From: cmgermer@UFPR.BR
Date: Mon Jul 16 2007 - 08:22:33 EDT
Hi Fred and Rakesh: Thank you very much for your replies to my post. Fred: >> Claus: >> Now, why must labor and nothing else be the scalar? Because the human >> being depends on his/her labor to subsist, but not on the individual >> labor >> providing the needs of each individual, but on social labor, i.e., >> division of labor, in such a way that each individual provides society >> with the product of his/her labor, and receives in exchange what he/she >> needs. What Marx argues is that, in order for society to subsist, this >> exchange must be based on the exchange of equal amounts of labor: the >> use-value which each individual offers to the society mus be the product >> of the same amount of labor contained in the use-values he/she receives >> from the society in exchange. > > Thanks for the very clear summary of your argument. I think I > understand it better now. > >> >> Please observe the following two passagens by Marx: >> ‘(...) if society wants to satisfy some want and have an article >> produced >> for this purpose, it must pay for it. Indeed, since commodity-production >> necessitates a division of labor, society pays for this article by >> devoting a portion of the available labor-time to its production. >> Therefore, society buys it with a definite quantity of its disposable >> labor-time. That part of society which through the division of labor >> happens to employ its labor in producing this particular article, must >> receive an equivalent in social labor incorporated in articles which >> satisfy its own wants’ (Marx, Capital, vol. 3, Int. Publ., p. 187). >> >> ‘Now since (…) [the laborer’s – CMG] work forms part of a system, based >> on >> the social division of labor, he does not directly produce the actual >> necessaries which he himself consumes; he produces instead a particular >> commodity, yarn for example, whose value is *equal* to the value of >> those >> necessaries or of the money with which they can be bought. (…) If the >> value of those necessaries represent on an average the expenditure of >> six >> hours' labor, the workman must on an average work for six hours to >> produce >> that value’ (Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p.104). > > I think you make a strong argument, which is based on these passages > from other parts of Capital besides Section 1, as to why the common > property of commodities must be labor. This further argument is based > on an objective point of view, just like the argument in Section 1: > every society must allocate its labor force in such a way as to produce > the quantities of goods that the society needs. In a > commodity-exchange society, in order for society to produce what it > needs, the exchange of commodities must be based on equal amounts of > labor – i.e. the use-value that each individual offers to society must > be the product of the same amount of labor contained in the use-value > that he/she received from society in exchange. > > Do I understand you correctly? Claus: yes, this is correct. > I think this is essentially the same argument that Marx presented in > Section 4 of Chapter 1, in which Marx explained the necessary role of > labor-time requirements in the allocation of social labor in other > kinds of “societies” – Robinson Crusoe, feudalism, peasant family, and > “association of free men”. In all these societies, the quantity of > labor-time required to produced each product must be taken into > accounts and play a key role in the allocation of social labor. In > these other societies, these labor-time requirements are taken into > accounts directly and consciously. However, in a commodity-exchange > society, these labor-time requirements are NOT taken into account > directly and consciously; but they must be taken into account somehow > in order to accomplish the correct allocation of labor. Since the only > connection between commodity producers is through market exchange, if > the labor-time requirements are to play a role in the allocation of > social labor, they must do so through exchange. And that is why these > labor-time requirements must determine the average equilibrium prices > at which commodities exchange – because that is the way labor in a > commodity-exchange society is indirectly and unconsciously regulated. > > I think this is also essentially the same argument that Marx presented > in the famous letter, replying to the review of Capital in the > Centralblatt (July 11, 1868): > > “Every child knows … that the volume of products corresponding to the > different needs require different and quantitatively determined amounts > of the total labor society. That this necessity of the distribution of > social labour in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with > by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode > of its appearance, is self-evident. Natural laws cannot be abolished > at all. What can change in historically different circumstances is > only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in > which this proportional distribution of labour asserts itself, in a > social system where the interconnection of social labour manifests > itself through the private exchange of individual products of labour, > is precisely the exchange value of these products. (Selected > Correspondence, p. 196). > > Rubin also emphasized this argument in his interpretation of the labor > theory of value. > > My question about this argument is the following: it seems to be based > on the assumption of “simple commodity production” (in which each > worker owns her own means of production). If so, then to what extent > does it remain valid for capitalist society? What do you think? Claus: Rakesh sent me a post making what seems to me to be the same question: > The law of value is thus demanded for the successful working of > capitalism. Indeed it could be argued that it is only actually effective > under the capitalist mode of production as there is no such thing as > simple commodity production as a mode of production. > > (...) > Because the social relations of production are organized through commodity > relations, prices must be governed by values for a society to achieve the > proportional deployment of labor needed for its reproduction. You have > stated this extremely well. > > But general commodity production is also capitalist or private production, > the production of commodities by means of wage labor for profit. This > latter systemic > feature motivates capitalists to search for the highest profit, leading > tendentially to an averaging of the rate of profit. > > But behind everyone's back the averaging of the rate of profit contradicts > the law of value. Yet they are both intrinsic to the structure Claus: This is a very important point, and I don’t have the whole explanation. However, in my opinion the following are some of the elements of the explanation: The law of value arises out of the contradiction between the division of labour and the absence of a social plan for the distribution of labour and of the products of labour among the individual producers. What I understand as the law of value, as I said in my previous post, is the need for the exchange of commodities to be based on the exchange of equal amounts of labor: the use-value which each individual offers to the society mus be the product of the same amount of labor contained in the use-values he/she receives from the society in exchange. Since the capitalist economy is a commodity producing economy, the law of value must of necessity remain valid, because the contradiction mentioned above remains as well. The individual producers are in this case the capitalist units of production, each one comprising a number of workers and say one capitalist, and the basic exchange is among those units of production, divided into the exchange among the workers and the exchange among the capitalists. The basic point is that the reproduction of the society is now dependent on the requirements for the reproduction of the capitalist units of production. But in the absence of a social plan for the distribution of labour and of the products of labour, the exchange among the capitalist units of production must follow the law of value. If there were not the capitalists, the exchange among the units of production would follow the law of value to its whole extent. The existence of the capitalists requires the units of production to produce a surplus in relation to the needs of their workers, which requires the workers to work a surplus time. But a surplus product will only exist if the reproduction of the workers follows the law of value, i.e., if the exchange among them is based on the exchange of equal SNLTs. In other words, the workers cannot get more from the social product than what is necessary for the reproduction of their labour power. The exchange among them is mediated by the exchange among the capitalist units of production. Thus, social labour is split into two parts, one being the labour necessary to reproduce the labor power, the other being surplus labour, to which corresponds a surplus product. The value of the surplus product is subject to the law of value, because its global value corresponds to the surplus labour. But the exchange value of the surplus product does not need to be based on the equalization of SNLT, because the surplus produced in each capitalist unit of production is larger that what is needed for the reproduction of the capitalist, the remaining going for accumulation. In capitalism, the accumulation is a condition for the reproduction of the society, which remains the basic motive for social labour. Perhaps it can then be said that the redistribution of the surplus product, expressed in the surplus value, which causes the divergence between prices of production and values, arises out of the contradiction between the requirements of the accumulation and the absence of a social plan for the distribution of labour and of the products of labour. > Claus, > this is what I wrote in reply to Fred's post to you. Would be interested > in your reply on or offlist if you find the general point interesting. > Yours, Rakesh > > > For the reasons you both say if the social relations of production are > mediated > by commodities, then their respective exchange values have to be at least > tendentially proportional to their respective values if society is to > allocate proportionately the labor time available to it such that it can > reproduce itself, engage in self-constraining production, production > constrained to ensure that it can be carried out again. > > In other words, it is exactly through dis-proportionality between > exchange value or price and value that society informs itself of how its > labor time has to be reallocated, depending on people to react in their > atomistic state to price and value disproportionalities to correct > allocational imbalances. > > The law of value is thus demanded for the successful working of > capitalism. Indeed it could be argued that it is only actually effective > under the capitalist mode of production as there is no such thing as > simple commodity production as a mode of production. > > But the problem as I have been trying to emphasize is that capitalism is > structured by inner contradiction, meaning here something like "two > demands, both necessary for the successful working of the same system, but > mutually incompatible." (Andrew Collier) In other words, general > commodity production does have inner contradictions, at the most abtract > level between social production and private appropriation. > > Because the social relations of production are organized through commodity > relations, prices must be governed by values for a society to achieve the > proportional deployment of labor needed for its reproduction. You have > stated this extremely well. > > > > But general commodity production is also capitalist or private production, > the production of commodities by means of wage labor for profit. This > latter systemic > feature motivates capitalists to search for the highest profit, leading > tendentially to an averaging of the rate of profit. > > But behind everyone's back the averaging of the rate of profit contradicts > the law of value. Yet they are both intrinsic to the structure > > Marx in fact emphasized this contradiction; he thought Ricardo had glossed > it over. The question then becomes what is the consequence of this real > contradiction: it is of course the emergence of prices of production, > which are modified values. > > Marx's derivation of the category of price of production is thus > dialectical though this has not been argued in the same way as I have > here; the point is that Marx's derivation of the category of the price of > production results from studying the consequence of the mutually > incompatible demands of one and the same system. Dialectics is the key. > > Marx does not contradict himelf. Capitalism contradicts itself. And I > don't have to commit myself to a critique of formal logic to say this as > the general thesis can be forth in analytical terms, I believe. I am > thinking here of some early essays by Sean Sayers. > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT