| This question <19|19> overall <2|4> Hans: <2|5>. |
| Question 69: Is there other surface evidence, other than the variability of exchange proportions, indicating that exchange-value is the expression of some deeper relation of production? |
| [3] Hans: Marx claims that our day-to-day experience in a commodity society is contradictory: because on the one hand, we experience exchange-value as something intrinsic in the commodities, and on the other, we experience it as something relative and variable. From this contradictory experience he concludes that we are looking here at a point where some hidden underlying relations enter the surface, namely, the social relations under which the commodities are produced. |
| Question 69 asks if there are also other ways in which our surface experience tells us that exchange-value is a phenomenon governed by things which have nothing to do with the market but which happen elsewhere (namely, in the invisible sphere of production). I think the answer to this question is yes. A different pointer is the apparent circularity of exchange-values. If you ask someone how the price of something is determined (price is a form of exchange-value), then you often hear: by the cost. Marx would consider this a circular answer: the cost is the price of the inputs, therefore this is an answer of the form: price is determined by price. Even if common sense doesn't find anything wrong with this, such an answer cannot be an accurate reflection of what happens in reality. In reality, things must be caused, they cannot just happen out of themselves. And if the surface seems to tell us that things come out of themselves, then the real cause must be somewhere other than this surface. |
| This kind of reasoning is probably thoroughly unfamiliar to you. But you signed up for this class because you wanted to learn something new, didn't you? |
| Yoda: hmmmmm, i agree with you Hans although i'm still trying to unterstand all of this information. Is your response to this question trying to hint that the real form of exchange-value is not surface relations per se but actually the amount of labor embodied in the commodity? particularly, the amount of socially necessary labor. If so, can you please explain a little more about other real cause which is somewhere other than the surface. anyways, i'm still confused. haha. thanks |
|
|
|||||