| This question <25|28> overall <26|28> Hans: <19|29>. |
| 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? |
| [27] Hans: Atoms. Marx said that the commodity is something two-edged: on the one hand it is a use-value, and on the other it is value, and therefore exchangeable against other commodities. These two aspects of each commodity are part of our everyday experience and activity. Marx takes pains to stress how separate these two aspects are from each other. He says again and again that the value of a commodity cannot be derived from its use-value. Marx says the value is some substance inside the commodity which has nothing to do with its use-value, they don't even have one atom in common. |
| Instead, Marx argues, the value of a commodity is the echo of the labor producing the commodity. But then he clarifies that the labor itself also has to be considered under two aspects. On the one hand, every labor process is useful labor, and as such it produces use-values. On the other, it is the expenditure of human labor-power (Marx calls this aspect of the labor process “abstract labor”), and only as such does it produce value. |
| Question 80 asked: are these two aspects of the labor process as separate from each other as the two aspects of the commodity? The answer is: no. It is physically impossible to produce a use-value without expending some labor-power. Every labor process which is useful labor must at the same time be abstract labor. Such a close tie does not exist between value and use-value of useful things. In a society which does not produce commodities, perhaps a primitive tribe in which everything is owned in common, things have use-values without being values. Even in a commodity society, many use-values exist which do not require labor and are not associated with an exchange-value. |
| All three answers submitted so far are difficult to decipher. [16] seems to go along the lines explained here that every labor process is necessarily also the expenditure of human labor-power. But [15] and [25] seem to be saying that without labor a commodity would not exist. Instead of making a coherent and intelligible argument these two submissions throw Marx quotes at the reader. Despite these quotes I do not get the impression that the authors have understood the argument Marx is trying to make. |
|
|
|||||