| This question <199|251> overall <199|201> Ozz: <93|203>. graded A– |
| Question 67: First give Marx's arguments how one can come to the conclusion that exchange-value is not something inherent in the commodity. Then reproduce, in your own words, Marx's rebuttal that, despite these arguments, exchange-value seems to be something inherent to the commodity after all. |
| [200] Ozz: Exchange value arguments. Marx's argument concerning the conclusion that exchange values are not something inherent is explained simply in the difference of quantity a certain commodity can be exchanged for in differentiating times and places. Marx explains saying “Exchange-value manifests itself at first as the quantitative relation, the proportion, which use-values of one sort are exchanged against use-values of another sort...a proportion which constantly changes with time and place.” This signals that the commodity might not hold an inherent exchange-value because if the proportions to which they are traded are always changing then the exchange-value is not due to the commodity but to the circumstances of the trade. |
| Marx's rebuttal to this argument concerns the “expression of a deeper social relation located underneath”. This deeper social relation consist of the social relationship of the commodity in regards to other commodities and the use-values the commodity supplies. In the commentaries, the example of the flashing car lights explains this concept very well. The example makes clear of how cars flashing their lights at first could be mistaken, however; after time one realizes it means to turn on your own head lights. This social relationship between commodities signaling to each other their exchange value, which occurs over periods of time, will eventually lead to a general exchange value that is thought to be inherent in the commodity. Marx uses the word “replaceable” saying that the owners treat the various exchange values of their commodities as “replaceable” expressions of the same thing. Meaning that when one comes to believe that commodity X is usually traded for three units of Commodity Y then you begin to realize that due to the social relations commodities can seem to take on an inherent exchange value. |
| Hans: Are you thinking a social relationship is an attitude or fad where everybody thinks the same thing? Look at my remark made about [149] for this. As you said in your in-class answer, the “thing” inherent in the commodities is labor. They are all part of a social division of labor. These are real social interdependencies, not just attitudes. |
|
|
|||||