| This question <41|48> overall <45|47> Senco: <416|110>. |
| Question 93: If the first Chapter is such a systematic discussion of value, why is it then called “Commodities” and not “Value”? |
| [46] Senco: Why commodity, not value? I understand what Zeek is trying to say in [41], and I think he/she is headed in the right direction, but I find his/her answer a bit unclear and redundant. |
| Zeek states in [41] that in chapter one, Marx has been referring to “Commodities rather than Value.” I think this is misleading. Marx talks about both commodities and value. In fact Marx talks a great deal about “Value”. He (Marx) explains that value can take many different forms. In order to determine what the form of value is, the commodity must already exist. To begin to discuss values without commodities would be putting the cart ahead of the horse. And that is why the first chapter is called “Commodities” and not “Value”. Professor Ehrbar says the same thing but in a more precise manner. He writes, |
| The commodity is, since the moment it is made, something twofold, use value and value, the product of useful labor and the congelation of abstract labor. “In the present Section we therefore know the substance of value, and derive the form of value from it” (Ehrbar p. 33). |
| So in [41] Zeek is correct when he/she writes that Marx is talking about commodities and their values. However, this contradicts Zeeks opening sentence. Another flaw in Zeeks' answer is when it is stated also in [41] that “Marx expresses value through commodities.” This wording is also misleading. More precisely, Marx explains the Value is expressed through the commodity. |
| Hans: Your sentence |
| Another flaw in Zeeks' answer is when it is stated also in [41] that... |
| would have benefited from some editing. |
|
|
|||||