| This question <65|65> overall <94|98> Hans: <94|106>. |
| Question 35: What is the meaning of “natural” in the term “natural worth”? |
| [97] Hans: Unnatural worth. Originally Gza sent his [65] to the free discussion list, and he will get credit for it as his obligatory submission to econ-5080 in the first period. But I thought this was a question worth discussing on our homework list, therefore I moved it into the archive of the homework list. |
| The term “natural worth” does not come from Marx himself. Marx quotes Locke here. Marx would use the word “use-value” instead. Gza was wondering whether the word “natural” in “natural worth” is appropriate, since use-values are certainly not something that pre-exists society. |
| One can argue that use-value is something natural, since most use-values are a relationship between the physical characteristics of certain object and humans as natural beings, for instance food satisfies the natural need of humans to eat. On the other hand, the culinary skills in the preparation of food, and the appreciation of food, has a strong social component in it too. In other use-values (the use-value of a Harry Potter book), the social component is much more dominant. But if one compares it with exchange-value, use-values are much more natural. |
| This last paragraph was a defense of Locke's use of the word “natural”; Marx himself does not call use-values natural. |
|
|
|||||