| This question <8|8> overall <4|6> Veblen: <411|30>. |
| Question 39: How can one come to the conclusion that exchange value is not something inherent in the commodity? |
| [5] Veblen: inherency of exchange values in the commodity In an attempt to answer this question I felt it was imperative to make salient what exactly was being asked. The most important qualification to be made is that of the word, inherent. Websters defines inherent as, “existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute”. With this understood I will endeavor to answer this question with regard to various interpretations. |
| Firstly, if the question is asked from the perspective of a commodity having an inherent stable proportion in exchange, and this condition reflecting what Marx would call exchangeable value, then one could assume that commodities do not have an inherent exchangeable value. |
| However, if the question concerns the relationship between exchange value and use value it is an entirely different matter. Marx says, “...use values...in the form of society to be considered here are also the material bearers of exchange value”. So assuming that exchange value is dependent on use value, its inherency in the commodity is transitory, and once again you could assume exchange value was not a permenant characteristic of a commodity. |
| Expounding on the ephemeral nature of exchange value requires a concrete elucidation of the facts. At any time and place the exchange value of a commodity, relative to other commodities can fluctuate greatly. Therefore it can be deduced that these fluctuations can result in exchange value not being an inherent, in the strictest context of the word, quality of a commodity. However, it is my personal assertion that exchange value does not have to depend on stable proportion, but merely on its use value to other market participants. Therefore, you could argue that if a commodity had zero exchangeable value it would also lack its, supposed, inherent use value and consequently lack the characteristics that make a commodity a commodity, (something produced for sale or exchange). |
| I would like to discuss one more issue; that of semantics. The attempt to distingish between the exchange value and use value of a commodity, seems to me a complete disavowal of the complete nature of a commodity, its cycle of life, so to say. It seems like an attempt to seperate two intrinsic qualities of an external object just to put them back together again. |
|
|
|||||