![20140127-marx-x624-1390864648[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FPainof.jpg "20140127-marx-x624-1390864648[1].jpg")
Here's to all Marxists in the house, what's your response to this paragraph from Capital Volume 1?
How do you folks, or rather, what makes you folks think that just because two things are equal in exchange value they have some other thing in common
In other words, what justification can you give for this para from Capital V1
"Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third."
>>8205718
Marxist here. Don't question Marx's teachings. Just take it all in, absorb as much as you can.
>>8205721
I'm sorry I'm actually not sure if you're serious because I've been told things along those lines before non-ironically. Care to explain the purpose of doing that so I know you have a point here?
Well, because there's nothing about one quarter of corn *in itself* that 'makes it' equivalent to a centum weight iron, nor vice versa. They are different 'things', with different qualities and different amounts, so on what grounds can we claim they are equivalent? Some third term must connect them.
>>8205718
It is explained by some very basic economics. The third thing is money. Money facilitates trade: it is more efficient to trade corn with money and iron with money than to trade corn with iron. Each one of them is reducible to money because money is the most liquid (i.e. easily traded).
Disclaimer: I have not read Capital but this is my reading of the passage you've quoted out of context. I am also not a Marxist (although I have read some Marx).
That thing is price
>Here's to all the economic illiterates in the house
>>8205805
>implying economic literacy is possible
Look up some studies on the predictive power of the field.
>>8205805
Fuck off bourgeois scum
>>8205764
You're on the right track, but it's more like utility; the value each person assigns (based mostly on pleasure and usefulness criteria) to each good. Of course, money is the best tool we have to put this in numbers, so yeah, basically money.
third man argument
>>8205746
>so on what grounds can we claim they are equivalent
You can't, this is a good passage picked by OP although I myself would have picked the one before this.
Noone would ever say a quarter of corn is a cwt. of iron, that is stupid, they are obviously different things. The only thing they would say is that 1 quarter of corn exchanges for x quarter of iron.
>>8205764
>It is explained by some very basic economics. The third thing is money. Money facilitates trade: it is more efficient to trade corn with money and iron with money than to trade corn with iron. Each one of them is reducible to money because money is the most liquid (i.e. easily traded).
People would say two "things" trade for one another, or in this context people would say 1 qrt of corn trades for x cwt. of iron, when:
(1qrt of corn)(price of 1qrt of corn)=(x cwt of iron)(price of iron)
Still,this hardly means both those things are somehow "equal". That's absurd, since they are very different things.
>>8205880
I specifically avoided the term 'utility' since it is subjective, but yeah- 'exchange value'. Marx literally uses this term in the passage though so I simplified a bit to help OP understand.
>>8205977
>Noone would ever say a quarter of corn is a cwt. of iron, that is stupid, they are obviously different things. The only thing they would say is that 1 quarter of corn exchanges for x quarter of iron.
The unit of measurement used is completely irrelevant, so long as both things being traded have the same exchange value. Think about a good or service that cannot be measured in quarters (e.g. 1 mowing of the lawn = x quarters of corn).
>Still,this hardly means both those things are somehow "equal". That's absurd, since they are very different things.
Reread the passage- equal in 'exchange value'.
x quarter corn = z dollars
y cwt. iron = z dollars
x quarter corn = y cwt. iron (in exchange value i.e. money)
Hope this helps. Again, it's really simple. Don't overthink it.
>corn theory of value
>>8205718
the second thing in common is price
the third is currency
>>8205718
>How do you folks, or rather, what makes you folks think that just because two things are equal in exchange value they have some other thing in common
In other words, what justification can you give for this para from Capital V1
Labour.
