Episode 149: Marx’s Concept of Intrinsic Value
|
Gabriel Donnelly interviews his co-host, Andrew Kliman, regarding Marx’s concept of “intrinsic value”—that is, value as distinct from exchange-value (value in exchange). Andrew clarifies the distinction and talks about how it became increasingly important to Marx’s work, and he and Gabriel discuss the significance of the concept of intrinsic value. They also discuss Andrew’s contention that, contrary to popular belief, Marx was proving the existence of intrinsic value, not putting forward a “labor theory of value,” at the start of Capital. And Andrew explains how Jamie Edwards and Brian Leiter’s misunderstanding of Marx’s argument (discussed in RFH Ep. 148) impelled him to revisit this issue now. During the interview, the cohosts refer to Andrew’s published paper (and pamphlet) on Marx’s concept of intrinsic value and his expanded proof of Marx’s “third thing” argument. Andrew quotes from the opening section of volume 1 of Capital, from Marx’s critique of Samuel Bailey in the Theories of Surplus-Value (“… To belong to space is their unity.”) , and from Philip Mirowski’s More Heat than Light (p. 190). Plus current-events segment: Lame, Sitting, Dead—the 3 Stages of Donald’s Duckness. The co-hosts discuss the growing consensus that Trump is a “lame duck” and prospects for moving forward to Stages 2 and 3. ChatRFH 3.0 Coming Soon! Sunday, January 11, starting at 1 pm EST. Chat with Gabriel and Andrew in a live videocast ep. of RFH. Check MHI’s website for Zoom link and details (also Radio Free Humanity is a podcast covering news, politics and philosophy from a Marxist-Humanist perspective. It is co hosted by Gabriel Donnelly and Andrew Kliman. We intend to release new episodes every two weeks. Radio Free Humanity is sponsored by MHI, but the views expressed by the hosts and guests of Radio Free Humanity are their own. They do not necessarily reflect the views and positions of MHI. We welcome and encourage listeners’ comments, posted on this episode’s page. |
Longtime listener, first-time commenter. Thank you for another fascinating and clarifying episode. A group of friends and I are reading Capital Vol 1 directly. No guides or summaries. Your podcast series has helped us to make sense of the text in its own terms.
It’s astonishing celebrated Marxist experts fudge the distinction between value and exchange-value. It’s right there in the first heading: The Two Factors of a Commodity: Use-value and Value! Let alone the necessary form of appearance discussion and the fetishism section. Without overstating it, I suspect that the confusion isn’t so innocent (or at least reflects an ideological habit).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the stakes here seem bigger than scholarly clarity and getting Marx’s terminology right. If the necessary form of appearance of value/commodity relations are treated as natural and eternal, the ‘market’ ends up looking like a permanent feature of human life. We hear so much noise about ‘the market’ but almost none about the mode of production itself, or the possibility that it could be overthrown and replaced with a new society.
Is this on the right track?
This just occurred to me after posting my earlier comment. Regarding what’s at stake, the key issue I didn’t address before is whether we take the mode of production for its form of appearance. I.e. if we focus on markets, prices, and exchange as if they are the social form itself, then it can look like changing these forms of appearance i.e. regulating exchange differently is the change. But if the underlying relations of production stay capitalist, then the essence of the social form hasn’t shifted, only its appearance.
Thanks for these perceptive comments, Alex.
Yeah, the distinction is right there.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the necessary form of appearance discussion,” but I think Marx’s clearest statement regarding the distinction between value and exchange-value is in section 3 of the first chapter, on the form of value or exchange-value. It’s on p. 152 of the Penguin ed.:
“When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said in the customary manner that a commodity is both a use-value and an exchange-value, this was, strictly speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use-value or object of utility, and a ‘value’. It appears as the twofold thing it really is as soon as its value possesses its own particular form of manifestation, which is distinct from its natural form. This form of manifestation is exchange-value, and the commodity never has this form when looked at in isolation, but only when it is in a value-relation or an exchange relation with a second commodity of a different kind. Once we know this, our manner of speaking does no harm; it serves, rather, as an abbreviation.”
I don’t know how he could have said this more clearly or explicitly.
I think there are many reasons, varying from person to person, why people confuse value and exchange-value. Marx’s argumentation isn’t easy, his innovation–introduction of the distinction–goes against pretty much everyone else’s usage–and his own practice wasn’t uniform. (In addition to his “abbreviation”/”manner of speaking” use of “value” to mean “exchange-value,” the distinction is absent in everything he wrote before 1861–the Grundrisse, the Contribution to the Critique of Pol. Ec., etc.)
BUT given that (1) the distinction is “right there,” and (2) several things make sense only when one attends to the distinction, and (3) lots of very erudite, intelligent people are among those who confuse/conflate value and exchange-value, I agree with you that something more is involved (overall, not in each individual’s case) than innocent, neutral error.
As you say, it’s bound up with their privileging of “the market” as against the mode of production. “The market” is privileged as an explanatory factor and as what, supposedly, makes capitalism unique. And as you say in your follow-up comment, a political implication of this privileging of the sphere of exchange is that capitalism (supposedly) can be done away with or fundamentally changed by making changes in the sphere of exchange (similarly with regard to the sphere of distribution).
But I don’t see your point about “If the necessary form of appearance of value/commodity relations are treated as natural and eternal, the ‘market’ ends up looking like a permanent feature of human life.” That’s correct, but I don’t think that is what the people in question do. They do the opposite, i.e., treat the sphere of exchange as the differentia specifica of capitalism.
Hey Alex,
I’m the co-host and producer of Radio Free Humanity and I wanted to answer your comment personally to thank you for your thoughtful engagement with the episode. A lot of times producing the show, especially the episodes on Marx, can be a little like shouting into the void. There is so much misinformation, misrepresentation, and smears about Marx out there, and we are just one show. So, it was energizing to hear that you and your reading group have found our talks helpful.
I wanted to ask if you would be interested in joining us on the show for a discussion about reading Marx, pushing aside the obfuscations, and seeing what Marx had to say for himself. I think it could be a helpful and encouraging episode for listeners who (perhaps) have been putting off their own engagement. What do you think?