Congratulations to Comrade Kishore on his candidacy and on taking on the task of defending Marx’s Capital.  A few clarifications, however, require presentation.

From Joseph Kishore’s article:

“As a consequence of the division of labor among different producers, the products of this labor assume the form of commodities.”

As Marx writes in Chapter 1 of Capital:

“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.”

He also writes, in the same chapter: “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.”

The products do not “assume the form of commodities”, nor do they necessarily originate from different producers.  They exist as commodities because they exist outside of us but satisfy some want within us.  Commodities do not only come from labor but exist in nature as well.  As Marx writes, also in Chapter 1 of Capital:

“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.”  

Man “can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.”  Work, as expressed by Newtonian physics, derives from observation of data gathered from nature. These observations provided us with the formula: P=W/T and W=F*D.  These formulas express in mathematical terms what Marx describes as “changing the form of matter.”  The area covered by the forces applied by man to the “material substratum” displacing them a certain distance from their original form, such as from linen to a coat, equal work.  Labor Power differs from Labor Work, in that Labor Power measures Labor Work over a certain period of Labor Time, or the energy transferred by the worker into the object to increase its value.  Labor Time offers the greatest measure of the value of a commodity.  In the footnotes for Chapter 1, Marx writes:  “We consequently find that economists, who are thoroughly agreed as to labour time being the measure of the magnitude of value, have the most strange and contradictory ideas of money, the perfected form of the general equivalent.”  

Division of Labor imparts to commodities their Exchange Value or Price, but only when those goods are exchanged for one another.  Marx explains this in Chapter 1 of Capital:

“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.”

“…The common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value…  Exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed.”

Only when the producers of goods exchange them do their various values manifest themselves.  However, did they only become commodities when their values found expression through exchange?  No, they contained use values, or satisfied human wants, even before this exchange, and this use-value gave us incentive for their production.  

Labor, without any division or exchange, is a use-value commodity:  

“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.”

Incidently, labor and nature also form the means of production.  From Chapter 7 of Capital:

“It appears paradoxical to assert, that uncaught fish, for instance, are a means of production in the fishing industry. But hitherto no one has discovered the art of catching fish in waters that contain none.”

Nature must form at least part of the means of production.

And:

“If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production,6 and that the labour itself is productive labour.7Though a use-value, in the form of a product, issues from the labour-process, yet other use-values, products of previous labour, enter into it as means of production. The same use-value is both the product of a previous process, and a means of production in a later process. Products are therefore not only results, but also essential conditions of labour.”

Labor itself enters the production process as part of the means of production. 

So when we reread this quote, “As a consequence of the division of labor among different producers, the products of this labor assume the form of commodities,” we must argue that regardless of the way in which producers exchange their products, labor must always satisfy the human wants of the producers themselves.  Our labor creates the products we desire to consume.  No amount of exploitation, division, or relief from exploitation will ever end labor and the process of production.  We therefore must see it scientifically as a human constant.

From Joseph Kishore’s article:

“The source of inequality, Marx explained, lies in the peculiar nature of one of the commodities bought and sold on the market: labor power. In common language, it is said that the worker sells his or her labor to the capitalist. This is not correct. What the worker sells to the capitalist is not labor but the commodity labor power, the capacity to work, which goes into the production and value of all other commodities.”

Marx argues that production of commodities by labor, in fact, formed the basis for equality.  In discussing Aristotle’s theories on value, he writes:

“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.”

Earlier societies, such as Aristotle’s Ancient Greece depended on slavery for labor.  This hid from Aristotle and everyone of his time the equality of all kinds of human labor.  At that time, mankind still contained within its structure the most barbaric and primitive forms.  This meant that one tribe would make war on, imprison, and enslave another, if not destroy them completely through hunger, disease, or direct slaughter.  The slaves would then carry out one function, mostly production with little consumption, while the owners would carry out another, mostly consumption with little production.  The products of slave labor need not be sold but only, for the most part, consumed by the slave’s owner.  The owner’s labor, then, appeared qualitatively different and incomparable.  In this sense, the produce of labor for sale as a commodity and the sale of labor power as a commodity brought about a great awakening with regard to the equality of all human labor.

He also argues, in Chapter 7, that the selling of labor at below its true value did not hurt the seller:

“The circumstance, that on the one hand the daily sustenance of labour-power costs only half a day’s labour, while on the other hand the very same labour-power can work during a whole day, that consequently the value which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for that use, this circumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller.”

Where did inequality arise from?  Marx answers that inequality arose from historical circumstances and not from the peculiarity of any commodity or the production process.  What Marx really said was, “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.”  The Fetishism of commodities has to do with the inability of private producers to see that the relative values of their goods really expresses their social relations, which only take material form in the moment of exchange. 

In this sense, labor for the production of goods for sales produces the social relations which lend to greater equality.  A step towards capitalism away from Feudalism and Slavery meant a step towards equality.  This produced the conditions for a further step towards equality in the form of socialism.  The inequality under capitalism stems, in fact, from its inability to confront the inequality remnant or inherited from previous forms of production.  Savagery continues through another cycle, through another generation.  Perhaps the compassion of the capitalist will allow them to see their privilege not as the result of more valuable work but as circumstantial, hereditary, and less valuable, really, than the guarantee of social human needs.  Perhaps chauvinism will conquer their soul, and the revolution will require violence to force them, their personal servants, and all their sycophants aside.

From Joseph Kishore’s article:

“Like every other commodity, the value of this particular commodity, labor power, is determined by the amount of labor required to produce it. This is equivalent to the quantity of goods that are necessary for the survival and reproduction of the worker. The less that is required for this survival and the reproduction of the next generation of wage workers, the poorer is the worker and the cheaper is his or her labor power.”

Labor Time determines the value of the commodity, not the “amount of labor”.  In Chapter 10 of Marx’s Capital, we read, “We started with the supposition that labour-power is bought and sold at its value. Its value, like that of all other commodities, is determined by the working-time necessary to its production.”  This difference between “quantity of goods that are necessary”, which completely ignores the value of those goods, [necessarily expressed in terms of working-time or labor time], and working-time proves very significant.  In Chapter 10, Marx analyzes the working day and the amount of time the worker spends at work to produce the commodities necessary for his subsistence.  

From Joseph Kishore’s article:

“While apparently involving the production of money out of thin air, via the printing press of the Federal Reserve, everything turned over to the rich must be paid for through the exploitation of workers, the source of all value.

“This is what is driving the demand by the ruling class for a return to work even as the pandemic rages out of control. Musk himself has played a leading role in insisting that all restraints on the spread of the pandemic must be ended and supplemental unemployment benefits for workers be cut off. Workers must be forced back to producing surplus value and profit.”

This turns Marx’s analysis of Capital on its head.  The Capitalist idles many, prevents them from working, holds back production, and thereby forces society to remove this fetter on production.  If Capitalism truly provided the greatest possible force for productivity, then revolution and socialism would never acquire the urgency or inevitability with which Marx urged them on.  As many scientists pointed out, the spread of the virus due to unsafe industrial practices will slow the economy and cut production.  The return to work must be seen as counter-revolutionary violence to defend the very concept of private ownership of the means of production against a rising socialist-inspired strike-wave. 

The rush to unsafe workplaces does not contribute to production.  Surplus value and profit are not produced but extracted by the capitalists like parasites on the production process.  What we need is not to reduce production and punish capitalism with brutal home confinement, but to provide guaranteed full employment.  This cannot occur through a total lock-down enforced by government but through a conscious, participatory movement by the workers to take the power through a general strike and the election of work-place equality committees. 

Full employment may not mean that everyone should produce electric cars.  It could mean production of protective equipment, such as masks and gloves, as well as medicine from test kits to cough syrup, and medical equipment like ventilators and field hospitals.  Further work would include the packaging of nutritious food to distribute without charge.  Many cleaning jobs could open up to clean and sanitize various surfaces, especially with regard to warehouses and packages.  Environmental factors that produced the pandemic, such as deforestation, habitat destruction, and trade in endangered wildlife could produce jobs in reforestation, habitat protection, and rehabilitation of endangered species.  This could also include the introduction of new methods of organic farming to reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides as well as water waste.  These could bring many workers out of the city and develop safe places to live and work in rural areas, reducing the concentration of the population and thereby the spread of the virus.  As if only the rich should escape to the country!  Production in general could increase trade, open borders, and break down the root causes of war, which could include the use of biological weapons or weaponized viruses.

To keep everyone locked at home robs the workers of their power at a crucial moment in the development of class consciousness.  Increases in socially-necessary and safe production would form the basis for the raising of wages and benefits and increases in personal consumption for the common worker.  To deny them this process ignores and greatly undermines Marx’s history in Chapter 10 of Capital relating to the Struggle for a Normal Working Day.