mds wrote: > ... if we posit that a product of labour can lose
commodity status through loss of demand, would a clothes manufacturer whose fashions became defunct no longer produce commodities? (Assuming zero demand, even for a short period).
Right, the mfgr would no longer produce commodities since no-one would buy them. Labor spent producing something people don't want is wasted.
Surely, irrespective of demand, a coat is still a coat, and therefore embodies a certain utility?
absolutely, but just because something has utility doesn't mean that effective demand is positive.
Now imagine: fashions change and demand returns. Do these garments suddenly re-acquire use-value, or is our focus misplaced?
Used or old garments may regain use-value in that way. This would lead to a rise it the price of the garments, too. But Marx's law of value only applies to newly-produced commodities, so used or new products wouldn't have a value, even though they have a price. Of course, if old or used products rise in price, that would create the incentive for capitalists to produce similar products, which would have value. there's an ambiguity here: what is the time-frame? If we define "new" as produced "right now," then something produced a minute ago wouldn't and couldn't have a value. On the other hand, if we define "new" as produced during the last few days, it would have a value. I don't think this matters. What's important is to choose the time-frame that makes the most sense and then see if it works in practice in trying to understand the world. (Exactly the same problem comes up in national income and product accounts.) -- Jim Devine / "The crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career." -- Albert Einstein.
