| This question <99|97> overall <92|94> Fritz: <78|50>. |
| Exam Question 32: What is the use value of a commodity? What, by contrast, is “a” use value? (Note that the same word has two different meanings.) |
| [93] Fritz: “the” vs “a” use-value “a” use value |
| Either a person is alive (yes), or it is dead (no). Either Dr. Ehrbar ate breakfast before coming to school (yes), or he did not (no). Either a thing has use value (yes), or it does not (no). |
| Use value is a state of being. And thus, it is inaccurate to measure the amount of use value derived from a thing. One cannot compare a “yes” with a “no.” |
| A lift ticket to Snowbird is a use value. |
| A lift ticket to Brighton is a use value. |
| If I state that I prefer Snowbird to Brighton, I have compared my desires of the properties I attribute to the Snowbird and Brighton ski experiences. This, however, is not a comparison of use values -- it is something else. |
| One cannot compare a use value. It either is “a” use value (yes), or it is not “a” use value (no). |
| “the” use value |
| What causes a person to be alive? Why did Dr. Ehrbar eat breakfast before coming to school? Why is a use value useful? |
| When speaking of “the” use value of a thing, one is addressing what properties a person or society attributes to the thing to cause it to be useful. |
| Dr Ehrbar writes: BB12:col1: “The use value of a thing is therefore not a property of the thing, but a relationship between the thing and human wants which is attributed to the thing as if it were a property of the thing.” |
| One of the strangest examples of use value can found in the children's story of the Emperor who had no clothes. A little boy sold an invisible suit of clothing to the Emperor. The Emperor believed he was receiving the most beautiful suit of clothing ever constructed (although everybody else knew it was made of nothing but air). And yet, this invisible suit was a use value to the Emperor. |
| IMHO, Dr. Ehrbar's [ID 79] incorrectly accepts one of Toad's points [60]. |
| Things that have different qualities cannot be measured on the same scale. This would be comparing apples and oranges. All you can say is: |
| > The use value of the material is DIFFERENT THAN that of the coat because the two kinds of labor are of different qualities. The quality of the labor in the material is DIFFERENT THAN the quality of the labor in the coat. |
| It is not a necessary condition that a thing contain “different qualities” of labor to elicit a different relationship between the thing and the human desire for it, i.e., for “the” use values to be different. |
| The strongest proof of this can be found in Marx R:131:2 “A thing can be a use-value without being a value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not mediated through labour. Air, virgin soil, natural meadows, unplanted forests, etc. fall into this category.” |
| Neither the untouched forest or meadow contain labor and yet the relationship and desire we have for the forest and meadow are different. “The” use value we attribute to these different things are different. |
| have “a” and “the” nice day. =) |
| Franz |
|
|
|||||