| This question <6|31> overall <28|30> Braydon: <28|149>. |
| Question 26: How can one come to the conclusion that exchange value is not something inherent in the commodity? |
| [29] Braydon: A coat in the winter time to a homeless person will be of much greater value than the coat would be in 95 degree weather. He would want to trade much more of what he has to get the coat in January. It is still the same coat, but the circumstance is different. He also could be in the Bahamas in January and have no need of the coat, thus proving Marx's statement “this proportion is constantly changing with time and place.” |
| Hans: You are identifying exchange-value of a thing with a person's willingness to exchange this thing, and this with the use-value of this thing to this person. Others have made this mistake too, see [17] and [18]. The exchange-value of a thing is the socially accepted exchange relation of the thing, think of it as its price. There is little need for coats in the Bahamas, therefore you will not find many coats in the stores there, and those which you do find are probably not very cheap. |
|
|
|||||