| This question <48|55> overall <49|51> Toby: <18|193>. |
| Question 124: If the physical thing is not the commodity but only the “body” or the “bodily form” of the commodity, how should then the commodity itself be defined? |
| [50] Toby: Social aspect of a commodity. The way we generally think of a commodity is misleading. Referring to standard dictionary definitions and generally accepted conceptions may lead us to an understanding that the word “commodity” strictly refers to the finished product. I agree with Zookeeper that a commodity “should be defined as the development and final product of a good or service.” Marx makes a good point that we should look at commodities as the “outcome,” not just an “isolated object.” |
| We live in a material world where society thrives on goods and services. We want the best product at the lowest price, and we rarely, if ever, see how goods are created. We only see the final product sitting on a Wal-Mart shelf, ready to be purchased without knowing how it landed there. We should understand the social aspect of a commodity as well. |
| Hans: Very good. Commodities themselves are only one aspect of a social connection of which we all are part, and we cannot really understand this aspect in isolation. This is a constructive contribution since you are providing justification for Zookeeper's definition. |
|
|
|||||