| This question <169|58> overall <53|55> Ozz: <545|93>. graded A |
| Question 82: Is Marx's concept of “value material” attached to commodities, but separate from their physical material, a metaphor? Is it a phantasy, an invention, which Marx needs to hold his labor theory of value together? Is Marx going overboard here? Or does it really exist? |
| [54] Ozz: Marx concept of “value material” is a metaphor. The value that is added to a commodity is perfectly represented by the idea of presenting it as a metaphor. The addition of value to a certain commodity from labor is real although it is not physical. A similar metaphor would be saying the service a person gave you was a blanket of comfort. The service could have been only that of a talk and not actually physical but the metaphor helps one understand the value of that service. |
| Now if this is a fantasy, or if he is going overboard, I would have to say no. The line that he describes materiality that I enjoyed was “The materiality of human labor that is itself abstract, lacking further quality and content, is, of necessity, an abstract materiality, a thing made of thought.” While in Mexico I remember seeing there little souvenirs and when they told me that they made them from hand, even if that was a lie or not, added an amount of value to that certain product, even though I knew I could get the same thing made by machine. This value I feel is what Marx was trying to explain when he talked of the value “made of thought.” |
| Hans: I like your first paragraph. This is probably how most Marxists view the issue, although I personally have a different view, see my [58]. I don't like your second paragraph as much. My critique formulated in [55] applies to it, since the labor in the commodity enters your utility function, rather than having its own effects. |
|
|
|||||