| |
[134] Gilligan: values compared to use values Well a commodity cannot express its value through its use value, because
they are two different components of a commodity. When one thinks of a
commodity they must realize that it carries two values, one being its use
value and the other being its value or better stated its exchange value.
A commodity cannot express its own value through a use value because it
still isn't a social commodity. Something has use value if it creates
some type of utility but this use value does not carry any form of
monetary value often called its exchange value. As marx states they must
take the “form” of a commodity. Like I stated above the commodity has
double form its natural form or its use value, and a social form in
which the exchange value is created.
I can create something that gives me a great amount of utility and by
this I have created something with use value, but that item that I have
created must be socially acceptable if I even think about placing an
exchange value on it, not until the item has been accepted socially can I
truely express the value of the commodity. Even though something gives
utility and has a use value doesn't say that the item has value. The use
value and the value of something are two different components that make
up what we call a commodity. So for a commodity to express its value
through its use value, I'am sorry to say this but it can't be done.
X |
|