| This question <40|40> overall <41|43> Hans: <41|45>. |
| Question 65: Use-value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange-value is its quantity. Right or wrong? |
| [42] Hans: Some hair-splitting remarks about quality and quantity. The answer here is: “wrong”. Both use-value and exchange-value have their own qualities and quantities. For practical human activity, the main aspect of a use-value is its quality, and the main aspect of an exchange-value is its quantity. This is what is correct about the claim in question 65. But nevertheless, use-values also have their quantities, and exchange-values their qualities. |
| ElGuey is therefore mistaken when he thinks in [40] that the answer is “right”. He backs it up with two Marx quotes. Let's look at those Marx quotes in more detail. The first is: |
| “When treating of use-value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron.” |
| Here Marx simply clarifies his definition of use-value. A cup of milk is a different use-value than a gallon of milk (they are quantitatively different although qualitatively identical). Use-values have qualities and quantities. If the statement in question 65 were correct, then the quantities of use-values would be exchange-values. This is not what Marx means here. |
| The first portion of the second Marx quote is: |
| “As use-values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, ... |
| This means the main aspect of a commodity, when it functions as a use-value, is its quality. This does not mean that it has no quantity of its own, just that this quantity is secondary to its quality. |
| ... but as exchange-values they are merely different quantities, ... |
| In other words, the exchange-values of x amount of corn and y amount of iron do not differ from each other more than the the use-values of a cup of milk and a gallon of milk: one can get identity by simply changing the quantities of either the corn or the iron or both. This does not mean exchange-values are quantities without qualities. In the conclusion of this sentence, Marx makes implicit use of this quality: |
| ... and consequently do not contain an atom of use-value.” |
| The argument here is: since exchange-values differ from each other only in their quantities, they must have uniform qualities. The quality of the exchange-value can therefore not be equal to the quality of the use-values, since the qualities of the use-values are not uniform. |
| What is then the quality of exchange-value? One might be tempted to say that the quality of exchange-value is abstract human labor. Things are exchangeable because they contain labor. This is not quite right because it is a reductionist answer: it digs too deep and ignores the layers cut through when digging. If one wanted to give a short answer it would be more correct to say that the quality of exchange-value is money. The long answer is: Exchange-value is a social relation between the commodities which is the surface manifestation of the value in the commodities. This is the quality of exchange-value. The quality of the underlying value, on the other hand, is abstract human labor. |
|
|
|||||