2 results for Ahumada, P. E.
Ahumada, P. E.
This paper re-interprets Marx’s theory of the form of value in the context of his theory of the commodity. Building on the unresolved tension between Marx’s concept of value and the specific character of the labour constituting itself as value in his theory of commodity production, this paper argues that Marx’s is actually a theory of the mercantile form of value. Thus, it becomes evident that the process of realisation of material production in commodity production and the process giving rise to money are the same, and that they are only the material manifestation of the process of realisation of private and independent work as social labour. This characterises commodity production as the unity-in-difference of a material and a social moment, showing that Marx’s mercantile form of value is the conceptualisation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. The paper also argues that Marx’s is not the theory of a money commodity.View record details
Ahumada, P. E.
How does material production become socially recognised in Capitalist production? Capitalism breaks down the immediate unity of the material and social moments of production, characteristic of previous modes, into two interlocked yet autonomous spheres: material production and market exchange. Commodity, its basic unit, renders production global and atomistic for the first time in history, with material production taking place in social isolation; that is, privately and independently.This paper analyses why the above fundamental question is unanswerable in Classical Political Economy and Neo-Classical Economics; the former being unilaterally focussed on material production and the latter on the market. It also assesses Marx’s attempted account of the differentiated unity characterising commodity production. That is, private work becomes objective social labour as the substance of the value of commodities, and social labour finds its necessary expression in the money-form of commodities. The paper concludes by highlighting the gaps in Marx’s economic argument.View record details