| This question <128|406> overall <131|133> Hans: <125|137>. |
| Question 138: If the first chapter is such a systematic discussion of value, why is it then called “Commodities” and not “Value”? |
| [132] Hans: Commodity necessary entry point for value analysis. In order to answer this question I will first survey why Marx begins his book about the capitalist economy with the commodity. |
| Modern books about economics begin with the individual and his or her utility function. Marx cannot do this because he is not a “methodological individualist,” i.e., he does not believe that social structures can be derived from individual motivations and desires. |
| Marx does therefore not try to derive social relations from the individuals. Nevertheless, individuals play a prominent role in his methodology. The reason is the following: Although individuals do not determine or create the society they live in, it is nevertheless true that everything that happens in a society only happens because of the past of present actions of some individuals. Therefore Marx looks at the practical activity of individuals, and tries to infer from this activity the web of social relations which makes these activities necessary and possible, and which is reproduced by these activities. |
| Note the implications of this view of society: through our activity we reproduce and transform something which we do not control. Marx's goal for his research is indeed to generate the knowledge which enables us to take control of our own social relations. |
| But I am digressing. The question is now: where do you start if you want to look at the practical activity of the individuals? Here the commodity offers itself as a promising choice. A commodity is easily defined, it is something produced for the market. Almost every material product produced in our society is produced for a market, and in their practical activity having to do with economic relations, individuals buy and sell commodities almost every day. |
| The commodity is therefore Marx's point of entry. If you ask now the deeper question: what are the invisible social relations governing the visible activity of the individuals handling their commodities, you arrive at value as the prominent social relation that needs to be looked at. But this is the result, not the starting point of the investigation. You cannot leave out the commodity and look at value directly, because then you wouldn't know how to define it. This is a central point in answer [129], but even the earlier [127], which was basically a shot in the dark, said something along these lines. Marx calls his beginning chapter “commodity” instead of “value” in order to emphasize that he is not beginning with an a priori concept, but with the realities of a capitalist economy as they present themselves to everyday practical activity. |
|
|
|||||