Re: Charlie Andrews' book

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Originally, Charles Brown (CB) wrote:
> >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_.

I wrote:
> 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.

This is the same quote but from a different translation. In general, I find
the Vintage/Penguin translation to be better. (I can't read German, but Ben
Fowkes has an excellent reputation and learned from previous translators.)
But the conclusion is the same. Value is "the common substance" that does
not _equal_ exchange-value but instead is _manifested in_ exchange-values.

Carbon is the common substance or factor in diamonds, pure coal, and Bucky
balls. It is manifested in them. But we can't say that diamonds, pure coal,
and Bucky balls are equal to Carbon. We can't use "Carbon" as short-hand
for them. Rather, they are different forms of Carbon.

It is true that Value with a capital V is partly determined by exchange. If
a product can't sell, no Value is produced. If a lazy or incompetent worker
is competing with an abler worker, the former's concrete labor-time counts
as less socially-necessary abstract labor-time than the latter's.

As far as I can tell, the capitalization or non-capitalization of Value in
the International Publishers edition has no meaning. It's a lack of
consistency in the printing. I know that Marx never makes a big thing about
"value" vs. "Value."

I wrote:
> 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.

see the above.

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

I didn't say that Value was use-value. Nor did Marx. But Marx is after
other goals besides distinguishing exchange-value and use-value. Given
this, it's okay to bring in a third term. Value is the "essence" (common
factor) of exchange-values. Under simple commodity production, exchange
values move toward equaling values. That doesn't happen under capitalism.

> 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 ?

No. In volume I, the value of gold is determined by the amount of
socially-necessary abstract labor time needed to produce it. It's a
produced commodity, not a pre-existing and rare object that can't be newly
produced (like an antique). It's a very 19th century way of looking at
things. Today, the existing stock of gold determines its supply much more
than new production does. Further, gold isn't money any more.

CB:
> 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.

Right. The first three chapters are about "commodity production in
general." Because he hasn't introduced the special commodity labor-power
into the picture, it's the same as simple commodity production.

Even after chapter 3, Marx _assumes_ that prices (exchange-values) equal
values, in order to show that even under ideal conditions where products
and labor-power sell at value, exploitation of labor can occur. (Today, an
economist like John Roemer uses a different standard, showing that even
under ideal conditions of perfect competition, exploitation of labor. He's
not successful, but that's a different story. In my article on exploitation
(reference available), I talk about how exploitation of labor can occur
under perfectly competitive conditions.)

<ellipsis>
> 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..."

Right, but very intelligent people have been confused by his writing. He
admits to playing around with Hegelian language. Some of that makes sense,
but some is confusing. If his presentation had been clearer, there would
have been fewer futile academic debates.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine