Its value is quantitatively expressed by the fact, that a definite quantity of B is exchangeable with a definite quantity of A. In other words, the value of a commodity obtains independent and definite expression, by taking the form of exchange value. When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, in common parlance, that a commodity is both a use value and an exchange value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use value or object of utility, and a value. It manifests itself as this two-fold thing, that it is, as soon as its value assumes an independent form – viz., the form of exchange value. It never assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchange relation with another commodity of a different kind. When once we know this, such a mode of expression does no harm; it simply serves as an abbreviation.

Our analysis has shown, that the form or expression of the value of a commodity originates in the nature of value, and not that value and its magnitude originate in the mode of their expression as exchange value. This, however, is the delusion as well of the mercantilists and their recent revivers, Ferrier, Ganilh,[23] and others, as also of their antipodes, the modern bagmen of Free-trade, such as Bastiat. The mercantilists lay special stress on the qualitative aspect of the expression of value, and consequently on the equivalent form of commodities, which attains its full perfection in money. The modern hawkers of Free-trade, who must get rid of their article at any price, on the other hand, lay most stress on the quantitative aspect of the relative form of value. For them there consequently exists neither value, nor magnitude of value, anywhere except in its expression by means of the exchange relation of commodities, that is, in the daily list of prices current. Macleod, who has taken upon himself to dress up the confused ideas of Lombard Street in the most learned finery, is a successful cross between the superstitious mercantilists, and the enlightened Free-trade bagmen.

A close scrutiny of the expression of the value of A in terms of B, contained in the equation expressing the value relation of A to B, has shown us that, within that relation, the bodily form of A figures only as a use value, the bodily form of B only as the form or aspect of value. 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. Hence the elementary form of value of a commodity is the elementary form in which the contrast contained in that commodity, between use value and value, becomes apparent.

Every product of labour is, in all states of society, a use value; but it is only at a definite historical epoch in a society’s development that such a product becomes a commodity, viz., at the epoch when the labour spent on the production of a useful article becomes expressed as one of the objective qualities of that article, i.e., as its value. It therefore follows that the elementary value form is also the primitive form under which a product of labour appears historically as a commodity, and that the gradual transformation of such products into commodities, proceeds pari passu with the development of the value form.

We perceive, at first sight, the deficiencies of the elementary form of value: it is a mere germ, which must undergo a series of metamorphoses before it can ripen into the price form.

The expression of the value of commodity A in terms of any other commodity B, merely distinguishes the value from the use value of A, and therefore places A merely in a relation of exchange with a single different commodity, B; but it is still far from expressing A’s qualitative equality, and quantitative proportionality, to all commodities. To the elementary relative value form of a commodity, there corresponds the single equivalent form of one other commodity. Thus, in the relative expression of value of the linen, the coat assumes the form of equivalent, or of being directly exchangeable, only in relation to a single commodity, the linen.

Nevertheless, the elementary form of value passes by an easy transition into a more complete form. It is true that by means of the elementary form, the value of a commodity A, becomes expressed in terms of one, and only one, other commodity. But that one may be a commodity of any kind, coat, iron, corn, or anything else. Therefore, according as A is placed in relation with one or the other, we get for one and the same commodity, different elementary expressions of value.[24] The number of such possible expressions is limited only by the number of the different kinds of commodities distinct from it. The isolated expression of A’s value, is therefore convertible into a series, prolonged to any length, of the different elementary expressions of that value.

B. Total or Expanded Form of value

z Com. A = u Com. B or = v Com. C or = w Com. D or = Com. E or = &c. (20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs tea or = 40 lbs. coffee or = 1 quarter corn or = 2 ounces gold or = ½ ton iron or = &c.)

1. The Expanded Relative form of value

The value of a single commodity, the linen, for example, is now expressed in terms of numberless other elements of the world of commodities. Every other commodity now becomes a mirror of the linen’s value.[25] It is thus, that for the first time, this value shows itself in its true light as a congelation of undifferentiated human labour. For the labour that creates it, now stands expressly revealed, as labour that ranks equally with every other sort of human labour, no matter what its form, whether tailoring, ploughing, mining, &c., and no matter, therefore, whether it is realised in coats, corn, iron, or gold. The linen, by virtue of the form of its value, now stands in a social relation, no longer with only one other kind of commodity, but with the whole world of commodities. As a commodity, it is a citizen of that world. At the same time, the interminable series of value equations implies, that as regards the value of a commodity, it is a matter of indifference under what particular form, or kind, of use value it appears.

In the first form, 20 yds of linen = 1 coat, it might, for ought that otherwise appears, be pure accident, that these two commodities are exchangeable in definite quantities. In the second form, on the contrary, we perceive at once the background that determines, and is essentially different from, this accidental appearance. The value of the linen remains unaltered in magnitude, whether expressed in coats, coffee, or iron, or in numberless different commodities, the property of as many different owners. The accidental relation between two individual commodity-owners disappears. It becomes plain, that it is not the exchange of commodities which regulates the magnitude of their value; but, on the contrary, that it is the magnitude of their value which controls their exchange proportions.

2. The particular Equivalent form

Each commodity, such as, coat, tea, corn, iron, &c., figures in the expression of value of the linen, as an equivalent, and, consequently, as a thing that is value. The bodily form of each of these commodities figures now as a particular equivalent form, one out of many. In the same way the manifold concrete useful kinds of labour, embodied in these different commodities, rank now as so many different forms of the realisation, or manifestation, of undifferentiated human labour.

3. Defects of the Total or Expanded form of value

In the first place, the relative expression of value is incomplete because the series representing it is interminable. The chain of which each equation of value is a link, is liable at any moment to be lengthened by each new kind of commodity that comes into existence and furnishes the material for a fresh expression of value. In the second place, it is a many-coloured mosaic of disparate and independent expressions of value. And lastly, if, as must be the case, the relative value of each commodity in turn, becomes expressed in this expanded form, we get for each of them a relative value form, different in every case, and consisting of an interminable series of expressions of value. The defects of the expanded relative value form are reflected in the corresponding equivalent form. Since the bodily form of each single commodity is one particular equivalent form amongst numberless others, we have, on the whole, nothing but fragmentary equivalent forms, each excluding the others. In the same way, also, the special, concrete, useful kind of labour embodied in each particular equivalent, is presented only as a particular kind of labour, and therefore not as an exhaustive representative of human labour generally. The latter, indeed, gains adequate manifestation in the totality of its manifold, particular, concrete forms. But, in that case, its expression in an infinite series is ever incomplete and deficient in unity.

The expanded relative value form is, however, nothing but the sum of the elementary relative expressions or equations of the first kind, such as:

20 yards of linen = 1 coat 20 yards of linen = 10 lbs of tea, etc.

Each of these implies the corresponding inverted equation,

1 coat = 20 yards of linen 10 lbs of tea = 20 yards of linen, etc.

In fact, when a person exchanges his linen for many other commodities, and thus expresses its value in a series of other commodities, it necessarily follows, that the various owners of the latter exchange them for the linen, and consequently express the value of their various commodities in one and the same third commodity, the linen. If then, we reverse the series, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs of tea, etc., that is to say, if we give expression to the converse relation already implied in the series, we get,

C. The General Form of Value

1coat 10lbs of tea 40lbs of coffee 1quarter of corn 2ounces of gold ½a ton of iron xCommodity A, etc.     = 20 yards of linen

1. The altered character of the form of value

All commodities now express their value (1) in an elementary form, because in a single commodity; (2) with unity, because in one and the same commodity. This form of value is elementary and the same for all, therefore general.

The forms A and B were fit only to express the value of a commodity as something distinct from its use value or material form.

The first form, A, furnishes such equations as the following: – 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, 10 lbs of tea = ½ a ton of iron. The value of the coat is equated to linen, that of the tea to iron. But to be equated to linen, and again to iron, is to be as different as are linen and iron. This form, it is plain, occurs practically only in the first beginning, when the products of labour are converted into commodities by accidental and occasional exchanges.

The second form, B, distinguishes, in a more adequate manner than the first, the value of a commodity from its use value, for the value of the coat is there placed in contrast under all possible shapes with the bodily form of the coat; it is equated to linen, to iron, to tea, in short, to everything else, only not to itself, the coat. On the other hand, any general expression of value common to all is directly excluded; for, in the equation of value of each commodity, all other commodities now appear only under the form of equivalents. The expanded form of value comes into actual existence for the first time so soon as a particular product of labour, such as cattle, is no longer exceptionally, but habitually, exchanged for various other commodities.

The third and lastly developed form expresses the values of the whole world of commodities in terms of a single commodity set apart for the purpose, namely, the linen, and thus represents to us their values by means of their equality with linen. The value of every commodity is now, by being equated to linen, not only differentiated from its own use value, but from all other use values generally, and is, by that very fact, expressed as that which is common to all commodities. By this form, commodities are, for the first time, effectively brought into relation with one another as values, or made to appear as exchange values.

The two earlier forms either express the value of each commodity in terms of a single commodity of a different kind, or in a series of many such commodities. In both cases, it is, so to say, the special business of each single commodity to find an expression for its value, and this it does without the help of the others. These others, with respect to the former, play the passive parts of equivalents. The general form of value, C, results from the joint action of the whole world of commodities, and from that alone. A commodity can acquire a general expression of its value only by all other commodities, simultaneously with it, expressing their values in the same equivalent; and every new commodity must follow suit. It thus becomes evident that since the existence of commodities as values is purely social, this social existence can be expressed by the totality of their social relations alone, and consequently that the form of their value must be a socially recognised form.

All commodities being equated to linen now appear not only as qualitatively equal as values generally, but also as values whose magnitudes are capable of comparison. By expressing the magnitudes of their values in one and the same material, the linen, those magnitudes are also compared with each other. For instance, 10 lbs of tea = 20 yards of linen, and 40 lbs of coffee = 20 yards of linen. Therefore, 10 lbs of tea = 40 lbs of coffee. In other words, there is contained in 1 lb of coffee only one-fourth as much substance of value – labour – as is contained in 1 lb of tea.

The general form of relative value, embracing the whole world of commodities, converts the single commodity that is excluded from the rest, and made to play the part of equivalent – here the linen – into the universal equivalent. The bodily form of the linen is now the form assumed in common by the values of all commodities; it therefore becomes directly exchangeable with all and every of them. The substance linen becomes the visible incarnation, the social chrysalis state of every kind of human labour. Weaving, which is the labour of certain private individuals producing a particular article, linen, acquires in consequence a social character, the character of equality with all other kinds of labour. The innumerable equations of which the general form of value is composed, equate in turn the labour embodied in the linen to that embodied in every other commodity, and they thus convert weaving into the general form of manifestation of undifferentiated human labour. In this manner the labour realised in the values of commodities is presented not only under its negative aspect, under which abstraction is made from every concrete form and useful property of actual work, but its own positive nature is made to reveal itself expressly. The general value form is the reduction of all kinds of actual labour to their common character of being human labour generally, of being the expenditure of human labour power.

The general value form, which represents all products of labour as mere congelations of undifferentiated human labour, shows by its very structure that it is the social resumé of the world of commodities. That form consequently makes it indisputably evident that in the world of commodities the character possessed by all labour of being human labour constitutes its specific social character.

2. The Interdependent Development of the Relative Form of Value, and of the Equivalent Form

The degree of development of the relative form of value corresponds to that of the equivalent form. But we must bear in mind that the development of the latter is only the expression and result of the development of the former.

The primary or isolated relative form of value of one commodity converts some other commodity into an isolated equivalent. The expanded form of relative value, which is the expression of the value of one commodity in terms of all other commodities, endows those other commodities with the character of particular equivalents differing in kind. And lastly, a particular kind of commodity acquires the character of universal equivalent, because all other commodities make it the material in which they uniformly express their value.

The antagonism between the relative form of value and the equivalent form, the two poles of the value form, is developed concurrently with that form itself.

The first form, 20 yds of linen = one coat, already contains this antagonism, without as yet fixing it. According as we read this equation forwards or backwards, the parts played by the linen and the coat are different. In the one case the relative value of the linen is expressed in the coat, in the other case the relative value of the coat is expressed in the linen. In this first form of value, therefore, it is difficult to grasp the polar contrast.

Form B shows that only one single commodity at a time can completely expand its relative value, and that it acquires this expanded form only because, and in so far as, all other commodities are, with respect to it, equivalents. Here we cannot reverse the equation, as we can the equation 20 yds of linen = 1 coat, without altering its general character, and converting it from the expanded form of value into the general form of value.

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.[26]

The commodity that figures as universal equivalent, is, on the other hand, excluded from the relative value form. If the linen, or any other commodity serving as universal equivalent, were, at the same time, to share in the relative form of value, it would have to serve as its own equivalent. We should then have 20 yds of linen = 20 yds of linen; this tautology expresses neither value, nor magnitude of value. In order to express the relative value of the universal equivalent, we must rather reverse the form C. This equivalent has no relative form of value in common with other commodities, but its value is relatively expressed by a never ending series of other commodities. Thus, the expanded form of relative value, or form B, now shows itself as the specific form of relative value for the equivalent commodity.

3. Transition from the General form of value to the Money form

The universal equivalent form is a form of value in general. It can, therefore, be assumed by any commodity. On the other hand, if a commodity be found to have assumed the universal equivalent form (form C), this is only because and in so far as it has been excluded from the rest of all other commodities as their equivalent, and that by their own act. And from the moment that this exclusion becomes finally restricted to one particular commodity, from that moment only, the general form of relative value of the world of commodities obtains real consistence and general social validity.

The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special social function of that commodity, and consequently its social monopoly, to play within the world of commodities the part of the universal equivalent. Amongst the commodities which, in form B, figure as particular equivalents of the linen, and, in form C, express in common their relative values in linen, this foremost place has been attained by one in particular – namely, gold. If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we get,

D. The Money-Form

20yards of linen= 1coat= 10lbs of tea= 40lbs of coffee= 1quarter of corn= 2ounces of gold= ½a ton of iron= xCommodity A=     = 2 ounces of gold

In passing from form A to form B, and from the latter to form C, the changes are fundamental. On the other hand, there is no difference between forms C and D, except that, in the latter, gold has assumed the equivalent form in the place of linen. Gold is in form D, what linen was in form C – the universal equivalent. The progress consists in this alone, that the character of direct and universal exchangeability – in other words, that the universal equivalent form – has now, by social custom, become finally identified with the substance, gold.

Gold is now money with reference to all other commodities only because it was previously, with reference to them, a simple commodity. Like all other commodities, it was also capable of serving as an equivalent, either as simple equivalent in isolated exchanges, or as particular equivalent by the side of others. Gradually it began to serve, within varying limits, as universal equivalent. So soon as it monopolises this position in the expression of value for the world of commodities, it becomes the money commodity, and then, and not till then, does form D become distinct from form C, and the general form of value become changed into the money form.

The elementary expression of the relative value of a single commodity, such as linen, in terms of the commodity, such as gold, that plays the part of money, is the price form of that commodity. The price form of the linen is therefore

20 yards of linen = 2 ounces of gold, or, if 2 ounces of gold when coined are £2, 20 yards of linen = £2.

The difficulty in forming a concept of the money form, consists in clearly comprehending the universal equivalent form, and as a necessary corollary, the general form of value, form C. The latter is deducible from form B, the expanded form of value, the essential component element of which, we saw, is form A, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or x commodity A = y commodity B. The simple commodity form is therefore the germ of the money form.

SECTION 4THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES

AND THE SECRET THEREOF

A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table-turning” ever was. [26a]

The mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use value. Just as little does it proceed from the nature of the determining factors of value. For, in the first place, however varied the useful kinds of labour, or productive activities, may be, it is a physiological fact, that they are functions of the human organism, and that each such function, whatever may be its nature or form, is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, &c. Secondly, with regard to that which forms the ground-work for the quantitative determination of value, namely, the duration of that expenditure, or the quantity of labour, it is quite clear that there is a palpable difference between its quantity and quality. In all states of society, the labour time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development.[27] And lastly, from the moment that men in any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social form.

Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself. The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products.

A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is different with commodities. There, the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.

This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the foregoing analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them.

As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labour of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other. The sum total of the labour of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labour of society. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things. It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility. This division of a product into a useful thing and a value becomes practically important, only when exchange has acquired such an extension that useful articles are produced for the purpose of being exchanged, and their character as values has therefore to be taken into account, beforehand, during production. From this moment the labour of the individual producer acquires socially a two-fold character. On the one hand, it must, as a definite useful kind of labour, satisfy a definite social want, and thus hold its place as part and parcel of the collective labour of all, as a branch of a social division of labour that has sprung up spontaneously. On the other hand, it can satisfy the manifold wants of the individual producer himself, only in so far as the mutual exchangeability of all kinds of useful private labour is an established social fact, and therefore the private useful labour of each producer ranks on an equality with that of all others. The equalisation of the most different kinds of labour can be the result only of an abstraction from their inequalities, or of reducing them to their common denominator, viz. expenditure of human labour power or human labour in the abstract. The two-fold social character of the labour of the individual appears to him, when reflected in his brain, only under those forms which are impressed upon that labour in every-day practice by the exchange of products. In this way, the character that his own labour possesses of being socially useful takes the form of the condition, that the product must be not only useful, but useful for others, and the social character that his particular labour has of being the equal of all other particular kinds of labour, takes the form that all the physically different articles that are the products of labour, have one common quality, viz., that of having value.

Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. The recent scientific discovery, that the products of labour, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production, marks, indeed, an epoch in the history of the development of the human race, but, by no means, dissipates the mist through which the social character of labour appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves. The fact, that in the particular form of production with which we are dealing, viz., the production of commodities, the specific social character of private labour carried on independently, consists in the equality of every kind of that labour, by virtue of its being human labour, which character, therefore, assumes in the product the form of value – this fact appears to the producers, notwithstanding the discovery above referred to, to be just as real and final, as the fact, that, after the discovery by science of the component gases of air, the atmosphere itself remained unaltered.

What, first of all, practically concerns producers when they make an exchange, is the question, how much of some other product they get for their own? In what proportions the products are exchangeable? When these proportions have, by custom, attained a certain stability, they appear to result from the nature of the products, so that, for instance, one ton of iron and two ounces of gold appear as naturally to be of equal value as a pound of gold and a pound of iron in spite of their different physical and chemical qualities appear to be of equal weight. The character of having value, when once impressed upon products, obtains fixity only by reason of their acting and re-acting upon each other as quantities of value. These quantities vary continually, independently of the will, foresight and action of the producers. To them, their own social action takes the form of the action of objects, which rule the producers instead of being ruled by them. It requires a fully developed production of commodities before, from accumulated experience alone, the scientific conviction springs up, that all the different kinds of private labour, which are carried on independently of each other, and yet as spontaneously developed branches of the social division of labour, are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. And why? Because, in the midst of all the accidental and ever fluctuating exchange relations between the products, the labour time socially necessary for their production forcibly asserts itself like an over-riding law of Nature. The law of gravity thus asserts itself when a house falls about our ears.[29] The determination of the magnitude of value by labour time is therefore a secret, hidden under the apparent fluctuations in the relative values of commodities. Its discovery, while removing all appearance of mere accidentality from the determination of the magnitude of the values of products, yet in no way alters the mode in which that determination takes place.

Man’s reflections on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him. The characters that stamp products as commodities, and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of commodities, have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of social life, before man seeks to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning. Consequently it was the analysis of the prices of commodities that alone led to the determination of the magnitude of value, and it was the common expression of all commodities in money that alone led to the establishment of their characters as values. It is, however, just this ultimate money form of the world of commodities that actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labour, and the social relations between the individual producers. When I state that coats or boots stand in a relation to linen, because it is the universal incarnation of abstract human labour, the absurdity of the statement is self-evident. Nevertheless, when the producers of coats and boots compare those articles with linen, or, what is the same thing, with gold or silver, as the universal equivalent, they express the relation between their own private labour and the collective labour of society in the same absurd form.

The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like forms. They are forms of thought expressing with social validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically determined mode of production, viz., the production of commodities. The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities, vanishes therefore, so soon as we come to other forms of production.

Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists,[30] let us take a look at him on his island. Moderate though he be, yet some few wants he has to satisfy, and must therefore do a little useful work of various sorts, such as making tools and furniture, taming goats, fishing and hunting. Of his prayers and the like we take no account, since they are a source of pleasure to him, and he looks upon them as so much recreation. In spite of the variety of his work, he knows that his labour, whatever its form, is but the activity of one and the same Robinson, and consequently, that it consists of nothing but different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time accurately between his different kinds of work. Whether one kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than another, depends on the difficulties, greater or less as the case may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed at. This our friend Robinson soon learns by experience, and having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the wreck, commences, like a true-born Briton, to keep a set of books. His stock-book contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production; and lastly, of the labour time that definite quantities of those objects have, on an average, cost him. All the relations between Robinson and the objects that form this wealth of his own creation, are here so simple and clear as to be intelligible without exertion, even to Mr. Sedley Taylor. And yet those relations contain all that is essential to the determination of value.

Let us now transport ourselves from Robinson’s island bathed in light to the European middle ages shrouded in darkness. Here, instead of the independent man, we find everyone dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, laymen and clergy. Personal dependence here characterises the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organised on the basis of that production. But for the very reason that personal dependence forms the ground-work of society, there is no necessity for labour and its products to assume a fantastic form different from their reality. They take the shape, in the transactions of society, of services in kind and payments in kind. Here the particular and natural form of labour, and not, as in a society based on production of commodities, its general abstract form is the immediate social form of labour. Compulsory labour is just as properly measured by time, as commodity-producing labour; but every serf knows that what he expends in the service of his lord, is a definite quantity of his own personal labour power. The tithe to be rendered to the priest is more matter of fact than his blessing. No matter, then, what we may think of the parts played by the different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individuals in the performance of their labour, appear at all events as their own mutual personal relations, and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labour.

For an example of labour in common or directly associated labour, we have no occasion to go back to that spontaneously developed form which we find on the threshold of the history of all civilised races.[31] We have one close at hand in the patriarchal industries of a peasant family, that produces corn, cattle, yarn, linen, and clothing for home use. These different articles are, as regards the family, so many products of its labour, but as between themselves, they are not commodities. The different kinds of labour, such as tillage, cattle tending, spinning, weaving and making clothes, which result in the various products, are in themselves, and such as they are, direct social functions, because functions of the family, which, just as much as a society based on the production of commodities, possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labour. The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labour time of the several members, depend as well upon differences of age and sex as upon natural conditions varying with the seasons. The labour power of each individual, by its very nature, operates in this case merely as a definite portion of the whole labour power of the family, and therefore, the measure of the expenditure of individual labour power by its duration, appears here by its very nature as a social character of their labour.

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’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.

The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour – for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion. In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production, we find that the conversion of products into commodities, and therefore the conversion of men into producers of commodities, holds a subordinate place, which, however, increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution. Trading nations, properly so called, exist in the ancient world only in its interstices, like the gods of Epicurus in the Intermundia, or like Jews in the pores of Polish society. Those ancient social organisms of production are, as compared with bourgeois society, extremely simple and transparent. But they are founded either on the immature development of man individually, who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unites him with his fellowmen in a primitive tribal community, or upon direct relations of subjection. They can arise and exist only when the development of the productive power of labour has not risen beyond a low stage, and when, therefore, the social relations within the sphere of material life, between man and man, and between man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow. This narrowness is reflected in the ancient worship of Nature, and in the other elements of the popular religions. The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.

The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.

Political Economy has indeed analysed, however incompletely,[32] value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour time by the magnitude of that value.[33] These formulæ, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulæ appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production that preceded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bourgeoisie in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions.[34]

To what extent some economists are misled by the Fetishism inherent in commodities, or by the objective appearance of the social characteristics of labour, is shown, amongst other ways, by the dull and tedious quarrel over the part played by Nature in the formation of exchange value. Since exchange value is a definite social manner of expressing the amount of labour bestowed upon an object, Nature has no more to do with it, than it has in fixing the course of exchange.

The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as now-a-days. Hence its Fetish character is comparatively easy to be seen through. But when we come to more concrete forms, even this appearance of simplicity vanishes. Whence arose the illusions of the monetary system? To it gold and silver, when serving as money, did not represent a social relation between producers, but were natural objects with strange social properties. And modern economy, which looks down with such disdain on the monetary system, does not its superstition come out as clear as noon-day, whenever it treats of capital? How long is it since economy discarded the physiocratic illusion, that rents grow out of the soil and not out of society?

But not to anticipate, we will content ourselves with yet another example relating to the commodity form. Could commodities themselves speak, they would say: Our use value may be a thing that interests men. It is no part of us as objects. What, however, does belong to us as objects, is our value. Our natural intercourse as commodities proves it. In the eyes of each other we are nothing but exchange values. Now listen how those commodities speak through the mouth of the economist.

“Value” – (i.e., exchange value) “is a property of things, riches” – (i.e., use value) “of man. Value, in this sense, necessarily implies exchanges, riches do not.”[35] “Riches” (use value) “are the attribute of men, value is the attribute of commodities. A man or a community is rich, a pearl or a diamond is valuable...” A pearl or a diamond is valuable as a pearl or a diamond.[36]

So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl or a diamond. The economic discoverers of this chemical element, who by-the-bye lay special claim to critical acumen, find however that the use value of objects belongs to them independently of their material properties, while their value, on the other hand, forms a part of them as objects. What confirms them in this view, is the peculiar circumstance that the use value of objects is realised without exchange, by means of a direct relation between the objects and man, while, on the other hand, their value is realised only by exchange, that is, by means of a social process. Who fails here to call to mind our good friend, Dogberry, who informs neighbour Seacoal, that, “To be a well-favoured man is the gift of fortune; but reading and writing comes by Nature.”[37]

[dwellordream]

“...Cloth fibers could be dyed at several points during production (though again, note above that dyeing was far more common for wool than for linen). Assuming wool was scoured after shearing, it could be dyed at that point (thus the phrase ‘dyed in the wool’) though unscoured wool will not generally take a dye because the natural oils of the wool will prevent the dye from setting into the cloth. Alternately, wool might be spun and then dyed either as thread or as finished woven cloth. In the early modern period, undyed woven fabrics fit for dying were called ‘whites’ and might either be dyed locally or in some cases shipped significant distances to be dyed elsewhere (in no small part because, as we’ll see, the availability of dye colors was regionally dependent).

Today, we are used to the effectively infinite range of colors offered by synthetic dyes, but for pre-modern dye-workers, they were largely restricted to colors that could be produced from locally available or imported dyestuffs. If you wanted a given color of fabric, you needed to be able to find something in the natural world which, when broken down could give you a chemical pigment that you could transfer to your fabric in a durable way. That put real limits on the colors which could be dyed and the availability of those colors.

Some colors simply couldn’t be produced this way – a good example were golden or metallic colors. If something in a dress was to be truly golden (and not merely yellow), the only way to do that prior to synthetic dyes and paints was to use actual gold, weaving small strands of ultra-thin gold wire into the cloth or embroidering designs with it. Needless to say, that was something only done by the very wealthy. Alternately, if the dye for a given hue or color came from something rare or foreign or difficult to process (for instance, in all three cases, Tyrian or royal purple, which came from the murex sea snails – if you have ever wondered why no country has purple as a national color this is why, before synthetic dyes, coloring your flags and uniforms purple would have been bonkers expensive), then it was going to be expensive and rare and there just wasn’t much you could do about that.

What dyes were available thus varied based on where you were and how much you could afford to import. Determining ancient dye availability is often tricky, since fabric so rarely survives, but we know that the Romans prized a wide range of colors; Pliny gives us some clues as to some of the more expensive dyes in his Natural History (such as saffron for a rich yellow), along with more common colors like blue (from woad), red (from madder), brown (from walnuts), and a cheaper yellow from weld. Similar sets of dyes were available in the Middle Ages, J.S. Lee notes the principal dyestuffs in use in England were woad (blue), madder (red), weld (yellow), ‘grain’ red (scarlet, this is kermes dye), cinnabar (vermillion), saffron (yellow) and various other vegetable and fruit dies (op. cit. 62). Many of these were imported; madder and weld from Germany, France and the Baltic, kermes and woad from the Mediterranean, Cinnabar from the Red Sea area. Madder, weld and woad in particular were the cheapest and most common dyes and served as the foundation for clothing color in the ancient and medieval Mediterranean (which is, consequently, why colors that can be produced by those dyes, or by mixing them, are so common in medieval artwork depicting clothing).

Eventually (‘true’) indigo blue dye came all the way from India (it was known to the Greeks and the Romans) but because of its imported nature it was an expensive luxury product in Europe prior to European colonial expansion. Indigo is a particularly good example, however, of how a dye (and its associated color, the deep blue) could be relatively inexpensive and available in one place and a rare luxury good used as a status symbol in others. While the dyes available were somewhat restricted, dyers could of course combine pigments to get composite colors, giving a fairly wide range of colors, assuming one had the money for the pigments...

The actual dying process varied based on the pigment being used and there were likely local craft differences as well. Still the process could be complex, with dyestuffs often needing to be ground down or broken up and then often heated (sometimes boiled) in order to get the pigments ready before the cloth would be immersed in the dye.

...Other dyes might require a mordant, a fixing agent which enabled the pigment to set on the fibers of the fabric. Alum was often used; in the Middle Ages it was sourced from Asia Minor and so needed to reach Europe via Mediterranean trade (although Italian sources of alum were found in 1462; it was only produced domestically in England in the 17th century and after). In other cases, as with the use of dyes produced from wood, tannic acid might be used as the mordant. Each dye had its own unique preparation process to produce the dye; some involved boiling, others fermenting, some grinding down the products and so on. Dyers needed access to quite a lot of water, both for the processes of making dye, but also to discharge the various effluent from the process – spent dye mixtures and waste water. Once the dye was made, the fibers, which might be unspun wool, spun wool thread or woven wool cloth, were immersed in the dye and then agitated; the agitation was done with a ‘dyer’s posser’ and introducing or removing the cloth was done with tongs.

...Now it is necessary to caveat this upfront: in terms of raw amounts of cloth produced, household textile production is likely to have outstripped commercial textile production until the start of the industrial revolution, so while commercial textile production is more visible to us (in part because rich businesses tend to leave records and their owners tend to be the sort of people to be literate and write things like wills which we can read) they weren’t the majority of production. So while clothiers and cloth merchants and professional weavers often get more attention in the sources (and consequently may get more attention in some modern treatments) they were likely a minority of cloth workers and cloth production prior to the early modern period.

At the same time, it is clearly wrong to think of the household production chain as being completely divorced from the commercial production chain; the two were clearly intermingled. Fullers and dyers seem to have represented a point where the two production systems converged; fulling and dying were difficult to do at household scale and required special skills and so it seems that even a household producing its own textiles would have a use for the fuller and the dyer to finish those clothes (because, again, people liked to look nice). Moreover, as we’ve discussed already, commercial clothiers often sourced the spinning and weaving they needed through the putting out system, paying domestic spinners and weavers (mainly women) on a wage or piece-work basis (that is, per-unit of thread or fabric).

...But of course there were also purely commercial workers making cloth, including elements of production that couldn’t be brought into the household (like fulling and dyeing) but also producers who worked primarily for the market. The emergence of large-scale textile production for markets – what we might term commercial production – seems closely connected to the rise of large cities, presumably because those cities contained both elites who might want to buy more (or finer) fabrics than their household could produce as well as poorer workers whose households (which might just be themselves) lacked the ability to produce textiles at all. Long distance trade was also clearly a factor that drove the emergence of large-scale cloth production; wool products were major exports as early as third millennium BC Summer (on this, note several of the chapters in C. Breniquet and C. Michel, op. cit.)

In both cases, we can see that dyers tend to be rather more highly paid than other textile workers, while second place goes to fullers (in the second chart, note that fulling, cleansing and finishing were all done in a fullery; it is the last task, I think, that would be done by the fuller himself (or herself) rather than paid workers or – in the Roman context – enslaved workers), with skilled professional weavers in the third place. The range of tax paid though gives a real sense of how there might be a considerable separation between the earning power of small-scale producers (or apprentices and other hired workers in a larger operation) and producers working at a larger scale (or making elite products).

Dyeworks (and fulleries in the medieval period) tended to be located just outside of urban centers, in part because of the smell (both kinds of work tend to smell quite bad). Because both dyeing and fulling made use of bad smelling mixtures, older scholars often assumed that the workers in these occupations were low status individuals and looked down upon. And while it is true that there does seem to have been some sense that these places were not terribly sanitary, more recent scholarship tends to show little evidence that the people who worked there – particularly the skilled, professional dyers and fullers – were low-status themselves.

In terms of the social position of cloth-makers, one indicator we can look to is professional associations and guilds. In the Roman world, professional associations (collegia) of fullers seem to have been quite common and Miko Flohr (op. cit.) argues persuasively that Roman fullers were respectable professionals, similar to other artisans – well below the political and social elite (whose wealth was in large landholdings), but not disreputable. Fuller’s collegia could be significant politically though; Flohr notes that Roman fullers seem to have been politically active, for instance, in Pompeii’s local politics (most famously dedicating a statue of Eumachia, a local aristocratic woman, outside of the ‘building of Eumachia’ the purpose of which is still under some dispute (but perhaps a market-place for fabric?)).

...So while the landed elite will have looked down their nose as textile workers (they looked down their nose at everyone), skilled professional textile workers represented fixtures in what we might see as a lower-middle-class of sorts in pre-modern cities. Because there were so many of them (and because they were attached to cloth merchants who might be truly wealthy) they often exerted a significant political and cultural pull. Thus there is an enormous range in the status of cloth-workers, from the well-to-do dyer who might be a respected professional artisan to the poorly paid spinner working in the ‘putting out’ system in her spare time when she wasn’t making clothing for her relatively poor farming family.”

- Bret Devereaux, “Clothing, How Did They Make It? Part IVa: Dyed in the Wool.”

[johnmauldin]

Robots May Perform Half The Jobs In The US Within 20 Years: Here's What That Could Mean

Perhaps you don’t think the change that is upon us is a profound one. But consider this: Within two decades, half the jobs in this country may be performed by robots. What then of our unemployment rate? And what of our social safety net?

Opinion is divided. Will the next technological wave further skew the wealth distribution toward the uber-rich? Or will it ultimately create more entrepreneurial and job opportunities than it destroys?

There is an interesting historical precedent for our situation. It was an era during which the technological firmament shifted just as abruptly as it is here and now.

The Industrial Revolution Makes Waves

In the UK in the year 1800, the textile industry dominated economic life. Particularly in Northern England and Scotland. Cotton-spinners, weavers (mostly of stockings), and croppers (who trimmed large sheets of woven wool) worked from home. They were well compensated and enjoyed ample leisure time.

Ten years later, that had all changed. Clive Thompson tells us what happened:

(I)n the first decade of the 1800s, the textile economy went into a tailspin.… The merchant class—the overlords who paid hosiers and croppers and weavers for the work—began looking for ways to shrink their costs.

That meant reducing wages—and bringing in more technology to improve efficiency… They also began to build huge factories where coal-burning engines would propel dozens of automated cotton-weaving machines….

The workers were livid. Factory work was miserable, with brutal 14-hour days that left workers—as one doctor noted—‘stunted, enfeebled, and depraved.’… Poverty rose as wages plummeted.

Workers Fight Back

Enter the notorious Luddites. Angry workers began to fight back. They destroyed the hated wide stocking frames and cotton-spinning machinery. They even killed factory owners.

Soon, they were breaking at least 175 machines per month. And within months, they had destroyed some 800, worth £25,000—the equivalent of nearly $2 million today.

Source: Wikimedia

As we know, the owners retaliated. The English government intervened decisively. The Luddite rebellion was crushed. However, says Thompson,

At heart, the fight was not really about technology. The Luddites were happy to use machinery—indeed, weavers had used smaller frames for decades. What galled them was the new logic of industrial capitalism, where the productivity gains from new technology enriched only the machines’ owners and weren’t shared with the workers.

The owners had taken to heart Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. The book was published a few decades earlier. In it, Smith makes the case for a laissez-faire, free-market economy.

In the ensuing centuries we have seen a seesaw battle between labor and capital. It certainly appears that capital now has the upper hand. But clearly, the Industrial Revolution did lift all boats.

Can you imagine trying to support our present global population without our machines?

What About Our Future?

The Information Revolution gave us computers, the Internet, and social media. The AI Revolution is about to give us self-driving taxis and trucks and robot baristas.

Will these continue to lift our lower and middle classes? Or will they further disempower and impoverish them? Here’s what Clive Thompson thinks.

When Robots Take All Of Our Jobs, Remember The Luddites

By Clive Thompson

What a 19th-century rebellion against automation can teach us about the coming war in the job market

Is a robot coming for your job?

The odds are high, according to recent economic analyses. Indeed, fully 47 percent of all US jobs will be automated “in a decade or two,” as the tech-employment scholars Carl Frey and Michael Osborne have predicted. That’s because artificial intelligence and robotics are becoming so good that nearly any routine task could soon be automated. Robots and AI are already whisking products around Amazon’s huge shipping centers, diagnosing lung cancer more accurately than humans, and writing sports stories for newspapers.

They’re even replacing cabdrivers. Last year in Pittsburgh, Uber put its first-ever self-driving cars into its fleet: Order an Uber and the one that rolls up might have no human hands on the wheel at all. Meanwhile, Uber’s “Otto” program is installing AI in 16-wheeler trucks—a trend that could eventually replace most or all 1.7 million drivers, an enormous employment category. Those jobless truckers will be joined by millions more telemarketers, insurance underwriters, tax preparers, and library technicians—all jobs that Frey and Osborne predicted have a 99 percent chance of vanishing in a decade or two.

What happens then? If this vision is even halfway correct, it’ll be a vertiginous pace of change, upending work as we know it. As the last election amply illustrated, a big chunk of Americans already hotly blame foreigners and immigrants for taking their jobs. How will Americans react to robots and computers taking even more?

One clue might lie in the early 19th century. That’s when the first generation of workers had the experience of being suddenly thrown out of their jobs by automation. But rather than accept it, they fought back—calling themselves the “Luddites,” and staging an audacious attack against the machines.

**********

At the turn of 1800, the textile industry in the United Kingdom was an economic juggernaut that employed the vast majority of workers in the North. Working from home, weavers produced stockings using frames, while cotton-spinners created yarn. “Croppers” would take large sheets of woven wool fabric and trim the rough surface off, making it smooth to the touch.

These workers had great control over when and how they worked—and plenty of leisure. “The year was checkered with holidays, wakes, and fairs; it was not one dull round of labor,” as the stocking-maker William Gardiner noted gaily at the time. Indeed, some “seldom worked more than three days a week.” Not only was the weekend a holiday, but they took Monday off too, celebrating it as a drunken “St. Monday.”

Croppers in particular were a force to be reckoned with. They were well-off—their pay was three times that of stocking-makers—and their work required them to pass heavy cropping tools across the wool, making them muscular, brawny men who were fiercely independent. In the textile world, the croppers were, as one observer noted at the time, “notoriously the least manageable of any persons employed.”

But in the first decade of the 1800s, the textile economy went into a tailspin. A decade of war with Napoleon had halted trade and driven up the cost of food and everyday goods. Fashions changed, too: Men began wearing “trousers,” so the demand for stockings plummeted. The merchant class—the overlords who paid hosiers and croppers and weavers for the work—began looking for ways to shrink their costs.

That meant reducing wages—and bringing in more technology to improve efficiency. A new form of shearer and “gig mill” let one person crop wool much more quickly. An innovative, “wide” stocking frame allowed weavers to produce stockings six times faster than before: Instead of weaving the entire stocking around, they’d produce a big sheet of hosiery and cut it up into several stockings. “Cut-ups” were shoddy and fell apart quickly, and could be made by untrained workers who hadn’t done apprenticeships, but the merchants didn’t care. They also began to build huge factories where coal-burning engines would propel dozens of automated cotton-weaving machines.

“They were obsessed with keeping their factories going, so they were introducing machines wherever they might help,” says Jenny Uglow, a historian and author of In These Times: Living in Britain Through Napoleon’s Wars, 1793-1815.

The workers were livid. Factory work was miserable, with brutal 14-hour days that left workers—as one doctor noted—“stunted, enfeebled, and depraved.” Stocking-weavers were particularly incensed at the move toward cut-ups. It produced stockings of such low quality that they were “pregnant with the seeds of its own destruction,” as one hosier put it. Pretty soon people wouldn’t buy any stockings if they were this shoddy. Poverty rose as wages plummeted.

The workers tried bargaining. They weren’t opposed to machinery, they said, if the profits from increased productivity were shared. The croppers suggested taxing cloth to make a fund for those unemployed by machines. Others argued that industrialists should introduce machinery more gradually, to allow workers more time to adapt to new trades.

The plight of the unemployed workers even attracted the attention of Charlotte Brontë, who wrote them into her novel Shirley. “The throes of a sort of moral earthquake,” she noted, “were felt heaving under the hills of the northern counties.”

**********

In mid-November 1811, that earthquake began to rumble. That evening, according to a report at the time, half a dozen men—with faces blackened to obscure their identities, and carrying “swords, firelocks, and other offensive weapons”—marched into the house of master-weaver Edward Hollingsworth in the village of Bulwell. They destroyed six of his frames for making cut-ups. A week later, more men came back and this time they burned Hollingsworth’s house to the ground. Within weeks, attacks spread to other towns. When panicked industrialists tried moving their frames to a new location to hide them, the attackers would find the carts and destroy them en route.

A modus operandi emerged: The machine-breakers would usually disguise their identities and attack the machines with massive metal sledgehammers. The hammers were made by Enoch Taylor, a local blacksmith; since Taylor himself was also famous for making the cropping and weaving machines, the breakers noted the poetic irony with a chant: “Enoch made them, Enoch shall break them!”

Most notably, the attackers gave themselves a name: the Luddites.

Before an attack, they’d send a letter to manufacturers, warning them to stop using their “obnoxious frames” or face destruction. The letters were signed by “General Ludd,” “King Ludd” or perhaps by someone writing “from Ludd Hall”—an acerbic joke, pretending the Luddites had an actual organization.

Despite their violence, “they had a sense of humor” about their own image, notes Steven Jones, author of Against Technology and a professor of English and digital humanities at the University of South Florida. An actual person Ludd did not exist; probably the name was inspired by the mythic tale of “Ned Ludd,” an apprentice who was beaten by his master and retaliated by destroying his frame.

Ludd was, in essence, a useful meme—one the Luddites carefully cultivated, like modern activists posting images to Twitter and Tumblr. They wrote songs about Ludd, styling him as a Robin Hood-like figure: “No General But Ludd / Means the Poor Any Good,” as one rhyme went. In one attack, two men dressed as women, calling themselves “General Ludd’s wives.” “They were engaged in a kind of semiotics,” Jones notes. “They took a lot of time with the costumes, with the songs.”

And “Ludd” itself! “It’s a catchy name,” says Kevin Binfield, author of Writings of the Luddites. “The phonic register, the phonic impact.”

As a form of economic protest, machine-breaking wasn’t new. There were probably 35 examples of it in the previous 100 years, as the author Kirkpatrick Sale found in his seminal history Rebels Against the Future. But the Luddites, well organized and tactical, brought a ruthless efficiency to the technique: Barely a few days went by without another attack, and they were soon breaking at least 175 machines per month. Within months they had destroyed probably 800, worth £25,000—the equivalent of $1.97 million, today.

“It seemed too many people in the South like the whole of the North was sort of going up in flames,” Uglow notes. “In terms of industrial history, it was a small industrial civil war.”

Factory owners began to fight back. In April 1812, 120 Luddites descended upon Rawfolds Mill just after midnight, smashing down the doors “with a fearful crash” that was “like the felling of great trees.” But the mill owner was prepared: His men threw huge stones off the roof, and shot and killed four Luddites. The government tried to infiltrate Luddite groups to figure out the identities of these mysterious men, but to little avail. Much as in today’s fractured political climate, the poor despised the elites—and favored the Luddites. “Almost every creature of the lower order both in town & country are on their side,” as one local official noted morosely.

An 1812 handbill sought information about the armed men who destroyed five machines. (The National Archives, UK)

**********

At heart, the fight was not really about technology. The Luddites were happy to use machinery—indeed, weavers had used smaller frames for decades. What galled them was the new logic of industrial capitalism, where the productivity gains from new technology enriched only the machines’ owners and weren’t shared with the workers.

The Luddites were often careful to spare employers who they felt dealt fairly. During one attack, Luddites broke into a house and destroyed four frames—but left two intact after determining that their owner hadn’t lowered wages for his weavers. (Some masters began posting signs on their machines, hoping to avoid destruction: “This Frame Is Making Full Fashioned Work, at the Full Price.”)

For the Luddites, “there was the concept of a ‘fair profit,’” says Adrian Randall, the author of Before the Luddites. In the past, the master would take a fair profit, but now he adds, “the industrial capitalist is someone who is seeking more and more of their share of the profit that they’re making.” Workers thought wages should be protected with minimum-wage laws. Industrialists didn’t: They’d been reading up on laissez-faire economic theory in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, published a few decades earlier.

“The writings of Dr. Adam Smith have altered the opinion of the polished part of society,” as the author of a minimum wage proposal at the time noted. Now, the wealthy believed that attempting to regulate wages “would be as absurd as an attempt to regulate the winds.”

Six months after it began, though, Luddism became increasingly violent. In broad daylight, Luddites assassinated William Horsfall, a factory owner, and attempted to assassinate another. They also began to raid the houses of everyday citizens, taking every weapon they could find.

Parliament was now fully awakened, and began a ferocious crackdown. In March 1812, politicians passed a law that handed out the death penalty for anyone “destroying or injuring any Stocking or Lace Frames, or other Machines or Engines used in the Framework knitted Manufactory.” Meanwhile, London flooded the Luddite counties with 14,000 soldiers.

By winter of 1812, the government was winning. Informants and sleuthing finally tracked down the identities of a few dozen Luddites. Over a span of 15 months, 24 Luddites were hanged publicly, often after hasty trials, including a 16-year-old who cried out to his mother on the gallows, “thinking that she had the power to save him.” Another two dozen were sent to prison and 51 were sentenced to be shipped off to Australia.

“They were show trials,” says Katrina Navickas, a history professor at the University of Hertfordshire. “They were put on to show that [the government] took it seriously.” The hangings had the intended effect: Luddite activity more or less died out immediately.

It was a defeat not just of the Luddite movement, but in a grander sense, of the idea of “fair profit”—that the productivity gains from machinery should be shared widely. “By the 1830s, people had largely accepted that the free-market economy was here to stay,” Navickas notes.

A few years later, the once-mighty croppers were broken. Their trade destroyed, most eked out a living by carrying water, scavenging, or selling bits of lace or cakes on the streets.

“This was a sad end,” one observer noted, “to an honorable craft.”

**********

These days, Adrian Randall thinks technology is making cab-driving worse. Cabdrivers in London used to train for years to amass “the Knowledge,” a mental map of the city’s twisty streets. Now GPS has made it so that anyone can drive an Uber—so the job has become deskilled. Worse, he argues, the GPS doesn’t plot out the fiendishly clever routes that drivers used to. “It doesn’t know what the shortcuts are,” he complains. We are living, he says, through a shift in labor that’s precisely like that of the Luddites.

Economists are divided as to how profound the dis-employment will be. In his recent book Average Is Over, Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, argued that automation could produce profound inequality. A majority of people will find their jobs taken by robots and will be forced into low-paying service work; only a minority—those highly skilled, creative and lucky—will have lucrative jobs, which will be wildly better paid than the rest. Adaptation is possible, though, Cowen says, if society creates cheaper ways of living—“denser cities, more trailer parks.”

Erik Brynjolfsson is less pessimistic. An MIT economist who co-authored The Second Machine Age, he thinks automation won’t necessarily be so bad. The Luddites thought machines destroyed jobs, but they were only half right: They can also, eventually, create new ones. “A lot of skilled artisans did lose their jobs,” Brynjolfsson says, but several decades later demand for labor rose as new job categories emerged, like office work. “Average wages have been increasing for the past 200 years,” he notes. “The machines were creating wealth!”

The problem is that transition is rocky. In the short run, automation can destroy jobs more rapidly than it creates them—sure, things might be fine in a few decades, but that’s cold comfort to someone in, say, their 30s. Brynjolfsson thinks politicians should be adopting policies that ease the transition—much as in the past, when public education and progressive taxation and antitrust law helped prevent the 1 percent from hogging all the profits. “There’s a long list of ways we’ve tinkered with the economy to try and ensure shared prosperity,” he notes.

Will there be another Luddite uprising? Few of the historians thought that was likely. Still, they thought one could spy glimpses of Luddite-style analysis—questioning of whether the economy is fair—in the Occupy Wall Street protests, or even in the environmental movement. Others point to online activism, where hackers protest a company by hitting it with “denial of service” attacks by flooding it with so much traffic that it gets knocked off­line.

Perhaps one day, when Uber starts rolling out its robot fleet in earnest, angry out-of-work cabdrivers will go online—and try to jam up Uber’s services in the digital world.

“As work becomes more automated, I think that’s the obvious direction,” as Uglow notes. “In the West, there’s no point in trying to shut down a factory.”

**********

Get Varying Expert Opinions in One Publication with John Mauldin’s Outside the Box

Every week, celebrated economic commentator John Mauldin highlights a well-researched, controversial essay from a fellow economic expert. Whether you find them inspiring, upsetting, or outrageous… they’ll all make you think Outside the Box. Get the newsletter free in your inbox every Wednesday.