| This question <132|417> overall <405|408> JasonG: <405|926>. |
| Question 138: If the first chapter is such a systematic discussion of value, why is it then called “Commodities” and not “Value”? |
| [406] JasonG: Why “Commodities” (second try). My test answer to this question is on the correct path, but more details will clarify the direction I am taking. In my answer I said, “Talking about value would be putting the cart before the horse.” This analogy is meant to reflect the commodity and value as connected, but the value is not evident or complete without looking at the commodity. Hans said in [132] that “The commodity is therefore Marx's point of entry.” |
| My comment about bourgeois economists was also incomplete (and slightly inaccurate). The bourgeois economists were concerned about the money that was in circulation. Marx is saying that money is just an aspect of society and that if we “consider the matter more closely” by looking at the commodities as they act within the system we can gain a better understanding of society. |
| The commodity is Marx's broad look at the capitalist system and his stepping stone into the details. |
| Hans: Your in-class answer was bold and brief; it said: |
| Talking about value would be putting the cart before the horse. The discussion about value is Marx's complaint against bourgeois economics. Marx's focus is on why the commodity has value? The only way to answer that question is by defining and analyzing what makes up a commodity. |
|
|
|||||