Popularly summarized idea of what the prices are, what is their main social function in the economy, what is the difference between political prices from natural prices, what is their historical importance, not only in the origin and development of political economy, but also in the regulation of the market by the authorities and other agents of institutional power over the process of social production.
What is the price?
In the history of the exchange of goods of any other the value of goods, except exchange value (value) or the prices of goods, mankind for a very long time not even suspected.
In the simplest form of the exchange value (value) of goods represented exactly the proportion in which a certain, quite clearly defined its size, the amount of one commodity exchanged for a certain, quite clearly defined its size, the number of other commodity. For example: one sheep was exchanged for seven axes; one coat for 20 yards of canvas, etc.
Each pair of goods, which exchange occurred randomly and therefore independently from the same random exchanges of other pairs of commodities, represented a casual or simple form of exchange value. It every time the product that was exchanged for the other, appeared in the relative exchange value, i.e. exchange value of the product expressed by a certain quantity of another product. And the second product, a certain number which expresses the relative exchange value of another commodity, it is because of this appeared as the equivalent of the first item relative exchange value which he expressed. In other words, the exchange value of this second product in a given random exchange the two goods appeared as the equivalent form of the second product.
However, it is clear that in any particular relative or equivalent form of exchange value appeared (performed) this particular product, in particular a random act of exchange of two goods is determined only what goods into what is exchanged – for example, the coat on the canvas or the canvas for a coat. Or what is the same, the distribution forms a simple or casual exchange value between the canvas and the coat participating in a single act of exchange is determined solely and only the pole of one and the same – the act of exchange expressed, for example, the coat (or canvas) in this act of exchange.
The same form of exchange value, which for one participant of the exchange pole appears random act of exchange, for the second member appears in the other (correlative) form of exchange value, another pole of the same act of exchange. This is evident when the owner of the coat as well as the owner of the canvas needs to share his coat on the canvas, which exchange it (the canvas) the owner, because he (the owner of the canvas) as well as the owner of the coat, needs to share his canvas coat.
In the same act of exchange between two goods when both the owner’s exchange of goods need their exchange, the relative form of exchange value of one commodity to the first participant of the exchange at the same time is an equivalent form of the same product, but not for the first peer and the second. And Vice versa – equivalent form of exchange value of another commodity taken in relation to one party to exchange, at the same time is it (this product) relative form of exchange value, but in relation to another participant in this exchange.
As the transformation of random acts of exchange of goods in regular exchanges performed systematically across developed and assigned to the world (the ecumene), a set of simple or random forms of exchange value of all goods you need and inevitably turns into a full or expanded form of exchange value of each item. In the 1st volume of Capital Marx illustrates this – the full or expanded form of exchange value of goods in this example: “20 yards of canvas, 1 coat, or = 10 f. a Cup of tea, or 40 f. coffee or = 1 quarter of wheat or = 2 ounces gold or = ½ ton iron or = etc.” in Other words, the full or expanded form of exchange value a particular product has a full system of equations (proportions) of exchanging a certain amount of this product to certain quantity of each of all other goods.
The needs of economic practice with the development of commodity exchange (trade) it is necessary and inevitable turn the full form of the exchange value of all commodities in General relative form of exchange value of each product, expressing its exchange value in certain quantities of all other goods. Similarly, the full form of exchange value of all goods turns (this is just the reverse ratio) in the universal equivalent form of exchange value of all commodities, expressing the exchange value of each commodity in a certain quantity of the same commodity, thereby becoming the universal commodity equivalent.
General equivalent form of exchange value of goods is a form of exchange value in General, or, otherwise, exchange value as such, which in principle can belong to any product. However, the social practice of all the goods gradually selects a single item, which gives public function special product that only performs the public function of a universal equivalent of all commodities. And such a universal commodity equivalent gradually becomes metallic gold bullion of a certain sample (with appropriate physically and chemically specific properties or all other relevant economic practice parameters, which are practically measurable and can be verified by a known and fairly available means).
So necessary and inevitable economic practice of mankind has implemented a natural transition from the simple coincidence of the form of exchange value of goods to cash exchange value of any and all goods. This – like all the same General equivalent form of exchange value. But in reality – it is a special form of exchange value of all goods, which has become a universal form of exchange value of all goods is exclusive (only) the equivalent of all commodities is only one universal commodity-equivalent, namely the one that executes the public function of money – metal gold bullion.
Universal money form of exchange value of goods was briefly known as the price of the goods. It’s clear that a General commodity-equivalent that performs the public function of money, the prices has not, and can not have, literally by definition, because it is a tautology. Any product, being a measure of the price (cost) all other goods, never served and cannot serve as a measure of price (cost) itself.
In the end, the system of prices of all goods are exclusively and only system of all proportions of exchange of all and of each product for a certain amount of money, that is to a certain physical quantity (mass) of one universal commodity equivalent performing the function of money, – metal gold bullion of a certain sample.
But (looking very far ahead) it should be emphasized, because this is the essence of this was revealed by a number of elements of a dynamic array or, otherwise, the dynamic equation system of exchange of goods, each of which (equations) is not constant (not constant values), but solely and only from variables. Not only that, the value of each variable in each equation by their social being is nothing but at any given moment is different in magnitude that is dynamically variable, the derivative of a function defined by a set of nonlinear equations. But each such set of nonlinear equations is not originally determined and not predetermined by the composition of its elements, that is, the composition of nonlinear equations, organically included in this set is at any given moment.
It is inevitable and necessary determines the final methodological and practical nullity of any attempt to find a mathematical solution to the problem of determining value in General, and exchange value, including one product, or all goods – it makes no difference. Not only an exception to it did not, but on the contrary, the most revealing case of this just was, because otherwise can not be, and also the “solution” that was proposed by the Soviet economist and mathematician Leonid Vitalyevich Kantorovich. Although that is what the “solution” to it (the only Soviet economist) in 1975 was awarded the Nobel prize in Economics.
The social function of prices in economic practices and their regulation.
Participants of the commodity exchanges fast enough not only noticed, but almost began to exploit the fact that the price of the same product fluctuates some more, some less. And it varies not only from fucking to country, from one region to another, from one town to another, from one seller (buyer) to another seller (buyer), not only in space, but still more in time. Not only seasonally within a single year and from year to year fluctuate the prices of the same goods of the same quality, produced by the same manufacturers using the same raw materials and tools.
And producers of goods, and all other participants in trade (exchange) of goods fairly quickly learned how to influence these fluctuations of exchange value in its use by more diverse Arsenal of means and methods of regulating the supply of goods and demand for them. And for all of them, as well as for all consumers, it was always obvious that the demand for goods is exclusively and only monetary demand. That is, it is only this demand that is not secured by the actual presence of money (General commodity-equivalent), and the actual supply of money in an equivalent amount of (amount) in exchange for the goods offered at the prices of those offering these goods to exchange for money.
Already from the very essence of the universal money form of exchange value of goods follow the main points of the regulation of prices of goods through regulation of supply and demand. And here practiced the tools and methods of the restrictions and increase the volume of supply of those goods, which are of interest as restrictions and increase demand for those commodities which are of interest to the initiators of a particular impact on their prices.
This collusion (cartels), and other unions and associations on the side of producers and/or on the side of sellers, developing in oligopoly and monopoly. Attracting institutional political power in the composition of the participants in such collusion and unions, including to ensure that oligopolies and monopolies. This institutional (inter-state, intra-state, sub-state or regional, and all other corporate) means of ensuring that monopolies, oligopolies and other forms of restriction of freedom of exchange of goods, regulation of prices.
Medieval Western European diocese and the monasteries, with regular markets for them, as well as medieval Western shops with their (first, second) local statutes and charters from the institutional political power of the Church and secular etc etc they were one of the first universal mass forms total regulation of prices of commodities, their supply and demand.
Similarly, though not without much details on the power, first of all, the place and role of products in circulation, as well as the characteristics of production and supply, developing institutional forms of controlled development is not only the money market but all commodity-money and financial instruments derived from money.
As a result, very soon the participants of economic relations in General, and the institutional political power, in particular, could not fail to notice that on the one hand, adjustable and tea exports them reject prices of goods in the first place, anyway back to some average value that no one can know in advance. And, secondly, that it was practically much more important, including politically, the deviation of the prices of goods, ultimately, always and everywhere rests on some insurmountable limits, inducing prices to fall back to some “natural” values of the “cost” of each product. And that it is not only and not so much in the natural factors of climate, epizootic or epidemic origin, how social factors (economic, social, political, institutional and ideological) origin and character.
It is quite menacing and regularly, and everywhere in Western Europe, gave to know the crises of commodity production and circulation of goods, resulting in social and political unrest up to the uprisings in a growing number of cities throughout Western Europe. It began already in the 14th century, this trend of all subsequent centuries was the natural, necessary and inevitable in its manifestations up to the Great crash of 1873 and the ensuing great (Long) depression ended in 1896.
This economic practice has identified the main social function of prices and, ultimately, of money, because prices are only mediate, as well as expressing the exercise of this public function of money on the surface of economic life. What kind of social functions of the price of goods is it? We are talking about what is under the domination of commodity production, the prices of goods was a major factor, directly observed the basis of the entire social mechanism proporcionaban of social reproduction in General, and by crises of overproduction, in particular.
Under the proportioning of social reproduction here refers to a regulation of the proportions in which the relationship between various social divisions of commodity production in General, and the developed (capitalist) commodity production in particular. Under public production units has always been understood and is understood in exactly those units in the sphere of production of material goods, people, and society as a whole, which stood relatively apart exist because of the social division of labor and cooperation prevailing in a given society at a given stage of its historical development. It is not only the international division of labor, but national, regional, and other social division of labor, as well, and the resulting division of labour to its necessary and inevitable cooperation.
It is clear that this proportioning of social reproduction is due not only to the prices of goods and technical basis of social production, that is, the level of development and characteristics of the technologies, the alleged means of production (instruments and means of labour), including labor as a means of production. However, all the proportions and disproportions, which are due to changes in technical basis of social reproduction, on the surface of economic life under conditions of developed commodity production must and will manifest (be expressed) by the price of goods in General and changing the aspect ratio (imbalance) between the prices of goods, especially.
Prices of goods in terms of developed (capitalist) commodity production from the moment of its emergence as such was always fulfilling a public function proporcionaria just of social reproduction, ensuring the maximization of its effectiveness for smoothstone social capital. Since the real basis of this public mechanism is money, so far this entire social mechanism of proporcionaria money mechanism implied by the public nature of prices of all goods.
Public pricing mechanism of regulation of proportions of public reproduction, the Central element and the basis of which is money, is necessary and inevitable acts through crises of overproduction, financial and economic collapse. These crises and failures, naturally occurring periodically, not only independently of the will and consciousness, but also contrary to the will and consciousness of the participants of economic relations, whatever they were trying to prevent these crises and crashes.
Since it is so, and is proven historical practice for many centuries, so far as the public price mechanism of regulation of proportions of social reproduction is a social regulation mechanism developed (capitalist) commodity production. While money is even relatively free, but totally (everywhere and in all acts of exchange, production, distribution and consumption of goods) operate in economic practice in all of its public functions (measure of value, means of payment… world money), this social mechanism of self-regulation of the economy does not address “at all”, that is, not eliminate completely.
About the ratio of “natural prices” and “political prices” of goods.
The pressing practical need is not so much to clarify what are “natural price” of goods, as in the formulation, determination and implementation of actual economic policy naturally led to the emergence of political economy. In fact political economy, as well as any other modern European science, whether it is at least the most natural, is nothing more than one of the applications of the universal modern European technologies of knowledge-power over man as a biological species (Michel Foucault).
Social technological science in General and political economy, including as an organic part of it, there is a technology of knowledge-power over man as a biological species, not only in terms of individuals. It is also relatively isolated part of the organic moments, and in parts of the whole system of populations of biological species “man” as a whole, covering, eventually, all of the “human” population.
So already William petty in his published and as a consequence became available to the General public the writings distinguish two kinds of prices. What kind of prices? First of all, Patty highlighted the “natural price” of goods, which is determined by the value of the goods, that is, in the end, the amount of labor expended in its production (although this is the last in this form clearly articulated is not itself petty, but more recent political economists). And, second, Patty allocated “market price” or that it has the same “political price” of the goods.
Yes, Patty, like most of his contemporaries and followers for nearly a century, including Adam Smith and all representatives of classical political economy, no it was not a secret, but rather was an axiom, for it is not subject neither to doubt nor proven, the identity of “market prices” with the “political prices”.
In the language of modern science, the political price of the goods as her understanding of the classics of political economy, defined not only as a dynamic resultant of the demand of the buyers and the sellers. How much of the market (= political) price of any given product in any given moment of his conversion on the market is defined as the resultant ideological, political, institutional and economic influences on subjects of national and international public (ideological, political, institutional, economic and other) relations in the supply and demand of this commodity.
Also A. Smith focused on the study does not “market (= political)” price of goods, but their “natural prices”. Ricardo, considered the formation of “natural prices”, called them “the prices or cost of production” and Marx a “total production cost”, organically includes the average industry rate of return on the entire capital advanced.
About the merits of Marx say briefly next, and now we emphasize several fundamentally important, significant moments. The first of these (in order of consideration here): consideration of process of formation of “natural prices” of the goods is the consideration of the process from the production of goods, i.e. from the supply side. A consideration of the “political price” of commodities is a consideration of the resultant politically regulated supply and demand of goods, but does not consider the process of price formation of the goods of his demand, that is the part of consumption (and consumers) of goods. But why politically regulated prices? It’s all the same question about what is politics in its public nature.
In part 3 of the article “In Russia, economic stability, crisis or catastrophe?” the author gives a definition of what is and what is the policy in effect. Namely, in reality, politics is the activity of public entities (large and small social groups) to present their private interests as a General and universal interests of the whole country and decorated their society, ensuring recognition and subsequent implementation of these private interests as a General and universal interests. And in the relegation of the interests of other social groups “pedestal” of common interests to private and not material interests, to eliminate and/or block the feasibility of the interests of all other social groups in the extent to which this social group (public entity) sees them as a threat to the implementation of their own interests.
But what is interest really? In fact, every specific interest is a specific method of obtaining the specific subject of funds required by that entity to meet them some of their needs, including the needs of as an extreme form of expression of needs. This is not any way of getting it, but only the way in which, on the basis of characteristic of the subject of interest in these social conditions the most effective for him, not in the abstract effective. Method of obtaining is a method activity that has a prey to his purpose.
Free competition is the most “pure” or perfect case of the political struggle of all against all for the implementation of each of them of their private interests, not as private, but as a General and universal interests. Therefore, if prices are determined by free competition, the essence is nothing but political prices, that oligopoly, monopoly and quasi-monopoly (Wallerstein) the price of goods the more is the price of political and only political.
Unlike his predecessors, Marx theoretically revealed the real social nature and gave a General description of the institutional mechanism through which the price (the”natural price”), being necessary posredstvom full production costs, as the law regulate political trend of the prices of goods, turning in average market prices.
Not only that, Marx discovered for the first time, although only sketchily, but showed a fundamental social structure, as well as all the necessary and sufficient foundations of the natural actions of the entire social mechanism which determines the deviation of commodity prices from their cost and the scale of the national market and across the global market. Not to mention the fact that Marx first opened and adequately demonstrated a social nature, historical origin, a transformed form of social existence, ontology and phenomenology, as well as the inevitable logical and historical perspective of the cost itself as a whole and its relation to exchange value and use value of the product.
Representatives of the Austrian school (böhm-Bawerk, Wieser, and others, including Hayek) political price of goods qualified as a kind of “objective value”, which is the resultant market “subjective values” (= for different values of specific individuals) of the same goods. “Subjective value” of goods, according to the ideas of the Austrian “marginalists”, is determined by the demand of the customer, namely the “marginal utility” of the product for his particular consumer. Therefore, this “subjective value” of the same product is different for each of the consumers: States, corporations, households, individuals and other economic actors.
Thus, also the Austrian school, eventually drove the “price” of the goods to the same market the resultant of supply and demand, that is, to the political price. But, first, for the purposes of this information, she considered the price of the goods not from the supply side (producers) of goods and the demand side (and consumers) of goods. And do it formally, like, just started of the classics of the review process of political prices from all sides, bringing this review to its full logical conclusion, but, as well as British classics, not focusing on these political prices.
Because, secondly, the theoretical interest of the Austrians, as well as the interest of the British classics of political economy, was formally focused not on the political (market) price as such, but (according to their claims and ideological concepts, that is, in kaimosi) all on the same “natural price”. Not so much in contrast to the British classics, much in contrast, and in the refutation of Marx’s theory, the Austrians tried to consider the “natural price” and “political price” is not in their dialectical unity and interaction, that is, not in its dialectical integrity, going from production to consumption and back, as did Marx. But not this way went the Austrians, and others. In fact, the “natural price,” the Austrians reduced to a “political price”, the latter is not considered as “political”, in the end, but as a “natural price.”
Thirdly, the Austrians considered this specific “natural price” on the demand side – the demand side and consumer goods. That is, the Austrians considered it from the “natural consumer” of the goods. Judeo-Christianity as such, and in the end, and is initially an individual, which alone creates (establishes) any and all corporations, communities and society, as well as personificate them. With this Judeo-Messianic point of view, any “price” of the goods in their Judeo-Messianic reality can only be “subjective cost.”
Because of this, the fourth, shall not have been eliminated (removed, deleted) the substance of value in General and money in particular. The substance of value – is precisely the Foundation that bears him on the price itself as a social quality or certainty of public goods by the total quantity of labor materialized in the product. In other words, the Austrians in such an inconspicuous way excluded from the definition of prices (exchange value) of goods is not only embodied in the product work, but the cost in General, and money become self-value is the measure of value (and prices) of any commodity, in particular. Thus in the theoretical part was completed, the ideological preparations for the withdrawal of money from the economy and their total replacement simulacra of money.
But that’s not all, for the expansion of commodity production in General, and in the final its formation and arising “consumer society”, in particular, is impossible without a more complete and rapid implementation of (sales) continuously increasing the volume and variety of weight of goods. Not only production volumes, but the volumes and the time of the sale of goods directly determined by their consumption, and it is – “the economy of podmigivania” that is, “the economy of the imposition of” goods to people who are under appropriate economic conditions can and should become their consumers through targeted and increasingly sophisticated advertising and promotion of products to consumers.
Theoretical basis of the solution of this practical problem of the whole future “technology podmigivania” was developed by the Austrians. They laid the most “fundamental” theoretical foundations of marketing, advertising, fashion, “Public Relations” (“public relations”), the mass media, “mass culture”, promoting the goods and all other sections of the modern “economy of podmigivania”.
“Economics of podmigivania” solves one major task – the task of cultivating the fighter use any and all properties of man as a consumer of everything, including himself, in the quality of the product. But the the main problem it solves as the problem of maximizing the volume of consumption of those goods, which can be and is carried out consistent cost-effective minimization of all costs of production, but also limit the consumption of each of these goods to their consumer. The only exception to this is the “production of goods for the elite”…
The Austrian school of political economy made ideological preparation for the practical transition from the “society of production” to “consumer society” as “society of the parasitic destruction” just outside and in the human person. But this transition could not be due to the fact that its ideological justification has already been completed in the theoretical part. For such a transition, and still more the insurance capitalist social reproduction from the Final Collapse through total manual control of all parameters and processes of social reproduction, required the withdrawal of money from the economic practices and their total replacement simulacra of money. And that total replacement of money their simulacra was a necessary inevitability and inevitability made.
In the second half of the 20th century in terms of completion of the transition to total manual control of all the proportions and processes of social reproduction on the basis of full withdrawal of money from the economic practices and their total replacement simulacra of money have also changed the interpretation of “political prices”. Vulgar economists as “political prices” were mostly interpreted not those “prices” that are installed as a result of “natural balancing” of supply and demand in the market of the relevant goods, as did the classics.
No, now the “political prices” were interpreted and only those prices (but in fact not prices, but prices simulacra), which established a legislative or conventional those or other political, economic or financial “authorities” (authorities institutional power). The main point of their “theoretical studies” all such “economists” directed and directed against the “former” and supposedly still existing “socialist economies.” It is this latter, according to the interpretations of modern economists, supposedly the only “inherent” political price, in contrast to “natural prices a free market economy.”
(to be continued)
Vasiliev Vladimir, 10 Dec 2019.
The primary publication of the initial part of the article is available at: http://www.dal.by/news/178/11-12-19-26/
© 2019, paradox. All rights reserved.