| This question <70|69> overall <70|72> Hans: <70|73>. |
| Question 63: Marx says that the exchange-relations are characterized by an abstraction from use-values. But use-values do affect the exchange proportions. If a use-value is in high demand compared to supply, then it commands a higher exchange-value. If a competitor brings out a better product, the firm's own product may not sell any more. Can this be reconciled with the claim of abstraction from use-value? |
| [71] Hans: More apples and oranges. This is my second reply to Dange's [69]. |
| What does Marx's statement mean that the exchange relation of commodities is characterized by an abstraction from their use-values? It means the following. Say you have shoe polish and you want diamonds. No problem. You may have to give a lot of tubes of shoe polish for one diamond, but in principle it is possible, with the help of the market, to turn shoe-polish into diamonds. The market is the great equalizer between use-values. |
| This is not only true for individual market participants, but assume that overall demand for a certain good rises. Everybody wants a flat-screen TV. Again no problem. The market is very good at re-allocating resources where there is great demand. Usually the market will be able to supply enough flat-screen TV's after only a short adjustment period. |
| Marx concludes from this that the market exchange-proportions have nothing to do with use-values. Use-values may have an impact in the short run, but they don't in the long run. As far as the market is concerned, one use-value is as good as any other. Something that is as replaceable as the use-values in a market economy cannot have an impact. (If you are holding down a job you are probably able to relate to this.) |
|
|
|||||