| This question <47|47> overall <45|48> Josh: <4|468>. |
| Question 100: Marx argues in chapter One that the quantity of value is determined by socially necessary labor-time. Does this mean the exchange-proportions between commodities must be proportional to the socially necessary labor-time necessary to produce these commodities? |
| [47] Josh: Marx states in 129:3/o, “That which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore only the amount of socially necessary labor, the labor-time socially necessary for its production.” In this explanation he describes the relationship between socially necessary labor-time and value. Question 100 is asking about the relationship between exchange-proportions (exchange-values stated as proportions) and socially necessary labor-time. So at the heart of question 100 is the relationship between value and exchange-value. |
| The relationship between value and exchange-value is a subject that Marx explores in depth in the subsequent passages of Capital. The basic relationship (the part that is relevant to this question) exists in that all commodities consist of use-value and value. Exchange-value arises as a reaction to the value of a commodity. Hans explains this on page 292 of Annotations, “The thing that is inside the commodity is not its exchange-value but its value; the exchange-value is the reaction of the market participants to the value inside the commodity.” So, exchange-value is a reaction to value, which is a result of socially necessary labor-time. In this logic, exchange-value is connected to socially necessary labor-time and that same labor-time should have some effect on the exchange-value. |
| The extent of that effect is determined by the “reaction of the market participants.” If the reaction does not remain constant for all quantities of value then the proportion at which exchange-value is related to socially necessary labor-time is also not constant. Question 100 asks if “the exchange-proportions between commodities MUST be proportional to the socially necessary labor-time.” Since the question involves the absolute term “must” and the proportion relies on inherently inconsistent human reactions between commodities, the answer is: No, exchange-proportions between commodities are not necessarily proportional to the socially necessary labor-time necessary to produce those commodities. |
| Hans: You are placing the question in the proper context. You are right, the question as asked does not belong into this section here, which looks at value “independently of its form,” but into section 3 of chapter One, which is devoted to the form of value. |
| But your last paragraph is a cop-out. In the social sciences, all laws and regularities a scientist might find out are only “tendencial” laws---because everything that happens in society happens due to human activity, and humans have their own will. |
| The question should therefore be re-formulated as: is there a tendency in all commodity-producing societies that exchange-proportions converge towards or oscillate around labor values? |
| Josh: I see what you mean. There is definitely a correlation between labor and exchange-values. In my second paragraph I downplayed this relationship because of the absolute in the question. However, I was tempted to finish my answer with a statement reiterating the importance of the relationship. As you have re-formulated the question then I would have to answer yes, because the labor-time is the base for commodity value and in turn the exchange-values. |
| In this case I would say that if all of the exchange-values of a certain commodity were plotted in a scatter diagram, then the linear representation within the diagram would represent the commodity value which is a representation of socially necessary labor-time. |
| Would you consider that an accurate description of the relationship? |
|
|
|||||