| This question <88|93> overall <89|91> Hans: <81|91>. |
| 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? |
| [90] Hans: One Situation where More is Actually Better. The linen weaver has many different needs, therefore she exchanges her linen for more than one other commodity. While doing this, she expresses the value of her linen in more than one different use-value. |
| Marx says that overall this is a better expression of the value of the linen than its expression in just one different use-value. This may be surprising, because linen has only one value. What is gained by expressing this one value in a multitude of different use-values? |
| The first improvement is that, in Marx's words, “every such expression says that it is the linen's value which appears in the use-values coat, corn etc.” I.e., value no longer seems to be something between linen and coat, but the many equivalents are the signals of something that resides in the linen alone (just as with the blinking cars). |
| Secondly, the linen-weaving labor is now equated not just to one kind of labor (tailoring coats), but to many different labors -- which reflects the underlying fact that value does not come from the specific kind of labor, but from that what is equal in all labors. |
| Thirdly, by relating the linen to many different commodities, the linen weaver indicates that value is a social relation spanning all of society. |
| Fourthly, this surface behavior shows that the value of linen is not only different from the use-value of linen, but different from any use-value. |
| Also quantitatively, the exchange proportions between two specific commodities may be subject to an accidental error term, but if one looks at the proportions with many different commodities, the regulating principle shines through. |
| Marx shows here how the spontaneous activity of the commodity traders on the market reveals the contours of the underlying structure which guides this market activity and makes it necessary. Marx also shows that this expression has its defects, i.e., that the fit between surface and underlying structure is not perfect. (I will not go over these defects right now, others are invited to do this.) This sets the stage for the transition to the general form of value, which remedies these defects. |
| Karly, in [88], looks at it in the opposite direction: he asks whether the value forms meet the needs of the transacting parties. This is not Marx's concern right now, although he will do this later, in chapter Two. Marx's way of reasoning is very different than what you would find in modern social sciences, and a close reading is necessary. If you don't get it right on your first attempt, don't be discouraged. It is difficult. Just keep trying. |
|
|
|||||