Expressing the exchange value of these commodities has nothing to do with the constancy of value of the money-commodity, “but it has much to do with first finding the value, before expressing it; finding in what way the values in use, so different from each other, fall under the common category and denomination of value, so that the value of one commodity may be expressed in the other.” (p 160)
If I come to measure the length of a table, and the length of a football pitch, it does not matter that the thing I measure them with is variable, in itself, provided I undertake the measurement consistently. For example, I might measure using a measuring stick that is 1 metre long, or one that is a yard long. Provided I use the same stick to measure both lengths, although the measurement will be proportionately smaller in metres than in yards, the proportional relation between the length of the table and the football pitch will be the same. But, it's only possible to establish this proportional relation between the football pitch and the table, and the metre or yard measuring stick, because they all share a common property – that of length, extension in space-time. If I asked the question how green is the table compared to the football pitch, neither the metre nor the yard measuring stick would be of use in making that distinction.
However, that is precisely the position that theories of subjective value place themselves in, because asking the question, what is the value of this particular use-value/utility is the same thing as asking how long is this colour. The value of a product/commodity has nothing to do with how much utility it provides to me or any other consumer. Whether a product has use value to me, only determines whether I might be prepared to expend labour-time producing it or not, as Marx describes in relation to Robinson Crusoe. As soon as I decide that it does have use value/utility for me, the question of how much labour-time I must expend to produce it, is no longer a question of subjective preference, but of objective reality, as determined by the level of technology, and productivity existing at that time. The only question then remains, given this objective value of the product, and given my preferences, how much of my available labour-time, I decide to allocate to the production of this product, as opposed to some other.
And, this law of value only takes a different form under commodity production and exchange, where value is expressed not directly in terms of labour, but indirectly, as exchange-value, measured by a quantity of other commodities or money. The same underlying reality persists. Robinson can choose to spend 10 hours catching fish, but in doing so the cost is the rabbits he could have caught instead during that time. For him the value of the fish and the rabbits is 10 hours labour, and he calculates the value of each directly from the amount of labour he expends to obtain the respective quantities of use value. It only means that buyers of commodities, must decide how much of a particular commodity they want to buy given its objectively determined value, in other words, how much of some other commodity/money they are prepared to give up for it. The only difference here is that the value of, say, fish is expressed not directly as 10 hours labour, but as an exchange-value, i.e. x quantity of rabbits, or gold. But, given that these other commodities also represent an objectively determined amount of value/labour-time, this is only a more roundabout means of them determining how much of their labour-time, or congealed labour-time, in the form of money in their possession, they are prepared to give up for it. It is this roundabout means of expressing value as exchange-value/price rather than a direct expression of value in labour-time that is the basis for the creation of commodity fetishism.
No comments:
Post a Comment