Editing Use value (section)

== Marx's definition ==
{{Marxian economics|concepts}}
Marx first defines use-value precisely in ''A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'' (1859) where he explains:

{{blockquote|To begin with, a commodity, in the language of the English economists, is 'any thing necessary, useful or pleasant in life,' an object of human wants, a means of existence in the widest sense of the term. Use-value as an aspect of the commodity coincides with the physical palpable existence of the commodity. Wheat, for example, is a distinct use-value differing from the use-values of cotton, glass, paper, etc. A use-value has value only in use, and is realized only in the process of consumption. One and the same use-value can be used in various ways. But the extent of its possible application is limited by its existence as an object with distinct properties. It is, moreover, determined not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. Different use-values have different measures appropriate to their physical characteristics; for example, a bushel of wheat, a quire of paper, a yard of linen. Whatever its social form may be, wealth always consists of use-values, which in the first instance are not affected by this form. From the taste of wheat it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist. Although use-values serve social needs and therefore exist within the social framework, they do not express the social relations of production. For instance, let us take as a use-value a commodity such as a diamond. We cannot tell by looking at it that the diamond is a commodity. Where it serves as an aesthetic or mechanical use-value, on the neck of a courtesan or in the hand of a glass-cutter, it is a diamond and not a commodity. To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. It belongs in this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form. Use-value is the immediate physical entity in which a definite economic relationship—exchange-value—is expressed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch01.htm#2 |title=Economic Manuscripts: Critique of Political Economy. The Commodity |publisher=Marxists.org |access-date=13 March 2012}}</ref>}}

The concept is also introduced at the beginning of ''[[Das Kapital]],'' where Marx writes, but in the extract below he holds it up as a critique of Hegel's liberal "Philosophy of Right".  He remained a sharp critic of what was to the Marxian view a destructive philosophy:

{{quotation|The utility of a thing makes it a use value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.  Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value."<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm | title = Elements of the Philosophy of Right | first = Georg W.F. | last = Hegel | year = 1820 | location = Berlin, Prussia }}</ref>}}

This was a direct reference by Marx to Hegel's ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'' [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm §63] as Marx adds:

{{quotation|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.<ref>{{cite book | first = Karl | last = Marx | title = Capital: A Critique of Political Economy| volume= I | page = 30| orig-year = 1867 | date = 1887 }}</ref>}}

Marx acknowledges that a nominal price or value can be imputed to goods or assets which are not reproducible goods and not produced by human labour, as correctly noted later by Engels that a product is not necessarily a commodity.<ref>{{cite book | title = A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, The Process of Capitalist Production | editor-first = Karl | editor-last = Marx | editor-first2 = Friedrich | editor-last2 = Engels| publisher = fourth German edition by [[Ernest Untermann]], The Modern Library series | orig-year = 1859| year = 1920| edition = 4th }}</ref> However Marx generally holds that only human labour expended can create value compared with Nature, through instrumentation known as modus operandi, or the method of working.{{efn|Only later did the phrase ''modus operandi'' (Lat.) come to primarily refer to the distinctive behavior of a criminal in the language of the law.}}