| This question <82-1|101-1> overall <96|97> Oshlemesh: <324-12|222>. |
| Question 901: Comparison Capital with Contribution |
| [96-1] Oshlemesh: Both of the passages presented describe a commodity as being the elementary form of the wealth in a society. It satisfies human needs and wants at the minimum. Both sections also describe commodities being determined in a quantitative as well as qualitative manner. Both agree that use values are only realized in use and consumption. When it is said that wealth exists in use values, it states that a commodity has to be a use value but a use value doesn't necessarily have to be a commodity. |
| Take the example of the diamond. Use value exists when the diamond is seen as a piece of jewelry or as a glass cutter. Use value is realized within the object itself, how it is used, or how it is consumed. It was said that use values don't express the social relations of production. They provide a knowledge of the commodity. |
| The two texts say a lot of the same things in different ways. The basic idea is that an item's use value is only held in what you do with it and what you use it for. It doesn't have anything to do with the social factors that are needed to produce the item. It is a prerequisite for the commodity to have use value since a commodity is anything that pretty much makes our lives bearable. A use value doesn't have to be a commodity since anything can have use but we may not need it to make our lives bearable. |
| Both texts end with the idea of exchange value. They tie the idea of use value with wealth in a social form and in an economic bow they bring up the topic of exchange value. |
| Hans: There are some misunderstandings, but also some very good observations. |
| Both of the passages presented describe a commodity as being the elementary form of the wealth in a society. It satisfies human needs and wants at the minimum. |
| It does not say anything about whether these are minimum wants or not. Any wants, either stomach or fancy, can make something a use value. |
| Both sections also describe commodities being determined in a quantitative as well as qualitative manner. |
| Not commodities but use values! The assigned readings are short enough, please read them carefully. |
| Both agree |
| that use values are only realized in use and consumption. When it is said that wealth exists in use values, it states that a commodity has to be a use value but a use value doesn't necessarily have to be a commodity. Take the example of the diamond. Use value exists when the diamond is seen as a piece of jewelry or as a glass cutter. Use value is realized within the object itself, how it is used, or how it is consumed. It was said that use values don't express the social relations of production. |
| Yes, this is an interesting statement in Contribution which is not present in Capital. |
| They provide a knowledge of the commodity. |
| On the contrary, Marx says that knowledge of the use value does not give you knowledge of the commodity. |
| The two texts say a lot of the same things in different ways. The basic idea is that an item's use value is only held in what you do with it and what you use it for. It doesn't have anything to do with the social factors that are needed to produce the item. |
| Right. |
| It is a prerequisite for the commodity to have use value since a commodity is anything that pretty much makes our lives bearable. A use value doesn't have to be a commodity since anything can have use but we may not need it to make our lives bearable. |
| Both texts end with the idea of exchange value. They tie the idea of use value with wealth in a social form and in an economic bow they bring up the topic of exchange value. |
|
|
|||||