| This question <156|156> overall <155|158> Mjk: <784|158>. |
| Question 52: Are there other places in Capital where Marx says that the exchange values seem accidental? |
| [156] Mjk: The main area where Marx said anything about exchange-value is “accidental”, which means that it is determined by a multitude of distinction forces. Marx also has pointed out a lot suggestions by saying that exchange-value is a social, not individual. For example, if two people have decided to exchange items, which have not been changed, this does not give exchange-value, i.e a dog with watch. |
| Another thing that I found out in Marx's understanding about exchange-value is that he said that exchange-value is seemed to be something accidental and purely relative-------that means it does not come from the commodity themselves but also from the conditions of each exchange. |
| There was one time I heard people (traders) exchanging goods and services by another goods and services. However, for example, the first person needed a cow and the second person wanted to get a corn, in this case, they exchanged cow with corn. Each of them has a greater utility and happier when exchanging cow by corn. |
| Finally, I believe that exchange-value of a commodity should not be derived from its use-values as Marx put it. We could know that what Marx meant by saying “accidental” and “Purely relative” have something to do with huge number of forces in the market conditions. |
| Hans: You seem to have language difficulties which prevent you from understanding the question asked. This is also true for your [158]. |
|
|
|||||