[ALB]

It's surprising how many people who should know better take that view on Corbyn. The triumph of hope over reason, I suppose

[ALB]

Dave B wrote:

To add the following15As long ago as 1844 I stated that the above-mentioned balancing of useful effects and expenditure of labour on making decisions concerning production was all that would be left, in a communist society, of the politico-economic concept of value. (Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, p. 95) The scientific justification for this statement, however, as can be seen, was made possible only by Marx's Capital.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/notes.htm

That quote from Engels is just saying that "all that would be left" of the concept of value in socialist society is that products will still be products of labour that took a certain time to produce and would (in his opinion) continue to be measured as such, as the full passage to which the footnote refers makes clear:

Quote:

From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time. Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in billionths or quadrillionths of a gramme. Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”. *15

Whatever else Engels might be saying (and like Robbo I have my doubts about the system of labour-time accounting he seems to be advocating — "labour" is not the only resource that would need to be measured in physical quantities), he is not saying that "value" itself will continue to exist in a socialist society.Since we are both agreed that there will be no exchange and so exchange-value in a socialist society this is a bit of an argument about definitions, with you defining value as "labour time content" and Marx and Engels tying it to "exchange". Obviously, products in socialism will have a labour-time content but won't exchange. Whether or not you say  "value" will still exist depends on how you define it.

[ALB]

Two things are being mixed up here:(1) Did Marx think that "value" would continue to exist in socialism as a society that no longer produces for sale?and(2) Did Marx consider that labour-time accounting would exist in socialism?While he probably did think labour-time accounting would exist in socialism, he certainly didn't think that value would.The quote you give, Dave B, is merely saying that what determines value in a capitalist society, i.e. a product of labour's labour-time content, will continue in socialism. That's obvious as products of labour will still be …. products of labour. What they won't be is products that are bought and sold (exchanged) so that their labour-time content won't express itself as "exchange value". I take it you agree that exchange value won't exist in socialism.I would think that there will be accounting/measuring of labour used in socialism, but it won't be labour in general, but specific numbers and time required of specific types if work. In other words, it will be part of calculation in kind with the "kind" in question being capacity to work, alongside the materials and energy needed to produce something.

[ALB]

I see it's still risky to eat vegetables too:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ecoli-deaths-mixed-salad-leaves-linked-outbreak-after-two-die-food-warning-a7142656.html

[ALB]

Dave B wrote:

So then if idealistically, from a formal logical proposition etc; if the (‘substance’) of the value of something is the amount of human effort that has been expended to produce it then; in feudalism, simple commodity production, capitalism, communism and Robinson Crusoe on his non social Island of one, things that are produced have value.Karl and Marx also said they did, and would, and had.

No they didn't. All they said was that in all societies, including socialism, wealth (something useful fashioned from materials that originally came from nature)would be the product of human work, which could be measured by time taken. But that, it was only in societies where wealth was produced for sale that products of work assumed the form of value.That's the way they defined "value". Of course we are not bound to follow their definitions and if you want to define value in your way as labour-time you are free to but not to attribute it to Marx. And you'll need to explain why products of labour have an "exchange value" in some societies but not in others.

[ALB]

Trying to work out why the ruling class and their media should be so apparently unfairly opposed to Corbyn (when he's only a harmless reformist advocating what Harold Wilson did 60 years ago), I wonder whether the vote in parliament yesterday on Trident gives a clue — they don't want the main opposition party, which has a chance of forming a government, to be unilateralist? It might be a coincidence but they encouraged the SDP breakaway in 1981 which effectively ruled out a possibly unilaterialist Labour Party from getting into government in the likely future. They want nuclear weapons because, in the capitalist world of competing states, "might is right", so this is of vital interest to them.

[ALB]

Here he is endorsing the belief  "that Jeremy Corbyn can help to provide a way out of the mess we are in."http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/labour-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-search-for-the-partys-henry-viiHe's all over the place or, at best, a curate's egg.

[ALB]

Here's some notes Marx once made on the difference between the German words for "value" and "worth". Not sure that we need to go into that much detail though 

Quote:

The only thing which clearly lies at the bottom of the German stupidity is the fact that linguistically the words value [Wert] or worth [Würde] were first applied to the useful things themselves, which existed for a long time, even as “products of labour,” before becoming commodities.  But this has as little to do with the scientific determination of the “value” of the commodity as the fact that the word salt was first used by the ancients for cooking salt, and consequently sugar, etc. also figure as varieties of salt from Pliny onwards (indeed, all colourless solids soluble in water and with a peculiar taste), and therefore the chemical category “salt” includes sugar, etc.As the commodity is bought by the purchaser not because it has value but because it is a “use-value,” and is used for definite purposes, it goes without saying that 1. use-values are “assessed,” i.e. their quality is investigated (just as their quantity is weighed, measured, etc.); 2. if different sorts of commodities can be substituted for one another for the same use, one or the other will be given preference, etc., etc.In Gothic there is only one word for Wert and Würde: vairths, τιμη, //τιμαω, assess, i.e. evaluate; to determine the price or value, to rate; metaphorically: to appreciate, esteem, honour, distinguish.  Τιμη—assessment, hence: determination of value or price, evaluation, valuation. Then: estimation, also, value, price itself (Herodotus, Plato), αι τιμα—expenses in Demosthenes.  Then: estimation, honour, respect, place of honour, honorary post, etc., Rost's Greek-German Dictionary.(….)Furthermore it should be noted that—even in this linguistic connection—if it follows automatically, as if by the nature of the thing, from the original identity of Würde and Wert that this word also referred to things, products of labour in their natural form—it was later directly applied unchanged to prices, i.e. value in its developed value-form, i.e. exchange-value, which has so little to do with the matter that the same word continued to be used for worth in general, for honorary offices, etc. Thus, linguistically speaking, there is no distinction here between use-value and value.

I think, YMS, that the Anglo-Saxon word is: veordh, vurdh. The English word value must come from French.

[ALB]

Matt wrote:

If you want to jump aboard the good ship Socialism and join us, you can help out with  fresh sea breezes and bright wheezes in the  Education Committee.

Well, Ralph, what are you waiting for? The reason why work on the Production for Use project stalled has been a lack of members to carry it on properly. So, as Matt says, there's a place for you. Or have you some other objection(s) to our approach?

[ALB]

Good. Socialists stand for the class war not the sex war.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

ALB wrote:

"Value (in the Marxian sense) is not the same as 'the average amount of labour put into a certain commodity' (from start to finish)."So what is value?

Value is the form wealth takes in a society where goods and services are produced for sale on a market. It's what lies behind exchange value and is expressed, in exchange, as the amount of socially necessary labour that has to be expended to produce a commodity from start to finish.  Wealth in socialism will still be the product of so many hours work but, socialism being a non-market society, will not take the form of value. So the same product of labour will be value in capitalism but not in socialism, i.e. labour content and value are not the same as the former can exist without being the latter..

Sympo wrote:

"In principle, 'total price' = 'total exchange value'."What does this mean exactly?

That the sum total of the prices all the goods and services on sale is the same as the sum total of their exchange-values. But don't forget the words "in principle" as this assumes that capitalism is a static economy whereas it is not. As productivity increases, the exchange value of the commodities concerned diminishes (because the amount of socially necessary labour to reproduce them does) so that in practice total prices won't always equal total exchange values even if this will be the tendency. In fact, capitalist being a dynamic economy, it is unlikely that the equilibrium is ever reached.The point is that you can't adequately explain prices without recourse to exchange-value (and value). Modern academic bourgeois economists think they can but that's because they are only interested in the surface appearance of things, and the business managers, whose approach they reflect, can work very well without the concepts of value and exchange value.No objection to your explanation of how the producers are exploited under capitalism.

[ALB]

Oh no, not that again ! What a bore. Marx and the emerging industrial workers' movement versus Bakunin and his band of old-fashioned and conspiratorial insurrectionists from the less developed parts of Europe (plus some artisans from Paris who favoured a small-scale market economy).

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

This may be a dumb question, but why exactly do we need the concept of "value" if by value we mean the average amount of labour put in a certain commodity(if this definition is incorrect please correct me)?

Value (in the Marxian sense) is not the same as "the average amount of labour put into a certain commodity" (from start to finish). We will still be able to calculate this average amount in a socialist society (if we wanted to) but it wouldn't be value. This labour takes the form of "value" only when the product has been produced as a commodity, i.e for sale. Value and value production are features only of a society that produces for sale. Value is a description of the form wealth takes in such a society. In socialism wealth will not take this form but will simply be a use-value.

Sympo wrote:

Labour power is a commodity, right? So is labour power priced according to the "price of production"?

Labour-power is indeed a commodity but its price is its "cost of production" (which might not be the same as the sum of the values of the commodities involved), i.e "price of production" less the element of "average profit" which is obviously not applicable in this case.

Sympo wrote:

Also, what is the point of having the concept of exchange-value if it does not have anything to do with the price of a commodity?

It does have something to do with the price of a commodity, but only indirectly. In principle, "total price" = "total exchange value".We're using the definitions of Marxian economics here, which is not the only way of describing things. It is quite possible to describe the exploitation of workers without having recourse to Marx's economic concepts such as "value", e.g work on materials that originally came from nature is the only source of wealth (goods and services useful in a given society), so if there's a class of people who live off a non-work income that income must derive from the work of those who do or have worked.The case for saying that capitalism is based on the exploitation of the producers and that socialism will end this does not rest on Marxian economics. It's just that, in our view, Marx elaborated the best explanation of how capitalism works.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

Also, what is the difference with exchange value and value? I thought there were two types of value according to Marx, exchange-value and use-value, and that he often refers to exchange-value as just "value"?

Yes, in some of his earlier writings on economics (his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that came out in 1859, for instance), Marx did not make a distinction between "exchange value" and "value" but in the various editions of Capital (from 1867 on) he did. As YMS has just pointed out, "exchange value" is the expression of "value" in exchange, i.e is the two are not the same. As we said in this Education Document, dating from 1973:

Quote:

Wealth, we know, only takes the form of commodities under certain social conditions, specifically when it is produced for sale. Similarly with labour (used-up human energy. Cf. “work“ in engineering); under the same social conditions it becomes “value”. Thus value is not something you can find in the physical or chemical properties of a commodity, for it is a social property, a social relation. However, as value only expresses itself in exchange, as exchange-value, this social relation appears as a relation between things. This is what is behind Marx’s writing about the “fetishism of commodities”. Price is the monetary expression of value.

So, value is a social relationship (between commodity producers as producers producing something for sale) while "exchange value" is a relationship between things.When money has evolved "exchange value" is the same as "price". So, if you don't distinguish between "value" and "exchange value", you end up with only use value (utility) and price, like modern academic economics which preaches that you don't need the concept of "value".It also leads to misunderstanding the Marxian Labour Theory of Value as a a Labour Theory of Exchange Value (or Price) as it was for Adam Smith and David Ricardo.  Which leads to all sorts of complications and contradictions.As a matter of fact, Marx did not think that under capitalism, where there is not just production for exchange (the market) but there is also production for profit (surplus value), commodities were priced at their (exchange) value. Due to the tendency for the rate of profit to be the same in all fields of capitalist investment, commodities were priced at what he called their "price of production", which was cost price + average rate of profit. Only accidentally would this be the same as the amount of socially necessary labour needed to produce them from start to finish.  But, as items of wealth produced for sale, they were still expressions of the underlying social relationship of "value".

[ALB]

Actually the Production for Use Committee continued until a year or so ago when it was amalgamated with the Education Committee. Some of its work was used for articles in the Socialist Standard or for talks. For instance:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no1289-january-2012/too-many-people-or-not-enough-food-productionhttp://www.meetup.com/The-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain/events/102162132/

[Author]

Posts