In ope-l 4842, I wrote
"... the commodity is produced, say, today. Other commodities of the same time
are proving that they are use-values today by being sold. Hence, this
commodity is a use-value today. If, later, things of this sort are not
saleable, they have LOST their use-value and thus LOST the value they once
had."
In reply, Jerry wrote (ope-l 4845), "... I would say rather that for the
products SOLD TODAY they are shown to have a use-value and a value and
therefore ARE commodities. We can not know, however, that the product of the
same type PRODUCED TODAY will stand the test of the market until it HAS been
sold -- whether it be today, tomorrow, or in the future -- and, therefore,
whether it WILL have use-value, whether its ideal (potential) value will
become real/actual, and whether it will BECOME a commodity."
I think this confuses two issues, one "ontological," the other
"epistemological." I do not think that, for Marx, whether a product *is* a
commodity or not depends on what is "shown" to us, what we "know." But
Jerry's reasoning requires this as a premise.
I will also note that what Jerry's response is at variance with the passage
from Capital II he quotes in ope-l 4876:
" If they do not enter into productive or individual consumption within a
certain amount of time, according to their particular characteristics, in
other words if they are not sold within a definite time, then THEY GET
SPOILED, AND LOSE, TOGETHER WITH THEIR USE-VALUE, THE PROPERTY OF BEING
BEARERS OF EXCHANGE-VALUE. BOTH THE CAPITAL VALUE CONTAINED IN THEM AND THE
SURPLUS-VALUE ADDED TO IT ARE LOST."
Andrew Kliman