| This question <79|53> overall <40|43> Gza: <40|56>. graded A |
| Question 38: Do things have use-value because people use them, or do people use things because they have use-value? |
| [41] Gza: Although Marx seems very clear that use-value depends on its reference to human needs and that the usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value as noted on page 16 of the course packet. Marx also points out that the use-value of a thing in question is related to its usefulness which assumes that someone is or will use it. However, the question is framed in a way to question if Marx would suggest that the act of using a thing creates use-value in and of itself. Although Marx does argue that someone has to be in physical possession of a thing in order to have the thing manifest its use-value, Marx illustrates that the action of using a thing assumes it already had a use. Marx's analysis of a person needing the physical thing to take advantage of its use-value presupposes that the thing in question already has use-value but it is not made visible until someone utilizes the thing, meaning it is realized/actualized. Therefore, things not only have use-value because people use them but the mere existence of a commodity assumes a certain use-value inherent within the thing in question. This is supported in Marx's use of the word “actualizes” or “realized” where he says that “use-value actualizes (realized) itself only by use or consumption” (126:1). His use of the word “actualize” (realized) clearly illustrates that the action of using a thing makes manifest the use-value inherent within the thing. |
| Noted on page 17 of the course packet is the observation that “things must have certain properties which are useful for humans before people can use them,” which suggests that use-value is always presupposed in the physical being of a thing. Marx never suggests that things exclusively have “use” when they are used, or that using a thing creates its use-value as a constructionalist would argue. Rather, Marx is suggesting that if a person uses something the person assumes that the “something” in question has a usefulness and therefore a use-value. |
| Furthermore, Marx says that a commodity's physical presence makes manifests its use-value and the “characteristic of a commodity does not depend on whether appropriating its useful properties”. Marx here seems to link an ontological essence to commodities and argues that a thing's being assumes a use-value, rather than existence preceding the thing's essence. |
| Hans: You have to be careful to explain yourself better, and not use words which many class participants are not likely to know. You write: |
| Marx is suggesting that if a person uses something the person assumes that the ‘something’ in question has a usefulness and therefore a use-value. |
| Not only does the user assume this, but it can be argued that such an inference is most likely to be true. If it is not, i.e., if the thing is not useful for the user, the user will notice sooner or later. |
|
|
|||||