Question 1 What did Marx mean with his formu - University of Utah

U of Utah Econ 5080 2007fa 31
With all this said, now it is time to analyze the “negation of the negation” as the text so
eloquently puts it. Marx takes all that I have just said and poses a contradiction. Despite all
these arguments, exchange value does indeed appear to be inherent in the commodity. For
example, If I were making silk and I wanted to trade 3 yards of silk for x lbs of wheat then
one might say that that exchange is possible because I have a special relationship with the
wheat guy/gal. However, it is not that simple because I can trade my 3 yrds of silk for x
amounts of barley, buttons, or milk (just about anything) and the amounts will change. It
becomes implausible to say that I have a special relationship with everyone I can trade with!
So it appears as if the exchange value is inherent to the commodities in the sense that when
I trade different things I can get more or less or something.
The answer to this dilemma is what Marx calls “replaceability.” What this means, is that
none of the many different trades that I can make are “inherently favorable” to the others.
Here is the justification; I can trade silk for wheat, silk for buttons, and silk for milk; in the
end however the people I am trading with along with the different products I am trading for
are replaceable. All the trades are equal and fair, in content although their quantities may
differ.
In conclusion: The relationship between the buyer and seller is inconsequential. It is
the usefulness of the commodity alone that determines its exchange value (plus the labor
required to obtain it). Once these use-values are established then they can carry some kind
of exchange-value and that exchange value is not on an individual scale but a social scale.
Hans: Excellent, very careful reading. The only quarrel I have is: how do you argue the following sentence:
“Exchange-value can not be inherent in the commodity because the commodity’s usefulness (its use-value) is independent
of exchange-value”? Marx used the variability and relativity of exchange-values to argue that it cannot be
inherent to the commodities.
Message [117] referenced by [275]. Next Message by Daniel is [129].
[154] HTJY: Exchange-value appears to be something inherent in the commodity.
Marx presents on P126 in Capital a perspective from which exchange-value does not appear
to be inseparably connected with the commodity. In a closer scrutiny of the matter,
however, he presents another convincing perspective from which exchange-value appears to
be inseparably connected with the commodity.
If exchange-value is inseparably connected with the commodity, it should not depend
on the time and place in which the exchange occurs. For example, if a dozen of eggs was
exchanged for a gallon of milk in New York in May 2006, then the same exchange relation
must hold in San Francisco in May 2007. However, such a relation is not likely to hold in
general. Thus, this and other similar counter examples indicate that exchange-value is not
inseparably connected with the commodity.
Is exchange-value truly something not inseparably connected with the commodity? Marx’s
closer scrutiny of the matter suggests that the answer is no. Suppose that x amount of commodity
A is exchanged for y amount of commodity B or z amount of commodity C. Then,
since commodity B and commodity C each represent the exchange value of the same commodity
A, these two commodities are of the same magnitude. This implies that there exists
a common element of the same magnitude which is in both B and C. Moreover, B and C as
exchange values for A are merely modes of expression of the common element. Marx calls
the common element in commodities, value. Values are crystals of human labor power in the
32 2007fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
abstract expended to produce commodity. Thus, exchange-values are inseparably connected
with commodities in the sense that exchange-values are modes of expression of values which
are necessarily in each and every commodity.
Hans: Yes, very good.
Next Message by HTJY is [289].
[199] Tim: Replaceability. Marx argues that the exchange-values’ constant change with
time and place seem to be “accidental and purely relative” [126:2]. What Marx is getting at
is that the quantities of use-values exchanged vary from trade to trade and that there is no
constant, therefore exchange-value cannot be inherent in a commodity.
Marx’s rebuttal compensates for this “accidentality” and “pure relativity” by introducing
replaceability [127:1]. Replaceability justifies that no one trade made is better than the other,
that they are all “equal in content” (Annotations, pg. 24) which now makes exchange-value
something inherent in a commodity.
Hans: You say that the constant changes in exchange-value seem accidental. Marx said something a little different,
namely, that because of its constant changes the exchange-value itself seems accidental and not inherent in the
commodity.
Replaceability is part of Marx’s rebuttal. This rebuttal has three steps which can be considered a dialectical
negation of negation: (1) every commodity can be exchanged for many others, but (2) each of these trades are
replaceable with each other, therefore (3) they are only different ways of expressing something inherent in the
commodity.
Next Message by Tim is [202].
[200] Ozz: graded A– Exchange value arguments. Marx’s argument concerning the conclusion
that exchange values are not something inherent is explained simply in the difference
of quantity a certain commodity can be exchanged for in differentiating times and places.
Marx explains saying “Exchange-value manifests itself at first as the quantitative relation,
the proportion, which use-values of one sort are exchanged against use-values of another
sort...a proportion which constantly changes with time and place.” This signals that the commodity
might not hold an inherent exchange-value because if the proportions to which they
are traded are always changing then the exchange-value is not due to the commodity but to
the circumstances of the trade.
Marx’s rebuttal to this argument concerns the “expression of a deeper social relation located
underneath”. This deeper social relation consist of the social relationship of the commodity
in regards to other commodities and the use-values the commodity supplies. In the
commentaries, the example of the flashing car lights explains this concept very well. The
example makes clear of how cars flashing their lights at first could be mistaken, however;
after time one realizes it means to turn on your own head lights. This social relationship
between commodities signaling to each other their exchange value, which occurs over periods
of time, will eventually lead to a general exchange value that is thought to be inherent
in the commodity. Marx uses the word “replaceable” saying that the owners treat the various
exchange values of their commodities as “replaceable” expressions of the same thing.
Meaning that when one comes to believe that commodity X is usually traded for three units
of Commodity Y then you begin to realize that due to the social relations commodities can
seem to take on an inherent exchange value.
Hans: Are you thinking a social relationship is an attitude or fad where everybody thinks the same thing? Look at
my remark made about [149] for this. As you said in your in-class answer, the “thing” inherent in the commodities
is labor. They are all part of a social division of labor. These are real social interdependencies, not just attitudes.