| This question <316-2|93> overall <82|84> Catfish: <44|143>. graded B |
| Question 128: The argument that the linen weaver's willingness to trade her linen for a coat is an expression of the value of the linen violates the principle that “bygones are bygones.” The labor is a thing of the past, it no longer concerns the weaver; all that concerns her is what exists in the present, which is the linen. Therefore the decision to trade the linen must be based on the linen itself and cannot be based on the labor used in the past to produce that linen. If the linen weaver trades coat for linen, she therefore reveals her preference of the use-value of the coat over that of the linen, and does not express the value of the linen. Is this a correct argument, and if not, where is the error? |
| [83] Catfish: Linen and Coats. Marx has said that a commodity has a dual function. It is the expression of the use-value of the item in question, and it is also the expression of the exchange-value (congealed abstract labor) put into the item. So, if the weaver is willing to trade 20 yards of linen for 1 coat, she is trading the labor involved in weaving 20 yards of linen for not only the labor involved in making the coat, but also for the labor that was involved previously in weaving the material that her new coat was made out of (congealed labor). So, the principle that “bygones are bygones” does not apply. |
| However, the last statement of the argument is incorrect: “If the linen weaver trades the coat for linen, she therefore reveals her preference of the use-value of the coat over that of the linen, and does not express the value of the linen.” As is stated in the following paragraph, the linen weaver indicates to the marketplace that, through his/her trade of the linen for whatever commodity, this is the value of his/her labor time. |
| Hans: About your first paragraph: as soon as you say that the linen weaver trades the labor involved in making the linen for the labor involved in making the coat, instead of saying she is trading the linen for the coat, you are already rejecting the principle that “bygones are bygones.” Why is the exchange driven by the labor in those goods, rather than by the goods themselves? |
| Second paragraph: I agree that the argument is incorrect, but I'd like to hear an explanation, in your own words, why it is incorrect, instead just telling me where the Annotations say so. |
|
|
|||||