| This question <41|45> overall <42|44> Deborah: <694|112>. |
| Question 73: Marx argues that commodities are exchangeable only because they contain some common substance. Bailey denies this. He compares the exchange-value of commodities with the distance between points, which is not based on a commonality between the two points but is purely relative: “As we cannot speak of the distance of any object without implying some other object between which and the former this relation exists, so we cannot speak of the value of a commodity but in reference to another commodity compared with it. A thing cannot be valuable in itself without reference to another thing any more than a thing can be distant in itself without reference to another thing.” . Comment. |
| [43] Deborah: Exchange Value. Marx is pointing out that people would want only to exchange commodities because of the “common substance” in each, where Bailey is pointing out that exchange value arises when bringing the two commodities to each other. Each is addressing exchange value but from different perspectives. |
| In his comment Bailey is pointing out that exchange value requires the presence of two commodities. One commodity on its own would have no exchange value because there is nothing to exchange it for: “we cannot speak of the value of a commodity but in reference to another commodity compared with it.” In using the example of distances Bailey points out that distance can only be calculated when putting two locations in reference to each other (unless referencing one point to another, there will only be two points on a map and no relationship). As pointed out in the Annotations, “Exchange value is that social relationship or social custom which allows commodities to be traded for each other or for money.” |
| “A thing cannot be valuable in itself without reference to another thing any more than a thing can be distant in itself without reference to another thing.” In everyday transactions, people compare one commodity to another; for example, bread is exchanged for $2.00. Without both sides of the equation there is no exchange -- the exchange value lies in the connection between the two points, to use Bailey's example. |
| While Marx points out that commodities are exchangeable only because they contain common substance, exchange value can only be realized when the actual exchange occurs. Because exchange value is social in nature there must be more than just the individual involved (thus two commodities). |
| Hans: You are saying: both are right, it depends on the perspective. Marx does not share this relativist view. If there are two conflicting explanations of the same thing, he usually says one explanation is better than the other, or that there is a third explanation better than both. Then he tries to find arguments to decide which explanation is better. |
|
|
|||||