This question <65|65> overall <58|60> GolfMan: <418|163-4>.

Question 136: Why is a commodity in the equivalent form directly exchangeable with the commodity in the relative value form?

[59] GolfMan: Exchangeable Commodities   In every commodity, values are expressed in many different and peculiar forms. Sometimes as an object or quantity. Along with different forms of commodities also comes the act of human labor and their values in which Marx explains in his example of commodity A (linen) and commodity B (coat), which then brings me to why a equivalent form can directly be exchangeable with a relative value form.

As stated in the text, “the equivalent form is to be directly exchangeable against other commodities.” Which also declares that it is passive. Whereas the relative form value must express itself so that the equivalent form can obtain a direct exchange because being equivalent results in a activity of the relative form value. But not always can they be exchanged that simple. To reflect back on Marx's example, from what I understood, the coat is considered passive because it does not have a form value, only a use value since it is a finished good. Now the linen would be considered active because it is the need of the linen's labor which makes it a commodity. When directly exchanging the reason this is not simple is that commodities do not always equal. First of all, one coat is the value of (x) amounts of yards of linen, but (x) amounts of yards of linen does not equal one coat. Only their values are equal.

To conclude it is the amount and value of the labor put forth into commodities and how they are expressed that makes these directly exchangeable.

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