| This question <109|67> overall <42|44> Karl: <600|121>. |
| Question 56: How is the value of raw materials determined in Marx's theory? How does the scarcity of these materials influence their value? Is Marx's argument still valid in the case of an exhaustible resource, which is present only in finite supply? |
| [43] Karl: Value of scarce and raw materials The value of raw materials must be determined differently than a commodity by Marx. Marx said, “that as values all commodities are only greater or smaller amounts of congealed labor.” In other words a commodity's value in direct correlation with labor, in fact it is the “labor power” embodied in the commodity that solely value, as in the societal aggregate of labor, or speaking about an individually produced commodity. |
| Speaking rationally then, how can Marx say there is a value, use or otherwise intrinsically attached to a “raw material?” For instance in the reading the example given was that of a diamond. Now a diamond in it's natural, or raw state beneath the earth required no labor of any individual or societal aggregate. Therefore Marx would consider its value to be nil, as there is no appendage of labor to it. This seems to be one of Marxs' underlying, planned, contradictory thoughts, that was mentioned by Hans. Because while it is a raw material the diamond sould be thought of as a commodity in embryo. In class it was mentioned that a commodity held value regardless of exchange. The diamond as a raw material also holds no exchange, and therefore can only have value once it is required to be developed by a laborer or in other words, unearthed, cut, and polished. |
| Addressing the question pertaining to scarcity having an influence on value, Marx appears to be straight forward with this. Marx seems to give a straight answer, without any underlying abstract meanings. Marx stated, “all human labors are equal in so far as they are equal expinditures of human labor power.” And that a commodity “represents” labor, and thus labor is it's value. Therefore if one variable changes in a commodity, but the labor remains constant to produce it, there needs to be addtional elements which caused the change in exchange value. In this particular case that additional element is scarcity. Marx believed that exchange value is dependent on other variable factors such as abundance, where, and when a product is exchanged etc.. |
| The third question requires more subjective insight on how I think Marxs' arguements would hold in terms of an exhaustible resource. This requires me to be somewhat revisionistic in my response. Marxs' arguement still holds validity in the use of an exhaustible resource, with the exception of variance in the resource itself. For instance if I was in the desert, with a supply of water to exchange, that product is exhaustible. Once used, that particular material is relativley exhausted. But to the purchaser of the resource it makes no difference if it is exhaustible, only that it is scarce or limited to a finite supply as addressed earlier. If anything it would increase the exchange value of the water, and finitness no exhaustibility would be included as the variable element reliant on change in value. |
|
|
|||||