| This question <35|35> overall <29|31> Veblen: <5|134-2>. |
| Question 79: Shouldn't Marx also have included produced means of production in addition to nature and labor? |
| [30] Veblen: constituents of the commodity With regard to the nature of the constituents of a commodity, the question has been posed, should Marx have included “produced means of production” in addition to nature and labor. This seems to be a rather paradoxical question, quite simply because, “produced means of production” are simply manifestations of nature and labor in a different stage of transformation. |
| Let us consider the matter more closely. The means of production implies the physical productive resources, tools, machinery, and raw materials used in the production of commodities or useful “external objects”. Following from this point it is abvious that the means of production are merely components of nature and labor manifested at a different stage of production. Concomittantly, “produced means of production” should be thought of as either commodities or useful “external objects”, and as such are merely the “means of production” with useful labor applied to their transformation. |
| Consequently, I don't believe that Marx needed to include “produced means of production” in the components of the commodity for the aforementioned reasons. |
| Hans: It was very difficult to read your answer because you took a simple argument and blustered it up in high-sounding language. |
|
|
|||||