Re: [OPE-L] Fwd: Marx's Form of Analysis

[Paul Bullock <paulbullock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jurriaan,,

 

Asyou know we are usually in agreement but 

 

Please explain this comment of yours

 

snip

(3) ...............................................................................The existence of
> value  does not presuppose exchange, even if the abstract thinking about
> value  emerges only in the context of more sophisticated trade.

 

 

thanks

 

Paul Bullock

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <glevy@xxxxxxxxx>

To: <OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 1:43 PM

Subject: [OPE-L] Fwd: Marx's Form of Analysis

> ---------------------------- Original Message ------------
> 
Subject: Marx's Form of Analysis
> From:    "Jurriaan 
Bendien" <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
Date:    Sun, February 20, 2005 6:18 am
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In 
reply to John Milios, I am not a biblical-fundamentalist Marxist, but a
> 
 socialist who thinks about what he reads, and is happy to admit in
> 
particular cases that Karl Marx is wrong or being sloppy in his 
argument.
> But actually in this case none of the quotes you cite 
contradict my case.
> 
> It is true, that Marx argues that for the 
abstract development of the
> economic concept of "value", monetized 
exchange is necessary. But
> monetised  exchange only makes manifest 
more precisely a developing
> reality which  already existed before. 
Even before money existed, people
> obviously knew  quite well, that 
the products they made had value. And
> they also knew quite  well, 
that these products could be traded for other
> products.
> 
> 
It is also true, that Marx argues people only begin to think abstractly
> 
about value and about labour-time, and behave accordingly, once money
> 
exists. This is part of his materialist conception of history: the ideas
> 
in  the heads of human beings reflect or accompany that what, 
objectively
> speaking, they have practically achieved at a given stage of 
history.
> 
> But, the historical facts as we know them are, that 
commodity exchange and
>  trade have existed for thousands of years 
prior to the emergence of
> industrial capitalism. This is a problem for 
Marx's exposition in his
> book,  because, basically, he is concerned 
NOT with "the whole historical
> evolution  of commodity trade", but 
rather with trade in CAPITALISTICALLY
> produced  commodities. The 
accumulation of capital on any large scale, of
> course, DOES  assume 
monetised exchange.
> 
> The successive steps in trade, which Marx 
summarises in his value-form
> analysis using straightforward equations 
like "20 yards of linen=one
> coat",  are just an idealisation, a 
logical summary, of a real process
> which begins  with barter and 
ends with monetary speculation.
> 
> Commodities ("Waren", 
literally, "wares") are defined as objects having a
> "use-value" and an 
"exchange-value". This does NOT however mean that
> commodities must by 
definition necessarily have a money-price, NOR that
> they  must 
necessarily be CAPITALISTICALLY produced commodities (i.e.
> 
commodities  produced basically only by means of other 
commodities).
> 
> But it DOES mean that trade, markets and the 
commodity form DEVELOP
> through  an historical process, from the 
"elementary form" (where X amount
> of  commodity A is worth Y amount 
of commodity B)  to the money form
> (where X  amount of 
commodity A is worth Y amount of money).
> 
> As a corollary, what 
regulates commodity values also changes in the
> process  of the 
development of trade and of the expansion of markets; the
> law of  
value begins to assert itself in a different way.
> 
> Some people 
cannot think historically, and they like "fixed' definitions
> which are 
good for all time. But in the real world, things are in motion
> and  
develop, and sometimes they develop unevenly, so that archaic forms
> 
combine  with modern forms. The non-existence of money or a 
money-price
> for goods,  for example, has never stopped people from 
exchanging those
> goods, if it was  in their interest to do 
so.
> 
> There are still also ultraleftist Marxists who think they 
are being very
> radical in arguing that value and commodities can exist 
"only within
> capitalist society", or that "there never existed any 
society in which
> simple commodity producers predominated".
> 
> But these people not only do not study real economic history, in order 
to
> distinguish appropriately between the existence of "capital", 
"capitalism"
>  and "industrial capitalism"; they also are completely 
unable to explain
> how,  in a socialist economy, goods and services 
can be allocated, if
> commodity  trade is abolished. In other words, 
these people can neither
> explain how the  capitalist mode of 
production (or markets for that
> matter) historically  originated, 
nor what happens when capitalism and
> capitalist markets  
disappear.
> 
> To summarise:
> 
> (1) A commodity can 
exchange for another commodity, without using or
> assuming money, even if 
Marxists say it is impossible.
> (2) A commodity can have an exchange 
value, without having a money-price,
> which is expressed in a trading 
ratio, even if economists say this does
> not  conform to their 
textbook definitions.
> (3) Value and exchange-value are not the same 
thing. The existence of
> value  does not presuppose exchange, even 
if the abstract thinking about
> value  emerges only in the context 
of more sophisticated trade.
> (4) There is a difference between a 
commodity produced in precapitalist
> conditions, capitalist conditions 
and postcapitalist conditions, which
> strongly affects how their economic 
value and exchange-value are
> regulated,  even if leftists discourse 
about "commodification as a general
> process". (5) Economic value begins 
to rule the allocation of labor
> increasingly as  capitalist 
relations develop.
> 
> Jurriaan
>