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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 95
Exam Question 148 is 114 in 2001fa, 124 in 2002fa, and 144 in 2004fa:
Exam Question 148 Why is the simple value expression asymmetric between coat and
linen?
[612] Gza: graded A extra credit test question. Since we cannot see value because it is
congealed and not materialized, we have to look for an expression of value that can allow
comparison for potential exchange. We cannot say that the coat and the linen are inherently
(innately or tacitly) equal since they are not the same. However, as Marx illustrates in
his expression we can see the value of one as in the body of the other; the linen in/to the
coat. What is key in asymmetric expression is to be aware what a commodity’s value is in
exchange for other commodities. Constructing an expression that allows comparative value
to be explicitly materialized in discourse allows trade to engage in a systemic context of
equal value. This is essential because one does not trade equal/same commodities. In his
simple form, Marx utilizes one equation: x=a, where a is the equivalent and x is the relative.
The expanded form takes this expression and adds other commodities where all possible
commodities are equated to a single commodity such as linen. Thus, x=a; y=a; z=a, and so
on where a is the equivalent and x,y,z are the relative. The general form allows the role of
the relative and equivalent to reverse or switch.
Message [612] referenced by [629] and [631]. Next Message by Gza is [821].
[629] Michael: A note on GZA’s answer. GZA,
In your answer [612] the expanded form is crossed up with the general form: Your equations
x=a, y=a,..., actually correspond to the general form. One expresses the expanded form
of value of one commodity “z” as z=a, z=b, z=c, ..., and so on for all the various commodities
which are exchangeable with z (of course, in explicit proportions).
As you suggested, the simple form of value of one commodity, in this case z, expresses
the value of z in terms of the use-value of a. So, in the expanded form, which is the simple
form extended, the value of z is expressed in terms of each of the use-values a, b, c, ....
That is, there is no unique commodity (except trivially, where z can only be traded for a)
that assumes the role of equivalent in the expanded form. In the general form it’s just the
opposite: Every commodity which assumed the role of equivalent in the expanded form now
assumes the role of relative form. That is, now the values of each of commodities a, b, c, ...
are being expressed in terms of one use value–z.
One asymmetry in the simple form of expression a=x is that commodity a is expressing its
value in terms of a use-value–x. But as this expression stands we cannot speak of the value
of x, because here x is value–is value materialized. (Likewise, if gold is in the equivalent
form it wouldn’t make sense to ask: what is the value of w amount of gold? But we could
ask: what is the value of gold in terms of, say, silver? But in that case the silver would be
playing the role of equivalent, while gold would be in the relative form.)
So there is an asymmetry inherent in the expression a=x: one (and only one) commodity is
considered only as a value, while the other is considered only as a use-value. Then reversing
the equation just reverses those roles.
Message [629] referenced by [631]. Next Message by Michael is [686].
96 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[631] Hans: Asymmetry in theory and practice. Gza’s [612] is an excellent answer;
there is a little error at the end with the expanded form of value, with Michael corrects in
[629].
Gza, Michael, and Marx himself make a very abstract argument: they explore what it
means to say that x amount of commodity a is worth y amount of commodity b, and they
conclude that this meaning is asymmetric.
In the Annotations I tried a more concrete approach which places this abstract value
statement into a practical context. I view the situation as follows: If linen weaver and tailor
exchange 20 yards of linen for one coat, then the linen weaver “says” through this transaction
that the 20 yards of linen are worth one coat for her, and the tailor says that his coat is worth
20 yards of linen for him. The asymmetry of the simple form of value comes therefore from
the fact that the two parties in an exchange have different views of this exchange and pursue
different goals with it.
The answer which I was aiming for was therefore: the simple form of value is asymmetric
because the two parties in an exchange pursue different goals in this exchange. This is by no
means the only way to answer this question, but I think it provides a helpful perspective for
the understanding of the whole section 3 of chapter One.
Next Message by Hans is [647].
Question 150 is 85 in 1995ut, 87 in 1996sp, 88 in 1996ut, 94 in 1997WI, 92 in 1997ut, 99
in 1998WI, 107 in 1999SP, 134 in 2003fa, 170 in 2007fa, and 182 in 2009fa:
Question 150 In the Simple or Accidental form of value, which commodity plays an active
role, and which a passive role? Explain what it means in this situation to be active or
passive.
[338] Keltose: (graded C) Until now I have never thought of a commodity playing an
active or passive role in economics. Hans makes a great point, “This is why Marx says
that the value of the linen is expressed in the ‘use-value’ of the coat.” (86) When thinking
about that I believe that the linen in this example plays the passive role, and the coat being
active. The coat is being used, and therefore has the value because of its use. The linen is
passive because it can create other uses and values by way of the tailer into other goods, (i.e.
blankets, socks). The use-value and the active role is being played by the finished and used
good. This seems only relevant to exchange goods. If there were some use and value in
plain linen, then there would be nothing to compare in exchange. Marx explains, “The same
commodity cannot, therefore, simultaneously appear in both forms in the same expression
of value.” (86)
Hans: You are making the mistake against which I warned in [73].
Next Message by Keltose is [340].
Question 158 Marx says that the human labor accumulated in the coat is not visible in the
coat. Is this not obviously wrong? Everybody who sees a coat knows that it is a product of
human labor, this coat would not exist without the human labor that produced it.