[Julien to Charles - scroll down for an answer to Carrol]
>If Marx only discusses
>exchange-value and price, he doesn't teach us anything.
Sure. Have I ever said that Marx *only* does that? I said he does it and also
wrote explicitely about something else he does.
>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.
I took another dictionary. Food definitely doesn't fit in the definition. Food is
eaten and transformed in your body (don't ask for details). It is not there after
you've used it. Yet it can grow again from where you took it. And generally you
can't keep it for long. It doesn't look like a resource at all.
>Could you give me "tragedy of the commons" in different terms ?
Sure. Here's the original (I believe) from Hardin. For more on this, look at
dieoff.com or ask Tom. Disclaimer: I do not by any means endorse Hardin.
"The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to
all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many
cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work
reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and
disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying
capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is,
the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At
this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates
tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or
implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of
adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one
positive component.
1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since
the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional
animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.
2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created
by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are
shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular
decision�making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman
concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another
animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each
and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the
tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his
herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination
toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that
believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons
brings ruin to all."
Of course this is not even "only an example". It's a thought experiment, a
metpahor. It applies to abuse of flow-resources as well as to depletion of
stock-resources, and to many other things (incl. surplus value, the TRPF is the
capitalists' "tragedy of the commons").
>So , you mean by resource, a means of production that is not an end
>commodity
>consumed by the final consumer ?
Not necessarily. Water f.ex. is used in some places by the final consumer
without any processing. But I do certainly not mean an intermediary product
nor an end product, which food is (at least at the time at which it is exchanged).
There are no such things as springs of food, right?
>CB:
>OK , but Marx doesn't use the term "resources" in what you quote.
No but he talks of what now three dictionaries do call resources. So please tell
me what this word means!
>So, by "scarce resource" you mean a use-value that has not been
>commodified
>, and is "not underexploited " ?
By "scarce resource" I mean "scarce resource". The commodification is
necessary for this thing to have exchange-value. And the "not underexploited"
is a practical way of seeing what's scarce and what's not (which as you
pointed out doesn't work all the time). Please tell me if you've a better way of
seeing whether a resource is scarce or not.
>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.
Because he is using these examples to conceal the fact that there are
exchanges-values (in the trivial sense he first uses) which are unprocessed by
the hand of man.
Carrol wrote:
>Use value is the worth, the utility, the usability for human purposes, of any
>object. Air has use value but neither value nor exchange value (though we
>may yet see a change here as pollution increases).
Tell me how this is different from what I said.
>Exchange value is the *form* of value, not value itself (and it does *not*
>consiste in labor time). The exchange value of a commodity is the total
>list of all the commodities in the world with which it may exchange. The
>exchange may occur directly, or it may be performed indirectly with the
>use of money. If I sell a chair for so many dollars and then buy four
>digital disks with the money, the exchange value of a digital disk is
>one-fourth of a chair. And so on. 1A = B/3 = 20C = 1058D =
>1/1004E et cetera et cetera et cetera. No mention of value (labor time)
>of price (the price is merely the appearance of the exchange value).
>*Value* is social labor encased in a privately owned product.
>So *Value* is determined by the magnitude of labor in an object.
>Exchange Value is a relationship among commodities.
Carrol, I'm talking about things which according to Marx have ONLY use-value.
I'm saying that these things have exchange-value. This is not 1,05 vs. 1,10 but
ZERO vs. something so all details like whether we're talking about the socially
average value or not doesn't matter much. If something you said has
something to do with the question of whether natural resources have
exchange-value or not, please explain.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
