Capital is a form of power over human activity, including "all-to-real" labour and much much more. But that "all too real labour" does not contain the quantitative code of accumulation, since it does not have objective units with which it can be measured. That is why Marx invented the concept of abstract labour.
About the "poof" argument, it can go both ways.... I recommend reading:
Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1984. Value, Equality, Justice, Politics: From Marx to Aristotle and from Aristotle to Ourselves. In Crossroads in the Labyrinth. Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press Limited, pp. 260-339.
Michael Dawson wrote:
>But you are the one missing the point, Jonathan. Marx mentions socially
>necessary abstract labor as the unit of value because he knows he has to
>account for why capitalists can't jack up their profits by merely making
>their workers put in more hours on products. Translated into reality, all
>he's saying is that he knows that the spread of technology and the sales
>price of finished products set limits on the exploitability of labor.
>
>The point is that you are misplacing your concreteness. The underlying
>essence of capital is not socially necessary abstract labor. It is cold,
>hard, sweaty, and all-too-real labor.
>
>But, of course, if that's true -- poof, there goes your paper!
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
>>On Behalf Of Jonathan Nitzan
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:05 PM
>>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] New Imperialism or New Capitalism?
>>
>>Sure, Marx saw capital accumulation as a transformation from money to
>>commodities to more money. But the underlying unit in which this
>>transformation was measured was abstract labor, a unit that no one has
>>ever seen and that is logically impossible. Although Marx understood the
>>process of financial capitalization better than most, he also believed
>>that, in the final analysis, this process oscillated around the path
>>charted by the the production of surplus value. This is where we get the
>>notion that finance can get "delinked" from production -- but then how
>>can you get delinked from a quantum you do not and cannot know?
>>
>>Charles Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>What about the fact that in Vol. II of _Capital_, Marx characterizes
>>>capitalist accumulation as accumulation of money,i.e. finances, not
>>>capital - M-C-M', not C-M-C' ? Not ownership of variable and
>>>constant capital in the form of control of material activity in the
>>>form of labor power expressed or means of production, but of filthy
>>>lucre ?
>>>
>>>
>>>CB
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>___________________________________
>>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>