In societies based on direct production, where commodity production and exchange takes place at the margins, it is impossible to properly theorise value, and, consequently, exchange-value. It is only when the period of more extensive commodity production and exchange begins, in the Middle Ages, as the former serfs and retainers move to the towns, to become independent commodity producers, that this begins to change. It is manifest in renewed interest in the subject, as seen in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus and Ibn-Kahldun.
(Ibn-Khaldum – ‘Prolegemenes’ Vol 1 p 311)
More specifically, it is seen when some of these independent commodity producer become capitalist producers, or where merchant capitalists begin to employ former commodity producers as wage labourers. As Marx describes in Capital, and Lenin describes in “The Development of Capitalism In Russia”, this takes a number of forms such as The Putting Out System, of Buyers-Up, and so on, but progresses to the stage of manufacture. This manufacture has a different meaning from that of today. Its meaning derives from the first part of the word “man” or “main”, meaning hand. It is production by hand, not machine. In other words, the existing hand production – handicraft production – is simply brought under one roof, by the capitalist. It is production on a larger scale, solely of commodities. Its a bit like capitalists who provide space in a hairdressing salon for individual self-employed hairdressers to operate, today. This manufacture marks the beginning of capitalist production proper, around the 15th century.
“Since political economy, as it made its appearance in history, is in fact nothing but the scientific insight into the economy in the period of capitalist production, principles and theorems relating to it, can be found, for example, in the writers of ancient Greek society, only in so far as certain phenomena—commodity production, trade, money, interest-bearing capital, etc.—are common to both societies. In so far as the Greeks make occasional excursions into this sphere, they show the same genius and originality as in all others. Historically, therefore, their views form the theoretical starting-points of the modern science.” (p 291)
But, for Duhring, who only sees economic science as arising at the point when it was, in fact, already in decline, and had become merely an apologia for bourgeois society, these earlier philosophers and economists had nothing to offer. He says,
“Strictly speaking, really (!) we have absolutely nothing positive to report from antiquity concerning scientific economic theory, and the totally unscientific Middle Ages give still less occasion for this” (for this — for reporting nothing!). “But as the fashion of vaingloriously displaying a semblance of erudition ... has defaced the true character of modern science, notice must be taken of at least a few examples” (p 291)
Aristotle wrote,
“Of everything which we possess there are two uses... The one is the proper, and the other is the improper or secondary use of it. For example, a shoe is used for wear, and is also used for exchange; both are uses of the shoe. He who gives a shoe in exchange for money or food to he who wants one, does, indeed, use of the shoe as a shoe, but this is not its proper or primary purpose, for a shoe is not made to be an object of barter.” (p 291-2)
In this can be seen the emerging recognition of the dual nature of the commodity as use-value and exchange-value, described earlier. But, according to Duhring,
“This thesis is “not only expressed very trivially and pedantically”; but moreover those who see in it a “distinction between use-value and exchange-value” fall prey to a freakish mood in which they forget that nothing has been left of use-value and exchange-value “in the most recent period” and “in the framework of the most advanced system”—which of course is Herr Dühring's own.” (p 292)
No comments:
Post a Comment