| This question <100|100> overall <94|96> GFunk: <625|211-31>. |
| Question 165: The linen weaver just said: “20 yards of linen is worth one coat.” In response to this, the tailor offers her a coat in exchange for her 20 yards of linen. Is the weaver now obligated to follow through with this exchange, or can she still decline? |
| [95] GFunk: Obligation? This question confuses me because I believe it brings an irrelevant issue of obligation into the question. I understand obligation to be some sort of moral compulsion to continue with this specific exchange. I don't know whether or not she should decline. Her decision to continue or not is based upon her wants. She contemplates the 20 yards of linen with 1 coat ratio as a given ratio set by society as a quantitative amount of abstract, average human labor per time with her own labor, which labor she embedded into the linen. She is now deciding whether her labor to make the linen is “worth” the “satisfaction” of that particular need. In an abstract example I see this problem as such |
| Given: 20 Units of Linen = 1 Coat, in terms that this equality is 20 Yards (units) of Linen = x average, simple labor/time, which 1 coat is equal to the same. |
| Thus, (20 Units of Linen) x units of Labor = x units of Labor (1 coat). However, since this equation is set by societal means, it doesn't necessarily express the needs of the individual, which Marx has argued to be in different “arenas.” Her decision, as I see it is as follows: If her need for the coat is greater than the value she places on her labor that went into the linen, she will exchange. Otherwise, if her need (as I can recall, a culmination of use-value + exchange-value + other obscure preferences) is not greater than the labor she put into the linen, she will decline. If her need is equivalent in terms of labor she may remain indifferent in keeping with logic (maybe). |
| However, I am still confused on how this question may relate to the preceding analogy of Peter and Paul, (or how the bodily form of commodity B becomes the value form of commodity A). I understand the excerpt but I am unable of find a relation between that relationship and obligation. |
| Hans: Your submission is implicitly and explicitly critical of several things. My [100] addresses that criticism of yours which I consider the most interesting. |
|
|
|||||