Is Marx contradicting himself here?

Is Marx contradicting himself here?

" As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value. " - Capital volume chapter one section one

"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value. " - also Capital volume chapter one section one

He seems to be claiming that use value has nothing to do with exchange yet commodity cannot have an exchange value without having a use value. Meaning they are closely related.

Hows that a contradiction? Use value exists on its own. Exchange value relies upon use value to exist, but use value doesnt rely upon exchange to exist.

Value is determined by socially necessary labor time, so if something is not socially necessary it has no value, as i understand it

get a leftcom in here

and yeah what the first guy said, use value is independent of exchange value (which is interchangeable with value in Capital)

Yes, and no. Yes, because a commodity is useful for exchange, that is, exchange-value IS a use-value itself; thus, use-value is likewise inseparable from exchange. No, however, if like Marx you misunderstand use-value to be an asocial value of mere desire for consumption. Economic use-value is something entirely different to the general consumption of objects which can be done outside of society as much as outside economy.


Use-value as the economic category does not exist on its own, it only exists as an exchange value. Marx is here confusing use-value with a non-economic meaning just as he confuses labor with a non-economic meaning.

Are you actually back?

He use to have a trip, this could be anyone trying to impersonate him. Either way I wish he didn't come back, he's a massive pseud.

That's not what socially necessary labour time is. SNLT has nothing to do with needs, it's the time necessary by the average worker in society to produce the commodity.

"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value." - that's how it works in society. For an object to become a commodity, a necessary requirement is that it is useful. "As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value." That's describing the viewpoint of the ideal model capitalist, who doesn't give a shit about what a thing is useful for aside for how much he gets in exchange.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the classic economists and Marx did not come up with any stories about adding happiness points together for scoring piles of things, the description of a use value is a plain text description of what a thing is useful for. Comparing different piles according to some one-dimensional measure of happiness is a way of thinking completely alien to them.

You get more retarded every post. This is fucking mentioned in one of the footnotes in which he cites Aristotle, you stupid sophist. Now go back to masturbating about Hegel, you sure understood him.

It's like you don't read what I say.

If by use-value you mean something non-economic, yes, they are separate. If you mean strictly economic use-value, no, they're not separate.

1) The commodity is a consumptive use-value, not for me, but for someone else. That is how economic use-value works, it must be social and not personal.

2) A commodity is a use-value for me as an exchange-value. Is that not a utility?

I've read more Marx than you.

Sure and? Is this supposed to BTFO Marx, little nitpickings?

No, it's just a simple logical inconsistency. Marx equivocates use-value with general utility beyond economics, but in the >theory of capital< use-value is only that which is commodity. Capital >has no use for non-exchangeable things

It's not a contradiction at all. Utility is just an precondition for value, that's all. Once the precondition is met, the value becomes free floating depending on the SNLT to create the commodity (it might well be 0, at which point the value disappears), independent of the actual utility. Utility precedes value without determining it. Which implies you can have utility without value (something you should be acutely aware of every time you breathe in - air has a high utility, but no value as of yet), but never value without utility (however subjective).

I was at a metal show yesterday and my neck is really sore. What do I have to propose?

imagine being this misinformed

Well I don't have to imagine being this incapable of thinking dialectically, you show me the incredulity and perplexion of someone who can't.

...

Marx: Capital vol.1, Chapter 2: Exchange

Fuck I meant this for

He's right on that. Economic use-value doesn't exist on its own.

Well, I take it back then (been almost 4 years since I last looked at Capital). Marx was a good boi, he just says things in different places.

There's no contradiction there, in the second quote he talks about the commodity as a whole, in the first its two forms.

So the first quote basically says that if the commodity has use-value to you, you are going to see it as different qualities (which give it its use-value), meanwhile if it's only for exchange, you will see it only as amounts of exchange-value without any trace of the qualities.