| This question <510|119> overall <77|79> Frosty: <77|236>. |
| Question 51: a. Why is it necessary for the exchange of commodities that they contain qualitatively different kinds of useful labor? b. Can commodity production exist without division of labor? c. Can division of labor exist without commodity production? d. How does commodity production influence the division of labor? |
| [78] Frosty: “Useful labour” is used to describe labor whose utility is represented by the use-value of its product. |
| Hans: It is not a special kind of labor; it is one of the aspects which every labor has. |
| [78] Frosty: When two goods are qualitatively different, they also have different forms of useful labor. It is necessary for the exchange of commodities that they contain qualitatively different kinds of useful labor because if they didn't, they could not confront each other as commodities. |
| Hans: Why don't you just say: then people would have no motivation to exchange them with each other? (Indeed, reading ahead I am just noticing that you are going to say that.) |
| [78] Frosty: The whole idea of exchange is to satisfy individual wants and needs. |
| Hans: No. Marx tries to argue that this is not so. |
| [78] Frosty: If you already have one commodity, why would you exchange that commodity for another with the same use-value. There is no sense in such an exchange. The whole idea of an exchange is so you can obtain something else you want and do not have already. |
| Hans: The motivations of the individuals in society are not the same as the purposes of what they are doing. |
| [78] Frosty: The differences in use-value and useful labor reflects the social division of labor. If these laborers were brought together to perform identical tasks, the qualitative differences would not exist. |
| Hans: Good work. You are trying to sort things out, and I think as the class goes on you will learn some of the conceptual tools to do it rationally. |
|
|
|||||