Question:

Of the first form of value, Marx says: “The whole secret of the form of value lies hidden in this simple form. (62)” What should we pay attention to about this simple form of value?

Answer:

1 The simple, individual, or accidental form of value might be expressed as 5 jin of rice = 2 garments, or 5 jin of rice is worth 2 garments. Reading the equation from left to right, the left-hand side is the relative form of value, expressing its value in the garments; the right-hand side is the equivalent form, serving as the material in which the rice’s value is expressed.

2 As everyone who attended primary school knows, two things must share a common unit—a common basis of comparison—to be placed on either side of an equals sign. In the equation 5 jin of rice = 2 garments, rice and garments stand in a value relation, indicating that they contain equal magnitudes of value.

3 Within this value relation, the garments act like a mirror reflecting the rice’s value. Put another way, through this relation the rice expresses its value in the garments’ use-value, giving its value a tangible form.

“Thus, through the value relation, the natural form of commodity B becomes the value form of commodity A; in other words, the physical body of commodity B becomes a mirror reflecting the value of commodity A. By relating to commodity B as a body of value, as the embodiment of human labor, commodity A makes B’s use-value the material in which its own value is expressed. The value of commodity A expressed in this way in the use-value of commodity B has the relative form of value. (67)”

4 Why is the left-hand side called the “relative form of value”? Because the equation cannot express the absolute magnitude of the rice’s value; it can express only the ratio between the value of the rice on the left and the garments on the right. As the values of rice and garments change, the numbers in the equation change too.

Suppose x units of commodity A can be exchanged for y units of commodity B, and A and B denote their respective magnitudes of value. We then have xA = yB. As the values A and B change, x and y change as well. This is a simple mathematical question. (Capital spends a page and a half describing these quantitative changes, which may be rather wordy.)

5 The right-hand side is the equivalent form. Marx says: “The equivalent form of a commodity is the form in which it is directly exchangeable with another commodity. (70)” It has three characteristics: ① “Use-value becomes the form of appearance of its opposite, value. (71)” ② “Concrete labor becomes the form of appearance of its opposite, abstract labor. (74)” ③ “Private labor takes the form of its opposite, labor in directly social form. (74)”

6 From another angle, the rice’s natural form on the left appears simply as a form of use-value, while the garments’ natural form on the right appears as a form of value,

“Thus the internal opposition between use-value and value hidden within the commodity is expressed through an external opposition, through the relation between two commodities. In this relation, the commodity whose value is to be expressed counts directly only as use-value, while the other, which expresses that value, counts directly only as exchange-value [expressing the former’s value, but not its own]. The simple value form of a commodity is therefore the simple form of appearance of the opposition between use-value and value contained within it. (77)”

7 Marx says: “The simple value form of the commodity is at the same time the simple commodity form of the product of labor; the development of the commodity form therefore coincides with the development of the value form. (77)” This means that products of labor run throughout human history, but their existence as commodities also has a history. Their development coincides with that of the form of value.