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

Tue Oct 2 08:24:39 PDT 2018

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/20181002/61db4c69/attachment.html 