| This question <77|110> overall <87|89> Yenom: <637|240-4>. graded B+ |
| Question 202: In 158:4, Marx writes the following about the general form of value: “Only this form, therefore, has the effect of relating the commodities with each other as values, or enables them to appear to each other as exchange-values.” Why didn't he write: “or enables them to appear to each other as values”? |
| [88] Yenom: Exchange Values. Marx did not write “or enables them to appear to each other as values” because in form C items are now referenced to a General item that can be exchanged for any other item and any other item can be exchanged for it. The commodities are not referenced directly to each other anymore at all but are directed through a third General commodity. |
| This transcends some of the problems of form B. Because each item is no longer required to have an infinite index comparing everything for which it could be traded, value is much simpler; and at the same time uniformity is introduced through a single General medium of exchange. Now each item can be referenced to its exchange-value with one General item that is socially determined. |
| This uniformity helps to illustrate “blobs of abstract human labor” clearer than form A or B did which depend on use-value trades, because now we have items referenced with exchange-value rather than use-value. |
| From this stage it is possible to see the next step where gold or seashells can be used as physical representations of labor value. |
| Hans: This is really an answer to question 198 instead of question 202. But you seem to have some of the right ideas. |
| When you say in your second paragraph “value is much simpler,” you should have said “the representation of value is much simpler.” We are talking about it how good a mirror the market interactions are for the underlying value relations in production. |
| In other words, we do not need illustrations of “blobs of abstract human labor” but we need relations on the surface which are consistent with the fact that in production the products are merely treated as “blobs of abstract labor.” |
| In your 3rd paragraph it seems you were a little misled by DP [77] saying that forms A and B do not have exchange-value. |
|
|
|||||