The exchange relations set out previously, whereby a metre of linen is equal to 2 kilos of coffee, 0.5 kilos of tea, 8 kilos of bread etc., are equations of exchange-value based upon equal amounts of universal labour-time.
“But the different kinds of individual labour represented in these particular use-values, in fact, become labour in general, and in this way social labour, only by actually being exchanged for one another in quantities which are proportional to the labour-time contained in them. Social labour-time exists in these commodities in a latent state, so to speak, and becomes evident only in the course of their exchange. The point of departure is not the labour of individuals considered as social labour, but on the contrary the particular kinds of labour of private individuals, i.e., labour which proves that it is universal social labour only by the supersession of its original character in the exchange process. Universal social labour is consequently not a ready-made prerequisite but an emerging result.” (p 45)
The numerous individual labours are reduced by competition to abstract, universal labour, but this same process brings about the measurement of value by one commodity, a money commodity, and, in place of the relative form of value, we now have the universal equivalent form of value.
“A particular commodity as a universal equivalent is transformed from a pure abstraction into a social result of the exchange process, if one simply reverses the above series of equations. For example –
2 lbs. of coffee = 1 yard of linen
1/2 lb. of tea =1 yard of linen
8 lbs. of bread =1 yard of linen
6 yards of calico=1 yard of linen.
Just as the labour-time contained in coffee, tea, bread, calico, in short in all commodities, is expressed in terms of linen, so conversely the exchange-value of linen is reflected in all other commodities which act as its equivalents, and the labour-time materialised in linen becomes direct universal labour-time, which is equally embodied in different volumes of all other commodities. Linen thus becomes the universal equivalent in consequence of the universal action of all other commodities in relation to it. Every commodity considered as exchange-value became a measure of the value of all other commodities. In this case, on the contrary, because the exchange-value of all commodities is measured in terms of one particular commodity, the excluded commodity becomes the adequate representation of exchange-value as the universal equivalent.” (p 47)
This in itself leads to illusion and fetishism, because,
“Universal labour-time thus appears as a specific thing, as a commodity in addition to and apart from all other commodities. At the same time, the equation in which one commodity represents the exchange-value of another commodity, e.g., 2 lbs. of coffee = 1 yard of linen, has still to be realised. Only by being alienated as a use-value – an alienation which depends on whether it is able to prove in the exchange process that it is a needed object – is it really converted from the form of coffee into that of linen, thus becoming a universal equivalent and really representing exchange-value for all other commodities.” (p 47)
So, gold or silver, as money commodities, come to be seen as money itself, rather than as merely specific material representations of it. In the case of the Mercantilists, this is particularly noticeable, as their whole view of national wealth centres around the accumulation of these precious metals, This is compounded by the fact that, for any commodity, the exchange-value itself is only realised if it can be sold, and that is not always achieved, whereas there is always demand for the money commodity, its exchange-value always appears realisable.
“While commodities thus assume a dual form in order to represent exchange-value for one another, the commodity which has been set apart as universal equivalent acquires a dual use-value. In addition to its particular use-value as an individual commodity it acquires a universal use-value. This latter use-value is itself a determinate form, i.e., it arises from the specific role which this commodity plays as a result of the universal action exerted on it by the other commodities in the exchange process. The use-value of each commodity as an object which satisfies particular needs has a different value in different hands, e.g., it has one value for the person who disposes of it and a different value for the person who acquires it. The commodity which has been set apart as the universal equivalent is now an object which satisfies a universal need arising from the exchange process itself, and has the same use-value for everybody – that of being carrier of exchange-value or a universal medium of exchange. Thus the contradiction inherent in the commodity as such, namely that of being a particular use-value and simultaneously universal equivalent, and hence a use-value for everybody or a universal use-value, has been solved in the case of this one commodity.” (p 47-8)
No comments:
Post a Comment