| This question <64|68> overall <64|66> Rollingrock: <14|118>. |
| Question 75: Why can commodities not express their values in their own use values? |
| [65] Rollingrock: The characteristics of commodity Every society has economy, every society has production and consumption. The commodity is a special kind of goods. It is the characteristic of capitalism but it does not only exist in capitalism. The commodity is universal and it is produced in the capitalist system. The function is commodity include use value, exchange value and value. |
| The commodity is something that has no use value for its producer. In capitalism people do not produce something they want. Although the commodity has no use value for its producer, but it does have use value for someone else. therefore, you have to enter the market and sell your commodity to get the money, then you will be able to use the money to buy the commodity you want. Every economic use value is to be used and that is what economy all about. Only the characteristics of capitalism we have commodity which not only has use value but also has exchange value and value. Under capitalism we enter market twice, once we have to sell commodity to get money, secondly we can use the money to buy commodity that we really want to consume. We do not consume directly under the capitalism but we consume indirectly. We have to perform two operation. We have to sell which we produce and turn on to market to buy what we want. |
| Hans: I think you tried to follow the instructions I gave in message [64], but you ended up answering the question: why can commodities not be valuable to their producers by virtue of their own use values? In the assigned readings, “expression of value” is used with a very specific social meaning. |
| Rollingrock wrote back: |
| I received your message [64] after I had sent out my answer for question 75. That means I had wrote down the answer before the instructions you gave in message [64] showed up. If the answer did follow your instructions, it was just a coincidence. Thank you! |
| Hans's reply: |
| This is why I wrote “I think”, i.e., I was not quite sure. Thank you for the clarification. |
|
|
|||||