| This question <121|121> overall <99|101> Dave: <33|216>. |
| Question 263: Give everyday examples of “material relations of persons” and “social relations of things.” |
| [100] Dave: Squeaks and flags. There are many examples of material relations of persons and social relations of things. A material relation of a person can be found in the relation they have with their car. A lot of us have cars that we give names to. For example, the first car that I owned was a red Geo Metro. The car was a piece of crap, but it was my car and it had a name. I named it Squeaks. It was a car and I gave it a name. I personified it. I talked to it like it was real. A living thing. And when I sold it, somehow, and finally, I was sad and I missed it. I think this is an example of a material relations of persons. Squeaks was just a car. It was nothing more than material that was put together. And yet I thought it had some sort of personality, a living thing. |
| A social relation of a thing can be found, I think, in the flags of nations. For example, the American flag has a very strong social meaning to our country. Its represents our past, our present and our future in a way. And yet it is only fabric of different colors woven together. It is nothing more than material. Yet our country identifies with it. We put our hand over our hearts and pledge our allegiance to it. |
| Now, in no way do I think that naming ones cars is foolish and wrong. Nor, do I think that our flag, or any other nations' flag, is unimportant and not a serious thing to consider. But I think that these are good examples of what Marx was saying when he stated, “It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things.” |
| Hans: Marx was not talking about flags. He did not mean social relations between people and things, but social relations between things only. For instance, the relation that 20 yards of linen can be exchanged for a coat is a social relation between things. This is a social relation which does not depend on the people making the exchange but on the things themselves. The people are here considered “price-takers.” |
| By the way, the Marx quote this question refers to is: |
| “To the producers therefore, the social relations between their private labors appear as what they are, i.e., not as direct social relations of persons during their labor processes themselves, but rather as material relations of persons and social relations of things.” |
| The relation between you and your car is a material relation of persons even if you don't talk to your car. Society assigns the car to you as your private property. Your relation to the producers of the car is not a direct relationship of division of labor between the labor you perform in your job and the labor of the car workers, but it is reduced to everybody having to respect everybody else's private property, and to the rules how to transfer private property between people. |
|
|
|||||