Gold, in so far as it circulates as coin, does not do so as commodity, but as money, as the substantiation of exchange-value, exchange-value incarnate. It is only a materialisation of universal social labour-time, much as with God, materialised as the Son.
“The reality which in this process the exchange-value of commodities assumes, and which is expressed by gold in circulation, is merely the reality of an electric spark. Although it is real gold, it functions merely as apparent gold, and in this function therefore a token of itself can be substituted for it.” (p 115)
Much as with Christ's representatives on Earth,
“A definite quantity of gold as such does not express a value relation, nor does the token which takes its place. The gold token represents value in so far as a definite quantity of gold, because it is materialised labour-time, possesses a definite value. But the amount of value which the token represents depends in each case upon the value of the quantity of gold represented by it. As far as commodities are concerned, the token of value represents the reality of their price and constitutes a token of their price and a token of their value only because their value is expressed in their price.” (p 115)
If we take the circuit C – M – C, in which we have, say, 1 metre of linen exchanging, ultimately, for 1 litre of wine, this exchange occurs because, 1 metre of linen has the same value as 1 litre of wine, say, 10 hours labour. The exchange is mediated by money that also represents 10 hours of labour-time, but it does not matter whether this ten hours of labour-time represented by the money has the name £1 or £10. It merely determines the price labels on the linen and the wine. In one case, a metre of linen has a price label of £1, and sells at this price. The litre of wine also has a price of £1, and the seller of linen now buys the wine at this price, with the £1 they obtained from selling their linen. But, if the prices are £10, rather than £1, this same relation between them continues to exist. Their values have not changed, and nor has their exchange-value one to the other. The only thing that changes is their price.
“Exchange-value thus appears to be something purely conceptual or an imagined entity but possessing no reality except in the commodities, in so far as a definite amount of labour-time is materialised in them. The token of value therefore seems to represent the value of commodities directly, since it appears to be not a token of gold but a token of the exchange-value which exists solely in the commodity and is merely expressed in the price.” (p 115)
In other words, commodity fetishism, in which value is intrinsic to the commodity, and expressed directly as price. The link to gold, and so to social labour-time, thereby, disappears.
“But the appearance is deceptive. The token of value is directly only a token of price, that is a token of gold, and only indirectly a token of the value of the commodity. Gold, unlike Peter Schlemihl, has not sold its shadow, but uses its shadow as a means of purchase. Thus the token of value is effective only when in the process of exchange it signifies the price of one commodity compared with that of another or when it represents gold with regard to every commodity-owner.” (p 115-6)
No comments:
Post a Comment