In Part One of the first volume of Capital, Marx argues that if, in commodity exchange, equivalents are always exchanged for equivalents, it is impossible to understand how an increase in value is possible. Bar trickery and swin­dle, it is only by finding a commodity that produces more value than it costs that one can make sense of surplus-value. Marx discovers such a commodity by turning away from the realm of exchange towards the 'hidden. abode of production' (Marx 1990, p. 279). This shift enables him to indicate labor-power as just such a commodity. Labour-power produces more than it costs because the capitalist, who pays - in the form of the wage - the cost of reproduction of the worker, gets into the bargain the worker's capacity for labour - labour-power - for a full working day (which is fixed by a number of different factors, including the intensity of the class struggle of the time). The level of surplus­ value produced is determined by the length of time that the worker is forced to work beyond that necessary for the production of the value the worker receives in the form of the wage. But, and this is where the problems begin, in order to calculate this quantitatively, it was neces­sary to have a common temporal unit by which labour-power could be measured as well as a means of reducing the various concrete forms of labour to a simple unit of abstract labour.Concrete or complex labour would thus be a multiplication of simple abstract social labour. The various proportions in which different kinds of labour are reduced to simple labour as their unit of measurement are establised by a socıal process that goes on behind the backs of the producers ­that is, these determinations are immediately social. .

This is where we find ourselves after the first few pages of The Consti­tution of Time (Time for Revolution adlı kitabın ilk bölümü) and it is here that Negri intervenes in order to highlight the aporias in Marx's theory of, value stemming from his notion of capitalist time-as-measure: time "measures [quantities of] labour in so far as it reduces it to homogenous substance, but [...] also determines its productive power in the same form", i.e. through multiplication. The central aporia is born of the failure of Marx's attempt to reduce the complex, material, qualitative elements -of struggle, of antagonism, of new social subjectivities, of productive ınnovation - to the analytic, synchronic elements.But by highlighting this aporia, Negri was able to show how Marx held the key to moving beyond the Marx of classical economic theory. The aporia is resolved by displacing the terrain upon which it operates. The labour theory of value demanded that labour­-power existed, in some sense, outside capital (outside its disciplinary regime) and needed to be drawn in. One could only think of measuring value by understanding the unit of measure through which it could be calculated as formed outside the capitalist process of production and reproduction of society (as a use-value relatively independent of exchange-value). But historically capital had increasingly brought (subsumed) labour-power under its rule and redefined the use-value of labour-power in terms of its exchange-value: This is, what Marx terms the 'specifically capitalist mode of production' or real subsumption . Increasingly the real subsumption of society by capital reaches a stage in which it is no longer possible for use-value even to be conceived of as independent of exchange-value. ( Burası çok önemli: Değişim değerinden bağımsız kullanım değeri, sermayenin tam tahakkümü -real sub-sumption- altında mümkün değildir. Ö.K) •
Given these circumstances, where is one to find that space of independence, that 'outside', which would be required to form the basis for any unit of measure?( Buna cevap verebilecek olan bir babayiğit var mı merak ediyorum.Ö.K) This is what Negri means when he says that the law of value is in crisis. But its crisis does not mean that its effects are over. What has changed is its form.