| This question <75|79> overall <77|79> Hans: <71|83>. |
| Question 198: Which characteristics of value are expressed better in the Expanded form of value than in the Simple form, and what are the defects of the Expanded form? |
| [78] Hans: Explanation of the question. Diesel [69] gives Marx quotes which are only approximate. This is unfortunate because in Marx every word counts. Diesel apparently refers to the following passage on p. 152:1 in Capital: |
| The simple value form of a commodity is contained in its value relation with a commodity of a different kind, or in its exchange relation with the latter. The value of commodity A is qualitatively expressed by the direct exchangeability of commodity B with commodity A. It is quantitatively expressed by the exchangeability of a specific quantity of commodity B with the given quantity of commodity A. |
| What does this passage mean? BillyB's [73] gives a very good explanation of the issues involved. I had only one problem with BillyB's formulation: the reaction on the market does not give the commodities their value, but it shows the value which the commodities already have. After making this correction, BillyB's text reads: |
| To elaborate more, ‘exchange value’ is important in the relationship between commodities. It is the reaction that takes place that shows the value of the commodity. Commodity A by itself doesn't manifest its value until it is brought before another commodity such as B, therefore a reaction takes place that shows the value of commodity A by giving A an exchange value. The relationship between commodities expresses their value. |
| Here is an explanation of the same thing in my own words. All commodities contain value, i.e., human labor. But if you have the commodity in your hands, you cannot tell how much labor it contains. However this is important information necessary to regulate production and consumption in society. This information must therefore be available to the members of society. How do they get it? Through the market. Those commodities which contain lots of labor also have a high exchange-value, i.e., they can be exchanged against large quantities of other things on the market, and vice versa. |
| In the Simple form of value, Marx shows how the simplest exchange relation which you can find, that between two arbitrary commodities, tells us that the commodities have value, i.e., contain labor. |
| In the Expanded form of value, Marx looks at the situation where one and the same commodity (maybe cattle in a nomad society) is exchanged against all other commodities. This again shows the value character of the commodities, but in a different way, which is in some ways better than the Simple form of value, but which is in other respects insufficient or inconvenient. |
| This was the topic of question 198. Perhaps this will help others to send in answers which are easier to understand. Jimmie [75] considered the question not one of how well the exchange relations show the value, i.e., the labor content, of the goods, but he was making criticisms of the concept of value itself. Of course, the exclusive focus on labor is not a good organizing principle for production any more; this ignores pollution and sustainability, which are becoming more and more important. But in Capital, Marx is trying to explore the dynamics of a capitalist market economy. He is not giving alternatives, but he wants to understand what we have in order to enable us to get rid of it. |
|
|
|||||