I finished the chapter and reading back towards section 2 really helped made me better understand it I think. I still have to like process it all. I liked how Marx mention of like saying how like 20 linen = 1 coat, mainly more so how like, that mainly reflected itself? I almost typed Lenin instead of lenin. Anyways, it's that it's own value is only found in a relation with another commodity, being reflected. that relation value was really neat. But it reminded me of a video I watched, where the person talked about like, how she discovered herself more through others or like relations through others.

anyways I was confused on something. Like from the footnotes? Mainly this part.

"26. It is by no means self-evident that this character of direct and universal exchangeability is, so to speak, a polar one, and as intimately connected with its opposite pole, the absence of direct exchangeability, as the positive pole of the magnet is with its negative counterpart. It may therefore be imagined that all commodities can simultaneously have this character impressed upon them, just as it can be imagined that all Catholics can be popes together. It is, of course, highly desirable in the eyes of the petit bourgeois, for whom the production of commodities is the nec plus ultra of human freedom and individual independence, that the inconveniences resulting from this character of commodities not being directly exchangeable, should be removed."

There was like more to it but I was more confused about that part? It was the footnote for this part in section 3 of chapter 1.

"Finally, the form C gives to the world of commodities a general social relative form of value, because, and in so far as, thereby all commodities, with the exception of one, are excluded from the equivalent form. A single commodity, the linen, appears therefore to have acquired the character of direct exchangeability with every other commodity because, and in so far as, this character is denied to every other commodity"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#26b

I'm not exactly sure what that footnote is saying? Is that passage just saying like, not everything can be like a universal exchangeability and emphasizing that? with like that footnote emphasizing that with the example in it about like catholics and popes? I dont understand what is meant by poles, or like, near the end about

"It is, of course, highly desirable in the eyes of the petit bourgeois, for whom the production of commodities is the nec plus ultra of human freedom and individual independence, that the inconveniences resulting from this character of commodities not being directly exchangeable, should be removed."

I'm not sure what that passage exactly saying then maybe like, petit bourgeois want commodities to be directly exchangeable? and to remove to that general form of value or money value? or just like removing any inconvenience that rise from things not being directly exchangeable and nothing to do with like the general form of value and stuff? or I dunno.