| This question <90|90> overall <90|92> Isaak: <72|120>. |
| Question 199: Why doesn't Marx go from the Simple form of value directly to the General form of value by letting everyone express their values in the same commodity? |
| [91] Isaak: The simple and expanded forms of value only let value be represented through a distinct physical characteristic or the commodity use-value. This distinction of use-value and value only emphasizes each individual difference and therefore separates the two. This shows the in the simple forms of value that products of labor are only converted into commodities by accident. The expanded form will further differentiate the value of a commodity from its own use-value. This in turn makes homogeneity more impossible to achieve and therefore excludes any common expression of value to exist between two commodities. |
| For value to exist between two commodities both need to be in an active position. This is impossible in the expanded form and simple form of value because the second commodity is included is an equivalent of the first and thus cannot be in the relative value form at the same time. |
| In the general form values in the world of commodities need to be set apart by one commodity. This will differentiate the value of every commodity not only from is own use-value but from all use values. When this happens one commodity has been singled out its use value no longer matters. Instead, its direct exchangeability becomes its intrinsic value. |
| A quick conclusion would indicate that basically Marx is saying that in the Simple form of value commodities are not yet expressed or measured in value to one another. Not completely anyway. It takes an evolution of value through the expanded form to actually generate comparable value by each commodity. This is where the General form equates from and develops into a primary expression of social relationships and commodities. |
| Hans: Some of your sentences needed minor corrections, which I tacitly made in the copy in the archives. Other sentences have inconsistent grammar to the point that I cannot make out what you mean. This would have hurt your grade, but this answer is ungraded because your [72] was graded. Many things you say are right, and you are much closer to the text than you were in [72]. But I don't see how everything connects. |
|
|
|||||