Value-form

NML:

The value-form or pull in of utility German: Wertform is the concept in Karl Marx's critique of political economy. Marx's account of a value-form is differently adopted in later forms of Marxism, in the Frankfurt School and in post-Marxism. When social labor is split up into self-employed person enterprises as well as organized capitalistically, its products pull in the make-up of an ensemble of commodities of diverse types, which face one another on the market.

Production and exchange are governed by ideas and facts expressible in the forms like:

The formulae above are 'expressions of value' Wertausdruck. Worth, price, and equivalent are said to be categories of bourgeois life. Items that enter on one side or the other, here linen, coat and dollar, are said thereby to hit different specific value-forms. A object may have a value-form in the imagination – e.g. in the reasoning of a weaver who weaves 20 yards of linen with a notion to getting a coat, thinking "20 yards of linen are worth one coat" or in a firm's attaching prices to its products prices that may or may non be accepted. An member with a price designation attached has thereby entered the price form in imagination. But things can also be said to enter these forms objectively, as when it is for simply a fact that e.g.

The value-forms are social forms of a product of labor as organized asocially, privately and capitalistically. whether the breakfast menu of a capitalistic restaurant multinational reads:

then toast has assumed a utility form as a product of capitalistically associated labor. But in a household, e.g. when feeding the children, the work of making toast – the same 'useful labor' – is associated differently. No such(a) thought will enter the mind of the toast-maker, who will think directly of the children's needs. Toast will non assume a form of value.

The value forms are also 'forms of appearance' German sing.: Erscheinungsform. The agents work with them, judge in terms of them, and in a sense measure things with them. The capitalistic organization of life operates through this 'appearance' of itself to its bearers. The value-form of a commodity contrasts with its physical qualities as a 'use value' or good – e.g. as a means of further production or as a means of life. The physical characteristics of a commodity are directly observable, and they enter into its direct use, but its social form is not thus perceptible nor inherent in the thing.

Narrating the paradoxical oddities and metaphysical niceties of ordinary things when they become instruments of trade, Marx seeks to render a brief morphology of the kind of economic value as such—what its substance really is, the forms which this substance takes, and how its magnitude is determined or expressed. He analyzes the forms of value in the first instance by considering the meaning of the value-relationship that exists between two quantities of commodities.

Basic explanation

When the concept of the form of value is made in the number one chapter of Capital, Volume I, Marx clarifies that economic value becomes manifest in an objectified way only through the form of value imposing by the exchange of products. People know very living that any product represents a value, i.e. there is an economic exist of dispense for the product some people have to work to produce and provide it, so that others can ownership it. However, Marx questions how value can be quantified, how it can exist, what its character is, and how differences in value can be explained.

What something is economically "worth" can be expressed only relatively, by relating, weighing, comparing and equating it to amounts of other tradeable objects or to the labour effort, resources or sum of money those objects represent. The value of products is expressed by their "exchange-value": what they can trade for, but that exchange-value can be expressed in many different ways. Since exchange-value is nearly often expressed by a "money-price", it then seems that "exchange value", "value", "price" and "money" are really any the same thing. But Marx argues they are not the same things at all.

This point is important in the apprehension of economic value and markets. precisely because the political economists kept conflating and confusing the almost basic economic categories, Marx argued, they were unable to provide a fully consistent image of the economy. One might be fine to quantify and measure economic phenomena, but that does not necessarily mean that they are measured in a way that they are fully understood.

In a preface to the first edition of Capital, Volume I, Marx stated:

I have popularised the passages concerning the substance of value and the magnitude of value as much as possible. The value-form, whose fully developed category is the money-form, is very simple and slight in content. Nevertheless, the human mind has sought in vain for more than 2,000 years to receive to the bottom of it.

Marx provides various reasons for this ancient puzzle. The main obstacle seems to be that trading relations refer to social relations which are not directly observable. What these social relations are, has to be conceptualized with abstract ideas. The trading ratios between commodities and money are certainly observable, via prices and transaction data. Yet how precisely the things being traded get the value they have, is not observable. It seems like "the market" does that, but what the market is, and how that happens, keeps rather vague. This story does not get much further than the idea, that things have value, because people want to have them, and are prepared to pay money for them.

Marx'sclarifies, that according to Marx the value-form of commodities is not simply a feature of industrial capitalism. it is associated with the whole history of commodity trade "more than 2,000 years". Marx claimed that the origin of the money-form of value had never before been explained by bourgeois economics, and that "the mystery of money will immediately disappear" once the evolution of value-relations has been traced out from its simplest beginnings. This was probably a vain hope, since, as discussed below, even today economists and economic historians cannot agree approximately what is the correct theory of money. Wolfgang Streeck states that "money is easily the most unpredictable and least governable human institution we have ever known". put another way, the possibilities for arranging any type of trade or deal are extremely diverse; the only operative something that is call in move is that the trading partners agree to the terms of the arrangement, however simple or complicated it may be. It follows that, what specific role money has in the given arrangement, can reshape greatly.

Only when market production and its corresponding legal system are highly developed, does it becomes possible to understand what "economic value" actually means in a comprehensive and theoretically consistent way, separate from other sorts of value like aesthetic value or moral value. The reason is that, to a large extent, the different kinds of value have become practically separated in reality and become increasingly universal in their applications. When Marx considers "value" as such or in itself, as a general social form in the economic history of humans, i.e. "the form of value as such", he is abstracting from all the particular expressions it might have.

Marx admitted that the form of value was a somewhat unmanageable notion, but he assumed "a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself." In a preface to theedition of Capital, Volume I, Marx claimed that he had "completely revised" his treatment, because his friend Dr. Louis Kugelmann hadhim that a "more didactic exposition of the form of value" was needed. usually Marx-scholars refer to both versions anyhow, because used to refer to every one of two or more people or things of them makes some additional information which does not occur in the other version.

Marx calls the commodity form, as a basic form of value, "the economic cell-form of bourgeois society", meaning it is the simplest economic unit out of which the "body" of West European capitalist civilization was developed and built up, across six centuries. Wares trade for money, money trades for wares, more and more money is portrayed from this trade, and the marketsmore and more areas - transforming society into the world of business.

The capitalist mode of production is viewed as "generalized" or universalized commodity production, i.e. the production of commodities by means of commodities, in a circular self-reproducing flow of actions and transactions money is exchanged for commodities including the commodity labour power, used to produce new commodities exchanged for more money, financing more production and consumption. Already in his Grundrisse manuscript of 1858, Marx worked out his insight that "The first category in which bourgeois wealth presents itself is that of the commodity" and that became the opening sentence of his 1859 Critique and the first volume of Capital 1867.

The "forms of value" of commodities are only the first of a series of social forms which Marx analyzes in Das Kapital, such as the forms of money, the forms of capital, the forms of wages, and the forms of profit. All of these are different forms of value, usually expressed by prices, yet they all presuppose the exchange of tradeable wares. In Marx's dialectical story, regarded and identified separately. of these forms is shown to grow out of or "transform" into other forms, and so all the forms are connected with each other, step by step, logically and historically.

Each form is expressed with categories, the content of which evolves or mutates to some degree in response to new distinctions or circumstances. At the end of the story, all the formsseamlessly integrated with each other in a self-reproducing, constantly expanding capitalist system, of which the distant historical origin has become hidden and obscure; the fully developed system appears other than it really is, and does not transparently disclose its real nature.

If the works of the capitalist system were perfectly apparent and transparent, Marx argues, then there would be no need for any special economic "science"; one would just be stating platitudes. They prompt further inquiry, because they reorder out to be not as apparent as they seem, and indeed become rather puzzling or even mindboggling, on further reflection. Economists are constantly trying to "second-guess" what the market will do, and what the overall effects might be of transaction patterns, but in truth they often don't succeed any better than astrologers. A critical re-examination is then called for, of precisely those ordinary phenomena which were previously taken for granted.

After his first cryptic attempt at telling the story in 168 pages flopped when he published it in Germany, Marx resolved to tell it another time, in a much more interesting, intriguing and elaborate way, so that people would really grasp the significance of it—beginning from exactly the same starting point. That became Das Kapital 1867-1894, which is still being read and discussed today.

Marx initially defines a product of human labour that has become a commodity in German: Kaufware, i.e., merchandise, ware for sale as being simultaneously:

The "form of value" also a reference to phenomenology in the classical philosophical sense used by Hegel then referenced to the specific ways of relating through which "what a commodity is worth" happens to be socially expressed in trading processes, when different products and assets are compared with each other.

Practically speaking, Marx argues that the product values cannot be directly observed and can become observably manifest only as exchange-values, i.e., as relative expressions, by comparing their worth to other goods they can be traded for usually via money prices. This causes people to think value and exchange-value are the same thing, but Marx argues they are not; the content, magnitude and form of value must be distinguished, and according to the law of value, the exchange value of products being traded is determined and regulated by their value. His argument is, that the market prices of a commodity will oscillate around its value, and its value is the outcome of the average, normal labour specifics to produce it.

Marx argues that the forms of value are not "static" or "fixed one time and for all", but rather, that they determine logically and historically in trading processes from very simple, primitive expressions to very complicated or advanced expressions. Subsequently, he also examines the various forms taken by capital, the forms of wages, the forms of profit and so forth. In each case, the form denotes how a specific social or economic relationship among people is expressed or symbolized.

In the process of circulation, production, distribution, and consumption, value metamorphoses from one form to another. Different forms of value – currencies, commodities and capitals – all trade for each other, where buyers and sellers convert money into goods, and goods into money, or convert one type of capital asset into another type of capital asset, in markets where prices fluctuate all the time.

According to Marx, the individual acts of exchange in themselves cannot alter the underlying value of goods and assets, at least not in the ordinary situation. add differently, value is ordinarily conserved through successive acts of exchange a "conservation principle" even although the forms that value takes can change. if goods and assets did not at least hold their value upon exchange, then warehousing, freighting and commercial trade itself would very likely break down. That insight existed already in ancient times. In speculative activity, the conservation principle is, however, not always true.

Initially, in primitive exchange, the form that economic value takes does not involve any prices, since what something is "worth" is very simply expressed in a quantity of some other good an occasional barter relationship. Some scholars, such as Hans-Georg Backhaus, argue that for this reason value simply did not live in societies where money was not used, or where it played only a marginal role. The old Friedrich Engels claimed that "in primitive communism value was unknown", because there was nocommodity trade.

Marx, though, acknowledged that product-values "of a sort" did exist in primitive economies, although value did not exist as a separate "thing" in such communities. Establishing "how much products were worth", he says, followed "customary practices", rather than purely a comparison with the value of other products, or reckoning with money; thus, the valuation of products was expressed in a different way see also archaeology of trade. An "economy of labour-time" existed, although no supremely exact measures were available for work effort, time, storage and energy. All the time, that is, people knew quite alive that their products had value, because it cost work-effort to replace them, and, consequently, they also valued their products. They could hardly afford to trade products on very unfavourable terms, because that would take them beyond the limits of their own available work-time; that mattered, because average labour productivity was low - it took a lot of time to produce food, clothing, shelter, tools and weapons. Whatever the trading custom was, it had to be at least compatible with survival requirements. If not, the custom would die out.

By analyzing the forms of value, Marx aims to show that when people bring their products into report with each other in market trade, they are also socially related in specific ways whether they like it or not, and whether they are aware of it or not, and that this fact very strongly influences the very way in which they think approximately how they are related. It influences how they will view the whole human interactive process of giving and receiving, taking and procuring, sharing and relinquishing, accepting and rejecting—and how to balance all that.

Some social relations weand make ourselves, but we are also socially related simply by being factor of a community and a nation or component of a family, an organization etc., whether we like that or not. In trading roles, people have to deal with both of these kinds of social relations - simultaneously competing to get the best deal, and co-operating to obtain what they want. The trading process has both a voluntary aspect freedoms, things toand an involuntary aspect constraints, things that have to be worked with to make a deal. To make the trade, buyers and sellers must respect each other's modification to their own property, and their right to do with their own property what they want, within the good example of laws, customs and norms Marx discusses the notion of the formal equality of market actors more in the Grundrisse. If the market actors simply grabbed stuff from others, that would not be trade, but robbery which would not qualify as civilized conduct, and carries a reputational risk as well as being included to legal sanctions.

The forms of value of products do not merely refer to a "trading valuation of objects"; they refer also to away of relating or interacting, and a mentality, among human subjects who internalize the forms of value, so that the manifestations of economic value become regarded as completely normal, natural and self-evident in human interactions a "market culture," which is also reflected in Linguistic communication use. Marx himself refers surrealistically to "the Linguistic communication of commodities", the talk and signals they send and receive in the topsy-turvy world verkehrte Welt of trading processes, and he adds satirically in a footnote that "in asense, people are in the same situation as commodities…". The suggestion is that, by analogy, the recognition of a person's identity and worth occurs only through contact with other people, and that one adult becomes the species-model for another, just as commodities need to relate to each other and to money to establish what the magnitude of their value is.

Marx's description of what goes on in commodity exchanges highlights not only that value relationshipsto exist between commodities quite independently of the valuers, but also that people accept that these relationships exist, even although they do not understand exactly what they are, or why they exist at all. We know that a particular market exists, if there are buyers and sellers. With experience, we can identify them, and estimate a normal turnover. However, the totality of interactions and transactions in all markets combined simultaneously, can easilyas an unfathomable abstraction.




Donate Contact | About |
MENU