[OPE-L:7811] Re: Re: Re: Chris Arthur's "Alfredo on VFT"

From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Fri Oct 11 2002 - 09:57:47 EDT

Sorry for the delay in responding.
It seems to me that talk of individual value simply collapses value into
concrete labour time. Value represents abstract labour time measured
according to that time socially necessary i.e. value is identical in all
commodities of a particular sort. The notion of individual value makes no
sense to me, and Marx admitted as much in V1 when he calls the social value
the 'real value'. For me value is market value (cet par). The basis for
calculation is the comparison of the individual *labour times*.
Equalisation of profit rate is a different problem about comparison of
different branches.
>Chris, you say that individual value is a senseless term. But it seems
>that for
>Marx the notion of individual value is the basis for the calculation of
>the market
>values upon which the whole process of equalization of profit rates is
>How could we conceive of market values without the notion of individual
>Christopher Arthur wrote:
>> Alfredo - thanks for your consideration of my points (7711). Some responses
>> >My apologies for the delay in replying to Chris Arthur's OPE-L 7527. In
>> >message, Chris queries the critique of VFT in my book, "The Value of Marx"
>> >(Routledge 2002).
>> >
>> >In his work (especially his recent publications), Chris offers an
>> >interpretation of value theory that is not at all similar to
>>"classical" VFT
>> >- in fact, it may be argued that it does not belong within the main body of
>> >VFT. This is one of the reasons why I *like* Chris's stuff so much, and
>> >his work so often.
>> >
>> You say my approach does not belong to the main body of VFT. I believe it
>> does - although at the opposite end of the spectrum from Eldred because I
>> am concerned to 'save' much of Marx's quantitative determinations.
>> One way of sharply distinguishing VFT from traditional interpretations is
>> on the constitutive role of money. For VFT abstract labour and value cannot
>> be given sense without reference to money form, whereas traditinal Marxian
>> theory thinks the first two sections have given meaningful defintions
>> already. On this matter I am *within* VFT.
>> {One possible source of confusion here is that I go along with VFT that
>> money plays an ineliminable constitutive role in positing th actualityof
>> value; it is not a mere veil of the 'true' value relations; but I do not
>> like how R&W sometimes put the point as 'M is th sole existence of V'; but
>> M is only one point of fixity in the entire circuit of value-in-motion.}
>> It is probably true that there is an 'original' VFT that springs from C1
>> part I, whereas I trump that with C2 part I. The 'abstract' forms of ch 1
>> become concretely effective only when value posits value i.e. in the
>> circuit of capital; hence this is where L becomes abstract prior to C-sale.
>> You yourself likewise situate abstract labour in the K-relation, but you
>> term this 'production'. Well yes, but do you accept Jerry's riposte (7712)
>> that what is really at issue is the unity of production and circulation?
>> >Chris also states that:
>> >
>> >>If value and labour are commensurated in exchange, then anyone organising
>> >production for exchange is forced to 'precommensurate' (to borrow a
>>term from
>> >Reuten), assigning an 'ideal value' to be tested against actuality in
>> >exchange and competition. Of course the producer may not be aware that
>> >socially necessary labour time has just changed, but in the long run
>> >mediates supposedly autonomous production units so as to constrain them
>> >accordingly. Alfredo says without explanation this is 'invalid' (n.32
>>p. 122)
>> >but it seems the way in to the solution to me.
>> >
>> >Two observations. First, the 'invalid' is out of context. What I say in
>> >footnote is the following:
>> >
>> >"Rubin realised that [his] argument is untenable: 'Some critics say
>>that our
>> >conception may lead to the conclusion that abstract labour originates
>>only in
>> >the act of exchange, from which it follows that value also originates
>>only in
>> >exchange' (Rubin 1975, p.147; see also 1978, p.121). He attempts to evade
>> >this difficulty through the distinction between exchange as the social form
>> >of the process of production, and exchange as one phase of reproduction,
>> >alternating with production. Rubin (1975, pp.95, 100-101, 144-151; 1978,
>> >pp.122-124) claims that his argument that value is determined in exchange
>> >refers to the first meaning of the term, rather than the second. However,
>> >this distinction is invalid, and Rubin himself states that the relationship
>> >between the producers is established through the act, rather than the
>> >structure, of exchange (see Rubin 1975, pp.7-9, 61, 64, 70, 80-88, 143;
>> >p.114)."
>> >
>> >This note needs no further explanation. What is "invalid" is Rubin's
>> >distinction, which, by the way, Rubin is unable to maintain consistently
>> >throughout his work.
>> >
>> I still do not see what is 'invalid'. Because production is socially
>> determined as production for exchange this 'leaves its mark on produciton
>> itself' (Rubin - in my terms 'form-determines' it). hence, as we have seen,
>> this allows a derivation of abstract labour there 'prior' to exchange
>> narrowly conceived as the moment of explicit social validation of value and
>> its determinants (AL, SNLT).
>> >Second observation: Chris must decide whether or not there is value
>>prior to
>> >sale. If there is (as Chris seems to have stated, see above: "Hence
>> >labour exists in the factory"), then there is no scope for "ideal
>>value", and
>> >no useful meaning can be attached to "precommensuration".
>> >
>> >This is an important issue for me, as can be seen throughout the book. I
>> >think that, in capitalist production, value exists prior to, and
>> >independently of, sale. Value is created by the *relations of production*,
>> >rather than by the act of sale. I admire Chris's effort to substantiate a
>> >similar view (e.g., in his C&C 2001 article). But I think Chris's writings
>> >are sometimes unclear about this critical issue.
>> >
>> >Alfredo.
>> Key here and in your later remarks is the issue of what is 'prior' to sale.
>> You say I am unclear, equivocal, and that in any event cannot bridge the
>> gap.
>> Well, there are two senses of 'prior'. In one sense what is prior is simply
>> the mental state of the capitalist: in this case 'ideal' = 'in his head' or
>> at best 'virtual', and 'precomensuration' means what calculations he (and
>> his financier if any) undertakes to see if he can meet the terms expected
>> to prevail on the market. Of course this happens.
>>  But for me 'ideal' means something more substantial. I have a concept of
>> objective 'ideality' which pertains to the value 'substance' of commodities
>> quite as much as their use-value 'materiality'. There is consubstantiality
>> here (cf the eucharist) in virtue of form determination. Such ideality
>> becomes really effective in the capital circuit when valorisation form
>> determines material production (real subsumption etc). As Marx says, in th
>> circuit capital metamorphses through all its phases of reproduction: "Hence
>> it can only be grasped as a movement, and not as a static thing" (C2 185).
>> It follows that production for exchange is already ideally (in my sense)
>> posited as value in motion in the phase ...P... quite as much as in M-C and
>> C-M. So just like Rubin I can argue that concepts like abstract labour and
>> new value have determinate reality 'prior' to C_M. But what about social
>> validation? VFT stress that withut sale SNLT and V are merely potential not
>> actual. True, but one can think of 'preconmmensuration' not as the
>> captialist's calculation as to whether he has wasted labour, but
>> objectively i.e. premised on the systemic form determination of production
>> on a social scale. Whether the capitaist knows it or not, as part of the
>> social divsion of labour within capital in general snlt in his branch has
>> been fixed at a certain level, and a certain amount of V hence exists
>> 'ideally' prior to sale even tho only sale reveals it. (Incidentally marx's
>> term "individual value" is senseless because V has only systemic reality.)
>> Why isn't this the traditional view? Becaus it is contextualised *within*
>> the value system,not in *abstraction* from exchange and circulation.
>> Cheers Chris
>> 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 16 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT