| This question <62|62> overall <64|66> MasterBlaster: <62|62>. |
| Question 169: Why is a commodity in the equivalent form directly exchangeable with the commodity in the relative value form? |
| [65] MasterBlaster: equivalent/relative value. The relative form of value suggests the coat and the linen retain certain magnitudes of value. In addition to their specific value due to human labor, the magnitude of commodity A is determined by its relationship to commodity B. The equivalent form suggests that, in the case of the coat and linen, the two are consistent in exchange-value. The possibility of a commodity in the equivalent form being directly exchangeable with the commodity in relative value form is obvious on the surface. It is possible because the relative form of value does not affect nor is affected by the magnitude of value, thus retaining exchangeability. |
| At the same time, the nature of exchange-value suggests continual change with reference to time and place. I suppose the potential variable within the idea is quantity (of coats and linens) to be exchanged. It seems that such variation is allowable within the concepts of relative form and equivalent form. |
| The riddle of money, as the annotations suggest, is now more noticeable. The exchange-value of commodities can vary with regard to quantities but the value of commodities with respect to their use-value does not vary, thus retaining magnitudes of value (with reference to the comments of Goshen and the use-value of water (q 148)one finds consistent ideas to partially explain this). Consequently, the linen and the coat retain exchangeability, at some level (20 yards of linen for 1 coat), allowing for the direct exchangeability of the commodities. |
| Hans: Is this a joke? What you are writing makes no sense whatsoever. |
|
|
|||||