An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value
- This topic has 206 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In English, a merchant will store their commodities in a warehouse.
I don’t think it is a mistranslation to use “commodity” instead of “merchandise”. “Commodity” is just where the convention has settled in English.
“Could you define the ‘homogenous human labour’?”
Clocks, brick walls and cloth are physically different types of products. Just as they are different types of products the type of labour that is needed to make them is of a different kind – clock making is very different to bricklaying, and bricklaying is different to weaving. So how can we compare these different types of labour? By reducing them to a simple, abstract form of labour. We don’t think of the actual different concrete acts of labouring such as bricklaying, clock making or weaving – we think of labour in a abstract, generalised way.
“The quantity of SNL (which is average labour time essentially) equals the amount of value”
That’s not quite right. Value isn’t average labour time, but average *socially necessary* labour time.
The mere fact that labour has gone into something doesn’t mean that it has “value”. The producers don’t know if the labour they have performed in producing the commodity is socially necessary until *after* the commodities have been exchanged. Labour spent on unsold commodities is not socially necessary labour. Without a market there is no way for this valorisation to take place, there is no way to know if the labour has been socially necessary.
If we where producing things directly for use we wouldn’t need (or be able) to calculate ‘value’ in this way.
I wasn’t meaning to suggest that “commodity” was a mistranslation of Ware, only that the word Marx chose to translate it into French made it absolutely clear that he was talking about something that was bought and sold and that this is what the English word “commodity” meant for him. “Commodity” was the obvious English translation, as it had been used by Adam Smith and Ricardo. In any event, there is no such English word as a merchandise.
So, what you consider ‘homogenous human labour’ is what Marx himself termed human labour in the abstract. It’s OK. I have no objection to your phrase.
I think ‘*socially necessary* labour time’ is the same stuff as average labour time.
‘Labour spent on unsold commodities is not socially necessary labour.’
You’re still unable to grasp the difference between value and the amount of value. Value is independent of the SNL as it’s just human labour that happens to be the source of value. Only the amount of value depends on the quantity of the SNL required to create it.
Before being sold, each commodity is an unsold commodity. So, if the unsold commodity is valueless, the sold commodity must have gained value during the act of being sold, which, if true, means that value is the product of exchange.
Just as rain doesn’t depend on your awareness of its source (whether it’s sky or cloud), the value of a product doesn’t depend on the producer’s ‘need (or be able) to calculate [its] ‘value’, the way I see it.
“I wasn’t meaning to suggest that “commodity” was a mistranslation of Ware”
Sorry, that comment was directed to the earlier ones about “commodities” not being produced in pre-capitalist time.
“In any event, there is no such English word as a merchandise.”
I mainly hear that word in English to refer to branded goods, like the T-shirts bands sell at their gigs. “Commodity” is a much better choice for the English translation we both agree on that.
“Before being sold, each commodity is an unsold commodity. So, if the unsold commodity is valueless, the sold commodity must have gained value during the act of being sold, which, if true, means that value is the product of exchange.”
That’s one way to understand it, but that is not how it is understood in Marx as I have patiently been trying to explain to you.
Value is *produced* by labour but *realised* in exchange. The producers do not know if what they are producing has value until *after* it is sold. This is a very important part of Marx’s analysis. Think about it. If everything produced by labour has value, regardless of being exchanged, then I can become a millionaire by building a 1000ft sandcastle in my backyard.
Can you see the difference?
The whole mess was created by Engels, Marx never considered that commodity was produced in a pre capitalist society. Marx clearly indicated that the law of value is only applicable to a capitalist society
“The whole mess was created by Engels, Marx never considered that commodity was produced in a pre capitalist society. Marx clearly indicated that the law of value is only applicable to a capitalist society”
Feels like we are going in circles now..
These are two separate claims. A. One about goods not being produced for the sole purpose of exchange in pre-capitalism. B. And one about the law of value not being fully operational in pre-capitalist societies.
A is false, B is correct I think.
Or do you think that (some) goods were produced solely for exchange in pre-capitalism but we should call them something other than “commodities”?
If the law of value is only applicable to a capitalist society, how can it be also applied to a pre capitalist society ? I have not found any passage of Marx indicting that commodity were produced in a pre capitalist society, it was Engels who introduced that concept and then others followers of Engels continued with the same mistake
There was a typo in my previous comment. I meant to write “B. And one about the law of value *not* being fully operational in pre-capitalist societies.”
Anyhow, regardless of what you call them, do you really think that in pre-capitalist society there were no goods produced solely for the purpose of exchanging them?
They were, but the law of value is not applicable to those societies. When I was very young a lived in a society where capitalism was not the predominant mode of production, it was latent,
We exchanged many things, even more, my parents were business peoples and they exchanged many products without the use of money.
Fishermen, shoemakers, peasants and craftsmen used to go to their business and they exchanged rice, beans, meat and others products for seafoods and others made products for their own personal use.
Some natural things were obtained for free, like shrimps, lobsters, crabs, grapes, fruits etc, we just got to go to a river, or the ocean, and then I moved to another society to study higher education and I saw the change because capitalism prevailed in that society, and the change in some way was drastic and created some frustration in my mind, even more, the concept of friendship was different
My mother had another business inside my father business and she did the same things exchanging dresses and clothing made by her for another products without any monetary exchange, she only exchanged her products for money when they were sold to hotels or corporations or peoples who had money.
My aunt had a business and a peasant brought two daughters to her business and asked her to feed and take of them in exchange for foods for him, without any monetary exchange, and then, they became her own daughters and later on when she died they inherited some of her properties and money because they were included on her will
I saw the whole change when capitalism became the predominant mode of production, it did change everything including the behavior and the morality of the peoples, price and personal values changed, exchange system, academic educations, the whole society went into a different direction
“They were, but the law of value is not applicable to those societies”
Good. We both agree on this then.
I don’t think I ever said anything to the effect that the value (exchange-value) of a commodity is realisable without exchanging it.
The value of a commodity doesn’t depend on its producer’s knowledge of its existence just as there exists the skyful of stars in the space although blind people can never see them.
The idea of becoming a millionaire by building sandcastles is too silly to deserve a response.
There is a research made by Peter Hudis from the International Marxist Humanist on the pre capitalist society that bring to light certain aspect of those societies along with the writing of Rosa Luxembourg:
Accumulation, Imperialism, and Pre-Capitalist Formations
Luxemburg and Marx on the non-Western World, Peter Hudis“The idea of becoming a millionaire by building sandcastles is too silly to deserve a response.”
Well, if as you say “Value is independent of the SNL as it’s just human labour that happens to be the source of value” then it’s not a silly idea at all.
If you do think it’s a silly idea then it must be because you do think value and social necessity are linked after all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.