| This question <96-1|104-1> overall <101|102> Dew: <93|133>. |
| Question 901: Comparison Capital with Contribution |
| [101-1] Dew: The both passages,“Capital” and “Critique of Political Economy”, say that a commodity has a use value. The former says the use value has value only in use, and it is realized by the process of consumption. And the extention of its possible application, exchange value, is limited by other existing commodities. That is, If I realize the use value of commodity A, I find exchange value in A. But If I find a better commodity B that can be used as a substitution for A, I quit using A. In this case A's use value and exchange value diminished or ceased. Therefore, exchange value is determined by not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. However, the latter passage says that a use value can be an exchange value immediately, so that the exchange value is determined by quantitatively. This is because the latter passage does not really care about the usefulness of a commodity. It assumes that a commodity has use value in any case if it is a commodity. Therefore, the quality of a commodity will be unimportant, and the issue in exchange value will be quantitative only. |
| Hans: It seems to me that you have some objections against Marx's theory, and your own thoughts about how this theory should go, which prevent you from understanding what Marx meant, because you are expecting Marx to address your objections and follow along in your thinking, whereas Marx is doing something completely different. |
| To be more precise, one of your objections is that you think the quality of a commodity affects its exchange value: commodities of higher quality have higher exchange values. In Marx's theory, commodities of higher quality usually have a higher labor content and therefore have a higher value, but there is no direct link between quality and value. This is why Marx negates a direct link between use value and exchange value. |
| It is very difficult to understand something with which one does not agree, but this is what for many of you students this class is about. |
| The both passages,“Capital” and “Critique of Political Economy”, say that a commodity has a use value. The former says the use value has value only in use, and it is realized by the process of consumption. |
| No, this is what “Critique” says. Capital does not say that use value has value in use, although it does say that use value is realized only in consumption. |
| What follows now is not in either passage, this seems to be your own theory: |
| And the extention of its possible application, exchange value, is limited by other existing commodities. |
| You see the exchange value as an extension of the possible use values of a commodity. This is a very practical view. Marx is looking at the bigger picture. Exchange value does not affect the use values at all. A commodity has the same use value before and after the exchange. Exchange is a social mechanism by which users can get access to use values. But Marx is very critical of this kind of social mechanism. |
| That is, If I realize the use value of commodity A, I find exchange value in A. But If I find a better comodity B that can be used as a substitution for A, I quit using A. In this case A's use value and exchange value diminished or ceased. Therefore, exchange value is determined by not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. |
| I don't quite follow your argument at this point. Did you mean ‘use value’ here instead of exchange value (this is what Marx wrote)? In any case, Marx did not have your above reasoning in mind at all when he wrote the thing with the quantitative determination of use values. |
| However, the latter passage says that a use value can be an exchange value immediately, so that the exchange value is determined by quantitatively. |
| Determined by what? |
| Apparently you were misled here by the translation. The last sentence in the assigned passage of Contribution says nothing other than the corresponding sentence in Capital: that use values are the “carriers,” “bearers” of exchange value. The word “carrier” means: exchange values are not determined by use values, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively. |
| This is because the latter passage does not really care about the usefulness of a commodity. It assumes that a commodity has use value in any case if it is a commodity. Therefore, the quality of a commodity will be unimportant, and the issue in exchange value will be quantitative only. |
| Instead of saying “Marx does not care about the usefulness of a commodity” you should have said “in Marx's theory, the usefulness of a commodity is not what determines its exchange value.” What you call “qualitative”, Marx calls “carrier.” See my message [58] about that. |
|
|
|||||