| This question <56|176> overall <66|68> Hans: <52|68>. |
| Question 131: In Contribution, [mecw29]270:1, Marx writes: “Although use-values serve social needs and therefore exist within a social context, they do not express a social relation of production.” Why not? |
| [67] Hans: Socially responsible consumption. Toma [56] seems to say that the use-value of a given physical thing is not affected by the social relations under which it is produced or consumed. This is certainly true. Marx's above quote from Contribution continues: |
| For instance, this commodity here, as a use-value, is a diamond. We cannot tell from the physical properties of the diamond that it is a commodity. Wherever it serves as a use-value, aesthetically on the neck of a courtesan or mechanically in the hand of a glass-cutter, it is diamond and not commodity. |
| This makes it much too easy to forget that the consumption of things produced by others places us in a social relationship with those others. People buy toys for their children which are produced by child labor in a different part of the world. People buy gas-guzzling SUV's despite a looming oil shortage and the US dependence on oil in increasingly hostile regions of the earth. As long as they can pay for it, people think they are entitled to the most socially irresponsible consumption. On the other hand, those who do try to be socially responsible are not rewarded but punished for it by the market. In addition, the market deprives them of basic human rights; if they cannot pay people think they are not even entitled to food or shelter. |
| By the way, Toma's answer is difficult to decipher. Some sentences are grammatically incorrect, and others use unfamiliar idioms. For students who have difficulties formulating their answers, the writing center is available free of charge. The writing center has student tutors who can help you with your writing. |
| Call them at 587 9122 or see |
| http://www.writingcenter.utah.edu |
|
|
|||||