Chapter 1A – Historical Notes On The Analysis of Commodities - Part 3 of 8

In the United States, the past history of feudalism and direct production was missing. It develops, from the start, on the basis of a generalised commodity production, by a society of free, independent, small commodity producers. So, it is not surprising that it is in the US that the first clear analysis of exchange-value, as deriving from labour-time is produced.

“This man was Benjamin Franklin, who formulated the basic law of modern political economy in an early work, which was written in 1729 and published in 1731. He declares it necessary to seek another measure of value than the precious metals, and that this measure is labour.” (p 55-6)

Franklin is unencumbered by the history of direct production, and so of the value of products as individual value. From the start, he sees products transformed into commodities. Immediately, he sees value in terms of exchange-value, as the form it takes under such generalised commodity production and exchange. It is then only necessary to identify a means of measuring this value. This is not even a question of the source or essence of value, but simply of measurement, as with measuring length or weight, and so on. For Franklin,

““Trade in general being nothing else but the exchange of labour for labour, the value of all things is, as I have said before, most justly measured by labour” (op. cit., p. 267).” (p 56)

Again, here, Franklin confuses concrete labour with abstract labour.

“Because trade may, for example, consist in the exchange of the labour of a shoemaker, miner, spinner, painter and so on, is therefore the labour of the painter the best measure of the value of shoes?” (p 56)

Clearly not, and, in fact, Franklin himself considers that the value of commodities is determined by abstract not concrete labour.

“But since he does not explain that the labour contained in exchange value is abstract universal social labour, which is brought about by the universal alienation of individual labour, he necessarily fails to recognize in money the direct embodiment of this alienated labour. He therefore fails to see the intrinsic connection between money and labour which posits exchange-value, but on the contrary regards money as a convenient technical device which has been introduced into the sphere of exchange from outside.” (p 56-7)

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4