| This question <96|96> overall <95|97> Daru: <722|131>. |
| Question 222: In 158:4, Marx writes the following about the general form of value: “Only this form, therefore, has the effect of relating the commodities with each other as values, or enables them to appear to each other as exchange-values.” Why didn't he write: “or enables them to appear to each other as values”? |
| [96] Daru: "Exchange-Value" or just "Value" For Marx, commodities only acquire their value by the labour invested in them (Ann: page 80-83). Hence, in effect when an exchange takes place, what is held equal between the two commodities is not their exchange-value but the labour invested in them (inferred from Marx, Ann: page 87). Two commodities, when exchanged are not (necessarily) similar in their use-value but contain within them the same value (i.e. labour) invested in them. This suggests that whereas value is more intrinsic part of the commoditiy, its exchange-value arises only on the surface through some social relations or interaction taking place in the marketplace or the society in general. Thus, the exchange value does not (have to) reflect the value of the commodity but only the social relations through which it arises. |
| When Marx states “Only this form...” he is obviously using the word “this” in relation to two other forms of value that he describes earlier, namely; Simple and Expanded form of value. It is not that Simple and Expanded forms of value cannot serve the purpose of exchange-values, but Marx notes defects in them, particularly in the Expanded form of value. The General form of value as a means of an exchange overcomes the incompleteness, lack of uniformity and lack of uniqueness in the Expanded form of the value. It does so by differentiating “the value of every commoditiy not only from its own use-value, but from all use-values. Hence, the value is expressed as that which this commodity has in common with all commodities.” |
| Coming to the key point here, i.e. why Marx uses “exchange value” instead of just “value” in the sentence? I think Marx, in this sentence, alludes to two different processes of how commodities are linked to each other. His use of the word “appear” implies that commodities relate to each other only in a superficial way through the exchange value. This is to say that the exchange-value only relates the two commodities (being exchanged) at the surface. At the heart of this surface phenomenon lies the true relationship between the two commodites; the equivalence of the labour invested in them i.e. their value. Here, Marx is also pointing out the two different processes taking place in a capitalist society. The production process at the core of the society provides a commodity with its value and the superficial process that takes place in the market place (with its particular environment and social relations) give it its exchange-value. This distinction is important to Marx as it highlights the (exploitative) workings of a capitalist society. Had Marx used the word “value” instead of “exchange value”, the distinction between the surface and the heart would have collapsed. This, in my opinion, would have defeated his objectives of highlighting the exploitation (of the working class) that takes place in a capitalist society. |
|
|
|||||