#commodity exchange

The unique character of the commodity labor power, which as value simply represents its costs of production, but which as use value is itself the source of the creation of new value, makes it possible for the exchange between the worker and the capitalist to simultaneously correspond to, yet contradict, the laws of commodity exchange; that this, the most important of all the acts of exchange, amounts in fact to the appropriation of alien labor, without exchange, although “under the semblance of exchange”. It is clear, however, that this semblance is a “necessary semblance”, insofar as capitalist production itself is the production of commodities, and therefore presupposes the laws of commodity exchange… Capital’s mode of appropriation, which is based on the propertylessness and expropriation of the worker, is neither a complete negation nor a “falsification” of the laws of free exchange, but is rather “their highest development”.

The key to a Marxist theory of law is that the legal superstructure reflects the specific form of production relations of each particular historical stage. As a legal expression of historically determined production relations, the legal sphere corresponds to the particular economic process. Legislation sanctions prevailing production relations by conferring “rights” on relations of effective control and ownership of property. Law is established from production relations to regulate social intercourse — e.g. resolves conflicts and disputes over property, which are part and parcel of class society — in a manner to hold the economy together. A full fledged legal system obtains in capitalist society and mediates interaction which emerges from that web of ownership relations.

Within the sphere of circulation, valorization would only be possible if commodity C is purchased above or below its value. In this case, the sum of value advanced can be increased, but one capitalist’s gain is only possible if another capitalist takes a loss of the same amount. At the level of society as a whole, the sum of value has not changed; it has simply been redistributed, just as if a simple act of theft had occurred. Capitalist profit would therefore be explained as a violation of the laws of commodity production. If we assume the normal conditions of commodity production and circulation, then the “exchange of equivalents” applies: the commodities that are exchanged for one another have the same magnitude of value, the price paid is an adequate expression of the magnitude of the value of the commodity and does not express a coincidentally greater or lesser magnitude; the commodities are exchanged “at their true values”. If surplus value is a normal phenomenon of capitalist commodity production and not just an exception, then its existence must be explained under the presupposition of an “exchange of equivalents”, and this is exactly the question that Marx poses. Marx’s deliberations can be summarized as follows: if equivalent exchange is assumed, then surplus value cannot be constituted in circulation, not in the first act of circulation, M-C, nor in the second act, C-M’. A change must take place between both acts. But outside of the sphere of circulation, the use value of the commodity purchased is merely consumed. Thus the owner of money must find a commodity on the market whose use value possesses the quality of being a source of value, so that the use of this commodity creates value, and more value than the commodity itself costs.

“Where I am now” in terms of trying to explain Rosdolsky’s interpretation of Marx on “the transition [from value and money] to capital” (chapter 11 in “Making Capital”) — if that is at all possible and the attempt further suggesting that I’m wrong or at least too simplistic — is that, in order to develop capital from money, “selling in order to buy” (C-M-C), must pass over to “buying in order to sell” (M-C-M). “Only under these conditions i.e. if the circuit C-M-C turns into the circuit M-C-M, can money become self-preserving and self-augmenting value, become capital” (p. 188).

In the theory of the value-form, Marx sets out to unravel the riddle of a commodity’s price (i.e., the riddle of the money-form), while at the same time untangling the riddle of money. The riddle of the money-form concerns the fact that the value of a commodity is generally expressed in the form of a certain quantity of a particular use-value: gold. The riddle of money concerns how, in that case, gold’s use-value — which is the element in opposition to its value — has general validity in its given state as value. Not only had no one prior to Marx solved those riddles, there was not even an awareness that they are in fact riddles. Marx became the first to thoroughly clarify these problems by raising the theoretical question in Capital pertaining to the value-form. Marx perceived, first of all, that the money-form is the developed value-form. This means that the riddle of the money-form is nothing more than an extension of the fundamental riddle of the value-form. By tracing the money-form to its source, thereby reducing it to its elemental form, which is the simple value-form, Marx locates the core of the riddle of the money-form and of money: the fact that a commodity expresses its own value in the use-value of another commodity that it equates to itself, thereby making the use-value of that other commodity the form of its own value. This is precisely the riddle of the value-form, which is the basis of the riddle of the money-form and the riddle of money. Without unraveling the first riddle, it is quite impossible to unravel the latter two; whereas those riddles are easily unraveled once the former has been elucidated.

Seizure of political power by the proletariat is the fundamental prerequisite of socialism. Nevertheless, experience has shown that planned production and distribution cannot replace market exchange and the market as the link between individual economic units overnight. Were this possible, then the legal form of property would be historically absolutely done for. It would have completed the cycle of its development and returned to its point of origin, to objects of direct, individual use; that is, it would in practice once more have become a primitive relation. And as a consequence of this the legal form as such would also be condemned to death. So long as the task of building a unified planned economy has not been completed, so long as the market-dominated relationship between individual enterprises and groups of enterprises remains in existence, the legal form too will remain in force.

As I read more, my analysis appears to be consistent with chapters 11-14 of Rubin’s Essays on Marx. Though, I — still — have not fully digested all of this — despite having read and re-read these chapters... I began today with ch. 14 on “Abstract Labor”, which refers back to ch. 11 on “Equality of Commodities an Equality of Labor”. Next comes ch. 12 on “Content and Form of Labor”; followed by ch. 13 on “Social Labor”. It seems that Rubin’s interpretation of Marx is that “socially equalized labor” is an appropriate way to characterize pre-capitalist social forms — but, as Rubin points out, “abstract labor” does not dominate until capitalism. Socialized labor occurs not only pre-capitalism but also under communist relations.