| This question <1003|1003> overall <603|605> Marky: <569|872>. |
| Question 386: The empirical appearance of the processes of sale and purchase encourages a naive mistake, which makes it difficult to understand the metamorphosis of the commodity. Which mistake? |
| [604] Marky: A problem that would make it difficult to understand the metamorphosis of a commodity is one in the exchange process. It may be assumed that a commodity is exchanged for money. Money, in the form of gold, is only a representation of the value of a commodity. Gold in itself has an exchange value, but when being exchanged for a commodity it is considered to be a representation of that commodity's value. After the commodity is exchanged for the money, that money can be used to purchase another commodity that is the same value as the first commodity. This is where the first commodity is transformed into another commodity of the same value. The money is in between them, this is the part that Marx says may be confusing. It is confusing because it may seem as though a commodity is only exchanged for money and therefore may be transformed into money, but this is not the case. |
| As explained by the analogy of the linen-weaver selling the linen for gold and then purchasing a Bible with that same gold. The linen is here transformed into a Bible for the same value. |
| Hans: You are right to say that the linen is transformed. It is not directly transformed into a bible, but goes through two stages: first it is transformed from its use-value form as linen (which is of no use to the linen weaver who already has enough linen) into its value form, i.e. into money, and then it is transformed from this value form into the use-value form of a bible. |
| The transaction which physically is an exchange between linen and money and then money and the bible should therefore be conceptualized as a form change, in which the commodity produced as linen does not leave the hands of the linen weaver, but merely changes its form. |
| Marx especially concentrates on the first transaction, C-M: he says this is not a barter of the commodity linen against the commodity money, but it is a transformation of the use-value form of the commodity linen into its value form. |
| What is the difference? Here I'd like to draw on something from [2004fa:247]: In a barter you must divide your attention between two questions: (1) are you getting the use-value you need? and (2) are you getting a fair equivalent, in terms of value, of the commodity you are giving away? By contrast, in a sale only the second question matters. The first question will become relevant in the subsequent purchase but does not play a role right now. Therefore, you do not have to divide your attention between two commodities, the one you are giving away and the one you are receiving. Instead, you only have to think about one commodity, the one you are selling. This is why Marx says the sale is a form change of this one commodity rather than a barter between two commodities. |
|
|
|||||