>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/00 05:38PM >>>
Originally, Charles Brown (CB) wrote:
> >CB: Do you happen to recall where Marx makes the distinction between
> >"exchange value" and "value" ? I thought "value" was shorthand for
> >"exchange value" in _Capital_.
I wrote:
>For example, in the first section of ch. 1 of vol. 1, Marx writes that
>"if we abstract from their value, there remains their value... The common
>factor in the exchange relation, or in the exchange-value of the
>commodity, is therefore its value." (Vintage/Penguin ed., p. 128)
>CB: Mine says:
>"We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange-value
>manifests itself as something totally independent of their use-value. But
>if we abstract from their use-value, there remains their Value as defined
>above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the
>exchange-value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their
>value. " (International, 1967) page 38).
>
>"Value" with a capital "V" is defined as exchange, not use, value in the
>"above" section referred to in the text.
This is the same quote but from a different translation. In general, I find
the Vintage/Penguin translation to be better. (I can't read German, but Ben
Fowkes has an excellent reputation and learned from previous translators.)
But the conclusion is the same. Value is "the common substance" that does
not _equal_ exchange-value but instead is _manifested in_ exchange-values.
Carbon is the common substance or factor in diamonds, pure coal, and Bucky
balls. It is manifested in them. But we can't say that diamonds, pure coal,
and Bucky balls are equal to Carbon. We can't use "Carbon" as short-hand
for them. Rather, they are different forms of Carbon.
((((((((((((((
CB: In this analogy, "Carbon" would be shorthand for their "excahnge-Carbon" , not
for diamonds, pure coal and Bucky balls. Those would be differentiated by their
"use-values", their concrete qualities.
The Value of the commodity has no other manifestation but as exchange-value and forms
of exchange-value , such as capital.
It is not true that as you say next Value with a capital V is partly determined by
exchange. Price is partly determined by exchange, supply and demand. One of Marx's
main points is that labor is the only source of all exchange-value. ( Nature can be a
source of use-value, but not exchange-value.). No value is added to by the exchange to
exchange-value or Value of a commodity.
(((((((((
It is true that Value with a capital V is partly determined by exchange.
((((((((((((
Disagree. See above.
((((((((
If
a product can't sell, no Value is produced.
((((((((((
CB: Disagree. No Value is realized.
((((((((
If a lazy or incompetent worker
is competing with an abler worker, the former's concrete labor-time counts
as less socially-necessary abstract labor-time than the latter's.
((((((((((
CB: Agree. ( Though "lazy worker" is not in the spirit that Marx writes)
(((((((((
As far as I can tell, the capitalization or non-capitalization of Value in
the International Publishers edition has no meaning.
((((((((((((
CB: It is only capitalized at the point of the quote you mentioned. It isn't
capitalized throughout the text. I take it as a way of signalling exactly the issue we
are discussing, drawing our attention to it so it is clear throughout the rest of the
text.
((((((((((((
It's a lack of
consistency in the printing. I know that Marx never makes a big thing about
"value" vs. "Value."
((((((((((((
CB: See above. International does not capitalize it throughout the text. Probably Marx
only capitalized in the spot we are discussing to draw attention to the fundamental
distinction that is being made.
(((((((((((
I wrote:
>Part of my confusion in reading CAPITAL was that I assumed that "value"
>was short-hand for "exchange value." But it's pretty clear that "value"
>is instead the shared characteristic ("common factor") of all
>newly-produced commodities, whereas all goods for sale, including those
>that aren't newly produced, have exchange-value (or price). It's a big
>mistake to confuse the "essence" (shared characteristic, common factor) of
>something like a commodity (its value) with its "existence," its
>phenomenal form (its exchange-value or price). To do so is to assume that
>all goods are the same, to ignore the heterogeneity of commodities, their
>use-values.
>CB: See above. Value is exchange-value, not use-value, still in my
>translation.
see the above.
>CB: We don't need the third term you introduce to keep the distinction
>between exchange-value and use-value.
I didn't say that Value was use-value. Nor did Marx.
))))))))))
CB: Nor did I. I said it is exchange-value. Nor did I say you or Marx said it is
use-value. I say you introduce a thrid term besides exchange-value (value ,Value, in
the one spot in the text only) and use-value.
You say value is something different than exhange-value . With that I disagree ;
except in the sense that there is another usage of "value", use-value, in Marx's
scheme, and all the "value" in a commodity includes both it's exchange-value and its
use-value, its abstract labor and its concrete labor. But through most of the text
"value" is not used to refer to the whole bundle of the commodity of both exchange and
use value.
_Capital_ deals, in the main, with "exchange-value". There is very little on
use-value in it. So, rather than saying "exchange-value" everytimej, it is shortened
to "value", with the clarification having been made at the beginning that there is
also use-value in commodities.
)))))))))))))))))
But Marx is after
other goals besides distinguishing exchange-value and use-value. Given
this, it's okay to bring in a third term. Value is the "essence" (common
factor) of exchange-values. Under simple commodity production, exchange
values move toward equaling values. That doesn't happen under capitalism.
(((((((((((((
CB: Yes, I think he has other goals . Which ones are you referring to? And why do they
make it ok to introduce a third term ? However, my argument is that Marx does not
introduce a third term to go after all the goals he is after.
Value is abstract labor. That is the common factor among concretely different
commodities that makes them commensurable and therefore exchangeable. The different
commodities are concretely different because they are the products of different
concrete labors and constitute thereby different use-values. But they are abstractly
commensurable, comparable because they are all abstractly products of the same
abstract "labor". This abstract comparability is the basis for exchanging them and
equating them for each other, even though they are concretely different from each
other. With out the abstract labor to make them commensurable it would be lilke
comparing apples to oranges, sort of, or exhanging diamonds for coal in your example.
I don't understand "move toward equaling values".
(((((((((((((
>The specific example of an antique helps us understand what's going on: an
>antique has exchange-value, but has no value, because it is newly
>produced. In the first three chapters of volume I, Marx ignores such goods
>and also assumes that simple commodity production (not capitalism)
>prevails. Under SCP, prices (exchange values) tend toward equaling values.
>CB: Isn't gold or other precious metals as commodities similar to antiques ?
No. In volume I, the value of gold is determined by the amount of
socially-necessary abstract labor time needed to produce it.
)))))))))))
CB: I agree. That's my point. If gold's value is determined like any other commodity,
why wouldn't an antique's value be determined like another commodity. Marx doesn't say
antiques' values are not determined like any other commodity, does he ? Take an old
gold amulet, which is old like an antique. Its value is determined by the amount of
socially-necessary abstract labor time to mine it and make it. Why not the same for
the antique ( for Marx ).?
((((((((((((((
It's a
produced commodity, not a pre-existing and rare object that can't be newly
produced (like an antique).
))))))))))
CB: I should have said a gold amulet from 1600. sorry. That's what I meant in order to
force the comparison with the antique.
((((((((((
It's a very 19th century way of looking at
things. Today, the existing stock of gold determines its supply much more
than new production does. Further, gold isn't money any more.
((((((((((((
CB: Supply and demand influence price, not value, for Marx, n'est-ce pas ?
))))))))))))
CB:
>As to what Marx discusses in the first three chapters of Vol. 1, the first
>clause of the book is " The wealth of the societies in which the
>capitalist mode of production prevails,...." so , I take him to be talking
>about capitalist commodity production, although he discusses its
>derivation from simple commodity production.
Right. The first three chapters are about "commodity production in
general." Because he hasn't introduced the special commodity labor-power
into the picture, it's the same as simple commodity production.
((((((((((((((((
CB: Good point.
By the way, I hadn't thought of the Fetishism of Commodities as having much
significance before capitalism, but your point is well taken , so maybe the Commodity
Fetish is significant in feudal and slave society as well as capitalism. Interesting.
(((((((((((
Even after chapter 3, Marx _assumes_ that prices (exchange-values) equal
values
(((((((((
CB: I don't think prices are the same as exchange-values for Marx. Prices move in
relation to exchange-value, but are also influenced by supply and demand , monopoly
price fixing, etc.
((((((((((
in order to show that even under ideal conditions where products
and labor-power sell at value, exploitation of labor can occur. (Today, an
economist like John Roemer uses a different standard, showing that even
under ideal conditions of perfect competition, exploitation of labor. He's
not successful, but that's a different story. In my article on exploitation
(reference available), I talk about how exploitation of labor can occur
under perfectly competitive conditions.)
(((((((((((
CB: I take it as fundamental to Marx's theory that exploitation occurs when
labor-power is paid full value for. Labor-power is capable of producing more value
than its own value ( exhange-value).
((((((((((
<ellipsis>
>Anyway, Marx agrees with you, in a way, in the Preface to the First German
>Edition, when he says:
>
> "Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences. To understand the
> first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of
> commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty..."
Right, but very intelligent people have been confused by his writing. He
admits to playing around with Hegelian language. Some of that makes sense,
but some is confusing. If his presentation had been clearer, there would
have been fewer futile academic debates.
(((((((((((((((((
CB: I kinda think readers of Marx' _Capital_ have to study Hegel. As Marx says in
the famous Afterword ( is it) , you can't exactly treat Hegel like a dead dog.
Dialectics is a serious part of Marx's approach in _Capital_. I don't think Marx was
just fooling around and making it hard to read.
