Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I used the expression ‘exchangeable like commodities’. Examples of such things are all things that are bought & sold; Not everything exchangeable. You seem to have missed this point.
Your ‘strongest objection’ is truly the weakest one as it disregards the obvious fact that ‘things made for exchange and things made for [the] use [of the producers themselves]’ both are equally useful products of labour and so exchangeable like commodities and the fact that useful things, if they’re valueless (i.e., if they contain no labour incorporated in them), cannot turn commodities during exchange.
‘Are you sure you don’t want to correct yourself and …’
A humble seeker after the Truth, my life philosophy is the Principle of healthy & meaningful living. So, I can assure you that I’m all for the Truth and ready always to rectify my mistakes.
‘… when it is only a feture of capitalism which has only existed for three hundred years.’
But, sir, Engels detected the existence of commodities during Barbarism, the last prehistoric era preceding civilisation and wrote about it in unequivocal terms in THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE.
‘Producing commodities would be part of the human condition and so would still exist even in socialism.’
My point is as human labour is the source of value (exchange-value), every useful thing incorporating some human labour has got some value, and hence it deserves to be reckoned a commodity. And so, humanity seems to be unable to rid itself of commodities, as I see it.
Nevertheless, humanity can rid itself of the commodity economy (market economy) by doing away with the exchange (buying & selling) of commodities. And by abolishing private property, it can get rid of classes too.
What’s your mightiest point against my view that every useful thing containing human labour is a commodity ?
‘Ok. Do you think that every useful thing produced by human labour is a commodity?’
My answer is, ‘Yes!’
‘“Producing” a natural pearl is the act of diving into the sea, finding pearls and bringing them back to shore.’
I’m afraid the above statement reflects your inability to make a distinction between collection & creation.
‘As pearls are multiple this is an act that can be “reproduced”.’
The act of collecting pearls does not produce or reproduce pearls.
‘So you think all useful things are commodities? …’
I don’t think I ever said anything that should lead you to think so.
I know oxygen in free air, rain water, uncaught fishes in seas, etc. so many useful things that don’t belong to the category of commodities.‘As you point out, this does involve work. And that work can be done again as long as these things can be found in nature, ie they are reproducible.’
The above statement by you adds up to claiming that you can reproduce something that you’re really unable to produce.
Because something (a wagonload of cement) involves some work (transportation) that ‘can be done again’ by the worker (transporter), it doesn’t follow the worker produces or reproduces it.
Pearl divers that dive into seas for pearls do not produce pearl balls. They discover & collect pearls, and thus they add value to collected pearls which thus turn commodities.
In the same way, apples from apple orchards, poultry eggs from poultry farms, dairy milk, cereals, logs of wood, etc. are commodities.
I do agree with Meax’s view that ‘labour is not the only source of material wealth’.
I do not contradict the view that a commodity is ‘a useful thing, produced by labour, that is produced for the purpose of exchange.’
Nevertheless, I’d like to add that I think there’s No good reason for ‘a useful thing’ to need depend on the producer’s will to exchange it in order to be a commodity.Producers (wage workers) in a factory do not produce useful things ‘for the purpose of exchange[ing]’ them really. Still, the useful things they produce are all commodities. There’s No good reason for considering them non-commodities.
Evidently, if, to be a commodity, ‘a useful thing’ has to be dependent on its producer’s intention to exchange it for something else, it’d be impossible to find a commodity in mountainous heaps of industrial products under capitalism, I’m afraid to say.To the best of my knowledge & belief, I’m trying to understand and prove the truth of the law of value discovered by Marx. And I think in order to be true, this law has to be premised, like a scientific theory, on incontestable logic, Not on, as a dogma is, any mere remarks by or flawed views held by any persons whoever they might be.
I don’t think I’ve conflated ‘“valuable” with “value”’. Would like to know what led you to think so.
To the best of my knowledge & belief, I don’t think I ever said anything to the effect that ‘in Marx’s theory a commodity is’ something that’s ‘*just* a product of human labour’, Not ‘a useful thing, produced by labour, that is produced for the purpose of exchange.’
Would like to know your logic for your refusal to consider ‘works of art’ to be commodities.
I’ve already dealt with things like ‘uncultivated land, honour etc’.
My point is No value means No price, hence No market-price. Your main objection to it seems to be your claim that it supports ‘the bourgeois theory that the price of everything sold depends on the market demand for it since this is the one thing they all have in common.’ I cannot see eye to eye with you on this point. If the bourgeoisie fail or pretend to fail to see that ‘the one thing they all have in common’ is essentially human labour, it’s not the fault of my thesis.
The condition of reproducibility makes things complicated unnecessarily, as I see it. So many things such as pearls, natural diamond, gold, silver, bee wax, natural honey, apples, mangos, food grain, vegetables, water in bottles, oxygen in cylinders, poultry eggs, fishes, etc., etc. are bought & sold as commodities which we can neither produce nor reproduce.
Undiscovered pearls inside shells of uncaught oysters in seas are valueless. Nevertheless, it’s the pearl diver’s labour expended to discover and collect a pearl ball that makes it valuable. Similarly, it’s the human labour expended to keep an orchard, a poultry farm, etc. or catch fishes from seas that makes apples, mangos, poultry eggs, fishes, etc. valuable and thus makes them turn commodities. I cannot see what’s wrong with it.‘Uncultivated land is clearly not the product of any labour …’
On which grounds? A privately-owned plot (uncultivated) in a township was purchased for significant amount of hard-earned money (fruit of a significant quantity of hard labour). Even if it’s inherited by someone, it can’t be valueless just as a capitalist’s property that doesn’t contain an iota of the capitalist’s labour or a prize won in a lottery is not valueless, as I see it.‘It does not reflect any socially necessary labour that might also have been incorporated in it.’
As I see it, if ‘It’ means the price of the plot, ‘It’ certainly reflects the quantity of the socially necessary labour incorporated in it. Nevertheless, its market-price that must correspond to its demand is usually unlikely to reflect the quantity of the socially necessary labour incorporated in it.‘Its price depends on the demand for it. Land is in this position.’
I’d like to replace the term ‘price’ with the term market-price in this quote.‘Works of art would be a typical example’.
I think if we take cognisance of the distinction between price and market-price, the problem is solved.‘”Not being the subject of production or reproduction by labour they are, naturally not subject to the laws of value”.’
I can’t see any good reason why a useful product of labour is not subject to the laws of value. As labour is the source of value, the value of a useful product of labour need not depend on the condition of ‘”reproduction by labour”‘, need it?Talents are of numerous kinds. An artist, a sports legend, an actor, a writer, a movie maker, an environment activist, a human-rights activist, a statesman, a President like Volodymyr Zelensky, a scientist, a good teacher, an expert surgeon, etc. are all talented people. You cannot claim an artist of extraordinary skill possesses more talent than a movie maker or an inventor of a life-saving therapy such as the COVID-19 vaccine. As a maths teacher or a writer is unable to perform like Lionel Messi, the latter is also unable to teach maths or produce a good piece of writing.
‘works of art or the exercise of sporting or acting skills are not commodities in this strict sense.’
I cannot see any good reason why a painting, Lionel Messi’s performance, a movie, etc., things produced for selling and bought & sold like commodities, do not deserve to be reckoned commodities.I’m sure that you’ve conflated ‘“value”’ with the use-value. By ‘“value”’, Marx meant the exchange-value alone which is fundamentally different from the use-value. By ‘valuable’, I meant something in possession of some ‘“value”’.
The ‘Plenty of things’ you consider ‘highly valuable’ although they’re ‘definitely not a product of human labour’ are, precisely, highly useful. The expression ‘highly valuable’ is an instance of mistaken diction.
Marx didn’t say the value and price of a commodity are ‘the same thing’, nor did I.
