This question <104|104> overall <103|104-1> Energy: <330-56|104-1>.

Question 86: In the Random House edition of Capital, this sentence reads: “In order to find out how the simple expression of the value of a commodity lies hidden in the value relation between two commodities, ....” I claim that this translation is blatantly incorrect and self-contradictory. Can you see why?

[104] Energy: Marx was not concerned with calculating the relative value of differing objects. He believed people in pre-industrial societies did not conceptualize thier enviornment in terms of resourses with differing values. Marx said it was imposible to compare diferent objects in this way. He argue that the exchange value of a commodity resulted from the input of abstract labor and had notheing to do with the degree of use value a commodity may have. This is why the sourse of the exchange value is “hidden” ::

Hans: You tried a difficult Question which nobody else in class touched.

I fully agree with all this:

Marx was not concerned with calculating the relative value of differing objects. He believed people in pre-industrial societies did not conceptualize thier enviornment in terms of resourses with differing values. Marx said it was imposible to compare diferent objects in this way. He argue that the exchange value of a commodity resulted from the input of abstract labor and had notheing to do with the degree of use value a commodity may have.

But if you make this conclusion here:

This is why the sourse of the exchange value is “hidden”

then you are really saying that the translation is correct.

Here is my criticism of the translation: An expression does not lie hidden, on the contrary, it cries out. But since it is Marx who is writing this, the translator thinks everything must be hidden and mysterious.

	Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message Pseudonym:      UofU ID:   Text: