| This question <99|109> overall <105|108> Jeff: <684|126>. |
| Question 233: Which evidence prompts Marx to say, at the beginning of the Commodity Fetishism section, that the commodity is “complicated” or “mysterious”? |
| [107] Jeff: Complicated and Mysterious. When considering Marx's argument in the beginning of this section, he attempts to realize where the value of the commodity really is located. He uses the example of the wood before being turned into a table. Before the manufacture of the table, the piece of wood was not seen as an important commodity. Its value became apparent only after it had been made into a table. All that happened is the form of the wood has changed. Intrinsically the piece of wood has not changed at all. Marx also says that the table does not have unusual qualities (i.e. the capability to move on its own) which it acquired only after it was made, also leading to the question of where is this value acquired from. Therefore, he attempts to analyze where the value comes from. This is the mystery he is referring to. |
| When considering how a commodity becomes valued after it slightly changes form without any change in intrinsic value, one would wonder if maybe its value is arrived at from its instrumental value that it delivers. Neither the time nor the effort put into making this commodity add to its value. But the result of all three components put together yield a valuable commodity. This is the mystery that Marx discusses early on in his Fetishism section. |
| Hans: With the example of the table Marx tried to illustrate that the use-value of the commodity is not mysterious -- because the production of the table as a use-value only changes the form of a naturally existing object (wood). But the table becomes mysterious when it is a commodity, i.e., produced for sale. When it is exchanged, its use-value becomes the measure of value for other commodities. This is what Marx means with the table standing on its head in relation to other commodities. Another example might be: for a furniture business the table becomes part of their capital which needs to make profits. (But Marx has not yet introduced capital, that's why he does not bring this as an example here.) The mysterious aspects of commodities have to do with their value and exchange relations, not with their use-values. |
|
|
|||||