| This question <105|435> overall <107|114> Inca: <49|190>. |
| Question 113: Coat and linen are qualitatively different use-values. Are they exchanged because their use-values are different, or because the labors in them are different? |
| [108] Inca: In the text there are a couple of statements that I would like to use in order to answer this question. The first one said that “... commodities can only be exchanged if their use-values are different,...” The answer is implied in the statement; so, commodities are exchanged because the use-values are different. | Originally: Econ 6080 In the text there are couple statements that I would like to use in order to answer this question. The first one said that “... commodities can only be exchanged if their use-values are different,...” The answer is implicated in the statement; so, commodities are exchange because the use-values are different. |
| At the same time in the production of these two different commodities “Labor is called here the mediator, not the creator of the use-value,...” In this case our two commodities are qualitatively different use-values, so also are “...the activities that mediate their determinate being, tailoring and weaving.” | At the same time in the production of this two different commodities “Labor is called here the mediador, not the creator of the use-value,..” In this case our two commodities are qualitatively different use-values, so “...the activities that mediate their determinate being, tailoring and weaving.” |
| A complementary comment related to the labor aspect: Marx extends his comments to the point that considers that this differentiation of use-values brings the social division of labor. This is self-explanatory since there are different use-values to produce; therefore, the social division is needed to produce these different commodities. | A complementary comment related to the labor aspect; Marx extends his comments to the point that considers that this differenciation of use-values bring the social division of labor. This is self explanatory since there are different use-values commodities to produce; therefore, the social division is needed to produce these differenciated commodities. |
| Hans: Regarding content, I would have liked you to explain a little better the conclusions you are drawing from the quoted passages, and also say whether these conclusions agree or disagree with the earlier answers to this question. |
| Regarding form, many things need to be said. I changed your “implicated” to “implied,” and your second use of “differentiated” to “different.” |
| “Implicated” means “culpably involved”; "all those concerned in the bribery case have been identified"; "named three officials implicated in the plot"; "an innocent person implicated by circumstances in a crime". Even if you use it as a synonym for imply or entail, as in “his evasiveness implicated complicity,” this still suggests wrongful involvement in it. My sources here were |
| http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/implicated |
| http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implicated |
| http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/implicate |
| There is also a difference between “differentiated” and “different.” Something that is differentiated is not just different but it has purposely been made different, or shown to be different. Again the same three web resources are helpful here: |
| http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/differentiated |
| http://www.thefreedictionary.com/differentiated |
| http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/differentiate |
| Other edits: Commodities are exchange (should be “exchanged”), of this two different commodities (should be “these”), mediador, last sentence in second paragraph was malformed, colon instead of semicolon in first sentence of third paragraph, differenciation bring the social division (should be “brings,” and “differentiation” seems to be a more common spelling than “differenciation.”) |
|
|
|||||