| This question <50|50> overall <50|52> Hans: <49|56>. |
| Question 124: What does the qualitative equation “linen = coat” tell us about the coat? about the linen? |
| [51] Hans: Coat and Linen Qualitatively Cleo writes in the fourth sentence of [50]: |
| It depends on how much linen the weaver is willing to trade for one coat. If the weaver is willing to trade 40 yards ... |
| But these are quantitative relations! Question 124 expressly asked for qualitative relations. A little later Cleo does give a qualitative discussion, but it is all wrong: |
| The coat has a given value, which will allow one to trade it for another good. The value that the coat contains can be exchaged with the the linen, which also has value. |
| No, the coat is just sitting there showing off its use value. It is passive. It is the value of the linen, i.e., the labor contained in the linen, which forces the linen weaver to go out and seek out things to exchange for the linen (see my [49]). I.e., it is not the coat's value, but the linen's value, which makes things exchangeable. The same is true about money. Money does not make things mobile. Things are eager to jump from the store shelf into your shopping basked because they contain labor which needs to be socially validated by a sale. It is not the pull of your money, but the push of the labor in the things which makes money the king of all commodities. |
| Here is another sentence of Cleo's: |
| The value of the linen is determined by how much one is willing to trade for a coat, this could be a small amount of linen or a large amount of linen. |
| This would be the subjective value explanation as taught in mainstream economics. According to Marx, the value of the linen is determined by how much labor it contains. Now one might wonder: since labor is private, only the linen weaver knows the exact amount. How can this become a social measure, i.e., value? Answer: the linen weaver tells everybody how much she values her linen by her decision how much linen she is willing to give in trade for a coat. You say something similar to that in your second paragraph: |
| [The weaver] does not know how much labor was put into the coat, yet she knows the value of the coat to her. Her desire to trade linen for a coat, describes the value of the linen, in her opinion, not that of the coat. |
| So far so good, but this is the quantitative side of it. Marx wants us to disregard quantity for now and only look at it what the linen weaver's decision to trade 20 yards of linen for 1 coat tells us qualitatively about linen and coat. |
| Your last paragraph is: |
| Each good has a value, and its value is reflected in ones willingness to trade at the market, for another commodity containing equal value. |
| This is wrong and contradicts the fact, which you mentioned yourself, that linen weaver does not know how much labor is in the coat. Therefore she cannot ask herself: “Does the coat contain as much labor as my linen?” Instead she asks herself: “Do I consider the use value of the coat a fair reward for all the labor I put into 20 yards of linen?” I.e., the value of the linen is expressed in the use value of the coat. |
|
|
|||||