VI – Value and Labour
Marx turns, now, to this question of what is value? What is the value of a commodity, and how is it determined? In discussing value, here, he makes clear that he is referring to its exchange-value, as against its use value. But, to determine the exchange value of a commodity, it is necessary to first understand an earlier form of value, because exchange-value is itself only a relative form of value, the value of one commodity, as measured by a quantity of some other commodity. If this proportional relation between them is not to be purely arbitrary, it must have some rational, objective basis. The two commodities must have some commonality that enables them to be compared. That commonality is their value, the amount of universal labour required for their reproduction.
As Marx describes, in Capital, Theories of Surplus Value, and elsewhere, this value arises, even before commodity production and exchange. Before commodities, there are products, i.e. use-values created by labour, not for sale or exchange, but for direct consumption by the producers. This value is not referred to as such, and, rather, etymologically, at this time, the word value or worth, means use-value. Nevertheless, as Marx sets out in his Letter To Kugelmann, and as Engels had written as early as 1844, The Law of Value imposes itself, because, with a limited amount of labour-time/value at their disposal, producers must balance the useful effects in terms of use-values produced (demand), as against the labour-time/value required for their production (supply). Or, as stated earlier, it is value/labour-time that determines supply, and only on the basis of that that demand can determine its allocation.
The value of products is necessarily individual value, because it is comprised of the actual concrete labour used in production. But, as Marx and Engels describe, as these products begin to be exchanged between different communities, as part of ceremonies and rituals, so trade begins to develop, and these products begin to be produced for the specific purpose of being exchanged. They become commodities.
But, of course, looking only from the present day perspective, where society is based upon commodity production and exchange, then, superficially, it appears that value itself, is only this relative value, this proportional relation between commodities, or, more specifically, the relation between those commodities and the general commodity – money. This is the basis of commodity fetishism. Just as the existence of money as currency led to the confusion between the two, which could only be resolved by examining the evolution of money out of commodity exchange, so too with value and exchange value.
“Taking one single commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find that a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless variations of proportion with different commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any other commodity, it must be something distinct from, and independent of, these different rates of exchange with different articles. It must be possible to express, in a very different form, these various equations with various commodities.” (p 41-2)
Marx, himself, causes some confusion by his formulation. Earlier, he had said,
“... in speaking of value I speak always of exchangeable value” (p 39)
But, what he meant, here, was to distinguish between exchange-value as against use-value. Otherwise, his statement about “its value remaining always the same”, whilst its exchange-value against other commodities having “countless variations”, would be a contradiction. It would be saying that whilst the exchange-value of wheat remained constant, it had countless variations, i.e. was not constant. What remains constant is its value, i.e. the universal labour required for its production, whereas what has countless variations is the proportional relation of this value to the value of other commodities, i.e. its exchange-value.
No comments:
Post a Comment