From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sun Mar 04 2007 - 14:56:50 EST
--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > What I suggested was a bit more nuanced. I > suggested that exchange-value > is a necessary form of appearance of commodity > value _and_ that price is a > necessary form of appearance of a commodity's > exchange-value. __________________________ What bothers me mostly is that in this sort of debates, the most fundamental questions are usually never posed. The question is: On what basis one can claim that "the so-called exchange-value is a necessary form of appearance of commodity value and that price is a necessary form of appearance of exchange-value." The question is not about who said what but what is the basis of establishing the claim made by whoever said it. Once you ask this question, only then you will begin to understand the problems associated with such claims. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > "I assume, FOR THE SAKE OF SIMPLICITY, gold as > the > > money-commodity". > > > Yes, but I think that it is somewhat misleading to > believe that a money- > commodity was being assumed for _only_ reasons of > simplicity. > > > > Marx argues in the Grundrisse that "the concept of > price has to be > > developed before that of circulation. Circulation > is the positing of > > prices, > > it is the process in which commodities are > transformed into prices: their > > realisation as prices. (...) not every form of > commodity exchange, e.g. > > barter, payment in kind, feudal services, etc. > constitutes circulation" > > (Nicolaus edition, p. 187, see also p. 193). > > > In a system of generalized commodity production and > exchange, those > non-money payments could I think be thought of as a > kind of disguised > monetary exchanges. > > > > (i) product-values exist and persist according to > Marx regardless of > > whether > > they are traded or not, simply because they take a > quantity of society's > > labour-time to make, and as I have pointed out a > few times already, at any > > time, the majority of product-values and assets > owned in society do not > > have > > any actual prices, because they are not being > traded. > > > It might bear consideration to see this process in > part as the release and > tying-up of commodity values and also consider the > process of commodity > hoarding. These were both processes that Marx was > aware of, of course, > but didn't really completely explain his thoughts > on. > > > > And > > (ii) non-reproducible goods such as a piece of > unimproved land or a > > sea-bed > > can have a price without having a value in labour > terms. That is, an > > object > > of trade may have a price, although it does not > have a socially > > established > > value, as Marx explicitly acknowledges in Cap. 1 > ch. 3. > > > Yes, that's a point I've frequently made as well: we > have to distinguish > between wealth and value. > > > > (iii) In countertrade (C-C') objects which are > otherwise normally > > commodities may be traded (such as food for oil) > without any prices being > > necessarily charged; the objects have an > exchange-value expressed in a > > quantity of other objects, but not necessarily in > a money-price. > > > This raises the issue, in part, of accounting for > the role of intermediate > goods in price formation. This is related, I think, > to the release and > tying-up of constant capital. > > > > I recall how in New Zealand the government decided > to privatise half a > > million of hectares of mainly exotic forest. > Everybody knew that forest > > had an objective value, > > > Yes, everybody knew it -- even children. But, what > everybody knows, > children included, may not be correct. > > > > and a large one at that, but nobody knew what > those forests were worth > > exactly, or what their exchange-value or price > was, they > > had themselves never been traded at all, they had > been government property > > since state-employed workers originally planted > them (mainly during the > > Great Depression of the 1930s) and only the logged > timber had been traded. > > Overseas consultants were brought in at great > expense to "value the > > forests" according to principles of comparable > sales value, earnings > > expectations > > or a cost-based approach, and then sold. Thus the > forests were transformed > > into commodities, which had an effect on the > valuation of standing timber > > in > > the national accounts. Point is that the forests > had a value and a > > use-value, > > but not necessarily an exchange-value or a price, > it was necessary to > > valuate and price them, for the purpose of trading > in them. > > > Just because goods are valued and traded does not > mean that they > constitute value. The forest could constitute > wealth rather than value, > regardless of whether buyers or sellers or the > state or the public come > to view it as value. Yet, the valuation process > itself, irrespective of > whether we consider the an unimproved forest to > constitute value or > wealth, is interesting -- but I think somewhat > arbitrary. > > > In solidarity, Jerry > ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT