From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Wed Sep 15 2004 - 15:34:21 EDT
I don't think the issue concerns a simple commodity mode of production. It concerns a social form which can account for the production of commodities. There's a difference. As I understand it this was Rakesh's early point. One important text supporting this reading occurs toward the end of Chapter 1 of Capital: MARX: "And for a *society based upon the production of commodities* in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reeduce their individual private labor to the standard of homogeneous human labor -- for such a society, Christianity . . . is the most fitting form of religion. In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production, we find that the conversion of products into commodities, and therefore *the conversion of men into producers of commodities*, holds a subordinate place, which, however, increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to dissolution." (IP 83) What is interesting is that while the generalized production of commodities that characterizes capitalism is here directly compared with pre-capitalist forms where the production of commodities is a subordinate form, the German word used in the two places I've marked is the same: "Gesellschaft von Warenproduzenten"; "der Menschen als Warenproduzenten." It is inconceivable to me that Marx could have used the same word within a dozen lines to refer to two different scientific categories. Since references to the simple commodity form in pre-capitalist forms are not about free standing modes of production, Ajit's point about mobility, I think doesn't apply. Typically Marx explains that only superfluous production is taken to market in early forms of exchange. Take two masses in a gravitational field -- one very small, the other very large. One exerts a small amount of force, the other a lot. But the issue is not whether the tendencies reflected in structures of labor are weak or powerful but whether they exist at all. Value relations operated powerfully enough in the 7th century B.C. to generate the money form and before that to sustain the persistence of markets. Suppose 3 people produce cutting boards for a farmers market. Each produces 10 and 30 satisfy demand. A spends 10 hours on production, B spends 60 and C spends 80. If the boards are qualitatively indistinguishable they will tend to sell for the same price today or 2500 years ago. Because they tend to sell at the same price the return to each producer will tend toward the money equivalent of five hours. Presumably A sells out sooner; then the price moves above the social average and if no other forces operate will stay there. Still, the point is that the causal tendencies set in motion by independent production for private exchange operate and do not depend on the capital labor relation. As for race and gender, Ajit correctly observes that these distort the operation of the law of value today as before. But it's a puzzle why we should suppose the empirical objects of social science should be purer and simpler than those studied in natural science. here is Brian Ellis writing at p. 50 of The Philosophy of Nature: "Most causal processes are much more complex . . . and the underlying objective causal process may not always be visible. This is because processes have a way of occurring on top of one another in a kind of avalanche obscuring each other's effects." Notice that one implication of this is that we have to differentiate the essential from the accidental in the phenomena investigated. Or perhaps differentiate two forces operating -- the moon's gravity doesn't explain two story ocean waves in the Caribbean. Plainly the avalanche of social forms obsucring the value relation in the ancient world would have been very strong. That doesn't mean we can't identify the essential social structure there that generated, e.g. the money form, and characterize it as value's structure. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 4:14 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) RE: 'simple commodity production' > On this topic, my long foot note 16 of 'The Concept of > Value in Marx: A Reinterpretation', Research In > Political Economy, vol.12, 1990 may be of some > relevance: > "As we have seen, it is almost universally accepted in > Marxist literature that value is not only derivable > from simple commodity production but is free of all > apparent contradictions (the transformation problem > does not arise in this case); in the simple commodity > production framework, it is understood, , value > appears in its purest form. However, if my > interpretation of abstract labor is correct, then it > implies that the concept of VALUE cannot be applied to > a mode of production called 'simple commodity > production'! > > Simple commodity production is characterized by social > division of labor and 'private' appropreation of the > product by the producers. However, in this mode of > production, the laborer owns his/her means of > production, i.e., there is no capital-wage labor > social relation. Let us take an input-output scheme, > which is characterized as: > > a(11)x(1) + a(12)x(2) + l(i) --> 1x(1); a(11) < 1 > a(21)x(1) + a(22)x(2) + l(c) --> 1x(2); a(22) < 1 > > where: a(ij) represents the amount of good j consumed > in the production of one unit of good i; x(1) and x(2) > represent the capital good (iron) and consumer good > (corn) respectively; and l(i) and l(c) represent one > unit of labor of iron and corn producers respectively. > > If the remunerations the producers in the two sectors > get are the same for the same length of work then the > exchange rate between the two commodities, x(1)/x(2) > must be equal to (a(12)+1-a(22))/2(1-a(11)) for the > reproduction of the system. > > Now let us suppose that the iron producer receives > twice as much for every hour of his/her work effort > than the corn producer. In this case the exchange > ratio between x(1) and x(2), for the reproduction of > the system, would be given by > > x(1)/x(2) = 2(2a(12)+1-a(22))/3(1-a(11)). > > Thus, any attempt to deduce value from the exchange > ratio of commodities will give us different value > measures for the same commodities, given different > remunerations for different kinds of labor. Many > Marxists have argued that this cannot happen, for > labor mobility will ensure equal remuneration for all > kinds of labor (except for skilled labor, where the > problem of reducing skilled to simple labor gets into > a circular argument). > > Before the discuss the theoretical flaw in this > argument, I would like to point out that even in the > capitalist system labor mobility does not ensure equal > wages for equal work; sex and race discrimination > maintain wage discrepancy which would render deduction > of value from exchange relation inoperative. Though, > given labor mobility, the assumption of equal pay for > equal work is theoretically justified for the > capitalist system (assuming away the sex, race > discrimination), it cannot be justified for simple > commodity production. Labor is assumed to be mobile in > a capitalist system precisely because it is abstract > labor. Since workers are completely dispossessed of > all means of production, they have nothing to sell but > certain amount of their labor-power irrespective of > the form in which it is utilized. In this case it > would be rational to assume that labor will move in > the direction of higher remuneration, that is, workers > would prefer to sell their labor-power to whoever > offers the best price for their commodity. > > However, simple commodity production assumes unity of > the means of production and the worker. Since the > workers own their means of production, it is not only > practically difficult for the workers to move from one > concrete form of labor to another, but theoretically > workers do not have enough information to rationalize > such behavior. WAGES DO NOT EXIST AS ECONOMIC DATA FOR > WORKERS. Moreover, even if, as in our example, the > corn producer knew that the iron producer's work is > twice as highly remunerated as his/her work, he/she > has no means of determining whether it is because of > the high skill needed to produce iron or low level of > supply of iron. As we have seen in our example above, > the differentials in work remuneration only requires > changes in the exchange ratios of commodities for the > smooth reproduction of the system. Over time these > wage differentials may become culturally ingrained and > socially stamped. Since there is no inbuilt dynamics > in the system to correct it, exchange ratios may vary > from value ratios of commodities in simple commodity > production." Ajit Sinha > > --- "Gerald A. Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > > > Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) RE: the intellectual origins of > > 'sHi Paul C. > > > > I asked Rakesh: > > > > > What > > > do you think about the argument advanced by Chris > > in The New Dialectic > > > and Marx's Capital, p. 19-21 (beginning with the > > questions near the > > > bottom of p. 19: "Does the model work > > conceptually? Could the > > > law of value really obtain its 'classical form' at > > such a postulated stage > > > of development of commodity exchange?") ? > > > > To which you asked: > > > > > Does not Ian Wrights work indicate that this is > > possible? > > > > I'll reproduce part of this reference below and Ian, > > you and others > > on the list can determine for yourselves whether > > Ian's work > > represents a response to that perspective. Fair > > enough? > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > "In truth, it does not make sense to speak of value, > > and of exchange > > governed by a law of labour value, in a > > pre-capitalist society, because > > in such an imagined society there could be no > > mechanism to enforce > > such a law; price in such a case would simply be a > > formal mediation, > > allowing exchange to take place, but without any > > determinate value > > substance being present. According to Marx the law > > of value is based > > on exchange in accordance with socially necessary > > labour times, > > but in the case of simple commodity production there > > is no mechanism > > that would *force* a given producer to meet such a > > target or be driven > > out of business. When all inputs, including > > labour-power itself, > > have both a value form and production is > > subordinated to valorisation, > > then an objective comparison of rates of return on > > capital is > > possible and competition between capitals allows for > > the enforcement > > of the law of value. The point of simple commodity > > production and > > exchange is to produce a good in the hope of > > exchanging it for a different > > one. While there are constraints, consequent on > > limit conditions, to > > such exchanges, there is no possibility of precise > > determination > > of the ratios of exchange concerned. Capitalist > > commodity production is > > the production of a value in the hope of exchanging > > it for the purpose > > of acquiring more value; therefore capital is forced > > to pay close > > attention to all the value determinations such as > > socially necessary > > labour times. 'The product wholly assumes the form > > of a commodity > > only as a result of the fact that the entire product > > has to be transformed > > into exchange value and that also all of the > > ingredients necessary for > > its production enter it as commodities -- in other > > words it wholly > > becomes a commodity only with the development and on > > the basis of > > capitalist production.' (Marx) > > > > Any attempt to ground value in 'simple commodity > > production' > > must covertly rely on Adam Smith's original argument > > that the > > only consideration affecting the choices of > > individuals is avoidance > > of 'toil and trouble': equal quantities of labour > > are always 'of equal > > value to the labourer' he claimed, This > > *subjective* hypothesis has > > little to do with Marx's argument that there exists > > in capitalism an > > *objective* law which makes exchange at value > > necessary. 'If the > > value of commodities is determined by the necessary > > labour-time > > contained in them', said Marx, 'it is capital that > > first makes a > > reality of this mode of determination and > > continually reduces the > > labour socially necessary for the production of a > > commodity.' > > Thus starting *historically* with the commodity > > would *not* mean > > starting historically with value in Marx's sense, > > because under > > the contingencies operative in underdeveloped forms > > of > > commodity exchange we would have price, to be sure, > > but not > > yet labour values (unless one means something > > relatively > > indeterminate by value) for, as Marx says, 'the full > > development > > of the law of value presupposes a society in which > > large-scale > > industrial production and free competition obtain, > > in other > > words, modern bourgeois society.'" (emphasis in > > original, JL) > > > > > > > _______________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. > http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 18 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT