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

Fri Oct 5 21:47:05 PDT 2018

Greg Thompson,
with reference to your trailing mail, I thank you for the same. I down
loaded the subject book of David Graeber and read the concerned topics. I
put my views on one of the small part of a chapter there in. Perhaps, you
might find it interesting.

From

“Toward An Anthropological

Theory of Value” by *David Graeber.*

[First Edition, 2001]

Page 54-55.

*Marx’s theory of value*

The first thing one should probably say about Marx’s labour theory of value
is that it’s not the same as David Ricardo’s. People often confuse them.
Ricardo argued that the value of a commodity in a market system can be
calculated in terms of the “man-hours” that went into making it, and
therefore it should be theoretically possible to calculate precisely how
many people worked how long in the process of making it (and, presumably,
making the raw materials, shipping them from place to place, and so on.) In
fact, Marx felt Ricardo’s approach was inadequate. What makes capitalism
unique, he argued, is that it is the only system in which labour—a human
being’s capacity to transform the world, their powers of physical and
mental creativity— can itself be bought and sold. After all, when an
employer hires workers, he does not usually pay them by the task completed:
he pays them by the hour, thus purchasing their ability to do whatever he
tells them to do during that period of time.6 Hence, in a wage-labour
economy, in which most people have to sell their capacity to work in this
way, one can make calculations that would be impossible in a non-capitalist
society: that is, look at the amount of labour invested in a given object
as a specific *proportion *of the total amount of labour in the system as a
whole. This is its value.

A discussion on above views:

Point 1:

The words “*In fact, Marx felt Ricardo’s approach was inadequate.*”
impresses that Marx confirmed... Ricardo was not wrong but his approach was
inadequate. Marx explored it with further analysis and interpreted
*man-hours* elaborative and finally came to a conclusion – “*look at the
amount of labour invested in a given object as a specific proportion of the
total amount of labour in the system as a whole. This is its value.*”

I think there is better way to understand above process of sale of labour
and interpret as well as analyzing its resultant out come and it is my
saying to Huw in my previous emails. Now I try to exactly explain the above
discussed process of sale of labour in other way.

There is a person P with a need to have a facility to seat comfortably or
conveniently.

A chair is one of the commodities that have all the characteristics to
satisfy the subject need of P.

Here P has selected to have a chair to satisfy his subject need.

P has a quantity of wheat to exchange with anyone against a chair.

Q is a person who has various sizes of timber pieces, tool kit for
carpentry and required labour power, skill and dexterity to manufacture a
chair (or other wooden things) from the pieces of the timber.

Q is in need of wheat.

Let us examine logical senses of P and Q for the pieces of the timber.

P does not find *use* *value* in the timber as far as his need is
concerned. The timber pieces have various characteristics but neither of
them might be linked with the subject need of P. The characteristics of
timber pieces are positively linked to manufacturing of a chair, but P has
neither knowledge (skill) of manufacturing chair from timber pieces nor he
has facility (tool kit) to manufacture it nor his work schedule permit to
devote time, labour for the subject task as P is occupied in other
productive activities (that is division of labour).

Q finds *use* *value* in the timber pieces because he has all the things
that P does not have as above. The knowledge of Q to find a fair
possibility to receive wheat in an exchange with P against a chair (if Q
has) induces him to manufacture a chair from the timber.

In above situation, Q finds *use* *value* in the timber in relation to his
need to manufacture and have a chair under his (Q) command to exchange with
P.

Why does Q find *use* *value* in the timber?

It is because,

1 He is aware of his need to have a chair for the subject exchange with P.

2 He has knowledge that pieces of the timber have all the satisfactory
characteristics to manufacture a chair.

3 He has necessary skill and tools for the same.

Q manufactures a chair.

Now P finds *use* *value* in the chair that is under command of Q, because
the need of P might be now linked with the chair. P will never find *value*
in the chair till it is not under his (P’s) command because satisfaction of
the respective need of P might be realized only if the chair is brought
under his command.

Let us summaries the latest status,

P is in need of a chair.

P has wheat and he is ready to enter an exchange process between wheat and
chair.

Q has a need of wheat. He invested his labour and skill of some hours to
manufacture a chair from the pieces of timber with him.

Q has a chair.

Now exchange process between the chair (under command of Q) and wheat
(under command of P) takes place. I say that the subject exchange process
is influenced by 20 parameters.

It is a serious mistake to think that the ratio of exchange (here quantity
of wheat against one chair) depends exclusively and only on the man hours
OR quantity of labour invested by Q. I agree invested labour is one of the
parameter of influence out of the twenty parameters.

[I terminate my discussion at half way here to avoid too long email]

Harshad Dave

Harshad Dave

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:57 PM Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In case anyone is interested, David Graeber has a lovely book Toward an
> Anthropological Theory of Value which can be helpful as a look at "value"
> across cultural contexts:
> https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780312240455
>
> His book Debt: The First 5,000 Years is perhaps even better, although
> slightly less focused on "value" per se. Free version of the book is here:
> https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf
>
> -greg
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:51 AM Harshad Dave <hhdave15@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Huw Lloyd,
>>
>> With reference to your email dtd. 1st 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>
>> 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> 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/
>>>> <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/
>>>> <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
>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181006/9689e586/attachment.html 