| This question <46|51> overall <47|49> Hans: <47|49>. |
| Question 93: If the first Chapter is such a systematic discussion of value, why is it then called “Commodities” and not “Value”? |
| [48] Hans: Two Common Misunderstandings Zeek [41] made some elementary but often-made mistakes, and I hoped that someone would go through the trouble correcting them. Senco [46] sent some critical remarks about Zeek, and I can tell that Senco is trying to think precisely, but Senco tried to unearth some subtle inconsistencies but did not see Zeek's big and glaring errors. |
| The first basic thing Zeek got wrong is that he thinks only articles of final consumption have use value. According to Marx's definition, means of production also have use value sicne they help produce useful things. He says in in the second paragraph of Chapter One 125:2 (look in the Annotations between Questions 23 and 24): |
| Nor does it matter here how the object satisfies these human wants, whether directly as means of consumption, or indirectly as means of production. |
| The other big thing Zeeb got wrong is that he thinks the coat expresses the value of the linen because it is made of linen and therefore it shows how useful linen is. This interpretation is an often-made fallacy, and in the readings which belong to the assigned Questions I say explicitly that Marx's discussion of the form of value should not be understood in this way. |
| I have the collections of all questions and answers from previous Quarters on the web page now as pdf-files, you can reach them all through |
| <http://www.econ.utah.edu/~ehrbar/ec5080.htm>. |
| Start with the later ones; they are better than the earlier ones. Browsing in there might help you avoid some of these elementary mistakes. |
|
|
|||||