/siberia/ - Off-topic

The contradiction between exchange and use value in health is that I like exchanging blows and wresslin and this has an impact on the use value of my brain.

idk how about you read it uygha

>>667167
It's just another petit-bourgeois pseud using big boy words to complain that prices of some commodity are too high.

>screenshot of headline
>greentext of headline with quip
>no link
>what is this
YouTuber levels of braincells at play today.

1. Use value does not require exchange value.
2. Exchange value no longer requires use value.

This is dialectics:
> We saw in a former chapter that the exchange of commodities implies contradictory and mutually exclusive conditions. The differentiation of commodities into commodities and money does not sweep away these inconsistencies, but develops a modus vivendi, a form in which they can exist side by side. This is generally the way in which real contradictions are reconciled. For instance, it is a contradiction to depict one body as constantly falling towards another, and as, at the same time, constantly flying away from it. The ellipse is a form of motion which, while allowing this contradiction to go on, at the same time reconciles it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm#S2a

>>667207
>1. Use value does not require exchange value.
Wrong. use value cannot be quantified without exchange value therefore use value cannot exist without exchange value.

>>667214
Marx explicitly says that it can:
> A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.) 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.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1

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.
>>667207
nowhere in this text does it imply that within the commodity form, use and exchange value can exist without each other.
>>667226
marx'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".