| This question <125|125> overall <121|123> Obi: <1366|123>. graded A |
| Question 182: Why is a commodity in the equivalent form directly exchangeable with the commodity in the relative value form? |
| [122] Obi: While discussing the simple isolated form of value, Marx carefully explains that value is determined: 1) relatively, 2) quantitatively by labor embedded, 3) comparatively (equivalent) in relation to other commodity, 4) by exchange-value. |
| It would seem from Marx's writings that two commodities will both have some form of ‘congealed’ value in their natural form, with peculiar value attributable to each. This natural form of value gives both commodities a common platform from which equivalence and relativity relations originate. Relativity stems from a perception that the labor embedded in the commodity is equivalent to the labor embedded in another commodity. Marx uses the example of the coat and the linen by saying that ‘by equating...the coat as a thing of value to the linen, we equate the labor embedded in the coat with the labor embedded in the linen’ [142:1]. In this process, the relative worth of the coat is established. |
| Note that the importance of the labor process used in the commodity to be exchanged for another will be reflected in the quantities of exchange between the commodities, for example, 20 yards of linen for 1 coat (quantitative determination of relative form is not part of this question). Whereas the relative value could be quantitative, i.e., how many items of commodity A can be exchanged for commodity B, exchangeability is not concerned with quantity, but rather with equivalence. In essence, equivalence negates the importance of the labor process used to make the commodity. Once equivalence is established, an exchange value can be determined. That is, if commodity A serves as the equivalent of commodity B, then it becomes exchangeable for commodity A. This is how equivalent form becomes directly exchangeable for a commodity in the relative form. |
|
|
|||||