2. 外语
  3. But the mere justice that is implied in exchange is certainly only formal and relative; any one person should have neither more

But the mere justice that is implied in exchange is certainly only formal and relative; any one person should have neither more

admin2013-03-27  59
问题     But the mere justice that is implied in exchange is certainly only formal and relative; any one person should have neither more nor less than any other. Over and above that, exchange brings about an increase in the absolute number of values experienced. Since everybody offers for exchange only what is relatively useless to him, and accepts in exchange what is relatively necessary, exchange effects a continuously growing utilization of the values wrested from nature at any given time. If the world were really "given away" and as activity consisted only in the mere moving back and forth of an objectively unalterable quantity of values, then exchange would nevertheless produce, as it were, an intercellular growth of values. The objectively stable sum of values changes through a more useful distribution, effected by exchange, into a subjectively larger amount and higher measure of uses experienced. This is the great cultural task of every new distribution of rights and duties, which always implies an exchange. Even in the case of an apparently quite one-sided transfer of advantages, a truly social procedure will not disregard them. Thus, for example, it was essential during the liberation of peasants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries not only to ensure that the landowners forfeited what the peasants were supposed to gain, but also to find a mode of distributing property and rights which enlarged the total amount of utilities.
    There are two qualities of money that, in this respect, suggest that the exchange of goods or services is best served by money: its divisibility and its unlimited convertibility. The former ensures that an objective equivalence between service and its return can take place. Natural objects can seldom be so determined and scaled in value that their exchange has to be accepted as completely just by both parties. Only money—because it is nothing but the representation of the value of other objects, and because there is almost no limit to its divisibility and accretion—provides the technical possibility for the exact equivalence of exchange values. However, this represents only the first stage in the progressive development away from the one-sidedness of exchange of ownership. The second quality of money derives from the fact that exchange in kind seldom gives both parties the desired object to an equal extent or is able to release them from equally superfluous ones. As a role, the more lively desire will be on the side of one party to the transaction while the other party will enter into the exchange only by being forced to do so or where they receive a disproportionately high compensation for doing so. In the case of the exchange of services or benefits against money, however, one party receives the object that they especially need while the other receives something that anyone in general desires. Because of the boundless usefulness and therefore its permanent desirability, every exchange becomes, at least in principle, equally advantageous to both parties. The one who takes the object will certainly do so only if he needs it at this point in time; the person who takes money will accept it because he can use it at any time. Exchange against money makes possible an increase in satisfaction for both parties, whereas with exchange in kind it is frequently the case that only one party will have a specific interest in the acquisition or disposal of the object. Thus exchange against money is so far the most perfect form of solution of the great cultural problem that evolves from the one-sided advantage of exchange of possessions, namely, to raise the objectively given amount of value to a greater amount of subjectively experienced values merely through the change in its owners. This, alongside the original creation of values, is clearly the task of social expediency as part of the general human task; to set free a maximum of the latent value that lies in the form that we give to the contents of life. Wherever we see money serving this purpose, the technical role of money also reveals that exchange is the essential social mode of solving this problem and that exchange itself is embodied in money.
The author provides the example of the liberation of peasants to illustrate______.
选项 A、the notion that the peasants received a better exchange than the landowners
B、the idea that distribution of property was necessary for an exchange to occur
C、the social procedure of exchange
D、the property and rights allocation signified an increase in value
答案D
解析 根据第一段的“The objectively stable sum of values changes through a moreuseful distribution，effected by exchange，into a subjectively larger amount and highermeasure of uses experienced…．Thus，for example，it was essential during the liberationof peasants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries not only to ensure that the landowners forfeited what the peasants were supposed to gain，but also to find a mode of distributing property and rights which enlarged the total amount of utilities．”可知，通过由交换引发的更实用的分配，客观稳定的价值总量变成主观上更大的使用价值。例如，在十八、十九世纪农民解放运动期间，重要的是不仅要确保农民从地主那里没收他们应得的财物，而且还要找到分配财产和权利的方式，这种方式扩大了总的使用量。据此可知，作者举出农民解放的事例是为了说明财产和权利的分配意味着价值的增加。D项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/ULgYFFFM
0

考博英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)