<p>It has nothing to do with new products in the market, nor with confusion of use-value and exchange-value. To make it a bit simpler:  </p>

<p>1) Commodities in capitalism have a two-fold character. The use-value (they are useful products for the buyer to consume) and the exchange-value (they can be exchanged to another products in a given way).    </p>

<p>2) The exchange-value of the product depends on the embodied labor of the product, which is named as Value by Marx. So in a sense, exchange-value = Value.  </p>

<p>3) Products can only be compared in relation to one another. You cannot understand anything by saying ex. 2 apples = 2 apples.  </p>

<p>Thus, we reach to the <strong>Elementary Form:</strong> 20 yards of linen = 1 coat<br>
In this equation, linen plays the active role or <strong>Relative form</strong> and coat plays the passive role, or <strong>Equivalent form</strong>. In other terms, you define the Value of linen comparing it to the Value of coat.  </p>

<p>Now, here is the core of the analysis.  Marx claims that since there is a comparison (20 linen=1 coat), there must be a common element to compare. That common element is not the use-value (linen is not the same as coat). It is the exchange-value, or Value, or the human labor embodied in the two products. In other words, this equation states that labor needed to develop 20 yards of linen is equal to labor needed to develop 1 coat (given constant technological advancement, resources, etc.) Use-value, on the other hand, just acts as a carrier of Value.  </p>

<p>The importance of this realization, is to understand the essence of exchange in capitalistic world and connect it to the money form (20 yards of linen = 1 coat = 100 Euros), and understand socio-economically how money was created and what does it really mean.  </p>

<p><a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3a2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Part I: Commodities and Money, Chapter One: Commodities</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-04T13:11:08.003Z
2018-01-04T13:11:08.003Z
koita_pisw_sou
<p>I don't understand the difference between the two. For example:</p>

<p>2 Shoes = 3 wood</p>

<p>Now Marx says that the first is the relative-form and the second is the equivalent-form. So the use-value expressed in the equivalent-form is represendet in the value of the relative-form. Why does the equivalent-form represent the use-value of the wood? Isn't it just a commodity with use-value and exchange-value? So why is the equivalent-form only the use-value of that thing?</p>

<p>Marx says in the simple-value form there is a contradiction because one is equating use-value and it's opposite, value.
But aren't they both commodities with use- and exchange-value? Because they already exist as commodities in the system.
Is it because the commodity is "new" in the market and exists only as use-value until I put it into the relationship with commodities in the market and therefore obtains value??</p>

<labor-economics><marxism>
Marx: Relative and equivalent-form. Difference?
JonnyPython
# Marx: Relative and equivalent-form. Difference?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-12-21)

I don't understand the difference between the two. For example:

2 Shoes = 3 wood

Now Marx says that the first is the relative-form and the second is the equivalent-form. So the use-value expressed in the equivalent-form is represendet in the value of the relative-form. Why does the equivalent-form represent the use-value of the wood? Isn't it just a commodity with use-value and exchange-value? So why is the equivalent-form only the use-value of that thing?

Marx says in the simple-value form there is a contradiction because one is equating use-value and it's opposite, value.
But aren't they both commodities with use- and exchange-value? Because they already exist as commodities in the system.
Is it because the commodity is "new" in the market and exists only as use-value until I put it into the relationship with commodities in the market and therefore obtains value??

**Tags:** labor-economics, marxism


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-01-04. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

It has nothing to do with new products in the market, nor with confusion of use-value and exchange-value. To make it a bit simpler:

1) Commodities in capitalism have a two-fold character. The use-value (they are useful products for the buyer to consume) and the exchange-value (they can be exchanged to another products in a given way).

2) The exchange-value of the product depends on the embodied labor of the product, which is named as Value by Marx. So in a sense, exchange-value = Value.

3) Products can only be compared in relation to one another. You cannot understand anything by saying ex. 2 apples = 2 apples.

Thus, we reach to the **Elementary Form:** 20 yards of linen = 1 coat  
In this equation, linen plays the active role or **Relative form** and coat plays the passive role, or **Equivalent form**. In other terms, you define the Value of linen comparing it to the Value of coat.

Now, here is the core of the analysis. Marx claims that since there is a comparison (20 linen=1 coat), there must be a common element to compare. That common element is not the use-value (linen is not the same as coat). It is the exchange-value, or Value, or the human labor embodied in the two products. In other words, this equation states that labor needed to develop 20 yards of linen is equal to labor needed to develop 1 coat (given constant technological advancement, resources, etc.) Use-value, on the other hand, just acts as a carrier of Value.

The importance of this realization, is to understand the essence of exchange in capitalistic world and connect it to the money form (20 yards of linen = 1 coat = 100 Euros), and understand socio-economically how money was created and what does it really mean.

[Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Part I: Commodities and Money, Chapter One: Commodities](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3a2)


---

