From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 11:32:15 EDT
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:25:54 +0100 Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote: Paul, Yes - we are on similar lines. As you rightly say, following Marx, any individual commodity has an ideal price, prior to sale, which expresses its value and makes it a value prior to sale (though sale is precarious and value may be lost if sale cannot eventually be effected). Thus any individual commodity is an actual value prior to sale (but this value only has an ideal form of expression prior to sale). Yes I don't agree--see below Sticking with this persepctive, then it is the form of expression of value (which I also refer to as the power conferred by value, generalised purchasing power), which is made real by sale. This is indeed the 'realisation' of value but note how easy it is to misinterpret 'realisation' as meaning that value itself does not exist, and therefore has to be made real, prior to sale. The situation is similar with 'use-value'. Use value is only 'realised' in actual use (consumption) but nevertheless the commodity is a use-value prior to its consumption. But use value is not a social relation per se; it is a relation between user and thing. It can be a use value outside of a social relation. In saying that commodities have ideal price before exchange, Marx is arguing against view that magnitude of value is simply in the eyes of the beholder, that value is determined in terms of a subjective (and thus more or less arbitrary) estimation of use value or marginal utility and that the buyer's money is what magically makes commodities commensurable (rather than their already potentially representing some aliquot of homogeneous social labor time which money simply measures). Value form theory seems close to holding the second proposition, though it is true again that measurement is an active process in the sense that social labor becomes practically more homogeneous, practically more abstract with the generalized production of commodities for money (abstract labor gains a greater practical validity with the development of capitalist society). Money (as the telos of production) shapes social labor in its own image. But it is not money that in the first instance that makes commodities a potential representation of some aliquot of homogeneous social labor time, that is values in potentia. That belief was maintained for some time as noted (if I remember correctly) in Joel Kaye's book on the medieval economy. At any rate, magnitude of value is not determined IN exchange itself (though whether a commodity is a value is indeed determined there--hence my difference with you, Paul B and Fred); magnitude is determined behind the backs of commodity exchangers in terms of socially necessary average (re-)production time. But this does not imply that it is correct to abstract from demand in determination of magnitude of value, for if there is a strong positive demand shift to a commodity (Carchedi), then socially average labor time per unit may well fall as a result of economies of scale (OPE-Ler Charles Andrews makes the same point). Marx does not in fact abstract from use value or demand (on this Marx is insistent--see Notes on Wagner); they figure in his theory but in a very different way than in Menger's or Jevons' formulations. Especially use value, which refers to material characteristics and physical quantities of commodities--not subjective states of mind. Yours, Rakesh At 10:25 PM +0100 10/18/05, Andrew Brown wrote: >Paul, > >Yes - we are on similar lines. As you rightly say, following Marx, >any individual commodity has an ideal price, prior to sale, which >expresses its value and makes it a value prior to sale (though sale >is precarious and value may be lost if sale cannot eventually be >effected). Thus any individual commodity is an actual value prior to >sale (but this value only has an ideal form of expression prior to >sale). Sticking with this persepctive, then it is the form of >expression of value (which I also refer to as the power conferred by >value, generalised purchasing power), which is made real by sale. >This is indeed the 'realisation' of value but note how easy it is to >misinterpret 'realisation' as meaning that value itself does not >exist, and therefore has to be made real, prior to sale. The >situation is similar with 'use-value'. Use value is only 'realised' >in actual use (consumption) but nevertheless the commodity is a >use-value prior to its consumption. > >We could quibble further about the word 'exist': if existence means >'has an inherent material expression' then value in its immediacy >has no such inherent expression - it is immediately utterly >non-sensuous - but it gains an ideal expression in price - so if we >say value exists then we must recognise that it exists through >reflection, through medition, through its ideal expression in price, >in a way that ordinary things do not. > >So any individual commodity, through such reflection, exists as a >value prior to actual sale. It does not have to be sold to be a >value. But now consider what I have been calling the system-wide >perspective, where we consider the generality of commodities across >the economy (and we correspondingly consider a longer span of time). >If these can be values only through reflection, then money must >exist simultaneously to them and so a large proportion of them must >continually exchange with money, i.e. be sold. So, there is a sense, >when taking this persepctive, in which we can say that commodities >(a large proportion of them) must be sold if value if to exist. >Indeed, the system will in any case collapse (value along with it) >if generalised exchange through money ceases to occur. > >Many thanks, > >Andy > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: OPE-L on behalf of Paul Bullock >Sent: Tue 18/10/2005 19:41 >To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >Cc: >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General > > > > Andy, > it may well have been how the question was expressed as i took it up. > Clearly value and surplus value exist simultaneously, are expressed by > their concrete form of appearances, BUT as you seem also to >say... value and > surplus value has to be produced BEFORE the concrete forms >taken on by value > can arise from the subsequent exchanges between product and >money . If you > are saying that at any one time, at the very moment of production, the > extant social arrangements already determine the exact distribution of > surplus value both in specific forms and quantities, then >there would seem > to be a loss of any concept of struggle between classes. > > First value is produced, and must exist before sale - so I >agree with you - > Marx ridicules those who imagine that goods have no price ( >an ideal price > as Marx calls it both in the Grundrisse and Vol 1), and money no value, > before exchange . If you want the refs I can send them. BUT >of course if the > product is not sold, its value is not realised and a money >'recalculation' > takes place. This is a 'loss' of value, not the denial of its previous > production - otherwise the capitalist would not speak of a loss. > > Paul > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Brown" <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:54 PM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General > > > > Paul, > > > > Nope. From the perpsective of the system as whole money, >profit, wages and > interest must (and do) all exist simultaneusly to value and >surplus value. > > Value and surplus value must reflect themselves in money categories > (essence must appear) which requires the simultaneous >exitsence of those > categories. > > > > You probably have in mind thinking of a production period >for the system > as a whole, in which case as you say 'obviously' we have a temporal > sequence. That is, taking a 'system-wide' perspective can >mean different > things depending on context. > > > > I am engaging with, e.g. Michael L.'s recent post (he argued for > simultaneity), with Rakesh's posts and, more generally, considering the > debates regarding value theory where a key point is whether and in what > sense value exists prior to actual sale. Many deny that it >does so. It then > seems to me difficult to think in terms of a production >period. How can we > think in these terms (insofar as we are thinking of value >production) if > value doesn't exist prior to sale? Hence I am trying to >answer this question > whilst retaining the important insight that essence must appear. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > Andrew, > > the realisation of surplus value in its different forms is obviously > > temporal, the productive worker does not create rent per >se. This is the > > case for the system as a whole and the individual circuit. > > > > > > Paul Bullock > > > > > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT