| This question <74|94> overall <89|91> Clydesdale: <726|165>. |
| Question 117: Can a commodity express its value in the value of another commodity? |
| [90] Clydesdale: Can a commodity express its value in the value of another commodity? First I think that it is important to define what a commodity is. Marx writes that “Commodities are objects” and that “commodities are materializations of value only in so far as they are expressions of the same social unity, human labor, that as values they consist of purely social material, then we will understand that this value material can only manifest itself in the social relation of commoditiy to commodity.” So here Marx states that this value is manifested when we relate commodity to commodity. Marx also states that “the bodily form of the commodity gives access to its use-value.” This is very important because when we look at use-value we look at its usefulness and relevance to human life as a society. |
| So to answer the question I would say that a commodity can express its value in the value of another commodity, but I do not think that it can be answered as easily as a yes or no question. One reason why I say that commodities can express their values through other commodities is through looking at trade. Marx uses the example that 20 yards of linen= 1 coat and 1 coat = 20 yards of linen. Because of this, one would be willing to exchange or trade one for the other depending on what he or she needs at that certain time. For this example one could say that the values of the linen and the value of the coat are similar so yes commodities can express its value in the value of another commodity. With this example it is important to make sure that it says 20 yards of linen is equal to 1 coat and also that 1 coat is equal to 20 yard of linen. |
| For my next point I will use an example of a man who is stranded on an island. All he has to eat is the fruit on the island. Let's say that the only fruits available are bananas and oranges. When the man thinks about what he has to eat he likes both the bananas and the oranges and each have a separate value for the man. Then let's say that the next month not only are there bananas and oranges on the island, but there are also mangos, watermelon, and peaches. I am sure that the value of each fruit has changed to the man and this is only true because he takes into account the value of all of the fruits together. So while looking at one commodity it helps express the value of another commodity. So what I am trying to say is that different commodities give us different utilities and satisfaction, but this utility of value is dependent on the other commodities available. It is kind of like realizing that one will not realize how happy he or she really was until something bad happens. Without sadness how can one realize what happiness really is? This is why diversity is so important. |
| I also think that by reading ElGuey's email that it is important to look at a statement by Marx. He says “The second form of the commodity must therefore be the form in which the value contained in the commodity expresses itself, it must be a form of value.” |
| Marx continues and says “the value relations of the commodities their exchange relations on the surface of the economy, contain an expression of their value.” So here it states that it is an expression of the value of the commodity, but that also helps define the actual value of each commodity. |
| The last quote I will use by Marx says “The value relation between two commodities yields therefore the simplest expression of the value of a commodity.” By looking at this quote and analyzing it one can see that the value of a commodity can be expressed in the value of another commodity; although Marx does tell us that the word yields does not mean “is”, but that it has the same meaning as “contained” or “embedded.” |
|
|
|||||