| This question <148|148> overall <147|149> Avatar: <146|827>. graded A |
| Question 20: Would it have been possible to start the book Capital with a more common-sense definition of capitalism, such as, capitalist production is production for profit? |
| [148] Avatar: It would be ineffective for Marx to begin Capital with the definition of capitalism, “production for profit” for two reasons: one is for the sake of the logical development of Marx's argument about capitalism, and the other is because of the problem with that particular definition of the term “capitalism.” |
| Concerning the continuity of the logical progression that Marx is making in his case for understanding capitalism, Marx begins his assessment of capitalism by analyzing the commodity. Starting with the commodity Marx is creating the logical framework from which he argues the element that differentiates capitalism from other economic systems. From his analysis of the commodity we get an understanding of value and where it comes from (labor) which ultimately leads to the profit disparity between the laborer and the capitalist. The proletariat puts labor into the production of a commodity that is rendered valuable by this process, and is in turn paid a subsistence wage. That arrangement allows the capitalist to yolk the surplus labor of the proletariat. This surplus labor translates to profit for the capitalists without the burden of the commodity's actual production labor. This problem in distribution of profit is what separates the capitalist mode and is therefore what makes the definition “production for profit” flawed. Simply to say “production for profit” is not enough to define capitalist society because it ignores the way that the “profit” part of this definition fits into the capitalist social structure. The relationship between the direct producer of a commodity and his/her immediate superior must be addressed with the notion of production for profit to get to the heart of capitalism. |
| As stated above, only through an understanding of the commodity and thereby an understanding of value within commodities allows a reader to fully understand the relationship between capitalist and proletariat in regard to labor, value and profit. That is why Marx was right to begin his book with a discussion of commodity, not a straightforward definition of capitalism. |
| Hans: You have a good style, but you are not addressing things directly enough. For someone who does not already know what you mean it may be difficult to follow you. |
| Here is my own attempt to say things more “directly”: “production for profit” is an insufficient characterization of capitalism because it is silent about the source of the profits. In Marx's theory, profits are the unpaid labor of the wage workers. |
|
|
|||||