| This question <714|714> overall <692|695> Deborah: <535|43>. |
| Question 212: When Marx talks about the “defects” of the Simple form of value, in what respect are they defects? |
| [694] Deborah: Simply Defective. In explaining the Simple Form of Value, Marx points out defects in the expression -- in relative form of value and in the equivalent form of value. “..and therefore also only places A in an exchange relation with one particular different kind of commodity, instead of representing A's qualitative equality with all other commodities.” [154:2] “.. A commodity there corresponds to the Isolated equivalent form of another commodity.” [154:2] |
| In the relative form of value, Marx points out that the simple form of value “represents value as something that is different from its use-value, but not as something that is qualitatively equal for all commodities.” (Annotations) What an individual will accept in exchange for their commodity is not equal across the board -- not everyone will accept the same goods for the same trades. Annotations gives the example of an orchestra in which every musician plays his/her own melody. There is not a coherent “signal” in this form. In the equivalent form of value, the two commodities being exchanged are only equivalents for each other -- not with other commodities (the goods are poor incarnations of value). |
| In the archives, Hans points out in his remarks to [1998WI:116] that Commodity A does not receive its value from Commodity B, instead it receives its value from labor, but it expresses its value in relation with Commodity B. |
| Hans: Yes, the market relations through which value is expressed must be distinguished from the production relations which give value to the commodities. Commodities receive value in the production process, and they express their value in their exchange relations with each other. Market relations will only then be successful in directing the production process, if this expression (or reflection) of the underlying production relations on the market is accurate. Marx points out two respects in which the expression of value through a Simple exchange relationship is inaccurate: One of these two criticisms is directed at the relative form of value, the other at the equivalent form of value. |
| Regarding the relative form, he says that the relative form of value distinguishes the value of a commodity from its use-value (which is good), but it fails to convey the fact that the value of all goods are the same (which is bad). Only an expression which conveys this same-ness (and therefore allows the values of all commodities to be compared with each other) can give the right signals to the producers so that they know what is in demand and should be produced. (This will then be resolved with money, which is indeed a common denominator for all commodities.) |
| Regarding the Equivalent form, Marx's criticism is that the commodity in the Equivalent form can be directly exchanged only for the commodity in the Relative form. Again, with money this is alleviated, because money can be directly exchanged against everything. The situation that every commodity could be directly exchanged against every other commodity is not possible, because commodities are produced privately and spontaneously, and it is never certain if a given commodity meets a social need or not. |
|
|
|||||