> Alejandro.
> I would be interested to know where, in your view, the MEL is
> explained in Marxs writings? Is it ever developed in the context
> of the labour commanded/labour embodied debate with Smith and
> Ricardo?
> In solidarity.
>
> Andrew Trigg.
Thanks for your questions! One of my (unfinished) projects is to re-
read Marx's writings in order to "reconstruct the genesis of
this important relation.
Just now I dont remember if in the course of his criticism to Smith
and Ricardo is developed this relation. But I remember that the MEL
is clearly suggested at the beginning of Grundrisse, debating
against the "time-chits" proposed by Gray and others. It is worth to
read Grundrisse (Penguin) pp. 131-145. For example, this nice passage:
Thus in order to realize the commodity as exchange value
in one stroke, an in order to give it the general influence
of an exchange value, it is not enough to exchange it for
one particular commodity. It must be exchanged agains a third
thing which is not itself a particular commodity, BUT THE
SYMBOL OF THE COMMODITY AS COMMODITY, OF THE COMMODITY'S
EXCHANGE VALUE ITSELF; **WHICH THUS REPRESENTS, SAY LABOR
TIME AS SUCH**, SAY A PIECE OF PAPER OR LEATHER, WHICH
REPRESENTS A FRACTIONAL PART OF LABOR TIME. p. 144
See also, pp. 167-8.
You also ask: Where is the MEL explained in Marx writings? In a first
sight it seems that nowhere. The MEL seems merely an "auxiliary
ratio." For example: "If half a day of average social labour is
present in 3 shillings..." (Capital I, p. 276).
However, now I am thinking that the "explanation" of the MEL is just
Vol. I, Ch. 1. The MEL is the relation between value-substance and
value-form (Wertsubstanz and Wertform in the original), and the
structure of Ch. 1 express precisely the analysis of both aspects of
value and its relation. For example, this passage in the relative
form of value:
Human labour-power in its fluid state, or human labour,
creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value
in its coagulated state, in objective form...
When it is in the value-relation with the linen, the coat
counts qualitatively as equal of the linen, it counts as
a thing of the same nature, because it is a value. Here
it is therefore a thing in which value is manifested, or
which represents value in its tangible natural form.
p. 143.
So, the coat (equivalent form) is a "tangible" representation of the
labor time congealed in the linen. Value (whose "substance" is labor-
time) is expressed through a value-form: this is the MEL in its
"simple form". The labor-time contained in linen is expressed as 1
coat. Labor-time is necessarily expressed in this "objective" and
external way, as "coats", "gold", "money" and therefore, "money" is
only a representation of labor time (see Grundrisse, p. 168)
But, anyway, I couldnt find a exhaustive explanation of the MEL
regarding its "quantitative" properties, as we have e.g. for the rate
of surplus-value. I think this is an important lacuna in Capital and
other Marx's writings.
I look forward to seeing you in Washington!
Alejandro Ramos