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

Tue Oct 2 05:49:35 PDT 2018

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
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181002/f0178fde/attachment.html 