Circumstantial exchanges where both parties gain do not follow the principle of equivalence.

Evidence

Setting aside whether the exchange of glass beads for ivory actually happened on a large enough scale to produce anything more than anecdotes, this example indicates an objective problem with determining unjust advantage in exchange. After all, in the particular exchange it depicts, there is no unjust advantage. Both parties can count themselves as ‘winners’ – both the traveller who exchanges beads which are worthless to him for ivory he can sell for money, and the ‘savages’ who receive the beads they desire for the ivory in which they have no or only limited interest. This is a win-win situation of a kind which does not occur in capitalism-proper. Moreover, insofar as the exchange detailed by Adorno is a circumstantial exchange, as opposed to an instance of an exchange relationship generalised throughout society, it does not follow the principle of equivalence. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 778

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies what distinguishes an exchange following the principle of equivalence from a merely mutual-benefit exchange — a key distinction in the critique of political economy.