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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2007fa 75
commodity by which the value of the commodity A is expressed. But the commodity B
in its natural form is a use-value since all commodities are use-values. Hence says Marx,
“The first peculiarity ... is ... that use-value becomes the form of appearance of its opposite,
value.” (Capital, p148)
(ii) The value relation equates the value of the commodity A created by the abstract labor,
say, m with its equivalent of the commodity B in its natural form created by the concrete
labor, say, n. Thus, in value relation, the concrete labor n becomes a tangible expression
of the abstract labor m. Hence says Marx that the second peculiarity is that “concrete labor
becomes the form of manifestation of its opposite, abstract human labor.” (Capital, p 151)
(iii) By (ii), the concrete labor n now counts as the identical abstract labor. But the former
is a private form of labor carried out by private individuals while the latter is a social form
of labor derived by averaging out all the concrete labor available in the given society. Hence
says Marx that the third peculiarity is that “private labor takes the ... social form.” (Capital,
150:4/o)
Hans: The three dots in your last Marx quote skip over the word “directly” or “immediately.” This is an important
word which you should not have skipped. Private labor in capitalism is social labor, but not directly social labor
because it first has to pass the test of the market. The labor producing the commodity in equivalent form does not
have to pass through this test. The linen weaver’s willingness to exchange her linen for the coat is proof that the
labor in the coat fits into the social division of labor, that its product is needed by others.
Next Message by HTJY is [293].
Question 212 is 130 in 1998WI:
Question 212 When Marx talks about the “defects” of the Simple form of value, in what
respect are they defects?
[694] Deborah: Simply Defective. In explaining the Simple Form of Value, Marx points
out defects in the expression – in relative form of value and in the equivalent form of value.
“..and therefore also only places A in an exchange relation with one particular different kind
of commodity, instead of representing A’s qualitative equality with all other commodities.”
[154:2] “.. A commodity there corresponds to the Isolated equivalent form of another commodity.”
[154:2]
In the relative form of value, Marx points out that the simple form of value “represents
value as something that is different from its use-value, but not as something that is qualitatively
equal for all commodities.” (Annotations) What an individual will accept in exchange
for their commodity is not equal across the board – not everyone will accept the same goods
for the same trades. Annotations gives the example of an orchestra in which every musician
plays his/her own melody. There is not a coherent “signal” in this form. In the equivalent
form of value, the two commodities being exchanged are only equivalents for each other –
not with other commodities (the goods are poor incarnations of value).
In the archives, Hans points out in his remarks to [1998WI:116] that Commodity A does
not receive its value from Commodity B, instead it receives its value from labor, but it
expresses its value in relation with Commodity B.
Hans: Yes, the market relations through which value is expressed must be distinguished from the production
relations which give value to the commodities. Commodities receive value in the production process, and they
express their value in their exchange relations with each other. Market relations will only then be successful in
76 2007fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
directing the production process, if this expression (or reflection) of the underlying production relations on the
market is accurate. Marx points out two respects in which the expression of value through a Simple exchange
relationship is inaccurate: One of these two criticisms is directed at the relative form of value, the other at the
equivalent form of value.
Regarding the relative form, he says that the relative form of value distinguishes the value of a commodity
from its use-value (which is good), but it fails to convey the fact that the value of all goods are the same (which
is bad). Only an expression which conveys this same-ness (and therefore allows the values of all commodities
to be compared with each other) can give the right signals to the producers so that they know what is in demand
and should be produced. (This will then be resolved with money, which is indeed a common denominator for all
commodities.)
Regarding the Equivalent form, Marx’s criticism is that the commodity in the Equivalent form can be directly
exchanged only for the commodity in the Relative form. Again, with money this is alleviated, because money can
be directly exchanged against everything. The situation that every commodity could be directly exchanged against
every other commodity is not possible, because commodities are produced privately and spontaneously, and it is
never certain if a given commodity meets a social need or not.
First Message by Deborah is [43].
[714] Walmart: Faulty Forms. When Marx talks about the “defects” of the Simple form
of value, in what respect are they defects?
Marx says that while the expression as a whole is not defective, two poles of it contain
defects. “The expression of the value of commodity A in terms of some arbitrary other commodity
B merely distinguishes the value of A from the use-value of A, and therefore also
only places A in an exchange relation with one particular different kind of commodity, instead
of representing A’s qualitative equality with all other commodities and its quantitative
proportionality to them.” In other words, the expression of value does not play an equalizing
role for every commodity on the market.
The second place where the same defect is visible is in the relative form of value of a
commodity corresponding to the equivalent form of another. The examples Marx offers is
the relationship between linen and a coat. In the relative expression of value of the linen, the
coat possesses the form of equivalent, the form of direct exchangeability, only in relation to
linen. This is not true of commodities other than linen.
Hans: Regarding your first sentence: the expression as a whole is defective too; but these defects will be ironed
out in the development to the Money form of value.
In the last sentence of your first paragraph you had “expression of use-value”; I changed it to “expression of
value.”
Instead of your very last sentence, you should have said: “This is a defective expression, since the labor in the
coat is not only equal to the labor in the linen but to all labor.”
Next Message by Walmart is [715].
Question 216 is 223 in 2008SP, 221 in 2008fa, 234 in 2009fa, 261 in 2010fa, 225 in
2011fa, and 235 in 2012fa:
Question 216 How does it become plain here that it is not the exchange of commodities
which regulates the magnitude of their values, but rather the reverse, it is the magnitude of
the value of commodities which regulates the proportion in which they are exchanged?
[101] Tyler: ambiguity of values. This ambiguity of values: “There are a thousand
different kinds of value, as many kinds of value as there are commodities in existence.” Is
the reason we have adopted the concept of fiat money. Rather than basing the price of a good
on barter, we have a set price for a good. Therefore everyone will pay for the product with