| |
[221] Scott: Marx would not agree with Le Trosne. Marx went on to talk about
how value doesn't completely rely on its exchange proportions, which
is all Le Trosne is concerned with. Nature plays a role in the value
of an object, it is not necessarily valuable or unvaluable just
because a person said it is, Marx would also talk about the use value
of an item, an example would be air. Air cannot be exchanged, so
therefore it has no exchange value, and therefore no worth --
according to Le Trosne, but just because it is all around us, does
that make it worthless? No -- the use value of air is inmeasurable, no
one would be alive without it yet we don't have to buy it. But since
air is not made by man, and has no labor put into it -- as far as the
human eye can see, it is a poor example. Rather let us use the example
of a man who builds a chair so he won't have to stand all the time, he
hand-makes the chair and takes his time, but he has absolutely no
intention to sell the chair, the chair contains use value, it can be
sat on, it contains abstract labor even though it won't be sold, but
it could be viewed by Le Trosne as worthless since it will never be
traded. |
|