File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/97-02-10.192, message 55


Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 15:13:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: A Question re: DK


On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Russell Pearson wrote:

> Justin writes:
> > Use-value is what things are good for in terms of their intrinsic
> properties. 
> 
> How can this be so when uses are so multiple and individual: if my needs
> can spring as much from my stomach as from fancy, how can they be satisfied
> by the intrinsic properties of a thing?

If the thing doesn't have some intrinsic properties in virtue of which it
can satisfy my wants, how can it satisfy them? Food nourishes because of
its chemical structure and our physiology; shoes protect our feet because
of the resiliency of the materials used to make them, etc. Obviously the
instrinc properties in virtue of which something satiisfies my wants may
not satisfy yours, even if you want the same thing. (You may want food for
its taste rather than because you are hungry, say.)

But perhaps your point is that there are some wants we have which can only
be satisfied by the social properties of things, such as wants for
prestige commodities such as Jaguars or Corvettes. Marx's theory of
use-value does not in fact handle these very well. That is a good poinyt.

> In this there is the singular of the intrinsic and the multiple of uses-
> surely a contradiction- or is it one that can be dialectically overcome...?
> Russ.

There is no singularity to the intrinsic properties of a thing. Diamonds
are intrinsically hard, also intrinsically bright (when cut and polished
and in light), also intrinsically carboniferous, etc. You may say they
have a sum total of intrinsic properties, which is singular, but this is
likely to be practically infinite.

--Justin 




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005