| This question <97|93> overall <98|100> Hans: <92|102>. |
| 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.) |
| [99] Hans: Incommensurable use values In [93], Fritz is puzzling whether different use values can be compared. He is trying out different arguments. For instance: If a use value is a yes-or-no proposition (something is either a use value or it is not), then use values can not be compared. But this is not what Marx means by “a” use value. “A” use value is a useful thing. |
| Then, Fritz tries the definition use value of a thing = personal gratification or satisfaction derived from the thing. |
| 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 is also not how Marx uses the word use value. Think of the use value of something as a bundle of useful properties. Brighton is not very steep terrain, a high speed chairlift. Snowbird is a tram, large and usually steep terrain, slow chairlifts. Do you like to sit on a high speed quad or stand in a tram? Some aspect of the use values can be compared (steepness of the terrain, speed of the lifts), others cannot (the view down regulator Johnson in the evening light). All these are aspects of the use value. Use value cannot be reduced to a level of utility. |
| Fritz uses the following pasage from the Annotations to back his claim that use value is subjective satisfaction. But this passage is misleading: |
| 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. |
| I have to formulate this better, and I thank Fritz for pointing out the ambiguity. By the relationship between the thing and human wants I did not mean how much I like a certain property of a thing, but how the physical properties of the thing affect humans. |
| Skyler's [97] addresses the same question. Skyler writes: |
| The physical properties (physical body) or appearance of a commodity is its use-value. |
| This first sentence is right. But in the following sentences Skyler switches over to Fritz's definition of use value as a yes-or-no proposition: |
| The use and consumption of the commodity shows the use-value. Quantity is another factor that helps to gauge the usefulness of a commodity. The amount of the commodity must beable to meet the needs of the individual desiring the commodity to be useful. |
| The last sentence does not make much sense to me: |
| Use-value is that physical body that becomes available to the consumer without regard for the labor put into creating it. |
|
|
|||||