From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Oct 17 2005 - 04:48:56 EDT
Hi Rakesh, The basic point I have been trying to make still seems not to be made - I admit I am frustrated that it remains quite so invisible! You write: "So I do not think the relative form of value can be said to possess value outside of its relationship to the general form of value. Value is brought into existence at the level of the system of relations. And not outside of it.." What I have kept trying to point out is that everything you say above is correct. It is a statement made from the a system-wide perspective - I couldn't agree more. But there is another perspective, that of a single commodity within the system. At this level we are presupposing the continued existence of the system. We are presupposing the system of relations which you correctly say give rise to value. From the individual perspective, it is still the case that value is expressed through price, so it is expressed as a relation, but the big difference is that we can say that the actual sale of any one single newly produced commodity does not have to occur for that commodity to be a (form of) value. It is a value prior to sale. This cannot be said at the system-wide level: at this level, where we consider commodities as a whole then a large proportion of them must generally be sold if value and capital are to exist at all (if the system of relations is to exist at all). Many thanks, Andy Yours, Rakesh At 7:00 PM +0100 10/15/05, Andrew Brown wrote: >Hi Rakesh, > >You wrote: > >"Andrew, it seems to me that you are saying that at this individual >level the commodity is more than potential value though not yet quite >actual value. Perhaps in this state it is virtual value? So existence >then has three states--potential, virtual and actual?? >I am sorry that I am not following. And perhaps you don't want to be >burdened with this idea of virtuality." > >I reply: Perhaps we are talking past each other somewhat since you >are trying out your interpretation whilst I am trying out mine. Your >view seems to look to quantum physics for help and deals in >'virtual' value akin to the virtual existence of Schrodinger's >infamous cat prior to being observed. One way of proceeding would be >to ask whether your view applies to the individual level, or the >system-wide level or both? Here you apply it to the individual >level. You are right that I wouldn't want to be burdened with this >notion, whether for the inividual or system-wide levels. I wouldn't >go anywhere near quantum physics for help on ontological matters - >as far as I can see it is in an ontological mess, just like the poor >cat. > >My view, at the *individual* level, is that both commodity and money >are indeed actual forms of value. One is not somehow more real than >another. Possession of a newly produced commodity is possession of >value just as much as possession of money. Any one single commodity >need not be transformed into money to be a value. What is potential >for the individual commodity owner, prior to sale, is the possession >of the power conferred by value (generalised purchasing power), not >the possession of value itself. No doubt this makes the owner >anxious but such anxiety should not lead us to question of the very >existence of value in commodity form (leaving aside fictitious >commodities). > >At the *system-wide* level, on the other hand, we can rightly say >that value 'gains existence' only through its reflection in money >(you say 'comes to exist' below). For such reflection to occur value >must continually actually transform from commodity to money form, >across society as a whole, i.e. there must be generalised commodity >exchange through money. > >In sum, (1) any one indiviudal commodity need not exchange for money >to be a value but; >(2) a large proportion of commodities across society must do so in >order to be values (in order for value and capital to continue to >exist at all). > >Many thanks, > >Andy > > >> >> >> >>Turning to your further remarks. Clearly, I take a different line to >>TSS. Your account of Roberts is interesting. > >Oh please don't hang most of what I wrote on Roberts. I just took a >single idea and then pursued what I thought are its implications. > > > >> I think the system-wide perspective / individual perspective >>distinction is adequate to address this account. > >Not quite sure how it dissolves dualism of value and price accounts. > > > >> >>I did in fact use this distinction in a previous exchange with you >>regarding slavery. > > >Don't see how individual/system distinction speaks to question of >whether wage labor is sometimes disguised as slavery. > >Yours, Rakesh > > >>You seemed unimpressed by it then - I fear you will remain so! > > >Not at all unimpressed. Where I don't agree with VFT is I think >simple: I do think value only comes to exist in and through exchange; >however, I think value has some kind of existence before that and I >think it's meaningful to speak of labor being abstract before that, >to speak of total social labor time and its homogeneous parts. In >fact I think that talk is meaningful even before generalized >commodity society. The discovery of that aspect of social labor as an >aliquot of abstract social labor time in fact allows objective >investigation of precapitalist formations. I had always thought >abstract labor must be conceived in a historically specific way in >order for capitalist itself to be so conceived. I am now not >convinced of that position. > >Yours, Rakesh > >> >> >> >>Many thanks >> >> >> >>Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 00:00:04 EDT