| This question <92|92> overall <75|77> Tigerwater: <47|251-6>. |
| Question 129: Does Marx contradict himself when he says the Simple form of value is difficult to analyze? |
| [76] Tigerwater: Simple form of Value. I don't believe that Marx contradicts himself. I think that the simple form of value that he is referring to is the outline of the money-form. Marx is trying to show the origin of the money-form and in order to do this he must break that form down to its simplest value-form of “x commodity A is worth y commodity B.” But, in order to break down this equation he must find the relative value of the first commodity in relation to the equivalent value of the second commodity. These two commodities are equal in value in this equation. However, if the said commodities are paired with a different commodity, it may require more or less of commodity A to be of equivalent value to commodity C. The value of a commodity in exchange for another commodity is constantly changing, which makes it extremely difficult to break down into a simple form of value. |
| Hans: Yes, Marx finds defects in the simple form of value, which lead to better forms, until society has arrived at the money form. These defects are not exactly the same as the difficulty to explain the simple form of value, but you seem to be getting the picture how Marx proceeds in section 3. |
|
|
|||||