Communism, Marx: The Poverty of Philosophy! (1)
The Poverty of Philosophy 1847! P1:
(網友提供; 如有錯誤, 請原諒!)
Chapter One: A Scientific Discovery
1) The Antithesis of Use Value and Exchange Value
The capacity for all products,
whether natural or industrial, to contribute
to man’s subsistence is specifically termed use value;
their capacity to be given in exchange
for one another, exchange value…
How does use value become exchange value?
The genesis of the idea of (exchange) value
has not been noted by economists with sufficient care.
It is necessary, therefore, for us to dwell upon it.
Since a very large number of the things
I need occur in nature only in moderate quantities,
or even not at all,
I am forced to assist in the production
of what I lack. And as
I cannot set my hand to so many things,
I shall propose to other men,
my collaborators in various functions,
to cede to me a part of their products
in exchange for mine. (Proudhon, Vol. I, Chap.II)
M. Proudhon undertakes to explain
to us first of all the double nature of value,
the distinction in value,
the process by which use value
is transformed into exchange value.
It is necessary for us to dwell
with M. Proudhon upon this act of transubstantiation.
The following is how this act
is accomplished, according to our author.
A very large number of products
are not to be found in nature,
they are products of industry.
If man’s needs go beyond nature’s spontaneous production,
he is forced to have recourse
to industrial production.
What is this industry in M. Proudhon’s view?
What is its origin? A single individual,
feeling the need for a very great number of things,
cannot set his hand to so many things.
So many things to produce presuppose
at once more than one man’s hand helping
to produce them. Now,
the moment you postulate more than
one hand helping in production,
you at once presuppose a whole production
based on the division of labour.
Thus need, as M. Proudhon presupposes it,
itself presupposes the whole division of labour.
In presupposing the division of labour,
you get exchange, and, consequently,
exchange value. One might
as well have presupposed exchange value
from the very beginning.
http://leonew36.wordpress.com/
http://leonew63.wordpress.com/
http://weibo.com/leomarxism