The General Form of Value
There is an easy solution to the fact that every
commodity can be expressed as an inexhaustible list of other
commodities. That is turn the expression around. In other words,
make every commodity expressible in terms of one single commodity.
So:
1 coat = 20 yards of linen
10 lbs. Tea = 20 yards of linen
1 qtr. Corn = 20 yards of linen
2 oz. Gold = 20 yards of linen
and so on.
Now every commodity can be expressed in terms of
one single commodity that acts as a general equivalent.
As throughout Capital, Marx's analysis is set out
not just in terms of a logical progression, but also as an historical
progression. So, he describes the way in which the first form of
expression of Value is what occurs first in history, whereby
commodity A exchanges for so much of B. C exchanges for so much of D
and so on. He says,
“This form, it is plain occurs practically
only in the first beginning, when the products of labour are
converted into commodities by accidental and occasional exchanges.”
(p 71)
What Marx has in mind
here is his view based on the work done by
Lewis Morgan,
and used by Engels in
The Origin Of The Family, Private Property and the State,
that the first exchanges were accidental or occasional exchanges
between communities etc. not between individuals. They arose, for
example, as part of rituals or ceremonies, for example, when members
of one tribe married members of another. Marx's view here was
somewhat speculative, but subsequent anthropological research has
shown it to be correct.
The second form of
expression of Value corresponds to where trade has developed more and
some particular commodity like cattle is regularly traded for other
commodities. It acts as relative form of Value, not Equivalent Form.
In other words, it is cattle that are being regularly traded, for
other commodities, and whose Value is being expressed not vice versa.
So, 1 cow = 1 oz. Gold, 1 cow = 20 yards of linen, 1 cow = 2 coats,
and so on.
The final form of the
expression of Value only arises when many commodities are being
regularly traded, and where one of their number is singled out to act
as a measure of the rest. In other words, all commodities now
express their Values, not in relation to each other, but through
their relation with this single commodity, whose role is, and had to
be, socially recognised.
Each commodity being
equated with this one single commodity, in turn, manifests its
relation to all other commodities. If 1 coat = 20 yards of linen,
and 2 oz. Gold = 20 yards of linen, then clearly 1 coat also = 2 oz.
Gold, or 1 coat has twice as much Value as 1 oz. Gold. As made clear
earlier we don't know how much Value that is absolutely from this
expression, only its relative size compared to the Value of the Gold.
We can only know the actual Value of the coat, and the Gold by
knowing how much labour-time is required for their production.
Exchange Value only measures relative value, not absolute Value,
which can only be measured by labour-time.
The same process which
makes this single commodity the general equivalent for all other
commodities means that the same is true for the specific concrete
labour used to produce it, in relation to all of the other concrete
labours used to produce all other commodities. Linen becomes the
representative of all human labour because it becomes the
representative of Exchange Value – Abstract Labour-time. But, by
the same token,
“Weaving, which is the labour of certain
private individuals producing a particular article, linen, acquires
in consequence a social character, the character of equality with all
other kinds of labour. The innumerable equations of which the general
form of value is composed, equate in turn the labour embodied in the
linen to that embodied in every other commodity, and they thus
convert weaving into the general form of manifestation of
undifferentiated human labour.” (p 72)
In other words, the
labour-time expended here by weavers can represent Abstract
Labour-time against which all other concrete labour can be measured.
If 20 yards of linen takes 10 hours of weavers' time to produce,
(this now constitutes 10 hours of Abstract Labour-time) whereas 1
coat requires 5 hours of tailoring labour-time, then if 1 coat
exchanges for 20 yards of linen, we can conclude that the 5 hours of
tailoring labour is complex labour, which is equal to 10 hours of
Abstract Labour. (I've excluded the labour-time embodied in the
material of the coat, for ease of illustration).
As soon as one
commodity is singled out to play the role of General Equivalent, it
automatically excludes all other commodities from that role. But, by
the same token it excludes itself from the other side of this
relation. It can no longer appear as the Relative Form of Value
because it would be expressing itself against itself – 20 yards of
linen = 20 yards of linen! Alternatively, its Relative Form could
only be expressed against the infinite number of other commodities.
It should now be
obvious that we have reached the point both in history, and in logic
where this one single commodity, which has been singled out by
society, to act as the general equivalent of all other commodities is
the Money Commodity, and its role begins in history, for functioning
as Money in society.
The Money Form
Is merely the stage
whereby Gold (or occasionally some other precious metal) has become
the General Equivalent Commodity, and therefore, the concrete labour
required in Gold production represents Abstract Labour. The price
form is now 20 yards of linen = 2 oz. Gold, and when gold is minted
into a currency with a name such as Pound, we have 20 yards of linen
= £2.
Commodity Fetishism
The real relation is
not the relation of one commodity to another. This relation – the
Value relation – is only possible because they are equally products
of human labour in the abstract. It is the quantity of this abstract
human labour in each that gives them Value, and enables comparison.
But, the actual concrete labour is clearly different in each case.
How can it be reduced to Abstract Labour to enable comparison?
“...the measure of the
expenditure of labour power by the duration of that expenditure,
takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour;
and finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the
social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a
social relation between the products.” (p 77)
So, the real relation
has become inverted. What Marx provides is not just a logical
exposition, but an historical account of how real human relations
become transformed, into an apparent relation between things.
Initially, when Man produces for Man the relation is overt, as some
of the anthropological examples demonstrate. If I shoe your horse,
you work on my field for the same amount of time. The more the
division of labour proceeds and labour is more specialised, the more
different types of labour are seen as having more Value than others.
I Value your Labour as twice mine so I agree to work for you, for
twice as long as you work for me. The more commodity production
increases, so that production and consumption are separated, so this
connection becomes hidden, because what starts out as just I provide
you with 20 yards of linen (comprising 10 hours of my time) in
exchange for 1 coat (comprising 5 hours of your time) simply becomes
20 yards linen = 1 coat. We now have a relation between things
rather than people. The only way of uncovering the actual relation
of the labour employed in each is to look at the actual labour-time
employed in each and compare it with the exchange rate between the
commodities. But, that will not tell us how this labour compares
with all other labour used in producing all other commodities i.e.
against Labour in the abstract. It is only when we have a Money
Commodity that we have the ability to assign the Labour used for its
production to represent Abstract Labour.
The setting of each
commodity against this single Money Commodity completes the process
by which the real relation between Men is replaced by the relation
between things. Now it appears that the Value of a commodity is
determined by its relation to Money, whilst the Value of Money is
manifest in the quantity of commodities it can command.
“Hence, when we bring the products of our
labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we
see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human
labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as
values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as
human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them.” (
p 78)
The Law of Value –
the law that the Value of any Use Value is determined by the
labour-time required for its production continually asserts itself as
a Law of Nature. But, this should not be read as meaning that
commodities always automatically do exchange according to this Law.
As Marx sets out, even though the labour-time required is constantly
changing, the actual exchange rates can remain stable for long
periods. It is only when the two become qualitatively different that
this manifests itself in a sharp break. He quotes Engels.
“What are we to think of a law that asserts
itself only by periodical revolutions? It is just nothing but a law
of Nature, founded on the want of knowledge of those whose action is
the subject of it.” (Friedrich Engels: “Umrisse zu einer Kritik
der Nationalökonomie,” in the “Deutsch-Französische
Jahrbücher,” edited by Arnold Ruge and Karl Marx. Paris. 1844.)”
(note 1 p 80)
Marx describes by
various means this Law of Nature, the Law of Value, which repeatedly
asserts itself through Man's history whatever Mode of Production is
applied. He set it out succinctly in his
Letter To Kugelmann.
In Capital, he provides more detail. He begins with Robinson Crusoe
whose labour-time is limited and who in order to maximise the benefit
from its use resorts to timing various activities. Marx concludes,
 |
| Sedley Taylor accused Marx of falsifying a comment in Gladstone's Budget Speech. It was not a new charge. Eleanor Marx later tore Taylor's accusation apart. |
“All the relations between Robinson and the
objects that form this wealth of his own creation, are here so simple
and clear as to be intelligible without exertion, even to
Sedley Taylor
. And yet those relations contain all that is
essential to the determination of value.” (p 81)
“but every serf knows that what he expends in
the service of his lord, is a definite quantity of his own personal
labour power.” (p 82)
In the same way that Robinson produced his items
within the constraint of the time available to produce the different
Use Values, so a community faces the same constraint. What changes
with each type of society is not this Law of Value, but the form in
which it is expressed, the specific means by which the total
labour-time is allocated to produce the Use Values required by the
society, and the specific means (which Marx later shows are a
function of the way it goes about producing) by which the total
product of this society is distributed amongst its members,
including, therefore, the way in which any surplus is distributed.
For Robinson, everything produced by him belonged
to him. Yet, even then, a proportion had to be set aside to replace
what had been used. A proportion of Corn produced had to be set aside
for planting, if you want corn again next year. And, if you want to
increase output, a proportion has to be set aside for that purpose
too. Only what is left is available to be consumed.
The same is true for a society. A proportion of
its output remains social because it is required to replace means of
production. Another part is used for consumption – means of
subsistence – by the members. Different societies will bring about
this distribution in different ways, and as soon as a society is able
to produce a surplus – to produce more than is required to meet
these consumption needs, and to replace the means of production –
the potential exists for a section of society to receive the proceeds
of this production without itself taking part in production.
On the other hand, it opens the possibility for
the establishment of a society in which every individual receives
back from society in Value, a proportion of total output, equal to
the labour-time they have contributed i.e. proportional to their
share of total social labour.
No comments:
Post a Comment