Volume One (The Volumes Book 1)
Marx examines the two metamorphoses of the commodity through sale and purchase. In this process, "as far as concerns its material content, the movement is C-C, the exchange of one commodity for another, the metabolic interaction of social labor, in whose result the process itself becomes extinguished. In the process of sale, the value of a commodity, which is measured by socially necessary labor-time, is then measured by the universal equivalent, gold.
Through the process of purchase all commodities lose their form by the universal alienator, money. A purchase represents a sale although they are two separate transformations. This process allows for the movement of commodities and the circulation of money. The circulation of money is first initiated by the transformation of a commodity into money.
The commodity is taken from its natural state and transformed into its monetary state. When this happens the commodity "falls out of circulation into consumption. In this process, money is the means for the movement and circulation of commodities. Money assumes the measure of value of a commodity, i. The repetition of this process constantly removes commodities from their starting places, taking them out of the sphere of circulation. Money circulates in the sphere and fluctuates with the sum of all the commodities that co-exist within the sphere. The price of commodities varies by three factors: Money takes the shape of a coin because of how it behaves in the sphere of circulation.
Gold became the universal equivalent by the measurement of its weight in relation to commodities.
Volume (bibliography)
This process was a job that belonged to the state. The problem with gold was that it wore down as it circulated from hand to hand, so the state introduced new circulating media: Marx views money as a "symbolic existence" which haunts the sphere of circulation and arbitrarily measures the product of labor. The exchange of money is a continuous flow of sales and purchase.
Marx writes, "In order to be able to buy without selling, [one] must have previously sold without buying. In order to potentially buy without selling a commodity in your possession, you must have hoarded some degree of money in the past. Money becomes greatly desired due to potential purchasing power.
If one has money, one can exchange it for commodities, and vice versa. However, while satisfying this newly arisen fetish for gold, the hoard causes the hoarder to make personal sacrifices and explains its amorality "doing away all distinctions" by citing Timon of Athens by Shakespeare. In this section Marx analyzes the relationship between debtor and creditor and exemplifies the idea of the transfer of debt. In relation to this, Marx discusses how the money-form has become a means of incremental payment for a service or purchase.
He states that the "function of money as means of payment begins to spread out beyond the sphere of circulation of commodities. It becomes the universal material of contracts. Countries have reserves of gold and silver for two purposes: Marx says that it is essential for countries to hoard, as money is needed "as the medium of the home circulation and home payments, and in part out of its function of money of the world. Countries in which the bourgeois form of production is developed to a certain extent, limit the hoards concentrated in the strong rooms of the banks to the minimum required for the proper performance of their peculiar functions.
Whenever these hoards are strikingly above their average level, it is, with some exceptions, an indication of stagnation in the circulation of commodities, of an interruption in the even flow of their metamorphoses. Money, as described by Marx, can only be transformed into capital through the circulation of commodities. Money originates not as capital, but only as means of exchange. Money becomes capital when it is used as a standard for exchange.
The circulation of commodities has two forms that make up the general formula: C-M-C represents the process of first selling a commodity for money C-M and then using that money to buy another commodity M-C: The largest distinction between the two forms appears through the result of each. During C-M-C, a commodity sold will be replaced by a commodity bought. In this form money only acts as a means of exchange. The transaction ends there, with the exchange of use-values and the money has, according to Marx, "been spent once and for all.
On the contrary, during M-C-M, money is essentially exchanged for more money. The person who invested money into a commodity sells it for money. The money returns to the initial starting place, so the money is not spent, as in the C-M-C form of exchange, but instead advanced. The only function of this process lies in its ability to valorize. By withdrawing more money from circulation than the amount put in, money can be reinvested in circulation creating repeated accumulation of monetary wealth—a never ending process. Capital can only be created once the process of M-C-M has been completed and money returns to the starting point to be re-entered into circulation.
Karl Marx points out that, "in its pure form, the exchange of commodities is an exchange of equivalents, and thus it is not a method of increasing value," [25] and so a contradiction reveals itself. If the participating individuals exchanged equal values, neither of the individuals would increase capital. The needs being satisfied would be the only gain. The creation of surplus-value then becomes rather peculiar for Marx, because commodities, in accordance with socially assigned necessary values, should not create surplus-value if traded fairly.
Marx investigates the matter and concludes, "surplus-value cannot arise from circulation, and therefore that, for it to be formed, something must take place in the background which is not visible in the circulation itself. Through the example of a piece of leather, Marx then describes how humans can, through the means of labor, increase the value of a commodity. Turning the leather into boots increases the value of the leather, because now more labor has been applied to the leather.
Marx then explains the contradiction of the general formula. Capital cannot be created from circulation because equal exchange of commodities creates no surplus value, and unequal exchange of commodities changes the distribution of wealth, but still does not produce surplus-value. Capital cannot be created without circulation either, because labor creates value within the general formula. Marx writes, "It must have its origin both in circulation and not in circulation. The capitalist must buy commodities at their value, sell them at their value, and yet conclude the process with more money than at the beginning.
The profit seemingly originates both inside and outside the general formula. In the last section of Part II, Marx investigates labor-power as a commodity. Labor-power existing on the market depends on two fulfillments: As long as the labor-power is sold temporarily then the worker is not considered a slave. Worker dependence for a means of subsistence ensures a large working force, necessary for the production of capital. The value of labor bought on the market as a commodity represents the definite amount of socially necessary labor objectified in the worker, or according to Marx, "the labor-time necessary for the production [of the worker]," [27] which means the food , education , shelter , health , etc.
The capitalists need workers to combine with their means of production to create a sell-able commodity, and workers need capitalists to provide a wage that pays for a means of subsistence. Within the capitalist mode of production it is custom to pay for labor-power only after it has been exercised over a period of time, fixed by a contract i. To understand this one must first understand the labor process itself.
According to Marx, the production of absolute surplus value arises directly out of the labor process. There are two sides to the labor process. On one side there is the buyer of labor power, or the capitalist. On the other side there is the worker. For the capitalist the worker possesses only one use-value, that of labor power. The capitalist buys from the worker his labor power, or his ability to do work, and in return the worker receives a wage, or a means of subsistence. Marx says this of the labor process: The product of the process is a use-value, a piece of natural material adapted to human needs by means of change in its form.
Labor has become bound up in its object: Under capitalism it is the capitalist who owns everything in the production process such as: At the end of the labor process it is the capitalist who owns the product of their labor, not the workers who produced the commodities. Since the capitalist owns everything in the production process he is free to sell it for his own profit. The capitalist wants to produce: His aim is to produce not only a use-value, but a commodity; not only use-value, but value; and not just value, but also surplus value.
The goal of the capitalist is to produce surplus value. However, producing surplus value proves to be difficult. If all goods are purchased at their full price then profit cannot be made. Surplus value cannot arise from buying the inputs of production at a low price and then selling the commodity at a higher price. This is due to the economic law of one price which states "that if trade were free, then identical goods should sell for about the same price throughout the world". Price changes on the open market will force other capitalists to adjust their prices in order to be more competitive, resulting in one price.
So, where does surplus value originate? Quite simply, the origin of surplus value arises from the worker. To better understand how this happens consider the following example from Marx's Capital Volume I. A capitalist hires a worker to spin ten pounds of cotton into yarn. Suppose the value of the cotton is one dollar per pound. The entire value of the cotton is 10 dollars. The production process naturally causes wear and tear on the machinery that is used to help produce the yarn. Suppose this wearing down of machinery costs the capitalist two dollars.
The value of labor power is three dollars per day. Now also suppose that the working day is six hours. In this example the production process yields up 15 dollars, and also costs the capitalist 15 dollars. Thus there is no profit. Now consider the process again, but this time the working day is 12 hours. In this case there is 20 dollars produced from the 20 pounds of cotton. Wear and tear on machinery now costs the capitalist four dollars.
However, the value of labor power is still only three dollars per day. The entire production process costs the capitalist 27 dollars. However, the capitalist can now sell the yarn for 30 dollars. This is because the yarn still holds 12 hours of socially necessary labor time in it equivalent to six dollars. The key to this is that workers exchange their labor power in return for a means of subsistence. In this example, the means of subsistence has not changed; therefore the wage is still only 3 dollars per day.
Notice that while the labor only costs the capitalist 3 dollars, the labor power produces 12 hours worth of socially necessary labor time. The secret of surplus value resides in the fact that there is a difference between the value of labor power and what that labor power can produce in a given amount of time. Labor power can produce more than its own value. So, by working on materials during the production process the worker both preserves the value of the material and adds new value to the material.
This value is added because of the labor that is necessary to transform the raw material into a commodity. But, according to Marx, value only exists in use-values, so how does the worker transfer value to a good? It is because "Man himself, viewed merely as the physical existence of labor power, is a natural object, a thing, although a living, conscious thing, and labor is the physical manifestation of that power. Man must be a living commodity, a commodity that produces labor power, and it must be the nature of this labor power to produce more than its own value.
When capitalists begin production they initially spend their money on two inputs. These inputs can be represented with the capital advanced equation: Constant capital is nothing more than the means of production factories , machinery , raw materials, etc. Constant capital has a fixed value which can be transferred to the commodity, though the value added to the commodity can never be more than the value of constant capital itself.
The source of surplus value comes instead from Variable capital or labor power. Labor power is the only commodity capable of producing more value than it possesses. The accumulation of capital occurs after the production process is completed. Here C' is the value created during the production process.
C' is equal to constant capital plus variable capital plus some extra amount of surplus value s , which arises out of variable capital. Marx says that surplus value is "merely a congealed quantity of surplus labor-time… nothing but objectified surplus labor. To better understand the rate of surplus value one must understand that there are two parts to the working day. One part of the working day is the time necessary in order to produce the value of the workers labor power. The second part of the working day is surplus labor time, which produces no value for the laborer, but produces value for the capitalist.
The rate of surplus value is a ratio of surplus labor time s to necessary labor time v. Capitalists often maximize profits by manipulating the rate of surplus value, which can be done through the increase of surplus labor time. This method is referred to as the production of absolute surplus value. In this case capitalists merely increase the length of the working day. Though there are physical restrictions to the working day, such as general human needs, the working day is by no means fixed.
This allows for great flexibility in the number of hours worked per day. This flexibility in working hours leads to a class struggle between capitalist and worker. The capitalist argues that they have the right to extract all of the value from a day's labor, since that is what they bought.
By contrast, the worker demands a limited working day. The capitalist sees working fewer hours as theft from capital, and the worker see working too many hours as theft from laborers. This class struggle can be seen throughout history, and eventually laws such as Factory Acts were put in place to limit the length of a working day and child labour. This forced capitalists to find a new way in which to exploit workers. Part Four of Capital, Volume I consists of four chapters: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value, Division of Labour and Manufacture, and Machinery and Modern Industry.
In Chapter 12, Marx explains a decrease in the value of labour power by increasing production. Chapters 13—15 examine ways in which the productivity of this labour is increased. The section from A to B represents the necessary labour, and the section from B to C represents the surplus labour. Remember, the value of labour-power is "the labour-time necessary to produce labour-power. This is showing that the amount of surplus labour is increased, while the amount of necessary labour is decreased. Marx calls this decrease in necessary labour and increase in surplus value as relative surplus-value whereas when there is an actual lengthening in the working day and surplus value is produced, this is called absolute surplus-value.
For this to happen, the productivity of labour must increase. The perpetual drive of capital, according to Marx, is to increase the productivity of labor, leading to a decrease in the value of commodities. In this, the value of the workers means of subsistence decreases, resulting in a decrease in the value of his labour power. According to Marx, co-operation happens "when numerous workers work together side by side in accordance with a plan, whether in the same process, or in different but connected processes.
Marx says, "If the labour process is complicated, then the sheer number of the co-operators permits the apportionment of various operations to different hands, and consequently their simultaneous performance. The time necessary for the completion of the whole work is thereby shortened. While this is the case, Marx is quick to note that the collective powers of co-operation are not created by Capital. This, according to Marx, is a disguise or a fetish. Marx cites the building of the pyramids , which occurred prior to the organization of a capitalist mode of production.
In this section 1, The Dual Origin of Manufacture , Marx examines manufacture as a method of production involving specialized workers, or craftsmen, working on their own detailed task. Marx cites the assembly of a carriage as an example of the first way this is brought about.
Books of Blood: Volume One (Books of Blood #1) by Clive Barker
In this, multiple skilled workers are brought together to produce specialized parts once unique to their craft, contributing to the overall production of the commodity. Another way this manufacture arises is by splitting up a single handicraft into multiple specialized areas, further introducing a division of labour. In this section, Marx argues that a worker who performs only one task throughout his life will perform his job at a faster and more productive rate, forcing capital to favor the specialized worker to the traditional craftsman.
In this section, Marx argues that a division of labour within production produces a hierarchy of labor, skilled and unskilled, and also a variation in wages. Yet according to Marx, this division within the labour process reduces a workers skills collectively, which devalues their labour power. In this section, Marx states that division of labour has existed in society long before the establishment of a capitalist mode of production. Marx argues that despite its existence prior to capital, division of labor is unique under capital because its goal is to increase the rate and mass of surplus value, not create a "combined product of specialized labours.
In this section, Marx discusses an increased class struggle that is brought about by capital, or in this case in the division of labour. By creating such a division, it disguises the efforts and work of such a division as that of the capitalist. Division of labour under capitalism, according to Marx, is a subdivision of a workers potential and sets limitations on his mental and physical capacity, making him reliant upon the capitalist to exercise his specialized skill.
In this section, Marx explains the significance of machinery to capitalists and how it is applied to the workforce. The goal of introducing machinery into the workforce is to increase productivity. When productivity is increased, the commodity being produced is cheapened. Relative surplus value is amplified because machinery shortens the part of the day that the worker works for his or her means of subsistence and increases the time that the worker produces for the capitalist. Marx discusses tools and machines and their application to the process of production.
Marx claims that many experts, including himself, cannot distinguish between tools and machines. Marx states that they "call a tool a simple machine and a machine a complex tool. He points out that a plow , which is powered by an animal, would be considered to be a machine and Claussen's circular loom , which is able to weave at a tremendous speed, is in fact powered by one worker and therefore considered to be a tool. Marx gives a precise definition of the machine when he says "The machine, therefore, is a mechanism that, after being set in motion, performs with its tools the same operation as the worker formerly did with similar tools.
Whether the motive power is derived from man, or in turn from a machine, makes no difference here. Marx believes the working machine is the most important part of developed machinery. It is in fact what began the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century and even today it continues to turn craft into industry. The machine is able to replace a worker, who works at one specific job with one tool, with a mechanism that accomplishes the same task, but with many similar tools and at a much faster rate. One machine doing one specific task soon turns into a fleet of co-operating machines accomplishing the entire process of production.
This aspect of automation enables the capitalist to replace large numbers of human workers with machines which creates a large pool of available workers that the capitalist can choose from to form his human workforce. The worker no longer needs to be skilled in a particular trade because their job has been reduced to oversight and maintenance of their mechanical successors.
The development of machinery is an interesting cycle where inventors started inventing machines to complete necessary tasks. The machine making industry grew larger and worker's efforts started focusing toward creating these machines, the objects which steal work from its own creator. With so many machines being developed, the need for new machines to create old machines increased. For example, the spinning machine started a need for printing and dyeing , and the designing of the cotton gin. Retrieved June 20, Retrieved October 5, Retrieved February 1, Retrieved May 11, Retrieved December 21, Retrieved May 18, Retrieved February 22, Retrieved May 13, Retrieved March 12, Retrieved August 14, Retrieved December 1, Retrieved December 7, Retrieved June 10, Retrieved March 13, Retrieved August 12, Retrieved September 20, Retrieved December 11, Retrieved November 16, Retrieved April 25, Retrieved October 22, Retrieved April 7, Retrieved September 27, Retrieved June 25, Retrieved May 21, Retrieved October 14, Retrieved February 11, Retrieved May 17, Retrieved August 23, Retrieved November 21, Want to Read saving….
Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Books of Blood by Clive Barker. For those who already know these tales, the poignant introduction is a window on th "Everybody is a book of blood; wherever we're opened, we're red.
For those who already know these tales, the poignant introduction is a window on the creator's mind. Reflecting back after 14 years, Barker writes: I look at these pieces and I don't think the man who wrote them is alive in me anymore We are all our own graveyards I believe; we squat amongst the tombs of the people we were. If we're healthy, every day is a celebration, a Day of the Dead, in which we give thanks for the lives that we lived; and if we are neurotic we brood and mourn and wish that the past was still present. Mass Market Paperback , pages. Published June by Berkley Books first published World Fantasy Award for Best Collection To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about Books of Blood , please sign up. Lists with This Book. Oct 14, Stephen rated it really liked it Shelves: There are some truly blood-chilling moments in this excellent collection. Deeply evocative with shocking depictions that will glue themselves to your memory. This is a worthy collection for fans of the genre or anyone who enjoys quality, creative writing and isn Horror This is a worthy collection for fans of the genre or anyone who enjoys quality, creative writing and isn't overly squeamish.
Here are the stories: While a short story in and of itself, this really acts as the introduction to the series and ties the other stories together in a clever way. A good, solid story but worth reading more for its tie-in effect to the rest of the series plus it is very short.
An excellent story that on the surface is suspenseful and well written, though a fairly standard horror story. However, below the surface is a superb and nuanced tale about the numbing horrors and oppresive pain experienced by normal people each and every day. Barker really layered this tale well and I thought it was excellent. A comical story from Barker about a demon sent by Satan to drive a man insane. Worth reading but not one of my favorites. A brilliant, brutal narrative about the "kill or be killed" nature of life.
The imagery, the prose and the visceral, creeping horror are very unsettling. Good, solid story but not one of my favorites. Probably suffered by comparison to the previous story and the one that follows. Original and stunning and clear evidence of Barker's high level of creativity. I Don't want to give anything away, but this is simply brilliant and the imagery from this story will stick to your eyes long after you finish it.
View all 5 comments. Aug 24, HFK rated it liked it Shelves: I would not want to forget something super important yeah right during this long journey without notes and highlights. First volume of Books of Blood contains 7 short stories from one of the biggest names in horror history. A man I very much adore, a man who has imagination worth of envy.
I am familiar with Barker's work in literature as well as in cinema, but my peak time with him was in my younger years, which made me want to visit him with a lot older brain of mine. I have read most great works when just a teenager, and it kind of bums me out 'cuz I feel I was not enough mature to really appreciate the beauty of many excellent, mind boggling stories that came on my way.
So, how is Barker according to my older brain. Well, he is pretty fucking awesome when comes to his talent as a writer. He knows how to insert those words like a motherfucking British dictionary, bounded with leather and decorated with mystic and ritualistic pattern to suit the reputation. To me Barker's writing is cinematic, the gore and blood sophisticated and tasteful, the simplistic ideas something greater than just a horror story. Like a painting that has an individual message to each admirer of its.
All that, and then something else. I have noted in the past of not being a fan of short stories. They hardly ever do anything for me. Novellas might do, but short stories Barker is one of the best short story tellers, he builds up and creates a world inside just a few short pages and brings it to life in such an intensive blast from the past that just makes me wonder will I ever be satisfied with anything less than a hundred of pages or so.
I might not be. But what lacks of Barker is something that lacks from most short story writers, and that is an ending that blows my imaginary penis like a pro. The endings are solid, they are good, they are above average and more, they are consistent from the first word to the last. Barker's stories never take a dive to the worse, nor do they take a jump to the up. That itself is a rarity. Barker mixes a lot of fantasy elements into his horror, and that is probably the breaker that deny the love story between him and I.
I am a simple girl, I like my horror as evil men that kill a lot of people, or as thrills that come from simple atmosphere of ghosts and psychological torture. Barker is all that, but he is not that in the first volume of this epic. The Book of Blood is perhaps the best introduction and a tie-in to a collection I have ever had the pleasure to read. It is smart, creative and a real shit, but it doesn't work as a short story. The Midnight Meat Train was my least favorite of the bunch, as it is that in its movie version as well.
A wonderfully obsessive ode to New York, but I absolutely hated the ending to my guts. The Yattering and Jack was my favorite as it presented humorous side of Barker but also offered many of the ingredients I enjoy within my horror heart. Pig Blood Blues was a one clever story to write, but as usual, offered too many of the fantasy elements I try to avoid. Sex, Death and Starshine shows how good Barker is on his building level, a pure diamond that many seems to dislike.
Navigation menu
In the Hills, the Cities is the epitome of Barker's horror master title, this is what it is to be bold and brave, go to the maxim. My adult brain still loves him in the distance, far far away in a land of Pinhead. View all 4 comments. Mar 30, Bill Kerwin rated it it was amazing. This may be the best book of horror stories ever written. When I read it thirty years ago, it convinced me that I could actually like a good horror story. When I read it again ten years ago, it was as fresh and scary as the first time. And last week, when I read it yet again, I took my time, and I finally let this superb book teach me what first-class horror is all about.
You see, I have always been one of those guys who prefer terror fiction to horror fiction. I much prefer the ghosts of M. J This may be the best book of horror stories ever written. James, the mad gods of H. Lovecraft, and the metaphysical abysses of Thomas Ligotti to the more visceral chronicles of rape and torture, those more precise, less atmospheric accounts of the rending of bone and flesh. Clive Barker has not changed my preferences. But I think I now understand him—and his fellow writers of horror—better than I have ever understood them before.
For the horror writer—and the horror reader—spiritual, psychological, and metaphysical terror are nothing but mere evasions, wishful projections. In the last extremity, all we human beings can relate with--and through--is our body, with its pleasures and pains. Our deepest fear—no matter in what rarified or abstract veils we cloak it--is the final extinction of the corporeal self: It is our body and its loss—not spooks or madness—that we fear the most.
Barker keeps his six tales rooted in the privilege, pleasures, and pains of the body. This is true even of his two humorous pieces. The connections of the other four more serious tales with the body is even more explicit. Because of this, I believe him to be the best of all the writers of horror stories I have read. I am not a fan of Clive Barker the Novelist. I'll read his novels from time to time, but I try to stay away from his fan's favorites. His books are some of the most overwritten literature I've stumbled upon.
But the readers who enjoy him seem to like that aspect of his work. He reminds me of a present day Lovecraft without all the fish people, squid-faced gods, and bigotry. Meaning, I like the idea of Barker's work more than the execution. He does big ideas and subtle horrors in small packages very well.
This collection is a perfect example of that. Is it any wonder that the movies of his that have worked have been based on his short fiction and novellas instead of his novels? I want a The Thief of Always movie, please and thank you. The idea that these stories were originally written on someone's flesh is an awesome concept. One of those once-in-a-lifetime ideas. I only give it four stars instead of five because it doesn't work as a story.
Nice idea, but it's more a creative introduction than it is a story. Even the film is great. One of the best in my opinion adaptations of Barker's work that I've seen. But what I like the most about this story is how it ends. Barker always goes the road less traveled, and instead of writing your average serial killer fair, he gives us a fictional origin story for New York. I read this one almost twenty years ago, and the events of this tale are still clear in my mind. I almost didn't listen to it because they happenings remain so fresh, like wriggling fishies swimming around in my brain bucket.
Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies
I'm glad I reread, though, because I think I liked it even more the second time around. One of my all-time favorite short stories. I don't know what it is about that three-word title, but it twists my tongue into knots. Anyway, I like this story because I like stories about creepy kids. The narration made Lacey all the more creepy. Funnily enough, the pig never bothered me. It's good, but that opening is everything I hate about Barker's long fiction. He drones on and on about shit that doesn't matter before getting to the actual plot.
The next story suffered the same problems, but the payoff is much better.
I will say nothing of this story other than I loved it. Also, I don't think I read this one in when I originally went through this collection. I can't imagine why I skipped it. I'm usually obsessive when it comes to reading every story in a collection in first-to-last order. Anyfuck, I dug the hell out of this story. My second favorite after "The Yattering and Jack". If you haven't read Barker, this is a good place to start. The guy's novels aren't for me, but he can write the fuck out of a short story.
In which I spoil some scenes from the story in this book. If you'd like to discuss spoilers in the comments, please use spoiler tags. I think the reason it bothers me as much as it does is because Barker beats how cold she is into your head. I can't imagine maintaining an erection inside anything cold. Love the end of that story. The descriptions of them made their forms crystal clear in my mind.
I also dug the brutality of the story: That story speaks to me in odd ways. I think because I was a very imaginative kid I guess I still am that imaginary kid; it's that imagination that pays my bills , most people didn't trust the things I said.