Jim wrote:
>
> I see value as representing a qualitatively different kind of
> alienation than that of commodity fetishism. It's true that reducing
> work time to mere minutes and hours (as opposed to seeing it in all of
> its complexity and mixed with play) is a kind of alienation, one
> that's central to capitalism (the reduction of concrete labor to
> abstract labor).
In the discussion of commodity fetishism, Marx points to the fetishist nature
of value. He makes the famous assertion that *value* is "a relation between
persons expressed as a relation between things". This is the essence of the
illusion concerning value that is created by marketplace exchange. Value
appears to be a property of objects, but actually it is a relation between
persons.
Indeed, as if to avoid any possibility of being misunderstood, Marx
insisted, and correctly so, that *value* is a "non-natural" property of a
commodity. He wrote things like:
"The iron, in the expression of the weight of the sugar-loaf, represents a
natural property common to both bodies, namely their weight; but the coat in
the expression of the value of the linen, represents a non-natural property
of both, something purely social, namely, their value." ("Capital", vol. I,
Chapter I, Section 3, Subsection 3. "The Equivalent Form of Value", p. 66,
Kerr edition.)
Note, he insisted on making this point about "value". He didn't say, well,
this is true about "price", but "value" is a somewhat better indicator of the
properties of an object. Instead he put emphasis on the non-natural nature of
value itself. And I think this is important, and very relevant to the
problems of today.
Why he focused on value is clear from another angle as well. Value reflects
the underlying laws of capitalist exchange and price. If, therefore, price
reflects commodity fetishism, value should reflect it in an even clearer
fashion, clearer because the discussion of value leaves out various
accidental complexities inherent in price and thus points out the essential
features more clearly. One of these essential features is that price appears
to be a property of objects, but is actually a social relationship.
But in chapter 1, section 4 of volume I of CAPITAL,
> Marx considers a society that suffers from alienation less than
> capitalism or simple commodity production does (or rather, suffers
> from at least one less kind of alienation since it lacks commodity
> fetishism). This is
In this discussion, Marx sought to bring out that economic calculation still
exists in a communist society. It appears to many people that, if one does
away with money and value, one has done away with the very possibility of
economic calculation. Free-market economists, market "socialists", and
certain left communists all share this belief.
Marx and Engels, however, pointed out that the resources of society had to be
allocated properly. This includes, but is not restricted to, the combined
labor-power of all the different individuals. And one has to consider how the
products are allocated as well. This is what Marx is talking about in the
passage you cite.
Now, a little thought will reveal that one also has to apportion the existing
machinery, the raw materials, the use of natural resources (and make
provision for their protection) etc. For that matter, if you insist, it can
be pointed out that this is pointed out elsewhere in the writings of Marx and
Engels. Oh yes, Marx didn't mention that in this passage, but that's because
he was making a different point, about the need for calculation, and
indicating it in a clear way. He didn't, in this passage, go into all the
subtleties of it. And for that matter, whether he did or didn't, it would
still be important for us to take notice of the need to deal with the
existing machinery, raw materials, natural resources, need to protect the
natural resources, etc., and to take account of this in considering the
matter raised by Marx in the quote you cite.
Thus, if one either tries to figure out for oneself how this calculation
would go, or if one is discussing Marx and Engels' views, it turns out that
one can't simply take this passage as showing that value (abstract labor-
time) is more concrete than price.
I went into this matter, including the various quotes from Marx that have
been taken by many people in the way you suggest, in much more detail in "The
end of the reign of the law of value --the fading away of the labor-hour as
the universal economic measure", which is part 3 of a longer article
concerning the economic role of the the labor-hour in economic planning. See
http://www.communistvoice.org/27cLaborHour3.html
> > And it's not an accident that Marx's beautiful passage on
> > commodity fetishism occurs in Chapter 1 of the First Volume of Capital,
> > which
> > deals with value, not in the Third Volune of Capital that deals with the
> > deviation between value and prices of production.
>
> There is a long passage (chapter 50) at the end of volume III on the
> "illusions created by competition." I interpret that as the
> application of the theory of commodity fetishism (which had been
> applied to commodity production in general at the start of volume I)
> to capitalism. It's not beautiful, but that's because it's very
Of course commodity fetishism applies to price as well as value. That
wasn't the question. The issue was whether it doesn't apply as much to
value.
> unfinished. The entire section has some poetic moments, as when "It is
> an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le
> Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social
> characters and at the same time directly as mere things" (ch. 48). Of
> course, "the enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world" is a fetishized
> world.
>
> Marx was very conscious of price/value deviations (and how systematic
> they are) from the start, before he started writing the final draft of
Yes!!! That's very important! That's why it is even more significant that
Marx stressed the non-natural nature of value, rather than just price, and
that he discussed commodity fetishism with respect to value. He was quite
conscious of price/value deviations (both those with respect to prices of
production and those with the respect to the many other reasons for
price/value deviation), and still insisted on the commodity fetishism
inherent in *value*.
> CAPITAL. I interpret the section on commodity fetishism in volume I as
> explaining one reason why he _assumed_ price = value in there and in
> volume II. By assuming that the phenomenal form (price) and the social
> essence (value) coincide, he hoped to break through the fetishism of
> commodities, to make the existence and nature of capitalist
No, he didn't think that value broke through the commodity fetishism of
marketplace relations, but that it dramatically illustrated this commodity
fetishism.
> exploitation clear. The society suffers from alienation (so that
> concrete labor is reduced to abstract labor), but that doesn't negate
> the idea of value as the social essence of commodities, one that's
> obscured by the system of markets and exchange.
>
> (In addition, volume I abstracts from the differences among different
> capitalists and among different workers, so that the differences in
> the "organic composition" of capital that cause systematic price/value
> deviations do not exist.)
All that about the organic composition is actually irrelevant to the current
discussion. For that matter, even without prices of poduction, prices differ
from value due to monopoly, cheating, random fluctuations, and so on.
>
> > Value simply explains the underlying laws concerning capitalist categories
> > such as price: it doesn't provide a correction for it. At one time, it was
> > common to believe if everything, including labor-power, was bought at its
> > true value, then there would be no exploitation. One of the main points of
> > "Capital" is to refute that. Exchange according to value results in
> > exploitation of labor and devastation of the environment.
>
> Right -- payment for labor-power and all other commodities at value
> (or what's called "equal exchange") is not the same as socialism or
> total disalienation. Marx assumed that commodities sold at value but
> nonetheless showed that exploitation existed because it's labor-power
> (not labor) that's is sold at value and because the owners of
> labor-power (i.e., workers) can only get access to consumption goods
> (means of subsistence) by selling labor power to the minority which
> control the means of production. In a way, this fits with Cornell
> West's interpretation of Marx's morality in his dissertation
> (published by MR) in which instead of developing his own standards of
> morality, Marx emphasizes the contrast between capitalist ideals
> (equal exchange) and reality.
>
> Marx didn't say much about the "devastation of the environment" in
> CAPITAL, but it's true that if the cost side of production decisions
He said some important things in "Capital" on this. See "A review of John
Bellamy Foster's 'Marx's Ecology'/Marx and Engels on
protecting the environment" at
http://www.communistvoice.org/40cMarx.html.
> is addressed by only looking at labor costs, that ignores the cost to
> Nature, so that capitalists will abuse the latter.
>
> However, the value accounting system does capture the social essence
> of both commodity production and capitalism that prices miss. That was
> my only point.
And it was a mistaken point. That was my point.
It would be true to say that Marx's discussion of value captures the essence
of both commodity production and capitalism that marketplace illusions cover
over. But that's a very different thing from saying that value itself
penetrates these illusions.
> That social essence can be captured by looking at value
> either (1) the way the association of free individuals that Marx
> posits does (as part of planning) or (2) in the petty-bourgeois way of
> "trade should be equal, with value = price." In either case, we're not
> talking about a totally disalienated standard.
>
> > Along [??] theory that gained traction was that socialist planning should
> > use
"Along" was a typo. I meant to say "Another". Thanks for giving me a chance
to correct this.
> > value, or the labor-content of goods, as its planning unit. But the attempt
> > to do this would result in duplicating, to one extent or another, the sins
> > of
> > capitalist exchange.
>
> Did the USSR ever use this kind of planning? of course, they never
> were an association of free individuals.
>
> > Nowadays it is common to believe that if one corrects prices to correspond
> > to
> > the "true value" of things, a true value corrected for carbon content, this
> > will solve the problem of restricting the emission of greenhouse gases and
> > contribute strongly to saving the environment. This is simply not true.
>
> That's a completely different issue,
No, it's not. It's relevant to how commodity fetishism comes up today. It's
relevant to today's problem, and it's relevant in some ways that are easily
understandable.
For example, all one has to do is look at how Prof. William Nordhaus can only
see the material factors concerning the environment through the prism of
finance. Material factors fade away: he doesn't have to worry about them. He
has financial spreadsheets. In his book "A Question of Balance: Weighing the
Options on Global Warming Policies" he confidently balances the costs and
benefits of taking measures to avert global warming. These calculations are
based on ignoring the material factors and extrapolating financial indices on
the basis that the future will simply be like the past. The spreadsheets may
allow one to try different numbers for the rate of the carbon tax, the
various types of elasticities, and the supposedly inherent rate of economic
growth; but they assume these can be extrapolated for years, decades, or even
a century or more. They assume that these financial indices are the real
factors, and the material factors can be ignored. So no matter how complex
the model, it's actually financial fantasy. It's commodity fetishism in
action -- that action being, in this case, to help ruin the environment.
I think this is an example of how commodity fetishism is a very real issue
today.
which we've discussed before and
> I see no point in discussing now.
>
> > And
> > it is not a Marxist view....
>
> That's not a very good criticism. Whether or not something is a
> "Marxist view" doesn't automatically say whether it's a valid view,
That's really nice, Jim. You raised the issue of Marx's theory, and even
quote Marx in your reply to me. When I point out that you are wrong about
Marxist theory, you then proclaim that that "whether or not something is a
'Marxist view' doesn't automatically say whether it's a valid view". Of
course not. But I have given extensive reasons in my writings for my views on
the labor-hour and commodity fetishism.
> since Marx was wrong sometimes. Further, we can learn from (some)
> economists after Marx, including non-Marxist ones (such as Keynes).
Great! Glad to hear you say that! That means that you might eventually even
be able to learn something from me, since I am also an economist after Marx,
albeit not a professorial one nor a full-time one.
-- Joseph Green
[email protected]
(note, in the near future my email addresses [email protected] and
[email protected] won't work, but [email protected] should)
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
