[Xmca-l] Re: Difference between "Value" and "Exchange Value".

Tue Oct 2 17:56:03 PDT 2018

I am reluctant to enter this Dave (?) because I think this
topic is off-list, so to speak.

I agree with you that if your interest is in Economics, then
the meaning of "value" in Economics has to be addressed as
something distinct from the range of meanings across the
language. As Hegel points out, when a word forms the
starting point of a science (as is the case here) then it
brings its abstract (undeveloped) meaning from outside/prior
to the science; but it is transformed by the development of
the science. "Value" I think brought with it into Economic
science the meaning of exchange-quantum, and this remains in
my view the meaning of "value" in sentences like "What are
you values?", i.e., the general public discourse. I.e.,
values are inherently transactional.

But, sticking to your topic, Economics. Bourgeois Economics
abandoned the word and concept of "value" in the late
19th/early 20th century in the wake of the Marginal
Revolution, which occurred around the time /Capital/ was
published but was ignored by Marx. Alfred Marshall's early
work uses the word "value", but his later works do not. From
the standpoint of Positivism, "value" is a bad concept,
because it cannot be cashed out in empirical or practical
terms. So "value" does not exist as a concept in modern
economics, only in non-specialist discourse, Marxism and
historical Political Economy.

Marx's brilliant move was the take "value" as a unity of
quantity and quality, two distinct abstract concepts which
did not coincide with one another. It is interesting that
Hegel completely failed to notice this contradiction in the
concept of value and the fallacies are open for all to see
in what he wrote about "value" in The Philosophy of Right.
Marx showed that "value" is both exchange-value and utility
(use-value). A complete break from empiricist quasi-natural
science was necessary to reconstruct economics on the basis
of this abstract concept.

Don't know if that helps, Dave.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 2/10/2018 10:49 PM, Harshad Dave wrote:
>
> Huw Lloyd,
>
> With reference to your email dtd. 1^st oct 2018, I shall
> put my views as follow,
>
>  
>
> [1] “Value” is a word of a language (here English) and
> language is not only a set of words, verbs and adjectives
> etc. It totally reflects culture and properties of the
> mankind that originated and evolved with the society with
> the language.
>
> Is it inevitable to interpret sense and meaning of /value/
> that is used in each and every field of prevailing society
> if one wants to talk within a determined field (here
> economics)?
>
> Is it not possible and fair to grasp the sense of /value/
> within the frame work of subject matter that we discuss
> (here it is economics)?
>
> When we discuss vital issues of economics where role of
> /value/ is prime one and we are unable to talk about
> constitution of /value/ even within the frame work of
> economics to make our discussion clearer and less
> controversial with above clarity, only because it
> (/value/) is used in different fields/subjects of our
> society with varying sense and meaning.
>
> Is it that important that either one must clarify the word
> /value/ in meaning and sense used in each and every corner
> of our society or he should let dragging his discussion on
> old practice to express views without touching the logical
> sense of constitution of /value/ within the frame work of
> subject matter (here economics)?
>
> Do you really agree that a thinker of economics while
> explaining his views using word /value/ should take every
> care of the sense and meaning in which it was used by
> Shakespeare while he wrote his works or Peter when he
> preached and addressed his disciples?
>
> I think we should not hesitate to define a simple
> constitution of /value/ applicable within the frame work
> of economics only and that is what I have attempted.
>
> [2]
>
> When I carefully study the first paragraph of Marx’s
> saying (in my email dtd 1 octo 2018), I clearly get
> following impressions,
>
> a. His words “…./the //value//of a commodity is a thing
> quite relative,….”/. In fact it is /exchange/ /value/ he
> talked about. But he did not differentiate between /value/
> and /exchange/ /value/ because it was neither a practice
> at that time and nor even today.
>
> b.His words“/In fact, in speaking of the value, the value
> in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional
> quantities in which it exchanges with all other
> commodities”/. Here also he confirms that /exchange/
> /value/ might present a /value/ of a commodity.
>
> c. His words “/How are the proportions in which
> commodities exchange with each other regulated? We know
> from experience that these proportions vary infinitely./”
> Here Marx confirms that there is motivating parameters
> that determines the proportion of exchange (ratio of
> exchange) and also confirms that the aggregate influence
> of the subject parameters varies to infinite.
>
> If above points (a, b and c) constitute a fact, I have
> tried to narrate those parameters in my article on
> “Exchange Value” and it confirms that aggregate influence
> of applicable parameters out of the above 20 subject
> parameters might not be uniform in every case and it is
> the reason that exchange ratio between two commodities
> might not remain uniform even at same place and time for
> two different cases of exchanges. Marx has said about
> /something/ /common/ if the same commodity (here wheat) is
> exchanged with a commodity other than iron, but when
> uniformity in the exchange ratio is not assured for same
> commodity at same place and same time for two different
> exchange events, there is no place of discussion for
> different commodities. One can never reach to the foetus
> of /value/ through the analysis of /exchange/ /value/.
>
> /Exchange//value/ is regulated and determined by an
> aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the
> twenty parameters listed in the article and exchange ratio
> might vary case to case.
>
> /Value/is completely a different term and it is a great
> mistake to approach /exchange/ /value/ to grasp the
> constitution of /value/. I know, perhaps no one will agree
> with me, but I say that /Value/ has no linkages with
> /Exchange Value/.  
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Harshad Dave
> Mobile: +91 9979853305
>
> Address:
>
> "SWAYAM",
> B - 116, Yoginagar Township,
> Opp. Ramakaka Temple,
> Chhani - 391 740.
> Vadodara, Gujarat,
> India.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:33 PM Huw Lloyd
> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Harshard,
>
>     First, I should say that most references to Marx's
>     exchange value and use value on this list pertain to
>     the genesis of mediatory forms in developmental
>     processes, studied through the technique of dialectics
>     and also referred to as the germ-cell. See Ilyenkov's
>     "Dialectics of the Abstract and Concrete in Marx's
>     Capital" for more on this.
>
>     The idea of considering different systems of value
>     according to different sets of conditions seems
>     redolent of JG Bennett's work, who based his cosmology
>     upon value. To the extent that I have registered his
>     portrayal faithfully, I would disagree about his
>     situating value and fact in two different realms.
>     However, to take a leaf from JGB's account one could,
>     for instance, consider additionally "potential value"
>     as a system of five conditions, and so on. Hence one
>     might not want to take the label 'value' designating
>     all these different orders from a particular order.
>     Similarly, why should one take the transitional affect
>     of "valuing" as the "true value"? Granted it is a
>     practical necessity in the psychological deployment of
>     resources, yet this may be looked at as one
>     stepping-stone amongst many.
>
>     Do economists take a literal interest in the
>     experience of need? It seems to me they largely start
>     with its expression (rather than its experience) as a
>     basis.
>
>     Best,
>     Huw
>
>
>     On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 06:03, Harshad Dave
>     <hhdave15@gmail.com <mailto:hhdave15@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         Here I copy paste the words/para taken from
>         "Value, Price and Profit" by Karl Marx.
>
>         /"At first sight it would seem that the value of a
>         commodity is a thing quite relative, and not to be
>         settled without considering one commodity in its
>         relations to all other commodities. In fact, in
>         speaking of the value, the value in exchange of a
>         commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in
>         which it exchanges with all other commodities. But
>         then arises the question: How are the proportions
>         in which commodities exchange with each other
>         regulated? We know from experience that these
>         proportions vary infinitely. Taking one single
>         commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find that
>         a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless
>         variations of proportion with different
>         commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the
>         same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any
>         other commodity, it must be something distinct
>         from, and independent of, these different rates of
>         exchange with different articles. It must be
>         possible to express, in a very different form,
>         these various equations with various commodities./
>         /Besides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges
>         with iron in a certain proportion, or the value of
>         a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain
>         amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and
>         its equivalent in iron are equal to some third
>         thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I
>         suppose them to express the same magnitude in two
>         different shapes. Either of them, the wheat or the
>         iron, must, therefore, independently of the other,
>         be reducible to this third thing which is their
>         common measure."/
>
>         If you go through the views of Marx expressed on
>         /Value /while exchanging /wheat/ against /iron
>         /you will feel that Marx expresses it with
>         difficulty. I think this complexity emerges only
>         because economists of the time (perhaps even of
>         present time) could not differentiate between
>         /value/ and /exchange value./ It is a serious
>         mistake to grasp /value/ through /exchange/
>         /value./ It is the most unfortunate part that the
>         word/phrase "/Exchange/ /value/" incorporates the
>         word "/Value/" and it, perhaps, misleads us.
>
>         I have tried to explain exactly this difference in
>         my articles on following web links.
>
>         I will be thankful if I receive your views on the
>         same.
>
>         The Web Links:
>
>         [1]
>
>
>         Article: "Exchange Value"
>
>
>         Journal
>         Link:*http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/current-issue-of-fmir/*
>
>
>         Article
>         Link:*http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-2/article-6/*
>
>          
>         [2]
>
>         Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained in
>         short]
>
>         Short
>         form: https://www.academia.edu/35947903/Constitution_of_value_ACADEMIA
>
>         Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained
>         elaborately]
>          
>         https://www.academia.edu/35885621/An_Introduction_to_the_constitution_of_value._Part_1_Constitution_of_Use_Value_Value_and_Forms_of_Value._Preamble
>
>
>         Regards,
>
>
>
>         Harshad Dave
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181003/3bb4602f/attachment.html 