ADAM SMITH'S CONCEPT OF LABOUR: VALUE OR MEASURE?
| Autor | Rodriguez Herrera, Adolfo |
| Cargo | Ensayo |
| Páginas | 153(14) |
RESUMEN
Smith es considerado el padre de la teoria del valor trabajo desarrollada por David Ricardo y Karl Marx y simultaneamente de la teoria de los costos de produccion desarrollada por John Stuart Mill y Alfred Marshall. Esta polisemia se debe en parte a que en su investigacion misma Smith esta desarrollando la terminologia para referirse al valor y la medida del valor, y a menudo la utiliza con imprecision. Esto ha llevado a diferentes interpretaciones sobre su posicion en estos temas, la mayoria de ellas derivadas de un error de interpretacion de Ricardo y Marx.
Este articulo revisa los conceptos desarrollados por Smith para formular su teoria del valor (valor, precio real y valor de cambio). Nuestra interpretacion de sus textos sobre el valor no coincide con la que tradicionalmente se ha hecho. De acuerdo con nuestra interpretacion, no seria correcta la critica de Ricardo y Marx a la posicion de Smith sobre el papel del trabajo como medida de valor. Para estos autores, Smith no es consistente al proponer que el valor de una mercancia es definido o medido como la cantidad de trabajo necesaria para producirla y simultaneamente como la cantidad de trabajo que puede ser comprada por esta mercancia. Tratamos de demostrar que para Smith el trabajo tiene un doble papel -como fuente y como medida del valor--, y que a ello se debe la confusion generada por su i so de algunos terminos: Smith propone el trabajo como una medida de valor porque lo concibe como una fuente de valor. Con esta interpretacion queda claro, paradojicamente, que la teoria del valor trabajo de Smith corresponde sustancialmente con la que mas tarde desarrollaran Ricardo y Marx.
PALABRAS CLAVE: RIQUEZA, MARX. RICARDO, ECONOMIA POLITICA, TRABAJO COMANDADO.
ABSTRACT
Smith is considered the father of the labour theory of value developed by David Ricardo and Karl Marx and simultaneously of the cost-of-production theory of value developed by John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall. This polysemy is partly because Smith is developping the terminology to refer to value and measure of value, and often uses it with much imprecision. That has led to different interpretations about his position on these issues, most of them derived from an error of interpretation of Ricardo and Marx. This paper reviews the concepts developed by Smith to formulate his theory of value (value, real price and exchangeable value). Our interpretation of his texts on value does not coincide with what has traditionally been done. According to our interpretation, it would not be correct the criticism made by Ricardo and Marx on Smith's position about the role of labour as measure of value. For these authors, Smith is not consistent in proposing that the value of a commodity is defined or measured as the amount of labour necessary to produce it and simultaneously as the amount of labour that can be purchased by this commodity. We try to show that for Smith the labour has a double role -as source and measure of value-, and that to it is due the confusion that generates his use of some terms: Smith proposes labour as a measure of value because he conceives it as a source of value. With this interpretation it becomes clear, paradoxically, that Smith holds a labour theory of value that substantially corresponds to the one later developed by Ricardo and Marx.
KEYWORDS: WEALTH, MARX, RICARDO, POLITICAL ECONOMY, COMMANDED LABOUR.
-
INTRODUCTION
The way Smith approaches value and labour must be seen in connection with his studies on wealth and how to measure it. For Smith wealth has to be measured by its purchasing power. However, money does not accurately measure that power, since money itself has a variable purchasing power. As a solution to this problem Smith formulates his idea that the purchasing power of wealth is measured by the quantity of labour that wealth allows its owner to impose on others. In this context he develops the concept of real price and the concept of value (whose magnitude depends on different amounts of labour), but their birth is marked by the ambivalence around the role of labour as a measure and source of wealth. The question "what is value" is often confounded by him with the question "how value is measured", which is directly related to the ambivalent role of labour in Smith's theory.
For example, at the end of chapter 4 of The Wealth of Nations, Smith says that to understand "the principles which regulate the exchangeable value of commodities", he "shall endeavour to shew first what is the real measure of this exchangeable value, or wherein consists the real price of all commodities."(Smith, 1776/1981, I.iv.14-17, p. 42/46) The terms "measure of value" and "real price" in this phrase are used as if they represent the same concept. Something similar happens at the beginning of the next chapter, where Smith claims that "the value of a commodity" is equal to a certain amount of labour, and concludes that labour, "therefore", is "the real measure of exchangeable value of all commodities". (Smith, 1776/1981,1.v.l, p. 44/47) In this case the terms "value" and "measure of value", as in the other case the terms "real price" and "measure of value", are used as synonyms.
This indiscriminate use of the terms "value", "real price" and "measure of value", gives rise to an ambiguity regarding the role that Smith attributes to labour. Does he consider it an external measure of value or numeraire, as can be gold or silver, or does he consider it (as Ricardo or Marx do) the foundation, the original source, the substance of value? (Marx, 1867/1959, p. 55; Ricardo, 1817/1990, p. 13) This question leads directly to another one, related to Smith's role in the history of the theory of value: When asserting that "labour [...] is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities", is Smith ranking himself with those looking for a stable measure of value, or is he founding the labour theory of value?
This paper will help to understand the different concepts developed by Smith to measure wealth -especially real price and value or exchangeable value--and their relation with labour. Our interpretation of his texts on value does not coincide with what has traditionally been done. According to our interpretation, it would not be correct the criticism made by Ricardo and Marx on
Smith's position about the role of labour as measure of value. For these authors, Smith is not consistent in proposing that the value of a commodity is defined or measured as the amount of labour necessary to produce it and simultaneously as the amount of labour that can be purchased by this commodity. We try to show that for Smith the labour has a double role, as source and measure of value, and that to it is due the confusion that generates his use of some terms: Smith proposes labour as a measure of value because he conceives it as a source of value.
The paper concludes, therefore, that, for Smith, labour is a measure of value but also the source of value, so that the Scottish philosopher opts in the first chapters of The Wealth of Nations for a labour theory of value against the belief of those who interpret that Smith founded a value theory based on production costs. With this interpretation it becomes clear, paradoxically, that Smith holds a labour theory of value that substantially corresponds to the one later developed by Ricardo and Marx.
Smith's formulation
In the first paragraphs of Chapter V of The Wealth of Nations, Smith states three interrelated concepts that are very often confounded or mixed up: value, real price and exchangeable value. Let's start with value:
The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. (Smith, 1776/1981, I.v.1, p. 44/46)
In the second phrase of the next paragraph, this definition of value appears again:
What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (I.v.2, p. 44/46)
It is easy to see that these are two versions of the same concept of value. On the one hand, in the first version cited the value of commodity A is the quantity of labour the person possessing A can acquire giving it in exchange; in the second version cited the value of commodity A (what it "is really worth") is the toil and trouble that A saves its owner, who exchanges A for something else. In both versions the definition of the value of the commodity A is made from the point of view of its owner who wishes to exchange it for another commodity that he or she does not possess; the value of commodity A is a certain amount of something (purchased labour or saved toil and trouble) related to a commodity which A can be exchanged for, let's say commodity B. On the other hand, in both versions, the owner of commodity A can exchange it for the commodity that he or she wants, by definition commodity B. In the first version he or she acquires some amount of labour related to commodity B, whereas in the second version he or she saves the toil and trouble of producing B. Since both versions of the definition of value cited above are formulated by Smith to express the same concept ("the value of any commodity" = "what the commodity is really worth"), it seems logical that both expressions--"the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command" and "the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people"--are synonymous, the second expression being a metonymy of the first. Hence, "toil and trouble" means "labour purchased or commanded". (2)
"Real price" is the second concept Smith states in the first paragraphs of Chapter V:
The real price of every thing, what every thing really...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba