| |
[77] DP: “exchange values” The reason Marx did not leave out the “or enables them
to appear to each other as exchange-values”
was because this would contradict the general form of
value. The simple and expanded forms merely expressed
the value of a commodity as coming from its physical
body or use-value without evident, purposeful exchange
values being present. The simple form “appears in
practice only in the early stages, when the products
of labor are converted into commodities by accidental
occasional exchanges.” This suggests that there is no
exchange value. The expanded form is such that cattle
being the example used in the text, as being exchanged
habitually for other commodities, and once again no
apparent exchange values are denoted. In the general
form the commodities are measured as equivalents and
it no longer matter about the use-value, but its
“direct exchangeability”. It can buy all other
commodities but there is an exchange value present.
When talking about the general form, exchangeable
value must be present. |
|