“But, although the money that performs the functions of a measure of value is only ideal money, price depends entirely upon the actual substance that is money. The value, or in other words, the quantity of human labour contained in a ton of iron, is expressed in imagination by such a quantity of the money-commodity as contains the same amount of labour as the iron. According, therefore, as the measure of value is gold, silver, or copper, the value of the ton of iron will be expressed by very different prices, or will be represented by very different quantities of those metals respectively.In the first passage, Marx is saying that money prices depend on the labour value embodied in units of gold or silver, so that long-run prices are determined by abstract socially-necessary labour time needed to produce relevant units of the money commodity.
If, therefore, two different commodities, such as gold and silver, are simultaneously measures of value, all commodities have two prices—one a gold-price, the other a silver-price. These exist quietly side by side, so long as the ratio of the value of silver to that of gold remains unchanged, say, at 15:1. Every change in their ratio disturbs the ratio which exists between the gold-prices and the silver-prices of commodities, and thus proves, by facts, that a double standard of value is inconsistent with the functions of a standard.” (Marx 1906: 108).
“A general rise in the prices of commodities can result only, either from a rise in their values—the value of money remaining constant—or from a fall in the value of money, the values of commodities remaining constant. On the other hand, a general fall in prices can result only, either from a fall in the values of commodities—the value of money remaining constant—or from a rise in the value of money, the values of commodities remaining constant. It therefore by no means follows, that a rise in the value of money necessarily implies a proportional fall in the prices of commodities; or that a fall in the value of money implies a proportional rise in prices. Such change of price holds good only in the case of commodities whose value remains constant. With those, for example whose value rises, simultaneously with, and proportionally to, that of money, there is no alteration in price. And if their value rise either slower or faster than that of money, the fall or rise in their prices will be determined by the difference between the change in their value and that of money; and so on.” (Marx 1906: 111).
This is confirmed in the second passage where Marx also notes that the second mechanism driving prices is the fluctuation of labour values of commodities as against money.
It is also no surprise that for Marx money must by necessity be a produced commodity with a labour value in order to even function as money, and commodity money like gold or silver, when it is initially brought to market, is exchanged with other goods with an equal socially necessary labour time value as a barter transaction (Marx 1906: 122).
It is clearly the case that the theory of value in volume 1 of Capital is that individual commodity prices are determined by their labour values or the labour value embodied in units of gold or silver, at least in the long-run. Marx admits that prices can and do diverge from labour values (Marx 1906: 114), but he appears to think that are driven back to these values which are the anchors for the system:
“It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities, which, in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value.” (Marx 1906: 176–177).Marx also states in Chapter 1 that it is possible to accurately measure the value of skilled labour by looking at the exchange values of products of skilled labour as against products of unskilled labour (Marx 1906: 51–52), and this makes no sense unless Marx really believes that commodities tend to exchange at pure labour values.
“The production of commodities must be fully developed before the scientific conviction emerges, from experience itself, that all the different kinds of private labour (which are carried on independently of each other; and yet, as spontaneously developed branches of the social division of labour, are in a situation of all-round dependence on each other) are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. The reason for this reduction is that in the midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange relations between the products, the labour-time socially necessary to produce them asserts itself as a regulative law of nature. In the same way, the law of gravity asserts itself when a person’s house collapses on top of him. The determination of the magnitude of value by labour-time is therefore a secret hidden under the apparent movements in the relative values of commodities.” (Marx 1982: 168).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (vol. 1; rev. trans. by Ernest Untermann from 4th German edn.). The Modern Library, New York.
"If Marx had really maintained [in volume 1] that, apart from irregular oscillations, commodities could only be exchanged one for another because equivalent quantities of labor are incorporated in them, or only in the ratios corresponding to the amounts of labor incorporated in them, Böhm-Bawerk would be perfectly right. But in the first volume Marx is only discussing exchange relationships as they manifest themselves when commodities are exchanged for their values; and solely on this supposition do the commodities embody equivalent quantities of labor. But exchange for their values is not a condition of exchange in general, even though, under certain specific historical conditions, exchange for corresponding values is indispensable, if these historical conditions are to be perpetually reproduced by the mechanism of social life. Under changed historical conditions, modifications of exchange ensue, and the only question is whether these modifications are to be regarded as taking place according to law, and whether they can be represented as modifications of the law of value. If this be so, the law of value, though in modified form, continues to control exchange and the course of prices. All that is necessary is that we should understand the course of prices to be a modification of the pre-existing course of prices, which was under direct control of the law of value."
ReplyDelete-Rudolf Hilferding, and author you really ought to take a moment out of your day to read.
It is clearly the case that the theory of value in volume 1 of Capital is that individual commodity prices are determined by their labour values or the labour value embodied in units of gold or silver, at least in the long-run. Marx admits that prices can and do diverge from labour values (Marx 1906: 114), but he appears to think that are driven back to these values which are the anchors for the system:
Don't play dumb. That's not what either of those quotes mean. We've been over this.
this makes no sense unless Marx really believes that commodities tend to exchange at pure labour values.
OR that prices and values are equal in aggregate, as I've said. This has the effect of both eliminating the apparent contradiction you claim, AND conforming to all three volumes of Capital.
But that would be devastating to your case, so I guess we Can't Have That.
(1) It is laughable you can't respond to the actual statements of Marx in vol. 1 and instead cite a Marxist apologist like you who is a cultist committed to the view that all volumes of Capital are totally consistent.
Delete(2) You have an explicit and specific statement by Marx of what he believes:
“It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities, which, in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value.” (Marx 1906: 176–177).
No doubt your pathetic ignorance of Marx and the collapse of your TSSI nonsense is making you very angry, and the only thing you can do is cite the same Marxist hacks who agree with you.
(3) "OR that prices and values are equal in aggregate, as I've said."
That would make no sense at all. Commodities only rarely exchange for pure labour values, but you can determine the value of skilled labour by looking at the exchange values of products of skilled labour as against products of unskilled labour?? lol... This is the sort of absolute idiocy and stupidity to which people life you are reduced.
(4) you fall back on two highly obscure quotes in footnotes (one in Chapter 5 and in Chapter 8) where Marx does appear to let his different theory of prices and value in vol. 3 intrude into the analysis in vol. 1.
But that is not surprising because drafts of volumes 2 and 3 were written before vol. 1, and it is likely that, under pressure from Engels to produce a work in defence of communism, Marx’s ideological commitments skewed vol.1 so that it presented capitalism in the worst light possible and with an extreme and dogmatic defence of the labour theory of value, which, in view of his work on the draft of volume 3 of Capital, he knew to have severe problems, such as the transformation problem. That is very probably why Marx never bothered to publish vol. 2 and 3 of Capital in his lifetime, and the suspicion is that he never did so because he was unsatisfied with his attempts to defend the labour theory in volume 3.
You will never accept this as the best and most probable explanation of the severe contradictions between vol. 1 and vol. 3 because you are a Marxist cultist who have wasted your life on this B.S.