>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/09/00 12:57PM >>>
Well, Charles... We've made a mess of the issue. So forgive me if I don't
answer every question. I'll try to get to the heart of it... Let's keep in mind that,
as you say "The issue is correspondence with reality, the scientific standard."
((((((((((((
CB: OK
________
>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.
Forget one minute that you read Capital. You're just beginning to read it, in fact.
Marx talks about commodities. He talks about use-value and exchange-value.
What do you understand? You understand that he's talking about usefulness
and price, right? Then, he proceeds to analyse what's in the exchange-value
and THEN he says that "exchange-value is the labor time in a commodity". As
I understand it, his exchange-value concept is a way to link price and labor
time. He starts wisely by the end of the concept one can observe (exchange-
value is the value expressed by the price) rather than by the one which is NOT
observable directly (exchange-value is made of labor time).
So when I talked about exchange-value and asked you to look at the
exchange-values of things in the world to see if Marx is right or not, I of course
was talking about the observable mercantile value, not about incorporated
labor time. So I think that I have the same idea going that Marx had,
eventhough I have a different conclusion.
(((((((((((((((
CB: OK. My thought here though is, we already know that commodiities are sold for
prices. You don't have to read anything to know that. If Marx only discusses
exchange-value and price, he doesn't teach us anything.
(((((((((((
>CB: ... 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. ...
Good! We're making progress. You recognize that a natural resource can
have exchange-value and you rightly correct me.
I was thinking too much like a mainstream economist (maximising agents with
no monopoly). Even if a resource is underexploited, it's use can indeed be
restricted and the right to use it can be sold.
(((((((((
CB: OK
(((((((((
>I can't quite get my mind around "not underexploited". I think of scarce as
>not enough available for everybody.
The "not underexploited" criteria was meant to give you a tool to observe what
was going on in the world and classify resources as scare or nor. It's hard to
say whether a resource is "enough available for everybody", especially when
you look at resources which are not directly fulfilling the needs of people but
are used as inputs in production.
The correction you made invalids my criteria. It's only valid where there's a
free market of the resource.
(((((((((
CB: I'm still a bit unsure of what you mean, but I think you are saying that my
"correction" puts us in agreement on this point now.
(((((((((
>It is not the fact that there is not enough
>of a resource available for everybody that makes it renderable as an
>exchange-value.
You're right. It's either that or a social limitation on the use of the resource
which creates the potential for the resource to have exchange-value. Whether
it will actually have exchange-value or not in depends on whether it is
commodified or not.
))))))))))
CB: Agree
(((((((((
>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.
Yes. But if the resource is not scarce, it's hard to restrict its availability
usually.
People will easily be organized against such a restriction.
Do you agree that in the uncommon cases where a non-scarce resource has
exchange-value, it's because the scarcity has been socially created?
(((((((((((
CB: I agree that many commodities are only scarce because it is socially created
scarcity.
I don't think I can agree with the first part of the above where you say
" But if the resource is not scarce, it's hard to restrict its availability usually.
People will easily be organized against such a restriction"
Food is not scarce , in the sense that there is not enough in existence to feed
everybody. Yet, the rule of private property socially restricts its availability. AND
it has not proven that easy to organize people for making food freely avaliable to
everybody, to abolish private property in food.
))))))))))
BTW, what I meant with the parenthesis is that whenever and wherever there is
"tragedy of the commons" conditions, Marx's value theory holds. (And the
mirror consequence of this might be that any attempt to make an economy
work strictly by Marx's value theory will have the same bad ecological results.
I've made this argument in more detail earlier on the list, I think.)
((((((((((
CB: Sorry , I am on a lot of lists ( too many ?) , so I have not been a thorough
reader of this list, and missed your detailed argument.
Could you give me "tragedy of the commons" in different terms ?
>I don't think Marx said that resources are never commodified. Food is a
>resource, and it is commodified.
This comment about food makes me doubt that we reached the agreement
that I thought we had. Food is not a resource! Fertile land is a resource, f.ex.
When food is grown, hunted, or at least gathered to be exchanged it's already
processed by human labour. Forgive me if I'm wrongly misusing English, but
my dictionary is not clear on this.
(((((((((((
CB: Oh, oh. ( thanks for doing all the translating for our exchange, by the way).
So , you mean by resource, a means of production that is not an end commodity consumed
by the final consumer ? I am going to have to rethink the whole line of thought , oh
oh. You say this messes up the point of agreement. Let me read what you say next.
(((((((((((
As to what Marx said, this is the beginning of the last paragraph of Capital, 1:1...
"A thing can be a use-value, without having value. This is the case whenever
its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural
meadows, &c." How do you interpret that? I do interpret it as saying that
resources are never commodifed, notably because of the examples he uses.
(((((((((((
CB: OK , but Marx doesn't use the term "resources" in what you quote.
So, by "scarce resource" you mean a use-value that has not been commodified , and is
"not underexploited " ?
But these examples that Marx gives of use-values without exchange-value do not enter
the discussion on exchange-value, prices or commodities. Please tell me again why you
are mentioning them in this analysis.
Thanks for your efforts , especially carrying the translation from French to English.
CB
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
