In early exchanges, as products became commodities, and value becomes manifest as exchange-value, the measurement of labour-time may be less precise. Some accounts indicate that little or no account of the different types of concrete labour was taken into consideration. But, as trade expands, and the range of products from different types of concrete labour being exchanged expands, along with it, these differences between different types of concrete labour become more significant.
Take two tailors, who take their coats to market. Assuming both have paid the same amount for the cloth they use etc., both may expend the same amount of their own labour-time in the production of these coats. But, one tailor may have a greater skill than the other, which is apparent in the quality of their product. Or, one may have a greater flare for design etc. As a consequence, although both tailors have embodied equal amounts of concrete labour into the coats they take to market, there will be a greater demand for the products of the tailor that has greater skill or design flare. Buyers will be prepared to exchange more of their own commodities, for those products, than they will for that of the other tailor.
And, it will not only be these differences between producers of the same types of commodity that will become apparent. Especially when merchants undertake the role of taking all these different commodities to market, it will become increasingly apparent that, although, say, 10 hours have been expended producing a coat, and the same amount of time has been spent producing a table, in the market, 2 coats exchange for 1 table, so that the merchant realises that the carpenter's labour creates twice as much value as tailor's labour, per hour. The multiplicity of exchanges, in the market, in practice, itself, thereby, reduces the actual amount of concrete labour expended, to a common uniform level of abstract labour. The value of any commodity is then no longer defined by the actual concrete labour embodied within it, but by the amount of this abstract, average, socially necessary labour it represents, as defined by the market.
Money is nothing more than a claim to a quantity of this average abstract, social labour. It is merely a physical embodiment of this claim. As such, it does not matter whether this claim takes the form of an actual commodity, which is itself the embodiment of this same quantity of abstract labour-time (such as a cow, or a gram of gold) or whether it takes the form of a token or certificate, which asserts the right of the owner to such a claim. In other words, if a 1 gram gold coin, which we might give the name €1, is equal to 10 hours of this abstract labour-time, it gives the owner the right to exchange this coin for any commodity, or amount of commodities that also represent an equal amount of value. But, in theory, it would be all the same if instead of these gold coins, there circulated tokens, which asserted the right of the owner to exchange them for commodities with a value of 10 hours of abstract labour. The difference arises only in practice, to the extent to which the owners of commodities are prepared to accept such tokens, rather than demanding a commodity that itself possesses that amount of value. It is inevitable, therefore, that money, initially takes the form of a money-commodity, as opposed to money tokens, or credit money.
“The representation of the commodity as money implies not only that the different magnitudes of commodity values are measured by expressing the values in the use-value of one exclusive commodity, but at the same time that they are all expressed in a form in which they exist as the embodiment of social labour and are therefore exchangeable for every other commodity, that they are translatable at will into any use-value desired. Their representation as money—in the price—therefore appears first only as something nominal, a representation which is realised only through actual sale.” (p 130-1)
No comments:
Post a Comment