| This question <289|4> overall <293|295> Tomb: <721|295>. |
| Question 54: The use-value of a commodity is the utility one gets from using it; the exchange-value is the utility one gets from using those things one can trade the commodity for. Right or wrong? |
| [294] Tomb: use value and exchange value. The statement is true. What determines the use-value of a commodity is the utility one gets from using it. That use-value also has a large bearing on what the exchange value of a commodity is. Marx claims that use-value is the “material carriers” of exchange value. However, the exchange value isn't directly taken from the use value of an item, but rather from the utility one gets from using those things one can trade the commodity for. A great example would be if everyone was given bread for free. Bread would have a use-value, but it would not have an exchange value because nobody would be willing to trade another commodity for bread. Bread only obtains exchange value if it can be exchanged for a commodity which has use-value. |
| Hans: With the term “material carrier” Marx meant something much weaker than the use-value determining the exchange-value, as you said in your in-class answer, or it having a large bearing on the exchange-value as you are saying here. On the contrary, the influence of use-value on exchange-value is very weak. The use-value is a condition for the exchange-value without determining it. Just like the food you eat is a condition for you being alive but does not determine what you do. |
| Therefore when you say that “the exchange value isn't directly taken from the use value of an item,” I agree. But then you continue that it is taken from the use-value of the other things then my agreement stops. You should simply look at exchange-value as a relationship between commodities. A commodity has a high exchange-value if it can be traded for large amounts of other commodities. The use-value of these other commodities is not being considered when you talk about exchange-value. |
|
|
|||||