| This question <513|535> overall <529|531> Ranger: <399|531>. |
| Question 176: Why are commodities not interested in each other's use values? |
| [530] Ranger: The owner of a commodity may be interested in another commodity's use value but one commodity cannot be interested in the use value of another commodity. Commodities are not human, commodities are things. The owners of commodities (humans) can taste, feel, see, hear, smell, and think; commodities cannot. Humans have the ability, through the use of a brain and their senses, to relate and compare one thing for another. Commodities do not have these abilities. I have never witnessed a commodity laugh or cry. I have never heard a commodity speak or think on its own. |
| Hans: All the stuff which Marx attributes to the commodities must therefore sound pretty stupid do you, doesn't it? |
| [530] Ranger: (datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 08:40:10 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) No, it does not sound stupid! there are simply some Marx issues that I do not agree with. I do find insight and agree on many of his explanations and theories. For example, this week I enjoyed and found insight with Marx's explanation of the universal commodity. The explanations of the nature of gold and silver, along with money is by nature gold and silver intrigued me. My answer to question 176 was justly stating MY position on Marx's theory of question 176. I have found this Internet forum an effective way for the participants to state their ideas. I appreciate your willingness to this type of discussion. |
| Hans: Yes, I am glad you are stating your criticism of Marx. Marx acts as if commodities were ghosts imbued with their own wills, while in reality commodities are things which can not taste, feel, see, hear, smell, and think, which can not relate and compare one thing for another, which can not laugh or cry or speak or think on their own. Marx does as if they could, he even translates to us what they say from the commodity language into human language. I am sure you don't think this can be taken seriously as a science. Would you compare it with religion, or with mysticism, superstition? Tell us about it, break one of the taboos in this class that nobody dares to mention. I think this would really make a good discussion. |
|
|
|||||