| This question <40|69> overall <42|44> Vansmack: <42|44>. |
| Question 7: Why does Marx discuss the form and not the content of wealth? |
| [43] Vansmack: Question number seven asks why Marx dicusses the form and not the content of wealth. I believe that Marx discussed form rather than content because there is no content without form. The form of the government indefinately shapes the content of the system within. The form is the most important because it is a guideline meant to cultivate the system. Even though the form doesn't always work out the way it should on paper the actual form can not be blamed for it. Maybe people's actions or conflicts with one another might do something to foul up the system, but the actual form will stay the same. If the form looks good on paper it can sell the idea in hence it can be used as excellent advertising even if the actual content doesn't end up being all that it was on paper. |
| Hans: “Form” for you is idealization of some reality which may not measure up to these ideals, while “content” is that reality itself. This is not how Marx uses the word. For him, social form of wealth is the social organization of who gets what and who produces what, while the content of wealth is the use values being produced. You are also saying that government is the form and the society itself is the content. This is still another application of the form - content paradigm which is not meant here. |
| Similar answers are [40] and [69]. |
|
|
|||||