| This question <36|36> overall <35|37> Thugtorious: <29|37>. content A form 90% |
| Question 55: Why does Marx write in 127:1 “the valid exchange-values,” instead of simply “the exchange-values”? |
| [36] Thugtorious: Use-values which affect the relations of production. The answer to this question is relatively simple, and explained very thoroughly by both Marx and Hans. Marx says “the valid exchange-values” instead of just “exchange values” in this passage because there are numerous exchange-values for a given commodity, not just one set quantitative amount for which it is exchanged. The example given, one-quarter of wheat, has an exchange-value equivalent to x amount of shoe polish, y amount of silk, and z amount of gold; all qualitatively different amounts with one-quarter of wheat remaining the same. They are all interchangeable with each other. | Originally: The answer to this question is relatively simple, and explained very thoroughly by both Marx and Hans. Marx says “the valid exchange-values” instead of just “exchange values” in this passage because there are enumerated exchange-values for one commodity, not just one set quantitative amount for which it is exchanged. The example given is “one-quarter of wheat” has an exchange-value equivalent to x amount of shoe polish, y amount of silk, and z amount of gold; all qualitatively different amounts with one-quarter of wheat remaining the same. They are all interchangable with each other. |
| I believe that Marx was very careful in his word selection while writing Das Kapital, and this is a prime example. If he would have written simply “exchange values,” a layperson reader might interpret that as one quantitative amount that defines a commodity's exchange value regardless of the commodity with which it is to be traded. However, with this foresight, he chose to write “all valid exchange values” because he recognized the possible misinterpretation. Each of the previously mentioned commodities are all traded at differing amounts for a quarter of wheat, but they are all the same in magnitude. As Hans says: they represent “all the other exchanges that would have been possible but did not happen” (Hans, p 51). | I believe that Marx was very careful in his word selection while writing Das Kapital, and this is a prime example. If he would have wrote simply “exchange values,” a laymen reader might interpret that as one quantitative amount that defines a commodities exchange value regardless of the commodity with which it is to be traded. However, with this foresight, he chose to write “all valid exchange values” because he recognized the possible misinterpretation. Each of the previously mentioned commodities are all traded at differing amounts for a quarter of wheat, but they are all the same in magnitude. As Hans says: they represent “all the other exchanges that would have been possible but did not happen” (Hans, p 51). |
| Hans: Marx did not explain thoroughly what the formulation “valid” means; and my interpretation in the Annotations is only one of many possibilities. Now I am inclined to think that Marx threw the adjective “valid” into this sentence to emphasize that these exchange-values are a social expression of something despite the fact that the individual traders do not choose them, but they are given to them by the market. These are the exchange proportions which they find as the valid market proportions. |
| A few editorial corrections were necessary to make your text acceptable. Only small things, nothing which you couldn't have done yourself. My edited version is in the left column, and your original in the right. I subtracted 10 percent from the grade point number for the formal flaws of your answer; i.e. your grade point is not 4.0 but 3.6. |
|
|
|||||