| This question <535|554> overall <550|552> Allison: <460|552>. |
| Question 176: Why are commodities not interested in each other's use values? |
| [551] Allison: As described earlier in the annotations, the use value of a thing is the ability of its properties to serve human needs...considered as a property of the thing itself. A relationship between the thing and human wants which is attributed to the thing as if it were a property of the thing. It is not through an expression of a commodities ability to serve human needs that the commodity expresses its value. It is through the acting out of the relation of one commodity to another with a different use value that commodities are truly expressing their value. In other words it is through exchange and the interaction of two commodities that a value is expressed and therefore a commodities interest is not in the use value of another commodity but rather how that commodity can participate in the relation of exchange to ultimately express both of their values. |
| Hans: I had not yet discovered this secret connection with the point made earlier. Excellent point. Now I see how right the commodities are when they say in R176:3: “Our use-value may interest men, but it does not belong to us as objects.” A more precise translation than “belong to” would be: “it cannot be attributed to us as objects.” |
|
|
|||||