The search for some constant third measure of exchange-value was a fool's errand, and Bailey's contribution was in showing that, but, then, he draws false conclusions from it. As Marx says, in Theories of Surplus Value, no such invariable measure, as money, is required.
“He is right in thinking that this money need not be a commodity of invariable value; from this he concludes that no separate determination of value independent of the commodity itself is necessary.
As soon as the value of commodities, as the element they have in common, is given, the measurement of their relative value and the expression of this value coincide. But we can never arrive at the expression so long as we do not find the common factor, which is different from the immediate existence of the commodities.”
(Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 20)
In Capital I, Marx also distinguishes between products, i.e. use values produced by labour, and commodities. A product has value, because it is the product of labour, but does not have exchange-value, because it is not a commodity, i.e. it is not brought into an exchange relation with some other use-value, and so the individual labour it contains is not reduced to social/universal labour. If I make a chair for my own use, this chair has value, but not exchange-value, for example. Marx makes the same distinction later, in Capital, in looking at where a farmer replaces their own seed out of their production of grain. The seed is not a commodity, but is a product, and has the same value as the grain from which it is taken. It is only the grain that is sold which becomes a commodity, and has exchange-value. This distinction is what confused Rodbertus, as Marx describes, because he thought that, because the seed did not have exchange-value, it also had no value, and so the cost of production of the farmer was correspondingly reduced, and the basis of rent.
“Whatever its social form may be, wealth always consists of use-values, which in the first instance are not affected by this form.” (p 27-8)
In other words, it does not matter whether we consider a primitive commune, a peasant community, a capitalist society, or a future communist society, its wealth is measured in the quantity, quality and range of use-values available for its consumption. As Marx describes, in his Letter to Kugelmann, explaining The Law of Value, what determines this wealth is social productivity, the ability to produce more of these use-values with any given amount of social labour. As Engels put it,
“The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan.”
“As long ago as 1844 I stated that the above-mentioned balancing of useful effects and expenditure of labour on making decisions concerning production was all that would be left, in a communist society, of the politico-economic concept of value. (Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, p. 95) The scientific justification for this statement, however, as can be seen, was made possible only by Marx's Capital.”
No comments:
Post a Comment