>>2297382as the smithposter (and coincidentally, the keynesposter), it seems that my input is largely complete in these threads, since the overarching dispute was resolved by an ultimate submission to the fact that marx's theory of value cannot supersede its classical origins, especially where marx himself admits to the rational grounds upon which bourgeois economy is based, beginning in sir william petty (1623–87);
<"Once for all I may here state, that by classical Political Economy, I understand that economy which, since the time of W. Petty, has investigated the real relations of production in bourgeois society in contradistinction to vulgar economy, which deals with appearances only" [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 33]<"William Petty, the father of Political Economy, and to some extent the founder of Statistics" [capital vol. 1, ch. 10, sct. 5]marx also says that it is thomas hobbes who formulates a notion of labour "power", which is given in his own theory of value:
<"What the working man sells is not directly his Labour, but his Labour Power, the temporary disposal of which he makes over to the capitalist […] One of the oldest economists and most original philosophers of England—Thomas Hobbes—has already, in his Leviathan [1651], instinctively hit upon this point overlooked by all his successors. He says: “The value or worth of a man is, as in all other things, his price: that is, so much as would be given for the Use of his Power.’’ Proceeding from this basis, we shall be able to determine the Value of Labour as that of all other commodities." [value, price and profit, ch. 7]so far, we have not even left the 17th century to find concurrence. marx further sees that benjamin franklin properly identifies value as abstract labour:
<"The celebrated Franklin [1729], one of the first economists, after Wm. Petty, who saw through the nature of value, says: […] "the value of all things is … most justly measured by labour.” [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 18]so far we have seen marx's attribution of correctness to these men where it regards value. but what of surplus value..? lets see.
engels makes reference to marx's work:
<"Marx comments on this passage in the above-named manuscript Zur Kritik, etc., p. 253: “Thus Adam Smith conceives surplus-value […] as the general category, of which profit in the strict sense and rent of land are merely branches.” […] Thus even Adam Smith knew “the source of the surplus-value of the capitalist,” and furthermore also of that of the landlord. Marx acknowledged this as early as 1861" [capital vol. 2, preface to first edition]continuing, with criticism:
“Nevertheless,” Marx continues, “he [Adam Smith] does not distinguish surplus-value as such as a category on its own, distinct from the specific forms it assumes in profit and rent." [capital vol. 2, preface to first edition]
these are the same remarks which marx makes in "theories of surplus value"; that smith correctly determines the source of surplus value, but fails to abstract it as a singular category. this is similar to marx's comments here:
<"As regards value in general, it is the weak point of the classical school of Political Economy that it nowhere expressly and with full consciousness, distinguishes between labour, as it appears in the value of a product, and the same labour, as it appears in the use value of that product […] it has not the least idea, that when the difference between various kinds of labour is treated as purely quantitative, their qualitative unity or equality, and therefore their reduction to abstract human labour, is implied […] they acquire their “two different values” (use value and exchange value) from “the value of labour" […] Ricardo himself pays so little attention to the two-fold character of the labour which has a two-fold embodiment"[capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 32]yet he still qualifies this by this statement,
<"Of course the distinction is practically made, since this school treats labour, at one time under its quantitative aspect, at another under its qualitative aspect."as in the case of smith's analysis of revenues then, marx sees that the classical school is correct, but incomplete. this esoteric pedantry finds a fine line between redundancy and contradiction in marx's later statements also;
<"in respect to the phenomenal form, “value and price of labour,” or “wages,” as contrasted with the essential relation manifested therein, viz., the value and price of labour-power, the same difference holds that holds in respect to all phenomena and their hidden substratum. [.] Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin." [capital vol. 1, chapter 19]this appears to contradict this:
<"by classical Political Economy, I understand that economy which, since the time of W. Petty, has investigated the real relations of production in bourgeois society in contradistinction to vulgar economy, which deals with appearances only" [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 33]if to marx, to speak of "the value of labour" is to hold to mere phenomena, yet at once, value is conceived as "human labour", and the classical school deals in "real relations", then what is this "bourgeois skin" it fastens itself within? there is only one intelligible response by marx:
<"Even Adam Smith and Ricardo, the best representatives of the school, treat the form of value as a thing of no importance, as having no connection with the inherent nature of commodities [.] The value form of the product of labour is not only the most abstract, but is also the most universal form, taken by the product in bourgeois production, and stamps that production as a particular species of social production, and thereby gives it its special historical character. If then we treat this mode of production as one eternally fixed by Nature for every state of society, we necessarily overlook that which is the differentia specifica of the value form, and consequently of the commodity form, and of its further developments, money form, capital form, &c." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 33]the coherence of this is short-lived if we take comparison between marx's treatment of the value form and smith's. first we deal with the development of commodities in the first place. smith:
<"When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man’s wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men’s labour as he has occasion for […] One man, we shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself has occasion for, while another has less. The former consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity." [wealth of nations, bk. 1 ch. 4]this "superfluity" is once more recognised as an aspect of early trade for marx:
<"The first step made by an object of utility towards acquiring exchange-value is when it forms a non-use-value for its owner, and that happens when it forms a superfluous portion of some article required for his immediate wants." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2]smith and marx both share an identical logic where it regards the creation of value therefore. we may read further also:
<"The truth of the proposition that, “although gold and silver are not by Nature money, money is by Nature gold and silver,” is shown by the fitness of the physical properties of these metals for the functions of money [.] the money commodity must be susceptible of merely quantitative differences, must therefore be divisible at will, and equally capable of being reunited. Gold and silver possess these properties by Nature." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2]these are the exact same characteristics which adam smith also assigns to metals:
<"Metals can not only be kept with as little loss as any other commodity, scarce anything being less perishable than they are, but they can likewise, without any loss, be divided into any number of parts, as by fusion those parts can easily be reunited again; a quality which no other equally durable commodities possess, and which more than any other quality renders them fit to be the instruments of commerce and circulation." [wealth of nations, bk. 1, ch. 4]where it pertains to the historical and social conditions of money, smith also provides us an empirical anthropology:
<"Salt is said to be the common instrument of commerce and exchanges in Abyssinia; a species of shells in some parts of the coast of India; dried cod at Newfoundland; tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies; hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is at this day a village in Scotland where it is not uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of money to the baker’s shop or the alehouse." [wealth of nations, bk. 1, ch. 4]i wish to make special comment upon this reference made by smith however:
<"The armour of Diomede, says Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an hundred oxen" [wealth of nations, bk. 1, ch. 4]this is an identical reference marx makes in the grundrisse:
<"Money appears as measure (in Homer, e.g. oxen)" [grundrisse, on money]the derision given by marx against smith on the terms of historicity are then totally unfounded, since marx does not appear to disagree with smith's position, but on the contrary, appropriates it wherever he can. the "eternity" of relations are instead approached by marx rather than smith;
<"Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of any concept of value. What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? […] human labour. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 3]here, marx sees value as an inherent relation of commodity exchange, even unbeknownst to those who participate in it. what is historically considered in the way that bourgeois economy disregards then? marx makes one comment:
<"Here, however, a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 3]marx's view is identical to smith's however, as we have already seen. marx and smith both see how barter develops from a surplus, which leads to trade, and over time, a measure of value, in metals, are chosen to represent all social values. marx's comments then are either occulted, ignorant or deceptive - especially by comparison, where marx develops his system logically, rather than empirically. what then, is the strife between smith and marx, really? no one can seem to say - especially in the greater adoption of smith's conclusions in marx's system, such as the division of value between use and exchange, the measure of value being based in labour time, the notion of commodity money, the total value of a commodity entailing its cost of production, the revenues of production (wages, profits and rents) concording to the 3 major classes of society (workers, capitalists and landlords). marx also borrows from ricardo in the same way, as we may read:
<"Utility then is not the measure of exchangeable value, al-though it is absolutely essential to it. If a commodity were in no way useful,—in other words, if it could in no way con-tribute to our gratification,—it would be destitute of exchange-able value, however scarce it might be, or whatever quantity of labour might be necessary to procure it." [principles of political economy, ch. 1, sct. 1]this is echoed by marx:
<"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 1]this then grants the market concept of value, held between use and exchange; its social co-constitution in buyer and seller. what then, is left of marx which isnt present in economic thinkers before him? the only thing marx seems to hold as his own is the two-fold character of labour:
<"I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two-fold nature of the labour contained in commodities." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 2]this bleeds into his criticism about ricardo, despite at once, granting ricardo the predication implied within the terms of labour's qualitative and quantitative aspect. marx then only seems to stand on the shoulders of giants, taunting that he is taller because of it. once more the question may be posed at so-called "marxists"; what is the criticism you give against smith and ricardo? there is either silence, deception, hysteria or idle politics - but there is hardly ever any proper reason.
okay, so why not marx? my position is that marx's "value form" dialectic makes his political economy stifled by an insistence upon commodity money, which in turn, embodies a value, rather than simply representing values. on money being a "symbol of value" he says this:
<"The fact that money can, in certain functions, be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other mistaken notion, that it is itself a mere symbol." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2]on fiat (by decree) money, he says this:
<"Lawyers started long before economists the idea that money is a mere symbol, and that the value of the precious metals is purely imaginary. This they did in the sycophantic service of the crowned heads, supporting the right of the latter to debase the coinage, during the whole of the middle ages, by the traditions of the Roman Empire […] it was a maxim of the Roman Law that the value of money was fixed by decree of the emperor. It was expressly forbidden to treat money as a commodity [.] Some good work on this question has been done by G. F. Pagnini [.] in the second part of his work Pagnini directs his polemics especially against the lawyers." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2, footnote 11]here, marx is incredibly disapproving, even citing the prohibition of treating money as a commodity. as far as it regards "paper money", marx also says this:
<"We allude here only to inconvertible paper money issued by the State and having compulsory circulation […] A law peculiar to the circulation of paper money can spring up only from the proportion in which that paper money represents gold […] Only in so far as paper money represents gold, which like all other commodities has value, is it a symbol of value" [capital vol. 1, ch. 3, sct. 2, part C.]here, marx totally arrests money to a commodity, wherefrom it achieves its value form. this can be seen in contradistinction to smith's view that seashells may suffice as a medium of exchange. the larger issue of this for marx is that he sees the development of money from a single commodity as progressively developing into capital [M-C-M']. if we lack (commodity) money, we lack capital therefore, and so we no longer live in capital-ism. this dismantles marx's metaphysical project. the truth is that money is not a commodity, and never was - marx is mistaken from the beginning. marx's "value form" dialectic is hegelian hogwash, and unfortunately, this is what he bases his entire work on.