On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Andrew Brown wrote: > Hello Fred, > > Abstract labour indeed determines price as you say. This requires > that there two distinct magnitudes, viz. abstract labour time and > price magnitude, with the one determining the other (ie. the > quantity of one leads to the quantity of the other, and not vice > versa). > > But does this require that abstract labour exists independently of > price? Above I talked about quantity, but not quality. Do they have > to be qualitatively 'independent'? Why should this follow? Hi Andy, I think you have hit upon the key here! My answer to your question is NO! The fact that abstract labor and money are two DISTINCT MAGNITUDES does NOT require that they EXIST INDEPENDENTLY of one another. In fact, they do not exist independently of one another. Rather, they are NECESSARILY CONNECTED. However, although they are necessarily connected, they are nonetheless DISTINCT MAGNITUDES, distinct entities, defined in distinct units of measure (labor-time and money). A necessary connection between AL and M does NOT imply that AL does not exist as a distinct magnitude, a distinct entity, from M. Indeed, a necessary connection between these two distinct entities REQUIRES that there must be two distinct entities, between which there is a necessary connection. AL (in units of labor-time) exists as distinct or distinguishable from money, and this distinct entity of AL is necessarily connected with the distinct entity of money. The latter is the necessary form of appearance of the former. But AL is nonetheless a distinct entity from money. This is indeed a "serious ontological commitment" that Michael is asking about. AL exists as a distinct entity, although necessarily connected with money. One source of confusion was my earlier formulation that AL EXITS INDEPENDENTLY of money. "Independence" seemed to suggest "no necessary connection". And since there was a necessary connection, AL could not be independent of money. However, now we can see that, although AL is not independent from money in this sense, it is nonetheless still a "distinct entity" from money, distinguishable from money (one in units of labor-time and the other in units of money). On the third page of Chapter 1, Marx used language similar to this in his derivation of a common property - some inner substance - that determines the exchange-value of commodities. Marx argued: "It follows from this [the general exchangeability of commodities] that, firstly, the valid exchange-values express something equal, and secondly, exchange-value cannot be anything other than the mode of expression, the `form of appearance', of a CONTENT DISTINGUISHABLE from it." (C.I. 127; emphasis added) A "content distinguishable" from exchange-value is what I mean by AL as a "distinct entity" from money. The content of abstract labor is necessarily connected to money, but AL is nonetheless a "content distinguishable" from money (with different units of measure). Another similar text from Marx is the following passage from the beginning of Chapter 3 of Volume 1: "It is not money that renders all commodities commensurable. Quite the contrary. Because all commodities, as values, are objectified human labor, and therefore IN THEMSELVES commensurable, their values can by communally measured in one and the same specific commodity, and this commodity can be converted into the common measure of their values, that is into money. Money as a measure of value is the necessary from of appearance of the measure of value which is IMMANENT in commodities." (C.I. 188; emphasis added) The measure of value "immanent in commodities" is abstract labor. This immanent measure exists as a distinct entity from its necessary external measure as money. Andy and Michael and others, I hope this clarifies the issue. What do you think? Thanks again for this very productive discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT