For the product, it is always a use value, because the producer does not produce it otherwise, and so its value is indissolubly connected to its use value. But, that does not apply to the commodity. The value of the commodity is likewise determined by the labour-time required for its production, though this now takes the form of its market value, rather than its individual value, and this market value itself takes the form of an indirect, rather than a direct measure – exchange value – whose developed form is its price, i.e. the exchange value measured against the money commodity. It is nominal money that fulfils this function, but, for the transformation of the commodity into real money, it must first find a buyer at its nominal price, which requires that it constitute use value for that buyer, at that price. No such event is guaranteed.
“The contradiction of use-value and exchange-value is thus polarised at the two extreme points of C—M, so that with regard to gold the commodity represents use-value whose nominal exchange-value, the price, still has to be realised in gold; with regard to the commodity, on the other hand, gold represents exchange-value whose formal use-value still has to acquire a material form in the commodity. The contradictions inherent in the exchange of commodities are resolved only by reason of this duplication of the commodity so that it appears as commodity and gold, and again by way of the dual and opposite relation in which each extreme is nominal where its opposite is real, and real where its opposite is nominal, in other words they are resolved only by means of presenting commodities as bilateral polar opposites.” (p 89-90)
There is, however, a clear distinction between commodity, on the one hand, and money, on the other. The exchange-value of the commodity can only be realised if it finds a buyer, if it represents use value at its price. But, money never needs to find a buyer to prove itself a use value, because its use value is to be exchange-value incarnate, to be universally exchangeable for every other commodity. Every commodity owner, to sell, must demand money in exchange. Every commodity can be overproduced except money.
At the same time that C – M is a sale, say wine for money, it is a purchase, M – C, money for wine. Superficially, this seems to confirm Say's Law that supply creates its own demand, because every sale is simultaneously a purchase. However, this fails to distinguish the specific role of money in this process, which is not at all the same as as the situation in respect of barter. Its true that the owner of money has it because they, or someone else, has previously sold a commodity in exchange for it. A linen producer may own money because they previously sold linen for it, for example. A landlord may have money because they received rent from a farmer, who obtained money from selling corn.
Again, superficially, this fact that the money handed over, M – C, is money that previously resulted from the sale of commodities might appear to be the same as the situation under barter, of C – C, but now intermediated by money as C – M, M – C. However, it is precisely this intermediation of money which means that the situation is completely different. There are any number of variations in these exchanges, now made possible, and as many possibilities for the circuit to be broken.
“We are thus caught up in a vicious circle of presuppositions. This vicious circle is indeed circulation itself. If we do not regard M in C—M as belonging to the metamorphosis of another commodity, then we isolate the act of exchange from the process of circulation. But if it is separated from the process, the phase C—M disappears and there remain only two commodities which confront each other, for instance iron and gold, whose exchange is not a distinct part of the cycle but is direct barter.” (p 90)
No comments:
Post a Comment