| This question <26|26> overall <25|27> Moose: <1194|225>. |
| Question 81: In 128:2, Marx says that the products of labor change if one disregards their use-value, and that this change in the products also causes the labor itself to change. Does this argument, in which the causal order of things seems exactly reversed, have any validity? |
| [26] Moose: It absolutely has validity. When we consider different types of labor used to create a product we can see that if you disregard the product's use-value it causes the labor to change. If we look at an automotive engineer as an example, we can see that if you disregard the fact that the product he/she is creating has great value, the engineer would have less of a desire to create the best product. The engineer may not even allow the product to go into production after the prototype has been created if the use-value is not recognized. As Marx says, “nothing has remained of them except the ghostlike material.” |
| This happens a lot in the automotive industry. An engineer will create a product called a concept car, which has no actual value. The automotive company will evaluate the views of the public and if the public views the product as a product with use-value, the company will begin production on the product. As noted by Ehrbar in the annotative remarks, “these ghosts will not rest until they find reincarnation in money.” |
| Hans: Good point. Your example shows that this reversal in causality (a change in the product causing a change in the labor producing the product) can also exist in other situations. But I hope you are aware that Marx himself has different reasons to reverse the causality. |
|
|
|||||