Question 1 What did Marx mean with his formu - University of Utah

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 19
[56] Gza: (content A– form 90%) use-value debate. i think everyone has good arguments
about the whole debate of whether use is constructed in the utilization of an object
or if use-value exists independent of actual use. however, i think that Marx isn’t necessarily
drawing a dichotomy between the constructionalist camp and the ontological advocates.
instead he starts his argument by suggesting that use-value can only be realized when a physical
commodity is in hand and is thus utilized, a type of constructionalism that suggests that
use-value is in a way made through use. However, is argument then progresses by arguing
that whenever someone uses something, the action of use presupposes a value that would
logically have to preexist the initial use, or else why would the person pick up the object and
try to use it. in a way Marx seems to offer a type of permutation between the binary schools
of thought. it seems that we would all have to agree that things exist on some level, the
question comes down to whether essence precedes existence or existence preceding essence.
based on our linguistic frame of understanding, which is somewhat limited, logically i have
to assume that essence/things and therefore use-value precedes or comes before the ability
to use.
i could be wrong and am sure that many would great arguments against that theory, i’m
not sure if i fully believe it myself, but it seems to at lest logically answer the debate, even if
it is on some level a permutation.
Hans: I realize that this was supposed to be an informal comment, but even in such informal comments you should
work on making your writing clearer, so that it can be understood also by those who are not familiar with the
philosophical terms you are using.
Message [56] referenced by [60]. Next Message by Gza is [65].
[59] Pete: graded B weight 50% The use-value is both in the object and in the user. A
hammer, for instance, has no use as a hammer to a man with no hands. As a door stop, for
this man, the hammer has value.
Use-value is determined by the user. The saying, “One man’s garbage is another’s treasure.”
Society can set a value on an object for the usual use but an individual does not have to
use the object for its usual use, therefore, the value is determined by the party that has the
object and the party that wants the object.
Hans: Sometimes Marx talks about the use-value of an object for its user; but in most cases he talks about the
use-value of an object without regard of particular users. A hammer is still a use-value for both hammering and as
a doorstop whether its owner has hands or not.
However Marx’s concept of use-value is relative to society. If a certain plant can be used as a medicine but
society has not yet discovered this property, then the plant does not have the use-value of a medicine.
In Marx’s theory it is not true that exchange-values are determined by the use-values.
Next Message by Pete is [72].
[60] Hans: Use-value debate. According to Gza [56], Marx argues as follows:
when ever someone uses something, the action of use presupposes a value
that would logically have to preexist the initial use, or else why would the
person pick up the object and try to use it.
In other words, people first think about it what they need, and then try the objects which
might satisfy this need. This is not Marx. In Marx’s view, people do not think first but act
20 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
first. In his notes on Wagner, look at the pdf file wagner.pdf in our collection, p. 538:6/o,
Marx writes:
They begin, like every animal, by eating, drinking, etc., that is not by “finding
themselves” in a relationship, but actively behaving, availing themselves
of certain things of the outside world by action, and thus satisfying
their needs. (They start, then, with production.) By the repetition of this
process the capacity of these things to “satisfy their needs” becomes imprinted
on their brains; men, like animals, also learn “theoretically” to distinguish
the outer things which serve to satisfy their needs from all other.
At a certain stage of evolution, after their needs, and the activities by which
they are satisfied, have, in the meanwhile, increased and further developed,
they will linguistically christen entire classes of these things which they
distinguished by experience from the rest of the outside world.
The name which people give to these things is “use-value” or “goods.” From this description
it is very clear that the thing comes first, and only after humankind has established a
practical relationship between themselves and the thing by using it, have they come up with
the concept of use-value.
Next Message by Hans is [70].
[77] Tiny: Late contribution. I’ll be honest. I am not too familiar with Karl Marx and
his theories. I was hoping to learn more from discussions, the instructor and with time.
I believe both are legitimate answers. I believe items or products have value because of
labor and use for what is needed. However, although they may the same amount of labor,
two different products can be produced offering different outcomes for productivity. The
example given was metal and how the amount can be different in two different regions or
areas (rich and poor).
Lawn mower - people need them and use them, so they have value. If we didn’t have
lawn and lived in the desert, then they wouldn’t have very much value at all. They would
have some value because of the labor it took to produce them.
Money is one of the things in which people use because it does have use-value. We have
given money a form of value-maybe not because it requires a ton of labor to produce (as
gold or metal would and did), but because we have given it a form of value to which we
are able to exchange commodities. As the demand for money is increased, the value or
common element it has with other monies around the world, changes. Vice versa for when
the demand decreases. Interesting enough, money may not require a lot time and energy
(labor) to produce, it still can have equal or more value than an object that may have taken
more time to produce. For example; maybe jewelry. Some cost more than it took to produce.
I do agree that some jewelry may have more value or may have taken more time because it
may involve stones -such as diamonds- because of the labor it takes to generate it.
So, in essence, I believe that both are reasonable answers. Value requires labor, but also
the use and need for the object.