| This question <60|60> overall <83|86> Jenny: <37|86>. |
| Question 83: If commodity producer P exchanges his commodity A against Q's commodity B, which commodity is then in the relative form of value, and which in the equivalent form of value? |
| [85] Jenny: relative vs. equivalent values The following explanation is contengent on the assumption that commodity A is a different commodity than B because the same commodities cannot express a value relation. Comparing the commodities gives no insight into the value relation between commodities because the equation is simply an equalization: 20 yds. linen = 20 yds. linen. This says nothing about linen in its relative form of value because “the social necessity of the labor contained in linen” cannot be assessed. |
| I also hold the assumption that Producer P is willing to trade commodity A for commodity B. |
| Producer P's commodity A is in the relative form of value. Why? Commodity A “expresses its value in” commodity B. Relative to commodity B, one unit of commodity A is worth some portion of commodity B. This shows that the socially necessary labor in commodity A has some proportional relation to commodity B. Therefore, since this labor is the source of value, the two commodities can be compared relatively. |
| Producer Q's commodity B is in the equivalent form of value. Why? Commodity B “serves as the material in which that value is expressed.” Commodity B, in this comparison, “counts qualitatively as the equal of” commodity A. It is the thing which acts as the representative of the value of commodity A. The value of commodity A is expressed in the equivalent quantity of the physical body of commodity B. The value of A is equivalent to B in its physical form. “By means of the value-relation. . .the physical body of commodity B becomes a mirror in which the value of commodity A is reflected.” |
| Hans: What you are giving at the beginning of your answer is an excellent answer of Question 75: |
| The following explanation is contengent on the assumption that commodity A is a different commodity than B because the same commodities cannot express a value relation. Comparing the commodities gives no insight into the value relation between commodities because the equation is simply an equalization: 20 yds. linen = 20 yds. linen. This says nothing about linen in its relative form of value because “the social necessity of the labor contained in linen” cannot be assessed. |
| And in the following you are saying something important: an exchange may have many different reasons. Before we can answer the Question we have to make assumptions about these reasons: |
| I also hold the assumption that Producer P is willing to trade commodity A for commodity B. |
| What comes after this is not very enlightening, and it is also very similar to message [60]. |
| Here is what I wrote the author of message [60]: as a first approximation, your answer is correct, but there are some subtleties in this which you did not notice, and which we will get into when discussing Chapter Two. |
|
|
|||||