Paul writes
============
> I take it Alan, that by this you mean the magnitude of value in terms of hours
> of labour. You clearly do not mean magnitude of exchange value
> because by specifying total value you are abstracting from exchange
> between its component parts.
Alan responds
=============
Hmmm, I'd have to be careful about choice of words because I think
'exchange value' has a different meaning for you. For me, every value has a
representation both in hours and in money, and there is no dimensional
incompatibility between price and value. Therefore, value can be either a
quantity of money or a quantity of hours, If for example $1 = 2 hours, and
a commodity contains 100 hours of socially necessary labour time, then its
value can be expressed interchangeably either as 100 hours or $50.
Moreover it receives this value as a consequence of being produced for
sale, not as a result of being exchanged. Thus it is already measured in
money at the point when it emerges from production, whether or not it is
sold.
I would say that in the exchange relation the product acquires a price; a
valuation that usually differs quantitatively from the exchange value it
receives through production. A commodity whose value is $50 (=100 hours)
might fetch $20, that is, sell for less than its value. This price can then
be expressed either as $20 or as 40 hours (if meantime the monetary
expression of labour has not changed). If sold at this price, I would say
that a commodity whose value is 100 hours has realised 40 hours. Or, which
is the same thing, a commodity whose value is $50 has realised $20.
I regard both the 100 hours and the $50 as being 'determined prior' to
sale. Both arise entirely from the immediate conditions of the labour
process which gave rise to them and cannot be modified through subsequent
exchange.
I think that it you probably wouldn't find sense in the idea that the
product has a monetary measure prior to its sale. In that case, my
principle could only be formulated in terms of hours, and in that form, I
suspect that we agree on it.
Alan