Exchange
Upon the basis of a real economic relationship develops a set of
laws. Commodities exchange against each other in given proportions,
as we've seen. But, commodities can only do this if the owners of
these commodities agree to do so. This requires a legal framework,
that establishes, in law, these exchange relations, on the basis of
freely entered into contracts, by the various parties involved in the
exchange.
The extent to which Marx’s analysis is an objective study of these
economic relations, rather than a subjective study of the particular
human beings, that make up the society, can be gauged by his comment.
“In
the course of our investigation we shall find, in general, that the
characters who appear on the economic stage are but the
personifications of the economic relations that exist between them.”
(p 89)
The owner of a commodity does not see in it any Use Value
for themselves. That's why they seek to exchange it. Its only Use Value,
to them, is precisely that it has Exchange Value. The basic relation
is that commodities exist as Exchange Values for sellers and Use
Values for buyers. A commodity only realises its Use Value having
been bought, just as it only realises its Exchange Value having been
sold.
The Relative Form of Value is represented by barter where the owner
of X amount of A, exchanges it directly for Y amount of B. Both A
and B only become commodities in the act of barter. At this early
stage, something only becomes a commodity when it is not a Use Value
for its owner. That is it's superfluous to their immediate needs.
That's why the first types of exchange often arise as the exchange of
accidental surpluses.
These first exchanges, then, can be on the basis of chance, rather than
any measurement of labour-time. But, once begun, they promote a
development of trade and exchange that increasingly leads those who
dispose of their goods to seek exchange on the basis of Value. The
more commodities are produced by individuals, for exchange within
communities, the more they seek to measure this Value accurately.
It is this historical process that leads to the need for a general
equivalent form of Value (which goes through a succession of
different physical forms specific to each society before eventually
arriving at the Money Form). Different commodities have likewise
acted as the Money Commodity – cattle, salt, gold, silver.
Nomads are the first to develop money, because all their possessions
are in the form of movable wealth, which they can sell, and because
they constantly come into contact with others, with whom they can exchange.
Slaves have acted as money, but land never has, because it is not
moveable.
“although
gold and silver are not by Nature money, money is by Nature gold and
silver,” (p 92)
As an embodiment and manifestation of Value, of Abstract Labour, -
whose nature is that it is qualitatively homogeneous, and therefore
only measured by its quantity – a money commodity must share the
same nature. Gold and silver are such. They can both be divided,
with each piece being qualitatively identical to any other.
As a money commodity, they assume a dual Use Value. They continue to
retain their Use Value as commodities, e.g. for jewellery, but now,
its new social function gives it a special Use Value, acting as the
Universal Equivalent of all other commodities. But, Money is a
commodity, as this history of its origin and development shows. Its
Value is not determined by its Use Value, but, like every other
commodity, by the labour-time required for its production. It cannot
express this Value, other than by how much of it exchanges for every
other commodity.
On this basis, as Marx says, it can be seen that the view that Money
is merely a symbol, without real Value, is false. Of course, what does
arise, as we shall see later, is the introduction of real symbols
that represent money in token form.
"These
objects, gold and silver, just as they come out of the bowels of the
earth, are forthwith the direct incarnation of all human labour.”
(p 96)
No comments:
Post a Comment