| This question <198|88> overall <210|212> Fred: <208|287>. |
| Question 218: Which characteristics of value are expressed better in the Expanded form of value than in the Simple form, and what are the defects of the Expanded form? |
| [211] Fred: Pros and Cons of the Expanded vs Simple Forms of Value. Marx starts with the Simple Form of Value, i.e. 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, and progresses to an Expanded Form of Value where this evolution of exchanges are tending to be expressed in a common commodity, such as a cow. Now this common commodity is being exchanged not just for a coat, or linen, but for rice, beans, etc., indeed any commodity could be exchanged and all of their values are being expressed in the cow. That is the advantage, value is no longer something between just two commodities, but one commodity and many equivalents signaling of “something” that resides in the common commodity alone. (Hans [90]), so there is one equivalent for all. A second characteristic better expressed now is linen (or cow) is equated to more than just one kind of labor, (not just coats) but to many labors, indicating that value comes form what is equal in all labors, not just one specific kind of labor. (Hans [90]). Thirdly, this shows that value is a social relation as these different labors are equated at the exchange level; and Fourthly, the Expanded Form shows that value is different from use-values (Hans [90]) as the one commodity linen or(cow) is being exchanged for many different commodities with different use values, where the values are being equalized for exchange, indicating a congealed abstraction of labor, or social labor power. |
| Marx identifies three defects of the Expanded Form. |
| One is a lack of uniqueness. The equivalent of the same commodity is not always the same everywhere and the market has a potential of seeing an infinite stream of new and different commodities. In the expanded form value is not unique. It should be. |
| Second is a lack of simplicity. The expanded form is no longer simple because it now consists of many commodities. As a result, the human labor in the commodity is no longer portrayed. To equalize the commodities value at market, labor is now expressed as an abstraction of the human labor or “labor hours.” Quality is replaced with quantity. Value in the expanded form is not simple. It should be. |
| Third is a lack of uniformity. Commodities are varied and can be difficult to group together to an equivalent quantity for the base commodity (i.e. cow). It is also not uniform because the expanded form of cow has linen as one of the equivalents but cannot have cow, and the expanded form of linen has cow as one of the equivalents but cannot have linen. (Hans's response to DCortado [2007SP:138]). This lack of uniformity gives rise to the need for a common commodity that can be easily equated to all commodities, such as money (gold) (that may not have use value in and of itself). Value in the expanded form is not uniform. It should be. (This leads to the evolution of the General Form). |
| Hans: Very good. But in your first paragraph you are switching back and forth between the Expanded and the General form of value. If the owner of the cow expresses the value of his cow in many different commodities, this is the Expanded form -- and that is the first thing that happens, because the cow owner has many needs. But from this follows that his trading partners express the values of their motley commodities in pieces of cow. This is already, potentially, the General form of value. I say here “potentially” because in order to become the indeed General form, general agreement is necessary that all values are expressed in cows. |
|
|
|||||