| This question <22|5> overall <22|24> Hans: <19|26>. |
| Exam Question 1: What is wealth? |
| [23] Hans: You mean, if everybody is wealthy, then nobody is wealthy? Skippy's [22] pointed out a logical contradiction in Marx: why does Marx start with wealth, which is a collection of commodities, if his goal was supposedly to abolish wealth and make everyone equal? I like this approach. If you think the assigned readings of Marx are contradictory or have any other logical flaws, this is the place to discuss them. And I appreciate the trust you place in me that I will nevertheless give a fair grade. (Less trusting souls are encourated to write their objections with the pseudo-header |
| ::Q: 1 dl |
| then it will count as a submission to the discussion list and cannot spoil your grade). |
| As I see it, there are three misunderstandings in your argument. |
| (1) Marx does not say that wealth is “a collection of commodities.” |
| (2) Your definition of wealth as “the state of being a rich man” is not the same definition which Marx is using. |
| (3) In Capital, Marx does not talk about his ideal society. |
| Now what are the right answers? Material wealth (which is the only kind of wealth Marx is speaking of here) consists of things that enhance human life. In the first sentence of Das Kapital Marx says that under capitalism wealth takes the social form of commodities: that all the things which enhance human life are bought and sold on the market. It is important to understand this social form of wealth in order to understand the economic mechanisms which create the inequalities of capitalist society. Only if we understand how capitalism functions can we hope to overcome it. (This is why Marx wrote Capital). |
|
|
|||||