| This question <201|201> overall <198|203> Jenna: <128|467>. graded A |
| Question 236: Why does Marx explore the mysterious character of the commodity, which is bland and abstract, instead of picking up one of the many striking outwardly mysterious phenomena of capitalism? |
| [201] Jenna: The illusive definition of the mystery. In Capital, Marx sets out to explore and define the core nature of capitalism. This requires a thoroughness and discipline which Marx certainly maintains. Therefore, he does not simply chase any “bright and shiny topic” or curious question within capitalism, such as the upheavals of markets or the secret to accumulation of money. |
| Marx's intent is to explain how capitalism functions and why it is misunderstood by those inside the system. Under Marx's theory, the commodity is the central player in capitalism, not a particular ideal or certain type of person. Therefore, the mysterious nature of the commodity is important insight into the core nature of capitalism. |
| Defining precisely what this mystery is, however, is somewhat challenging. I have a hard time following many of the responses my classmates have given to describe the nature of this mystery. In [190], I believe that Inca has stated that mystery is infused in a commodity when the intangible aspects of labor -- time, physiological input -- when the commodity is produced, and that it is the result of social relations between producers. I agree with the first part of this summary, however I believe the second part is not accurate. The commodity is not a result of social relations between producers; the social relation takes place in a broader sense when the commodity is exchanged, and the efforts of the producer will be reflected in the social relation between the products, or commodities. The individuals themselves are merely micro players in the larger social relationship that takes place between inantimate objects. |
| This counter-intuitive aspect of the commodity is certainly one aspect of this illusive mystery. |
| Hans: You are raising an important question. The direct interactions between the producers take place on the market, after the goods are produced, this is right. But you cannot conclude from this that the producers themselves do not have social relations with each other. The producers are very much affected by the actions of their competitors and must adjust to them. Although production is private, they have to see to it that their production process consumes no more than the socially necessary labor-time. They have to apply their resources to produce those things which can be sold, and their most flexible resource is labor. They are forced to treat their labor as one abstract homogeneous mass, because the market equalized their products. |
|
|
|||||