| This question <115-1|115-4> overall <115-1|115-4> Sinatra: <107|170>. |
| Question 901: Comparison Capital with Contribution |
| [115-2] Sinatra: Voluntary assignment The main difference I picked up on in comparing the portion of “Capital” and “Political Economy” was in the meaning contained in two similar, but not equal statements. In “Political Economy”, Marx states, “wealth always consists of use values”, which is against what I have understood Marx to have advocated in regards to the seperation of use value and exchange value in the determination of wealth. “Capital” states, in a similar but more refined line, “use-values constitute the material content of wealth”. |
| I would believe from the 2 lines, that “Capital” was the latter of the two written, due in part to this clarification. The first statement misleads that wealth is exclusively derived from use-values and that it is it's sole determinant. But with use-value alone we cannot determine the level of wealth a commodity contains. “Capital” illustrates that exchange value, as the social form of wealth, is also a determinant as it allows other commodities to express the value of the commodity. |
| Another difference I noticed was the extra focus placed in “Political Economy” on the need of a commodity to have a use value, but a use-value alone does not make a commodity. Use-value seperate from the determined economic form is not important in his focus on the political economy, so it is seperated out at the start. I'm not sure, but I believe use-value outside of “determined economic form” would refer to intermediate goods used in production, whose use-value is only realized in a finished commodity. Not a real difference, I suppose, but a difference in direction towards which Marx was headed. |
| See ya later...... |
| Hans: Your essay shows quite a few misconceptions about Marx. Perhaps you can remedy this by working carefully through my Annotations. |
| The main difference I picked up on in comparing the portion of “Capital” and “Political Economy” was in the meaning contained in two similar, but not equal statements. In “Political Economy”, Marx states, “wealth always consists of use values”, which is against what I have understood Marx to have advocated in regards to the seperation of use value and exchange value in the determination of wealth. “Capital” states, in a similar but more refined line, “use-values constitute the material content of wealth”. |
| Much of this difference is in the translation. A more literal translation of Contribution would be: |
| Whatever the social form of wealth may be, use values always constitute its content, which in the first instance is not affected by this form. |
| I.e., he maintains the division between form and content of wealth. (The social form of wealth under capitalism is commodities.) |
| I would believe from the 2 lines, that “Capital” was the latter of the two written, due in part to this clarification. The first statement misleads that wealth is exclusively derived from use-values and that it is it's sole determinant. But with use-value alone we cannot determine the level of wealth a commodity contains. |
| Here you are showing your bias from coming from a capitalist society. In other societies it may not have been necessary to quantitatively measure and compare levels of wealth. This is a very capitalistic thing to do. |
| “Capital” illustrates that exchange value, as the social form of wealth, is also a determinant as it allows other commodities to express the value of the commodity. |
| Here “value” is taken in a very specific meaning. You are treating “value” as a concept inherent to wealth. Marx does not; for him, value has to do with the social form of wealth (which means: with the way wealth is handled in society, who produces it, who gets it, etc), but some use value does not diminish and become less wealth when its value falls due to development of technology etc. |
| Another difference I noticed was the extra focus placed in “Political Economy” on the need of a commodity to have a use value, but a use-value alone does not make a commodity. Use-value seperate from the determined economic form is not important in his focus on the political economy, so it is seperated out at the start. I'm not sure, but I believe use-value outside of “determined economic form” would refer to intermediate goods used in production, whose use-value is only realized in a finished commodity. |
| No. You seem to have misconceptions about what Marx means by “form”. |
| Not a real difference, I suppose, but a difference in direction towards which Marx was headed. See ya later...... |
|
|
|||||