| This question <52|936> overall <64|66> Translat: <965|66>. |
| Question 21: Take some simple object, a shoe or a rubber ball, and differentiate between its properties, its utility, and its use value. |
| [65] Translat: A pencil has value from all of Marx's aspects. |
| Hans: You are confusing the trio of property, utility, and use value with the trio substance, magnitude, and form of value. |
| [65] Translat: (datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:06:13 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) You are right, I was confused. |
| Hans: Therefore you are answering a different question than the one asked. |
| [65] Translat: It has substance from the labor needed to assemble the pertinent materials such as wood, graphite, rubber, paint, etc. |
| Hans: Also from that needed to “harvest” the materials, as you say. |
| [65] Translat: Magnitude would come from the necessary labor time in harvesting the materials and combining them into the final product, a stick that writes. The exchange value comes from the price that the market would endure for the purchase of this instrument. |
| Hans: The exchange value does not “come from” the price. The price is an expression of the commodity's exchange value. |
| Another try: |
| Question 21. Take some simple object, a shoe or a rubber ball, and differentiate between its properties, its utility, and its use value. |
| [65] Translat: (datestring)Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:28:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Properties of a pencil would be the different elements that it is composed of. |
| Hans: No, properties are qualities, not things. |
| [65] Translat: Wood for instance could be used in various ways including the outer shell of a pencil. (R125:3) |
| Hans: Good that you are giving me the precise page reference. Now I see how you come to the conclusion that properties are things. The text says: “Every useful thing ... is an assemblage of many properties.” “Assemblage” is a weird translation of the German: “Ein Ganzes vieler Eigenschaften”, perhaps “totality of many properties” might be better. Loosely translated, Marx simply says here that the thing has many different properties. I guess one of the properties of wood which is relevant for pencils is that it can be ground down easily for pencil sharpening; plastic would not do here. Wood has many other properties which are irrelevant when it is used for pencils, but it still has them. |
| [65] Translat: Utility would be the use that the owner of the pencil would use it for, be it writing, marking, etc. |
| Hans: Yes. |
| [65] Translat: I am a little confused regarding “use-value”. Your annotation of use value appears different from the one I have cited. I believe you are saying that use-value is a combination of the pencil and wants of the owner. |
| Hans: It is its utility, i.e., its fitness for human consumption, regarded as a property of the thing. (Just like “beauty” is not really the property of something, but it is still attributed to the thing.) |
| [65] Translat: The use-value definition in the book appears to be, “a combination of the wood, graphite, (resources used to manufacture the pencil) and the labor involved in combining the material into an object that can be used.” [133:2/o] Please clarify. |
| Hans: Another misunderstanding. This time not due to the translation but Marx's terseness in the original. In 126:1 Marx writes: “The body itself of the commodity, such as iron, corn, diamond, etc., is therefore a use value or a good.” Marx means this as a terminological convention, which was clearer in the first edition, cited in the Annotations: he will sometimes call the article itself “a use value.” Therefore, when he says at the beginning of 133:2/o “Any of the use values coat, linen, etc., ... is a combination of two elements,” he does not mean the use values of the coat etc., but the coat itself. |
|
|
|||||