| This question <52|52> overall <43|45> MissingMiddleToe: <633|136>. graded A– |
| Question 188: Marx says that the commodity whose value is to be expressed, counts immediately only as a use-value, and the commodity in which that value is to be expressed, counts immediately only as exchange-value. Isn't it just the opposite? The linen, whose value is to be expressed, counts for the linen weaver as exchange-value, and the coat, in which the value of the linen is expressed, counts for the linen weaver as use-value. |
| [44] MissingMiddleToe: This question deals with the definition of use-value and exchange-value and how they are related to commodities. Is the linen expressed as a use-value or an exchange-value? What about the coat? Marx says that the commodity whose value is to be expressed counts immediately only as a use-value. The commodity in which that value is to be expressed counts immediately only as an exchange-value. Is he right? |
| To find out, first we must understand the most basic difference between use-value and exchange-value. At the surface the answer is simple--one deals with use and one with exchange. The core definition, however, is a bit more involved. In 132:5, Marx states “The use-value of every commodity is the result of a specific purposeful productive activity, i.e., useful labor.” Labor is embodied into every commodity and by using that labor to create a useful good, that labor is transferred into the use-value of the commodity. [143:1] This means that use-value is a characteristic found within a commodity and is independent of all other commodities. Exchange value is not contained within a good. In order for a commodity to have an exchange value, it must be compared to another object of value for which it could be exchanged. 20 yards of linen has a use-value because it contains a certain quantity of labor. Linen, however does not contain any exchange-value until you introduce something to compare it to. 20 yards of linen=1 coat does contain an exchange value. Marx backs this up in 142:3/o where he states “Yet the coat itself, the body of the commodity ‘coat’, is purely a use-value. A coat does not express value any more than does the first piece of linen we come across. This proves only that the coat counts for more when inside the value relation with the linen than outside it, just as many a human counts for more when inside a gold-braided uniform than outside it.” |
| How does this definition help us with the question at hand? The only difference between the two statements regarding use-value and exchange-value is the subtle wording of “commodity whose value is to be expressed” compared to “commodity in which that value is to be expressed.” The first of these, “commodity whose value is to be expressed” is only talking about one commodity. A single commodity cannot have an exchange-value. Exchange value can only exist between two comparable commodities. On the other hand, a “commodity in which that value is to be expressed,” is talking about two commodities. One commodity in which the value of another commodity is to be expressed. This does represent an exchange-value between two commodities. |
| After analyzing Marx's point of view, what about our other option? “The linen, whose value is to be expressed, counts for the linen weaver as exchange-value.” This statement only talks about the linen. Since the linen has a certain amount of labor in it, it does contain value. This shows through as use-value, but not as exchange-value until it is compared to another good. The linen, therefore, cannot be counted for the linen weaver as exchange-value. The other claim is “The coat, in which the value of the linen is expressed, counts for the linen weaver as use-value.” This relationship between the coat and the linen has nothing to do with how they are to be used. It is simply a relationship of exchange. The linen weaver looks at the amount of labor in the linen and compares it to that of the coat. They then reach a level of exchange (20 yards of linen=1 coat) that is backed up by the market. |
| Through this subtle difference, we have found that Marx is indeed correct. The commodity whose value is to be expressed, counts immediately only as a use-value, and the commodity in which that value is to be expressed, counts immediately only as exchange-value. This stems from the definition of use-value and exchange-value and their relationship to commodities. |
|
|
|||||