[1995ut:82]

This question <82|82> overall <81|82-1> Yossarian: <44|161>.

Question 82: Compare the value expression in the Simple form of value with the example in Section 1.1 of measuring rectilinear figures using triangles (R127:3), and with the weighing illustration (R148:3/o). Which of the two, coat or linen, takes the place of the triangles or normed weights?

[82] Yossarian: simple value expressed by triangle and weight analogies In the first section of Ch.1 Marx states that the basis for comparing values of separate commodities exists in the process by which they are all reduced to a common standard. This standard functions as a translator of value between all commodities. On page 127 Marx compares the method of calculating the area of rectilinear figures to the method of translating commodities into values. Since these figures are of varying shapes their area can be accurately determined only by setting up an axiom which when applied to all triangles will yield their area. This is manifest in the formula for the area of a triangle: 1/2(bh). If the base of a triangle is 3ft and its height is 6ft, its area is 9ft. Therefore, we can say that the area of this triangle= 1/2(bh)=9ft. The common element among all triangles is the formula. Since, quantitatively, areas will vary the formula provides a qualitative definition of area which applies to all cases. Likewise, the values of different commodities will vary, yet the property of Value is maleable, and therefore, common to all commodities.

Similarly, on page 148 Marx takes a set amount of iron, and identifies this iron with the property of weight. The physical properties of the iron (its color, temperature, or texture) are extraneous. The weight of the iron is then expressed in terms of the sugar-loaf as the embodiment of the property Weight. That is, the concept or idea of Weight is manifest in the sugar-loaf.

Common to both examples is the need to express a property of an object in universal terms. This parallels the need in capitalism to express commodities in terms of a common standard. In the case of the linen and the coat (20 yards of linen=1 coat), the value which is embodied in the linen is expressed in the form of 1 coat. By this I mean that the social validity of 20 yards of linen is expressed as being commensurate with 1 coat. In this sense the linen actively seeks out an object with which it can have manifest value. Similarly the property of weight and area in the two examples above seek manifestation. The linen, therefore, takes the place of the triangles and weights, since it is expressed in terms of the coat (as the weight of the iron is expressed as a sugar-loaf).

Hans: You are still making it a little more complicated than it is, which is easy to do if one is new to it. Keep up the good work.

Yossarian: Sorry to be a nag, but what do you mean? Was I overestimating the importance of the idea (used in the Platonic sense) of value in my comments. I understand that Marx believed more in the power of objects (commodities) than ideas (unlike Hegel). But there still seems to be a bit of idealism in Marx's discussion on abstract labor and especially in the two analogies (concerning area and weight). Was I wrong in emphasizing the universality of area and weight in the two?

Hans: Here are a few more detailed comments:

In the first section of Ch.1 Marx states that the basis for comparing values of separate commodities exists in the process by which they are all reduced to a common standard. This standard functions as a translator of value between all commodities.

Marx was not trying to compare the value of the commodities by finding abstract labor as a comman standard. The abstract labor content is the value of the commodities, as Marx defines it.

On page 127 Marx compares the method of calculating the area of rectilinear figures to the method of translating commodities into values. Since these figures are of varying shapes their area can be accurately determined only by setting up an axiom which when applied to all triangles will yield their area. This is manifest in the formula for the area of a triangle: 1/2(bh). If the base of a triangle is 3ft and its height is 6ft, its area is 9ft. Therefore, we can say that the area of this triangle= 1/2(bh)=9ft. The common element among all triangles is the formula. Since, quantitatively, areas will vary the formula provides a qualitative definition of area which applies to all cases.

This is ok with one caveat: you missed the step in which the geometer cuts the polygon into triangles. Here the geometer does not rtepresent the area of the polygon by a number but by a set of triangles. This is an exterior representation of the area of the polygon, just as commodities make an exterior representation of their value (abstract labor) by the things with which they are exchangeable.

Now you write:

Likewise, the values of different commodities will vary, yet the property of Value is maleable, and therefore, common to all commodities.

What do you mean by maleable (malleable?). You seem to overstate here the quantitative differences. If we can show that things are quantitatively different, then we have already done most of the work, because then their qualities must be equal!

This is again an exterior representation of the intrinsic property “weight”.

That is, the concept or idea of Weight is manifest in the sugar-loaf.

No: the sugar loaf expresses its inner quality “weight” by its relationship with the normed iron weights. There is no idealism. Marx says in R148:3/o: “The bodily form of the iron, considered for itself, is no more the form of appearance of weight than is the sugarloaf.”

Common to both examples is the need to express a property of an object in universal terms.

No: the objects express their own properties, which are universal properties, and therefore can be expressed through relations with other bodies which have this property.

This parallels the need in capitalism to express commodities in terms of a common standard. In the case of the linen and the coat (20 yards of linen=1 coat), the value which is embodied in the linen is expressed in the form of 1 coat. By this I mean that the social validity of 20 yards of linen is expressed as being commensurate with 1 coat.

Here is where I had the impression that you are making things too complicated. You seem to treat “value” as an almost transcendental property. For Marx, “value” is very much down to earth: it is abstract labor content. The commodities' abstract labor content is what makes them dance. This is their social soul. There is nothing more to it.

In this sense the linen actively seeks out an object with which it can have manifest value. Similarly the property of weight and area in the two examples above seek manifestation. The linen, therefore, takes the place of the triangles and weights, since it is expressed in terms of the coat (as the weight of the iron is expressed as a sugar-loaf).

I missed that on first reading: this is wrong! The coat very clearly has the place which the triangles and weights have.