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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 99
machine and the labor and skill used to create this commodity. In the case of the coat the
sewing machine becomes capital but still carries to the coat a portion of the labor value from
the production of the machine. I think this aspect of value is the one that Marx sees as being
exploited the most or in allowing the labor to be exploited by removing a little more of the
“organic” value of the commodity with each cycle of development.
Hans: In Marx’s theory, all value comes from labor, i.e., all value is what you call “organic”. Your theory of
exploitation has nothing to do with Marx.
Next Message by Danske is [1925].
Question 164 is 170 in 2004fa, 186 in 2007fa, and 203 in 2009fa:
Question 164 The relationship “20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat” says that 20 yards of
linen have the same value as 1 coat, but it says nothing about the value of the coat itself.
Right or wrong?
[242] Ace: graded B+ It takes careful (As Submitted:) It takes careful reading
reading of the text to understand this, so I of the text to understand this, so I hope this
hope this is right. The “20 yards of linen is right. The “20 yards of linen are worth
are worth one coat” says nothing about the one coat” says nothing about the value of
value of the coat, so the second half of the coat, so the statement is right. This is
the statement is right. But the first half why, the text says “the linen weaver does
of the statement contradicts the text, which not compare the value of the linen with the
value of the coat” (Ehrbar 97). What is try-
says “the linen weaver does not compare the ing to be said is that the weaver knows the
value of the linen with the value of the coat” amount of labor and effort that went into
(Ehrbar 97). The weaver knows the amount making the 20 yards of linen, basically the
of labor and effort that went into making weaver knows the use value of the linen.
the 20 yards of linen, basically the weaver The weaver then has to decide if one coat
knows the value of the linen. The weaver is worth the use-value of the linen. It is a
then has to decide if the use-value of hav- decision that has to be made by the weaver
ing one coat is worth the value of the linen.
I.e., he does not compare the value of the
coat with the value of the linen, but he compares
the use-value of the coat with the value
of the linen. In Marx’s words, he expresses
the value of the linen in the use-value of the
coat.
and no one else.
Hans: Much of what you say is right, but on other places there are oversights or confusions. I edited your text to
fix those errors. The edited text is shown in the left column, your original in the right column.
Message [242] referenced by [312]. Next Message by Ace is [795].
[244] Snickers: graded A– That is a correct assumption to say that the value of the coat is
not expressed by the 20 yards of linen. It is only stating that 20 yards of linen are worth that
of one coat, not the other way around. If technology increased in the linen manufacturing
then more linen would be produced, thus the exchange rate for linen could increase to 30
yards of linen for one coat. That does not say that the value of the coat has increased but
just the “exchange proportion is an expression of the value of linen” Hans stated, not an
100 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
expression of the value of the coat. The price of the coat has not changed just the value of
linen. Now, if the coats require more labor the price for coats will rise but this has no effect
on the linen producer since the time needed to make the linen does not change. This shows
that the relationship between the value of 20 yards of linen being worth one coat, does not
represent the value of the coat. Now with the increased coat price coat makers will be not
wanting to give coats away for 20 yards of linen. So linen manufactures now will have to pay
more linen per coat, they have not changed the value of the coat, just the coat makers setting
a new price for the coats and the market forces the linen manufactures to adjust acordingly.
As Hans states, “The exchange proportion the linen weaver agrees to depends on the value
of coats, but the linen weaver’s agreement is not an expression of the value of coats.” So just
because 20 yards of linen is equal to one coat that can not be used to determine what the
value of the coat is.
Hans: Your second sentence should read: “It is only expressing the value of the 20 yards of linen in the use-value
of the coat, but not comparing it with the value of the coat.” Other than that, your answer is ok.
Message [244] referenced by [312]. Next Message by Snickers is [696].
Question 170 What are the limits of the analogy with the sugar loaf? (Describe this analogy)
[283] Mjk: The most analogy of the sugar loaf is that “first” is mass, or heavyness that
would be invisible property of the thing which may expresses itself in the force pulling this
thing toward the earth. For instance, if one has a piece of iron on one’s hands, you can not
see or smell or otherwise touch and tell how much mass it contains any better than sugar
loaf.
Another thing we should consider the most is that if the need arises to express the heavyness
of the matter of the sugar-loaf, i.e for example, because the individual wants to buy the
sugar or may use it in different way or in a recipe and therefore needs to know exactly how
much sugar it contains when places on the scale to be weighted and at the same time look
how much should the iron weights. As a result, I think iron itself is no better incarnation of
heavy matter than the sugar-loaf.
By the way, to express the sugarloaf as a heavy matter, we can compare theme to place it
into a weight relation with the iron to find out the heavyness of each item.
In this case, iron is found as a body that represents nothing but heavy matter. Therefore,
an iron is to be compared to measure the weight of sugar; in relationship with sugar, heavy
matter pure, and simple, and the incarnation of the heavy matter.
Hans: Much of your answer is a copy or paraphrase of text on pp. 101-102 of the Annotations, originally with
sometimes sense-distorting typos. And nothing about the limits of the analogy. Please use your own words in future
submissions, so that I can tell how much you understand.
Next Message by Mjk is [481].
Question 176 is 196 in 2007SP:
Question 176 Aristotle wrote: ‘There can be no exchange without equality, and no equality
without commensurability.’ What does he mean by this? What is the difference betwee
equality and commensurability?