Marx quotes a number of passages from Bailey where this argument is made.
“Supposing that only two commodities existed, both exchangeable in proportion to the amount of labour [they contained], “If […] A should, at a subsequent period, require double the quantity of labour for its production, while B continued to require only the same, A would become of double value to B… But although B continued to be produced by the same labour, it would not continue of the same value, for it would exchange for only half the quantity of A, the only commodity, by the supposition, with which it could be compared” (loc. cit., p. 6).
“It is from this circumstance of constant reference to other commodities” (instead of regarding value merely as a relation between two commodities) “or to money, when we are speaking of the relation between any two commodities, that the notion of value, as something intrinsic and absolute, has arisen” (op. cit., p. 8).
“What I assert is, that if all commodities were produced under exactly the same circumstances, as for instance, by labour alone, any commodity, which always required the same quantity of labour, could not be invariable in value” [that is, invariable when its value is expressed in other commodities—a tautology] “while every other commodity underwent alteration” (op. cit., pp. 20-21).
Value is nothing intrinsic and absolute… (op. cit., p. 23).
“It is impossible to designate, or express the value of a commodity, except by a quantity of some other commodity” (op. cit., p. 26). (p 146)
All of this is correct in respect of exchange-value, but the point is that, in order to establish those exchange values, it is first necessary to ascertain the value of A as against the value of B. In turn, that necessitates that value is a different concept to both use value and exchange value, and that value precedes exchange-value. And, it is this that Bailey will not accept. He says,
““Instead of regarding value as a relation between two objects, they” (Ricardo and his followers) “seem to consider it as a positive result produced by a definite quantity of labour” (op. cit., p. 30).
“Because the values of A and B, according to their doctrine, are to each other as the quantities of producing labour, or … are determined by the quantities of producing labour, they appear to have concluded, that the value of A alone, without reference to any thing else, is as the quantity of its producing labour. There is no meaning certainly in this last proposition…” (op. cit., pp. 31-32).
They speak of “value as a sort of general and independent property” (op. cit., p. 35).
“The value of a commodity must be its value in something” (loc. Cit.).” (p 146)
No comments:
Post a Comment