On Wed, 23 Mar 1994 08:46:30 -0800 Allin said:
(quoting me)
>price/value deviations befuddle our consciousness and obscure the
>class nature of the capitalist system to its participants. (unquote)
>
(he then comments)
>Where is this idea coming from? I would have said that although
>feudal exploitation may be "visible" (e.g. the corvee), cap.
>exploitation is "concealed" by "fair exchange" -- and, in
>a sense, the fairer the exchange the *better* the disguise.
>Marx's task was to show -- contrary to a widespread view --
>that *even* if commodities exchanged in proportion to their
>labor-content, there would still be exploitation. Thus I
>feel that Jim has this point backwards.
>
Since Allin's going against the widespread view, maybe I should let
the widespread viewers respond. :-)
But no. I can't hold back. I think both views are right. First, as
Allin says, Marx shows that even if exchanges are assumed to be
"fair" (or equal), exploitation can arise. The exchanges aren't
*really* equal, in the end, because of the special nature of the
commodity labor-power and the structural situation that workers find
themselves in: dependent on working for capitalists for their
livelihood and survival. Behind the formal equality of exchange in
free markets, there lurks class inequalty and exploitation.
But also, if indeed all products sold at their value, then that
means that they are "directly social." Their role in the social
system corresponds to their appearance. More concretely, the worker
sees the value added of the commodity he or she produces as
corresponding directly to his or her labor. The price of the
labor-power (the wage) corresponds directly to the amount of
labor-time necessary to pay for the worker's livelihood. The means
of production and other material inputs are seen as simply having
their value passed on to the the final product. The rate of
exploitation for society as a whole, stated in terms of hours of
labor, corresponds to the ratio of profits to wages. Everything is
quite transparent, as with corvee labor. Under these conditions, the
social factory that is capitalism is obvious to its participants, as
the microcosm reflects the macrocosm exactly.
This seems pretty silly, since such conditions are unlikely. In
the real world, prices deviate from values (at least by 3 per
cent?). I find it easier to talk about it in the other way.
To choose an obvious example, consider the interest rate, a price
for which there does not exist a corresponding "natural price" or
"price of production" or value (at least according to Marx). The
price deviates from the non-existent value, encouraging fetishism:
in the real world, a rentier lends money to someone else and sees
the interest as a reward for abstinence and lending (as do what Marx
termed "vulgar economists"). In a very superficial way, from the
individual's own point of view or from the point of view of the
money-market, this perception is true. But the rentier (or
economist) misses is that the receipt of interest is a deduction
from surplus-value, dependent on the societal conditions of
capitalist exploitation. So the rentier and the economist live in
"an enchanted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital
[including the rentier] and Madame le Terre" do their dance (quote
from end of ch. 48 of vol. III). (BTW, the *truth* of the rentier's
perception is one aspect of how Marx's theory of fetishism and
ideology is NOT a crude theory of "false consciousness.")
Where did this come from? To some extent it is a direct reading of
Marx and to some extent it is an application of his hints and more
explicit ideas. Unfortunately, but I don't have the time to dig up
the quotes to separate one from the other.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
