Charlie Andrews' book

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 09/20/00 02:46PM >>>

>CB:  Do you happen to recall where Marx makes the distinction between
>"exchange value" and "value" ?  I thought "value" was shorthand for
>"exchange value" in _Capital_.

For example, in the first section of ch. 1 of vol. 1, Marx writes that "if
we abstract from their value, there remains their value... The common
factor in the exchange relation, or in the exchange-value of the commodity,
is therefore its value." (Vintage/Penguin ed., p. 128)

)))))))))))

CB: Mine says:

"We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange-value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use-value. But if we abstract from their use-value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange-value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. " (International, 1967) page 38).

"Value" with a capital "V" is defined as exchange, not use, value in the "above" section referred to in the text.

((((((((((((((((((((



Part of my confusion in reading CAPITAL was that I assumed that "value" was
short-hand for "exchange value." But it's pretty clear  that "value" is
instead the shared characteristic ("common factor") of all newly-produced
commodities, whereas all goods for sale, including those that aren't newly
produced, have exchange-value (or price). It's a big mistake to confuse the
"essence" (shared characteristic, common factor) of something like a
commodity (its value) with its "existence," its phenomenal form (its
exchange-value or price). To do so is to assume that all goods are the
same, to ignore the heterogeneity of commodities, their use-values.

(((((((((((((((((

CB: See above. Value is exchange-value, not use-value, still in my translation.

We don't need the third term you introduce to keep the distinction between exchange-value and use-value.

(((((((((((((((


The specific example of an antique helps us understand what's going on: an
antique has exchange-value, but has no value, because it is newly produced.
In the first three chapters of volume I, Marx ignores such goods and also
assumes that simple commodity production (not capitalism) prevails. Under
SCP, prices (exchange values) tend toward equaling values.

((((((((((((((((((((

CB: Isn't gold or other precious metals as commodities similar to antiques ?

As to what Marx discusses in the first three chapters of Vol. 1, the first clause of the book is " The wealth of the societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails,...." so , I take him to be talking about capitalist commodity production, although he discusses its derivation from simple commodity production.

((((((((((((



I wish Marx had been clearer about this. Andrews is, though he presents the
issue very differently than I do here. One of the great things about
Andrews' book is that he seems to say everything that Marx said, but in a
different order that makes everything clearer. Following the 20th century
fashion (unlike Marx), Andrews tells us what level of abstraction he's
working at and what's to come in future chapters and sections. I understand
that Marx was quite unhappy with his own method of presentation and rewrote
CAPITAL many times. He should have been unhappy. Luckily Marx does much
better after chapter 1.

(((((((((((((((

CB: Actually, I found Chapter 1 pretty clear, but I wouldn't mind reading the book by Andrews which you found clearer.

Anyway, Marx agrees with you, in a way, in the Preface to the First German Edition, when he says:

 "Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences. To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty..."

(((((((((((((



I had written:
>One advantage he has compared to Marx is that he makes it clear from the
>beginning that exchange value is not the same as value. "The magnitude of
>value is the quantity of abstract labor required to _produce_ a commodity.
>The magnitude of exchange value, or price, is the about of abstract labor
>a commodity _obtains in exchange_. The value of a commodity and its
>exchange value are both quantities of abstract labor, but not necessarily
>equal quantities." (p. 34, emphasis added.)

CB asks:
>In what sense does a commodity  obtain abstract labor in exchange ?

If I sell a commodity for money, I can "command" abstract labor by buying
other commodities with my money. Alternatively, without using money, I can
sell commodity A to buy commodity B, commanding the labor that went into
producing B. The person selling B is commanding the labor that went into
producing A.

I had written:
>That is, there's a difference between the contribution to the societal
>flow of abstract labor by the labor done to produce a commodity (labor
>embodied) and the claim that a commodity owner can make on that flow of
>abstract labor (labor commanded). "Unequal exchange" is a normal part of
>not only capitalism but simple commodity production, as Andrews ably explains.

>CB: Doesn't Marx use "price" for the claim that a commodity owner can make
>on the flow ?

Price is the exchange-value between a commodity and money.

((((((((((((((((((

CB: If money is how I command abstract labor , as you say above, then the answer to my question is , " yes  " Price" is what Marx uses to designate the money, the claim , the command that a commodity owner can make make on the flow of abstract labor ( labor commanded ).


All and all, no reason not to read Andrews book, though.