| This question <374|108> overall <6|8> Ranger: <5|32>. |
| Question 39: Someone says: use value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange value is its quantity. Right or wrong? |
| [7] Ranger: This is wrong! If two commodities are equal in quantity they will have the same use value but not the same exchange value. Quality of a commodity is irrelevant with respect to its use value. For example, two computers, an IBM and an Apple have the same use value, whether one is more accepted and used than the other. |
| Hans: Where did you get this notion of use value from? The kind of software a computer can run and how widely used it is are very important aspects of the use value of a computer. |
| Also your notion of quality is not the one Marx is using. Apparently, if you talk about the quality of something, you mean the question whether it is well-made (high quality) or not. For Marx, all the properties of a thing constitute its quality. |
| [7] Ranger: Exchange value deals with the quality of a commodity. |
| Hans: “Deals with”: I think you mean “depends on”. |
| [7] Ranger: The quality of a commodity can only be determined by the quality and amount of labor put into that commodity. An example is the higher exchange value of Compaq computers as compared to Packard Bell computers. The reason is that the quality and quantity of labor put into Compaq computers is superior to that of Packard Bell's. Subsequently, Compaq computers have a higher perceived exchange value. |
| Hans: Why do you call the exchange value “perceived”? Sorry to be so picky, but there are apparently still some misunderstandings which you have to work on. |
| [7] Ranger: The word “perceived” was inserted without regard to what the word actually meant. Although I have not directly witnessed the labor expended on either Compaq or Packard Bell computers, I have been told by associates that Compaq expends a greater amount of labor on their commodities. I believe then that Compaq computers constitute higher quality because of the labor expended on the commodity. |
| Hans: OK, People have such information only second-hand, and it may not be very reliable. But people do not give things exchange value because of how they perceive their qualities. The exchange values of things are the exchange proportions determined by the market. This is one of the misunderstandings I meant. |
| Another misunderstanding is how you use the word “quality.” For you (and many others in my classes) the quality of a thing is how well the thing is built, how durable it is. For Marx and Hegel, the quality of a thing is all its properties. |
| [7] Ranger: However, Marx states that, according to Barbon, “One sort of wares are as good as another, if the value be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value...” According to this statement one Compaq computer is equal to one Packard Bell computer. |
| Hans: Oops, there is yet another misunderstanding. “value” in this Barbon quote is really exchange value. This should have become clear from the context. You do have to work on the text. |
|
|
|||||