| This question <106|106> overall <82|84> Thugtorious: <53|100>. graded A |
| Question 62: Marx argues that commodities are exchangeable only because they contain some common substance. Bailey denies this. He compares the exchange-value of commodities with the distance between points, which is not based on a commonality between the two points but is purely relative: “As we cannot speak of the distance of any object without implying some other object, between which and the former this relation exists, so we cannot speak of the value of a commodity but in reference to another commodity compared with it. A thing cannot be valuable in itself without reference to another thing” [mecw32] 329, fn. Comment. |
| [83] Thugtorious: Bailey's Critique of Marx. In deriving the exchange relationship between two commodities, Marx argues that there is a common substance within the commodities that makes them exchangeable. We find out later that this “element” is abstract human labor. However, Bailey argues that the exchangeability of two commodities has nothing to do with a commonality between the two commodities, but can be likened to the distance between two points, which is purely relative. Unfortunately, the distance between two points remains completely relative and has not applicability to market operations or exchange unless there is a denomination or mechanism at which the two “points” can be related. Let me explain: |
| There is two ways to look at this situation. The first example elaborates on Bailey's geometric example about two points. Bailey's focus is on the line connecting the two points, but if you do not define a mechanism of measurement to evaluate the length of such a line then the line itself is irrelevant. For example, if Bailey chose to use “feet” as the basis of comparison, then the distance would be X amount of feet showing a quantified relationship between the two points. This is what abstract human labor is equated to: defining the “distance” between two commodities in the market place. Marx chose labor as his proverbial “yard stick.” Without such a yard stick, the two points may be connected, but there is no way to tell at what extent they are connected. |
| The second example is arithmetic in nature. If you want to compare two fractions while cooking because you are increasing the size of your recipe, then you have to make the denominators of both fractions equal. Much the same thing is going on in transactions in the market. When comparing two commodities for exchange in the market, the common denominator is abstract human labor. The denominator is just like the “yard stick” in the previous example: without it, there is no relevant relationship between the two commodities. |
| Overall, I think Bailey missed a large part of Marx's argument: on the surface of the exchange, the decided values of each commodity may appear purely relative. However, if you dig deeper into each commodity, down into the mode of production, you find that there is a common element: abstract human labor. Bailey did not go deep enough into Marx's argument but decided to take the contradiction of exchange as a given and move on with the analysis without resolving the contradiction. |
|
|
|||||