| This question <50|60> overall <54|56> Blacksun: <634|282-1>. graded A |
| 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? |
| [55] Blacksun: A commodity has been previously defined as something produced for sale or exchange. Production in this case means the input of labor. As long as what's produced has use-value, the labor being put into this object gives it value. Value is the most important aspect of the commodity, because value makes a commodity exchangeable. Therefore I propose that a commodity should be defined in terms of value rather than by its physical being. My new definition of a commodity is: Any form of use-value produced for exchange. |
| The reason for this definition is that any commodity must have use-value in order to be exchanged. I want to place emphasis on the fact that an object has exchange-value because of what it can do, not because of what it is. As an example of why this is, imagine a substance called “element x” that has been discovered and has the property that anything coated with it becomes invisible. However, no one is aware of this property. No one would sell element x because it seems to have no use, but if its use was known it then gains exchange-value. |
| Since a commodity has to be physical in order to be exchangeable, the physical aspect can not be ignored. But the physical aspect is implied by its exchangeability, so it clearly is not as fundamental to a commodity as its value. Another reason for rejecting a definition based on the physical body of a commodity is that the only way to define a commodity's physical properties is by saying that it has physical properties. These physical properties ultimately lead to use-value, so once again value proves to be more relevant. |
| For these reasons I have chosen to define a commodity as any use-value produced for exchange. |
| Hans: This is a good definition. |
|
|
|||||