| This question <32|32> overall <66|68> Translat: <66|71>. |
| Question 38: What is value (according to Marx)? |
| [67] Translat: Marx's theory of value has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. Under a capitalist society, labor is performed by the private sector. Each area produces a different aspect |
| Hans: Formulation! Also the rest of the sentence! |
| [67] Translat: and the resulting market balance is by chance. The value law consists of three (3) functions: 1. Value acts as a base for fluctuating prices for resources; 2. Determines the quantity of resources expended; 3. Maintains structure for economic growth by regulating rates of profit and directing investment to those areas of production that obtain profit above average and away from those below average. |
| Hans: This functionalist explanation is alien to Marx. You act as if the law of value had been instituted for certain purposes. Marx stresses that this law is arising blindly and spontaneously. |
| [67] Translat: Marx used the concept “abstract social labour” which is used to determine value. He used not just the necessary labor, but the surplus labor as a measure rod. The commodity itself does not completely represent the value, but the labor is part of the commodity. The example of the shoes used in the book clarifies the issue. The value of the shoes comes not just from the material used nor from the market value, but from a combination of these as well as the labor expended. |
| Hans: There is quite a bit of confusion about what Marx means. |
| [67] Translat: However, in the final analysis, if something has no utility, it has no value even if the construction required labor. Without being useful to some extent the labor is without value. |
| Hans: There is a difference between talking about the labor theory of value and talking about value. According to Marx, value is something real. What is it (and how can it be real)? |
| [67] Translat: (datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 08:32:13 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Apparently you didn't receive all of the answer, I am sending it again. However, I agree that |
| Hans: ehrbar> This functionalist explanation is alien to Marx. You act as ehrbar> if the law of value had been instituted for certain ehrbar> purposes. Marx is stresses that this law is arising blindly ehrbar> and spontaneously. |
| [67] Translat: My answer was formulated using the Introduction pages 41-43 as a basis for understanding. |
| Hans: ehrbar> There is quite a bit of confusion about what Marx means. ehrbar> There is a difference between talking about the labor theory ehrbar> of value and talking about value. According to Marx, value ehrbar> is something real. What is it (and how can it be real)? |
| [67] Translat: R131:1/4 “(Now we know the substance of value. It is labour...)” Labor is the tangible property of value. It is real, not imaginary. Air is useful, but is not a commodity. |
| Hans: This is the correct answer to the original question. I was overly critical in my remarks, and the question how value can be real is a difficult one. Yes, labor is something real. But the past labor expended on a product, can it still have an effect? (Here I am playing the devil's advocate; I would argue yes, it can.) |
| [67] Translat: (datestring)Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:32:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I agree, past labor has effect on value. What ever level, from the beginning to the end, the labor occurs on, the amount of labor expended is part of the end product. |
| Hans: Good observation: in the labor theory of value (LTV), the labor formerly expended is added to the present labor to give the value of the product. Nevertheless, I see something mysterious in here. The LTV says that the exchange proportions between coat and linen are governed by the labor in the coat and the labor in the linen. But at the time of the exchange, this labor lies in the past. How can it have an effect today? This was my question. |
| [67] Translat: (datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 08:02:24 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I believe that it depends on whether your looking at the arguement from an economic or sociological view. If it is from economic, the exchange value or market value includes the costs of manufacture as a whole. This would include costs of labor, materials, overhead, etc. From a sociological view, the labor is almost a tangible item, but not quite. Labor cannot be discounted no matter at which stage of the production it takes place. It is still manual labor and as such has unit value which are included in the exchange porportions. If we base the units of exchange on human labor an example of the result would be: 10 hours to make 2 yrds. of linen=10 hours to make 1 coat The exchange value now rests in the units of labor, not the market value of the coat. |
| Hans: Yes, this is an important distinction. What you call ‘sociological’ is what Marx calls ‘capital in general’, it is the point of view of society as a whole. This is the subject of Marx's book ‘Capital’. What you call ‘economic’ is in Marx's terminology the ‘sphere of competition,’ the interactions of the agents on the ‘surface’. Marx intended to write a separate book about competition but never had time. When we do Chapter Twelve we will get some glimpses of what this distinction entails. It is basically the distinction between social1 and social2. |
| You have made an important step towards answering my question: how can past labor still have an effect, which is an important but also difficult question. |
|
|
|||||