| This question <55|210-7> overall <59|61> Collettchen: <654|504>. graded A |
| Question 124: If the physical thing is not the commodity but only the “body” or the “bodily form” of the commodity, how should then the commodity itself be defined? |
| [60] Collettchen: Commodity defined. I think that Marx would be rolling over in his grave if he could see how difficult it is for me to grasp a lot of his ideas. I guess I now have a better idea of how my little sister might feel when I attempt to teach her the rules of football. Anyway, after studying the subject and thinking for a while about it I'll share my thoughts on Marx's commodity. |
| The answer to the question is actually simple because Marx explains exactly how he defines a commodity. Most of us think of a commodity as a physical product and nothing more (or at least we did before taking this course). Marx sees more than that and explains that the “body” is only one of many elements that make up a commodity. |
| Should the idea and effort to make the product not be included as part of the commodity itself? Marx thinks it should. Why zero in only on the finished product? The example of, “the teddy bear on the moon,” given in the text was enlightening for me. How did the teddy bear get there??? It makes sense that to leave out this important element would be only partly explain the true commodity. |
| Also, at the bottom of page 73 in the text, Marx writes that a commodity is “twofold.” A commodity has both use-value and value even from the very beginning of its existence. A commodity gives use-value to the receiving or needing party and at the same time provides value to the party providing it. The use-value and value of pending products or ideas are the driving force behind the production of them. Goods and services are produced to meet needs. I would only produce a good or service if I knew that it was going to be of value to me. And the only way that it will be of value to me is if some other party has need enough for this product to pay me its value. This idea leads me to the third and last element of a commodity. |
| So far I've explained that the conception and production of a product are as much a part of the definition of a commodity as the physical thing itself. The definition of a commodity is complete by including just one more element: social relations! Later in this same chapter Marx writes about bargaining and how the needs of one party can be met by exchanging goods, services or money to another party whose needs are also met by completing the exchange. The product needs to find its way to where it is wanted, needed and useful. What good is a product without a consumer? It has no use-value for the producer. The producer is producing for someone else. The process by which the producer gets the product in the hands of someone who wants or needs it is what I mean by social relations. This process also, is an element that belongs to the complete definition of a commodity. |
| A commodity is a final good or service that has been conceived, produced and bargain. (I don't really like that definition but it was the best that I could do to summarize all that I had written before.) |
| One final thought...Would Marx have considered a SERVICE a commodity? I doubt if he thought about it but it seems to me that a service, although sometimes intangible, fits all parts of the definition of a marxian commodity. Just curious if anyone that to be strange or if I'm way off base. |
|
|
|||||