| This question <16|27> overall <24|26> Jakeman: <1406|150>. graded B– |
| Question 80: Marx says that as use-values commodities do not contain an atom of value. Would he also say that the labor process does not contain an atom of abstract labor? |
| [25] Jakeman: labor process containing an atom. Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth; whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value. In 128:3 Marx states that all labors are expenditures of human labor-power. The laborers have to show some sort of action to the commodity to be able to have value in the object. A use-value commodity does not contain an atom of value because to be complete it needs to have the labor process. So, on the other hand one could also argue that the labor process does not contain an atom either because it is incomplete without the commodity. If the commodity has an atom that is only because of the labor performed with the object. |
| In 128:3 Marx argues that the difference between a use-value commodity and the labors is that all of labor is an “expenditure of human labor-power.” This could suggest that in his eyes the labor process has an atom because it is all-human driven. So, I would say that the Marx thinks the labor process indeed does contain an atom. |
| Just like how AJ or Shannon said in their submissions that without labor there is no process. The labor is what makes everything happen. |
| Hans: You seem to think that the formulation “does not contain an atom of value” means that the commodity does not exist. This is a misunderstanding. Marx said that the value of the commodity is not something that is contained in or can be derived from its use-value. |
|
|
|||||