RGacky3
24th April 2012, 20:54
http://www.revleft.com/vb/value-versus-exchange-t170289/index.html
I just wanted to point out somethings.
People think that by value he means exchange value. Whilst this was true of previous economists like Ricardo, Marx views value as something that exists prior to and independent of exchange.
That is true, but its not totally unrelated to exchange value, infact exchange value comes partially FROM labor value (marxian value).
Also its important to keep in mind that this only applies to commodities, i.e. products produced for market exchange, so in a way, value is kind of exchange value even though it is not derived from it, so it is'nt exactly independant from exchange value, but the causal effect is from value to exchange value not the other way around (I hope that made sense).
He explained to me that exchange value was for Marx just the form of representation of value in commodity producing society.
Well, its value priced, and then adjusted based on supply and demand, so its a representation of value, in addition to supply and demand pressures.
This explains why labour talks of commodities selling above or below their value. If value and exchange value were the same thing, the idea of things selling above their value would make no sense.
Very important point.
This has an important consequence - value continues to exist even if commodity production ceases. It is in this context that that his proposal to distribute goods using a system of labour accounts must be understood.
I don't think that is true, the value Marx was talking about applies to market exchangable goods, it was a very specific form, for example it does'nt apply to the fruits or vegies you grow in your garden, unless you sell them, in which case they become commodities, or for example for the sweatshirt your grandma knitted for you.
I just wanted to point out somethings.
People think that by value he means exchange value. Whilst this was true of previous economists like Ricardo, Marx views value as something that exists prior to and independent of exchange.
That is true, but its not totally unrelated to exchange value, infact exchange value comes partially FROM labor value (marxian value).
Also its important to keep in mind that this only applies to commodities, i.e. products produced for market exchange, so in a way, value is kind of exchange value even though it is not derived from it, so it is'nt exactly independant from exchange value, but the causal effect is from value to exchange value not the other way around (I hope that made sense).
He explained to me that exchange value was for Marx just the form of representation of value in commodity producing society.
Well, its value priced, and then adjusted based on supply and demand, so its a representation of value, in addition to supply and demand pressures.
This explains why labour talks of commodities selling above or below their value. If value and exchange value were the same thing, the idea of things selling above their value would make no sense.
Very important point.
This has an important consequence - value continues to exist even if commodity production ceases. It is in this context that that his proposal to distribute goods using a system of labour accounts must be understood.
I don't think that is true, the value Marx was talking about applies to market exchangable goods, it was a very specific form, for example it does'nt apply to the fruits or vegies you grow in your garden, unless you sell them, in which case they become commodities, or for example for the sweatshirt your grandma knitted for you.