| This question <15|15> overall <14|16> Hans: <9|16>. |
| Question 900: Question of a student |
| [15] Hans: Questions on Marx Someone wrote me a question yesterday to my “administrative” email address. I am answering it in public because the issues may be interesting for others as well. |
| I have some questions about some concepts of Marx. First, I must say that I have not yet read next weeks material so I realize that it might clear up my questions. I understand that Marx breaks down exchange value into labor and that value is not in the object inself but in the labor that is put into it. He proves that every commodity is a proportion of another and thus have something in common. The only common aspect Marx says (I think) is the social aspect of the commodity, which is labor. |
| Yes, this is a very good nutshell rendering of the argument. |
| Furthermore, he says (I think) that without the value of labor there is no value in the good itself. |
| Two points here: if he says that the use value is not the source of a commodity's value, this does not mean use values are unimportant or should be disdained. He means that the use value is not that which gives the commodity its weight on the market. Marx uses “value” here as a technical term for that quality of the things which determines what a price they can command on the market. |
| Secondly: It is not the value of labor which gives the commodity its value, i.e., labor does not transfer its value to the commodity. If this were the case, then one would have to ask: where does labor get its value from? No, Marx says that labor itself is the ultimate source of value. |
| Here is where I became lost. We talked about the idea of innovation and how Marx would see that there was a social benefit and incentive for greater efficiency and innovation. You explained it by something like excess value that the innovator would receive (I am probably way off). Please try to explain what you meant by that. Is it that people will simply try and do better for individually to better society as a whole? |
| I am a little suspicious here whether you are perhaps the victim of a basic and widespread misunderstanding, and I am forwarding this to the whole class so that others can learn from it: Marx's Capital is not a blueprint for a fair society. Marx did not have to think about how to give incentives for innovation. Marx was describing capitalism as it exists. We will see shortly that commodity circulation, which seems so fair, is the transmission belt for a very effective exploitation. This is an important point, and I want everybody to take note of it: simple commodity production was not Marx's ideal. He was very critical of it. |
| Secondly: You are very right that at first glance there does not seem to be an incentive for innovation if value is determined by labor time. On the other hand, capitalism certainly has very strong incentives for innovation. We cannot explain everything at once, and things will become clearer as the argument unfolds. This week's readings addresses some of the issues, and also Chapter 12. Just bear with us and suspend your disbelief for a little longer. |
|
|
|||||