Leinwandwert als Rockgleiches

In his last derivation before proceeding to the foundation of the money-form argument, Marx abandons purely mathematical manipulations tied to the canvas / relation's quantitative equivalencies, and really lets fly with a tangled, crucial clustered metaphor:

Im Wertverhältnis, worin der Rock das Äquivalent der Leinwand bildet, gilt also die Rockform als Wertform. Der Wert der Ware Leinwand wird daher ausgedrückt im Körper der Ware Rock, der Wert einer Ware im Gebrauchswert der andren. [65]

In the value relation in which the coat constitutes the equivalent of the Canvas, the form-of-the-Coat [functions as]/[is said to be]/[shall be considered] the form-of-value. The value of the ware Canvas is therefore articulated in the body of the commodity coat, the value of a commodity in the use-value of another.

Value [Wert] is a complexly doubled figure. Beyond acknowledging its parsing as exchange-value [Tauschwert, which has slipped into disuse as his vocabulary evolved] and use-value [Gebrauchswert, still truckin’ at this point], it’s instructive to look at the way Marx is using Wert to play with standard idealist pairs, as well. Let’s push on this shorthand a bit: articulation or expression [Ausdruck] is the procedure by which the conceptual [Wert, formally defined] sees embodiment in the objective-discrete [the Körper]. So far, so good; this is canon Cartesian s/o dualism.

But wait: Wert is only relationally embodied; that is, the character of either commodity’s exchange-value only emerges from an objective discontinuity of the form Leinwand/Rock, which when considered in its turn unfolds a rematerialization [a return of use-value as body-articulated quantum against which one judges]. This discontinuity persists, despite Marx’ emphasis on the abstractibility of all value to a common quality, unspecified human labor. It’s thus false to suggest either of the following:

a) That the equivalence formula for value emerges from "pure" [i.e. conceptual -or- material] relationality between terms or properties of terms
[rather, the arrangement of the being-in-respect-of that characterizes the exchange proportion oscillates according to deseridatum but necessarily adhere to the complex holism of Marx' argument, in all respects: while its elements play musical chairs, the worth-against-which-and-only-against-which-value
-is-thrown-into-relief {the incorporated use-value understood as coat-form} anchors any conceptual consideration of the formula's first term]
b) That societal [Gesellschaft] structures of value are inessentializable, i.e. immaterial
[This is merely to point out that regardless of the procedure by which he approaches it, or his insistence upon the abstractable/general/comparative property "human work" {"menschlicher Arbeit"}, Marx' eventual establishment of communal, i.e. mobile/portable structures for appraising value, and the complication {and opacity} this notion brings with it will not and cannot successfully throw off the anchor-chain of materiality. In a separate post, at some point, I will address the exchange relation's materiality as an anchor for considerations of society generally {and not in the strict metaphorical sense Marx is relying on here}.]

The brilliance of this procession from first principles is its care. There are components central to the judgement of value [e.g. the pervasion of "average" productivity, and the commonly abstractable unspecial work] which one can elevate to a conceptual level allowing for the qualitative comparison to emerge before being [quantitatively] balanced. But there is never an entirely disembodied, amaterial Gleichung [equation].