Monday 27 June 2022

A Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy, Chapter 1 - Part 17 of 29

Emphasising the point made earlier that it is concrete labour that is the source of value, whereas it is abstract labour that is the essence and measure of value, Marx makes clear that the productivity of labour can only be the productivity of concrete labour, i.e. it is the quantity of use values it produces.  That is why as productivity rises, unit values fall, i.e. a given amount of value is spread across a larger quantity of use values.

“Scarcity or abundance brought about by natural circumstances seems in this case to determine the exchange-value of commodities, because it determines the productivity of the specific concrete labour which is bound up with the natural conditions.” (p 38)

And, the value of commodities only changes if this quantity of abstract labour required for their production changes. However, the exchange value of a commodity changes not only as a result of changes in its own value, but also as a result of of changes in the value of all other commodities. This is significant when considering a money commodity, prices and inflation. Take the situation in respect of the Relative Form of Value. Marx sets out the following set of relative values of linen.

1 yard of linen = ½ lb. of tea

1 yard of linen = 2 lbs. of coffee

1 yard of linen = 8 lbs. of bread

1 yard of linen = 6 yards of calico

But, this could also be expressed in another way, so that instead of a list of such ratios to other commodities, it could be expressed as one exchange-value of linen to every other commodity.

1 yard of linen = 1/8 lb. of tea + ½ lb. of coffee 2 lbs. of bread + 1½ yards of calico.

In fact, this list, and this single exchange-value, can never be complete, because the number of commodities in it is continually expanding, as new use values are developed. However,

“Since the exchange-value of one commodity is measured by the use-values of all other commodities, the exchange-values of all other commodities are on the contrary measured in terms of the use-value of the one commodity measured by them. If the exchange-value of one yard of linen is expressed in 1/2 lb. of tea, or 2 lbs. of coffee, or 6 yards of calico, or 8 lbs. of bread, etc., it follows that coffee, tea, calico, bread, etc., must be equal to one another in the proportion in which they are equal to linen, a third magnitude, linen thus serves as a common measure of their exchange-value. The exchange-value of any commodity considered as materialised universal labour-time, i.e., as a definite quantity of universal labour-time, is measured successively in terms of definite quantities of the use-values of all other commodities; and on the other hand the exchange-values of all other commodities are measured in the use-value of this one exclusive commodity.” (p 39)

It doesn't matter, from this perspective, which commodity this is, which is why, as Marx says in Theories of Surplus Value, all commodities are money. All can fulfil this function of being the indirect measure of the value of other commodities. It is material conditions which, actually determine, concretely, which commodity it is that ends up being singled out, via the process of trade, as the money commodity. Again, whilst the exchange-value of a commodity is determined by the list of commodities against which it is compared, that cannot change its own value.

Suppose the value of a metre of linen is equal to 10 hours of abstract labour. Its exchange-value might then be 1 kilo of potatoes + 1 litre of wine + 1 bible + 0.5 kilos of cotton. In other words, the total value of these commodities is also equal to 10 hours of abstract labour, each has a value of 2.5 hours of labour. But, if a new commodity is introduced, let us say carrots, a kilo of which also has a value of 2.5 hours, then the exchange value of the metre of linen becomes 0.8 litres of wine + 0.8 kilos of potatoes + 0.8 bibles + 0.4 kilos of cotton + 0.8 kilos of carrots. The total value of these five commodities now, also, being equal to 10 hours labour.

But, its also obvious that, so long as the total labour-time on this side of the equation is equal to 10 hours, so as to balance the 10 hours of value of the 1 metre of linen, the quantities of the five commodities themselves can be infinitely varied. For example, no one would buy 0.8 bibles, and so, if the exchange value of 1 metre of linen were expressed against this list, but including 1 bible, the quantity of the other 4 commodities would have to be proportionately reduced. Again, this is vital in understanding what money, the money commodity and money tokens are, and represent.


No comments: