| This question <83|69> overall <84|86> Phelan: <552|128>. |
| 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? |
| [85] Phelan: The numerous responses to this question have covered many aspects of this problem. BillyB expands on Diesel's contribution but, as Hans points out, unfortunately indicated that value is assigned by the exchange. Marx clearly states the exchange is a response to the value of the commodity. Mitchel also begins to explain that value is what determines the exchange, but then makes an about turn by saying the exchange is what makes the commodity worth something, which I assume is either referring to its value, which is agreed cannot be correct, or it's referring to the usefulness of the commodity, which is also incorrect. What makes a thing useful is purely down to how it's seen as being useful by humans. Its usefulness and exchange-value are related by its value. |
| In explaining value, Marx is trying to provide a universal measure that regulates (or is expressed by) the exchanges that it is involved in. Value is such a good measure because it is related directly to the amount of human labor that has gone into producing a use-value or commodity. This is something that each producer knows of their own product and indicates it through the use-values they are willing to exchange for it. When an exchange takes place society sees that the value contained in each commodity is comparable. The exchangeability of these two commodities expresses the simple form of value. What this fails to provide is the universal measure between commodities that Marx was trying to express. This is instead one isolated situation and in the world of commodities is difficult, if not impossible, to relate to other commodities or the “value” in them. |
| The expanded form is a multiplicity of the simple form. It assumes that the “linen for coat” example Marx uses is arbitrary in nature, and for that reason coat could be substituted for any other commodity that a producer was willing to exchange. This point I feel was indicated by Idasan but overlooked by Jimmie and most other responses. The expanded form includes only those commodities people are willing to exchange. This addresses qualitative issues between certain commodities. The various qualities and quantities producers are willing to exchange for other commodities begins, at this point, to diverge from certain characteristics of value. As Idasan explains with the flat screen TV and cow example, transitivity is lost with this idea. The value of a commodity fluctuates, not through changes in production factors, but by that value contained in a particular exchange, and how it compares in value to another possible exchange. This detracts from this universal measure that should be maintained when talking about value. I do, however, disagree with Idasan's statement about the many values this gives a commodity. This is exactly what S. Bailey was saying on page 121 of the annotations. Marx disagrees that there are many different values of a commodity, but instead that these numerous exchanges people are willing to make show that “value is a society-wide relationship.” |
|
|
|||||