| This question <63|68> overall <66|68> Pepper: <507|158>. |
| Question 98: If the first Chapter is such a systematic discussion of value, why is it then called “Commodities” and not “Value”? |
| [67] Pepper: Commodities and Values Just like Goose commented in his submission [60], although chapter 1 is such a systematic discussion of value, it is called “Commodities” and not “Value” because value cannot exist without commodities. |
| Use value and value are just factors of a commodity. Use values are all the different and possible uses of a commodity. Things with use value have exchange value, which makes it possible for commodities to be traded or sold. Value is that social property that makes things exchangeable. Value is derived from abstract social labor and this is what makes them exchangeable. |
| When Goose quotes Hans in saying that “When Marx says ‘commodity’ he does not only think of a useful thing but also of the social connection in which this this is produced”, I don't believe Goose is using this correctly to support his argument. Like I said above use value and value are just factors of commodities. Marx creates value and use value out of commodities; he does not create commodities out of value nor does he create a value system, as stated by Hans in [63]. |
| Hans: Good point, clearly made and well formatted. It is ungraded because the submission deadline for Question 98 was already over; but since it continued the discussion started earlier it was forwarded to the class anyway. |
|
|
|||||