| This question <243|243> overall <242|244> TimJim: <1853|474>. |
| Question 143: Why doesn't Marx say that the simplest value relation is that between commodity and money? |
| [243] TimJim: Commodity and Money vs. Commodity and Commodity. Marx states in 139:2 “the simplest value relation is that of one commodity to a single commodity of a different kind...” I find that Marx makes this statement for two reasons: |
| The first reason why one commodity to another commodity is the simplest value relation is because it does not deal with the complexities of money. For example, in my line of work I produce jeans. According to Marx's theory, the value of my jeans can be exchanged for 5 bags of groceries. I could take a pair of my jeans down to the grocery store and feed myself for a week. If I were to include money into this exchange, I would need to sell my pair of jeans for $75 and then take that $75 to the grocery store and exchange for 5 bags of groceries. I basically end up with the same result except it takes more steps to accomplish. This becomes even more complicated the more that money is involved. Money has problems in itself such as inflation, different currencies, etc. In its simplest form, it is best to relate one commodity to another. |
| The second reason I believe Marx makes this statement is because he believes that money is at a higher level, a “blinding form.” Marx goes on to state the “riddle of money.” I believe that money destroys the exchange of use-values of two commodities. As Hans stated earlier in his reply [79] to Tiny, money itself is worthless. Something that takes no time to produce is easily exchanged for a commodity is not what Marx believes in. The commodity is the base of a capitalist society and a tangible thing that has links to price. |
|
|
|||||