[1995ut:37]

This question <27|47> overall <36|38> Jenny: <19|85>.

Question 49: Is the magnitude of value of a commodity determined by the quantity of abstract labor necessary to produce it, or by the quantity of other commodities against which it can be exchanged?

[37] Jenny: how the magnitude of value of a commodity is measured I interpret this question in two ways which demand two very different explanations. I will answer the question according to the first level of interpretation in hopes of it's being accurate.

The magnitude of value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of abstract labor embodied in it. The labor necessary to produce a commodity is not of standard amount as is the exchange value among different commodities. Therefore, the labor embodied is a variable which can be used to determine values assigned to various commodities. Commodities of equal exchange value hold the same use value which are constant relations; whereas labor is a variable even among commodities with equal exchange/use-values.

Labor is the common denominator in production of commodities. It is the necessary factor in production. Each unit of a commodity, although they may be the same thing with equal use values, has a specific amount of labor embodied in them. But, each unit of a commodity is treated as an average of the class of that commodity so as to standardize the magnitude of labor for purposes of determining the value of a commodity belonging in that class.

The use-value is constant because it is a relation between the commodity and the ability of that commodity to satisfy the needs of the human. The exchange-value is also constant because it, too, is a relation among commodities. Labor is the variable among all commodities. Different amounts of labor are required for different commodities although their exchange and use values may be the same. Therefore, labor the measure of the magnitude of value of a commodity.

The quantity of other commodities for which the first can be exchanged is not an appropriate measure of the magnitude of value of a commodity. The number of hammers which can be obtained in exchange for one saw is not determinant of the value of the saw. Such a comparison merely states that the use-value of an individual for a saw is also met by some number of hammers. This is not indicative of the relative values of each. The value of each commodity is measured by the amount of time a an average laborer spent assembling the commodity for exchange. Labor is the primary factor of production which must be purchased. To compensate this factor of production, the time a member of the proletariat spends working to produce one unit of a commodity is measured, and the value of that time is materialized in the commodity made during work. Thus, the value of a commodity is measured by the amount of labor needed to produce that commodity. The quantity of other commodities neccessary for exchange for another is not the measure of the magnitude of value.

Hans: After the third answer to Question 49 had arrived I wrote in message number [27]:

If you want to do Question 49, look at response [22] and see what you can add from there. Even someone re-explaining what I tried to say in [22] would be ok. But don't start from zero after all this discussion already has gone on.

Your submission is the fourth answer to 49, and no word about the previous attempts to answer 49, and nothing that I can see that goes beyond what was said earlier. On the contrary, you are making several mistakes which I warned the class about in my previous postings. On the other hand, your response showed that you are a deep thinker. But you certainly have to join the melee and read what others have to say, at the very minimum read what I am posting to the class.

Here is your response with some questions of mine:

I interpret this question in two ways which demand two very different explanations. I will answer the question according to the first level of interpretation in hopes of it's being accurate.

My gut reaction reading this was: this is an emergency escape. If I don't like what you say then you can tell yourself you should have taken the other level of interpretation. Don't be so timid. Stand by your thoughts, they are probably quite alright. Perhaps it might have been fruitful to explain which two levels occured to you. As I said in [22], this Question really cuts across the levels, the form and content. Perhaps this is what you were noticing.

Did you mean: Commodities of equal use value hold the same exchange value which are constant relations?

I think this is what I tried to say in [28], look at that too.

I am a little bit lost here.

This is right. But I cannot follow the reasons you are giving:

Such a comparison merely states that the use-value of an individual for a saw is also met by some number of hammers.

Are you serious? Are you only exchanging things which have the same use value for you? Why then even make the exchange?

This is not indicative of the relative values of each. The value of each commodity is measured by the amount of time a an average laborer spent assembling the commodity for exchange. Labor is the primary factor of production which must be purchased.

These laws hold whether or not labor is hired or whether the workers owns the tools and sells the product.

To compensate this factor of production, the time a member of the proletariat spends working to produce one unit of a commodity is measured, and the value of that time is materialized in the commodity made during work.

No, this is not right, see what I wrote in Submission [38].

Thus, the value of a commodity is measured by the amount of labor needed to produce that commodity. The quantity of other commodities neccessary for exchange for another is not the measure of the magnitude of value.

Yes, but again see what I wrote in [27] or so: a complete answer should put those two things in relation.