home » For the New Year » The dual nature of labor and surplus value. The dual nature of labor embodied in goods

The dual nature of labor and surplus value. The dual nature of labor embodied in goods

The dual nature of goods in Marxist theory is explained by the dual nature of the labor of the commodity producer: labor is both concrete and abstract.

Specific work is called useful labor expended in a certain purposeful form and qualitatively different from all other types of labor. Various types of concrete labor differ in their purpose, the nature of labor operations, objects of labor, tools and end results. Results various types specific labor are various use values that are created with the assistance of the forces of nature. Thus, use value is the result of the combination of two elements - the substance of nature and concrete labor.

All specific types of labor are qualitatively different. But there is something in common between all types of concrete labor: they all represent the expenditure of labor power, the expenditure of nervous, muscular, mental, intellectual and other human energy.

The labor of a commodity producer, acting as a cost work force in general, in a physiological sense, i.e. regardless of its specific forms, is called abstract. This physiological definition of abstract labor must be supplemented with an economic one: the labor of each person is a part of the total social labor, thereby giving it a social character. By producing products for others, commodity producers actually work for each other. Consequently, the labor of each commodity producer is not only private, but also social.

The relationship between the categories considered is shown schematically in Fig. 3.1.

The social nature of labor in the production process remains hidden and is revealed only on the market in the process of exchange. If the product of labor, being brought to the market for sale, is not bought by anyone, then the private labor embodied in it does not have a public character. If a product is purchased by someone, this means that society needs it, and the private labor embodied in it receives public recognition as social labor. Along with this and thanks to this, this concrete labor receives recognition as abstract labor, and the commodity, therefore, has not only use value, but also the value that abstract labor creates.

Private and concrete labor is not necessarily recognized as public and abstract. There is not always harmony between them; contradiction may also appear. The contradiction between private and public labor is main contradiction simple commodity production. It predetermines the possibility of imbalances in the economy, fluctuations in market prices, crises of overproduction and other unpleasant phenomena.

Because price is abstract labor embodied in a commodity, then the value of the commodity is determined by the amount of labor necessary for its production. How can you measure work? Unfortunately, there are no special instruments for measuring intensity, tension and, in general, the amount of labor input. Therefore, labor costs are measured in minutes, hours, days, etc. working hours. The more labor time spent on the production of a product, the higher its cost.

But one producer makes yarn with a spindle, and another with a spinning machine; one is a beginner, the other is an experienced one; one works intensively, the other lazily. Individual work time Which commodity producer determines the cost of yarn? The answer is perhaps paradoxical: none, because it is not the individual, but socially necessary working time (WHT) determines the value of the product. It is determined based on data on individual time expenditure.

For example, if the 1st manufacturer spends 8 hours on one product and produces 200 products, the 2nd - 10 hours and produces 500, the 3rd - 12 and 300, respectively, then ONRV is most accurately calculated using the weighted average formula:

Approximately, NRV can be defined as the working time of the manufacturer who creates the overwhelming mass of a given product.

ONRV is the time spent on the production of any product under socially normal production conditions and the average qualifications of workers in a given society and the intensity of their labor.

Labor intensity- this is his tension. With more intensive work, more physical, mental and other energy is expended per unit of time, so this labor creates more utility and more value per unit of time. The value of the entire mass of goods created in a working day is directly proportional to the intensity of labor.

In contrast to intensity, an increase labor productivity is not accompanied by greater energy expenditure. The quantity of goods created per unit of time increases with the same costs of living labor as a result of the progress of technology and technology, improved organization of production, and an increase in the general level of skill and intensity of labor of all workers. An increase in labor productivity leads to a decrease in the NRV per each unit of goods. Therefore, the cost of a unit of goods is inversely proportional to labor productivity, and the cost of the entire mass of goods created during a working day remains either unchanged or increases slightly due to the rise in cost of equipment and technology.

The value of a product is also influenced by the degree of complexity of labor. The work of a jeweler is more difficult than the work of a turner, and the work of a turner is more difficult than the work of a navvy. Therefore, one cannot equate an hour of labor of a turner with an hour of labor of a navvy. It is necessary to reduce all work, no matter how complex it may be, to simple work.

Simple labor- this is work that does not require special professional training. It can be performed by any physically healthy person without prior training. Difficult work is simple labor raised to a power or multiplied. The product of complex labor has a greater value than the product of simple labor, although the labor time spent on them is the same. Reduction of labor those. the process of reducing complex types of labor to simple ones occurs in the market.

So, the value of value is determined by the amount of abstract socially necessary simple labor spent on the production of a commodity.

Selecting an option………………………………………………………………………………………..2

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3

Literature…………………………………………………………………………………14

Selecting an option.

The choice of topic is carried out according to the last digit of the grade book number:

Labor theory of value: basic principles.

Product and its properties.

The dual nature of labor embodied in a product.

Contradictions of social labor in commodity production.

Introduction.

Since ancient times, people have hunted, fished, farmed, picked berries and mushrooms, and produced some devices that made their work and life easier. But some knew how to do some things better and some things worse. In this regard, they had to change their goods to what they needed at the moment. And here our ancestors came across the concept of cost and value. They spent a long time deciding how many axes to give to the four chickens in return. Since then, cost has been one of the fundamental, cross-cutting problems of economic science. Based on the theory of value, the goals and motives of the activities of economic entities are determined, options for the distribution of economic resources and income are selected, and the process of market exchange functions. Thus, the theory of value is the foundation on which the theoretical structure of an economic organism is built.

1. Product and its properties.

If you pay attention to the world of all kinds of benefits around us and, in particular, to the world of things, then it is not difficult to guess that they are all the result of one or another type of labor activity, that is, products of labor, goods.

There are several definitions of the word product. A product is a complex socio-economic category; an external object, a thing that, thanks to its properties, satisfies any human needs. A product is a benefit (products, services) that satisfies human needs and is intended for exchange, for sale on the market. A commodity is a product of labor that satisfies any human need through exchange, the market. A commodity is a specific economic good produced for exchange. Here is another definition of a commodity that Karl Marx gave in his work “Capital”: “The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production dominates is a huge accumulation of goods, and an individual commodity is its elementary form. A product is an external object (thing) that satisfies any human needs due to its properties.” As can be seen from the above, there are many definitions and concepts of the word product, but they can all be reduced to one. A product is the result of human interaction with the means of production (personal and material factors of production), which receives a material or intangible form and which is designed to satisfy a particular need.

So, K. Marx considers a commodity as an external object, a thing capable of satisfying one or another human need and being exchanged in certain quantitative proportions for other things. In Capital, Marx identifies the properties of a commodity.

The first property of a product is based on its utility or value. Without this property, any movement of a thing from one person to another turns out to be meaningless. A buyer, when purchasing a product on the market, evaluates its beneficial effect, and not the labor costs for its production. The value of a beneficial effect is a largely subjective category, and hence cannot in any way be a property objectively inherent in things. Only what is valuable in the eyes of the buyer has value. People value a variety of material and spiritual goods and services not as a result of the fact that socially necessary labor is spent on their production, but because these goods have utility. We have already said that high price The cost of a ticket to a pop singer’s concert is determined not by the costs of “some” socially necessary labor, but by the beneficial effect that the viewer receives (or expects to receive). But for each individual product different people give different assessments of usefulness. The subjective assessment of utility depends on two factors: on the available supply of a given good and on the degree of saturation of the need for it. As the need is satisfied, the “degree of saturation” increases, and the value of competitive utility decreases. The manufacturer (seller) needs one thing, the consumer (buyer) needs another. The manufacturer is driven by the idea expressed by A. Smith: by engaging in social production, he (the seller) pursues only his own personal benefit. But he will receive this benefit only if there is a buyer for the products of his labor (a connoisseur beneficial properties his product). As can be seen from this saying, the value of a good is also dual: the producer (seller) measures it by production costs (expended living and past labor), the consumer (buyer) - by the degree of utility. The two principles of the value of a good do not oppose each other, but coexist and complement each other. So, the ability of a product to satisfy one or another human need, to be useful (valuable), constitutes its use value.

The second value of a product lies in its exchangeability for other useful things. What is the basis for equating one product with another? Here the approach is different. But first, about the product itself. Good is generally considered to be the ability of objects to satisfy human needs. Proponents of the neoclassical direction in economic theory distinguish between economic and non-economic benefits. The latter include what is available in unlimited quantities and is available to every person without any exchange. The neoclassical school emphasizes that a commodity is an economic good intended for exchange, but this definition does not indicate that a commodity is a product of labor. Proponents of the labor theory of value, starting with A. Smith, believed that goods in certain quantities are equal to each other because they have common ground- labor. In this case, a necessary condition for exchange is the difference in the use values of goods. In modern economic theory, a different approach has been adopted, which begins with the works of representatives of the theory marginal utility: K. Menger, E. Boehm-Bawerk, F. Vizer. They expressed the idea that it is not labor value that underlies exchange, but utility. The ability of a commodity to be exchanged in certain quantitative proportions is exchange value. But I will look at exchange value a little later.

Use value and value. A commodity product has two origins: natural (from natural substances) and social (due to the intended purpose of the product for exchange). In this regard, the product has two properties:

I. Use value (utility);

II. Cost (socially necessary labor embodied in a product).

Use value is a set of properties of a product that are directly related to both the product itself and related services, determining its ability to satisfy production, social, personal and other needs of people. It constitutes the material content of wealth. Therefore, in its initial manifestation, use value is a natural property of a good. Any product has it. The nature of the needs can be very different (physical, spiritual). The way to satisfy them may also be different. Some things can satisfy a need directly as consumer goods (bread, clothing, etc.), others - indirectly, indirectly as a means of production (a machine, raw materials).

One of the properties of the product of labor is that the same product of labor can satisfy diverse needs, just as the same need can be satisfied by different use values. For example, fire can be used to generate heat, light, and cook food, but food can also be prepared using electricity. Based on this, a feature of material use value follows: the satisfaction of one need excludes the simultaneous satisfaction of other needs, because the consumption process either destroys or transforms this specific use value into something else. Two more features of consumer value are that it (use value), firstly, refers to all products (raw materials, etc.), and, secondly, it constitutes the material content of wealth.

Summarizing the above, we find that use value should:

1. to be created by labor;

2. satisfy the needs not of its creator, but of other people;

3. exchange for another product (purchase and sale mechanism), that is, the product must have the ability to exchange for other goods.

The product of labor receives social recognition by satisfying the needs of society, either in its natural material form, or in an indirect form, when its recognition is carried out through exchange. In the latter case, the product of labor takes the form of a commodity. The social form of use value means that the purchased product is necessary for society. From this we can conclude that social use value represents the social significance of a good or its value for society. A good may have the natural property of satisfying a particular need, but society may not buy it. Consequently, it has no value for society, whereas in its natural material form the good has natural use value. For example: there is a pen suitable for writing. Consequently, it has the natural property of satisfying the need for writing, i.e. is a use value. But no one wants to buy this pen. This means that it has no value or significance for society. Its natural use value has not been transformed into social use value. Thus, both the thing and the costs of its production turned out to be unnecessary to society.

Thus, social use value is also use value which:

1. has utility, that is, it was created not for one’s own consumption, but for exchange on the market;

2. created in quantities and structure corresponding to social needs or, in any case, not exceeding it;

It should also be added that social use value is the use value not only of individual things, but of the entire mass of things of a given kind, intended for sale in comparison with their need in society.

Just as a product has a use value, a product has consumer properties. These two concepts are inextricably linked, since consumer properties are carriers of consumer value. There is one more feature that should be mentioned: over time and under the influence of various circumstances, consumer properties do not change, but use value may change. So, consumer properties are divided into several categories.

· Social;

· Functional;

· Ergonomic;

· Reliability;

· Aesthetic;

· Security.

Thus, functional properties characterize the usefulness of a product, that is, the ability of a product to perform its functions. Social properties characterize the suitability and significance of a product for society. Ergonomic properties characterize the hygiene, convenience and comfort of using a product in the “person – product – environment” system. Reliability properties show the ability of a product to meet the standards of reliability and safety accepted in society. As can be seen from the definition, the properties of reliability and security overlap with each other. Aesthetic properties - the ability of a product to meet the standards of decency, to some extent quality, used in this area.

Value is the form and quantitative measure of economic relations between people regarding the production of various things for exchange and their appropriation through equivalently compensated exchange; the relationship between people about things (production relation); the form of functioning of the social nature of production in conditions of social division of labor and the economic isolation of production and economic cells by property relations. Cost is also the basis around which prices fluctuate depending on changes in the relationship between supply and demand. We can also consider that value is labor embodied in a commodity, that is, value as if it does not exist, or exists only in potential. It turns out that you can spend and materialize your labor in a product, but this product will not be sold, that is, it will not become a commodity, and, consequently, the materialized labor in this product will never become a social value.

Cost can be individual or social. Individual is the cost of the goods of each individual manufacturer. Let's take several commodity producers that produce the same goods, for example, disks. It is quite obvious that each of, say, five workers, engaged in the production of disks, will spend a different number of working hours on their production. Therefore, the disks will contain different labor inputs and therefore should have different costs. The labor costs of each individual manufacturer to produce a particular product form its individual value. However, each worker goes with his disk to the market, where, given the same quality of disks, a single price will be established at which they will be sold.

Social value is manifested in the market. In other words, social value is individual value recognized in the market. Social value develops spontaneously, under the influence of the desire of each participant in the exchange to maximize the satisfaction of their needs. There is a peculiarity that in the presence of a large number of exchange participants, the price at which the exchange can take place turns out to be within narrower boundaries than in an isolated exchange between two individuals, and therefore subjective values are reduced to a single social value.

So, the basis for the exchange of one product for another is value - that which is common to all goods. Labor, embodied or materialized in a product, represents its value. This is an internal property of the product.

Exchange value. Inextricably linked with the terms value and use value is the concept of exchange value. Exchange value is a form of expression of value, but exchange value is also the quantity or proportion in which one use value is equated to another in the market.

One commodity has many exchange values or forms of value.

The fact that goods are exchanged in a certain proportion means that they, regardless of their specific form, have something in common. The general objective property of goods is that social labor is spent on their production: as use values, goods are different, but as the embodiment of social labor they are homogeneous. Social labor embodied in a commodity constitutes the value of the commodity. Thus, exchange value is the external manifestation of value and underlies the exchange of goods.

The ratios in which goods are exchanged are not accidental and are determined by the general quality that is equally inherent in all goods and independent of the methods of expressing exchange value and the physical form of goods.

2 . Dual character producer labor

The dual essence of a commodity as value and use value is the result of the dual nature of labor creating a commodity, discovered by K. Marx. Based on this discovery, K. Marx showed the source of exploitation. The essence of the dual nature of labor that creates a commodity is as follows:

on the one hand, this is specific labor that creates use value and is determined by a specific goal, the specific nature of operations, objects, tools and results of labor;

on the other hand, it is abstract labor that creates value and represents the expenditure of human energy and, in general, the expenditure of energy, muscles, and nerves. This is a material phenomenon, that is, a real expenditure of real labor power in a physiological sense.

According to the famous expression of W. Petty, labor is the father of wealth. Its only subject can only be a person, although other living beings are sometimes capable of more complex physical manipulations and a more subtle organization of their life activity, for example, the existence of a swarm of bees. After all, labor is not an instinctive, but a purposeful activity, moreover, one that is based on the use of means of production made by man himself (and not just found in nature). Emphasizing the human nature of labor activity, scientists state that labor created man. He not only created it, but also reproduces it, because with the improvement of labor progress, the individual’s abilities develop.

The use value of each commodity contains a certain purposeful productive activity or useful labor. Use values cannot confront each other as commodities unless they contain qualitatively different types of useful labor.

Commodity bodies are compounds of two elements: substances of nature and labor.

All labor is: the expenditure of human labor power in a physiological sense, and in this quality of the same, or abstractly human, labor forms the value of goods. All labor, on the other hand, is the expenditure of human labor power in a special purposeful form, and in this quality of concrete useful labor it creates use values.

Specific work.

Since labor is a conscious and purposeful human activity aimed at creating a certain benefit, it always appears in a certain useful form as concrete labor. The specific form of labor is due to the fact that it is always aimed at creating very specific use values (for example, a chair, a suit, a book). In order to produce any good, specific conditions are necessary: specific professional training (for example, a carpenter), a very specific object of labor (wood), very specific means of labor (saw, hammer, chisel, plane). Therefore, any labor activity is always nothing more than concrete labor. Outside of a specific form of labor activity, there is no labor as such.

Abstract work.

It is known that the entire commodity world is a world of labor products. But at the same time, the entire world of goods, or use values, is a world of the existence of diverse, heterogeneous types of concrete labor. However, let us try to abstract ourselves from the specific forms of labor in which it takes place. In this case, we will see that the table, the suit, and the shoes are materialized labor in general. Labor that is impersonal or taken outside of its concrete form and embodied in a product is called abstract labor. In other words, abstract labor is labor abstracted from its concrete form. Therefore, the criterion for equalizing various use values (goods) in the process of exchange is abstract labor. In this regard, we can conclude that the value of a product represents the labor embodied in the product and expresses its costs for the production of a particular product. Also, abstract labor is labor that creates value and represents the expenditure of human energy and, in general, the expenditure of energy, muscles, and nerves. This is a material phenomenon, that is, a real expenditure of real labor power in a physiological sense.

Thus, labor has a dual character. On the one hand, it appears in the form of concrete labor aimed at creating use value, on the other hand, it appears in the form of abstract labor, which is the substance of the value of a commodity. At the same time, labor, creating the value of goods, i.e. being its substance, it itself does not possess value, for it cannot exist outside of the materialized form.

Suppose a tailor is making a suit. In the process of production, the tailor, with the help of his concrete labor, transforms the fabric into a suit, just as in his time the weaver, with his concrete labor, transformed yarn into fabric. But at the same time, in each of these processes of making goods, both the tailor and the weaver spent certain efforts in the broadest physiological sense of the word, which is what actually makes these dissimilar goods (fabric and suit) similar friend on each other: both the fabric and the suit represent bundles of the embodied labor of the weaver and tailor. In the process of labor, the latter is embodied in its product - a commodity.

Despite the fact that concrete and abstract labor have different results (use value and value, respectively), nevertheless, as two opposites at the level of synthesis, they transform into each other. Concrete labor and use value act as a value-creating basis, which is manifested in the qualitative characteristics of abstract labor (super complex, complex, less complex, simple labor) and, accordingly, in larger or smaller amounts of value created.

It should also be noted that the same specific labor (for example, a tailor) may have different levels of qualifications, and therefore the same use values may have different qualitative characteristics. In turn, the manifestation of the level of qualification of concrete labor is expressed in the category of complex labor, which characterizes the level of development of abstract labor. Concrete labor, which has no qualifications, finds adequate manifestation in simple abstract labor. Consequently, specific types of labor differ from each other in the level of their qualifications, which is reflected in the levels of complexity of abstract labor. From this we can conclude that better characteristics of the same use value are the result of more skilled labor.

3. Contradictions of social labor in commodity production.

Private property opposes and separates producers. The work of each of them acts as his personal business. Each manufacturer works separately at his own peril and risk, producing what he considers necessary or knows how to do, in the quantities he wishes or can, using his own means of production available to him. Therefore, under conditions of private property, the labor of each producer is directly private, that is, it is of a private nature. At the same time, the social division of labor, as is known, makes all producers dependent on each other. Each of them produces not for himself, but for others, for exchange on the market. All producers work for each other, and the labor of each ultimately potentially acts as a particle of social labor. This shows social nature or the nature of their work.

There is a deep contradiction between the private and social labor of commodity owners, the fundamental contradiction of commodity production. Its essence is that the private nature of labor in the production process can manifest its social nature only on the market, in exchange, when the producer receives another product for the product of his labor (goods). When an individual producer works separately from others, he does not know social needs, does not know how many of the same consumer values will be brought to the market by other producers, and what labor costs will be recognized as normal, socially acceptable. If there are more consumer values on the market than buyers require, or more labor than the norm is spent on their production, then private labor will not fully or partially manifest its social character. Without receiving public recognition, such work will turn out to be useless, that is, wasted. Some producers will not receive proper material compensation in exchange for their goods. As a result, they will not be able to satisfy their needs and continue the production process normally. IN in this case the contradiction between private and public labor manifests itself in a destructive form, leading to human tragedies.

The main contradiction of simple commodity production manifests itself in various forms, the most important of which are: the contradiction between use value and value; concrete and abstract labor; sellers and buyers, etc.

The contradiction between the social nature of labor and its isolation is the main contradiction of commodity production. In relation to each product, this contradiction is resolved on the market, but at the same time it is constantly reproduced as a contradiction in the commodity organization of the social economy as a whole.

Inclusion in the aggregate social labor is the most difficult and vitally important problem for every commodity producer, because in case of failure, he will not sell his product and will suffer losses, and sometimes may even go bankrupt. The problem is aggravated by the fact that the structure of social needs is not constant, unchangeable, given once and for all.

From time to time it is necessarily rebuilt, which means that the structure of production and the structure of total social labor must be rebuilt. The threat that his product will not be sold forces the commodity producer to react sensitively to market conditions and constantly adapt to it.

This reveals both the strengths of commodity-money relations, which force the producer to work hard, search, and take risks, and their contradictory, limited, and ultimately historically transitory nature.

The internal contradictions of commodity production and exchange are reflected in a certain way in the minds of people, which affects both their assessment of economic phenomena and their behavior and actions. If, under a certain, often unpredictable set of circumstances, the fate of the manufacturer depends entirely on whether his product will be sold, whether he will receive proper compensation for the vital energy expended in the production of the product, then the desire of the commodity producer to evaluate the phenomena arising from the relationships of people in the production process becomes quite understandable. , as predetermined by the mutual position of things (goods). As a result, in the eyes of people, things (goods) acquire properties that in reality cannot be inherent in them and which serve only as a reflection of certain economic relations. In particular, it seems that value or the ability to exchange is inherent in a thing (commodity) by nature. Marx defined the well-known mystification of the phenomena and processes of commodity production and exchange as commodity fetishism.

Literature.

1. Economic theory. Textbook. /Under general editorship Vidyapina V.I., Zhuravlevoy G.P. - M., 2000.

2. Borisov E. F. Economic theory. Textbook. – M.: Yurayt, 2001.

3. Iokhin V. Ya. Economic theory. Textbook. – M., 2000.

4. Marx K. Capital. /Trans. with him.

5. Kamaev V. D. Economic theory. Textbook. – M.: Humanite. Ed. VLADOS Center, 1998.

6. Russian statistical yearbook, 2001

Selecting an option………………………………………………………………………………………..2

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3

Literature…………………………………………………………………………………14

Selecting an option.

The choice of topic is carried out according to the last digit of the grade book number:

Labor theory of value: basic principles.

Product and its properties.

The dual nature of labor embodied in a product.

Contradictions of social labor in commodity production.

Introduction.

1. Product and its properties.

The first property of a product is based on its utility or value. Without this property, any movement of a thing from one person to another turns out to be meaningless. A buyer, when purchasing a product on the market, evaluates its beneficial effect, and not the labor costs for its production. The value of a beneficial effect is a largely subjective category, and hence cannot in any way be a property objectively inherent in things. Only what is valuable in the eyes of the buyer has value. People value a variety of material and spiritual goods and services not as a result of the fact that socially necessary labor is spent on their production, but because these goods have utility. We have already said that the high price of a ticket to a pop singer’s concert is determined not by the costs of “some” socially necessary labor, but by the beneficial effect that the viewer receives (or expects to receive). But different people give different assessments of usefulness to each individual product. The subjective assessment of utility depends on two factors: on the available supply of a given good and on the degree of saturation of the need for it. As the need is satisfied, the “degree of saturation” increases, and the value of competitive utility decreases. The manufacturer (seller) needs one thing, the consumer (buyer) needs another. The manufacturer is driven by the idea expressed by A. Smith: by engaging in social production, he (the seller) pursues only his own personal benefit. But he will receive this benefit only if there is a buyer for the products of his labor (a connoisseur of the beneficial properties of his product). As can be seen from this saying, the value of a good is also dual: the producer (seller) measures it by production costs (expended living and past labor), the consumer (buyer) - by the degree of utility. The two principles of the value of a good do not oppose each other, but coexist and complement each other. So, the ability of a product to satisfy one or another human need, to be useful (valuable), constitutes its use value.

The second value of a product lies in its exchangeability for other useful things. What is the basis for equating one product with another? Here the approach is different. But first, about the product itself. Good is generally considered to be the ability of objects to satisfy human needs. Proponents of the neoclassical direction in economic theory distinguish between economic and non-economic benefits. The latter include what is available in unlimited quantities and is available to every person without any exchange. The neoclassical school emphasizes that a commodity is an economic good intended for exchange, but this definition does not indicate that a commodity is a product of labor. Proponents of the labor theory of value, starting with A. Smith, believed that goods in certain quantities are equal to each other because they have a common basis - labor. In this case, a necessary condition for exchange is the difference in the use values of goods. In modern economic theory, a different approach has been adopted, which originates from the works of representatives of the theory of marginal utility: K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, F. Wieser. They expressed the idea that it is not labor value that underlies exchange, but utility. The ability of a commodity to be exchanged in certain quantitative proportions is exchange value. But I will look at exchange value a little later.

I. Use value (utility);

II. Cost (socially necessary labor embodied in a product).

Summarizing the above, we find that use value should:

1. to be created by labor;

2. satisfy the needs not of its creator, but of other people;

3. exchange for another product (purchase and sale mechanism), that is, the product must have the ability to exchange for other goods.

Thus, social use value is also use value which:

1. has utility, that is, it was created not for one’s own consumption, but for exchange on the market;

2. created in quantities and structure corresponding to social needs or, in any case, not exceeding it;

· Social;

· Functional;

· Ergonomic;

· Reliability;

· Aesthetic;

· Security.

K. Marx supplemented the labor theory of value of A. Smith and D. Ricardo with his doctrine of the dual nature of labor.

In K. Marx’s theory of value, the starting point of analysis is a commodity, which he defines as a product of labor intended for exchange (thus, the concept of a commodity in K. Marx is narrower than the concept of [economic] good among marginalists, in particular, among K. . Menger and W. S. Jevons). A necessary condition for a system of commodity production, i.e. system based on the exchange of labor products is a combination of social division of labor and private ownership of the means of production. These two factors ultimately determine the dual nature of labor and the dual nature of goods, as can be seen from the diagram. At the same time, perhaps the main premise of K. Marx’s theory of value is the incommensurability of the use values of various goods (i.e., the properties of goods that satisfy certain needs of people). Use value is only a necessary condition for a given product of labor to be exchanged for another product of labor, but it does not reflect its value. The latter is determined by the costs of abstract labor, i.e. spending ". human labor force in a physiological sense.", regardless of the specific type of labor (i.e. the work of a painter, sculptor or musician). Thus, abstract labor must be distinguished from concrete labor. K. Marx believed that value is “abstract labor embodied in a commodity,” “a clot of human labor devoid of differences.” However, the social nature of abstract labor manifests itself only indirectly - through the exchange of goods. In the absence of commodity production, there is no abstract labor (and therefore the dual nature of labor), and the products of labor have no value because they are not produced for the purpose of exchange. Thus, K. Marx believed that the value (of a product) is a category inherent exclusively in commodity production. It is determined, as has already been said, by the socially determined costs of abstract labor, and is measured in the value of another commodity for which a given commodity is exchanged, or (in “capitalist commodity production”) - in the monetary price of the same commodity. It should be noted that the monetary price of a product does not necessarily have to be equal to its value. Price is only a “transformed form” (“form of manifestation”) of value; value is just the “center of gravity” of price, i.e. the value to which the price of a product “tends.”

Moreover, the fact that labor can be different in intensity and quality, from the point of view of K. Marx, does not refute his concept: after all, all types of “complex” labor - according to the principle of labor reduction - can be reduced with a certain coefficient to “simple average labor” “, and supposedly this happens all the time in the market when establishing the exchange value of goods.

Here it can be noted that it is hardly justified to defend the idea of commensurability of labor costs and at the same time talk about the incommensurability of use values.

A little more about the economy today

Inflation essence, causes, socio-economic consequences in modern conditions
inflation unemployment population The most general, traditional definition of inflation is the overflow of circulation channels money supply in excess of the needs of trade turnover, which causes depreciation of the monetary unit and, accordingly, an increase in commodity prices. However, the interpretation of inflation as channel overflow money circulation about...

History of Economic Thought
Economic teachings of the Ancient East and ancient India The economic ideas of ancient peoples began to develop at the time of the appearance of writing. The earliest manifestations of economic thought should be sought among the peoples of the ancient East, who developed more favorably. In the views of that time...

Two properties of a commodity (use value and value) are determined by the dual nature of labor embodied in the commodity. The labor that creates a product has two sides, it is both concrete and abstract.

Specific work - it is useful labor expended in a certain form and qualitatively different from all other types of labor. As a result of the specific labor of commodity producers, qualitatively incomparable use values are created (a tailor creates a suit with his labor, a carpenter creates a table, etc.). The types of concrete labor that create various use values are very diverse. They differ from each other in their purpose, the nature of labor operations, objects and tools of labor, and the final results of production.

At the same time, different types of concrete labor not only differ qualitatively from each other, but also have something in common that allows them to be quantitatively compared with each other. This common to all types of human labor is that they all represent the expenditure of labor power, physical and mental abilities person. The labor of commodity producers, acting as the cost of labor in general, regardless of its specific form, is abstract work.

Abstract labor, unlike concrete labor, creates the value of a commodity. Value-creating labor is not abstract in the sense that it is only something mentally represented. Its abstractness lies in the fact that it is abstracted from those features that specific different types of human labor have. For example, if we are told that Ivanov is making a table, we can mentally imagine what he is doing, what means and objects of labor are used, and what he will get as a result. If we are told that Ivanov is working, we will have no idea about the specific nature of his work, but we will understand that he is expending labor power. Abstract labor is the expenditure of labor in general, regardless of its specific form.

Therefore, we can conclude that concrete labor is what distinguishes one type of labor from another, and abstract labor is what is common between different types of labor, allowing them to be compared with each other.

Abstract work is a historical category. Not every expenditure of human labor power means abstract labor, but only when the need arises to equate different types of labor through exchange on the market. At the same time, abstract labor expresses certain relations of production commodity producers. On the market, each of them finds out who and how much abstract labor spent on the production of goods and, depending on this, the proportions of exchange are established.

In the conditions of commodity production, the dual nature of labor embodied in a commodity expresses the contradiction between private and public labor commodity producers.

Private ownership of the means of production divides people and leads to the fact that the specific labor of each commodity producer becomes his private business.

But, on the other hand, the social division of labor determines the existence of a comprehensive connection between commodity producers, since, producing products not for their own use, but for others, they actually work for each other. Consequently, the labor of each commodity producer is not only private, but at the same time social. And the more developed the social division of labor, the greater the interdependence of commodity producers. However, the social nature of the labor of commodity producers in the process of producing goods remains hidden. This nature of labor manifests itself only on the market in the process of exchange. Only here is it revealed whether the labor of a commodity producer is useful for others, necessary for society, whether it receives public recognition or not. If a product produced for sale does not find a buyer on the market, then the private labor expended on its production does not receive public recognition and, therefore, is not realized as value. The labor spent on its production is considered useless from the point of view of society. Society recognizes as necessary only those costs that satisfy known social needs for certain products.

From what has been said it is clear that the concrete labor of a commodity producer has a private character and acts directly in the form of private labor, while the bearer of the social character of labor is abstract labor.

Thus, value as an economic category is a relationship between commodity producers, in which they determine the costs of abstract, social labor in the production of goods and establish the proportions of exchange.

Views