> The information I have is different. First commodity production then city
> States like those of Sumeria develop some 4,000 years ago.
As we disagree on the history, let us make our case logically.
"city States," are developed as markets develop, sure, but these are the outcome of State development. States are not born as Cities, they must start as primitive subsistence agrarian society before they develop into cities, and then nations, and then empires.
First hunting and gathering nomadic society needs to become a subsistence agrarian society, before any surplus or property can exist.
And thus needs to defend territorial sovereignty, thus the emergence of the State and the development of a "'monopoly on legitimate violence' over a specific territory."
The existence of a market presupposes the social conditions exist for producing and exchanging surplus goods. In other words, markets where born regulated in the interests of maintaining an already existing social order.
What is your version?
Are you saying that "commodity production" existed among pre-agrarian societies? Or are you denying that agrarian societies had a social order, including rulers with recourse to force and traditions, customs and laws that governed distribution?
> You do seem to indicate that the free exchange will involve prices for object
> though.
Yes, however with labor able to capture it's entire product, I don't see free exchange as being synonymous with "commodity production." Which, at least to me, implies the capitalist mode of production where labour itself is a commodity sold at it's reproduction cost.
> Are you thinking of Mondragon or what?
Why are you trying to reduce the argument to some actually existing co-operative or syndicate?
Are you of the belief that nothing that doesn't already exist can?
The point remains that self-organised workers have formed Capital, implemented efficient production and humane distribution in different ways at different times to varying degrees of success.
> DK:
> I am unclear of what "good will" you are referring too, as neither of us
> has referred to any project requiring good will. What am I missing here?
> *******
> MB:
> I'm referring to private/co:operative ownership of goods and services for sale
> and how this affects the will to keep the exchanges equal and free.
What does "good will" have to do with it. Free exchange works because both parties benefit, not because one extends good will to the other.
> DK:
> Further, as I understand the Socialist critique of Capitalism, exchange
> goods (i.e. commodities) are not "private property," but rather "the
> means of production" are (land and capital). Socialism has no private
> property, so it is not property but products that are exchanged.
> **************
>
> I go along with Marx's conceptualization of what a commodity is. Essentially,
> this is that a commodity is owned by someone and is not owned just for use, but
> for eventual sale i.e. exchange.
In what way does this relate to the quoted passage? I am talking about Property, you present a definition of commodity that matches exactly how I have used it ("exchange goods"), yet you phrase your statement as if your are refuting or disagreeing with something.
I am really not following you.
> MB:
> So many people, including Marx have written about this historical process that
> I tend not to want to attempt to "reinvent the wheel" here. For brevity's
> sake: I can't identify one attempt in human social history where the production
> of private property for sale or exchange did not result in the erection of
> classes and a State.
Nor can you identify one attempt in human social history where the production of exchange goods for sale or exchange predated the existence of a State to regulate such exchange.
And yet you still seem more interested in basing your arguments around unsubstantiated appeals, rather than logical investigation.
> see e.g.:
> http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_sumerians_of_mesopotamia
From the very article you cite:
Though they shared the Sumerian language as a form of communication,
these city-states shared little else, and were in a constant state
of warfare, often battling each other for control over water
supplies and the fertile land. A typical Sumerian city was well
fortified with thick, tall walls, which the king was responsible for
maintaining, in hopes of deterring would-be attackers
This makes it clear that the origin and purpose of the city states and their rulers was the territorial sovereignty required to protect water supplies and fertile land, in other words the prerequisite for an agrarian society.
> DK:
> What you mean is that you can envision a society where goods are not
> traded at their exchange value, the exchange value none-the-less exists
> as the production of goods has real costs that can not be wished away.
>
> What is the advantage of hiding the cost of production from the consumer?
>
> Keep in mind that "because some people can not afford it" is not an
> answer, selling things at exchange value doesn't imply that income
> disparity can not be addressed through other means, i.e. welfare
> benefits, basic incomes, citizen's dividends, etc.
>
> ***********
>
> Hmmmmm....The "cost" of production is the labour and raw materials from the
> Earth which are used to produce a good or a service. I'm not hiding anything.
> How many hours you put in, in terms of socially necessary labour is how many
> hours of goods and services you can take out.
Yes, exchange value is the value of labour plus the value of scarce resources required to produce a good, if you are not charging this price to the consumer, what are you charging? What do you mean by "how many hours," are you implying consumption is tied directly to your labour time? I am still not following.
> Once again, use-value is _higher_ than exchange-value, if you strip
> exchange-value (subtract) from use-value, what remains is surplus value.
> **********
> No. What you have when you strip exchange-value from use-value is a
> qualitative good or service, not a good or service which is masked with market
> price.
You are confused, IMO. I will not restate what has already been plainly stated, other than to say that market price _reveals_ and does not _mask_. This is basic economics. Privilege backed by force masks.
> DK:
> I have no idea what you are suggesting.
> ***********
> MB:
> I understand that you are not a communist.
*sigh*
What is a "communist?"
Was Marx one? Was Kropotkin? Was Lenin? Was Most? Was Mao? Was Tito? Was Luxemburg? Was Tolstoy? Was Trotsky? Was Goldman? Was Stalin? Am I? Are you?
Please do not pretend that all "communists" agree with you, or that "communism" can even be divided cleanly from the broader Socialist movement.
Communism is a property-less, state-less society.
> **************
> It is capitalism that wants to price things at use-value ("marginal
> utility") and socialism that wants to price things at exchange-value
> ("socially necessary labour" + value of scarce resources)
>
> The reason that capitalism needs to price things at use-value (or at
> least above actual exchange value) is to capture surplus value.
> ***********
> MB:
> Surplus value is captured because wage labour exists.
No, Surplus value exists because Property exists. There are plenty of examples of non-"wage" Surplus value theft, i.e. sharecropping.
> I think this is a fundamental difference between our interpretations of the
> hisotry of class society and the State. Mine begins with the collapse of
> primitive communist society about 9,000 BC and yours begins a *bit* later.
Please feel free to explain.
> Never mind, DK...free exchange sounds good. Let's exchange use-values between
> ourselves without value, price and profit.
This statement is so confused it makes my head hurt, "exchange use-values" without "value, price." yikes.
I agree with the spirit though! Yes, we need to work together, trade and share.
> Good luck on your project.
Thanks, and you with yours.
Cheers.
-- Dmytri Kleiner, robotnik Telekommunisten, Berlin.
dk at telekommunisten.net http://www.telekommunisten.net freenode/#telnik