| This question <82|82> overall <81|83> Stuart: <649-1|96>. |
| Question 113: Earlier we saw that the commodity is something produced for the exchange. Why does Marx not use this definition here where he gets ready to discuss the forms of value? |
| [82] Stuart: Commodity and Value. Earlier Marx defined a commodity as something that is produced for exchange. However he does not use this definition when discussing value. This is because the earlier definition only explains the purpose for producing a commodity. It does not explain how a commodity expresses value. Marx instead states that commodities are the “carriers of value”. Value and the commodity are both a result of human labor in the production process. Commodities are the “carriers of value” because the abstract labor used in the production is embedded in the commodity and is carried from the economic core to the surface and expresses itself in the market. |
| Hans: Very good approach. But let me fill in a couple of steps. As you say, the earlier definition only explains the purpose for producing a commodity. It does not explain how the complex system of social production is coordinated in such a way that the producers can produce the commodities, and can survive, etc. For this coordination to occur, the abstract labor used in production must express itself on the market. This is why Marx begins here with the commodity as a product of abstract labor, and sees how this labor expresses itself. |
|
|
|||||