>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/08/00 04:15AM >>>
>CB: "Exchange-value" is one of old Karl's concepts. I don't know of anybody
>else using it. If you don't mean the same thing as Marx by "exchange-value" ,
>what do you mean ?
I was of course using it as I think Marx was using it. I was trying to bring forward
a compromise. It other words, as I see it, it's pretty marxist but not exactly what
old Karl said. Ya know, "Marx is dead, long live marxism !" :-)
The difference is not in the definition of the concept but in its analysis (I'm
getting obscure but I hope you get the idea).
(((((((((((
CB: Ok, I am trying to follow you, but I can't quite. Why do feel there is a need to
work out a compromise over the term "exchange-value" ? With whom are you seeking to
work the compromise ?
(((((((((
Since you guys seem to value
the first pages of Capital a lot, here's a quote I could use as a definition:
"Exchange-value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the
proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of
another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence
exchange-value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and
consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange-value that is inseparably
connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms."
(((((((((((
CB: OK that's part of Marx's definition. But the main thing is that exchange-value is
the labor time in a commodity. I guess from the Marxist standpoint, that part of the
definition is not compromisable. Otherwise, you just have a different idea going than
Marx did.
(((((((((((
Julien:
BTW, my understanding is that the concept of exchange-value is used under
another name by most economists.
(((((((((((
CB: What is that other name ?
(((((((((((
Julien:
And other critics of standard economics
used the concept in opposition to (net) utility. It doesn't look very orginial to me.
((((((((
CB: I am not sure if it is entirely original, since some of Marx's concepts derives
from the classical political economists. In fact, Marx says the
use-value/exchange-value distinction comes from Aristotle. But the concept as fully
developed in Marx is original.
However, originality is not the issue. The issue is correspondence with reality, the
scientific standard.
Famously, other economists do not use the same ideas as Marx.
CB:
>What is an example of a non-scarce natural resource ?
Julien: Breathable air is a general obvious example. In some places there's other
kinds of resources, like drinkable water or trees, which are not scarce. Mineral
resources can also be non-scare (gravel quarries rather than gold mines
usually). Scarcity status can change over time, with an obvious example beign
fishes.
In addition, from the point of view of exchange-value, any non-commodified
resource is not scarce even if it is scarce in practice. (This last sentence is
actually a restatement of that "tragedy of the commons".) Actually, the present
dissidence from Marx stems precisely from the fact that some resources are
commodified while he said that resources never are (at least this is how I
understand the last verse of Capital,1.1). IMO, this opinion of his was due to
rampant positivism but who am I to talk about such things?
CB: Ok, above is your response to my question asking for an example of a non-scarce
natural resource. I think I may understand some of what you were getting at. You had
said:
Julien: Anyway, doesn't it look as if in our world scarce natural resources had
exchange-values (or more precisely, as if the right to exploit them had
exchange-value, because of course in and out of themselves they have no
exchange-value)? If you don't think so then how do you explain the various
exchange-values of different kinds of land, the exchange-value of newfound gold
deposits, etc.?
CB: Sorry to get so complicated in reposting but I think my answer here is that a
natural resource is susceptible to having exchange-value , not because of its being
scare or non-scarce , as you define scarcity below, but due to , as you say in your
parenthesis above, THE FACT THAT THE EXPLOITABILITY OR CONSUMABILITY OF ITS USE-VALUE
CAN BE RESTRICTED AND NOT FREELY AVAILABLE TO ANYONE. So, your example of breathable
air is an example of a non-commodity, a use-value with no exchange-value, because its
use or exploitation cannot be restricted ( readily ! give capitalism a little time and
it will be selling us breathable air).
Marx said, if workers could live on air, their labor power could not be bought at any
price.
I can't quite get my mind around "not underexploited". I think of scarce as not enough
available for everybody. It is not the fact that there is not enough of a resource
available for everybody that makes it renderable as an exchange-value. It is that you
say in parethesis, that its availability to use or exploit can be restricted such that
you have to get it from someone else, and can't just use it like air.
I don't think Marx said that resources are never commodified. Food is a resource, and
it is commodified.
I'll stop here and see what you think
CB
__________
CB>What do you mean by scarce ?
Julien:
Not underexploited, basically. That's not enough to say it's scarce but in
almost all such cases, it's scarce because equilibrium is rare. Of course, you
have to define an aera of sensible size (depending on how bulky the resource
is realtive to its exchange-value as well on the transportation available) for this
questioning about scarcity to be meaningful. And, more importantly, the
resources should be classified not only by type but also by utility: f.ex. the best
gold mines in an aera would be scarce eventhough there are other less
productive gold mines around. This definition is probably not flaw-free but you
get the idea.
Julien
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
