As noted in the Introduction, this section was written by Marx. In the earlier editions, Engels had to severely cut it, but, as he explains in his Preface to this Edition, he was able to restore it to Marx's initial contribution. Although it was written by Marx, it appears in Engels' name. I will continue on that basis, as though the words are those of Engels.
“Finally, let us take a glance at the Critical History of Political Economy, at “that enterprise” of Herr Dühring's which, as he says, “is wholly without precedent”. Perhaps here at last we shall find the definitive and most rigorously scientific treatment which he has so often promised us.” (p 290)
One of the main discoveries in this sphere that Duhring proclaimed, was that “economic science”, is “an enormously modern phenomenon.” By “enormously modern phenomenon”, Duhring means starting only in the late 19th century. In fact, as Marx sets out, in Capital I, philosophers had tried to wrestle with the concept of value going back, at least, 2000 years. Both in Greece and in China, at around the same time, they had sought to reconcile the two aspects of value – use-value and exchange-value – represented by the commodity. But, these societies were still ones in which direct production predominated. The majority of production was of products to be directly consumed not exchanged as commodities.
As Marx explains in Capital I, a product has value, i.e. it is the product of labour, and labour is value, value is labour. This value is necessarily individual value, because each individual use-value is unique. It is not general, abstract labour that produces it, but some specific, concrete labour, and, even more than that. If labourer A produces a kilo of yarn, on a given day, it may take them 8 hours. The next day, they may take 8.5 hours, the day after only 7.5 hours. Each kilo they produce is not only unique, in its use-value, i.e. the quality of the yarn, but, also, in its individual value, the labour-time taken for its production.
For the product, consumed by the producer, in conditions of direct production, this does not matter. As Marx describes, in Capital and Theories of Surplus Value, in the product, use-value and value (the basis of exchange-value) are inextricably linked. The producer only produces products if they are use-values for them, and the value of these products, the labour-time, they require to produce them (individual value), is what it is. They only expend this labour-time if they conclude the use-value resulting from it is worthwhile. So, in societies where such direct production still predominated, it is clear why the distinction between the product, and the commodity is somewhat a mystery to be unravelled.
But, commodity production and exchange – mostly exchange between communities not individuals – has existed for at least 7,000 years, as Engels sets out in his Supplement to Capital III. That inextricable connection of use-value and value of the product – I want this use-value, and its worth the labour-time to produce it – now appears differently, in relation to the commodity. I do not, want this use-value, but I recognise that it has value, and this value can be realised in exchange for other use-values I do want. Its value, now, “appears on its face”, as Marx puts it, in Capital I, as its exchange value or price.
It is not surprising, therefore, that, even when we come to the period of Classical Political Economy, of Smith, Mill, Say and Ricardo, confusion still persists, in relation to the nature of the commodity, as against the product, and it is manifest in Mill's Law of Markets, popularised as Say's Law. It continued to see in generalised commodity production and exchange the conditions that existed under direct production, where only the surplus products was exchanged, or, later, where, under conditions of barter, commodities were deliberately produced to be exchanged for others for such consumption, i.e. C – C.
No comments:
Post a Comment