anaxarchos
09-02-2009, 09:33 PM
...but it is not quite there. It still has, "too many notes". Bear with me for a sec.
We have discovered that when products of labor become commodities, they also become two sided. As use-values, their value is largely irrelevant. As exchange-values their use-value disappears. Their use-values, which are identical to their material existence, are only repositories or vessels in which value congeals. In turn, the substance of value is abstract human labor. Very clear... So, why call it an "unsubstantial reality"?
Because there ain't no such thing as "abstract human labor". It is a social reduction without any material basis whatever. Pull up an electron microscope and put any commodity underneath it. Not an atom of value is detectable. There ain't no substance to it... yet it is very real, and most often determinate.
What kind of mumbo-jumbo is this? Can we think of anything else like that? Sure.
Go back to your electron microscope, throw away the commodities, and put the Archbishop of Canterbury underneath it. You cannot find a single atom of archbishopness.
It ain't things which "have" value. Exchange brings with it a social measure... not surprising, because it is, above all, social intercourse.
What is Value?
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-02-2009, 09:48 PM
...and a few of us are in an animated discussion and the TV is on in background, in that rude way that SOME people insist on... and what comes on TV but this cable reality show about 3 generations of the same family who own a Pawn shop in some fringe place like LA or Vegas. It is called "Pawn Kings" or somethin', and I am sorry I don't know too many details because I don't really watch much TV, but... the bottom-line is that within 10 minutes, the conversation is over and we are all huddled around the tube.
It was terrific... a far better primer on basic economics, exchange, use-value, and value and the rest than any stupid Paul Krugman NYT column or anything else...
09-02-2009, 09:48 PM
...and a few of us are in an animated discussion and the TV is on in background, in that rude way that SOME people insist on... and what comes on TV but this cable reality show about 3 generations of the same family who own a Pawn shop in some fringe place like LA or Vegas. It is called "Pawn Kings" or somethin', and I am sorry I don't know too many details because I don't really watch much TV, but... the bottom-line is that within 10 minutes, the conversation is over and we are all huddled around the tube.
It was terrific... a far better primer on basic economics, exchange, use-value, and value and the rest than any stupid Paul Krugman NYT column or anything else...
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-02-2009, 09:57 PM
... and see if you agree.
So, GrandMasterBP... this thing we are on matters. I don't know what you (or I, for that matter) think about Carl Sagan, but he pulled a big one out when at the end of a presentation on the Big Bang, he came out with "We are all Star Stuff". Yes, we are.
This bit about "unsubstantial reality" and "crystals of that social substance" are similarly seminal.
Do we stand awhile and admire the scenery, or do we move on?
If we get it, let's keep moving (we can always come back)... lest we be overwhelmed by the attraction of money.
09-02-2009, 09:57 PM
... and see if you agree.
So, GrandMasterBP... this thing we are on matters. I don't know what you (or I, for that matter) think about Carl Sagan, but he pulled a big one out when at the end of a presentation on the Big Bang, he came out with "We are all Star Stuff". Yes, we are.
This bit about "unsubstantial reality" and "crystals of that social substance" are similarly seminal.
Do we stand awhile and admire the scenery, or do we move on?
If we get it, let's keep moving (we can always come back)... lest we be overwhelmed by the attraction of money.
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-02-2009, 10:45 PM
So how far back was it known that labor is the basis of the "value" found in exchange? Well, the Greeks say it openly. The Sumerians make labor time notations on their trading tables. But, one of the most comprehensive attempts at the Labor Theory of Value belongs to Ibn Khaldun who wrote in the 14th century and based his work on observations going back to the 7th and 9th centuries...
Who was Ibn Khaldun?
Ibn Khaldun or Ibn Khaldoun (May 27, 1332 – March 19, 1406), was a famous Arab Muslim historian, historiographer, demographer, economist, philosopher and sociologist born in present-day Tunisia. He is regarded as a forefather of demography, historiography, philosophy of history, and sociology, and is viewed as one of the forerunners of modern economics. He is best known for his Muqaddimah, "Prolegomenon".
http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/windo ... _thumb.jpg
http://www.uwplatt.edu/~soofi/khaldun2.pdf
1. Labor Theory of Value
Although Moslem writers had alluded to labor as an important source of value as early as the 7th century, Ibn Khaldun in his al-Mugaddimah had developed the rudiments of labor theory of value. The parallelism between Adam Smith's labor theory of value and Ibn Khaldun's labor theory of value is striking. Smith started his labor theory of value by stating: "Labour was the first price, the original purchase--money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased." (Smith 1937, 30)
Ibn Khaldun developed his value theory by indicating: "There is nothing here [originally] except the labor, and [the labor] is not desired by itself as acquired [...,but the value realized from it]" (Vol. II, 313)
He further expanded on this theme by writing: "Carpentry and weaving, for instance, are associated with wood and yarn [ the respective craft needed for their production]. However, in the two crafts [first mentioned] the labor [that goes into them] is more important, and its value is greater." (Vol. II, 313)
After a few paragraphs, Ibn Khaldun wrote: "It has thus become clear that gains and profits, in their entirety or for the most part, are value realized from human labor." (Vol. II, 314)
Ibn Khaldun had earlier defined `profit' as: "[The part of income] that is obtained by a person through his own effort and strength is called `profit.'" (Vol. II, 312)
Here, however, Ibn Khaldun divides the total product, the gains, into used and un-used parts. He called the part that is used up `sustenance,' a concept that Karl Marx called `necessary labor.' In Ibn Khaldun's words `sustenance...is "[the part of the profit] that is utilized.'" (Vol. II, 314)
For modern readers Ibn Khaldun's usage of the term profit is problematic. However, it should be clear from the passage that what Ibn Khaldun calls profit or gain is in fact total produce. Ibn Khaldun, in discussing the constituent parts of the gain, explains that a man's ... profits will constitute his livelihood, if they correspond to his necessities and needs. They will be capital accumulation, if they are greater than [his needs]. (Vol. II, 311-312)
Therefore, Ibn Khaldun's division of the total product of labor into `sustenance' and `capital accumulation' is similar to the Marxian notion of `necessary' and `surplus' labor. In considering labor as a commodity, Ibn Khaldun was a precursor of Karl Marx in another respect. Ibn Khaldun wrote: "For labor is a commodity, as we shall show later, in as much as incomes and profits represent the value of the labor of their recipients...'." (Issawi, 85)
Khaldun's thought on another aspect of value theory resembles David Ricardo's ideas. David Ricardo, in development of the labor theory of value, was consciously in search of an `invariable' unit of measurement and arbitrarily selected gold as a commodity which is produced by a method of production that is an average of two extremes: "... the one where little fixed capital is used, the other where little labor is employed, as to form a just mean between them?"(Meek 1956, 110)
Ibn Khaldun also arbitrarily chose gold and silver as `invariable' measures of value by stating that "God created the two mineral `stones,' gold and silver, as the [measure of] value..." (Vol. II, 313)
"Furthermore, [Gold and silver are what] the inhabitants of the world, by preference, consider treasure and property[to consist of]. Even if, under certain circumstances, other things are acquired, it is only for the purpose of ultimately obtaining [gold and silver]. All other things are subject to market fluctuations, from which [gold and silver] are exempt (6)." (Vol. II, 313)
By this analogy I neither intend to imply that Ibn Khaldun's selection of precious metals as `invariable' measures of value was based on indepth analyses that characterized David Ricardo's selection procedure, nor do I mean to suggest that Khaldun was consciously in search of an invariable unit of measurement. My comments are aimed at showing that both men arbitrarily selected precious metals for the purpose.
From the foregoing discussion it is clear that Ibn Khaldun had a rudimentary labor theory of value, a prelude to the consistent, well formulated, and sophisticated versions of the theory by David Ricardo and Karl Marx.
09-02-2009, 10:45 PM
So how far back was it known that labor is the basis of the "value" found in exchange? Well, the Greeks say it openly. The Sumerians make labor time notations on their trading tables. But, one of the most comprehensive attempts at the Labor Theory of Value belongs to Ibn Khaldun who wrote in the 14th century and based his work on observations going back to the 7th and 9th centuries...
Who was Ibn Khaldun?
Ibn Khaldun or Ibn Khaldoun (May 27, 1332 – March 19, 1406), was a famous Arab Muslim historian, historiographer, demographer, economist, philosopher and sociologist born in present-day Tunisia. He is regarded as a forefather of demography, historiography, philosophy of history, and sociology, and is viewed as one of the forerunners of modern economics. He is best known for his Muqaddimah, "Prolegomenon".
http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/windo ... _thumb.jpg
http://www.uwplatt.edu/~soofi/khaldun2.pdf
1. Labor Theory of Value
Although Moslem writers had alluded to labor as an important source of value as early as the 7th century, Ibn Khaldun in his al-Mugaddimah had developed the rudiments of labor theory of value. The parallelism between Adam Smith's labor theory of value and Ibn Khaldun's labor theory of value is striking. Smith started his labor theory of value by stating: "Labour was the first price, the original purchase--money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased." (Smith 1937, 30)
Ibn Khaldun developed his value theory by indicating: "There is nothing here [originally] except the labor, and [the labor] is not desired by itself as acquired [...,but the value realized from it]" (Vol. II, 313)
He further expanded on this theme by writing: "Carpentry and weaving, for instance, are associated with wood and yarn [ the respective craft needed for their production]. However, in the two crafts [first mentioned] the labor [that goes into them] is more important, and its value is greater." (Vol. II, 313)
After a few paragraphs, Ibn Khaldun wrote: "It has thus become clear that gains and profits, in their entirety or for the most part, are value realized from human labor." (Vol. II, 314)
Ibn Khaldun had earlier defined `profit' as: "[The part of income] that is obtained by a person through his own effort and strength is called `profit.'" (Vol. II, 312)
Here, however, Ibn Khaldun divides the total product, the gains, into used and un-used parts. He called the part that is used up `sustenance,' a concept that Karl Marx called `necessary labor.' In Ibn Khaldun's words `sustenance...is "[the part of the profit] that is utilized.'" (Vol. II, 314)
For modern readers Ibn Khaldun's usage of the term profit is problematic. However, it should be clear from the passage that what Ibn Khaldun calls profit or gain is in fact total produce. Ibn Khaldun, in discussing the constituent parts of the gain, explains that a man's ... profits will constitute his livelihood, if they correspond to his necessities and needs. They will be capital accumulation, if they are greater than [his needs]. (Vol. II, 311-312)
Therefore, Ibn Khaldun's division of the total product of labor into `sustenance' and `capital accumulation' is similar to the Marxian notion of `necessary' and `surplus' labor. In considering labor as a commodity, Ibn Khaldun was a precursor of Karl Marx in another respect. Ibn Khaldun wrote: "For labor is a commodity, as we shall show later, in as much as incomes and profits represent the value of the labor of their recipients...'." (Issawi, 85)
Khaldun's thought on another aspect of value theory resembles David Ricardo's ideas. David Ricardo, in development of the labor theory of value, was consciously in search of an `invariable' unit of measurement and arbitrarily selected gold as a commodity which is produced by a method of production that is an average of two extremes: "... the one where little fixed capital is used, the other where little labor is employed, as to form a just mean between them?"(Meek 1956, 110)
Ibn Khaldun also arbitrarily chose gold and silver as `invariable' measures of value by stating that "God created the two mineral `stones,' gold and silver, as the [measure of] value..." (Vol. II, 313)
"Furthermore, [Gold and silver are what] the inhabitants of the world, by preference, consider treasure and property[to consist of]. Even if, under certain circumstances, other things are acquired, it is only for the purpose of ultimately obtaining [gold and silver]. All other things are subject to market fluctuations, from which [gold and silver] are exempt (6)." (Vol. II, 313)
By this analogy I neither intend to imply that Ibn Khaldun's selection of precious metals as `invariable' measures of value was based on indepth analyses that characterized David Ricardo's selection procedure, nor do I mean to suggest that Khaldun was consciously in search of an invariable unit of measurement. My comments are aimed at showing that both men arbitrarily selected precious metals for the purpose.
From the foregoing discussion it is clear that Ibn Khaldun had a rudimentary labor theory of value, a prelude to the consistent, well formulated, and sophisticated versions of the theory by David Ricardo and Karl Marx.
Re: What is Value?
Kid of the Black Hole
09-03-2009, 05:30 AM
A la "When we can get there, will you do commodity fetishism"? I know you've written about it before but I was thinkin' maybe you had something even more compact similar to "Alienation is capital" plus your modern parable
09-03-2009, 05:30 AM
A la "When we can get there, will you do commodity fetishism"? I know you've written about it before but I was thinkin' maybe you had something even more compact similar to "Alienation is capital" plus your modern parable
Re: What is Value?
09-03-2009, 05:49 AM
and use Maoist as the changeup. This is pretty much the very start of a crack at a materialist analysis.
Pretty cool, huh? Curt's question in the other megathread was two-sided and this is the other side.
In sports terms he asked: Why are we letting all of the disrupters and haters throw us off our game, when we could elevate it instead?
Answer the first: those "disrupters" are playing defense and its a contact sport
Answer the second: its hard work to raise ones game..gotta hit the weight room and the film room..hot streaks aren't luck (not even in video games)
EDIT: OK, sometimes luck is a definite element in the process, but without preparation you won't have much luck. Come to think of it, I could make this into a dating analogy too..
and use Maoist as the changeup. This is pretty much the very start of a crack at a materialist analysis.
Pretty cool, huh? Curt's question in the other megathread was two-sided and this is the other side.
In sports terms he asked: Why are we letting all of the disrupters and haters throw us off our game, when we could elevate it instead?
Answer the first: those "disrupters" are playing defense and its a contact sport
Answer the second: its hard work to raise ones game..gotta hit the weight room and the film room..hot streaks aren't luck (not even in video games)
EDIT: OK, sometimes luck is a definite element in the process, but without preparation you won't have much luck. Come to think of it, I could make this into a dating analogy too..
Re: What is Value?
blindpig
09-03-2009, 07:24 AM
but let me throw this out: does exchange value exist only at the moment of exchange? My inventory says this is so.
09-03-2009, 07:24 AM
but let me throw this out: does exchange value exist only at the moment of exchange? My inventory says this is so.
Re: What is Value?
Kid of the Black Hole
09-03-2009, 07:54 AM
This is a point that gets really confused. The exchange value dictates a great many things in the sphere of production and exchange, even though it may only be "expected" or "anticipated" exchange value.
As a meager example, say you find a collectible that is priced at less than what you can sell it for (say on Ebay or even to a dealer). Here, a known/established price listing has a great effect on the exchange of the collectible
But of course exchange-value is only "realized" in your pocket at the moment of exchange
PS if you'll permit me to try my hand at this, don't take it as gospel but I think different ways of writing the definitions can be helpful sometimes
value = calculus of abstract socially necessary labor (ie it takes the average workman 5 hours to produce a particular commodity). This underlies exchange value.
exchange value = how much/many of one commodity will exchange for another
price = exchange value expressed as money, but subject to its own fluctuations that do not necessarily mirror exchange value
use-value = satisfies some human want/need.
09-03-2009, 07:54 AM
This is a point that gets really confused. The exchange value dictates a great many things in the sphere of production and exchange, even though it may only be "expected" or "anticipated" exchange value.
As a meager example, say you find a collectible that is priced at less than what you can sell it for (say on Ebay or even to a dealer). Here, a known/established price listing has a great effect on the exchange of the collectible
But of course exchange-value is only "realized" in your pocket at the moment of exchange
PS if you'll permit me to try my hand at this, don't take it as gospel but I think different ways of writing the definitions can be helpful sometimes
value = calculus of abstract socially necessary labor (ie it takes the average workman 5 hours to produce a particular commodity). This underlies exchange value.
exchange value = how much/many of one commodity will exchange for another
price = exchange value expressed as money, but subject to its own fluctuations that do not necessarily mirror exchange value
use-value = satisfies some human want/need.
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-03-2009, 11:35 AM
You even made a joke about it.
From my response to Megan, below:
"It ain't things which "have" value. Exchange brings with it a social measure... not surprising, because it is, above all, social intercourse."
What is actually going on is this: within the group/clan/tribe there is no exchange, no property, and only a very rudimentary division of labor, if any at all. Social interaction between independent peoples takes the form of the exchange of the products of their labor. What is happening is the beginnings of cooperation between groups rather than within them. Because human productivity remains marginal, as trade is regularized it becomes important that it be of equivalents. A social measure evolves out of a category which doesn't exist in life: abstract labor.
But, more than this, it appears as an attribute of things which are exchanged... as an inherent value. In truth, it is a social interaction between the producers of those things which is at work.
That is "fetishism".
It appears very early on, to boot. Simplicity is not a cure, though complexity masks the relationship further. To say that when you buy sneakers, you are actually entering into a social relationship with rubber producers in Malaysia and assemblers in Mexico and textile workers in China and that none of the "things" that are involved in that have any of the traits you attribute to them, in reality... that is as daunting as it is obvious.
09-03-2009, 11:35 AM
You even made a joke about it.
From my response to Megan, below:
"It ain't things which "have" value. Exchange brings with it a social measure... not surprising, because it is, above all, social intercourse."
What is actually going on is this: within the group/clan/tribe there is no exchange, no property, and only a very rudimentary division of labor, if any at all. Social interaction between independent peoples takes the form of the exchange of the products of their labor. What is happening is the beginnings of cooperation between groups rather than within them. Because human productivity remains marginal, as trade is regularized it becomes important that it be of equivalents. A social measure evolves out of a category which doesn't exist in life: abstract labor.
But, more than this, it appears as an attribute of things which are exchanged... as an inherent value. In truth, it is a social interaction between the producers of those things which is at work.
That is "fetishism".
It appears very early on, to boot. Simplicity is not a cure, though complexity masks the relationship further. To say that when you buy sneakers, you are actually entering into a social relationship with rubber producers in Malaysia and assemblers in Mexico and textile workers in China and that none of the "things" that are involved in that have any of the traits you attribute to them, in reality... that is as daunting as it is obvious.
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
09-03-2009, 11:48 AM
Each commodity has one Value but many Exchange-values. When wheat trades for linen or salt or cod, each of those are exchange-values. A specific kind of exchange-value is that with the money commodity... "price". These exchange-values are expressions of the underlying Value of the commodity, what Marx calls the "Form of Value". Exchange-values change all the time, because of arbitrary circumstances, supply and demand, and a few dozen other factors. But exchange-values fluctuate around Value, what Smith calls their "Natural Price" (when supply equals demand, and so on).
In truth, Values change too, as the conditions of production underlying them changes. The amount of the crystalline "social substance" is constantly being reevaluated against the social average.
09-03-2009, 11:48 AM
Each commodity has one Value but many Exchange-values. When wheat trades for linen or salt or cod, each of those are exchange-values. A specific kind of exchange-value is that with the money commodity... "price". These exchange-values are expressions of the underlying Value of the commodity, what Marx calls the "Form of Value". Exchange-values change all the time, because of arbitrary circumstances, supply and demand, and a few dozen other factors. But exchange-values fluctuate around Value, what Smith calls their "Natural Price" (when supply equals demand, and so on).
In truth, Values change too, as the conditions of production underlying them changes. The amount of the crystalline "social substance" is constantly being reevaluated against the social average.