[1995ut:82-1]

This question <115-4|96-1> overall <82|83> Eagle: <67|123>.

Question 901: Comparison Capital with Contribution

[82-1] Eagle: The Names Are the Same - But! Marx's, “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (CCPE)” compared to the beginning of “Capital” does have a few differences in the meanings of commodities, use values and exchange values.

In the opening paragraph of CCPE, Marx emphatically states the commodity has a twofold aspect - use value and exchange value. He further states that a commodity is anything necessary, useful or pleasant in life. What he is trying to do, is to give a brief definition of a commodity for the reader, thus showing the reader of CCPE a visualization of a horse and buggy. However, in “Capital” he begins the dissertation with the usefulness of an object and that it is composed of many properties useful in many ways.

These properties of the horse and buggy would be the hauling of grain, transportation or ownership of the horse.

He states in CCPE, the commodity as a use value is only realized during consumption. By this he means a commodity has to be consumed through eating, production or wearing a commodity. In other words, the use-value is used and not collected as wealth. However, in “Capital” he states the commodity can satisfy man's need whether it is an object of consumption or indirectly as production. These two completely different statements show that CCPE probably was written before “Capital.”

Further along in CCPE he uses a similar description of a commodity called a diamond. The diamond in CCPE has no use value and cannot, therefore, become a commodity. But if the diamond has no use-value or exchange value, then the drive men have in society to have diamonds as an indication of wealth would not exist. When we look at “Capital,” the diamond has physical properties corresponding to a use-value or useful thing. Because of the physical properties of a diamond, it can be used as a cutting device, a thing of wealth, or a contract of love between two individuals. This major difference of the example, a diamond, supports my theory that CCPE was the basis for writing “Capital.”

Das Kapital (Capital) has been quoted by many historians as the greatest work that Karl Marx wrote. It took him over 30 years to compose this book and that adds additional strength to my argument comparing CCPE with Capital. “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy ” was a shorter version of “Capital” to include a few changes in the points I have indicated above. Apparently he changed his philosophical mind and wanted to clarify the statements he made in CCPE. Nevertheless, there are differences between the two essays Marx wrote.

Hans: Your essay is well written, but most of the differences which you see are based on your misunderstanding of the text!

Marx's, “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (CCPE)” compared to the beginning of “Capital” does have a few differences in the meanings of commodities, use values and exchange values.

In the opening paragraph of CCPE, Marx emphatically states the commodity has a twofold aspect - use value and exchange value.

Yes, the explicit statement of this duality, which is supported by the Aristotele quote in the footnote, is a real difference.

He further states that a commodity is anything necessary, useful or pleasant in life.

Again, as in Capital, you should misunderstand this definition. This is what a commodity is at first, it is not yet the full definition of a commodity. A commodity is more than just a useful thing.

What he is trying to do, is to give a brief definition of a commodity for the reader, thus showing the reader of CCPE a visualization of a horse and buggy. However, in “Capital” he begins the dissertation with the usefulness of an object and that it is composed of many properties useful in many ways.

These properties of the horse and buggy would be the hauling of grain, transportation or ownership of the horse.

Now you are throwing use value and social form together. The ownership of the horse (and also whether the driver is a free laborer or a slave etc.) is not part of the use value of the buggy, as Marx defines it.

There is no difference here between Capital and Contribution. Using something for production is not the same as using it for exchange or collecting it in the basement for appreciation! Marx is trying to clearly distinguish between social and physical properties, which you keep throwing together.

These two completely different statements show that CCPE probably was written before “Capital.”

Further along in CCPE he uses a similar description of a commodity called a diamond. The diamond in CCPE has no use value and cannot, therefore, become a commodity.

Here you did not read CCPE carefully enough!

But if the diamond has no use-value or exchange value, then the drive men have in society to have diamonds as an indication of wealth would not exist. When we look at “Capital,” the diamond has physical properties corresponding to a use-value or useful thing. Because of the physical properties of a diamond, it can be used as a cutting device, a thing of wealth, or a contract of love between two individuals. This major difference of the example, a diamond, supports my theory that CCPE was the basis for writing “Capital.”

You are noticing that there is an inconsistency, but it is only due to your very superficial reading of CCPE.