Commodity exchange versus barter

[Asero]

What is the difference between commodity exchange and barter?

[Creative Destruction]

In a barter situation, you're usually trading things of equal value without using money as an intermediary. Commodity exchange is predicated on selling commodities for surplus value with money.

[Slavic]

In a barter situation, you're usually trading things of equal value without using money as an intermediary. Commodity exchange is predicated on selling commodities for surplus value with money.

Not quite true.

You are correct in your definition of barter, but exchange of commodities does not necessarily equate a surplus value.

A commodity is a produced good that is exchanged with currency. By definition, the commodity is traded for currency equal in its value. Surplus value only enters the equation when you determine how such a commodity is produced.

[Blake's Baby]

No, commodities don't have to be exchanged for money. They just have to trade. They can trade against each other.

Commodity exchange only implies production for exchange. It can be by barter or money-trade or perhaps there are other means.

Barter relies on absence of money. It can be utilised in the exchange of commodities (as in, goods produced specifically for trade) or opportunistic surpluses (ie, goods not produced for trade).

So you can have barter of commodities, barter of non-commodities, money-sale of non-commodities, and money-sale of commodities.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, commodities don't have to be exchanged for money. They just have to trade. They can trade against each other.

Commodity exchange only implies production for exchange. It can be by barter or money-trade or perhaps there are other means.

Barter relies on absence of money. It can be utilised in the exchange of commodities (as in, goods produced specifically for trade) or opportunistic surpluses (ie, goods not produced for trade).

So you can have barter of commodities, barter of non-commodities, money-sale of non-commodities, and money-sale of commodities.

But surely, when something is exchanged in a money-sale, it assumes the form of a commodity? A thing that has an exchange value expressed as a price and so on? For example, if someone inherits an object made for direct consumption or non-money (ritualised, gift, primitive barter etc.) exchange, then sells it, surely that object has become a commodity?

[Blake's Baby]

No, I think that commodities are produced for the market. If someone is producing food and realises they've got more than they need and sells the excess, I don't think that's really a commodity - but that's because my understanding of the definition of 'commodity' is, specifically, goods produced for the market.

I guess, if someone buys it, with the intention of selling it on, then it's become a commodity... but it may be that all markets imply commodities. I don't think so though.

[Rudolf]

No, I think that commodities are produced for the market. If someone is producing food and realises they've got more than they need and sells the excess, I don't think that's really a commodity - but that's because my understanding of the definition of 'commodity' is, specifically, goods produced for the market.

I guess, if someone buys it, with the intention of selling it on, then it's become a commodity... but it may be that all markets imply commodities. I don't think so though.


I don't get it as i've been of the impression that a use-value that is put into relation with another via exchange necessarily becomes a commodity as by it being placed in relation with another it adopts an exchange value vis-a-vis that other commodity (whether it's the money-commodity or not). That's my understanding of Capital chapter 1, section 1. I would say that the serf that sells an excess of their produce has converted that produce into a commodity. This excess gains an exchange-value at the point of exchange.

Is not a commodity a use-value that acts as the material bearer of exchange-value?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, I think that commodities are produced for the market. If someone is producing food and realises they've got more than they need and sells the excess, I don't think that's really a commodity - but that's because my understanding of the definition of 'commodity' is, specifically, goods produced for the market.

I guess, if someone buys it, with the intention of selling it on, then it's become a commodity... but it may be that all markets imply commodities. I don't think so though.

Yes, I think the question is whether the product in question starts circulating as a commodity, even if only potentially, or if it will necessarily be directly consumed.

I do think some commodities were not produced for the market. For example, art objects produced by pre-capitalist societies, which can fetch a handsome sum on the modern art market.