aristotle defines a contradiction thencewise:
<"Let us call an affirmation and a negation which are opposite a contradiction" [de interpretatione, 6]so a contradiction is the affirmation of opposite terms. a contradiction exists between opposites. yet within each term, there are implied opposites. to speak of "good" is infer "evil", yet it would only be a contradiction to call the same thing, both good and evil. likewise, within a commodity, exchange-value and use-value imply each other, but cannot be applied to the same function.
>>667207nowhere in this text does it imply that within the commodity form, use and exchange value can exist without each other.
>>667226marx's verbage is quite poor here. to smith, a use-value implies a "value in use", and so predicates the commodity form, yet marx generalises it to mean the "utility" of an item, which seemingly has no qualitative distinction in the commodity form. the issue is that marx derives "value" as an abstraction from use-value (the substance of value), yet concretises use in the case of a mere "utility".