I'm not sure where everyone (or even who is reading) is at the moment, however, I'd like to point out a few parts of interest.
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.
If you read the foot note with regard to this quote, it helps to explain value
at this moment in the writing.
The footnote reads:
The reader must note that we are not speaking here of the wages or value that the labourer gets for a given labour time, but of the value of the commodity in which that labour time is materialised. Wages is a category that, as yet, has no existence at the present stage of our investigation.Link
Thus, we are not discussing the issue of a specific wage for the labour but only the labour time
that is materialised within the commodity.
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. Link
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.
Again, I wanted to point out this section because it is not suggesting that the one day labour of X-job and Y-job are of equal value in regard to pay but in terms of labour time
. Marx ends up going into the discussion to find the one common denominator with regard to the comparison of the value of commodities and ends up being directly exchangeable with other commodities. In these terms, we see that every commodity is produced for use-value (useful labour), leaving the value
the measurement of exchange value. If we look at X-commodity and Y-commodity, they are created from different forms of labour for different forms of use-value and thus can be compared because both are the disbursement of human labour. One of X-commodity and 5 of Y-commodity are viewed as taking the same amount of socially necessary labour time to produce, thus the same value
(not in terms of wage) is equated to both.
At the moment, I'm around Subsection B of Section #3 of Chapter 1.
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. - Karl Marx