Karl Marx has contributed many social theories on capitalism during his life in the 1800s. In particular, when Marx wanted to interpret the capital-labor relationship, he coined the term, “commodity,” to interpret the means of a capitalist society. In the article, Commodities and Money,” Marx defines commodity as, “an object that by its properties satisfies human wants.” Though, in order to understand a commodity, you must understand the perspective that a commodity has in its consumers. Marx applied the use and exchange value to describe the relationship between a commodity. Though they seem similar, both terms are different in many ways.
In the article, Marx defines use value as an object with useful qualities. For example, there are many types of lamps that varies in price. However, when talking about use value, the time and cost to manufacture the product is ignored while the utility of the product is valued. As long as the lamp provides the user with its intended purpose, light, that is all that matters. Thus, consumption of the commodity signifies the use value for it.
On the other hand, exchange value is different. Marx defines exchange value as the amount of labor/time to produce the commodity. Using the previous example, the role of a lamp is reverse. By exchange value, the time/labor to manufacture the lamp matters. Not once will something of the same use value as another will be exchanged. Exchange value comes into play when commodities of different use values are exchanged.
For instance, in the video, “One Red Paper Clip,” Kyle Macdonald wanted to buy a house. However, instead of using money to buy it, he started out with one red paper clip and began trading for other commodities of different use value. In the process, one moment that shocked me was when Kyle traded a half day with Alice Cooper, a famous rock singer, for a KISS snow globe. In my perspective, I would have kept the half day with Alice Cooper because I thought it has a higher use value than a snow globe. However, not everyone values meeting a famous rock star better than a unique snow globe. Eventually, Kyle traded the KISS snow globe to Corbin Bernsen. Unlike myself, Corbin Bernsen has an extensive collection of snow globes and since he did not have the KISS snow globe, he has a higher use value for it. Thus, the value of a commodity is different for each person depending on the degree of use value.
In addition, when comparing both use value and exchange value, it seems that they can both be used when explaining a commodity. However, that is not always the case as some commodities have use value but not exchange value. According to the article, Marx says, “Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use-values, but not commodities.” Through this, Marx infers that people who create a product for their own use and satisfaction, create a use value but not an exchange value. For example, if someone were to paint a picture and not sell it, there would be no exchange value associated with that product. This is because the person produced the product and keeps his work because he is satisfied. Not once did he decide to sell his labour, which is why there is no exchange value for the picture.
In the article, Marx defines use value as an object with useful qualities. For example, there are many types of lamps that varies in price. However, when talking about use value, the time and cost to manufacture the product is ignored while the utility of the product is valued. As long as the lamp provides the user with its intended purpose, light, that is all that matters. Thus, consumption of the commodity signifies the use value for it.
On the other hand, exchange value is different. Marx defines exchange value as the amount of labor/time to produce the commodity. Using the previous example, the role of a lamp is reverse. By exchange value, the time/labor to manufacture the lamp matters. Not once will something of the same use value as another will be exchanged. Exchange value comes into play when commodities of different use values are exchanged.
For instance, in the video, “One Red Paper Clip,” Kyle Macdonald wanted to buy a house. However, instead of using money to buy it, he started out with one red paper clip and began trading for other commodities of different use value. In the process, one moment that shocked me was when Kyle traded a half day with Alice Cooper, a famous rock singer, for a KISS snow globe. In my perspective, I would have kept the half day with Alice Cooper because I thought it has a higher use value than a snow globe. However, not everyone values meeting a famous rock star better than a unique snow globe. Eventually, Kyle traded the KISS snow globe to Corbin Bernsen. Unlike myself, Corbin Bernsen has an extensive collection of snow globes and since he did not have the KISS snow globe, he has a higher use value for it. Thus, the value of a commodity is different for each person depending on the degree of use value.
In addition, when comparing both use value and exchange value, it seems that they can both be used when explaining a commodity. However, that is not always the case as some commodities have use value but not exchange value. According to the article, Marx says, “Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use-values, but not commodities.” Through this, Marx infers that people who create a product for their own use and satisfaction, create a use value but not an exchange value. For example, if someone were to paint a picture and not sell it, there would be no exchange value associated with that product. This is because the person produced the product and keeps his work because he is satisfied. Not once did he decide to sell his labour, which is why there is no exchange value for the picture.