| This question <59|59> overall <64|66> Hans: <64|68>. |
| Question 136: Why is a commodity in the equivalent form directly exchangeable with the commodity in the relative value form? |
| [65] Hans: The Money-Like Coat The first paragraph in GolfMan' [59] is mere fluff which adds nothing to the the explanation why the commodity in the equivalent form is directly exchangeable. It would have been better to start with an explanation of what “directly exchangeable” means. In the Annotations I wrote about this: |
| This means coats are like money. They will always be accepted. If someone offers coats for linen, the linen weaver will not say: “sorry, I don't need a coat right now, I rather have a bathing suit.” |
| How does the coat get into this privileged position? GolfMan writes: |
| Whereas the relative form value must express itself so that the equivalent form can obtain a direct exchange |
| Yes, this sounds like a correct explanation. The relative form must express itself: the linen weaver must sell her commodity. This is why the coat, completely passively, without doing anything, becomes directly exchangeable for the linen. But in the second half of this same sentence GolfMan says just the opposite: |
| because being equivalent results in an activity of the relative form value. |
| It should rather read: |
| because being equivalent results from an activity of the relative form value. |
| Later, GolfMan declares, like some others after him, that the relationship between linen and coat comes from the fact that linen is a raw materials which can be used to make coats: |
| 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. |
| No, no, no! I tried to explain this in [64]. |
|
|
|||||