| This question <1015|37> overall <9|11> Darci: <9|11>. |
| Question 16: Sum up once more the arguments why Marx's Capital starts with the commodity. |
| [10] Darci: Marx's opening argument for beginning with commodity is precisely that it is the elemental unit of economy. It is the buying and selling of commodities which is the essence of market. Without consumable commodities there is no market--nothing to base a society on. |
| Hans: There are many societies without markets. Marx is very aware of what is historically given and what is an eternal natural necessity. Markets are historically given in some societies, but not every society has to have one. |
| [10] Darci: If one looks closely at his statements regarding economy, one can see that buying and selling of “useful” things is economy. |
| Hans: This sounds more like neoclassical economy than like Marxism. Marx held that the production process has a very fundamental role in any society. |
| [10] Darci: Society exchanges commodities to satisfy human needs (what those needs are is irrelevant). The mechanism by which this occurs is called the market. Commodity is the input, exchange of those commodities the output and “value” the machine. Society sets the measure for exchange by assigning value or weight of usefulness to a commodity. |
| Hans: You are right that society somehow assigns value to the commodities. But according to Marx, this does not go by the “weight of usefulness” of that commodity. What does it go by? Please respond. |
| [10] Darci: (datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 17:29:20 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Use values are determined by society. I would like to try this one again. Capital starts with commodity because it is the reason for social interaction as applied to economics. If a human being could or would produce all of his needs and wants, there would be no need for exchange of commodities, therefore, no reason for economic participation. But because societies provide for the exchange of commodities (allowing individual members to decide what they will or won't provide for exchange) starting at this point makes sense. Then the additional elements of use value and exchange value fall into place. |
| Hans: You still talk about societies in generic terms, as if all societies organized the transfer of goods from producer to consumer by exchange. |
| But back to your old text. |
| [10] Darci: An example of this might be to examine a simple market. Suppose a person has been out in the desert without food or water for a while and in his pocket he has gold. Another person arrives on the desert with food and water (he is planning on returning to the city shortly). The two could exchange the items each has and both be satisfied with the outcome. |
| Hans: This is not a society but the encounter of two individuals who clearly come from a capitalist society. Only members of a capitalist society would risk their lives in order to look for gold, and only members of capitalist societies would so blatantly take advantage of someone who is near starvation. A society always has a production process. The interaction you are describing is not the exchange of commodities but I would call it extortion. There is no value involved, because there is no ongoing social production process. |
| [10] Darci: This market determined by the society of two that the gold and the food and water were of equal value. The exchange was made and each satisfied by the outcome based on the human needs of each. What the value of the commodities where was determined by the human needs at the time of the exchange. Marx explains this in Capital in paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 126 as he discusses useful things and exchange-value. |
| Hans: No, in Marx's theory, exchange value is determined by value, i.e., by labor content. |
|
|
|||||