| This question <78|84> overall <80|82> MK: <80|174>. |
| Question 73: Use-value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange-value is its quantity. Right or wrong? |
| [81] MK: To elaborate on the comments of Adamwest [78] -- and for my own clarification -- I wish to add a bit. |
| If I understand correctly the number of ways in which a thing can be utilized is in fact what determines its use-value-- and in fact the use-value is what determines exchange value. So the exchange value of a given thing can be said to be the proportion in which a given number of use-values of one thing that can be exchanged for a given number of use-values of another thing. |
| So the question reads, “Use-value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange-value is its quantity. Right or wrong?” |
| If in fact we take “quality” as a representation of “qualities” as in ‘characteristics’ of the thing, this seems correct. But I think this is a little confusing (perhaps because I am over-analyzing or just plain do not understand the material) because it implies in the word quality that we are assessing the very quality of a thing, and I don't believe this is the correct usage of the word quality as Marx intended. It seems that qualities rather is the very charateristics of the thing that determines the use-value. Quality, as in how well a particular item was or is made seems to imply that that particular item, though it has the same use-value as its seemingly identical counterpart, is of better quality. And this suggestion implies that the particular item required more, or more skilled, or greater amounts of labor. |
| For example--if a t-shirt at store X would sell for $3.00, and upon assessment one determined that the t-shirt was made of a rather thin fabric that tends to lose its shape over time, and perhaps was more prone to tear than its counterpart available at store Y for $8.00. (The store Y tshirt was made of a thicker fabric that resisted tearing and held shape well.) |
| So on the cuff these t-shirts seem to have identical use-value, or qualities, or utility. But their quality is not identical. |
| Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree and someone can easily expel my confusion. |
| Exchange value is the form of appearance. (I think.) Because value in and of itself is something that we can not directly observe, we cannot see it or touch it, its form of appearence is in the exchange value. Exchange value is then of course a measurable quantity for any given use value. So I agree that exchange value is in fact quantity. Or at least expresses itself by means of quantity. |
| Hans: Very thoughtful. You seem to say that the true quality of the product is often not apparent when it lies on the store shelves. Therefore people use the price to judge quality. |
| But you are right, there are two meanings of the word “quality”, it can mean the properties in general, or how well something is done. Marx uses it in the first meaning, not the second. With respect to the question at hand you are therefore indeed barking up the wrong tree. |
|
|
|||||