| This question <47|68> overall <52|54> Geforms: <555-4|114>. graded A |
| Question 133: How does Marx's statement in 138:2/o that a commodity's value material “does not contain a single atom of physical matter” relate to his other statement in 177:3-4 that “no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value in pearl or diamond.” Do they say the same thing or something different? |
| [53] Geforms: Relationship between exchange value and physical characteristics. In order to answer this question, one must refer to earlier definitions of value. Marx defines value as having two distinct components: one, use-value (i.e. the intrinsic usefulness of the object because of its functionality to the human population) and two, exchange-value (which is derived from the component of human labor which was used to produce the object, in comparison to the human labor used to produce the rest of the items used for human consumption) or as Kitty has previously stated “The value of the commodity is based on the relationships the commodities have with one another.” |
| In an attempt to explain the distinction further, use-value is the value which the consumer sees in the product (because of its physical characteristics which benefit the consumer), whereas exchange-value is the value the producer sees in the object (because of its exchangeability with other objects produced by society which can be used as use-values by the producer). |
| It is the exchange-value of value which Karl Marx refers to when he states that a commodity's value material “does not contain a single atom of physical matter.” This simply means that the exchange-value of a commodity has nothing to do with its physical characteristics, since exchange-value is a component of human labor, when compared to the sum of all current human labor used to produce currently useful commodities, not a component of the use-value of an object which is related to the physical characteristics of the object. |
| To put it more succinctly, Marx is restating his former affirmation that “Their (commodities) objective character as values (i.e. exchange-values) is therefore purely social” (pg 138). The remark by Marx that “no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value in pearl or diamond” is merely an illustration of this ideal and says in essence the very thing which he endeavored to explain before. Which is that exchange values are social amendments to use-value (or the physical characteristics of a commodity) which serve the purpose of giving value to the amount of human labor expended to produce the commodity when compared to the component of human labor used to produce the other commodities within society. Exchange-values in no way represent the physical characterists of the object but rather are components of human labor. |
| Hans: You are re-telling Marx's theory in your own words and with your own thoughts. This can be very instructive. But your last paragraph sounds as if exchange-value was deliberately put in place to give more value to labor. Marx is not describing socialism but capitalism. Labor is at the center of the capitalist economy because of private market production. Capitalists value labor because the labor of others is their source of profits. This focus on labor is not deliberate but it evolved historically. It has its place in history because it helped develop productivity. But in modern times it is misplaced; environmental effects and sustainability are more important than labor inputs. Capitalism is unable to take these factors into consideration. |
|
|
|||||