A may produce bibles, and B produce wine. B may see A's bible as a use value they wish to buy, and A may see B's wine as a use value they seek to acquire. But, A's bible may represent 100 hours of labour and B may have spent 100 hours producing 12 litres of wine. A may only want 10 litres of B's wine, the other 2 litres representing no use value for them. B would have overproduced wine. In this case, they would probably exchange 10 litres of their wine for the bible – assuming it was in separate bottles. They would then either consume the 2 litres themselves, or retain it for another market day. And, this continues to be the case, wherever the bulk of production continues to be for direct consumption. It is only the surplus product that is produced as commodities, and sent to market, to obtain either other commodities in exchange, or to obtain the general commodity, exchange-value incarnate, money.
In order to avoid any irrelevant distractions, it is assumed here that each producer of these commodities produces using only the average socially necessary labour, i.e. the individual value of what they produce is equal to its social or market value. It's also assumed that what they produce actually is a use value. Were this not the case, then its clear that, for any individual producer, they may experience a crisis. A producer of bibles or wine, whose quality is so poor that no one wants them would be unable to sell them or exchange them. They would have no use value, and so no exchange value. Likewise, a producer of bibles or wine, who expends twice the average amount of time on their production would not be able to sell them at the individual value, and would thereby suffer considerable loss, even if only of their personal labour.
Such individual crises did occur, so that those concerned went bankrupt, or had to give up their own means of production, becoming wage labourers, or servants and slaves. But, such individual catastrophes do not extend to becoming general social crises. The possibility of crisis exists here, because the commodity as something produced to be exchanged, thereby separates production from consumption, in time and space. The commodity, as something produced to be exchanged, and the process of exchange itself implies that the two things, production and consumption are inextricably linked. The producer produces a commodity that they believe can be exchanged precisely because they believe that what is produced is desired by someone else for consumption.
But, these two inextricably linked acts, production and consumption, become increasingly independent, as commodity production and exchange extends, and direct production declines. When this independence results in a severance of the connection between the two, so that what is produced no longer corresponds with what is required for consumption, it is this which represents the crisis. The crisis, as Marx says, is the means by which the underlying unity of these two poles, at either end of the process is violently restored.
No comments:
Post a Comment