Value and Its Historical and Logical Development - An Exchange On The Use of Value - Part 1

Value and Its Historical and Logical Development 

An Exchange On The Use of Value 

Back in September of last year – it seems so long ago now – Moshe Machover, replied, in the letters page of the WW, to a criticism of his talk ‘Labour theory of value for the 21st century’, at Communist University 2018, made by Danny Hamill, in his report of the event, that had appeared in the previous week's paper. The criticism revolved around Moshe's argument “that value and abstract labour have always existed and will continue to exist under communism” (‘From Trump to quantum’, September 6). Moshe's response, defending that position, relies on the explanation of the concept of value, and Law of Value, I have also previously discussed, given by Marx in his Letter to Kugelmann, July 11th, 1868. 

In turn, Moshe's affirmation of this point, provoked a response from John Bridge. I then responded to John Bridge, opening up a new series of exchanges on the question of value, with further contributions then coming from Paul B. Smith, and Maren Clarke. The problem of such discussions have been set out before. For example, in order to try to minimise the space used in responding to John Bridge, I cited only the relevant sections of a paragraph from Capital III, Chapter 48, where Marx sets out that “Value is Labour”, and that, in referring to Labour, here, he is not speaking of any particular form of labour, for example “wage-labour”, but labour sui generis, as it appears in every labour process, in every mode of production. Marx's only criteria, in this regard, is that it must be “free labour”, as opposed to slave or serf labour, which, for the reasons he describes in The Grundrisse, is no different to that of a pack animal, which stands in relation to the means of production only as means of production itself, which merely transfers its own value to the product, rather than creating new value. But, this provoked the response, from comrade Bridge, that I had not quoted the whole, lengthy paragraph, which he suggested somehow contradicted the point being made. 

In fact, the rest of the paragraph simply reinforces the point being made that value is labour, and this value creating labour is not wage labour, as for example, Paul B. Smith claimed, in a subsequent exchange, but labour sui generis. In fact, Marx himself, in Capital III, Chapter 48, makes that point so clearly that it is difficult to see how anyone can be confused over the matter. He says, 

“In so far as it has the specifically social character of wage-labour, it is not value-creating.” 

He continues, 

“... and the specific social conditions, under which this labour-power is sold, have nothing to do with labour as a general agent in production... And, in general, when we establish labour as value-creating, we do not consider it in its concrete form as a condition of production, but in its social delimitation which differs from that of wage-labour.” 

In a previous discussion with Paul B. Smith, I have described the problem of debates, given the limits of space in a journal, in which one party simply makes a series of unsupported assertions which can only be adequately dealt with by a comprehensive rebuttal. Interactions can be brief, but only by then reducing the exchange to a meaningless pantomime, of claims that “Oh yes, it is”, and “Oh no it isn't.” I see little value, however defined, in such discussions, too many of which litter the Internet. Another example, was given by Maren Clarke, who asserted that my position was the same as that of Adolph Wagner that Marx had set out to contradict. Again, no evidence for this claim was provided, but a look at what Marx actually says, in his Notes on Wagner, shows the opposite to be true. In those notes, Marx says, 

“Further analysis of the latter shows me that the exchange value is only one "appearance form", independent representation of the value contained in the commodity, and then I go to the analysis of the latter.” 

And further, referring to Rodbertus, he says, 

“He (Rodbertus) grasps the "value" (the economic, in contrast to the utility value of the commodity) only in its manifestation, the exchange value and since this occurs only where at least some of the working products, the commodities, function as "commodities," but this does not happen from the beginning, but only in a certain period of social development, that is, at a certain stage of historical development, then Exchange value a "historical" term.” 

So, again, here, it's clear that Marx does not at all define value as being only exchange-value, but notes Rodbertus' error in arriving at that conclusion! Far from Marx's Notes on Wagner showing that I share the same false notions as Wagner, what Marx actually says, in these notes, shows that it is Clarke who shares the same false notions as both Wagner and Rodbertus! Marx continues, to show that, had Rodbertus investigated the fact that what stands behind exchange-value is the more general concept of value, i.e. labour, he would have seen that value exists across all modes of production, but simply assumes different forms according to the particular mode of production. For example, under pre-capitalist systems of commodity-production and exchange it takes the form of exchange-value, whereas under capitalism, it takes the form of prices of production. 

Marx continues, 

“He would have found, then, that the "value" of the commodity expresses itself only in a historically developed form, which also exists in all other historical forms of society, albeit in a different form, namely, the social character of labour, insofar as it Expenditure of "social" labour exists. If "the value" of the commodity is only a certain historical form of something that exists in all forms of society, so also is the "social utility value" as it characterizes the "use value" of the commodity.” 

In systems of direct production, the value of products is inseparable from the product itself, and the value calculation is readily at hand, by the direct producer, in terms of the amount of labour-time required for the production of each type of product. In fact, the matter can very easily be seen in the way value is dealt with in GDP calculations, which are actually a calculation based upon prices rather than values. If I employ a cook, a cleaner, and a gardener, the money I pay to them reflect the new value they create by their labour, as Marx describes in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 4, in discussing productive and unproductive labour. But, if I marry the cook, who then also undertakes the labour of cleaning and gardening, and thereby no longer pay them for undertaking these services, the new value they have still created by their labour does not now appear in the GDP calculation! And, this distinction goes to the heart of the discussion over value, because what those who deny that value is created, by labour, in all modes of production, confuse is value with exchange-value, or price. What disappears, for example, under communism, is not value, but the specific form that value assumes under systems of commodity production and exchange, i.e. exchange value, and money prices, including in its more developed form as prices of production, under capitalism. 

I have previously set out some historical proofs of the labour theory of value, mostly taken from examples provided by Mandel in Marxist Economic Theory. There, Mandel also discusses the evolution of the labour theory of value going back over the last two and a half thousand years. In responding to the points made by my various interlocutors, in the Weekly Worker, therefore, without the constraints of space, arising from responding in such a journal, over a series of posts, here, I seek to set out the basis of Marx's concept of value, as distinct from the historically specific value form that is exchange-value, and how this relates to Marx's Law of Value, as a natural law that exists in all modes of production, but which assumes different phenomenal forms in these different modes of production. I will attempt to set out, how Marx describes the evolution of value itself, from being individual value, as for example, illustrated in his hypothetical illustration of Robinson Crusoe, through to the individual value of products produced by the primitive commune, to the individual peasant family of direct producers, and how it is the very process of trade in these products which results in the aggregation of these individual values of different producers, into an average market value, which itself is the basis of the development both of abstract labour, as the measure of this value, and of exchange-value. This process, by which heterogeneous concrete labour is transformed into an average abstract labour, and individual values are transformed into market values, as the basis of exchange-values, is coterminous with the transformation of occasionally traded products into routinely produced and traded commodities. 

The main reason for me only getting round to setting out this response, which was initially intended to be a response only to John Bridge, is that, in the intervening period, I have been tied up with moving house. That has, and continues to occupy a considerable amount of my time, which is why this detailed response will itself have to be set out as and when time allows. The delay has, though, been beneficial, as it means I can now also incorporate a response to the points made by Paul B. Smith, and Maren Clarke. As the response will be divided over a number of posts, over an uncertain duration, when complete, I will also set out a Contents Page, with links to each post, with a link to this page in the “Key Documents” Box. 

In setting out this historical and logical development of value, and its manifestation at a certain point in history, as exchange-value, I aim to try to tie this in with a response to the points made by my interlocutors in the WW. I will begin, in the next part, therefore, by looking at the points made by John Bridge, in his original response to Moshe Machover.

Forward To Part 2