| This question <88|87> overall <76|78> Che: <698|147>. graded C |
| Question 114: What is the difference between the statement: “a commodity is a use-value and a product of labor” and the statement: “a commodity is a use-value and the congelation of abstract labor”? |
| [77] Che: In order to fully understand the question one must understand each statement individually. The first sentence explains that a commodity is a use-value through useful labor. This labor as Marx states “is an ‘eternal nature-imposed necessity’ in all societies. Corresponding to the many different, specific kinds of use-values that are produced, there are many different, specific kinds of useful labor involved in producing them.” (A Guide to Marx Capital, pg 23) For example a car is a product of many specific kinds of labor: the labor to assemble the wheels, the labor to paint the exterior, the labor to assemble the engine, etc. These different kinds of useful labor have the common feature that they produce exchange-value. |
| On the other hand “a commodity is a use-value and the congelation of abstract labor”, or simply put a commodity is the combination of not only the product and the labor it takes to create the product but the thinking, inventing, testing, and human muscle that goes into each commodity. Marx sums up abstract labor by stating it is the “expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles. human labor in general.” (pg. 24) For example the abstract labor of a Ford car is Ford's idea, drawings, testing, designing, etc. that led to the possibility of the product of labor. It is through this abstract labor that value is produced. |
| Therefore, a product of labor has use-value whereas abstract labor produces value. |
| Hans: Your interpretation of the term “abstract labor” is totally off. In Marx's view, it is exactly not the brilliance of ideas, but the grunt work going in producing the commodities that is measured in their price. You cannot escape exploitation by doing intellectual work. Henry Ford made his profits not because he had brilliant ideas, but because he owned the means of production. |
|
|
|||||