There are multiple places where Marx uses this phrase--but its meaning is not what I think most people on this list expect. It is normally that exchange involves the transfer of equivalents, so that exchange cannot be the source of surplus value. For example, in Theories of Surplus Value I, Marx has a section heading with the phrase "law of value" in it (page references to the Progress Press editions; notes my own obviously; <169> and (170> are quotation marks): Smith's failure to grasp the specific way in which the law of value operates in the exchange between capital and wage labour. The capitalist buys the worker's labour with money, <169> But as the money with which the capitalist buys labour is nothing other than the transmuted form <I>of all other commodities<D> <193> it can equally well be said that all commodities in exchange with living labour buy more labour than they contain. It is precisely this more that constitutes surplus-value. <170><$FIbid, p. 87.> Marx lauds Smith for feeling that in the transition from simple commodity exchange to the exchange between worker and capitalist, the law of exchange is somehow suspended:<169>More labour is exchanged for less labour (from the labourer's viewpoint)<193> His merit is that he emphasises<196>aand it obviously perplexes him<196> that with <I>the accumulation of capital<D> and the <I>appearance of property in land<D> <193> something new occurs, apparently the law of value changes into its opposite. <170><$FIbid, p. 87.> And again from this volume: <169>The profit that the capitalist makes, the surplus-value which he realises, springs precisely from the fact that the labourer has sold to him not labour realised in a commodity, but his labour-power itself as a commodity. If he had confronted the capitalist in the first form, as a possessor of commodities, the capitalist would not have been able to make any profit, to realise any surplus-value, since according to the law of value exchange is between equivalents, an equal quantity of labour for an equal quantity of labour. The capitalist's surplus arises precisely from the fact that he buys from the labourer not a commodity but his labour-power itself, and this <193> realises itself in more materialised labour that is realised in itself.<170><$FIbid, p. 315.> Or from Capital III (Gil might find this one interesting): Marx next explores a possible solution which I think, on his terms, would make sense - letting rates of surplus-value diverge - but then dismisses it. His explanation for the impact of machinery on labour productivity could allow for different rates of exploitation in different industries, without the workers "feeling" anything and still receiving identical wages. <169>The fact that capitals employing unequal amounts of living labour produce unequal amounts of surplus-value,, presupposes at least to a certain extent that the degree of exploitation or the rate of surplus-value are the same<193> This would assume competition amoung labourers and equalisation through their continual migration<193> Such a general rate of surplus-value <193> is an actual premise of the capitalist mode of production.<170><$FIbid, p. 175.> <169>The whole difficulty arises from the fact that commodities are not exchanged simply as <I>commodities<D>, but as <I>products of capitals<D>, which claim participation in the total amount of surplus-vale, proportional to their magnitude.<170><$FIbid, p. 175.><$ITransformation problem, source of.><$ICommodity production, laws of, modification of.> Marx imagines a world with two workers who own their means of production and exchange with each other. The industries differ in organic composition of capital and the amount of living labour absorbed. Both workers work identical hours. He eventually reaches the proposition that the rate of profit wouldn't be a factor, hence goods could exchange at their values; but since his concept of necessary labour and surplus-labour signify a subsistence bundle of goods, this would need to be included in this model, and therefore necessary labour incorporates an average of the labour in each sector. This could complicate his model, possibly by resulting in the two workers producing different amounts of surplus-value in the same time. <169>The exchange of commodities at their values <193> thus requires a much lower stage than their exchange at their prices of production.<170><$FIbid, p. 177.><$ISmith, agreement with.><$ILaw of value, breakdown of.> Anyway, to conclude, the works in which I found references to the law of value were: Capital I Chs 7,11,17,22 Theories of Surplus Value I,II, & III Contribution to a critique... Cheers, Steve > Another place where the "law of value" is mentioned is the famous Marx's > letter to Kugelmann, July 11, 1868, commenting a review of Vol I published > in the "Centrablatt". > > Can somebody check this with the German original? I checked some of the > references of Capital, Vol I, with the French translation and, in some > cases, the term "law of value" is dropped. > > There is also a mention to the "law of exchange value" at the end of Ch. 1 > of "Contribution..." > > A. > > Associate Professor Steve Keen www.debunking-economics.com http://bus.uws.edu.au/Steve-Keen University of Western Sydney Locked Bag 1797 Penrith South DC NSW 1797 Phone: +61 2 9852 5222
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST