ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ... - University of Utah

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

ALL STUDY QUESTIONS 

ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SPRING SEMESTER 1999 

Question 1 is 2 in 1996sp, 1 in 1997WI, 1 in 1997sp, 1 in 1997ut, 1 in 1998WI, 1 in 2002fa, 

2 in 2003fa, 4 in 2004fa, 5 in 2005fa, 8 in 2007fa, 8 in 2008SP, 8 in 2008fa, 8 in 2009fa, 

9 in 2010fa, 9 in 2011fa, and 1 in Answer: 

Question 1 Can one say that happiness is the only true wealth? 

[1] Brutal: Wealth and Happiness In a capitalist society wealth is measured in what 

Marx would call commodities. From an economic view the reason for having these commodities 

is to provide utility, which is a unit of measurement of satisfaction. If we consider a 

commodity provides utility, or satisfaction, but does not make us happy shouldn’t we reevaluate 

our definition of utility? However, while technological advances continue to increase 

the perceived utility of commodities and reduce prices it has not increased happiness. Perhaps 

the capitalist view that more is better has diverted our attention from the pursuit of 

happiness. 

If happiness is the only true wealth then individuals could no longer compare wealth 

because it would have a different definition for every individual. While this non-comparative 

view of wealth may increase personal happiness, it would go against, and possibly destroy 

capitalism. Capitalism is by nature competitive, born out of the idea that the more stuff you 

own the more favor you have found with god. Therefore, in order to prove one’s status with 

god he must have more possessions than others. However, these possessions have often been 

acquired through the oppression of others. 

I disagree with the capitalist idea that happiness (or true wealth) comes from trampeling 

others as we attempt to accumulate as many things as possible as fast as we can. I believe 

honest work for those commodities that actually increase personal happiness would be a 

much truer measure of wealth than simply quantity. Wealth would then be as much about 

the process as it is about the result allowing us to enjoy happiness instead of continually 

seeking wealth with the assumption that with it comes happiness. The capitalist’s search 

for wealth becomes a dangling carrot that will never be reached since there will always be 

someone who has more than he. Therefore, happiness for the true capitalist is an illusion 

that will never be achieved. 

Message [1] referenced by [2]. Next Message by Brutal is [28]. 

[2] Hans: Wealth and Happiness Brutal’s little essay [1] is interesting and well-written. 

Nevertheless I have to criticize it. I want to make two main points: 

(1) Question 1 asked whether happiness is the only true wealth, i.e., (a) whether one can 

consider happiness to be a kind of wealth and (b) whether it is indeed the only true kind of 

1 

2 1999SP Econ 5080 U of Utah 

wealth. Brutal does not address this specific question. I have the impression Brutal did not 

read the Question carefully enough and answered the similar but different question whether 

material wealth can be considered the source of happiness. Although it is a thoughtful essay 

it misses the subject and this considerably lowers the grade he can get for it. 

(2) Brutal is critical of capitalism, but his criticism is different than the Marxist critique. 

This itself was not counted against him. I cannot expect you to know Marxism in the first 

week of the class. I will reproduce here Brutal’s answer and compare it with the Marxist critique 

of capitalism. I hope that this contrast of a thoughtful nonmarxist critique of capitalism 

with a Marxist critique will be a good introduction into Marxism. 

Brutal’s first sentence is: 

In a capitalist society wealth is measured in what Marx would call commodities. 

Is this meant to be a paraphrase of Marx’s first sentence “the wealth of capitalist societies 

presents itself as an immense heap of commodities”? If so, Brutal misunderstands Marx’s 

text. Marx does not discuss here how individuals measure who is richer. I say this explicitly 

in the Annotations, see the first page of Appendix B. This is part of the reading material 

in the upcoming class session, and Brutal’s failure to carefully work through the reading 

material will lower his grade. 

By “wealth” Marx means the material resources, skills, etc., available to society, and 

the clause “wealth presents itself as commodities” addresses the social relations governing 

the production of and access to this wealth: almost all this wealth is produced by private 

producers for the market. 

I.e., Marx considers wealth as a social concept, while Brutal looks at it from the point of 

view of the individual. The individualistic view is clearly the more superficial view: although 

access to wealth is very uneven in a capitalist society, wealth is intrinsically social. A rich 

person would have nothing without the social processes, involving many other individuals, 

producing and sustaining his or her wealth. 

From an economic view the reason for having these commodities is to provide 

utility, which is a unit of measurement of satisfaction. 

Again Brutal looks at the economy here from a too individualistic point of view. Of 

course, individuals need the commodities because of their use values, but from a social 

point of view it is an illusion to think that commodities exist for the sake of the satisfaction 

of the consumer. The production of these things is a social process which is not guided by 

use values or individual satisfaction. The social purpose of commodity production is profit 

and capital accumulation. (Right now this is only a shorthand formulation: its full meaning 

will become clear after we have understood better what profit is, and Marx is devoting many 

pages to develop this.) Consumer satisfaction is only sought to the extent that it increases 

growth or profits.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1999SP 3 

If Brutal’s assumption were true, that capitalist production had consumer satisfaction as 

its goal, then capitalism would not be very successful since there is still so much unhappiness. 

Brutal notices this: 

If we consider a commodity provides utility, or satisfaction, but does not 

make us happy shouldn’t we reevaluate our definition of utility? However, 

while technological advances continue to increase the perceived utility of 

commodities and reduce prices it has not increased happiness. Perhaps the 

capitalist view that more is better has diverted our attention from the pursuit 

of happiness. 

Brutal seems to say here that capitalism is flawed because consumers and capitalists have 

the wrong goals. Marxists call this a “voluntaristic” view of capitalism. Unfortunately, it 

is not enough to change goals and objectives to change capitalism. The imperative to make 

profits and grow is built into the very structure of the market economy. Capitalists who do 

not follow this imperative will not remain capitalists for long. 

Now Brutal makes a new start and says wealth should be measured in such a way that 

intersubjective comparisons are possible: 

If happiness is the only true wealth then individuals could no longer compare 

wealth because it would have a different definition for every individual. 

While this non-comparitive view of wealth may increase personal happiness, 

it would go against, and possibly destroy capitalism. 

I have encounterd this several times before in my classes that people consider themselves 

rich only if they have something which others don’t have. It still puzzles me how deeply 

entrenched this competitive stance is even in the sphere of consumption. 

Capitalism is by nature competitive, born out of the idea that the more stuff 

you own the more favor you have found with god. Therefore, in order to 

prove one’s status with god he must have more possessions than others. 

However, these possessions have often been acquired through the oppression 

of others. 

Brutal’s implicit critique of religion is similar to the position, held by some Marxists, that 

religion is institutionalized hypocricy. However Brutal’s assertion that capitalism comes 

from a certain religious belief is what Marxist would call an idealist point of view. Marxists 

would turn the causality around. Religious ideas are grounded in the material realities of 

production, i.e., they are an expression of capitalism, but not its cause. 

I disagree with the capitalist idea that happiness (or true wealth) comes from 

trampeling others as we attempt to accumulate as many things as possible 

as fast as we can. I believe honest work for those commodities that actually 

increase personal happiness would be a much truer measure of wealth than 

simply quantity. Wealth would then be as much about the process as it 

is about the result allowing us to enjoy happiness instead of continualy 

seeking wealth with the assumption that with it comes happiness. 


This is an important point, but it also matters who gets the products after they are produced. 

You don’t want the capitalist to say to the workers: you had the fun producing it, and 

I will have the fun cosuming it. 

The capitalist’s search for wealth becomes a dangling carrot that will never 

be reached since there will always be someone who has more than him. 

Therefore, happiness for the true capitalist is an illusion that will never be 

achieved. 

The image of the unhappy capitalist may be a consolation to the poor whose lives are so 

obviously stunted by their poverty. But the reality is that those who have more money can 

lead happier, more fulfilled, healthier, and longer lives. 

Despite all these criticisms I want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed Brutal’s essay. Keep 

up the good work. 

Next Message by Hans is [7]. 

[12] Hans: The “correct” answer to Question 1 Wealth is an input into the process 

of living, while happiness is an output from the process of living. Humans need to process 

nature with their labor in order to live and to live well. They can do this only in society. The 

natural and social resources available to them for this process are called “wealth.” Happiness, 

on the other hand, is a temporary emotional state of feeling in harmony with the universe or 

with one’s fellow men and women, or with oneself. It may be an indication that one’s living 

is good. 

The sentence “happiness is the only true wealth” is therefore just as illogical as the sentence 

“health is the best kind of medicine” or “laughter is the best kind of joke.” It makes 

the elementary logical mistake (sometimes called “category error”) of confusing inputs and 

outputs, cause and effect, and of suggesting that the effects can be attained independently of 

their necessary conditions. 

Although it does not take a genius to avoid such logical blunders, this particular mistake 

often remains undetected. Why? Because we live in a society where there is a taboo against 

seeing certain connections. Our society is a class society. Those who create all the material 

wealth receive only a small portion of what they produce. Wealth is distributed extremely 

unevenly. But there is a taboo against seeing this. We are swamped with propaganda showing 

how unhappy the rich are and how happy poor people can be, and that material wealth is 

morally suspect. This propaganda trivializes the inequity and unnecessary poverty stunting 

the lives of the majority of people in capitalist society. It pretends that people do not really 

need material things for living, and that the rampant exploitation in our society is therefore 

irrelevant. 

The slogan “happiness is the only true wealth” is part of this propaganda. It is a sophisticated 

kind of “brainwashing.” It does not feed us false facts but confuses us with logical 

inconsistencies, so that we are unable to see the structure of the society we live in. 

Message [12] referenced by [Answer:13], [13], [2003fa:11], [2004fa:9], [2005fa:122], [2005fa:394], [2007fa:10], 

[2008SP:5], [2008fa:8], [2009fa:360], and [2009fa:414]. Next Message by Hans is [15]. 

[13] Sprockets: Response to Hans’s Answer In response to Hans’s “correct” answer 

[12] to question 1:


I firmly agree with Hans that “happiness is the only true wealth” is illogical. I consider 

the meaning of wealth to be very basic. Commonly, the term wealth is associated with the 

possession of many luxuries, possessions, and a lot of money, i.e. wealthy. However, I see 

wealth composed of not only riches, but of necessities also. Food, water, shelter, and air are 

the primary determinants of wealth, tangible goods which (air aside) are of high value. 

Happiness is an emotion, as Hans said, happiness is an output from the process of living. 

Emotion does come from this process, it can influence us within it, but it is definitely not 

an element of the process of living. True wealth, which varies infinitely from individual to 

individual, or from society to society, is always a prime factor of the creation of happiness. 

Happiness, therefore, is a product of true wealth. 

Hans: I agree fully with this. 

Next Message by Sprockets is [19]. 

Exam Question 3 is 3 in 1995WI, 6 in 1995ut, 6 in 1996sp, 4 in 1997sp, 3 in 1998WI, 6 

in 2004fa, 7 in 2005fa, 12 in 2007SP, 10 in 2007fa, 10 in 2008fa, 10 in 2009fa, 11 in 

2010fa, 11 in 2011fa, and 8 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 3 What is a commodity? Marx does not give the definition of a commodity 

but an analysis. How would you define the thing he analyzes? (The answer can be given in 

one sentence.) 

[93] Perro: Commodities are everything made by people in a society in order to be able 

to sell or exchange these with other people, so that they can meet their material needs. 

Message [93] referenced by [94]. Next Message by Perro is [119.2]. 

[94] Hans: Definition of a commodity The exams this Semester will be a little different 

than in the past. As in previous years, some of the questions will require you to write 

detailed answers drawing on the Internet discussion, and these are the questions you have to 

re-submit per email after the exam. 

But other questions will be very easy and straightforward: they will be selected from 

the questions labeled “exam question” in the Annotations, and here only a short answer is 

required. They will not be accepted for resubmission. I will grade them as either right or 

almost right or wrong. Question 3 is one of these exam questions, and all I am looking for 

here is that you say: “a commodity is something produced for sale or exchange”, just as you 

can find it in the Annotations. Perro’s answer [93] would have been graded as “right.” Perro 

wrote: 

Commodities are everything made by people in a society in order to be able 

to sell or exchange these with other people, which also make them able to 

meet their material needs. 

If I wanted to go into the subtleties of it, I would say that Perro makes it sound too much as 

if it depended on the individual whether something is a commodity or not. This is not Marx’s 

view of these categories. A commodity is a social category: not only must the individual 

have the intention of trading that thing, but this individual must also stand in a social context 

where these things are generally considered the private property of their producers, and this 

ownership right can be transferred through trade, and where these things are customarily 


traded. A number of social prerequisites must be met for things to be produced and traded 

as commodities. Marx is very aware of these, while we sometimes tend to forget them. But 

in the portion of the exam in which you are to answer these Exam Questions I am not going 

after these subtleties. 

A third portion of the exam will be multiple choice questions, and you should not underestimate 

those. I am developing some interesting and difficult multiple-choice questions 

about the first chapter of Marx’s Capital. Some of these will test whether you have basic 

misunderstandings, but others will be such that you can only answer them if you have been 

reading the assigned readings fairly closely. 


[95] Maktub: question 3 nitpickings I understand that a commodity is anything this 

is produced for sale or exchange, but I guess the question that I have is this: in reading 

the email from the class, there was an example of manure as a commodity that Navin [56] 

talks about. Manure isn’t produced for sale or exchange, it’s produced by a cow and this 

cow doesn’t produce it for exchange. The owner of the cow now has a commodity that is 

exchangable, assuming somebody wants it, would Marx classify the manure as a commodity 

since the manure wasn’t produced for sale or exchange? 

Next Message by Maktub is [128.3]. 

[98] Hans: Manure as a Commodity Maktub’s second submission [96] is asking a question, 

but his formulations are also already beginning to answer this question. The manure is 

a by-product in the production of cows. Its market value therefore represents not only the 

labor collecting the manure but also some of the labor raising the cow itself. 

Of course, the laborer has a very limited role in the actual production of the manure. But 

this is so with all production: as use values, products are not only the products of labor 

but “labor is their father and the earth their mother.” Here the cow is considered part of the 

“earth”, just as machines must also be considered part of the “earth”. 

The production of manure exemplifies three aspects of the production process which are 

becoming more and more prevalent and which make production for the market a more and 

more inappropriate form: 

(1) every production process has more than one product, it is a process with many inputs 

and many outputs. The market simply cannot handle this multidimensionality. 

(2) with increasing technology, machines will become more and more important and 

direct labor a less and less important ingredient in every production process. Markets are 

much better in allocating current expenditures than in directing the buildup of investment. 

(3) I assume future societies will include animals not just as things to be utilized but as as 

members of society in their own right. The most pressing goal is to abolish the exploitation 

of humans by humans, but afterwards I am sure the exploitation of animals will become an 

issue society is concerned about. 

Message [98] referenced by [2008fa:281]. Next Message by Hans is [99]. 

Question 14 is 14 in 2001fa, 14 in 2002fa, 16 in 2004fa, 21 in 2007fa, 21 in 2009fa, and 

22 in 2010fa:


Question 14 Which of the following paraphrases best captures the spirit of the first sentence 

“the wealth of those societies, in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, presents 

itself as an immense heap of commodities”? 

(a) In capitalism, everyone tries to accumulate things. 

(b) Nearly all wealth in capitalist societies consists of things which can be bought and sold. 

(c) In capitalist societies only those are considered wealthy who own a lot of commodities. 

(d) The capitalist idea of being wealthy leads to excessive commodity consumption. 

[124] Hans: First Multiple Choice Question Thursday Here the correct answer is (b). 


Multiple Choice Question 20 is 24 in 2005fa: 

Multiple Choice Question 20 Marx does not begin Capital with individual actions and 

preferences because 

(a) in a socialist system, the common good is more important than individual preferences 

(b) his goal is to understand the social relations the individuals find themselves in, and they 

cannot be derived from individual preferences 

(c) What individuals do is determined by their class background 

(d) Marx does not believe that there is something like human nature. 

[125] Hans: Second Multiple Choice Question Thursday Here the correct answer is (b) 

again. (c) is wrong because Marx believes that individuals can raise themselves above their 

class. Class is an important factor but it does not determine what people do. 


Question 21 is 21 in 2000fa and 21 in 2001fa: 

Question 21 Marx begins Capital with the commodity because 

(a) The desire to have more and more commodities is one of the basic driving forces in 

capitalism. 

(b) the earliest capitalists were commodity merchants. 

(c) The analysis of the commodity leads us to value, and to capital, which can be considered 

value on the move. 

(d) At Marx’s time, money was a commodity, and capitalism is driven by the greed for money. 

[121] Hans: Multiple Choice Questions This was an easy one: the right answer is of 

course (c). 


Multiple Choice Question 33 is 33 in 2000fa, 36 in 2002fa, and 39 in 2004fa: 

Multiple Choice Question 33 Which of the following definitions of exchange value is closest 

to the definition used by Marx? 

(a) An article has exchange value if it is commonly traded for other articles in the given 

society. 

(b) An article has exchange value if I can trade it for something that I can use. 

(c) An article has exchange value if its ownership confers prestige. 


(d) An article has exchange value if it is not very useful but can be profitably traded for 

useful things because of the market conditions. 

[122] Hans: Multiple Choice Questions Here the right answer is (a). Whether something 

has exchange value or not is determined on a social level. Answers (b) and (c) are wrong 

because they look at exchange value from an individualistic standpoint. 


Exam Question 38 is 25 in 1995WI, 35 in 1996sp, 33 in 1996ut, 36 in 1997sp, 34 in 

1998WI, 41 in 2004fa, 42 in 2005fa, 48 in 2007SP, 47 in 2008fa, 49 in 2009fa, 50 in 


Exam Question 38 What is the exchange value of a commodity? (Give its definition, not an 

analysis where it comes from). 

[97] Bull: Riskfree extra-credit Exchange value of a Commodity is the exchangeability 

of a product produced in a commodity producing society. This exchange value that is given 

to a commodity has a limited or definite value and is socially determined. 

Hans: I looked at your submission again and thought I had given it a too low grade. My apologies. 

Message [97] referenced by [103]. Next Message by Bull is [184]. 

[99] Hans: Exchange Value: A Gift we could do Without “Exchangeability” does not 

really capture it. You pick up that stick from the ground there and I pick up this rock here, 

and now let’s exchange them. This proves that rock and stick are exchangeable, i.e., that 

they have exchange value? No, of course it does not. 

Also the word “given” bears the wrong connotations. In commodity society, things not 

only can be exchanged but usually they must be exchanged in order to become useful for 

their producers. And for those who need things but for some reason do not have money to 

buy them, the exchange value can be a formidable obstacle. 

Message [99] referenced by [103]. Next Message by Hans is [102]. 

[101] JoeHill: exchange value Exchange value of a commodity is defined as the value 

of the commodity as compared with other commodities, and is measured by the socially 

necessary labor time of the commodities being exchanged. 

Message [101] referenced by [103]. Next Message by JoeHill is [142.25]. 

[103] Hans: Another Attempt at Defining Exchange Value JoeHill’s definition [101] is 

not good. Bull’s [97] was better here, who said exchange value was the “exchangeability” 

of the commodity. I complained about it in [99] because Bull said that exchangeability was 

“given” to the commodity, presumably by the individuals, rather than it being the result 

of the way production is organized. Perhaps the following formulation makes it clear that 

exchange value has a social origin and does not just depend on individual decisions: 

a commodity has exchage value in a given society if it is customary to exchange that 

commodity for other commodities in that society. 


Question 39 is 26 in 1995WI, 37 in 1996sp, 35 in 1996ut, 32 in 1997ut, 42 in 2001fa, 45 

in 2003fa, 49 in 2004fa, 57 in 2007SP, 57 in 2008fa, 60 in 2010fa, 65 in 2011fa, and 63 

in 2012fa:


Question 39 How can one come to the conclusion that exchange value is not something 

inherent in the commodity? 

[5] Veblen: inherency of exchange values in the commodity In an attempt to answer 

this question I felt it was imperative to make salient what exactly was being asked. The most 

important qualification to be made is that of the word, inherent. Websters defines inherent 

as, “existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, 

or attribute”. With this understood I will endeavor to answer this question with regard to 

various interpretations. 

Firstly, if the question is asked from the perspective of a commodity having an inherent 

stable proportion in exchange, and this condition reflecting what Marx would call exchangeable 

value, then one could assume that commodities do not have an inherent exchangeable 

value. 

However, if the question concerns the relationship between exchange value and use value 

it is an entirely different matter. Marx says, “...use values...in the form of society to be 

considered here are also the material bearers of exchange value”. So assuming that exchange 

value is dependent on use value, its inherency in the commodity is transitory, and once again 

you could assume exchange value was not a permenant characteristic of a commodity. 

Expounding on the ephemeral nature of exchange value requires a concrete elucidation 

of the facts. At any time and place the exchange value of a commodity, relative to other 

commodities can fluctuate greatly. Therefore it can be deduced that these fluctuations can 

result in exchange value not being an inherent, in the strictest context of the word, quality 

of a commodity. However, it is my personal assertion that exchange value does not have 

to depend on stable proportion, but merely on its use value to other market participants. 

Therefore, you could argue that if a commodity had zero exchangeable value it would also 

lack its, supposed, inherent use value and consequently lack the characteristics that make a 

commodity a commodity, (something produced for sale or exchange). 

I would like to discuss one more issue; that of semantics. The attempt to distingish between 

the exchange value and use value of a commodity, seems to me a complete disavowal 

of the complete nature of a commodity, its cycle of life, so to say. It seems like an attempt 

to seperate two intrinsic qualities of an external object just to put them back together again. 

Message [5] referenced by [8]. Next Message by Veblen is [30]. 

[8] Hans: Exchange value: inherent in the commodity or relative? I like Veblen’s 

careful approach in [5], trying to argue himself through a difficult question. The Webster 

definition of “inherent” is helpful. Veblen brings two arguments why exchange value might 

not be considered “inherent”: 

(1) because commodities do not have stable exchange proportions. If the same commodity 

is being traded at wildly divergent exchange proportions at different locations and 

different times, this would suggest the exchange value is not inherent in the commodity, it is 

not determined by something inside the commodity (because the commodity is always the 

same) but by other circumstances of the exchange. 


(2) Veblen also argues that exchange values are not inherent because they are attached to 

the use values. Apparently Veblen considers the use values as something subjective, each 

person has a different use value for a given commodity, one person needs it and another 

person does not need it at all. Marx’s concept of use value is however not subjective at 

all. The word “use value” does not signify how much a commodity is needed by someone, 

but it denotes the menu of all possible uses. Use values may change historically: if society 

discovers at some point in time that a certain herb can be used as a medicine, then the use 

value of this herb undergoes a change; however this use value is not dependent on whether 

someone has the illness which is cured by the herb. With this objective concept of use value, 

the fact that exchange values are attached to the use values would indicate that exchange 

values are indeed inherent to the commodities. 

At the end, however, Veblen argues that constancy of exchange proportions is not necessary 

for exchange value to be inherent. 

However, it is my personal assertion that exchange value does not have to 

depend on stable proportion, but merely on its use value to other market 

participants. 

I disagree with this assertion: if the exchange value depends on the use value to the 

buyer, then this means the exchange value is not inherent in the commodity but is something 

relative! We are all steeped in subjective value theory, therefore it is difficult to think of 

commodity value as something that is not subjective. But this is exactly Marx’s point of 

view: the value of the commodity does not depend on what people think of it, but on its 

labor content alone. 

Finally I’d like to say something about Veblen’s last paragraph: 

I would like to discuss one more issue; that of semantics. The attempt 

to distingish between the exchange value and use value of a commodity, 

seems to me a complete disavowal of the complete nature of a commodity, 

its cycle of life, so to say. It seems like an attempt to seperate two intrinsic 

qualities of an external object just to put them back together again. 

Veblen says that use value and exchange value form an organic unity and should not be 

torn apart. Marx, on the other hand, says that use value and exchange value are very much 

different from each other and at odds with each other, and that it is necessary to keep them 

apart and study them separately in order to see what is really going on in a market economy. 


Question 57 Is value the result of abstract labor? 

[3] Cartman: abstract labor “A use value, or useful article has value only because 

Human Labor in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it.” Clearly, from this 

statement, we see that Marx believes that value is the result of abstract labor. The quantity 

of labor required to make or produce a certain article determines that level of value given 

to it. However, Marx does make a distinction concerning what type of labor gives value 

to a commodity. This type of labor is homogeneous human labor. It would be practically


impossible to equally distribute value to varying types of commodities. Reason being, the 

drastically different modes of production each one must go through. For this reason, Marx 

defines homogeneous human labor as the expenditure of one uniform labour power. This 

describes the conditions of labor, or production, that are “average” for time and skill under 

normal conditions. 

Hence, Marx believes that the magnitude of value of a commodity is directly related to 

the amount of labor socially necessary. In his own words, “as values, all commodities are 

only definite masses of congealed labour-time.” 

However, another point that Marx brings up, is the ever changing production processes 

that commodities go through. With technological advances, differing levels of skill and 

many externalities, the productiveness of labor is always changing. Therefore, Marx states 

that “value varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour 

incorporated in it.” 

Personally, I can agree with Marx to a certain extent. Labor is an important input in the 

production of a commodity. However, I can not see how labor alone can determine the entire 

value of the commodity. There are so many other inputs to consider that contribute to value 

such as raw materials and overhead, to name a few. And how as Economists could we leave 

out supply and demand. I feel that it is a combination of the many inputs and factors of a 

commodity that determine it’s final value to society. 

Hans: Your last five words should of course be spelled “its final value to society.” 

Message [3] referenced by [6], [7], [9], [27], and [137.3]. Next Message by Cartman is [136.3]. 

[6] Angus: Responding to Cartman Cartman’s submission in [3] that “there are many 

other inputs to consider that contribute to value such as raw materials and overhead... that 

determine its final value to society,” is logical based upon his argument, but I do not believe 

his assertion is correct. I will agree that Marx defines the value of a commodity is related 

to the amount of labor, however I believe Marx was relating use value to society as a whole 

and not based upon the perceived value of the sometimes irrational individual. 

For instance, you could argue that the laws of supply and demand have caused the prices 

of Baseball Cards or Beanie Babies to skyrocket therefore generating value for the individual. 

However, I believe Marx was trying to point out the “total value of a good in society” 

and as we all know Baseball Cards and Beanie Babies do not contribute to the betterment 

of our society. Therefore, (assuming consumers are rational) I assert that Marx is correct in 

saying that an article has value only because of the input of human labor. 

Message [6] referenced by [9]. Next Message by Angus is [21]. 

[7] Hans: Is Ice the Result of Water? The first thing that needs to be said about Cartman’s 

[3], and I’d like to shout this out so that you all hear it and remember it, is that Cartman 

uses the wrong concept of “value”! To Cartman, the value of a commodity is “its final value 

to society.” This is not how Marx uses the word “value”. In the Annotations, at the very 

beginning of my notes about Chapter 1, I wrote: 

The word ‘value’ is used by Marx in a very specific meaning. Value (sometimes 

Marx calls it ‘commodity value’) is that property of a commodity 

which allows it to be exchanged on the market. ‘Value’ is not an ethical 


category, and it also does not indicate a subjective valuation (how much 

someone values something). Marx uses this word to denote an economic 

category: it is that intrinsic property of commodities which finds its expression 

in the market price. 

But now let’s go to the beginning of Cartman’s essay. Cartman begins with a Marx quote. 

He should have given us the page number (it comes from 129:1) since we are discussing the 

text here in some detail and readers might want to look up the context of this quote: 

“A use value, or useful article has value only because Human Labor in 

the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it.” Clearly, from this 

statement, we see that Marx believes that value is the result of abstract 

labor. The quantity of labor required to make or produce a certain article 

determines that level of value given to it. 

I agree that the given Marx quote indeed suggests this interpretation, Cartman therefore 

has good grounds for the conclusion he is drawing. But I will argue that although roughly 

correct, the details of this interpretation are wrong. Marx’s quote was therefore misleading. 

Which details are wrong? Cartman writes: “The quantity of labor required to make or 

produce a certain article determines that level of value given to it.” This means, society gives 

value to the commodity based on the labor in the commodity, and this value then in turn 

determines the exchange value or the price. If a commodity has more abstract labor in it, 

people value it more, and therefore they are willing to pay a higher price for it. 

This mechanism, let me call it mechanism (1), is not what Marx had in mind. Marx 

was rather thinking along the following lines, which I will call mechanism (2): say one unit 

of commodity A is customarily exchanged on the market against one unit of commodity B 

but A contains more labor than B. Then the producers of A will say: instead of producing 

A and exchanging it for B, I will be better off producing B itself. Therefore, over time 

more producers will produce commodity B and fewer producers commodity A, therefore the 

supply of A declines, which drives up its price. There is no subjective valuation involved, 

but the labor content itself asserts itself here through the blind forces of demand and supply. 

Mechanism (2) establishes a much more direct link between labor and the exchange proportions 

of the commodities than mechanism (1). It is not filtered through what people think 

of the commodities, but is entirely automatic and independent of the subjective view of anyone. 

It is a little scary that our economic laws have this automatic inexorable character, but 

according the Marx’s theory this is exactly the situation the capitalist society is in. 

In order to emphasize this automatic tight link between labor and exchange proportions, 

not mediated by human reflection, Marx says that value is congealed abstract labor. Marx 

does not say value is caused by or is the result of abstract labor, but it is abstract labor. Just 

as one does not say ice is caused by water, or ice is the result of water, but ice is water. 

Let me say a little more how I grade this. Cartman’s error regarding the meaning of the 

word “value” in Marx’s writings did lower his grade. But the fact that Cartman missed the 

difference between mechanism (1) and (2) did not diminish his grade. He took a good shot 

at it, and backed up what he wrote with Marx quotes. Cartman has a very clear writing


style. This is like sitting in a glass house: everyone can throw stones at him because he 

is not hiding anything. But for the discussion as a whole this clarity has great merits: it 

allows us to focus on the relevant issues, instead of getting lost in the fog of impenetrable 

mumbo-jumbo. 

Message [7] referenced by [27], [102], and [137.3]. Next Message by Hans is [8]. 

[9] Hans: The Magical Link between Social Use Value and Labor Time Angus’s 

[6] is a direct response to Cartman’s [3], and in principle I like it if class participants have 

a dialogue with each other. However Angus does not notice Cartman’s main error, that 

Cartman consides the word “value” to mean the value of a certain article for society, while 

for Marx the word “value” simply denotes that what causes a commodity’s price to be high. 

Instead of correcting Cartman’s error, Angus amplifies it, spinning on Cartman’s speculations 

about what a commodity’s “real value to society” depends on. Angus argues that the 

value of a commodity is not determined by the sometimes irrational individual preferences 

but by its overall use value to society. Then he says that, if consumers are rational, this 

overall use value to society stands in proportion to the labor input into the commodity. 

This is an attempt to reconcile Marx’s labor theory of value with some kind of utilitybased 

value theory, two theories which are very different from each other. One is left wondering 

not only whether Angus considers the consumers rational or not, but also how the 

magical coincidence between value to society and labor content comes about even if consumers 

are rational. 


[10] Hans: Question from an Observer One of our outside observers sent me the 

following message: 

Hans, 

I don’t see the need for a notion of “inherent exchange value.” If, for example, 

I exchange grain for chickens, why would a calculation of some 

inherent value of grain and chickens come into it? You make the best deal 

you can under the circumstances, whether you are a capitalist or a socialist 

or whether you are two individuals or two nations. Is this not so? 

Yes, I agree: buyers and sellers on the market do not consider the inherent value of the 

commodities they trade. They simply make the best deals they can under the circumstances. 

But now the question is: do the exchange proportions the traders arrive at only depend on the 

circumstances or the traders themselves (in which case exchange value would be something 

purely relative), or do the exchange proportions have something to do with the commodities 

traded (i.e., the commodities contain some kind of inherent exchange value). Marx, of 

course, argues the latter and then goes on to investigate which aspect of the commodity is 

responsible for its exchange value. 

BTW, outside observers are invited to join into the discussion just as everybody else, by 

specifying the number of the study question to which their contribution refers. 



Exam Question 58 is 38 in 1995WI, 47 in 1995ut, 49 in 1996sp, 47 in 1996ut, 46 in 

1997ut, 60 in 2001fa, 73 in 2004fa, 72 in 2005fa, 85 in 2007SP, 85 in 2007fa, 86 in 

2008fa, 93 in 2010fa, 110 in 2011fa, and 108 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 58 What is value (according to Marx)? 

[104] Paul: What is value Marx’s idea of value is very different from that of the Capitalist. 

The exchangeability of the commodity is what’s important to Marx. If something is not 

exchangeable than it has no value. Furthermore, prices are not what determines the value 

but rather the amount of human labor put into the commodity. 

Next Message by Paul is [138.18]. 

[108] Hans: Value, Exchangeability, Price: how are they related? 

Marx’s idea of value is very different from that of the Capitalist. 

Are you thinking that Marx’s book, called Capital, is not about the capitalist economy? 

What Marx decribes here is not an alternative to capitalism, but these are the categories 

relevant for capitalism. We have to understand what value is because value is what the 

capitalist rips off from the worker. 

The exchangeability of the commodity is what’s important to Marx. 

We want to know what value is. How is exchangeability related to the value of a commodity? 

If something is not exchangeable than it has no value. 

This sounds as if value comes from exchangeability. Marx would say it the other way 

round: exchangeability comes from value. 

Furthermore, prices are not what determines the value but rather the amount 

of human labor put into the commodity. 

This sentence is right. But the question arises again: what is the relationship between 

prices and values? 

Message [108] referenced by [110] and [111]. Next Message by Hans is [109]. 

[110] Senco: Value, Exchangeability, and Price. Labor devoted to the production of 

commodities that are actually exchanged, produces value. Professor Ehrbar clearly states in 

his annotations ,on page five of the blue edition, that “Value is that property of a commodity 

which allows it to be exchanged on the market... Marx uses this word to denote an economic 

category: it is that intrinsic property of commodities which finds its expression in the market.” 

Price is not what determines the commodities value, price simply reflects the current 

market conditions. Hans asserts in [108] that “exchangeability comes from value.” I will add 

that value comes from labor. 

Message [110] referenced by [111]. Next Message by Senco is [127.3]. 

[111] Hans: Value, Exchangeability, and Price Senco [110] adds relevant depth to the 

question. He writes: 

Labor devoted to the production of commodities that are actually exchanged, 

produces value.


Yes. The short answer to the question “what is value?” is: value is congealed abstract 

labor. Senco also makes an important clarification what value is not: 

Professor Ehrbar clearly states in his annotations, on page five of the blue 

edition, that “Value is that property of a commodity which allows it to be 

exchanged on the market... Marx uses this word to denote an economic category: 

it is that intrinsic property of commodities which finds its expression 

in the market.” 

Actually I wrote: “which finds its expression in the market price.” Did you omit the word 

“price” because it conflicts with what you say in your next sentence? 

Price is not what determines the commodities value, price simply reflects 

the current market conditions. 

The first half is right, prices do not determine values. But the second half is only partially 

right. If there is an imbalance in the market which pushes prices away from their equilibrium 

levels, then Marx agrees with you and says that prices reflect the market conditions which 

create this imbalance. But after prices have returned to their equilibrium levels, then Marx 

says that the market ceases to affect prices, instead, prices are in this case determined by and 

reflect the values, i.e., the labor content of the commodities. 

Senco’s last two sentence are right again: 

Hans asserts in [108] that “exchangeability comes from value.” I will add 

that value comes from labor. 


Question 59 is 39 in 1995WI, 48 in 1996ut, 47 in 1997ut, 65 in 2003fa, 74 in 2004fa, 73 

in 2005fa, 86 in 2007SP, 86 in 2007fa, 87 in 2008fa, 90 in 2009fa, and 109 in 2012fa: 

Question 59 Use value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange value is its quantity. 

Right or wrong? 

[4] Perro: Use value/exchange value I think this statement is wrong. 

Saying that use value is the quality and the exchange value is the quantity of the same 

commodity is not really what I think Marx meant. A commodity consists of both use value 

and exchange value. This dual nature of commodities means that use value and exchange 

value are two completely different or individual aspects of the same commodity. 

I think we have use value on the one hand, and the exchange value on the other hand. 

Both the use values and the exchange values of the commodity may have quantitative sides 

as well as qualitative sides. Use value consists of more than quality, and exchange value 

consists of more than quantity. 

Exchange value of the commodity should be determined because of both qualitative and 

quantitative sides. Further should use value of the commodity also be determined because 

of both qualitative and quantitative sides. If a commodity is to be exchanged, then both its 

qualitative as well as its quantitative sides should be considered. E.g. if I want to exchange 


an apple-tree with an orange-tree, I would not only count the number of fruits on both trees, 

but also consider the quality of fruits. 

Message [4] referenced by [11]. Next Message by Perro is [39]. 

[11] Hans: The Quality of an Exchange Value Perro [4] correctly says that this formulation 

is wrong: both use value and exchange value have both quality and quantity. But 

Perro’s example at the end only illustrates quality and quantity of the use-values involved, 

not those of the exchange-values: 

If a commodity is to be exchanged, then both its qualitative as well as its 

quantitative sides should be considered. E.g. if I want to exchange an 

apple-tree with an orange-tree, I would not only count the number of fruits 

on both trees, but also consider the quality of fruits. 

These are the qualities of the trees as use values. What about the qualities of them as 

exchange values? Clearly the exchange value has a quantitative side: you get so and so 

many orange trees (of a given quality) for a given apple tree. But what is the quality of 

this exchange value? People are not used to asking this question, but Marx says: if two 

things are quantitatively comparable then they must be qualitatively equal. I.e., there must 

be something which the apple tree and the orange tree have in common since they can be 

exchanged for each other. Marx concludes that what they have in common is that they are 

both expenditures of human labor. The quality of the exchange value is therefore (abstract) 

human labor. 


Question 62 is 56 in 1997sp, 50 in 1997ut, 56 in 1998WI, 66 in 2001fa, and 116 in 2011fa: 

Question 62 First Marx says that the quantity of value is determined by labor time, and then 

he continues: “It might seem that if the value of a commodity is determined by the amount 

of labor spent in its production, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the more valuable 

his commodity would be.” Why does Marx write here: “it might seem that”? Does his 

prescription how to measure the quantity of value lead to absurd results or does it not? 

[21] Angus: No, Marx’s prescription of how to measure the quantity of value does not 

lead to absurd results. Marx mentions the thought of “It might seem...” because he wants the 

reader to become aware of the important dimension of socially necessary labor-time. 

“Socially necessary labor time is the labor time required to produce any 

use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and 

with the average degree of skill and intensity of labor prevalent in society.” 

(Capital pg. 129) 

Therefore, the extent of value depends on the amount of socially necessary labor. That is, 

socially necessary labor is the amount of labor necessary under normal conditions with the 

average degree of skills given the current technology of the day. As Marx also points out, 

labor must be homogeneous or if it is not homogeneous that there at least must be a way of 

adjusting for heterogeneous labor. The American Heritage Dictionary defines homogeneous 

as being uniform in structure or composition throughout-consisting of terms of the same


degree or elements of the same dimension. On the other hand, heterogeneous by definition 

means something being completely different or incongruous. 

An example might be if I was a indolent bread maker and it took me one week to make 

a loaf of bread, then the amount of socially necessary labor is the amount a reasonably 

competent bread maker would spend—say 30 minutes. Also, in terms of technology, if I 

used a hand beater versus a modern day bread-making machine, then the amount of my 

labor time exhausted is not socially necessary. 

Therefore, the obvious units of measurement for the degree of value are in terms of units 

of homogeneous labor time. 

Hans: Your subject line “Question 62 submission” is not very informative, especially since the Question number 

is automatically added to the beginning of the subject line. 


[120] Hans: The Lazy Worker One More Time Only one person answered this exam 

question, and I am not surprised. It is a difficult question. Let me try to explain again how I 

would have answered it: 

We get to this absurd result only because we overlook something. Actually it is not only 

one thing but two things which we are overlooking here: 

(1) The concrete labor times of different people are not homogeneous and therefore cannot 

be added together, just as apples and oranges cannot be added together. The absurd 

result arises only because we had forgotten that only something that is homogeneous can be 

measured quantitatively. The lazy laborer reminds us of this oversight. 

(2) We also had overlooked that our goal is to determine the magnitude of value. For this 

we do not need the quantity of concrete labor but that of abstract labor. This is not measured 

by the actual labor time but by the socially necessary labor time. 

Once these oversights are cleared up it is obvious that an unskillful or lazy worker produces 

less value per hour than a normal worker. 

Message [120] referenced by [127.4]. Next Message by Hans is [121]. 

[120.1] Perro: Marx meant that the quantity of value is determined by the amount of 

abstract human labor used to produce a commodity. In [105] Angus correctly defines abstract 

labor as something that “refers to the expenditure of brain, muscles, nerves etc on a 

commodity”. Further, this leads me to what Hans is discussing in Annotations page 20-21, 

socially necessary labor time. This was exactly right defined by Brutal in [106]; “Socially 

necessary labor time is the time it would take a normal person to produce an article using the 

normal means of production available in the society”. This can be understood better when 

we know that Marx meant that labors of different workers would not be the same. Therefore 

will this prescription of how to measure the quantity of value not lead to absurd results. 

Next Message by Perro is [130]. 

[143.1] Zed: Marx says “The more lazy and inept the laborer, the more valuble his commodity 

would be ” because of what he said earlier in that “the quantity of value is determined 

by labor time.” Marx said “It would seem that” because, taking what he said literally, a laborer 

that did not work hard or smart but rather took alot of time to inefficiently produce 

what he produces, would produce a more valuble commodity. His prescription of how to 


measure a quantity of value is not absurd but rather must be evaluated in the proper context. 

The laborers labor time could be used to portray a realistic value of the quantity of value if 

he worked at an efficient pace, or an average one compared to all other workers. This would 

also assume the laborers were working up to their ablity. 

Hans: Your last sentence is right, but you are just stating it as something self-evident, while Marx gives a precise 

argument why this should be so. 

Grade penalty because your resubmission was late. 

Next Message by Zed is [153.1]. 

Question 63 is 57 in 1997WI, 57 in 1997sp, 65 in 2001fa, 66 in 2002fa, 68 in 2003fa, 78 

in 2004fa, 77 in 2005fa, 90 in 2007SP, 90 in 2007fa, 92 in 2008SP, 90 in 2008fa, 93 in 


Question 63 Is it a character flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system? 

[19] Sprockets: Laziness in an exploitive system If the system in this question is being 

exploited by the laborer, than I would have to say no, it is not a character flaw to be lazy in 

such a exploitive system. As Marx says: “...if the value of a commodity is determined by 

the amount of labor spent in its production, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the more 

valuable his commodity would be, ...” [129:2]. Marx validates this idea with the concept 

that, in this system, if the time spent producing one commodity is greater than the time spent 

producing an identical commodity, than the value of the first commodity would be greater 

than the other. This is ideal to a laborer as means of exploitation. Laziness would not be a 

character flaw, it would be an attribute. 

Message [19] referenced by [24]. Next Message by Sprockets is [50]. 

[20] Martin: Is laziness a character flaw? Under the capitalist mode of production, from 

what Marx says, it is not necessarily a character flaw to be lazy. This is odd. 

He says that the value of a commodity is determined not by the actual labour time put 

into its production but the labour time that is socially necessary to produce the commodity 

under the prevailing socially normal conditions of production and with the socially average 

degree of skill and intensity. 

This means that a lazy or partially disabled worker will produce less value per hour or 

per week. 

If he/she works for themselves, they will be able to sell their produce for less, and have 

to live on less income. If they work for a capitalist they may find that he/she(?) is unwilling 

to pay them the average wages for such work on the grounds that they are less efficient. Or 

they may not get employed at all. 

It is odd that Marx’s analysis does not necessarily require any judgement that laziness is 

a character flaw. Some theories of the rise of capitalism have praised the protestant work 

ethic. Capitalism is actually very efficient in intensifying the rate of work of large sections 

of the workforce, while often a significant minority are unable to find work. Although they 

then get demoralised, it is not clear it is always laziness that prevents them working again. 

In societies with a collectivistic ethic however, laziness may be called a character flaw. 

For example in the feudal middle ages, Sloth was one of the seven deadly sins, and harrassed 

by the church even though some of its victims, one suspects, may have been physically or


mentally ill. Under attempts at state socialist regimes at times there were campaigns of 

socialist emulation to promote the virtues of hard work, and at times there was concern 

about workers working below capacity when demoralised by shortage of raw materials or 

cynicism about the regime. 

But Marx tends to relate ideas of morality to the actual relations of production of the 

society, and in the case of capitalism, he does not seem to imply that laziness is in itself particularly 

condemned as a character flaw. Besides that might imply criticism of the section of 

the capitalist class that just live off interest or the land without even doing any entrepreneurial 

activity. They clearly are not regarded as morally at fault by the powers that prevail under 

the capitalist mode of production. 

Have I overlooked something? 

Message [20] referenced by [24]. Next Message by Martin is [33]. 

[24] Hans: Which behavior is moral if the system itself is immoral? Sprocket [19] 

missed the boat completely. He thinks that the slow worker does indeed create more value, 

and that workers are the ones who exploit rather than being exploited. 

Martin [20] makes the very interesting argument that lazy workers will get lower income 

and therefore they do not have to be ostracized by the system. I agree, but I want to make 

two points here: 

(1) Marx says somewhere that those behaviors are considered moral which fit together 

with the system. There is no absolute morality, morality is relative to society and is used to 

keep people in line. Martin’s answer seems to adhere to this strict Marxist position. I am of 

the view that Marx is here pouring out the baby with the bathwater, and that Marx violates 

this strict principle himself since his critique of capitalism is very much a moral critique. It 

is not a matter of point of view, but Marx shows objectively that capitalism is morally wrong. 

We are taught to make the so-called fact-value distinction so that we do not see this. 

(2) If the Marxist immanent critique of capitalism is valid, then those living under capitalism 

have the moral obligation to get rid of it. One can therefore speak of morality which 

transcends the system one lives in. Then the question of laziness has to be revisited: is 

laziness morally justified as resistance to and sabotage of an immoral system? 


Question 66 is 42 in 1995WI, 51 in 1995ut, 53 in 1996sp, 51 in 1996ut, 60 in 1998WI, 70 

in 2001fa, 84 in 2005fa, 97 in 2007SP, 97 in 2008fa, 100 in 2009fa, 104 in 2010fa, and 

123 in 2011fa: 

Question 66 The value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a slow or inept 

laborer. Explain carefully why not. Whose decision is it to keep the value of the output of a 

slow worker below the time actually used for its production? How is it enforced? 

[22] Quake: Slow workers not keeping up. The value of a commodity does not increase 

if made by a slow or lazy laborer, because the magnitude of value of the commodity is 

determined by the socially necessary labor time for the production of the commodity. The 

laborer who takes twice as long to produce a commodity as the socially necessary time would 

otherwise dictate, is faced with the reality that he/she can only produce half the amount 


of the commodity in a given time period. This lesser amount of the commodity is still 

valued in magnitude, however, the same as the like commodity produced within the socially 

necessary average labor time. This is due in part to the assumption that commodities of a 

given type are homogeneous regardless of who produced them. Value embodied strictly by 

labor time might suggest that the price of a commodity produce by the slow laborer would 

be worth more on the basis of the actual time taken to produce the commodity. However, that 

homogeneous product would have no more exchange value when in competition with other 

homogenous products produced within the socially necessary labor time for the commodity. 

Competition, in a capitalist society, is really what is dictating this socially necessary 

time for a commodities’ production, and is the mechanism for enforcing the value of the 

commodity based on the socially necessary time expectations. Thus, due to competition by 

other laborers who can produce the commodity within the given necessary production times, 

the slow laborer is forced to exist on less ‘profit’, (is that a dirty word at this point?), relative 

to their competition. Capitalism would view this as a way of making production efficient 

by driving those who cannot produce efficiently out of business. Slow laborers would not 

be able to compete with laborers who have the ability, (skill and/or technical ability), to 

produce at or below the socially necessary time. Those laborers with this ability would 

have the greater margins in their commodity, forcing less efficient laborers/producers out of 

business. 

Whose decision is it to keep the value of the output of a slow worker below the time 

actually used for its production? This “who” would have to be competition again, as in the 

market is where the commodity is exchanging. As explained above, this exchange of uniform 

commodities would force the value of the commodity to remain at the socially necessary 

value, as dictated by the socially necessary labor time for producing the commodity. 

Hans: Regarding “who is making the decision” I would put the responsibility at least in part on the population 

which accepts the market outcomes as fair. 

Message [22] referenced by [23], [26], [128.1], [2007SP:447], and [2010fa:364]. Next Message by Quake is [113]. 

[128.1] Zeek: commodities’ value The value of a commodity is controlled by the market. 

Value is expressed as congealed abstract labor. In a competitive market a slow worker does 

not produce the quantity of a fast worker. The faster laborers are generally those who are 

skilled. One might, however, think that the more time one spends the more valuable the 

the commodity becomes, because value is expressed as abstract labor. As to the one who 

decides to keep the value of the output of a slow worker below the time actually used for its 

production I would have to say the market, where one encounters competition. The faster 

laborer can therefore put his commodity out into the market earlier and get a return on his 

labor quicker. The skilled or quicker labor is able to produce more and therefore sell more, 

acquiring more wealth. The competitive market is the one who decides to keep the value 

of labor output of a slow worker below the time used for its production. As Quake states 

in [22] “the value of the commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time for 

the production of the commodity.” And Hans in response to Quake in [22] states that it is 

also determined by the people involved in the competitive market. These responses I would 

consider to be the competition found in the market as stated at the beginning. 

Hans: This is written in a very sloppy style. 

Next Message by Zeek is [128.2].


[129.3] Henrix: If a slow or inept laborer uses one hour in producing a commodity while a 

fast and skilled worker only uses 30 min. in producing the same commodity, the slow worker 

will not be able to charge a higher price. He will consequently not be able to produce more 

value than the fast worker. 

It is the forces of the market participants that decide to keep the value of the output of 

a slow worker below the time actually used for its production. This is enforced through 

competition 

Hans: I tried to argue in the email discussion that Marx does not argue this way. This is an argument in the sphere 

of competition. Value is created in production, not on the market. 

Next Message by Henrix is [129.4]. 

[129.1] Maktub: The value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a slow 

or inept laborer because the value of a commodity is determined by the “socially necessary 

labor time” that is needed to produce the commodity. 

If I can make a chair in 1 hour, the amount of abstract congealed labor that went into 

making that chair is expressed through the value of the chair. If somebody else takes 2 hours 

to make the same homogeneous chair, does his chair carry double to value that my chair 

carries? No says Marx, which is why he introduced the idea of “socially necessary labor 

time”, which is essentially the idea that the commodity’s value is determined by the amount 

of time that it would take to make that commodity using the current methods of production, 

technology, and homogenous or abstract labor. Value that is expressed solely on the basis of 

labor time would suggest that a slow or inept worker would produce more value in the final 

product than would efficient and faster workers. This is not the case, as we all know that two 

homogeneous chairs carry the same value regardless of the time that was taken to produce 

the chairs (socially necessary labor time). 

It is the markets decision through the forces of competition, along with the consumers, 

that keeps the value of the slow worker below the time actually used for production. The 

slow worker, who is unable to produce his chairs by the socially necessary labor time will 

slowly but almost assuredly be driven out of business by the firms that can and do produce 

chairs at the socially necessary time. People will stop trading with the slow person. If he 

tries to trade his 1 chair for 2 coats but the socially necessary labor time of the chair has 

determined that the value of 1 chair equals the value of 1 coat, society will not exchange 

with the slow worker, they will trade with the more efficient producers of chairs. 

I think that this is enforced by society itself, a capitalistic society will always strive to 

exchange goods at fair rates, and the producers that can’t keep up, they will be left behind 

and out of business because the people will stop trading with them. Consumers will go 

where they can get the best deal. 

Next Message by Maktub is [133]. 

Exam Question 67 is 280 in 1996ut, 56 in 1997ut, 71 in 2001fa, 76 in 2003fa, 86 in 

2004fa, 85 in 2005fa, 98 in 2007SP, 98 in 2008fa, and 124 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 67 Carefully explain how the “socially necessary labor time” for the production 

of an article is determined. Is it the same as the time needed in the average to 

produce this article? 


[106] Brutal: Labor time There is a subtle difference between socially necessary labor 

time and the time needed on average to produce an article. The time needed on average is 

simply an average of the time it took to produce all similar articles in a society. Socially 

necessary labor time is the time it would take a normal person to produce an article using 

the normal means of production available in the society. 

Message [106] referenced by [112] and [120.1]. Next Message by Brutal is [127.1]. 

[112] Hans: Socially necessary vs. average Brutal just informed me that Question 

67 was labeled Exam Question; therefore his submission [106] was indeed relevant for the 

exam, and I apologize for having said otherwise. Moreover, Brutal’s answer was exactly 

right. 


Question 68 is 52 in 1997ut, 86 in 2005fa, and 99 in 2008fa: 

Question 68 Did Marx introduce additional assumptions in order to resolve the paradox 

of the lazy worker, or does his solution follow from assumptions made or results derived 

earlier? 

[18] Hawken: Paradox of lazy workers In my opinion, Marx did not have to introduce 

additional assumptions in order to resolve the paradox of the lazy worker. 

The paradox of the lazy worker was resolved by the fact that Marx reffered to “socially 

necessary labor time”. This aspect was also the main point in this regard. At the same i 

would like to state that it is of some importance to keep in mind that according to Marx, the 

value of a commodity is that in which determines the price of the commodity. 

Further, the assumption being made was that the value of a commodity/good was related 

to the amount of labor time socially necessary for its production. The point here was that 

the commodity made by the lazy worker was not worth more(had a greater value) than a 

commodity produced by an average worker only because the lazy worker spent more time 

making his/her product. 

In addition, the lazy worker was less efficient in the production process compared to the 

average worker. The lazy worker where therefore creating less value per hour than was 

“socially necessary” 

Hans: Although your first paragraph says that Marx did not introduce additional assumptions, you are saying in 

the third paragraph that the rule “magnitude of value is determined by socially necessary labor time” was indeed an 

additional assumption. My claim is that this rule is not a new assumption but can be derived from what Marx says 

about value in Section 1.1.2. 

Message [18] referenced by [144]. Next Message by Hawken is [68]. 

[23] Hans: The primary economic forces do not arise from competition Angus [21] 

and Quake [22] give very good and eminently reasonable answers to Questions 62 and 66; 

yet I will try to show that Marx argues a little differently than they. 

Angus says: the existence of lazy workers, or other differences in skill and speed among 

workers, will not lead to absurd results in the measurement of value, because value is measured 

by the time needed to produce the use-value “under the conditions of production normal 

for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labor prevalent 

in society.” (Capital pg. 129)


Although this seems to be a reasonable enough criterion, one might still be curious, and 

this is Question 66, who sees to it that things are done this way? Quake [22] gives here the 

correct answer: the market enforces this through competition, because the product of the 

lazy laborer will fetch the same price as that of the industrious and efficient laborer. 

But if you look back at the text you will discover that Marx does not argue: the lazy or 

unskillful laborer who takes twice as long only creates half the value per hour because his 

product has to compete on the market with the product of the laborers working with normal 

skills. The competition argument is only given as an afterthought. The competition between 

the different goods brought to the market enforces the same quantitative relationships which 

Marx derives at the beginning of the currently assigned Section 1.1.3 by an argument which 

is much more difficult to understand than the argument just given, and which does not take 

recourse to competition. 

This is not an accident. In Grundrisse (which was a manuscript Marx wrote for his 

self-clarification before writing Capital) one can find repeated pronouncements that it is impossible 

to explain the laws of capitalism from competition. Why? This comes from Marx’s 

distinction between core and surface of the economy. Competition, i.e., the interaction of the 

economic agents on the surface, reflects and enforces the deeper laws of “capital in general” 

in the core. But someone who wants to understand the forces that shape our economy must 

look at this deep structure itself. Competition is only secondary; it is a reflection of this 

deep structure (although it also has its own measure of autonomy). The deep structure has 

to do with production, while competition has to do with circulation. Production is primary, 

circulation is secondary. 

The magnitude of the value of a commodity is measured not by the actual but by the 

socially necessary labor time. This is not a new ad-hoc assumption but it can be derived from 

what we know about value from Section 1.1.2. It can be derived only looking at production 

itself, not at the market. Marx indeed gives such a derivation at the beginning of Section 

1.1.3, and I tried to elaborate on this derivation in the Annotations. Can someone explain in 

their own words in plain English what this derivation is? Use Question number 68 for this. 

This is a difficult Question, but if you give it a serious shot I will grade it leniently. In order 

to give you more time to study this, I am extending the deadline for Questions 60-69 until 6 

pm Thursday. 


[127.4] Senco: Although it is true that the value of a commodity depends on labor content, 

it does not mean a slow or lazy worker creates more value by taking more time to produce 

it. 

This paradox of the lazy worker was resolved previously by Marx when he discussed 

value and introduced the concept of socially necessary labor time. 

Socially necessary labor time is “the labor time a normal worker needs under normal 

conditions to produce something” (Ehrbar lecture notes 2-18-99). 

This resolves the paradox because the time frame, or amount of abstract labor that is 

socially necessary is what determines the magnitude of value that the commodity inherits, 

not the time or amount of labor put forth by the lazy worker. Furthermore the commodity 


sells for the same price as another produced with less labor time, the extra labor produces 

no value. 

Hans reminds us in [120] that the magnitude of value requires socially necessary labor 

time, not actual labor time. 

Keeping these things in mind it is clear that the “Lazy worker produces less value per 

hour than a normal worker” (Hans [120]). Once again resolving the paradox of the lazy 

worker. 

Message [127-4] referenced by [144]. Next Message by Senco is [145]. 

[138.22] Karlito: Although my original exam answer contained some important information, 

I must change my answer to one with a negative outcome. 

Marx has no need of additional assumptions to resolve the paradox of the lazy worker. 

This can be proven simply by the fact that Marx is specifically referring to the “socially 

necessary labor time.” The assumption that the value of a commodity is directly related to 

the socially necessary labor time was made prior and shows that “labor is value” only when 

applying socially necessary labor time. Just because the lazy worker spends much more 

production time on his commodity does not mean that his product has more worth than that 

of the average worker. He is actually creating less value per hour than is “socially necessary.” 

Most of my answer comes from Nala’s response [83] to the question 52 in the Autumn 

19976 pdf. files. 

Next Message by Karlito is [138.23]. 

[138.8] Quake: Marx solution followed from assumptions made and results derived earlier. 

Previously formulated where assumptions that the socially necessary time to produce a 

commodity would be the average time taken to produce the commodity given the common 

skills and technologies available. 

This puts the lazy worker in a bind when his/her product cannot achieve an exchange 

value equal to their labor time in producing the commodity since it took them longer than 

‘socially necessary’. The exchange value of their product is equal to the exchange value of 

all homogeneous products produced within this social average production time. 

Faced with diminished margins in the exchange value of their commodity in relation to 

the social average, the lazy worker would be ‘resolved’ into another trade or line of work 

where he/she might better conform to the social average. 

Next Message by Quake is [138.9]. 

[142.26] JoeHill: The Paradox of the Lazy Worker has to do with whether a worker who 

is lazy and spends more time on a commodity actually creates more value than one who is 

efficient. I don’t think Marx found it necessary to introduce new assumptions to deal with 

this apparent problem. The answer can be derived from his earlier statements. Specifically, 

those stating that the value of the commodity is derived from the normal amount of time 

using the normal means of production of a given society. This ‘average’ is what all like 

commodities will be measured against. Therefore, to spend excessive time in the production 

of a given commodity will not increase its value because its exchange value will be equal to 

the exchange value of all other commodities with the same use value. Hence the riddle is 

solved.


Message [142-26] referenced by [144]. Next Message by JoeHill is [201]. 

[144] Hans: The right answer to 68 A self-respecting answer to this question first defines 

what the “paradox of the lazy worker” is. Senco [127-4] gets it best: 

Although it is true that the value of a commodity depends on labor content, 

it does not mean a slow or lazy worker creates more value by taking more 

time to produce it. 

The only other submission which defines this paradox is JoeHill [142-26]: 

The Paradox of the Lazy Worker has to do with whether a worker who is 

lazy and spends more time on a commodity actually creates more value 

than one who is efficient. 

I like Senco’s explanation better, because Senco’s formulation makes it clear why this is a 

paradox, while JoeHill’s says that it is a paradox but lets the reader wonder why the obvious 

fact that a lazy worker creates less value per hour than a skillful worker should be called a 

“paradox.” 

Did Marx need additional assumptions or not? All the resubmissions said “he did not,” 

which is not surprising, since I said this in my response to [18] and in [23]. 

But how does he use his earlier assumptions to come to the conclusion that a lazy or 

unskillful laborer does not create as much value per hour than a fast worker? The consensus 

answer here is that he had said earlier that labor is determined by socially necessary labor 

time only. This takes care of the lazy worker, since his labor is not socially necessary. 

The problem with this answer is that Marx introduced socially necessary labor only after 

speaking about the lazy worker. Question 68 is basically the question whether the socially 

necessary labor time is an ad-hoc assumption to take care of lazy workers, or whether Marx 

makes something explicit which was already implicit in his earlier assumptions. 

Of course, as I already told you, I hold that the latter is the case. How is the concept 

of socially necesary labor already implicit in what Marx said in Section 1.1.2? In Section 

1.1.2, Marx said that value does not come from concrete labor but from abstract labor. The 

argument was that concrete labor is different from product to product, but value is uniform 

among the products and therefore must come from something uniform. 

This also matters for how we measure the quantity. Before adding the concrete labor 

times (which really cannot be added since they are not homogeneous), we must make them 

uniform. We do this by going over to the socially necessary labor time. Socially necessary 

labor time can therefore be derived from the fact that value is abstract labor, not concrete 

labor. 


[161.2] Pobeda: The paradox of the lazy worker claims that if value is produced by 

the labor time put into a commodity, then lazy or slow workers would produce more value 

than quick and efficient workers. Marx counters this argument with socially necessary labor 

time. Socially necessary labor time is the time it would take a normal worker to produce a 

commodity given the means of production available. Because the commodity produced by 


a fast worker is homogeneous to that of a slow worker, the commodities will fetch the same 

price on the market. Competition enforces the socially necessary labor time construct. 

Hans: This is very good, but you missed one step: Marx says it is not actual time but socially necessary time 

because value is not determined by the time of concrete labor but by abstract labor. 

Grade penalty for late resubmission. 

Next Message by Pobeda is [162]. 

Question 69 is 54 in 1996sp and 52 in 1996ut: 

Question 69 Why must every individual commodity be considered as an average sample of 

its kind? 

[25] Yeltsin: Commodities as an average sample of its kind The answer to this question 

also, in part answers the question of why a lazy or slow worker does not receive more money 

for the products he or she produces. 

If you did not value a product or commodity as an average sample of its kind and due to 

the fact that the value of a commodity fluctuates in proportion to the amount of congealed 

labor time invested in that commodity, it would stand to reason that a slower or lazier worker 

could charge more for his or her product. However when determining the value of a particular 

commodity with in a group of commodities of the same kind, Trosne states, the price 

should be determined generally “and without regard of the particular circumstances.” (Le 

Trosne, [LT46, p. 893]) 

When Trosne states: “...without regard of the particular circumstances”, I understand 

that to mean that if a person takes more time than the socially accepted labor time or is 

slower due to a different production method other than the social production method, and 

the product has the same use value as the other products of the same kind, then a higher price 

cannot be fetched, “for the buyers do not distinguish between them.” (Econ 5080, Ehrbar pg. 

22) Because the use values of the two products of the same kind are the same, it forces 

slower workers with identical products to compete with average workers, thereby making it 

impossible for them to fetch a higher market price. That is why, when valuing an individual 

commodity, it must be considered as an average sample of its kind. 

Message [25] referenced by [26]. 

[26] Hans: Don’t Ignore the Other Submissions! Yeltsin’s answer [25] shows that he 

read the text carefully, and Yeltsin attempts to explain what every word means. Not every 

text has to be read this way, but Marx’s texts certainly do. However there is no reference to 

the other email discussion in Yeltsin’s answer. Quake’s [22] and my [23] are very relevant to 

what Yeltsin writes, and there is also a certain overlap, but Yeltsin simply ignores this. [25] 

would have been a good answer had it been sent before [22], but if we have already started 

to discuss certain issues, an answer which ignores relevant points of that previous discussion 

will get a grade penalty. 

Another thing: Yeltsin’s email is extremely poorly formatted. This makes it almost impossible 

to read (at least on certain types of email user softwares). I am paying more attention 

to form in this Semester than in the past, since this class satisfies your writing requirement. 

It is your responsibility to learn your software well enough that you are mailing out well 

formatted messages that are pleasing to read.



Question 75 is 50 in 1995WI, 59 in 1995ut, 66 in 1997WI, 79 in 2000fa, 79 in 2001fa, 88 

in 2003fa, 99 in 2004fa, and 99 in 2005fa: 

Question 75 Why did God create something as imperfect as nature and humans? (And what 

does this have to do with the topic at hand?) Compare Chapter 1 in Cohen’s Karl Marx’s 

Theory of History: A Defence. 

[38] Hayduke: God and Marx, Together at Last First of all, we need to clarify that 

Marx does not recognize God even in a religious sense, far less in an economic one. As 

Hans writes in the Annotations: “’Dasein’ is translated with ‘being’ ...[i]t would not be in 

Marx’s sense to write that labor mediates their existence, because this would be a creationist 

view” (Ehrbar, “Annotations, Bilingual Version”, pg. 28). Indeed, in the footnote 13 of 

133:2/o, Marx denies creation, preferring to view things as a ‘reordering of matter’ whether 

by ‘the hand of man, ...or the universal laws of physics’. 

However, before we all turn into atheists to get an A in this class, it is possible to reconcile 

creationism and Marxism, and answer why God would create imperfect nature and humans. 

This can be framed within the debate between Marx and Hegel. I will also refer to sources 

from Annie Dillard’s “Pilgrim at Tinker Creek”. 

The Marx/Hegel debate is over the reasons things exist, and have useful properties. Hegel 

believes things exist to express their useful properties. As Allah states in the Koran “The 

heaven and the earth, thinkest thou I made them in jest?” In this framework, everything has a 

purpose. Any imperfections in human and nature are merely from our perception, not from a 

fault of an imperfect God (Annie Dillard, “The Pilgrim at Tinker Creek”; Perennial Classics, 

1999, New York; p.9). 

Marx sees matter as something that happens to exist, and the value for most matter (with 

the obvious exception of things such as air, water, etc.) comes from the value we put into it 

through labor. This can be reconciled with creationism through Pascal’s Deus Absconditus 

theory, that God created the world and then turned his back on it to let it run, with little 

thought of further purpose. Any imperfections in humans and nature have resulted from 

corruption since God left (Ibid, p.9). 

A moderate approach between the two comes from Einstein: “...nature conceals her mystery 

by means of her essential grandeur, not by her cunning.” In this view, natures’ seemed 

imperfections are part of her overall mystery, and faults are from our perception. As far as 

the purpose of existence for matter, Dillard writes “God ‘set bars and doors’ and said ’Hitherto 

shalt thou come, but no further’”. In this view, God created matter that could be used 

for different purposes. Things do not exist for the purpose of expressing useful properties. 

Things are available for use, and useful properties come through labor power as Marx states, 

though within certain limits, similar to Marx’s ‘general laws of physics’. (Ibid, p.9). 

Next Message by Hayduke is [87]. 

Question 79 is 94 in 2003fa, 105 in 2004fa, 106 in 2005fa, 119 in 2007SP, 120 in 2007fa, 

and 130 in 2010fa: 


Question 79 Shouldn’t Marx also have included produced means of production in addition 

to nature and labor? 

[30] Veblen: constituents of the commodity With regard to the nature of the constituents 

of a commodity, the question has been posed, should Marx have included “produced means 

of production” in addition to nature and labor. This seems to be a rather paradoxical question, 

quite simply because, “produced means of production” are simply manifestations of nature 

and labor in a different stage of transformation. 

Let us consider the matter more closely. The means of production implies the physical 

productive resources, tools, machinery, and raw materials used in the production of commodities 

or useful “external objects”. Following from this point it is abvious that the means 

of production are merely components of nature and labor manifested at a different stage of 

production. Concomittantly, “produced means of production” should be thought of as either 

commodities or useful “external objects”, and as such are merely the “means of production” 

with useful labor applied to their transformation. 

Consequently, I don’t believe that Marx needed to include “produced means of production” 

in the components of the commodity for the aforementioned reasons. 

Hans: It was very difficult to read your answer because you took a simple argument and blustered it up in highsounding 

language. 

Message [30] referenced by [35] and [2004fa:211.6]. Next Message by Veblen is [134.2]. 

[35] Hans: A Reductionist View of Production Veblen [30] says it is not necessary to 

include produced means of production because they can themselves be reduced to labor and 

nature. 

This kind of argument is called “reductionist”. Reductionist arguments are not always 

wrong, but they are sometimes wrong. One cannot reduce everything to its elements. Sometimes 

one has to let things stand as independent causal agents. Means of production are 

usually not produced using nature and labor, but their production involves other means of 

production, often more powerful means of production than those producing the final product. 

In my view, Question 79 is not a rhetorical question, but I consider the right answer to be 

“yes.” Marx should have mentioned at this point that production is always also dependent 

on pre-existing means of production. 

Message [35] referenced by [2004fa:211.6]. Next Message by Hans is [43]. 

Exam Question 80 is 54 in 1995WI, 63 in 1995ut, 67 in 1996sp, 71 in 1997WI, 85 in 

2000fa, 106 in 2004fa, 107 in 2005fa, 132 in 2010fa, 152 in 2011fa, and 151 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 80 Is labor the only source of use value? Is labor the only source of value? 

(“Value” is here the property which makes things exchangeable.) 

[113] Quake: Labor and use value Labor is not the only source of use value. As made 

clear in page 26 of the study guide which itself references 133:2/o, labor is simply one of 

the two components in the formulation of use value. The other component in use value, 

of course, being nature itself. The use value of any commodity is only made possible in 

combination of the labor that helps enable it’s ‘useful’ properties. To use the example from


the class, the wool was not created through labor but was made ‘useful’ with the help of 

labor. 

The exchange value of the wool used in the example above, however, is ‘exposed’ only 

through labor. This market value would not exist had labor not harvested the wool, and/or 

otherwise transformed the wool from being an element existing naturally in the environment 

to being something of both use value and exchange value. 

Hans: Instead of “formulation” you should write “formation” in the sentence: 

labor is simply one of the two components in the formulation of use value. 

And the phrase “in combination of the labor” in following sentence does not quite fit grammatically: 

The use value of any commodity is only made possible in combination of the labor that helps 

enable it’s ‘useful’ properties. 

And instead of “it’s” you should have written “its.” 

Message [113] referenced by [114] and [142.2]. Next Message by Quake is [138.8]. 

[114] Hans: The role of labor in value and use value Quake [113] answered Question 

80 correctly, and also explained well that production is transformation. But I am a little 

puzzled by the word “exposed” in the sentence 

The exchange value of the wool ..., however, is ‘exposed’ only through 

labor. 

I would say the labor creates value, and this value is then “exposed” or expressed in the 

fact that the commodity can be exchanged for other commodities on the market. 


Exam Question 84 is 57 in 1995WI, 66 in 1995ut, 70 in 1996sp, 75 in 1997WI, 89 in 

2001fa, 99 in 2003fa, 139 in 2010fa, 159 in 2011fa, and 158 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 84 What is abstract human labor? I want you to say what it is, not what 

its significance is in commodity-producing society! These are two different questions. 

[28] Brutal: Abstract Labor Marx describes abstract labor as “the expenditure of human 

labor power” (C84:0b). Marx also uses the phrase “expenditure of human brains, nerves, 

muscles, sense organs, etc.” [164:1] to explain his meaning of abstract labor. I understand 

both these quotes to mean abstract human labor is the using up of the capacity our bodies 

have to do work. Similar to other “machines” that do work, the human body has a limited 

capacity to do work (i.e. as we age our mental and physical capacities diminish until we 

die and can no longer do work). Abstract labor is an attempt to assign a value to the wear 

and tear our bodies take while laboring. Abstract labor is also the means of comparing labor 

done on goods with different use values and is the commonality in all human labor. 


[29] Hans: Definition of Abstract Labor versus its Social Significance All submissions 

to Question 84 are ungraded, because Question 84 is labeled “Exam Question” in the Annotations. 

I.e., it is too easy for a normal homework Question. The same is true for Question 

86. 

There are disagreements between Marxists regarding the definition of abstract human 

labor. Many Marxists say that abstract human labor only exists in commodity-producing 


society. The interpretation which I am taking in the Annotations is that abstract human labor 

is an aspect which every labor process has naturally. Every labor process is the application of 

human skills, and the exertion of the human body. This is true in all societies. Commodityproducing 

society is distinguished by it that this aspect of the labor process is the organizing 

principle for the coordination of the social production process. 

Brutal’s [28] starts out with the right definition of abstract human labor, but what he says 

in the second half of his submission goes beyond a definition. Let’s look at it: 

Similar to other “machines” that do work, the human body has a limited 

capacity to do work (i.e. as we age our mental and physical capacities 

diminish until we die and can no longer do work). Abstract labor is an 

attempt to assign a value to the wear and tear our bodies take while laboring. 

Here, Brutal tries to explain why abstract human labor is socially relevant. This is exactly 

what the Question asked you not to say here! As such an explanation, it is too subjectivist. 

It implies that the worker demands a price for his labor because for him it is only a limited 

resource. It is a version of the disutility of labor. This is not the Marxist view. Even if 

everyone would live for ever, and even if labor would be so enjoyable that everyone loves to 

work, society still would be faced with the problem of allocating the limited mass of human 

labor available at any given time to the various branches of production, and to determine 

how much everybody gets of this annual product. Society does this by looking at the content 

of abstract human labor in the commodities—without anybody deciding or planning it, but 

merely as the unintended by-product of the competitive hustling of the private producers. 

Message [29] referenced by [2011fa:78] and [2012fa:332]. Next Message by Hans is [35]. 

[105] Angus: What is abstract labor? Abstract labor by its nature is homogeneous 

and not directly observable. It refers to the expenditure of brain, muscles, nerves etc on a 

commodity. Homogeneous (abstract) labor is therefore the labor that forms the substance of 

value. 

Message [105] referenced by [109] and [120.1]. Next Message by Angus is [137.3]. 

[109] Hans: Abstract Labor Angus wrote in [105]: 

Abstract labor by its nature is homogeneous and not directly observable. 

Abstract labor is observable during the labor process but it cannot be seen in the product. 

It is an aspect of every actual labor process and if you see a worker working you see him 

or her performing concrete labor and expending abstract labor at the same time. You can 

usually tell how strenuous the job is, i.e., you get an idea while observing the labor process 

how much of his labor-power the worker is consuming while working. Although abstract 

labor cannot exist separately from concrete labor, I would say that it can be observed during 

the labor process. However after the labor process is finished, in the product, you can see 

traces of the concrete labor in the product but usually not traces of the abstract labor. (If a 

laborer sweats while working, and a drop of sweat falls on the product and leaves a little 

stain, this stain could be considered a trace of the abstract labor in the product—but this is 

an exceptional case.) 

It refers to the expenditure of brain, muscles, nerves etc. on a commodity.


Yes, this is the answer. This sentence alone would have counted as a correct answer in 

the Exam. Marx calls it homogeneous because people can do many different jobs: although 

there is a lot of difference in the different jobs, there is not that much difference between 

what different people are able to do. 

Homogeneous (abstract) labor is therefore the labor that forms the substance 

of value. 

Here you are getting into the part of the question which you were not supposed to answer: 

the significance of abstract labor in our society. 


Exam Question 86 is 59 in 1995WI, 68 in 1995ut, 72 in 1996sp, 71 in 1996ut, 77 in 

1997WI, 79 in 1997sp, 74 in 1997ut, 80 in 1998WI, 98 in 2002fa, 114 in 2004fa, 115 in 

2005fa, 128 in 2007SP, 132 in 2008fa, 141 in 2010fa, 161 in 2011fa, and 160 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 86 What is the difference between labor and labor power? 

[27] PowderNow: labor power Marx refers to labor power as the potential to do useful 

work which plays into and influences the value of a commodity. Labor power is the potential 

production power. It is labor power that workers sell to capitalists for a wage. 

Labor is the work; the exercise of human powers to alter the use value or add value to the 

product. Labor is the actual act of production. The products of labor can be bought and sold 

as commodities. 

A person who cannot sell the products of labor can in-fact sell their own “power to labor”. 

This is promising to “labor” under the direction of a purchaser in exchange for a wage. 

Hans: You write that the potential to do useful work “plays into and influences the value of a commodity.” This 

is similar to an error Cartman made in [3], which I discussed at length in [7]. You are lucky that this answer is 

not graded, because the repetition of an error which I had discussed this clearly would have depressed your grade 

considerably. 

Message [27] referenced by [194]. Next Message by PowderNow is [55]. 

[100] PowderNow: labor powers After further studying Marx, I will better answer the 

question of labor power vs. labor. Labor power is the potential to labor. It is the capacity to 

do useful labor in the production of a commodity. Labor is the actual work, the expenditure 

of human power to produce the commodity. One can sell their “labor power” to a capitalist 

for a wage. The capitalist then will make them “labor” to receive that wage. 

The value of a commodity is determined by the labor power. This is because the value 

indicates the many different products that could have been produced instead of producing a 

certain commodity. Labor is performed by human labor power, which Marx says that there 

is no qualitative difference. So when products are exchanged, people look for the quantity 

of labor power in that commodity. 

Message [100] referenced by [102], [115], and [194]. Next Message by PowderNow is [136.1]. 

[102] Hans: Labor value asserts itself even if consumers don’t think about labor content 

PowderNow’s [100] is very good except for the last sentence which says: 

So when products are exchanged, people look for the quantity of labor 

power in that commodity. 


This is not necessarily the case. People may decide to buy a commodity for all kinds 

of reasons, without giving any consideration to the labor in that commodity. But if social 

demand for a certain commodity is so high that it bids up the price above the level justified by 

the labor content of the commodity, then production will be shifted from other commodities 

to that commodity, and this increased supply will depress prices. Only when prices are 

proportional to labor will there be no reason to shift production. 

I said something similar in message [7] where the mechanism PowderNow is postulating 

was called mechanism (1), while the mechanism I described was called mechanism (2). 


[115] Winston: Value of the commodity I agree with PowderNow [100] that labor 

power is the capacity to work, and labor is work itself, but I disagree with the PowderNow’s 

statement: 

The value of a commodity is determined by the labor power. 

The reason I disagree with this is because labor power is only part of the commodity when 

the laborer doesn’t own the means of production and sells their labor power for a wage. In a 

case where the laborer owns the means of production there would be just labor in the value 

of the commodity and no labor power. 

Message [115] referenced by [116]. Next Message by Winston is [138.24]. 

[116] Hans: Value, labor, and labor power Winston [115] says that value is only then 

determined by labor power when the product is produced by a wage laborer; otherwise value 

is determined by “just labor”: 

Labor power is only part of the commodity when the laborer doesn’t own 

the means of production and sells their labor power for a wage. In a case 

where the laborer owns the means of production there would be just labor 

in the value of the commodity and no labor power. 

The value of a commodity does not depend on whether the commodity is produced by a 

wage laborer or by a laborer who owns his means of production. It is in both cases determined 

by the expenditure of human labor power in the production process. Now the wage 

laborer gets less than the independent producer, since he has sold his labor power to the capitalist 

before it was expended; therefore the capitalist reaps the benefits of the labor, while 

the worker only gets the value of his labor power, which depends on what the worker needs 

to survive, but is much less than what his labor is able to produce. All this will be discussed 

in more detail in Chapter Six. 


Question 88 is 61 in 1995WI, 70 in 1995ut, 74 in 1996sp, 73 in 1996ut, 81 in 1998WI, 93 


Question 88 Does skilled labor (i.e., labor for which schooling and training is necessary, 

for instance the labor of an engineer) produce more value per hour than unskilled labor (like 

the labor of a janitor)? Explain!


[31] Brutal: Skilled labor vs. Unskilled labor Yes, skilled labor does produce more 

value per hour than unskilled labor. In the words of Marx, “a smaller amount of complicated 

labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple labor” (Annotations p. 30). However, in order to 

compare the labor of an engineer to the labor of a janitor all labor must be reduced to simple 

labor. The multiple used to equate skilled to unskilled labor varies in different societies, but 

is given within a particular society. 

For example, an hour of labor from a physician may be equal to two hours of labor from 

a cook at a fast food restaurant in a specific society. By reducing all labor to simple labor we 

can compare the value of the physician’s labor with that of the cook. However, we cannot 

say that this difference in labor value is due to differences in education or any other factor 

(or any specified combination of factors). In fact, Marx does not try to define what separates 

simple and complicated labor because there are so many factors that have an effect and 

most cannot be quantified. On the matter of reducing all labor to simple labor I must agree 

with Professor Ehrbar when he says, “there is no general law governing this reduction” 

(Annotations p. 30). Although no law exists to define the difference, there certainly is a 

difference in value between skilled and unskilled labor. 

Message [31] referenced by [37], [47], [137.3], and [138.18]. Next Message by Brutal is [81]. 

[32] Kids: Skilled labor and Unskilled labor A society does not directly regulate the 

working activity of people but regulates it through the value of the products of labor (commodity). 

According to the value of commodity, the quantity of labor coincides with the 

quantity of labor which society can spend on the production of the given type of commodities. 

This means that the value of the commodity depends on the quantity of labor socially 

necessary for its production. 

If the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor spent on it, the more 

unskilled the labor, the more valuable would their commodity be, because more time would 

be required in the production. 

This approach emphasizes the differences in the availability of skilled and unskilled labor. 

The highly skilled labor will have a comparative advantage in producing goods that require 

relatively large amounts of unskilled labor. 

Skill is the ability to combine resources in producing the goods and services that a society 

wants. Therefore, skilled labor produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. 

Hans: The concept of value you use in your last paragraph has nothing to do with Marx’s concept of value. And 

your first sentence is only true for capitalist society: 

A society does not directly regulate the working activity of people but regulates it through the 

value of the products of labor (commodity). 

It would be more desirable if people themselves had some say in the direction of social production, instead of 

leaving this to blind market forces. 

Message [32] referenced by [44], [85], and [127.1]. Next Message by Kids is [83]. 

[33] Martin: Skilled labor vs. Unskilled labor Yes, skilled labor does produce more 

value per hour than unskilled labor. There are a number of reasons. One is that skilled labor 

comes from skilled labor power, and skilled labor power contained more labor, eg in the 

form of teaching and training, than unskilled labor. But there are probably other factors as 

well, and I welcome HE suggesting that there is no general law governing the reduction of 

skilled labor to unskilled labor. 


One factor may be that even under developed capitalism the market does not operate as a 

“perfect” market. There may be restrictive practices controlling the number of skilled trained 

people or professionals, who then have a semi-monopoly position. It is particularly difficult 

for people to be sure where to start training to raise the price of their labor power in five or 

ten years time. The fifth footnote of Capital notes that “In bourgeois society the legal fiction 

prevails that each person, as a buyer, has an encyclopaedic knowledge of commodities.” This 

is hard in relation to skilled labor. 

The Study Guide says that international differences will be discussed in another chapter. 

I would particularly like to know which one. 

Message [33] referenced by [47] and [137.2]. Next Message by Martin is [34]. 

[36] Merlin: Skilled labor does create more value per hour than unskilled labor. Marx 

states that human labor “is the expenditure of simple labor power, i.e. of the labor-power 

possessed in his bodily organism by every ordinary man.” [135:1/o] In this sense, all labor 

is equal, and reduced to simple average labor. In addition, Marx states that “more complex 

labor counts only as...multiplied simple labor, so that a smaller quantity of complex labor 

is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labor.” [135:1/o] The multiple that is used 

to determine the additional value of complex, or skilled labor is the training received by the 

skilled worker. The key is the “well-defined piece of time” of one hour. For one hour of 

work, not only must you consider the labor of the skilled worker, but also the labor that went 

into training the worker. 

I would also like to discuss the idea expressed in Kids’ response to question 88. I disagree 

with Kids’ conclusion that “If the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of 

labor spent on it, the more unskilled the labor, the more valuable would their commodity be, 

because more time would be required in the production.” This goes back to the discussion 

of the lazy worker effect. Marx himself states that “it might seem that if the value of a 

commodity is determined by the amount of labor spent in its production, the more lazy and 

inept the laborer, the more valuable his commodity would be.” [129:2] The distinction must 

be made between “concrete labor” and “abstract labor.” Concrete labor, or the actual labor 

“expended to produce a product,” (Ehrbar, blue cover, pg. 20) is not equal, and therefore 

“cannot be added up.” It is subject to individual differences between workers. In quantifying 

labor, Marx uses absract labor, one expression of human labor power, which is equal, and 

is the method he uses to reduce complex labor to simple labor power in his discussion of 

skilled vs. unskilled workers. 

Hans -Although I have read your notes, I find the differences between abstract labor, 

labor power, human labor power, and socially necessary labor confusing. Can you clarify 

the differences? 

Message [36] referenced by [43], [137.2], [137.5], [138.10], and [299.1]. Next Message by Merlin is [141.3]. 

[37] Meta: Skilled labor vs. unskilled labor Re [31]: If, in general dialectical terms, 

we accept that simple quantitative changes will lead to qualitative changes, then where and 

when does simple labor “change” into skilled labor? Or it doesn’t change at all? Years of 

education? Years of experience? 

Is accepting that skilled labor is just an aggregate of the simple labor a good assumption 

if we can “neither deny nor confirm” this assumption by asserting that “there is no law


against it or supporting it”? Are we sacrificing something in the process when explaining 

the difference between skilled and simple labor by reduction to this simplification? 

Message [37] referenced by [45] and [142.7]. 

[43] Hans: Abstract Labor Merlin’s first sentence in [36] says that all labors, skilled 

or unskilled, are equal, and the second sentence says that skilled labor creates more value 

than unskilled labor. There is a certain tension in this, but Merlin gives the solution too: the 

difference between skilled and unskilled labor is not qualitative, but only quantitative. One 

hour of skilled labor is two hours of unskilled labor in one, since one also has to count the 

time required to acquire the skill. 

At the end, Merlin has the following question: 

Hans -Although I have read your notes, I find the differences between abstract 

labor, labor power, human labor power, and socially necessary labor 

confusing. Can you clarify the differences? 

Labor power is the ability to work. Every human has it, therefore Marx sometimes calls 

it human labor power. The same human can do many different things with his or her labor 

power, that is why Marx calls the expenditure of human labor power “abstract labor”. It is 

that what all labors have in common. Socially necesary labor is the quantitative aspect of 

abstract labor, as you have explained in your response to Kids. 

Message [43] referenced by [127.1], [138.10], and [299.1]. Next Message by Hans is [44]. 

[44] Hans: Not every unskilled laborer is slow or lazy Last week we discussed two 

different issues: at the beginning of the week we discussed how the value of a product is 

determined if two different producers produce the same product but at different speeds. 

At the end of the week the assigned readings dealt with a different question: Assume two 

people produce very different things using different skills, do they still create the same value 

per hour? 

Kids [32] confuses these two isues, despite the fact that they were explained in the Annotations. 

He writes the following paradoxical sentence: 

The highly skilled labor will have a comparative advantage in producing 

goods that require relatively large amounts of unskilled labor. 

Kid cannot mean that engineers produced the same things than janitors, only faster, can 

he? Does he mean that skilled laborers get some of the value produced by the unskilled 

laborers because they are needed for production? According to Marx’s theory, exploitation 

is not based on skill differences but on the private ownership of the means of production. 


[45] Hans: Quantity and Quality Meta [37] is asking two difficult questions. First 

question: 

If, in general dialectical terms, we accept that simple quantitative changes 

will lead to qualitative changes, then where and when does simple labor 

“change” into skilled labor? Or it doesn’t change at all? Years of education? 

Years of experience? 


Concrete labors are always qualitatively different. Therefore you can never compare them 

quantitatively. But society, when it organizes production, sees these labors as quantitative, 

because it has only a one-dimensional measuring stick, the price. This quantity, like every 

quantity, may turn into quality, but if it does, then this does not mean that the abstract labor 

becomes concrete. Perhaps it means that some labor producing commodities turns into wage 

labor, while other commodity producers turn into capitalists. 

Is accepting that skilled labor is just an aggregate of the simple labor a good 

assumption if we can “neither deny nor confirm” this assumption by asserting 

that “there is no law against it or supporting it”? Are we sacrificing 

something in the process when explaining the difference between skilled 

and simple labor by reduction to this simplification? 

We know that society reduced the differences between different labor powers to merely 

quantitative differences, because the products from these different labor power are traded on 

the market and they stand in a quantitative exchange relation. All Marx says here is that this 

process takes place but it does not take place in a very regular way. 

Message [45] referenced by [127.1], [142.7], and [219]. Next Message by Hans is [47]. 

[47] Hans: Contradictions Generating Indeterminacy Brutal [31] first says that yes, 

skilled labor produces more value than unskilled labor, and then he adds: 

However, we cannot say that this difference in labor value is due to differences 

in education or any other factor (or any specified combination of 

factors). In fact, Marx does not try to define what separates simple and 

complicated labor because there are so many factors that have an effect and 

most cannot be quantified. 

Brutal seems to be thinking here, just as Martin after him in [33], of the many accidental 

circumstances affecting the price of labor: certain skills may be in short supply and it will 

take several years until more people have studied them, other skills are well organized and 

maintain a semi-monopoly position, still others are such that the bosses need someone who 

is on their side and therefore they have to pay that person more. 

Such accidental circumstances have their effects not only in the labor markets but also in 

the other markets. Their presence does not mean that there is no law determining commodity 

prices, and it is also not in contradiction to the labor theory of value. The labor theory of 

value says that there is a tendency for prices to be proportional to labor content, but it does 

not deny the possibility that other forces may prevent this tendency to have effect, even over 

a long time. But as long as there are markets, this tendency is there too, and in the long run 

one can expect it to succeed. 

Now regarding the reduction of complex to simple labor, I hold the view, and I also think 

this was Marx’s view, that there is no underlying tendency asserting itself in the long run 

which carries the day after all the other factors have had time to play out. Why not? Because 

different labor powers are qualitatively different, and there is no logical way to equate them. 

By trading their commodities on the market, the members of society act as if all labor powers 

were equal, but in reality they are not 100 percent equal. This is a contradiction, and this


contradiction creates indeterminacy in the reduction of the different types of labor to simple 

labor. 

One short remark about how I understand the notion that labor powers are equal. If all 

members of society were identical twins, then everybody could potentially do the same as 

everybody else. In this case, labor powers would be very equal. In real life, it is still true 

that for every job there are enough people who could do the job, so that the bidding for this 

job is not based on the peculiarities of the job, but on the expenditure of labor time which is 

a general factor common to all jobs. 

Message [47] referenced by [127.1], [137.2], [138.10], [142.7], and [2005fa:1573]. Next Message by Hans is [48]. 

[127.1] Brutal: skilled vs. unskilled labor Hans states in [43] that “One hour of skilled 

labor is two hours of unskilled labor in one, since one also has to count the time required to 

acquire the skill.” Therefore, the answer must be yes, skilled labor does produce more value 

per hour than unskilled labor. 

The explanation, however, is a little more difficult. Kids [32] tried to equate the work 

of skilled and unskilled labor qualitatively, but the difference between the two is strictly 

quantitative (Hans [43]). Although the difference is only quantitative, Hans [47] states “By 

trading their commodities on the market, the members of society act as if all labor powers 

were equal (meaning qualitatively equal), but in reality they are not 100 percent equal.” 

In [45] Hans states that “Concrete labors are always qualitatively different. Therefore you 

can never compare them quantitatively.” The reason skilled and unskilled labor is compared 

quantitatively and not qualitatively is because we are only looking at the addition quantity 

of time needed to acquire the skill and not comparing the quality of skilled versus unskilled 

labor. 

Hans: In the sentence from [43] you are quoting at the beginning I did not make myself clear enough: instead 

of saying that “One hour of skilled labor is two hours of unskilled labor in one” I should have said, commodity 

producing society treats them a such. 

This is implicit in what you are saying later on, but you are not paying enough attention that differences in labor 

and differences in labor power is not the same thing. 

I say for instance in [47] “By trading their commodities on the market, the members of society act as if all 

labor powers were equal, but in reality they are not 100 percent equal.” I did not mean “qualitatively equal”, I 

meant completely equal, like the labor power of twins, or that of you today and you tomorrow. I do not say: “By 

trading ..., the members of society act as if all labors were equal”, because this is not true. People trade things 

because of the differences in use values and the differences in the labors required to produce these use values (i.e., 

they cannot produce all these different use values themselves). But by trading people also make the statement that 

these differences can be reduced to quantitative differences only, because everything is measured in money which 

is only capable of quantitative differences. These quantitative differences are that all labors can be reduced to the 

expenditure of the same labor power. Since things can only have quantitative differences if their qualities are equal, 

I could have said “By trading ..., the members of society act as if all labors were qualitatively equal”. 

Hope I have clarified things instead of confusing them. 

Next Message by Brutal is [127.2]. 

[134.2] Veblen: comparative labours Once again the answer is yes. Skilled labor is 

“intensified” simple average labor, and unskilled labor should be considered, simple average 

labor. 

EXP: If man X(who has 4 years of training) produces a gadget, and man Y(who has 2 

years of training)produces a gidget, the market needs to be able to quantitatively equalise 


their labor. It does this by assigning simple average labor to the commodity, and per the 

example, a gidget would be worth 2sal, and a gadget would be worth 4sal. 

As marx says, “More complicated labor counts only as intensified or rather multiplied 

simple labor,..” (v. pg 135) Though it may be qualified identically, it is quantified in a 

greater proportion. 

Next Message by Veblen is [135.1]. 

[136.3] Cartman: The answer to this question is yes, skilled labor does produce more 

value per hour than unskilled labor does. However, the answer is not the obvious one, that it 

is due to a qualitative difference. At first glance, one would tend to believe that an engineer 

produces more value per hour than a janitor because of the superior quality of his labor 

(this added quality would come from schooling and training). The real reason that skilled 

labor produces more value per hour is a quantitative one. In order to explain this, a little 

groundwork has to be laid first. 

In the market, all labor is considered to be equal whether it be skilled or unskilled, and 

Marx never attempted to explain how skilled labor produced more value. However, he did 

explain the difference between simple labor and more complicated labor. Labor throughout 

a society could be measured by simple average labor, because everyone has the ability to 

perform it. But, there are people in the society that have greater skills or a higher level of 

education that allows them to perform a more complicated labor. This is where we get into 

the difference of Quantity vs. Quality. For example, a skilled laborer can perform a job with 

a smaller amount of labor than it would take an unskilled laborer. 

So, due to the fact of quantitative differences in labor, skilled labor does produce more 

value per hour than unskilled labor. 

Hans: The first paragraph in your resubmission is excellent, it formulates the core issue very well. But at the end 

your argument becomes wrong. You are trying to base your argument on the proposition that 

A skilled laborer can perform a job with a smaller amount of labor than it would take an 

unskilled laborer. 

This proposition is false. Janitors cannot do the work of engineers, and in janitorial work, engineers are not 

necessarily faster than “unskilled” janitors. 

Next Message by Cartman is [138.4]. 

[136.2] PowderNow: Yes, skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled 

labor. Skilled labor comes from skilled labor power which contains more labor than unskilled 

labor power because it represents schooling, teaching, and training. Marx states that 

“more complex labor counts only as ... multiplied simple labor, so that a smaller quantity 

of complex labor is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labor” [135:1/o]. So the 

additional value of skilled labor is the training received by the skilled worker. The difference 

is not qualitative, but only quantitative. This is because labor powers are not qualitatively 

equal. By trading commodities on the market, members of society reduce the differences 

between different labor powers to just quantitative differences because of the exchange relation 

between them. So one hour of skilled labor is two hours of unskilled labor in one, since 

one has to count the time required to achieve the skill. With that skill and training, a skilled 

worker should be able to produce more commodities in an hour than an unskilled worker in 

the same field. Furthermore, certain jobs may require a worker to have a certain skill before


work can begin, so one must count it as “complex” labor and therefore the value is greater 

than an unskilled position. 

Hans: Your in-class exam wa much better than your resubmission. The in-class exam made sense; the resubmission 

copied selected sentences from the class materials, but the meaning was lost. You confuse the issue of two workers 

producing the same product with that of labor processes that need very different kinds of schooling. 

Next Message by PowderNow is [153]. 

[137.2] PumpkinStar: “Skilled labor produces more value per hour than unskilled labor” 

[33] Martin. I agree, and although the quantity of labor may be similar, the difference in 

“value” (congealed abstract labor) stems from the background of skilled labor, ie. training, 

education. 

[36] Merlin uses an excellent quote from the text: “...more complex labor counts only 

as...multiplied simple labor, so that a smaller quantitiy of complex labor is considered equal 

to a larger quantity of simple labor.” [135:1/o] from this, we can conclude that the “value” 

produced from skilled labor is higher, which is reflected in the transformation from the 

unskilled to the skilled laborer. Marx states that skilled labor is complex labor, and therefore, 

skilled labor (can also be stated as multiplied simple labor) will create more “value” per hour. 

So, labor is quantitative, not qualitative. However, as Hans stated in [47], “by trading their 

commoditites on the market, the members of society act as if all labor powers were equal, 

but in reality the are not 100 percent equal. This is a contradiction, and this contradiction 

creates indeterminacy in the reduction of the different types of labor to simple labor” As long 

as this contradiction exists, all we can state is that skilled labor and unskilled labor produce 

at different rates, but I do not think it is possible to define whether it is merely a quantitative 

difference, or a qualitative difference as well. 

Hans: Marx does not say “more complicated labor is multiplied simple labor,” but “counts as multiplied simple 

labor.” There is a qualitative difference between simple and complicated labor; one cannot get the latter by multiplying 

the former. Even if you assemble 1000 construction workers, and give them all the time they need, they still 

won’t be able to do the work of a doctor or a scientist or a musician. But commodity producing society acts as if 

complicated labor were a mere multiple of simple labor. This is what Marx means with the word “counts.” 

It is also wrong to say “labor is quantitative, not qualitative.” 

Next Message by PumpkinStar is [165]. 

[137.3] Angus: Measuring skilled and unskilled labor The main point of this question is 

based upon the correct definition of value and the measurement (qualitative vs. quantitative) 

of skilled vs. unskilled labor. 

Value is abstract human labor. (Hans refers to this in his analysis [7] of Cartman’s [3] 

attempt to define abstract human labor) Hans compares how value and abstract human labor 

are just like referring to ice and water. Hans also points out in the same analysis the subtle 

misconception that, ‘If a commodity has more abstract labor in it, people value it more, and 

therefore they are willing to pay a higher price for it.’ According to Hans this was not what 

Marx was trying to say. Instead Hans points out that, ‘Marx does not say value is caused 

by or is the result of abstract labor, but it is abstract labor.’ Abstract human labor is also the 

“expenditure of human labor power.” For example, brains muscles, nerves, etc. Therefore, 

based upon these concepts outlined by Marx and Hans, skilled labor does not necessarily 

produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. 


According to Marx, ‘More complex (skilled) labor counts only as intensified, or rather 

multiplied simple labor, so that a smaller quantity of complex (skilled) labor is considered 

equal to a larger quantity of simple labor.’ (Capital p.135) Therefore, if the differences of 

skilled and unskilled labor are due to the amount of education, training etc., then we can 

go ahead and view skilled labor as a multiple of unskilled labor. I believe Marx is trying 

to point out that labor power can be compared qualitatively but the difference is always 

quantitative. Hence, they produce the same amount of value because value is abstract human 

labor. As long as they are producing the same amount of abstract human labor (brains, 

muscles, nerves, etc.) then they are producing the same amount of value per hour. An 

engineer and a janitor both expend the same amount of abstract human labor. For example, 

Marx says how, ‘Simple average labor, it is true, varies in character in different countries and 

at different cultural epochs, but in a particular society it is given.’ (Capital p.135) Therefore, 

you cannot compare the labor power of a janitor vs. an engineer because simple labor is 

always different. (Brutal also points this out in [31]) However, skilled labor and unskilled 

labor can be compared on a qualitative basis, but the difference will always be quantitative. 

For example, you would measure based upon the multiple of unskilled labor to skilled labor. 

Next Message by Angus is [137.5]. 

[138.12] Yikes: Webster defines labor: as work,engaged in effort.Marx would agree with 

Webster, he tells us that useful-labor : productive activity of a definite kind and exercised 

with a definite aim. He also goes further in explaining that labor is a productive expenditure 

of human brains, nerves, and muscles. Marx argues that skilled labor i.e, the labor of and 

engineer and the labor of a janitor are quantitatively different productive activities but not 

qualitatively different because, they are both human labor. Skilled labor is thus defined as 

unskilled human labor multiplied by a quantitative social value placed upon the given skill. 

This would leave us to say that yes a engineer does quantitatively produce more value per 

hour than a janitor, but on the other hand qualitatively they are equal. 

Next Message by Yikes is [154]. 

[138.10] Maverick: In the final sentence of the first paragraph of my response, I stated 

the following: 

“So a person with more skill should be able to produce more than the person 

with average skill and thus the magnitude of value should be greater.” 

This is the same line of thinking that was found in Kid’s homework submission of question 

88. Hans later pointed out that this line of thinking implies that the engineer can do 

what the janitor can, only faster. This line of thinking focusses on concrete labor which is 

always qualitatively different and therefor cannot be compared quantitatively. This sentence 

totally conflicts with a previous sentence in which I stated the following: 

“If the magnitude of value is measured by the duration of labor or in other 

words socially necessary labor time, then it seems obvious that skilled labor 

produces more value.” 

This statement will prove to be true as I revise and incorporate my final paragraph. My 

revisions will center around my use of the word wages as an expression of the worker’s 

ability to produce value per hour.

My completed resubmission: 


If the magnitude of value is measured by the duration of labor or in other words socially 

necessary labor time, then it is conceiveable that skilled labor produces more value. Socially 

necessary labor time is the time it takes a normal person with average skill and intensity to 

produce an article given the current means of production. Hans states in [43] that,“Socially 

necessary labor is the quantitative aspect of abstract labor...” In [36] Merlin points out to 

Kids that Marx uses abstract labor in the quantifying of labor. So the only way to compare 

skilled labor and unskilled labor is by observing what Hans addresses in [47] as the general 

factor common to all jobs, expenditure of labor time. 

While it appears that in the time of one hour, the skilled worker and the unskilled worked 

have expended an equal amount of labor time, this is not so. To the expenditure of labor 

time of the skilled worker must be included the many hours of school and training acquired 

previous to the hour of work. Taking this into consideration, there is a quantitative difference 

between skilled and unskilled labor. The hour of skilled labor contains a greater expenditure 

of labor time and therefor has a greater magnitude of value. 

Next Message by Maverick is [138.17]. 

[138.15] Doc: Skilled vs. unskilled labor I believe the answer is yes. Marx discusses 

how commodities are equal in exchange by the labor that goes in them. He’s referring to 

the expenditure of human labor power and what its value is to the commodity. If a person 

goes to several years of school or does many years of specialized training, and then does 

what he has been trained to do for an equal number of years, his value of labor is twice the 

value of unskilled labor. He also explains that the value of teaching this skill by teachers and 

institutions along with the labor to produce the materials of the training, add to the value of 

his labor and makes the ratio for labor higher. 

He goes on to point out, however, that the differences in the value of labor are not as large 

as they may seem because capitalism and many large companies have lowered the skill level 

of many jobs, many companies reduce what a laborer can do by specializing the workforce 

and forcing many workers into a specialized field. 

Marx states that unskilled labor is what creates value in a society, and he says that this 

very basic value of labor must developed before we can expect society to realize the quantitative 

differences in labor value. 

Message [138-15] referenced by [158]. Next Message by Doc is [138.16]. 

[138.5] Hayduke: Skilled Labor Skilled labor does produce more value per hour than 

unskilled labor. To understand this, we need to break things down quantitatively, because 

qualitative differences cloud the issue (i.e. comparing apples and oranges). Unskilled labor 

can be expressed directly in terms of simple labor, which is measured by abstract labor time. 

Skilled labor, however, must be broken down into two components. The first component is 

the expenditure of abstract labor, which is measured the same as unskilled labor. The second 

component is the time of training and experience that made this labor skilled, which must be 

added as a coefficient of the abstract labor. With the combination of these two components, 

skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. 

Hans: Are you saying qualities are cloudy and quantities are clear? The clarity gained by making everything 

quantitative is often illusory. 


Next Message by Hayduke is [138.6]. 

[138.18] Paul: Yes, the labor of the skilled worker as opposed to the unskilled produces 

more value per hour. Marx explains that unskilled labor is something that every member 

of the society is capable of. Human labor has a value put towards it, based on the social 

necessity of the work. The difference between the skilled worker and the unskilled is not 

difficult to grasp. For the unskilled worker knows only of ways to perform uncomplicated 

labor. The skilled worker, on the other hand is trained in ways to use resources available in 

the society in a more efficient manner, (i.e. more complicated than unskilled work). Thus, it 

comes down to the fact that one hour of labor for the skilled worker will produce more than 

one hour of labor for the unskilled. 

“And just as in bourgeois society a general or a banker plays a great role, while mere man, 

on the other hand has a very shabby part, so here with human labor.” (Annotations, pg.29) 

Like the general and the mere man, so too are the engineer and the janitor. However, in the 

socialist community, the “mere man” is recognized for his/her expenditure of human labor 

and thus is rewarded with value per hour for his labor. The engineer may have a greater 

value per hour, but the janitors labor is by no means disregarded. Like Brutal[31] states, an 

example of an hour of skilled labor may be worth 2 hours of unskilled labor. Which in turn 

explains why skilled labor produces more value per hour than unskilled labor. 

Hans: You write: 

Thus, it comes down to the fact that one hour of labor for the skilled worker will produce more 

than one hour of labor for the unskilled. 

No, you cannot argue this way. The products of an engineer are different than those of janitor. It is not possible to 

say which is more. 

Also, we are not talking about socialism here. Your whole in-class exam talked about socialism. This misunderstanding 

is so basic that it cost you a lot of points, sorry. 


[138.25] Winston: Even though I said that skilled labor does create more value on the 

exam I am tempted to change that answer to no. On the exam I argued that due to training 

and schooling, a person increases their capacity of the quantity of labor they produce. But 

in reality skilled labor and unskilled labor are both made up of abstract labor. Marx views 

abstract labor as the “expenditure of human brains, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc.” 

[164:1] So according to this definition an engineer and a janitor both use abstract labor to 

do their job. The only difference is that the engineer has more schooling and the schooling 

is also counted as a form of abstract labor. When the engineer leaves school and begins 

working, the work is intensified, this is because of his training he can do more but not 

because the value of his abstract labor has increased. 

Hans: Yes, you are looking at the right place. 

Next Message by Winston is [139]. 

[138.1] Kenshiro: Regarding the aforementioned question; as you have stated in your 

synopsis Marx does not make it very clear. He does argue; however, “that it is the simple 

”unskilled“ labor everyone in the given society is able to perform. Here he, is alluding to 

the fact if all were equal then all would be paid the same. He does, however go on to say, 

”Simple average labor, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different 

cultural epochs, but in a particular society it is given. More complex labor, so that a smaller 

quantity of complex labor is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labor.


Hence, Marx points out that based upon our experiences and cultural and social up bringing 

we place a greater value upon the engineers hour of work as opposed to the janitors. 

I have but one example of equal study for equal pay; however, In Japan a College Professor, 

(based upon the subject, much like the states.) can if not make more than a Doctor or 

Engineer. And, in the end Both a Doctor and a Teacher are called by the same title “ Sensei.” 

The analogy is of course of 2 highly educated fields; however, I feel it shows how the 

needs of both show an equality of pay. 

Therefore the value placed upon a skilled vs. unskilled labor or more skilled vs. less 

skilled labor, could be just as much a cultural bias as much as a capital exploit of the masses. 

Hans: You left out an important part of one of your sentences. But your worst error is the following: 

Marx points out that based upon our experiences and cultural and social up bringing we place 

a greater value upon the engineers hour of work as opposed to the janitors. 

The theory you are describing here has no resemblance with Marx. The in-class exam was not much better. Marx 

did say that training cost should be reflected in the value produced. 

Next Message by Kenshiro is [138.2]. 

[138.13] RfBurner: Skilled labor produces more value per hour than an unskilled labor. 

Labor must first be devoped to different levels to take care of certain task. All commodities 

have labor involved in the production but most differ in thier cost. There must be a difference 

in the power of the labor. To make ones labor power increase one must improve there 

working ability with training, schooling, ect. If one does this the will be labeled as a skilled 

worker. The labor that the skilled worker performs than produces more value than someones 

labor who is unskilled. Forexample, If a Lawyer spends ten years in school then works for 

ten years, the hours of work after training is worth twice as much in labor power than the 

labor of someone who is unskilled. So the value of the worker can change the value of the 

commodity when finding the price. This shows that unskilled labor does produce less value 

than skilled labor. 

Next Message by RfBurner is [142.6]. 

[138.21] Josef: In my original answer I stated that skilled labor does produce more value 

per hour than unskilled labor. I answered, that complicated simple labor produces more 

value than simple labor. I would like to expound on this answer and make it clearer. 

For simplicity Marx speaks of all labor power as simple labor power. He also states that 

a smaller amount of complicated or skilled labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple or 

unskilled labor. I think that the time it takes to aquire the skills and knowledge necessary 

to perform complicated tasks, and become a skilled worker adds to the vaue of that persons 

labor. For example, a doctor is a skilled worker. He has spent a lot of time learning and 

training in order to become a doctor. The janitor that cleans up after the doctor performs a 

surgery is an unskilled worker. The janitor spent very little time training for his job. The 

labor of the doctor performing surgery for one hour is of greater value than the hour of labor 

spent by the janitor cleaning up after the doctor. 

Next Message by Josef is [170]. 

[138.7] Golf: skilled labor vs. unskilled labor After further study, I still agree with my 

statement that, skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. 


To add to my answer, skilled labor is able to produce more value that is seen quantitaitvely 

than qualitatively. The skilled laborer has many more skills from schooling, training, etc. 

that effect his/her output. The more skills one obtains, the more someone can do. For example, 

if an accountant was to all of his/her taxes by hand, their capacity would be limited to 

his/her ability to write and calculate the figures. Now if this accountant was to get additional 

training on using computers to compute taxes, their capacity would increase to the ability of 

the computer. The accountant with his/her additional skills can now be more efficient and 

produce more of their product with added value. 

With adding additional skills to one’s labor, this increases the ability of the laborer to 

do more things(quantitative). With being able to do more things, value is then added to the 

labor, which will then makes their labor have more value than an unskilled laborer. 

Hans: You have very basic misunderstandings regarding the labor theory of value. 

Next Message by Golf is [142.13]. 

[141.3] Merlin: Skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. All 

labor is homogeneous in that it is an expression of human labor power, which everyone has. 

Marx reduces all labor to simple average labor. In this sense it is all equal. This would seem 

to indicate that unskilled labor, which would take more time, would produce more value 

or that all labor, skilled or unskilled, would produce the same value. However, Marx uses 

socially necessary labor time to calculate the magnitude of value, meaning the time it would 

take a normal worker working with the normal means of production in a society with normal 

or average skill level to produce an article. When considering the value of skilled labor vs. 

unskilled labor, skilled labor is simple labor multiplied by the time put into training and 

education of the skilled worker. Therefore, the skilled worker produces more value per hour. 

For one hour of work, not only must you consider the labor of the skilled worker, but also 

the labor that went into training the worker. 

Next Message by Merlin is [141.4]. 

[141.1] Bytor: ::Subject Test Resubmission 

According to Marx skilled labor such as that of an engineer would not produce more 

value per hour than the unskilled labor of a janitor. Marx’s Socialist concept would be 

completely pointless if he viewed engineers as more productive per hour than janitors. He 

looked at skilled and unskilled labor as different in the work that they perform, not different 

in value. I will make this point in two examples. First if an engineer and a janitor were 

stuck together and needed to develope a bridge obviously the engineer is more qualified to 

do that kind of work. However if both were stuck on an island the janitorial skills would be 

a valuable commodity. It is the same today, professional cleaners are paid very well to do 

work that most people are not trained to do. So in another way one could state how skilled 

labor is more valuable per hour, depending on the circumstance. I the case of the janitor and 

the engineer on the island the janitor would be considered the skilled labor. In this concept 

Marx was basically showing how value is dependent upon circumstances, hence supply and 

demand. 

Hans: You don’t have the slightest idea what Marx is talking about in Capital. 

Next Message by Bytor is [141.2]. 

[141.7] Guyote: 88 skilled labor Because labor has dual characteristics, the effect of 

labor can be contradictory. When determining whether or not skilled labor, labor for which


training is necessary, produces more value per hour than unskilled labor it may be beneficial 

to take into account this dual characteristic. The quantitative example of the linen and the 

coat we can quantify the differences in the value of the commodities of linen and the coat. 

We say, for example, that labor power had to be expended twice as long to produce the 

coat. The notion that the labor “had to be expended” indicates the fact that the labor was 

necessary. On the contrary, we may also consider the qualitative aspect of the production of 

the coat, however this will not address the necessary labor time needed, thus giving us a less 

precise indication of value. 

The quantitative method mentioned above allows one to speculate regarding the relative 

values of goods produced through through skilled or unskilled labor. However, there exist 

other factors which may determine the value of labor which is not strictly quantitative in its 

nature. 

The notion of congealed abstract labor can help clarify the differences between one hour 

of skilled labor versus one hour of unskilled labor. let’s examine the following senario; 

skilled laborer bill is a doctor, unskilled laborer peter is a bus driver. The notion of congealed 

abstract labor would seem to lead us to believe that one hour of bill’s time is worth some 

multiple of peter’s time because bill is a skilled, educated and trained doctor while peter is 

an unskilled bus driver. 

What happens if we change peter’s role to that of bill’s. Peter goes to work as a doctor for 

a day and bill goes to work as a bus driver for the day. They both spend their days with no 

clue as to what needs to be done to complete their tasks. Their time is equally as worthless. 

This is a qualitative example which the quantitative method does not account for. 

The notion of congealed abstract labor addresses not only the notion of total crystalized 

labor in the final product but the labor power contained in that output. skilled labor can 

be considered to have more labor power and, thus, the proposition of creating more total 

value with the expenditure of the same hour. In the case of bill and peter we saw that 

being skilled, in respect to attending school for training in medicine did not necessaraly help 

bill the doctor become more valuable when he had to drive peter’s bus. Additionally, the 

quantitative method of adding up all the necessary labor time contained does not answer the 

quaetion either. In the exam i mentioned that the value of a doctors hour would be higher 

than that of an unskilled worked but is that a reflection of value? I would argue that it is more 

the skewed perception of the market more than one mans labor is really worth 100 times that 

of another’s because one might have gone to a school. This is something we see every day, 

especially with professions such as teachers or artists, both require training but, at the end 

of the day, the market does not recognize the congealed level of abstract labor involved in 

the tasks they cary out in their professional lives. This would be why this question could be 

considered as a paradox. 

Hans: You are raising many interesting issues. I hope you’ll join is in the class discussion soon, where I can give 

you more detailed responses. 

Next Message by Guyote is [141.8]. 

[142.21] Navin: Im my written answer in class, as I read it now, it sounds like I do not 

understand what value labor is producing. The written answer may even seem to say that I 


am arguing salaries. This however was not my intent. This resubmission comes in handy for 

this situation. 

The situation that I discussed in the exam reflects the quantitative differences one can assume 

by comparing the qualitative differences. The real difference is in the quality. Through 

training and skills a doctor produces a higher value of products than the janitor. The doctors 

labor is complex simple labor. This is “potentiated” simple labor. The janitor produces 

simple labor only. “A commodity may be the product of the most complicated labor, but 

its value, by equating it to the product of simple labor, represent a certain amount of simple 

labor alone.”(Annotations p 30) The labor that is complex is equal to a “bigger” amount of 

labor that is simple. 

Next Message by Navin is [163]. 

[142.12] Dragon: When comparing the value per hour of skilled labor versus unskilled 

labor, one must make the decision of who produces more value per hour using only quantitative 

analysis rather than qualitative analysis. 

The qualitative approach cannot be used because these two types of labor are qualitatively 

different. There should be no reason in trying to reason that both types of labor are the same 

in quality. In our society, we see these two jobs as being different. Qualitatively we cannot 

argue that these two jobs are the same. If they both had the same qualitative value, then we 

would treat their labor commodities as equal and this is definitely not the case. 

In order to compare the labor value of both occupations, we must use a quantitative not 

qualitative approach. If both the engineer and the janitor worked for one hour, the quantitative 

value is the same. In order to answer this question, the only way the engineer produces 

more value is if he/she works for two hours and the janitor only works for one hour. If 

the janitor worked for two hours and the engineer only worked one, then the janitor would 

be producing more value. Who produces more value can only be determined by using a 

quantitative approach. 

Next Message by Dragon is [142.14]. 

[142.5] Gemni: I would like to change my original answer on the midterm and say, Yes, 

skilled labor, such as the engineer, does create more value per hour than unskilled labor, 

the janitor. All labor is equal only when reduced to its simplest form. The complex labor 

of the engineer must be reduced to simple labor, so that there is an equal basis on which 

to measure. This reduction brings about the difference of skilled labor and unskilled labor, 

that difference being quanatative, not qualatative (annotations, study guide). So only when 

“labor” is reduced do we derive that one hour of skilled labor is two hours of unskilled labor 

in one, since one also has to count the time required to acquire the skill (p-14 study guide). 

So there is a dual relationship at work with regard to skilled or complex labor, to unskilled or 

simple labor. They are equal only when they are reduced, otherwise skilled labor does create 

more value than unskilled labor. In reference to the inequality of these two labors, the “many 

accidental circumstances affecting the price of labor” must be taken into consideration (sg 

p-15). An employer may have a higher demand for complex labor, bringing about a higher 

price for the expenditure of labor time. Labor can not be equal because qualatative factors 

are different, therefore there is no easy way make them equal. 

Hans: Spelling errors.


Next Message by Gemni is [151]. 

[142.17] Jedi: Yes, skilled labor produces more value per hour than unskilled labor. 

Skilled and unskilled labor have the same common denominator: abstract labor. However, 

their numerators or quantities are different. 

Value of commodity comes from this common denominator of units of abstract labor. 

Skilled labor which is equivalent of more unites of abstract labor creates more value per 

hour than unskilled labor, which equates to less units of abstract labor. 

Hans: You are not explaining where this multiplier comes from. 

Next Message by Jedi is [142.19]. 

[142.16] Buda: Yes, skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. 

Human beings all have in common labor power which is the potential and the capacity to 

do labor. When comparing the value produced by skilled labor to that of the unskilled 

labor, one must not compare labor power but rather simple labor (which is essentially simple 

“unskilled” labor.) Skilled labor is intensified simple labor or multiplied simple labor. Marx 

says,“more complex labor counts only as ...multiplied simple labor, so that a smaller quantity 

of complex labor is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labor.”[145:1] Therefore, 

one hour of skilled labor accounts for more value than an hour of unskilled labor. In addition, 

more value is added to the skilled labor when taking into consideration the labor incorporated 

into acquiring the skill. 

Next Message by Buda is [142.22]. 

[142.1] Boarder: Marx states that commodities are exchangeable because they are the 

congelation of abstract human labor. Marx would say that value doesn’t come from worth, 

but from abstract social labor. He says the common social substance which only finds different 

representations in the different use values is labor. Marx says that, “The quality of labor, 

agian, is measured by it’s duration, the labor time, which finds its standard of measurement 

in well-defined pieces of time like days, hours, etc.” He does bring up the example of the 

lazy laborer which does contradict this somewhat. He then clears up the issue somewhat, he 

says that the value of labor must be equal human labor, expenditure of the same human labor 

power. Marx does look at two things, the labor itself (skill and intensity) and technology. 

However he compares all things to the socially average degree of skill and intensity. I think 

that a skilled worker is definitely more efficient, however the quality of the labor does come 

into play to some degree. I believe that Marx is primarily concerned with quantity, but he 

does allow some room for quality. When I look at quantity versus quantitiy I would assume 

that we are talking about the finished product or commodity, but I think that Marx is looking 

entirely at abstract-labor. He sees value in abstract-labor. Marx would make the two equal 

to each other by using societal averages. 

Hans: The last two sentences of your resubmission make me wonder how much you understood of Marx’s argument. 

Next Message by Boarder is [142.4]. 

[142.9] Maine: In my initial response to Question 88, I stated that skilled labor produces 

more value than unskilled labor. I am now aware that the definition of value upon which I 

based my answer was incorrect. I was comparing the labor of two workers on quantity rather 

than quality. I now know that, according to Marx, skilled and unskilled labor produce the 

same amount of value per hour. In a given society, if labor is reduced to its simplest form, it 


becomes comparable. It is now proportionately equal. This is clarified by Marx in the text: 

[136:2] 

“Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents nothing but 

the quantity of labor embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when 

taken in the right proportions, must be equal in value.” 

When considered in the simplest form, an hour of a janitor’s time would be equal to five 

hours of an engineer’s time. Skilled labor would be considered a larger quantity of unskilled 

labor. But all workers labor is valued equally. Marx supports this concept: [136:4/o] 

“The same labor therefore performed the same length of time always yields 

the same amount of value independently of any variations in its productivity.” 

I now understand the position of Marx that places all labor on an equal scale of value. 

Next Message by Maine is [142.10]. 

[142.8] Luc: Yes, skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. 

Unskilled labor is simple. Skilled labor is complex. According to Marx “more complex 

labour counts only as intensified, or rather multiplied simple labour, so that a smaller quantity 

of complex labour is considered equal to a larger quantity of simple labour.” [135:1/o] 

This means that complex, or skilled, labor is equal to the product of many simple, or unskilled, 

labors. In the study guide, Hans states that “one hour of unskilled labor is two hours 

of unskilled labor in one, since one also has to count the time required to acquire the skill.” 

(14) Therefore, complex labor does produce more value per hour because it is quantitatively 

greater than simple, or unskilled, labor. 

Hans: Your whole argument is based on the mistaken notion that a janitor produces the same things as an engineer, 

only slower. 

Next Message by Luc is [142.15]. 

[142.7] Sprockets: Skilled Labor = Unskilled Labor No, skilled labor does not produce 

more value per hour than unskilled labor. Hans [45] states that “society reduced the 

differences between different labor powers to merely quantitative differences.” This was in 

response to Meta [37] who inquired about how, where, and when does simple (unskilled) 

labor “change” into skilled labor. I take Hans statement that “society, when it organizes 

production, sees these labors as quantitative,” as meaning there is no difference between the 

two, skilled and unskilled, in terms of quantity, and therefore, in terms of value. Of course, 

we, ourselves, may derive different value from things produced by both skilled and unskilled 

laborers, but initially, in production, skilled and unskilled laborers produce the same value 

per hour. 

What it all comes down to is “By trading their commodities on the market, the members 

of society act as if all labor powers were equal” which Hans states in [47]. Although this 

is contradictory to what Hans says regarding Marx’s view: “Because different labor powers 

are qualitatively different... there is no logical way to equate them”, this is the way society 

perceives labor. 

Message [142-7] referenced by [219]. Next Message by Sprockets is [219].


[158] Hans: Once more about value created by skilled labor I apologize for going back 

to Question 88, but it is important that you understand this. Doc writes in exam resubmission 

[138-15]: 

[Marx is] referring to the expenditure of human labor power and what its 

value is to the commodity. 

and similarly in his in-class exam: 

Also, society always puts more value on skilled labor – doctor, lawyer, 

etc. because of the increased good that is done for society and the people 

individually. 

Marx considers this a fallacy. Skilled labor does not create more commodity value because 

the value of this labor to the commodity or to society is higher. An hour of skilled 

labor creates more value only because the person performing this labor first had to spend 

time to learn this skill. The higer quality of skilled labor is not rewarded. If the skilled 

laborer had not learned this skill and would have worked as an unskilled laborer, he or she 

would have created the same amount of value in his or her life time. (I am making here the 

simplifying assumption that the only social cost of education is the time spent by the student, 

in order to be able to show more clearly what is happening here.) 


[162.1] Broker: The skilled/unskilled labor debate is really a debate of quantity of simple 

labor. Reducing labor down to its simplest form allows workers’ labor to be measured 

againest the labor/work of other workers. 

“More complicated labor counts merely as potential or rather multiplied 

simple labor, so that a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to a 

bigger amount of simple labor.” 

Attempting to interpret what Marx means in the last passage answers our debate about 

skilled/unskilled labor. I believe Marx to mean that our engineer or doctor’s work must be 

measured at its simplest form. The work they’re doing, inside our simple form, has no more 

value than the simple form of our janitors’. By taking out the actual product of what the 

complicated labor does the only labor left is simple labor. While they have a lot more simple 

labor units, their value is the same as their brother/sister the door room monitor. Out of 

fairness to the doctor and engineer the units of simple labor has more work because there is 

more units of labor. Labor creates value. More labor more value. 

Hans: Resubmission was excellent. But it originally contained lots of spelling errors. I corrected them for the 

copy in the archive. Please work on your spelling. People won’t take you seriously if you can’t spell right. But they 

should; you are a good thinker. 

Next Message by Broker is [165.1]. 

[164] Mo: Once more about value created by skilled labor Re: [158] I think there are 

two questions here. 

Marx clearly thinks that skilled labour of the same kind as unskilled labour produces more 

value per time actually worked, than unskilled labour. If a person can produce the same good 

in half the time that it takes on average to produce that good, then one hour of that labour 


produces twice the vale of average labour. The points that Marx makes about lazy workers 

apply also to unskilled workers with respect to any specific kind of work. This is because 

both involve productivity. (You can compare the productivity of a lazy or unskilled worker in 

one kind of workwith the productivity of a hard working or skilled worker only with respect 

to that same kind of work.) 

On the other hand, one hour of one kind of labour counts just the same in terms of value 

as one hour of labour of A DIFFERENT KIND. If there is a difference in the value of the 

goods produced in one hour of labour, it is only in the dead labour that is passed on from 

machines, raw materials and skills. 

Dr Ian Hunt, Associate Professor in Philosophy, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, 

Philosophy Dept, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, 

Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2556 

[209.2] Bull: One aspect of the question that I failed to elaborate on is the idea of simple 

labor. Simple labor is the amount of labor expended in an hour, by those workers who have 

no particular advantages of skill or experience in production. I agree with brutal when he 

says, “ In order to compare the labor of an engineer to the labor of a janitor all labor must 

be reduced to simple labor”. This means that by comparison there has to be a parallel of 

labor. Simple labor draws that parallel. I also agree with Professor Erbar when he says, “ 

There is no law governing this reduction”. (Annotations p.30) There may be no physical law 

to govern, but there is a form of social law that defines value between skilled and unskilled 

labor. After all individuals differ in their capacity to produce labor. An hour of one persons 

labor may produce more value than an hour of anothers. 

The second aspect is abstract labor. This is what Marx called the expenditure of human 

labor. Hans says in response to Merlin, “ It is that what all laborers have in common”. He 

speaks of abstract labor. The janitor and the engineer share that one common trait, but it is 

how they use that trait that gives them value in a Marxian society. That is, labor devoted to 

the production of commodities actually exchanged, produces value. 

Next Message by Bull is [243]. 

[299.1] Bluto: The difficulties, that arise when one is attempting to set value per hour, are 

due to the fact that the labors in question are easily seen as different in the abstract form, 

when reduced to the simple form of labor they are the same. As Merlin [36] I believe that all 

labors are equal, skilled or unskilled. When all labors are seen in their simple form, we gain 

the ability to see them as equal, due to the fact that they are only quantitatively different. 

Skilled labor must be compensated for the time it took to acquire any special skill. One 

hour of skilled labor is two hours of unskilled labor in one, as one also has to count the time 

required to acquire the skill (Hans [43]). When measuring value there has to be a standard 

for which to follow, enabling society to properly access the true labor that was involved in 

creating any commodity. 

Hans: You are saying some interesting stuff (although not all of it is right); too bad you did not enter the discussion 

earlier. 

Next Message by Bluto is [299.3]. 

[464.1] Hobart: It is commonly mistaken that because of the fact that the products of 

labor are able to be exchanged, that all labor powers are equal. Marx would not tend to 

agree with this assertion. Marx contends that there are differences between labor powers


although they are small and whatever differences that exist, are quantitative (although the 

differences are not necessarily always quantitative). Marx argues that unskilled labor is able 

to be performed by all of soceity’s members. However, skilled labor (i.e., the labor of an 

engineer) can not be performed by all, only by a limited number of laborers, and is therefore 

more valuable as compared hour by hour with the work of the unskilled laborer. 

Next Message by Hobart is [464.2]. 

Question 91 is 76 in 1996ut, 82 in 1997WI, 78 in 1997ut, 104 in 2002fa, 120 in 2004fa, 

141 in 2008fa, 173 in 2011fa, and 172 in 2012fa: 

Question 91 How does Marx’s labor theory of value differ from an explanation of value by 

what today would be called the “disutility of labor,” i.e., the “sacrifice of ease, liberty, and 

happiness”? 

[34] Martin: Marx sees labor which creates products of labor that serve as use values as 

“an immeasurably ancient relation valid in all forms of society” [Grundrisse] and as “man’s 

normal life-activity” [this footnote]. 

I agree with HE’s argument that for Marx “abstract labor” exists not just in capitalist, 

bourgeois society. 

The passages in the Study Guide from the Contribution, and referring to the Grundrisse, 

help explain how Marx’s analysis is a historical one, but in Capital, is mainly presented 

as a current one going into the essence of what a commodity is, what labor is, etc in a 

developed bourgeois society. The essence of this relationship although it existed in precapitalist 

societies only comes to be seen clearly as one of abstract labor in a capitalist 

society. Here commodity exchange is so dominant, that one form of labor readily takes the 

place of another, and the abstract nature of labor can be considered separate from its actual 

social forms. 

I am not here answering question 92, which asks for specific comments on Adam Smith’s 

views, which I do not feel sufficiently confident about. However the footnote suggests that 

these phrases about the sacrifice of rest, freedom and happiness, may occur to Adam Smith 

because of his superficial observation of the wretched nature of the laborers of his time. I 

wonder whether Marx intended that as a full criticism of this view, because laborers under 

a feudal system, or a slave system, would not often have much ease, freedom or happiness 

either. I myself wonder if the phrase was also typical of the thinking of an intellectual at 

the time of the rising bourgeoisie, who would regard work automatically as a loss of ease, 

rather than an opportunity to share collectively in the production of society’s wealth, and to 

be respected for doing so. It is a rather individualist and subjective way of looking at labor, 

which has no connection with the fact that modern labor is a direct descendant of the life 

processes of early hominids in gaining use-values from nature. 

To the extent that these phrases may be used in some form in modern capitalist economics 

they seem to point to a subjectivist theory of economics about pleasure deferred or pleasure 

satisfied, focussed on specific commodities or specific numbers of hours, but nothing about 

the organic relationship of humans as a community to their environment. 


I have a problem that looking back on Marx’s writing with the perspective of the late 

20th century with its ideas of complexity theory, it seems to me to be blindingly obvious 

that (exchange)value is an “emergent property” of commodity exchange and becomes the 

dominant form qualitatively, once a quantitative stage of economic development is reached. 

I don’t know if HE would comment here or later on whether this could be compatible with 

Marx’s analysis or whether it undermines the dialectical nature of Marx’s analysis. 

However the question asks about the labor theory of value. My understanding is that 

Marx and Engels talked about the law of value, and Engels said this had lasted at least 7000 

years, referring to some commodity exchange, between different communities, roughly on 

the basis of the socially necessary labor that went into the exchange value. The labor theory 

of value of the classical economists does not distinguish the change in this process with 

history, and there are some aspects of value that they did not see. 

In the footnote here, Marx says that Adam Smith sometimes argues that equal quantities 

of labor always have the same value, whereas what is relevant is abstract labor, socially 

necessary labor. An inefficient worker, through laziness, ill health or backward tools, would 

not produce more value, Marx has pointed out, just because he/she sacrificed more “ease, 

liberty, and happiness.” 

Hans: Hi Martin, thank you for your participation, but your answer to Question 91 was too long and complex for 

me. I give you here some nitpicking comments about the first half of it. I am not sending it to the list but it will 

show up in the archive of all submissions. 

Marx sees labor which creates products of labor that serve as use values as “an immeasurably 

ancient relation valid in all forms of society” [Grundrisse] and as “man’s normal life-activity” 

[this footnote]. 

“Labor which creates ... use values” is useful labor. I am not sure how one can call useful labor a relation. Of 

ccourse, production is only possible in a social context, i.e., there are social relations involved, but in many ancient 

societies these relation were direct relations between the producers and did not go through their labor. Only in 

capitalism do the producers generally relate to each other only through the products of labor. 

I agree with HE’s argument that for Marx “abstract labor” exists not just in capitalist, bourgeois 

society. 

Thank you, but you say below that relations of production have always focused on abstract labor. This is not my 

view, and this is not what I meant when I said that abstract labor always existed. 

The passages in the Study Guide from the Contribution, and referring to the Grundrisse, help 

explain how Marx’s analysis is a historical one, but in Capital, is mainly presented as a current 

one going into the essence of what a commodity is, what labor is, etc in a developed bourgeois 

society. The essence of this relationship although it existed in pre-capitalist societies only 

comes to be seen clearly as one of abstract labor in a capitalist society. 

In ancient times, relations of production did not come to be seen as relations of abstract labor because they weren’t 

relations of abstract labor. In earlier societies, society was regulating concrete labors, not abstract labors. Social 

regulations saw to it that there were the right number of peasants and artisans, etc. The oldest son inherited the 

farm, the number of artisans in a city was tightly regulated, etc. This is all very concrete. Today society tells the 

producers: I don’t care what you do, it is ok as long as you find someone who buys it, and you will be reimbursed 

for your labor input. This is regulation by abstract labor. 

Next Message by Martin is [51]. 

Question 93 is 86 in 1998WI, 98 in 2000fa, 98 in 2001fa, 138 in 2007SP, 141 in 2007fa, 

145 in 2008SP, 143 in 2008fa, 150 in 2009fa, 155 in 2010fa, and 174 in 2012fa:


Question 93 If the first Chapter is such a systematic discussion of value, why is it then 

called “Commodities” and not “Value”? 

[41] Zeek: Why commodity, not value? Marx throughout this first Chapter has been 

referring to Commodities rather than Value. Upon reading what Marx refers to when talking 

about value we understand that value takes on many different forms. Marx often referred to 

an expression that, “20 yards of linen = 1 coat.” Here he is talking about commodities and 

their values. The use value of the linen is expressed in the coat. Linen itself has no use value, 

until you put it with another item (commodity). To understand the value we need to look 

first at commodity. Marx expresses value through commodities. Marx states that in order for 

something to have value it must have some form of utility associated with it. According to 

Marx the only way that a commodity can make itself known is through its exchange value. 

Values of an item can only be shown through that of a commodity. Linen in the coat has 

value, but alone its value is not apparent. This is why Marx refers to commodity rather than 

value in his first Chapter. 

Message [41] referenced by [46] and [48]. Next Message by Zeek is [72]. 

[46] Senco: Why commodity, not value? I understand what Zeek is trying to say in [41], 

and I think he/she is headed in the right direction, but I find his/her answer a bit unclear and 

redundant. 

Zeek states in [41] that in chapter one, Marx has been referring to “Commodities rather 

than Value.” I think this is misleading. Marx talks about both commodities and value. In fact 

Marx talks a great deal about “Value”. He (Marx) explains that value can take many different 

forms. In order to determine what the form of value is, the commodity must already exist. 

To begin to discuss values without commodities would be putting the cart ahead of the horse. 

And that is why the first chapter is called “Commodities” and not “Value”. Professor Ehrbar 

says the same thing but in a more precise manner. He writes, 

The commodity is, since the moment it is made, something twofold, use 

value and value, the product of useful labor and the congelation of abstract 

labor. “In the present Section we therefore know the substance of value, 

and derive the form of value from it” (Ehrbar p. 33). 

So in [41] Zeek is correct when he/she writes that Marx is talking about commodities 

and their values. However, this contradicts Zeeks opening sentence. Another flaw in Zeeks’ 

answer is when it is stated also in [41] that “Marx expresses value through commodities.” 

This wording is also misleading. More precisely, Marx explains the Value is expressed 

through the commodity. 

Hans: Your sentence 

Another flaw in Zeeks’ answer is when it is stated also in [41] that... 

would have benefited from some editing. 

Message [46] referenced by [48]. Next Message by Senco is [110]. 

[48] Hans: Two Common Misunderstandings Zeek [41] made some elementary but 

often-made mistakes, and I hoped that someone would go through the trouble correcting 

them. Senco [46] sent some critical remarks about Zeek, and I can tell that Senco is trying to 


think precisely, but Senco tried to unearth some subtle inconsistencies but did not see Zeek’s 

big and glaring errors. 

The first basic thing Zeek got wrong is that he thinks only articles of final consumption 

have use value. According to Marx’s definition, means of production also have use value 

sicne they help produce useful things. He says in in the second paragraph of Chapter One 

125:2 (look in the Annotations between Questions 23 and 24): 

Nor does it matter here how the object satisfies these human wants, whether 

directly as means of consumption, or indirectly as means of production. 

The other big thing Zeek got wrong is that he thinks the coat expresses the value of the 

linen because it is made of linen and therefore it shows how useful linen is. This interpretation 

is an often-made fallacy, and in the readings which belong to the assigned Questions, 

I say explicitly that Marx’s discussion of the form of value should not be understood in this 

way. 


[51] Martin: Title ‘Commodities’ not ‘Value’ My answer with hindsight is that this is 

because value is an emergent property of commodity exchange consistent with complexity 

theory, and that Marx somehow sensed this. 

In terms of Marx’s own scientific method, which is most clearly set out in the Afterward 

to the Second German edition of Capital, it was necessary through inquiry to appropriate 

masses of factual detail, and understand the inner workings and interactions, and only then 

to present the essential features of the process in a systematic form. 

Marx was against the imposition of broad sweeping ideas on the complexity of the actual 

data. Had he started off like many conventional economists with this approach, his description 

of “value” as an overarching principle might have been superficially very persuasive but 

could easily have fallen into some unacceptable generalisations, like the vague subjectivist 

version of value in modern economics which actually muddles up different things. 

Marx saw the commodity as the essential irreducible unit of social labor in an intensive 

economic system with a proliferation of commodities as occurs in economies dominated by 

the capitalist mode of production. He therefore builds up his analysis on what he sees as 

clear materialist foundations, this basic unit, but viewed systematically from all its different 

angles and interactions. 

In this way we can come to a materialist understanding of the contradictory but real nature 

of this strange substance that in association with individual exchange value, looks like blobs 

of ghostly jelly, except that it is totally invisible. In aggregate however it is totally real, and is 

the main determinant of capitalist dynamics at the highest level. To have started off Chapter 

One with Value as the title could have left an idealist rather than a materialist understanding 

in the minds of the reader. 

Hans: I agree. Marx wanted to start with something tangible and concrete. Value springs to life and becomes 

independently active later, in capitalism, when it has wage labor to draw its life energy from. At the beginning it 

just one aspect of the commodity. 

Next Message by Martin is [86].


Question 107 is 85 in 1995ut, 87 in 1996sp, 88 in 1996ut, 94 in 1997WI, 92 in 1997ut, 99 

in 1998WI, 134 in 2003fa, 150 in 2005fa, 170 in 2007fa, and 182 in 2009fa: 

Question 107 In the Simple or Accidental form of value, which commodity plays an active 

role, and which a passive role? Explain what it means in this situation to be active or 

passive. 

[39] Perro: active/passive In the Simple or Accidental form of value, the relative form 

(the first commodity) represents the active role, and the equivalent form (the second commodity) 

represents the passive role. Therefore in the example 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, the 

linene would represent the active role, and the coat would represent the passive role. 

We can see this from the linen producer’s standpoint. The linen takes in this example 

the active part, only because the producer of it (the linen) knows how much labor were put 

into it. Labor was needed in order to produce the linen, and it is necessary for the producer 

of it to see that his labor was not wasted. Therefore the linen producer desires to exchange 

the linen in order to make the labor valuable. He values the labor of linen in the exchange 

relationship. 

The coat takes the passive part, because the producer of the linen does not know how 

much labor is represented in it (the coat). Moreover, this is not interesting to the linene 

producer, only the use value of the coat is of interest in the exchange relationship. The 

linene producer knows how much use value that is necessary to exchange the linen. In other 

words, one can say that the value of linen is expressed in the use value of the coat. 

Hans: The fact that the linen weaver knows how much labor is in the coat is irrelevant for the question at hand. 

What is relevant is not that the linen weaver know how much labor is in the linen, but that she has spent all her time 

producing a very specialized product, and she needs the products of the others to live. 

Message [39] referenced by [49] and [2003fa:80]. Next Message by Perro is [93]. 

[40] Maktub: active or passive In the example that Marx gives in the book 20 yards of 

linen = 1 coat, the commodity that plays the active role is the linen, because the value of 

the linen is expressed through the coat, or in other words, the coat serves as the material in 

which the value of the linen is manifested. The second commodity, the coat, is the passive 

commodity, because the value of the whole is expressed through the coat, the coat’s value is 

derived from the linen. 

In this situation, linen is the active element, linen in and of itself has very little use-value, 

for example, if I had 20 yards of linen, but that linen was not made into something useful, 

the linen serves no purpose as a commodity. It needs a venue where it can take the form of a 

material value. The coat is the passive element, as the linen is processed and made into the 

coat, the coat is the means where the linen gets its material value. The linen uses the coat 

for value. The linen is the active element, it is the element that uses the other for value. 

I like what Perro [107] says when he says that the value of the linen is expressed in the 

use value of the coat. I believe that the linen in and of itself has value, but that value has to 

be put into relative terms, and to obtain a use value out of linen, it has to be incorporated 

into the coat, and the coat derives its use value from the linen. Its a reflective process. 

Message [40] referenced by [49]. Next Message by Maktub is [95]. 

[49] Hans: Two Explanations of the Linen’s Initiative Perro [39] and Maktub [40] give 

quite different explanations why the linen is active and the coat passive. Perro gives pretty 


much the right explanation: the linen weaver has put her labor into the linen, and now she is 

hungry, therefore she needs someone who exchanges her linen for something she can use. 

Maktub has a completely different explanation: the linen itself has very little use value. 

It actively seeks to express its use value. In the production process of the coat out of linen, 

the linen is active and the coat passive. This is of course completely wrong, this is not at 

all what Marx is talking about, and also not what Perro is talking about. But it does have a 

certain creativity. 


Question 109 is 79 in 1995WI, 101 in 1998WI, 124 in 2001fa, 183 in 2008SP, 181 in 


Question 109 What does the qualitative equation “linen = coat” tell us about the coat? 

about the linen? 

[42] Golf: linen=coat Marx uses this equation to tell us that the coat “counts as the form 

of existence of value, as the material embodiment of value, for only as such is it the same as 

the linen”. The coat has value, which can then be used to purchase linen. 

The linen on the other hand is value that is expressed. Linen is associated with the coat 

as being equal in value to it, which then can be exchanged for the coat. 

Although the linen and the coat play different parts, they both have value. And only 

when they have been reduced to the same unit, can they then be “comparable in quantitative 

terms”. Once they have been reduced, they have become a common commodity which can 

then be exchanged. 

Message [42] referenced by [53]. Next Message by Golf is [138.7]. 

[53] Hans: Paraphrases Don’t Pay Off The purpose of the Questions and Answer procedure 

is: if you express Marx’s thoughts in your own words, it becomes apparent where the 

misunderstandings are. And since you are usually not the only one who has these misunderstandings, 

we all learn something from it. 

Sometimes a class participant does not want to go through the trouble of understanding 

Marx, but they submit a text which is a paraphrase of certain passages of Marx’s text, often 

with signs that they are not understood, and taken out of context. If I catch you doing this, 

you will not be pleased about your grade. 

Golf’s [42] is an example of this. Here it is, with my comments: 

Marx uses this equation to tell us that the coat “counts as the form of existence 

of value, as the material embodiment of value, for only as such is it 

the same as the linen”. 

This is not a paraphrase of Marx, but a direct quote, made recognizable as such. I have 

no objection to this. 

It is not just Marx who is telling us that the coat is the incarnation of value, but the 

agents themselves, when they make the exchange, make this statement through their practical 

actions. (At least this is what Marx believes.)


The coat has value, which can then be used to purchase linen. 

Formulated this way it is true for every commodity. Every commodity has value. By 

selling the commodity you turn the commodity into money: now you no longer have the 

commodity but you still have it value, in the form of money. Then you can use this value to 

buy another commodity. Now in the coat-linen example there is no money, but the coat is the 

money. As I wrote in the Annotations, the coat not only has value but it is the embodiment 

of value which can be used to buy linen. 

The linen on the other hand is value that is expressed. Linen is associated 

with the coat as being equal in value to it, which then can be exchanged for 

the coat. 

This is a paraphrase of the following passage in V 141:2: 

It is only the value of the linen that is expressed. And how? By being 

related to the coat as its ‘equivalent’, or ‘the thing exchangeable’ with it. 

I don’t want you to send me paraphrases. I want you to formulate it fresh in your own 

mind. In addition, Golf misunderstood the last sentence. The ‘its’ and ‘it’ in Marx’s last 

sentence refer to the linen, not the coat. The linen cannot express its value by being exchangeable 

for coats. It has no power over it whether the owner of a coat will ever be willing 

to give his coat in exchange for linen. But it can make coats exchangeable for linen, i.e., 

whenever someone comes with a coat and wants linen for it the linen weaver can say yes. 

Although the linen and the coat play different parts, they both have value. 

Of course linen and coat have value. But what Marx was after in this paragraph is: in the 

exchange relation “20 yards of linen = one coat” they both express their value-being, i.e., 

they announce to the world that they have value, although they do it in different ways. 

And only when they have been reduce to the same unit, can they then be 

“comparable in quantitative terms”. Once they have been reduced, they 

have become a common commodity which can then be exchanged. 

This is a paraphrase of the following passage in 141:3/o, in which Marx argues that it is 

wrong to only look at the quantitative value relations: 

It is overlooked that the magnitudes of different things only become comparable 

in quantitative terms when they have been reduced to the same unit. 

Only as expressions of the same unit do they have a common denominator, 

and are therefore commensurable magnitudes. 

Golf’s paraphrase says that commodities could not be exchanged if they did not have 

value. This is a negative argument, and this is indeed how Marx argued in Section 1. Now, 

in Section 3, Marx looks for positive expressions of the value of the commodities in their 

exchange relations. By putting this at the end of his submission (and also by other details of 

his submission), Golf shows that he does not even understand the question Marx is asking 

here. 


I am hoping to convince you that the best strategy in this class is to make honest efforts to 

grapple with the text. This will not only give you a good grade, but this way you also learn 

some important skills. This is not the only difficult text which you will encounter in your 

lives. 


Question 116 is 88 in 1995WI, 95 in 1995ut, 99 in 1996ut, 109 in 1998WI, and 131 in 

2001fa: 

Question 116 What does Marx mean by the remark in the footnote to C62:4/o; V144:1, that 

humans are not born with a mirror in their hands? 

[50] Sprockets: Human/Mirror The comparison of a commodity and a human being 

that is not born with a mirror in its hand leads me to think of a commodity that needs 

another commodity to show its value, as in a mirror, by comparison. Marx’s example of Peter 

and Paul (footnote to 144:1) demonstrates this with “Peter only relates to himself as a man 

through his relation to another man, Paul, in whom he recognizes his likeness.” Commodities 

relate to each other in this sense with the example of how “commodity B becomes the mirror 

which reflects the value of commodity A” [144:1]. This is how the example of the human 

born without a mirror in its hand (commodity A) needs another human (commodity B) to 

compare with in order to be given its own value. 

Message [50] referenced by [58]. Next Message by Sprockets is [88]. 

[58] Hans: Peter Linen and Paul Coat Sprockets [50] writes: 

A human born without a mirror in its hand (commodity A) needs another 

human (commodity B) to compare with in order to be given its own value. 

This sounds like humans need other humans to compete with, to find out who is better, so 

that they know their “value.” Much of this competitive spirit is probably the cultural product 

of capitalism. It varies from country to country and over time, for instance it seems to be 

stronger in the USA today than in Germany where I grew up in the 60s. 

Marx was thinking on a more basic level: we humans need other humans so that we know 

who we are. We receive our identities in interaction with others, and absorb from others what 

we think about ourselves. 

In this respect we are similar to commodities. A commodity also does not know who it 

is when it is born. It is produced privately, and nobody knows whether it fits into the social 

division of labor, whether there is demand for it. In the relationship with the coat, the linen 

finds out about these things, i.e., it finds out about its own identity. 


Question 140 is 128 in 1997WI, 124 in 1997ut, 149 in 2000fa, 155 in 2001fa, and 222 in 

2008fa: 

Question 140 Assume there are 51 butchers in a barter society, and none of them is a chess 

player. Does this mean that the game of chess is not part of the Expanded form of value of 

meat in this society? (I don’t know the answer myself.)


[54] Josef: converted commodity The expanded form of value expresses the value of a 

certain commodity in terms of all other commodities. Also Marx states that the labor used 

to produce a commodity is equal to the labor used to produce the quantified amount of a 

different commodity. 

Therefore although the game of chess is not played by the butchers in the meat society it 

does not eliminate the value of the labor it took to make the game. 

The possibility of a future exchange between chess and meat is not eliminated. One of 

the butchers in the meat society may change his preferences and want to play chess. 

Hans: Although all your arguments were in favor of chess being part of the Expanded form of value, you never 

said explicitly that you thought this was the answer. It would have made your submission clearer and easier to 

follow it you had said this. 

Message [54] referenced by [61] and [63]. Next Message by Josef is [138.19]. 

[61] Hans: Chess-Playing Butchers Josef [54] gives three arguments in favor of chess 

being part of the Expanded form of value nevertheless. I agree with this conclusion and with 

two of Josef’s three arguments. 

First Josef quotes Marx who says quite explicitly in the text that every commodity other 

than the linen is a “particular equivalent” of linen. 

Then Josef brings the argument that a chess set contains labor whether or not the butchers 

want it. This is the argument I don’t agree with. Not everything that contains labor is 

automatically in the equivalnet form of value. An equivalent is not merely something which 

contains labor, but moreover something which other commodities use to express their value 

in, something which counts as the incarnation of value. In practical terms, it is something 

which you can use to buy things with (Marx calls this “directly exchangeable”). 

Josef’s misunderstanding might have been fostered by a translation error in the Vintage 

edition. In 156:1 the Vintage translation says 

Each commodity, such as coat, tea, iron, etc., figures in the expression of 

value of the linen as an equivalent, hence as a physical object possessing 

value. 

“Physical object possessing value” is the translation of “Wertding”, which Moore and 

Aveling translated as “thing that is value”. This is a much better translation, and it is to be 

meant literally: it is not merely a thing that has value but a thing that is the incarnation of 

value. 

In the third paragraph Josef says: even if the butchers do not like to play chess now, 

maybe they will some time in the future. I think this goes in the right direction. I would 

argue as follows: say the artisan making the chess sets wants meat, but none of the butchers 

wants a chess set. But perhaps the butchers can use something different which this same 

artisan makes, or there will be a way to involve a third party in a circular trade. If this 

is not possible, then the society is so large and division of labor so deep that direct barter 

is completely out of the question. Marx’s assumption that all commodities are particular 

equivalents is therefore justified by the assumption of societies small and simple enough 

that direct barter is feasible. 



[63] Henrix: butchers in a barter society I agree with Josef [54] that even though none 

of the butchers play chess the game of chess, it should still be included in the Expanded form 

value. 

Before I continue answering this question, I will just remark one error made by Josef in 

his answer. The question say that there are 51 butchers in a barter society. Josef writes; 

“Butchers in a meat society”. 

It seems to me that this is the reason why he believes that the only way for the chess game 

will become valuable for the butcher, is if one of the other butchers in the society changes 

his preferences. 

The question does not say anything about the preferences of the other people in the barter 

society. If one assume that there exist some members in the barter society that enjoy playing 

chess, the chess game will become valuable for the butcher. Since the expanded form value 

say that the value of a commodity is expressed in all other commodities, the butcher can 

exchange f.ex. 10 lb. of meat with a game of chess. After acquiring the chess game he/she 

can exchange the chess game with a new butcher knife, given that this is available in the 

barter society. 

Hans: What you say is right, but there is a lot of overlap with my [61], which came over the list 3 hours before 

your contribution. 

Next Message by Henrix is [119]. 


Question 142 Describe a situation in which something which was not produced as a commodity 

is converted into a commodity through the exchange. 

[56] Navin: What is the value of pooh? Consider the cattle rancher that uses his labor to 

produce beef and leather. Beef and leather are the commodities that have expanded forms of 

value and are able to be traded for other commodities. The value of the abstract labor used 

to produce this meat and leather is equal to the value of the labor used in producing another 

commodity that they are traded with. 

In the process of raising these cattle they produce a significant amount of waste. This 

waste is a by-product of the production process of meat and leather. Manure is not a commodity 

until the hay farmer down the road desires to exchange hay for manure. This exchange 

of hay and manure does not make the value meat and leather more valuable or less 

valuable. It only creates a value for a previously unvaluable product. This value is created 

through the exchange of the hay farmer and the cattle rancher. Thus converting manure into 

a commodity. 

Hans: Very good modern example (although this Question appeared in a portion of the text where Marx was talking 

about primitive societies). 

In the case of joint production (steak, sausage, manure), the labor theory of value can only determine what the 

sum of the prices of steak, sausage, and manure is. How this price sum is distributed over the different commodities 

is up to supply and demand. 

Message [56] referenced by [66], [95], and [2008fa:281]. Next Message by Navin is [138.14]. 

[66] Kenshiro: The Value of Shaft Regarding the question: We may use the Grains, 

wheat, rye, barley, etc... A farmer will cultivate the ground, he will then add the seed and


fertilizer and pesticides to the area so that the seeds may grow. He will then spend many 

hours raising irrigating and then harvesting the product. In the end he will have received 

his harvest of various grains. The farmer may then use the Grain for other commodities or 

services. Hence, the value of the abstract labor to produce the grain is then equal to the value 

of the labor used in producing another commodity that they are traded with. 

In producing the Grain however, the farmer also creates a great deal of shaft. The Shaft 

is a bi-poduct of the grain production. The shaft is not a commodity unless another farmer 

can use the shaft and desires an exchange for it. A pig farmer can use the shaft for bedding 

for the farmers pigs. This does not increase the value of the wheat. It does however, create 

a market for an otherwise, unmarketable item. Hence creating a market, or a value for the 

shaft of a grain. 

Hans: This is exactly the same as [56], you just replaced “pooh” by “shaft”. What grade did you expect to get for 

this? 


Question 144 is 160 in 2001fa, 173 in 2002fa, 176 in 2003fa, 203 in 2004fa, 200 in 

2005fa, 220 in 2007SP, 223 in 2007fa, 228 in 2008fa, 241 in 2009fa, 268 in 2010fa, 234 

in 2011fa, and 244 in 2012fa: 

Question 144 Describe the joint work of all commodities which is necessary to appropriately 

express the value of one commodity. 

[59] Yikes: The joint work of commodities Marx explains the simple form of value 

by equating one commodity to another “A” to “B” i.e., linen to a coat. He states that the 

inherent problem with this form of value is a arbitrary or accidental relationship of value. 

To fix this problem we take one step forward by equating other commodities to “A” 

the linen for example we take a specific unit of measure weight, size etc and equate it to 

commodity “C” iron. Marx calls this the expanded relative from of value. He states that 

through this process every other commodity becomes a mirror of the linen’s value. Now 

through this process this value shows itself as a congelation of undifferentiated human labor. 

It is for this reason that all labor is equal no matter what its form. The linen, by virtue of the 

form of its value now stands in a social relation with the whole world of commodities, and 

as a commodity becomes a citizen of that world. 

Marx then tells us that the accidental appearance of value that can be found in the simple 

form of value is overcome because it can now be equated to the whole world of commodities. 

This is how all commodities work together to express the value of one commodity overcoming 

the inherent problem with the simple form of value we can equate any commodity 

to another. 

Message [59] referenced by [62] and [128.2]. Next Message by Yikes is [138.11]. 

[62] Hans: Cooperation Cannot be Passive Yikes [59] almost got it right. He emphasizes 

that the Expanded form of value represents value in a much broader and therefore more 

accurate manner than the Simple form of value. But Yikes overlooks that this Expanded form 

still is the work of one commodity, the linen, alone. The linen is in the relative form, i.e., it is 

the active part in the relation. It expresses its value one after another in various equivalents. 


These equivalents do not have to cooperate with each other because of this. They just sit 

there, they are passive. 

The story looks different after the transition to the General or Universal form of value. 

This transition simply consists in a reversal of the sides. But this has important consequences. 

Now the linen is on the right, and all the other commodities on the left. Now the 

linen is passive, and the other commodities must wake up and begin to act. Each of them 

has to express its value in one commodity, namely linen. This is where the cooperation enters. 

There must be now a social agreement among all the commodities to use linen as the 

measuring stick for value. 

Message [62] referenced by [119.2] and [128.2]. Next Message by Hans is [64]. 

[119.2] Perro: The first form of the commodity is the “Simple form”. E.g. 20 yards of 

linen = 1 coat. From the linen producers standpoint, we can say that the linen plays an active 

role in an exchange relationship. This is because she has worked hard to make the linen, and 

wants to exchange it with the coat (passive role) in order to make her work valuable. Because 

she needs more than the coat for living, the simple form easily or “quickly” transform into 

the next form, the “Expanded form”. E.g. 20 yards of linen = 1 coat = 1 lb tea = 5 pounds 

of grain = etc This means in other words that all other commodities are compared with 

the linen, which is the active role in the exchange relationship. The coat, tea and grain are 

passive. The “Universal form” is the next form, and here the linen and the other commodities 

switch sides in the equation. The linen is now on the right side and is passive, and all the 

other commodities are on the left side and therefore active. The linen producer is therefore 

no longer comparing the value of linen with all the other commodities, but all the producers 

of other commodities are comparing their value with the one commodity, the linen. If this 

is to work, it has to be generally accepted in the society to use linen as the main measure of 

value. This is where, as Hans also describes in [62], the joint work of all commodities takes 

part. 

Message [119-2] referenced by [2005fa:910]. Next Message by Perro is [120.1]. 

[128.2] Zeek: joint work of commodities Commodities go through several forms of 

value according to Marx. A commodity is first considered in its simple for as one commodity 

is expressed in relation to another i.e., twenty yards of linen = one coat. According to Marx, 

as Yikes [59] states, is an “accidental relationship.” The Expanded form begins where more 

than one item enters the picture. Linen is still compared to the coat, but is also compared 

to other items. This is where the joint work of all commodities express the value of one 

commodity, i.e., 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or 3 shoes or 5 hats. 

After the Expanded form is enacted, a more General or Universal form comes into play 

to express all the items. Hans in [62] expressed these items as active or passive. He states 

that the item(commodity) is in the active when other commodities are expressed through it. 

Here the 20 yards of linen are used to express all the other items. The linen is considered the 

active party, the shoes and hats are considered passive. In the General form, the shoes and 

hats become active and express themselves in relation to other commodities, but still hold 

themselves in relation to the linen. This lines therefore could be considered Universal to all 

commodities. We use currency today as this Universal equivalent. The dollar was created 

for this purpose, as a medium of exchange. All item/commodities express themselves in 

relation to the dollar. Gold also would be considered a Universal form of value today.

Hans: You misunderstand some of Marx’s arguments. 


Next Message by Zeek is [150]. 

[128.3] Maktub: The joint work of all commodities to necessary to appropriately express 

the value of one commodity because value is definite and real, but determining a value of 

one commodity by comparing it to many other commodities is a subjective and not accurate 

approach. If I make a chair, I know how much time, energy, and labor that went into making 

this chair. I now want to exchange my chair with somebody who can fulfill a need that I have. 

I need a coat, and I know the use-value of that coat for me, but I do not know how much 

time, energy, and labor that went into making that coat. I base all of the other commodities 

values relative to my chair. The person who made the coat bases his values of all other 

commodities against his coat. For me, the chair is active for me is this equation, 1 chair=1 

coat. For the other person, the coat is the active element, 1 coat= 1 chair. To appropriately 

measure the value of different commodities in a society, we need one commodity to be on 

the right side of the equation, acting passive, where all other commodities can effectively 

and actively express their value on the left side of the equation. In other words, we need to 

move from a simple form of value to a universal form of value. 

Joint work among all commodities and society is necessary in determining which commodity 

will act as the passive part of the equation. Just as money in our society today is 

passive, it also acts as the universal form of value, it is the “measuring stick” (Erhbar, study 

guide) in expressing the value of all commodities. In our fictitious society, lets say that 1 

chair is passive, now the coat is active always, as our all other commodities in society but 

the chair.. They need to make the transition as does society. By now having a constant 

measuring stick, it is now much easier and less subjective to determine value of one and all 

commodities. As society moves toward a more expanded structure, value becomes more and 

more definite. That is why joint work is necessary to determine the value of one commodity. 


[129.4] Henrix: In the Universal form of value, all other commodities in the society is 

expressed in one commodity. 

In the Expanded relative form of value “The value of a commodity, the linen for example 

is expressed in terms of countless other members of the world of commodities” In this form 

of value the linen takes an active role where its value is expressed in other commodities 

witch takes a passive role. 

In the Universal form of value on the other hand, the linen takes on the passive role and 

all other commodities take the active role in expressing their value relative to the linen. 


[153.1] Zed: When a commodity is produced, its value is determined by its use value and 

its exchange value. If it is very useful to people, then its exchange value will increase because 

it will be in higher demand and therefore people will do more to get it. Because of this, other 

commodities will be affected and will, in turn, have an effect on the first commodity. In order 

for the value of a commodity to be established, there must be two sides to the equation, that 

is it only has value relative to another commodity so the two work together to determine 

value. There must be two sides to the equation so that we know that one unit of X equals 

this many units of Y, and that many units of Y equals however many units of Z. Thus by 


comparing the value of one commodity to the value of other commodities, a value can be 

established but this value can only be established by all commodities working together. 

Hans: This has nothing to do whatsoever with Marx’s theory. 

Message [153-1] referenced by [2010fa:183]. Next Message by Zed is [155]. 

Question 146 is 139 in 1998WI and 162 in 2001fa: 

Question 146 Why is it not possible that all Catholics are simultaneously popes? 

[57] Luc: relative and equivalent forms of value This question is in direct reference to a 

metaphor given by Marx in his 1847 polemic against Proudhon, The Poverty of Philosophy. 

The metaphor is used to show the impossibility of direct exchangeability of commodities. 

To prove that direct exchangeability is impossible, Marx shows the interdependence of 

relative and equivalent forms of value. The simple relative form of value of one commodity 

converts one other commodity into its equivalent, hence, the word simple. The expanded 

form of relative value is the expression of the value of one commodity in terms of all other 

commodities. This form allows multiple commodities be expressed in the form of other 

commodities. Finally, the universal equivalent is a particular commodity that is used to 

show relative values of world commodities expressed in terms of the particular commodity. 

In the first or simple form, the two commodities are interchangeable (20 linens=1 coat 

or 20 coats=x linens). On the other hand, the problem of exchangeability surfaces when 

one attempts to switch the two commodities in the second or expanded form because only 

one commodity can expand its relative form and all other commodities are, with respect to 

it, equivalents. In the last form, world commodities have a general relative form of value 

and all commodities except one are excluded from the equivalent form. However, the particular 

commodity that is used as the universal equivalent can not be exchanged with the 

world commodities because then it could possibly be used relative to itself which would be 

impossible. For this reason, it is not possible that all Catholics are simultaneously popes. 


The expanded form of relative value is the expression of the value of one commodity in terms 

of all other commodities. This form allows multiple commodities be expressed in the form of 

other commodities. 

No, the other way round: it allows the same commodity to have multiple value expressions. It is exactly the 

weakness of the Expanded form that the value expressions of two different commodities are not identical. Marx 

writes in 156:2/o;V156:2/o: 

the relative form of value of each commodity is an endless series of expressions of value which 

is different than the relative form of value of every other commodity. 

Message [57] referenced by [64] and [136.1]. Next Message by Luc is [80]. 

[64] Hans: The Exchangeability of Popes Luc [57] misunderstands what Marx means 

by “direct exchangeability”: this does not mean that the commodity can switch sides in the 

form of value, but, as I said in [61], it means that something can be exchanged on the market 

as smoothly as money. 

And after reading Luc’s submission I still don’t have a clue why not all Catholics can be 

popes. 

Next Message by Hans is [67].


Question 147 is 118 in 1995WI, 127 in 1996sp, 138 in 1997sp, 130 in 1997ut, 156 in 

2000fa, 163 in 2001fa, 177 in 2002fa, 180 in 2003fa, 207 in 2004fa, 203 in 2005fa, 223 

in 2007SP, 227 in 2007fa, 238 in 2011fa, and 248 in 2012fa: 

Question 147 What is the progress of the Money form as compared to the General Equivalent 

form? 

[55] PowderNow: Money form vs. General Equivalent form Marx’s development of 

this idea begins with a simple expression of the equivalence of two commodities. If 20 yards 

of linen exchange for one coat, we have a relation which is the simple form of the expression 

of value. This simple form of value quickly develops into the expanded form of value, in 

which one commodity, the linen, is now equated to the whole range of other commodities, 

each of them expressing its value. 20 yards of linen= 1 coat or 

= 10 pounds of tea or 

= 40 lb. of coffee or 

= etc. 

But the expanded form is not closed because other commodities can be added to the 

group. The linen can develop into the general form of value, in which it serves as a measure 

of the value of all the other commodities. The linen has now become the general equivalent 

measure of value of all the other commodities. 

This general equivalent brings us close to the money form of value, but any commodity 

could be the general equivalent. The full money form of value occurs when some commodity 

or some abstract unit of account becomes socially accepted as the general equivalent and is 

commonly used as the measure value of commodities. Marx thought the general equivalent 

must be a commodity, like gold, produced by human labor. Today we use an abstact unit 

of account, the dollar, which has a social meaning but no definite equivalent in terms of 

produced commodities. Money arises as an expression of the general exchangeability of 

commodities separate from any particular commodity. 

Message [55] referenced by [60], [127.3], [137.1], [138.17], and [299.3]. Next Message by PowderNow is [100]. 

[60] Hans: Progression from Simple form of value to the Money form PowderNow 

[55] gives an overview of the whole progression from the Simple form of value to the Money 

form. 

Actually I wanted you to tell me only why the small step from the Universal Equivalent 

form to the Money form matters, but it may not have been clear from the Annotations that 

the General Equivalent form is the same as the Universal Equivalent form. Therefore I will 

let PowderNow’s interpretation of the Question stand. I may even ask you in the exam to 

give me a brief survey of this whole development. 

It is a big question, and I expect only a rough answer. PowderNow got the big outlines 

right. There are four steps: Simple form, Expanded form, Universal form, and Money form. 

About the Simple form PowderNow writes: 

If 20 yards of linen exchange for one coat, we have a relation which is the 

simple form of the expression of value. 


This simplest value relation in not yet an expression of value, but it contains an expression 

of value. In order to see how this relation contains an expression of value, we have to look 

at it from the point of view of one of the traders, here the linen weaver. This is why Marx’s 

Simple form of value is asymmetric. 

Now PowderNow continues: 

This simple form of value quickly develops into the expanded form of 

value. 

“Quickly” is not a bad word here. Marx writes “by an easy transition” or “automatically” 

(in German “von selbst”). What is this easy transition? The linen weaver needs more than 

coats to live, therefore she exchanges her linen not only for coats but also for many other 

things. This gives the Expanded form of value, which PowderNow describes correctly: 

One commodity, the linen, is now equated to the whole range of other commodities, 

each of them expressing its value. 20 yards of linen= 1 coat or = 

10 pounds of tea or = 40 lb. of coffee or = etc. 

Then PowderNow notes a “defect” of the Expanded form: 

But the expanded form is not closed because other commodities can be 

added to the group. 

The Expanded form has some good parts too where it is a better expression of value than 

the Simple form. But it has the above and additionally some other defects; therefore it can 

only be a transitional form, and the next step is the General or Universal form of value. 

The linen can develop into the general form of value, in which it serves as 

a measure of the value of all the other commodities. The linen has now become 

the general equivalent measure of value of all the other commodities. 

What PowderNow fails to say here is that the linen has switched sides. Before, it was 

on the left side of the equation, and now it is on the right side. Before, the linen weaver 

expressed the value of linen in all other commodities, and now all other producers express 

the value of their commodities in linen. This requires coordination by everyone, they have 

to agree on which commodity they use to express their values, but if for instance the linen is 

a central commodity which many others have to buy often, then this can be achieved. 

And now the transition to the money form: 

This general equivalent brings us close to the money form of value, but any 

commodity could be the general equivalent. The full money form of value 

occurs when some commodity or some abstract unit of account becomes 

socially accepted as the general equivalent and is commonly used as the 

measure value of commodities. 

This seems such a small step, and if someone wants to explain why this makes a difference, 

please go ahead; this was the original intent of this Question. 

Message [60] referenced by [127.3], [138.3], and [138.17]. Next Message by Hans is [61].


[65] Gemni: general equivalent form to the money form In order to understand the 

transition from the universal equivalent, or general equivalent form, to that of the money 

form, one must first understand the the how we got to the universal equivalent form. In 

this manner it will be easier to understand the subtle transition from the universal equivalent 

form to the money form. 

In Marx’s description of the simple form, or form A, 20 yards of linen equaled 1 coat, 

10 lb of tea, 40 lb of coffee, etc. This is the first form of the commodity but it quickly 

changes into B, the expanded form because in the Marx’s account, the linen weaver has 

need for more than just linen or coats to live. In the expanded form, one must realize that 

the linen, which is now the expanded form, can be replaced by any other commodity, so 

long as it will serve as the same function that the linen does. The third transition, form 

C or the universal equivalent form, comes about when the linen serves as the measure of 

all other commodities. Once linen as taken the form of the universal equivalent, all other 

commodities are now excluded from becoming the universal equivalent. This new universal 

equivalent form will of course have to be socially accepted. this one specific commodity 

must have gained “objective fixity and general social validity” (p-54). The only difference 

in form C and form D, the money form, is that now, another commodity, has been substituted 

as the universal equivalent form of the commodities. This is gold in Marx’s example. Gold 

is now a “specifically predetermined commodity” (p55). Once gold distinguishes itself as 

the supreme commodity, having the greatest value expression of all other commodities, it is 

now considered the money commodity. Because gold has this “right” it now becomes the 

measure value of all other commodities. Marx’s theory of the money form is true even today, 

it only differs in that the universal equivalent form is no longer a commodity, but an abstract 

unit of a value measure, the dollar. 

Message [65] referenced by [67] and [138.17]. Next Message by Gemni is [141.5]. 

[67] Hans: Money made out of Linen Gemni [65] got it almost right but not quite. He 

says the difference between the General form of value (form C) and the money form (form 

D) is that it is no longer linen but gold. Indeed, this is exactly what Marx seems to say in 

G162:4 V162:4: 

There is no difference between forms C and D, except that gold instead of 

linen has now assumed the Universal equivalent form. 

“Gold” and “linen” in this passage must be understood metaphorically. Gold stands for a 

specific commodity which is by social custom always in the Universal equivalent form, while 

“linen” stands for a Universal equivalent which is decided case by case, perhaps because it 

is most convenient for the situation at hand. If there would be a social agreement to always 

use linen and never anything else as general equivalent, then linen would be in the money 

form and not gold. 

This social agreement always to have the same use value as general equivalent has important 

implications. The welding together of a particular use value with a particular form 

of value generates a true novelty, and the functions of money in Chapter Three show how 

fertile this combination is. For instance, as long as the general equivalent is only created 

temporarily, and there is no guarantee that the same commodity would be general equivalent 

next year or in the neighboring village, then gold hoarding would not be possible, or gold 


rushes would not be possible, or capitalism would not be possible. The Universal equivalent 

is a technical means for the exchange, while money is the independent incarnation of wealth, 

is value which is no longer encumbered by the particularity of any use value. 

Message [67] referenced by [127.3], [138.17], and [299.3]. Next Message by Hans is [70]. 

[127.3] Senco: There are four forms of value; 1-Simple form, 2-Expanded form, 3- 

Universal equivalent form, and 4-Money form. Because all commodities contain value, ( 

value being the exchangeability of commodities) relations of equivalence can be established. 

The simplest expression of equivalence between two commodities has been expressed as 

20 yards of linen = 1 coat. This simple form contains an expression of value, which can be 

seen from the viewpoint of the linen weaver, and automatically turns into the expanded form 

because the linen weaver needs more than coats to live (Hans [60]). 

The 20 yards of linen is then equated to a whole range of other commodities (PowderNow 

[55]). 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 10 lbs coffee, or 20 lbs tea, etc. This expanded form is a 

transition to the univaersal equivalent form (Hans [60]). The linen then switches sides of the 

equation and “other producers now express the value of hteir commodities in linen” (Hans 

[60]). 

Now 1 coat, or 10 lbs coffee, or 20 lbs tea, etc = 20 yards of linen. Hans points out once 

again in [60] the requires coordination by everyone. they all must agree which commodity 

they will use to express their values. 

Finally if linen is to reach the money form, another social agreement must be made to 

use linen and never anything else as general equivalent. If this agreement is made then linen 

would be in the money form (Hans [67]). 

As Hans points out in [67] if linen does take the money form, then a novel thing has 

occurred. Particular use values have been combined with a particular form of value. 

Hans continues to explain in [67] the implications this has. He tells use that as long 

as the general equivalent is created temporarily then there is no guarantee this particular 

commodity will remain the general equivalent for long, or that this particular form of value 

is the same in other locations. Furthermore, Hans asserts in [67] that if the things mentioned 

above did occur then gold hoarding, gold rushes, or even Capitalism would not be possible. 

Next Message by Senco is [127.4]. 

[135.1] Veblen: social implications of the money form The importance of the change 

from the general equivalent to the money form of value is social in nature. The imperfections 

that required the evolution of value from form A to B to C,( value expression), are now 

absent. The change from form C to D is the result of the inner tension of form C itself. 

Because C is an exclusionary form of value (only one commodity can be in form C) it 

quickly makes a transformation to Form D. Inherently the form of C and D are identical, 

however I believe there are come important social consequences. Once value has shifted 

form from C to D it denotes an increase in specialization of commodity production in the 

society and it therefore necessary to have a money form in order to transact trade. Therefore, 

the implications of the change in the form of value are social in nature. 

Hans: You said some excellent things in the in-class exam which you left out in the resubmission, but you said 

some new and very good things in the resubmission too. But the in-class exam is better; the idea with the fixity of


social relations is sound. If you wanted to type in your in-class text and submit it for the archive I would appreciate 

it. 

Next Message by Veblen is [180]. 

[137.1] PumpkinStar: Like [55] PowderNow’s response to the question, we must begin 

with the example given by Marx. 

20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or = 10 pounds of tea = 40 pounds of coffee, etc. 

The Universal equivalent form and the Money form differ in one slight aspect. Where in 

the universal form, any commodity can take the specific form (In this case, it would be the 

linen) whereas the money form creates an independent standard, unrelated to the commodities. 

In this example, Linen stands for an Universal equivalent, due to conveinience (this 

represents a pseudo-barter system) where in the Money form, Marx uses Gold, which is recognized 

in our society as a constant Universal equivalent form. This replaces the instability 

of price fluctuations. In order for the Money form to succeed, the commodity representing 

“money” must be stable and must be accepted as the Universal equivelant at all times (at 

least in the present, if not in the future) 

Hans: The formula you wrote down is the Expanded form of value, not the Universal one. Money is never on the 

left, and it is not active either. 

Next Message by PumpkinStar is [137.2]. 

[138.9] Quake: The money form is the standardization of a single commodity as accepted 

in exchange for all other commodities. This is different from the universal equivalent form in 

which a single commodity becomes so common and universal in their exchangeability that 

they take on the assumed form of universal equivalent. I believe that this is a matter of reformulating 

the equation of a commodity A to all other commodities, but will have to confirm 

this in my electronic re-submission. As this universal equivalent form is recognized, the 

equation switches to show all commodities in relation to the universal equivalent commodity. 

When this universal equivalent form is formally engaged, or replaced by something like gold, 

the universal equivalent form becomes the money form. 

Re-thinking this answer a little, with the study guide in hand, I think my exam answer, 

(above), was a step behind. I was really describing the switch from form B to form C, not the 

small change from form C to form D where Gold replaces the linen as recounted on page 54 

of the study guide. The only way this happens is because gold itself is a commodity that has 

determined relations with commodities as a commodity itself, and therefore can logically 

take the place of a ‘money’ form. Gold represents the same exchange value as the linen 

did, or moreover it represents the same labor as presented in exchange as the linen did. The 

money form still implies this labor as valued in exchange of commodities. 

Hans: I appreciate your frank self-appraisal. You still haven’t explained sufficiently the big implications of this 

small change. 

Next Message by Quake is [160]. 

[138.4] Cartman: The difference between the money form and the universal equivalent 

form is indeed a small one. As we know, in the transition from the expanded form to the 

universal form, the linen switches sides in the equation. Now, instead of the linen weaver 

expressing the value of linen in all other commodities, all other commodities value is now 

expressed in the linen. 


This fact continues to hold true in the transition to the money form, with one small adjustment. 

Sticking with our example of linen, the linen would have to be socially accepted as 

the universal form of value. In other words, Linen is now accepted and used as the measure 

of value of all other commodities. 

Marx uses in his example Gold as the money form. However, it doesn’t really matter 

what commodity assumes the position of the “socially accepted measure of value”, as long 

as it is infact socially accepted and used as the measure of value of all other commodities. 

Hans: This is very good as far as it goes, but it does not say anything about the important implications of this small 

difference. 

Next Message by Cartman is [159]. 

[138.6] Hayduke: Universal equivalent/ Money form In the Universal equivalent form, 

there exists a commodity through which all other commodities express their value. This 

general acceptance by all other commondities allows it to be bartered easily, because people 

have confidence in its value. However, in this form it is still a commodity, and subject to 

changing social relations. Furthermore, it does not reign supreme; other commodities can 

constantly replace it in trade situations. In the Money form, some entity is given official status 

to reign supreme as the medium of exchange (Marx envisioned an ultimate commodity, 

e.g. gold, but the dollar has now filled this role). This status gives money a life of its own; 

it has a value beyond the social relations that govern universal forms. It is now possible 

to store wealth, invest, make profits etc.,. The abstract characteristics of money allow it to 

grease the ‘magical’ workings of capitalism. 

Hans: Excellent! 


[138.19] Josef: The money form and the universal form of value have a very small difference. 

However, it is this small transition that has important implications. In my original 

answer I focused to much on the relative and equivalent sides of the equation. I will know 

show the difference and the actual transition from one to the other. 

I think that a good way to explain this transition is to use an example. Take for example, 

many different hypothetical indian tribes that live in the same geographical area. Each tribe 

has a different equivalent commodity that they use as their own. One tribe uses beef, another 

uses arrowheads, and another with pots. Without having the same general equivalent 

it is difficult to engage in exchange. To solve this problem the tribes eventually designate 

one commodity such as beef to be the equivalent for all the tribes. This is where the transition 

takes place from the Universal equivalent form to the Money form. When the general 

equivalents of the tribes transform to be one equivalent used by all. 

Next Message by Josef is [138.21]. 

[138.14] Navin: The money form and the universal form of value have a small, yet important 

transition from one to the other. This part about a transition is where my written answer 

is lacking. I focused on the money not having to have a separate use value. I would like to 

correct the errors I made in my written answer. 

Perhaps the easiest way to show these differences is to use an example. Consider the 

several hypothetical communities that made up the city of Rome in the years before Christ 

lived. Each community traded with their own equivalent commodity. One with linen, one 

with apples, and one with leather. Each of the communities had a hard time trading with


each other because of the different general equivalents. The Roman emperor declared bread 

equivalent for the city. At the moment the general equivalents transform to one equivalent 

is the moment that the general form of value becomes the money form. This transition was 

not covered well in my written answer. 

Hans: Both your in-class exam and your resubmission have merit. 

Next Message by Navin is [142.21]. 

[138.3] Pobeda: The Universal form occurs when the expanded form “switches sides.” 

Under the Universal form, all other commodities actively seed exchange with the original 

commodity. The change to money form occurs when a commodity or “some unit of account 

becomes socially accepted as the general equivalent and is commonly used as the measure 

value of commodities” (Hans[60]). Historically in the West, this commodity has been gold 

or silver. For convenience, today we use paper bills throughout most of the world. However, 

the money commodity could be anything that is socially accepted as the general equivalent. 

Some Indian tribes used wampum (shells) as the general equivalent. 

Next Message by Pobeda is [161.2]. 

[138.17] Maverick: In my response, I not only failed to answer the question pertaining to 

the difference between the Money form and the Universal equivalent form, but I didn’t even 

accurately illustrate the progression from the simple form of value to the money form as it 

was stated in [55] by PowderNow. In my resubmission I will only use a couple of statements 

from my original answer. 

My final resubmission: In an equation such as 20 yards of linen=1 coat, the coat is the 

equivalent form. This shows that the use value of 1 coat is worth to the weaver of linen the 

value of 20 yards of linen. As PowderNow states it in [55], this simple form quickly develops 

into the expanded form of value where the linen is equated to a variety of other commodities. 

Hans clarifies this occurence by saying in [60] that the weaver expresses the value of linen 

in all other commodities. He then proceeds by illustrating that the linen switches to the other 

side of the equation to take the form of the universal equivalent. Now he states that all other 

producers express the value of their commodities in linen. PowderNow points out that the 

money form of value occurs when some commodity or an abstract unit of account becomes 

socially accepted as the universal equivalent and is commonly used as the measure value of 

commodities. 

The main difference between the universal equivalent form and the money form is clarified 

by Hans in [67] Linen represents a universal equivalent that may not hold for all situations. 

Gemni in [65] refers to Marx’s example of gold as the money form of value. Gold 

becomes the measure of value of all commodities because it is the social custom and is accepted 

by everyone. Hans points out that the permanent acceptance of a particular use value 

as the universal equivalent form has major implications. In fact, capitalism depends on it. 

As long as people know that a particular universal equivalent form will always be used to 

measure the value of other commodities, they can begin to accumulate and save it. Money 

ensures this phenomenon better than gold or any other commodity. As Hans mentions at the 

conclusion of [67], money is not encumbered by the particularity of any use value. Money 

can’t be rejected because its menu of possible uses has been exhausted. 

Next Message by Maverick is [157]. 


[138.20] Paul: In the general equivalent form, the exchangeability of the linen has 

changed. Instead of being on the left side of the equation and compared to the coat, society 

now recognizes the seamstress’s linen as a commodity. The linen then switches to the 

right side in which all commodities in the society are compared. This comparison allows the 

seamstress to trade not only for the coat but for commodities that she feels are necessary for 

her existence. 

Now that the value of the linen has been recognized among all other commodities, we 

are ready for the next and final transition. With other commodities in the society being 

expressed in terms of the linen, gold replaces the linen in the equation so that the it is representing 

the exchange value that the linen held for the seamstress. Instead of commodities 

being expressed in terms of linen, they are now expressed in terms of gold. The important 

implications are that now all commodities are able to be exchanged with a common understanding 

in the society of what the value of one’s commodity really is. Because in the barter 

system it is difficult for each trader to be sure that he is receiving the proper trade in conjunction 

with the amount of abstract labor in his commodity. With the gold, a standard is 

set that establishes a money value for all commodities in the society allowing for a common 

measure of value for each commodity. 

Next Message by Paul is [253]. 

[138.24] Winston: In the Universal equivalent form the money the commodity is on the 

right side. In the expanded side it was on the left. So with the change from the active 

role to the passive role the commodity can now be exchanged with all other good of that 

society. For example if apples were the universal equivalent, a producer would trade his 

products for apples. Then once he possesses apples he is able to exchange the apples for 

other commodities for which he has need of. 

Though the money form is similar, there are slight differences from the universal equivalent 

to the money form. Marx says the following in 162:5/o;V1625 referring to the difference 

in gold as the general equivalent and as the money form. “As soon as it has won the monopoly 

of this position in the value expression of the world of commodities, it becomes the 

money commodity.” So the main difference in the money form is that the commodity, which 

can also be an abstract unit such as paper notes, is now predetermined to hold a certain value 

by society in every case. In the universal form the general equivalent can change from case 

to case. 

Next Message by Winston is [138.25]. 

[138.23] Karlito: The Universal Equivalent form is the third form of value. Here the 

commodity switches sides (from left to right) and now becomes the passive commodity. It 

is now the measure of the value of all other commodities within a given society (the general 

form of value). Because it is still a commodity, it contains some value (use value) as well as 

its exchange value. 

The Money form is the 4th form of value. It contains a general equivalent by which 

commodities are exchanged. The difference lies within its value. Money does not necessarily 

need to contain value, although it can be used as a medium of exchange. This is an important 

implication because its value only lies within that given society. It is unknown whether it


can and will be accepted outside of the given society. In the universal equivalent form, the 

general form of value is still a commodity and will carry value outside of its given society. 

Now, with the example of gold as the general equivalent (within the money form of 

value), the tables are turned. When an actual commodity is used as the general equivalent, 

the value of that commodity is not always stable. For example, if the general equivalent in a 

given society is meat, then who knows if meat will still be valuable and useable for exchange 

within 20 years. With gold as the money form or medium of exchange (the gold standard), 

there is no question to whether the medium holds value over time. 

Next Message by Karlito is [171]. 

[138.11] Yikes: In the universal equivalent form any commodity can take the relative position. 

Hans informs us that this form has a antagonistic character if one commodity is in this 

form all other commodities are excluded from it. Because any commodity can take the place 

of a universal equivalent it is similar still to the simple form of value where the relationship 

is a case by case exchange more by accident then by a predetermined social process. This is 

the small difference between the equivalent form and the money form. In the money form 

society has chosen a commodity to use as the universal equivalent. It is a deliberate social 

act! This is gives the money form more validity in society. On the test I mentioned the 

importance of the commodity that acts as the universal equivalent needs to have a use-value 

that conforms with the characteristics of a universal equivalent. I believe this is important 

and that Marx also highlights its importance but I don’t think it takes precedence over the 

need for society to choose the commodity that will become the universal equivalent. 

Next Message by Yikes is [138.12]. 

[141.2] Bytor: The difference between the Money Form and the Universal Equivalent 

Form is a small one; that difference is important because money as a means of exchange is 

what drives capitalism. The universal equivalent or, commodities is in essence a measure 

of the value of money. The reason why money and commodities are not completely interchangable. 

This occurs because supply and demand for commodities is dynamic. Marx’s 

concept of Socialism could not work under a monitary system, this is due to greed. In Marx’s 

society needs are taken care of by the community, and wants are not part of human existance. 

The importance of the needs of the society rather than the wants of the individual are what 

drive Marx’s utopian society. 

Hans: Money is necessary for capitalism, but not in its function as means of exchange. What you say about 

socialism is wrong and also out of place, since the book Capital is a critical investigation of capitalism; it is not 

about socialism. 

First Message by Bytor is [141.1]. 

[141.8] Guyote: Money and Universal forms The universal equivalent is one form of 

value, money can be considered as another form of value. The universal equivalent form is 

different from the money or relative form because it demonstrates how any one commodity 

can have a universal form of value by itself. In order for a commodity to progress from the 

universal form to the money form would take an act of social recognition. This is the significant 

relationship between the universal and the money forms of value. This progression 

is indicitive of Marx’s theory because of its social nature. The fact that commodities can 

trancend their universal or individual values and achieve a state of having a money value is 

a social component of capitalism 

Next Message by Guyote is [148]. 


[141.5] Gemni: In order to clarify my earlier submission on the midterm, I will take from 

what the book says and your comments on the subject. 

As you tried to explain in your response to my submission, gold and linen must be understood 

metaphorically. “it [gold] is now a specific predetermined commodity and not one 

which is decided case by case [as in linen] and most convenient for the situation” (p-55). The 

universal equivalent is just a “techanical” means of exchange, while money, is no longered 

bothered by the “particarity of any use value” (annotations). 

Next Message by Gemni is [142.5]. 

[142.4] Boarder: In the Money form, gold has taken the place of linen in the Universal 

Equivalent Form. Marx says, “The advance consists only in that the form of direct and 

universal exchangeability, in other words the Universal equivalent form, has now by social 

custom irrevocably become entwined with the specific natural form of the commodity gold.” 

Now gold is always the commodity. There are no random commodities. It is specified 

from the beginning. In the Universal Equivalent form any commodity can be the Universal 

equivalent. Gold was picked because its use value conforms with the properties of a Universal 

equivalent. I think Marx used gold because it could be used as form of exchange for 

anything, thus the true Universal equivalent. 

Next Message by Boarder is [169]. 

[142.14] Dragon: According to Marx there are four different forms: the Simple form, 

Expanded form, Universal form, and the Money form. The small step of transition from the 

Universal form to the Money form is a small one but it has important implications. 

In the Universal form, use value is formed into exchange value where as in the Money 

form, exchange value is formed into wealth. The Money form of wealth no longer consists 

of use value which is present in the Universal form. 

Because the Universal form includes exchange value, any commodity is considered to 

be Universal in form. The Universal form is antagonistic in nature which means only one 

commodity can be in this form. Thus all other commodities are excluded and take the role 

of active commodities. 

In Marx’s example, linen takes the passive Universal form and gold takes the Money 

form because it has been historically socially accepted. Because gold is widely accepted, it 

becomes the Universal equivalent to linen and thus transforms into the Money form. 

Hans: Good development of and improvement over the in-class exam. 

Next Message by Dragon is [146]. 

[142.10] Maine: The transition from a universal form of exchange to a monetary form 

of exchange is the result of a social agreement. The universal equivalent is an exchange 

accepted by society. It is an expression of value of all other commodities. In class we have 

been discussing different forms of exchange: linen to coats, linen to tea. In the universal 

form, for example, everyone would recognize linen as a universal expression of exchange. 

Its value as a commodity would be in relation to other commodities. There is still use value 

recognized in a commodity. 

The money form no longer is recognized for its use value; it serves only as a unit of 

exchange. This transition was made by a social agreement to use this medium exclusively 

for exchange.

Hans: Very good points, both in your in-class exam and the resubmission. 


Next Message by Maine is [190]. 

[142.15] Luc: The difference between the Money form (form D) and the Universal equivalent 

form (form C) is a small one; however, it does have important implications. Linen and 

gold are used by Marx to illustrate these implications. 

Marx states that “there is no difference between forms C and D, except that gold instead 

of linen has now assumed the Universal equivalent form.” [162:4] 

Metaphorically speaking, “linen” refers to form C, while “gold” refers to form D. Both 

the “linen” and the “gold” are on the right side (or equivalents) in their respective forms. 

The metaphorical difference is that the “linen” “stands for a Universal equivalent which is 

decided case by case, perhaps because it is most convenient for the situation at hand.” On the 

other hand, the “gold” “stands for a specific commodity which is by social custom always in 

the Universal equivalent form.” (Hans, Installment 1: 14) According to this explanation, the 

transition to the money form is important because the occasion often arises where those that 

use “linen” as the Universal equivalent will desire to exchange commodities with those that 

use something else, such as “coats”, as their Universal equivalent. Form D solves this problem 

because one specific commodity will be accepted by social custom as an “incarnation 

of wealth” and thus the Universal equivalent to the “whole world of commodities.” (Hans, 

Study Guide: 54) 

Another problem with form C is that is that the “linen” does not have a definite time frame 

that it will continue as the Universal equivalent. On the other hand, in form D the “gold” is 

accepted as an “incarnation of wealth” that will be present for a prolonged period of time. If 

“there is no guarantee that the same commodity would be general equivalent next year or in 

the neighboring village, then gold hoarding would not be possible, or gold rushes would not 

be possible, or capitalism would not be possible.” (Hans, Installment 1: 24) 

Hans: I liked your on-class exam better, because you used your own words. For the resubmission you looked up 

literal quotes. If you re-formulate it in your own words this is better, it makes it clearer. 

Next Message by Luc is [152]. 

[142.19] Jedi: Money form and the Universal Equivalent Form (UEF) both have exchange 

values. But both don’t necessarily have to have use values. If the money form is agreed upon 

by the society to be special pieces of paper, such is the case in today’s world; and one day the 

agreed upon money form can no longer be exchanged for other commodities, its use value 

will be extremely limited to being used as toilet paper or heating fuel. On the other hand, 

if the society decide to end the UEF of its medium of exchange function, for example gold, 

gold would still retain its use values of being an excellent conductor. 

Money form has its exchange values only due to the fact that the society has empowered it 

with exchange values. Birth of the money form had to be a deliberate social act. The society 

had to agree upon a common and unchanging commodity, otherwise the money form would 

be invalid. 

Money form is both active and passive. People can use it actively to exchange for other 

commodities and use other commodities to exchange for it. In comparison, UEF is more 

passive. Once society determines the money form. It is THE medium of exchange in every 

situation. 


Hans: Very good! 

Next Message by Jedi is [185]. 

[142.6] RfBurner: There is a small difference between the Universal equivalent form of 

value and the Money form of value. The Universal equivalent form takes one commodity 

and gives it value, all other commodities are excluded. Once you isolate the one commodity 

you give it a social value. Other commodities are then compared to the isolated commodity 

in order to get their value. The money value is almost the same. The Money value gives 

the value to one commodity that becomes the commodity of comparison for all trades. For 

example, gold has been used as a Money value commodity. Then all commodities are purchased 

with an amount of the isolated commodity that is considered to be equal with the 

value of your purchase. So the difference is just that the isolated commidity is used by the 

masses to make transactions. There is a difference between the Universal equivalent form of 

value and the Money form even though it is small. 

Hans: The commodities don’t get their value by the comparisons with the Universal equivalent or the money 

commodity. They get their value in production. After reading your answer I am still wondering what you say the 

difference is. 

Next Message by RfBurner is [149]. 

[142.22] Buda: Hans writes in Installment 1, “the Universal equivalent is a technical 

means for the exchange, while money is the independent incarnation of wealth, is value 

which is no longer encumbered by the particularity on any use value.” A commodity that 

is in the Universal form transitions to the money form of value when it becomes socially 

accepted and commonly used as the measure of value. The difference between the two 

forms is embodied in the significance. For instance, with “gold” and “linen”, both can stand 

for a Universal equivalent. But the distinction is that “gold” is by social custom ALWAYS 

used as general equivalent and therefore easily becomes the money form. The “linen” on the 

other hand, stands for Universal equivalent in certain situations that seem convenient and not 

all the time because it is not socially accepted that it is the measure of value. 

Next Message by Buda is [195]. 

[142.25] JoeHill: The General form moves the active commodity to the passive side 

of the equation and aligns all those commodities to which it was being equated, formerly 

on the passive side, to the active side. Once this is done the commodities now on the left 

now express their relative values in relation to the commodity now on the right side. The 

right side now becomes the measure of value for all commodities listed, which is open to all 

commodities produced by that society. What the Money form effectively does is designates a 

commodity, as decided by society, as the commodity to which all other commodities will be 

measured. Historically the commodity which has assumed this rank has been gold. However, 

it could be any ‘specific commodity which is by social custom always in the Universal 

equivalent form’ at the exclusion of all other commodities (Installment 1, p. 24). And it is not 

until this exclusion has once and for all confined itself to one specific kind of commodity, that 

the uniform relative form of value of the whole world of commodities has gained objective 

fixity and general social validity (Ehrbar, p. 54). At that point it takes on the functions of 

money—medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account. This is necessary for the 

accumulation of wealth, and thus, for capitalism. 

Next Message by JoeHill is [142.26].


[142.13] Golf: Money form compared to the General Equivalent form The equivalent 

form can take on any form, whether it is money, a candy bar, etc. Once the society has 

determined the value of the the equivalent form, then it can be used in the exchange process 

with other commodities. The equivalent form derives its value from the value society sees 

in it and the value of labor that was put into it. Money is simply a commodity that already 

has value. Money has become the new equivalent form in todays society, we accept for the 

exchange of commodities. 

Hans: What do you mean when you ay money “already” has value? In your in-class exam you wrote that money 

does not have intrinsic value. 

Next Message by Golf is [355]. 

[165.1] Broker: The progression of the Money form and General Equivalent form is a 

small but important step to understanding the power of Marx writing. I believe we should 

begin answering this question by understanding this quote,“...its value is, rather, expressed 

relatively in the infinite series of all other physical commodities.” A commodities value 

is related to how equal in value it is to every other commodity except itself. 20 yards of 

linen equals everything less else except 20 yards of linen. With this prinicple in mind, all 

commodities can be in the Universal form because all commodities have value, because 

inherent inside there molecules is labor. 

Moving from Universal/General to Money form is a social function. “Playing the the 

of Universal equivalent within the world of commodities becomes its social function and 

consequently it social monopoly.” Money is a social development. The choice of money in 

exchange according to Marx, satifies the equation because money i.e. gold, has inherent in its 

molecules labor also. So stripping the equation backward gold, the linen and all commodities 

value comes from labor. 

So the transtion from General Equivalent to Money from is really a tranfer of labor value 

to labor value. 

Now to contradict myself. Now what Marx says is well and good, but I believe he misses 

a social necessity of the money form. Money, whether it be gold, silver, platinum is a good 

measure of labor. It is something everyone can agree on. Its a language within itself. As 

a consumer or producer the value of money has a standard. If I am producing something I 

want the most for my labor, and I want the most on a consistent basis. If the value of money 

increase, Marx might agree than the value of labor has increased. If something is increasing 

in value, there is more demand for its production. More money more labor value, more labor 

value more commodities being produced. 

Hans: To answer this question one needs a fairly good understanding of what Section 3 of Chapter One is about. 

It is about “forms of value” and I don’t have the impression you know that this means. 

Next Message by Broker is [220]. 

[209.1] Bull: In transition between the universal equivalent form and the money form, 

I gave a noble attempt in trying to interpret the small step that is important. My written 

answer may have been a bit unclear so I will attempt to redeem myself using appropriate 

terminology. 

The general equivalent form is very close to the money form of value. But at this point 

any commodity could be put on the right hand side of the equation. The final step to the 

full money form of value, is when some commodity or some abstract unit of account ( 


like the dollar) becomes socially accepted as the general equivalent and is commonly used 

as the measure of value of commodities. The dollar has gained a social meaning but no 

definite equivalent in terms of produced commodities. Thus, the money form arises from the 

commodity relation itself as an expression of the general exchangeability of commodities. 

This allows us how to see the value contained in the mass of newly produced commodities 

can express itself in monetary units. 

Next Message by Bull is [209.2]. 

[299.3] Bluto: ich bin ein idiot! The universal equivalent form is the second to last 

step in a four step process. A commodity works its way from left to right in an attempt to 

hold value of a initial skill. It begins active, only expressions of value, that are not fixed. 

Although the initial actions begin with the skilled production, as soon as it moves into the 

passive phase, the only thing held, is the value issued in the first exchange. The expanded 

form of a commodity brings in other commodities that PowderNow [55] explains: 

“One commodity, the linen, is now equated to the whole range of other 

commodities, each of them expressing its value. 20 yards of linen=1 coat 

or = 10 pounds of tea or = 40 lb. of coffee or = etc...” 

The universal equivalent form finds one commodity that can hold value as an equivalent. 

“And it is not until this exclusion has once and for all confined itself to one 

specific kind of commodity, that the uniform relative form of value of the 

whole world of commodities has gained objective fixity and general social 

validity (Hans, blue book pg. 54).” 

The money form is the final standard for which all have confidence. Socially defined, the 

money form is an embodiment of all parties involved. The one commodity that is viewed 

above the rest, is chosen as the money form. 

The difference between the two forms is that the universal form is dealing with the “technical 

means for exchange (Hans [67])”, the money form has only the finality of being completely 

independent of all the steps involved with the exchange, only to be viewed as holding 

a socially defined value. 

Next Message by Bluto is [319]. 

[464.2] Hobart: I would first like to define the Universal equivalent form. The Universal 

equivalent form refers to the idea that a commodity, i.e. linen, becomes socially acceptable 

to be exchanged for all other goods. An important aspect of this is also the fact that all other 

commodities are now excluded from becoming the Universal equivalent once the Universal 

equivalent has been established and accepted. Now I will address the small difference between 

the two forms. The transition to the Money form occurs when another commodity 

replaces, in this case, linen and becomes that commodity for which all other commodities 

are traded in relationship to. So basically another commodity has replaced the previously 

accepted Universal equivalent form. To illustrate this, Marx uses the example of gold. The 

transition from Universal equivalent form to the Money form took place (at least in this example) 

when gold replaced linen as the socially accepted commodity upon which all other 

commodities were traded in relationship to. 

Next Message by Hobart is [468].


Question 148 is 120 in 1995WI, 129 in 1996sp, 131 in 1996ut, 141 in 1998WI, and 167 in 

2001fa: 

Question 148 Do you know of other phenomena in capitalism which seem to be the result 

of “magic”? 

[71] Maine: phenomena in capitalism In an attempt to answer this question, I reflected 

on Karl Marx’s emphasis on the complexity of the notion of “commodity”. Given how obscure 

the idea of commodity is, it is hard to identify how it is related to certain phenomena in 

capitalism. “Commodity”, as we know, is explained using Use Value and Exchange Value. 

Marx finds the Exchange Value the most difficult to understand and to explain. Marx begins 

by saying how “commodity” appears to be a simple concept. However, Marx clarifies 

by saying that the underlying nature of “commodity” is quite complex. The properties of a 

commodity act as a channel for social relations; however, this is not apparent to those handling 

the commodity. It has an independent life, and we appear to have no control over the 

commodity. Without capitalism, the commodity would not thrive as it does. 

Capitalism is full of phenomena which can only be explained by “magic”. 

Hans refers to some of these phenomena: In his opinion, this includes the power of 

money to purchase everything; sudden financial crises and break-downs of economic growth; 

inflation; unemployment; the tendency of wealth to concentrate rather than to dissipate; 

people’s over-attachment to things. 

In my opinion, this magical element would apply to the government’s budget. Why are 

they spending all that money on questionable allocations? What pressures and elements have 

figured in determining the expenditure? What is their rational? 

I find the stock market another magical power. Some authorities predict it will act one 

way, some authorities predict the opposite. Yet some stocks seem to have an independent 

life and respond to no rationale. Our economy responds to the trails of this market. How are 

values assigned to stocks? There is some reasonable explanation to some of the machinations 

of the market; one company is buying out another, and so the values of those two companies 

become inflated. Some companies produce a positive gain for a certain period, and that 

is reflected in their stock. But other stocks so up and down, seemingly responding to no 

pressure, no positive action, or negative impact. To me it appears magical. 

I find the property values in Dallas inexplicable. Dallas is a community much larger than 

Salt Lake City, with a lot more money than Salt Lake City. However, I have been told that 

homes are more expensive in Salt Lake City than in Dallas. How can this be so? Is there any 

reason for this? Why would property have a higher Use Value and Exchange Value in Utah 

than in Texas? 

Message [71] referenced by [76]. Next Message by Maine is [142.9]. 

[76] Hans: Capitalist Magic in your Back Yard Maine’s answer [71] is a good effort 

and Maine is getting a good grade. I will nevertheless criticize what she writes, because 

I want you to understand the difference between a Marxist critique and the usual loyal or 

diversionary criticism which you can pick up from the mass media, which does not question 

capitalism but ultimately strenghtens it. 


Maine’s first example is that government spends too much on “questionable allocations.” 

The magic, according to Maine, is: what “pressures and elements” are behind this? It is 

undoubtedly true that government sometimes acts in bad faith, channeling money to some 

beneficiaries while pretending to act in the general interest. But the scheme “tax everybody 

and give the money to a few privileged groups” is a very ancient and also much less efficient 

form of exploitation than the scheme “have your employees produce things for the market 

and pay them less than the value they produce.” The second scheme is ubiquitous, and the 

first only a small sideshow compared to the second. Certain “critics” vocally keep pointing 

to the first so that people do not see the second. 

Maine’s second example is the stock market, which does not do what people predict it 

to do. Even if it would be more predictable, it would still be magic. The stock market is 

the result of our own social activity, why does it then act as an independent force like the 

weather? According to the textbooks, the stock market channels investment into the right 

direction. The decision how much to invest and where is one of the most important economic 

decisions: why is it done in boardrooms behind locked doors or through the stock market 

lottery? And why has the stock market expanded so enormously in the last 15 years while 

investment itself has remained constant at a moderate level? Obviously, more is going on 

in the present stock market boom than you can read in the textbooks, but what is it? It is 

frightening how little we know about it—after all, many of us have our retirement funds 

invested in it. 

Maine’s third example is the price of homes. For many, the home is the biggest investment 

they will ever make, yet home prices are, varying from region to region, subject to 

inexplicable bubbles or depressions. The magic of capitalism is not just fireworks affecting 

others, which we can watch on TV like the bombs “our” government drops all over the 

world, but it jeopardizes the very basics of our own lives too. 


Question 166 is 134 in 1995WI, 111 in 1995ut, 144 in 1996sp, 146 in 1996ut, 159 in 

1998WI, 187 in 2001fa, 201 in 2002fa, 208 in 2003fa, 236 in 2004fa, 231 in 2005fa, 

251 in 2007SP, 256 in 2007fa, 261 in 2008fa, 275 in 2009fa, 303 in 2010fa, and 277 in 

2011fa: 

Question 166 How does Marx’s use of the term “fetishism” compare with its modern dictionary 

definition? 

[74] Maverick: Fetishism The dictionary defines fetishism as an unreasoning and blind 

devotion to any object. In Capitalism, this definition implies that a consumer would give 

up unreasonable amounts of something such as time, energy or thoughts for the purpose of 

acquiring a good. While it is apparent that this occurs frequently in capitalism, it is difficult 

to understand why. 

On page 63 of our text, Hans refers to Marx’s interpretation of fetishism as a form of 

false consciousness. Capitalist consumers see the commodity as an object possessing distinguishable 

features. What the consumer fails to notice in the commodity is the social distinguishable 

traits of the producer’s labour. In 1.4 page 164, Marx refers to this occurence as


the mysterious character of the commodity-form. The commodity somehow reflects the subjective 

qualities of man’s labour as the objective qualities of the good. The consumer fails 

to recognize that he is indirectly linked to the producer of the good through their separate 

forms of human labour. 

Furthermore, social contact between individual producers and the sum total of producers 

is limited to the exchange of their products of labour. Hans states in [70], “that the relationship 

between money and commodities makes up for the lack of a direct human relation 

between the members of society.” This lack of direct human relation creates a void that consumers 

unsuccessfully attempt to fill by purchasing goods that they really don’t need. It is 

now more obvious from where our blind devotion to any good originates. 

Message [74] referenced by [77]. Next Message by Maverick is [138.10]. 

[75] Jedi: Going around in a destructive circle Fetishism as defined by modern dictionaries 

gives us the feeling that it is a self-inflicted condition of blind obsession for material 

gain. 

Marx uses “fetishism” in much the same way. His use implies that “fetishism” is a symptom 

of a destructive and regressive disease that is inflecting the unknowing citizens of the 

market system. The cause of the disease is not self-inflicted blindness to the virus, but darkness 

cast upon the people by the market itself. 

This destructive and regressive nature of the disease is the result of the people’s misconception 

of the true value of the basic social elements, the commodities. Due to the 

fact that the market system, by its own design, is very contaminating. Commodities are so 

tainted with unnatural or socially given properties that their inherent natural value become 

extremely difficult to see through. 

Due to the aforementioned social constraints that the market puts on a commodity, the 

commodity becomes illusive to the people; the disease as manifested by “fetishism” will 

not be cured. Ironically, if the people suddenly realize that they are in a circular system of 

invest social power in the commodity and then trying to take advantage of it, the market 

itself would collapse. 

I believe Professor Hans agrees with me. In section 1.4.1, pg. 63, he wrote, 

“capitalistic social relations can only maintain themselves if most of the 

people most of the time ”forget,“ in their practical actions, that the power 

of the things which they are trying to take advantage of originate in their 

own activity.” 

Hans: You are confusing inflect and inflict, and illusive vs. elusive. 

Message [75] referenced by [77]. Next Message by Jedi is [142.17]. 

[77] Hans: Putting the Finger on it Both Maverick [74] and Jedi [75] gave very good 

answers. Instead of strictly making a comparison of the two concepts of fetishism, Maverick 

showed that Marx’s theory of the fetish-like character of the commodity gives an explanation 

of the prevalence of “fetishism” (in the usual dictionary definition) in our society. 

Unfortunately his second paragraph, which is supposed to explain it all, is too unclear. Jedi 

[75] broadens the question and puts his finger on the basic issues of the presently assigned 

readings: 


(1) Similar to Maverick he states that the ‘fetishism’ in the modern dictionary definition 

is not a character flaw but the result of the darkness and isolation that comes with commodity 

production. 

(2) The market contaminates our values. 

(3) It is an absurd circle to first invest social power in the commodity and then try to take 

advantage of it. 

(4) Capitalism depends for its functioning on people being deceived. 

Jedi cut through all the verbiage down to the basic message. Congratulations! 


Question 172 is 139 in 1995WI, 116 in 1995ut, 156 in 1997WI, 163 in 1997sp, 165 in 

1998WI, 243 in 2004fa, 263 in 2007fa, and 269 in 2008SP: 

Question 172 Give everyday examples of “material relations of persons” and “social relations 

of things.” 

[68] Hawken: Social relations/material relations Social relations between things are 

exchange relations. If a certain thing, say money, can buy a specific thing/commodity, means 

that they have a social relation with each other. In other words, the social relation is the 

exchange of money for the commodity. 

Applied to today’s society I feel I can state that material things have become carriers of 

social relations. Material things have become too important for people in the society. Private 

enterprises search for profit are strengthen and do overcome the simple needs of the people. 

Material relations of person will be the relationship between me and my hairdresser. I 

will continue our relationship as long as I want her to do my hair. Our relationship will 

still move on if she does a good job, and as long as I am alive. On the contrary, this is 

not a relationship I have with my friends, therefore we meet only once every 6’th month to 

reshape my hair. In my opinion, this was what Marx meant by material relations of persons. 

In addition, I would like to add a comment to how social relations of things and material 

relations of person could be connected to each other. In my opinion, the relationship between 

money and commodities do make up for the lack of direct human relation between members 

of the society. I guess we can say that social relations of things and material relations of 

people complement each other. However, at the same time they are totally opposite. 

Message [68] referenced by [70]. First Message by Hawken is [18]. 

[70] Hans: Plagiarism Does Not Pay Off Either Last week, I put the previous questions 

and answers from all classes since Autumn 1995 up on my web page. I expect that it will 

enrich the discussion here if people browse around in these archives and therefore come to 

the present discussion with a better understanding. 

However Hawken’s [68] goes beyond learning from the past discussions. It is a collage of 

passages literally taken over from various submissions last year, without attribution. This is 

no longer taking one’s inspiration from the material on the web, it is not even paraphrasing, 

about which I had to say something in [53], but this is plagiarism, which I do not tolerate in 

this class.


Hawken’s first paragraph is is very similar in wording to my message [1998WI:132] in 

the Winter 1998 where I wrote: 

Social relations between things are exchange relations, if this thing (money) 

can buy that thing, this means these things have a social relation with each 

other. 

The statement Hawken feels he can make in his second paragraph is lifted from what I 

wrote in my grading remark to message [1998WI:166] last year: 

Since material things have become the carriers of social relations, they have 

become too important. It is not the needs of the people but the profit needs 

of the firms that overburden our planet. 

The third paragraph is a slight variation of Gussi’s message [1998WI:129] last year: 

An example of material relation of person is the relation between me an 

my dentist. I will continue our relation so long I want his help to fix my 

teeth. Our relationship will be there if he do a good job and as long as I 

live, he need to be there to maintain my teeth. However, this relation is not 

a relationship that I have with my friends, therefore I only see him one time 

every year to see if my teeth is healthy. I think this is what Marx’s meant 

of social material relation of person. 

And the opinion Hawken expresses in his last paragraph coincides word for word with 

my message [1998WI:148] last year: 

The relationship between money and commodities makes up for the lack of 

a direct human relation between the members of society. Social relations 

of things and material relations of people complement each other. But ... 

this relationship ... is full of tension and potential conflict. They do have a 

connection, but an adversarial connection. They are two poles which battle 

with each other but which also need each other. 

I will draw the necessary consequences. 

Message [70] referenced by [74] and [2004fa:369]. Next Message by Hans is [76]. 

Question 174 is 141 in 1995WI, 118 in 1995ut, 151 in 1996sp, 158 in 1997WI, 167 in 

1998WI, and 195 in 2001fa: 

Question 174 What does it matter whether exploitation follows from alienation, or alienation 

follows from exploitation? (Define these terms.) 

[69] Angus: Alienation and Exploitation According to the American Heritage dictionary, 

exploitation is the utilization of another person for selfish purposes. The same dictionary 

defines alienation as a state of estrangement between the self and the objective world, 

or between different parts of the personality. A true capitalist is not interested in use values, 

but only in exchange values, in increasing profits. 


In slave societies, exploitation of workers is common, undisguised and even encouraged. 

A slave works for his master in return for food and shelter. However, under capitalism, labor 

is supposed to be exchanged with the capitalist, but there is still exploitation. Marx is saying 

that despite freedom of competition, exploitation still takes place. True capitalism always 

pays the worker less than what the value of his labor is actually worth. If this fails to happen, 

capitalism cannot continue, therefore capitalism encourages exploitation. 

In a capitalist society, a worker is not only alienated from his work, but also the products 

he is producing, and in doing so eventually becomes alienated with himself. Under capitalism 

a worker has littler control over his work, that is he does not usually choose what 

to produce or how to produce it. These are chosen for him. In working he does not fulfill 

himself, but degrades himself. The worker is forced to perform routine and repetitious acts, 

which do not give him any satisfaction in his work. He is mentally degraded by the repetitious 

and trivial activities performed in factories. The products of a person’s labor will soon 

dominate the worker because he produces commodities but cannot consume them. 

Therefore, it does not matter whether exploitation follows from alienation, or alienation 

follows from exploitation. By exploiting the worker, capitalism alienates the worker from 

himself; and by alienating the worker from himself capitalism dehumanizes the worker into 

becoming a mere animal. 

Message [69] referenced by [72] and [78]. Next Message by Angus is [105]. 

[73] Golfer: Alienation and Exploitation Alienation as defined by Marx states that 

people are alienated from their own labor; their work is appropriated by someone else and 

the work itself is compulsory. What Marx contends is that capital does not value the laborer. 

The capitalist idea of maximizing profits inherently tends to value that goal above all others. 

As such, the laborer is assigned a duty to fit within the intention of maximizing profits. 

Utility maximization to the individual or to society is not an issue and as such a worker 

can become estranged from his own work and himself. His production is based upon the 

marketability to other consumers and does not take into account the needs of the laborer or 

society. 

Exploitation exists between a producer and a laborer when the producer can hold back 

monetary and non-monetary benefits to the laborer because he is in the position to do so. 

He does this for his own benefit and to further increase his bottom line profits. This subject 

is particularly disheartneing for the worker. Not only is he not being paid for what he is 

producing, but often times, he is exposed to produce in circumstances which he has no 

control over and which could be improved were it not for the bottom line of capital. Although 

the main example of exploitation is slavery, there are examples such as sweatshops that show 

that exploitation still exists today. Marx stated that any form of exploitation had flaws and 

that they would be destroyed either by revolution or disintegration. Although exploitation 

still exists today, many of its forms have been destroyed. 

What we can conclude is that there is no relevance as to which leads to the other. Both are 

evils which exist in the capitalist world and without which capitalism could not exist. The 

basic arguments is that they are both evils which diminish the value of the laborer neither of 

which lead to the utility of society. 

Message [73] referenced by [78].


[78] Hans: Alienation is More Difficult to Fight Against Angus [69] gives good definitions 

of exploitation and alienation, shows that both exist in modern capitalism despite 

the illusion of freedom, and concludes that the question which comes first is ill-posed, since 

they are two sides of the same coin. 

Golfer [73] echoes many things Angus says (which depressed his grade). But there are 

important differences. While Angus views exploitation as a systemic necessity without 

which capitalism cannot exist, Golfer says that exploitation still exists in some forms in 

capitalism (sweatshops), but overall it is on the way out. Views which are in opposition to 

the Marxist view are welcome here, but Golfer should have made it clear that he understand 

that this is not Marx’s view. In his concluding remarks, Angus wants capitalism to end, 

while Golfer wants higher wages and fewer distortions in the labor markets. 

Angus’s answer is solid, and if I voice a certain disagreement here this will not affect his 

grade. I think exploitation and alienation are not one and the same thing but they are two 

separate issues. One can be exploited and be aware of it, and one can be exploited and not 

be aware of it. This second kind of exploitation is the more alienated kind, and it is also the 

kind which is more difficult to fight against. 

P.S. Don’t get yourselves fired when you suddenly realize how exploited you are and start 

talking back to your boss. You cannot resist capitalism individually; you have to organize 

together with others. 



Question 175 Student Sarah submitted the following answer to Question 174: These two 

phrases are vaguely linked, yet I would believe that alienation is derived from exploitation 

more so than the other. A laborer who is alienated from the beginning and realizes it may 

not be so prone to exploitation. Therefore exploitation of the laborer and his labor is still 

possible, because he rationalizes that even though he was alienated, his own interests were 

met. This gives him the ability to produce without prejudice for the outcome, because his own 

interests are why he allows exploitation. What does Sarah mean by this answer? Explain in 

your own words what you think Sarah wanted to say, and comment on it. 

[72] Zeek: Exploitation before Alienation Sarah, in her answer to question 174 states 

that alienation is derived from exploitation, more than exploitation from alienation for several 

reason. 

I believe that when Sarah referred to laborers not being exploited because they were 

alientated from the beginning can be explained quite easily. We need to first look at what 

exploitation and alienation refer in a capitalist society. To do this we need to refer back to 

the definitions given by Angus in [69]. Exploitation Angus said was to take advantage of, 

while alienation is the enstrangement of one from oneself and/or society. 

People by nature are prone to be selfish, desiring their needs to be satisfied. Sarah believes 

that if a person is estranged from someone or something they are less likely to be taken 

advantage of from the same. People that are alienated don’t really care what they do or that 

of a little exploitation as long as their needs are met(subsistence). Society could be classified 


into two classes; Owners and Worker. As workers work to provide for the essentials of 

life they are in reality referred to as commodities. Owners are those who own the means 

of production and hire workers to do the labor. They are sold to owners of the means of 

production and he and his labor are therefore considered commodities. 

Workers do the will of the Owners and therefore are exploited. As Angus referred to in 

[69], workers are payed less than what they are worth, therefore exploited. As this exploitation 

continues, alienation begins to set in and the workers begin to alientate themselves from 

society. Owners according to Marx are considered exploiters, for they recieve the benefits 

of production of some sort, from the control and exploitation of commodities(workers and 

their labors). This situation is only true when workers are the only labor, Owners do not 

contribute to or constitute work in any form. 

Hans: Regarding your last sentence: Marx did not deny that owners work, but he denied that they create value. 

Exploitation, like theft, is work, but it does not create value. 

Message [72] referenced by [79]. Next Message by Zeek is [128.1]. 

[79] Hans: The Protective Shield of a Bad Attitude Fictitious Sarah considers alienation 

to be a psychological attitude. This is a different meaning than the one ued generally by 

Marx and discussed in Question 174, where alienation is the quality how individuals fit 

into society. Sarah’s paradoxical statement that one cannot be exploited as easily if one is 

alienated makes sense if one understands it to mean: one does not feel exploitation as much 

if one has an alienated attitude. Zeek [72] recognizes this: 

People that are alienated don’t really care what they do or that of a little 

exploitation as long as their needs are met (subsistence). 

Even if individual workers are numbed to their exploitation, it is still necessary to fight 

against exploitation because it contaminates the whole society. It subverts our thinking because 

we are not allowed to see exploitation, and violence is needed for keep people in line. 

I sometimes think that the layer of the population in the USA which suffers most under capitalism 

are the children. Not only are they the weakest element who everybody else dumps 

on. Moreover they are still whole, and they have to be crippled in order to fit into a sick 

system. 


Question 179 is 157 in 1996sp, 163 in 1997WI, 170 in 1997sp, 172 in 1998WI, 190 in 

2000fa, 200 in 2001fa, 214 in 2002fa, 222 in 2003fa, 252 in 2004fa, 267 in 2007SP, 

272 in 2007fa, 278 in 2008SP, 290 in 2009fa, 318 in 2010fa, 296 in 2011fa, and 309 in 

2012fa: 

Question 179 Explain Marx’s metaphor that “value not have it branded on its forehead 

what it is.” 

[87] Hayduke: Value Branded The metaphor “value not have it branded on its forehead 

what it is” describes how value does not have a fixed, inherent basis. Rather, as Marx notes 

when quoting Galiani: “Value is a relation between persons” (V167:footnote 29). Because 

relations are fluid and constantly changing, value cannot be “branded on its forehead.” Furthermore, 

Marx clarifies this quote by saying Galiani should have added “concealed beneath 

a material shell.” This clarifies how this view differs from what it might first look at. The


nature of fetishism is that we see the material shell and assume that that is the value, and 

ignore the social relations underneath. 

A similar metaphor is used again a little later to express contrast, although it is not as clear 

in the Vintage edition. On 173:1/oo it says “These formulas, which bear the unmistakable 

stamp of belonging to a social formation...” Perhaps they were hoping for clarity, but this 

translation inexplicably destroys Marx’s metaphor. As technical as most of this writing is, 

it really seems a shame to rephrase a colorful literary device with more technical phrasing. 

The German is very straightforword: “Formen, denen es auf der Stirn geschrieben steht, dass 

sie einer Gesellschaftsformation angehoeren...(Hans’ Annotations, pg. 97).” The translation 

from Hans’ Annotations is much more literal: “These forms, which have it branded on their 

foreheads that they belong to a social formation...” 

This metaphor is a continuation of the metaphor of values NOT having what they are 

branded on their foreheads. The forms in the second metaphor are value and magnitude. 

Marx is drawing a difference here: value may not be a fixed entity, but its role in a capitalist 

society is fixed, and can be branded, i.e. that “production process has the mastery over men.” 

Message [87] referenced by [90] and [117]. Next Message by Hayduke is [138.5]. 

[90] Hans: The Name T-Shirt The mistake has been made before in this discussion 

that you think Marx is talking about the qualities of value, where he is really talking about 

how value is represented both in the perceptions and the actions of the members of society. 

Hayduke makes this mistake in [87]. He writes: 

The metaphor “value does not have it branded on its forehead what it is” 

describes how value does not have a fixed, inherent basis. 

If you have something branded on your forehead, this means it is a dead giveaway, everybody 

can read whatever is written on your forehead. Value does not wear a T-shirt saying: 

“I come from labor.” Hayduke understood this metaphor more in the sense: if something is 

branded into you then it is something inherent in you. I accept this as a possibility, but this 

is not what Marx means here. The German says “written”, not “branded”, and I will change 

my translation so that it also says “written.” Marx is not talking here about what value is, but 

he is talking about the fact that people are not aware of what value is. Value is labor, but it 

does not have it branded on its forehead that it is labor, i.e., people are not aware of it that 

it is labor. The second time when Marx uses this metaphor, he points out the implications 

of this fact: If they are not aware of what governs their own most basic social relations, this 

means they cannot be the masters of their social relations. 


[117] Sprockets: Labor is not written on value’s forehead. In comparison to Marx’s 

metaphor “value not have it branded on its forehead what it is”, and with Hans clarification 

[90] that “The German says ‘written’, not ’branded’”, I think of an example of people walking 

around with a fact about themselves written on their forehead. If these people were in 

the United States, where many people have “American” written on their foreheads, and one 

person had “Canadian” on his, those around him would know that he was from Canada. As 

Hans [90] says “If you have something branded on your forehead, this means that it is a dead 

giveaway, everybody can read whatever is written on your forehead.” 


Along with Hayduke [87], I tend to think of not being “branded” as perhaps referring to 

“how value does not have a fixed, inherent basis” whereby not having a brand upon your 

forehead means that whatever may have been branded could have been something that is 

constantly changing, therefore, you should not have it branded upon you. However, Hans 

clarifies this in [90] with his point that Marx “is talking about the fact that people are not 

aware of what value is.” This statement is congruent with Marx’s own metaphor “value not 

have it branded (written) on it’s forehead what it is.” The point being that although “value is 

labor” (Hans [90]), because it does not have “labor” written on it’s forehead, it does not tell 

people that, in fact, value is labor. 

Message [117] referenced by [118]. Next Message by Sprockets is [142.2]. 

[118] Hans: Written on the forehead Sprockets gave an excellent answer [117], which 

explained well what the issues were in the internet discussion. The only thing he left out was 

a reference to the second time Marx used the metaphor “written on the forehead,” but this 

was not part of the original formulation of the Question, and therefore I did not penalize his 

grade for it. But if this question comes up in the exam, I want you to say something about 

that second time too. 


Question 180 is 173 in 1998WI, 202 in 2001fa, 216 in 2002fa, 224 in 2003fa, 254 in 

2004fa, 249 in 2005fa, 269 in 2007SP, 292 in 2009fa, 320 in 2010fa, and 298 in 2011fa: 

Question 180 How can someone who understands that value comes from labor still have a 

fetishistic view of social relations under capitalism? 

[83] Kids: The fetishistic view of social relations Marx points out that relations among 

people are realized through things, and that this is the only way they can be realized in a 

commodity economy. In the society, labor is devoted to production and goods produced 

by them are distributed among the members of society. This means that the process of 

production of commodity society has its origin in the social relations among people. In 

other words, the fetishistic character of the commodity has its origin in the social character 

of the labor which produces commodities. 

The starting point of the labor theory of value is a determined social environment. The 

value of the commodity is determined by the quantity of labor socially necessary for its 

production. 

The fetishistic character likewise influence the whole atmosphere of capitalist economy, 

and analyze how the working activity of people is regulated. Capitalism is a commodity 

econommy, in which social relations among people are established through the exchange 

of things. In the capitalist economy, production-work relation among people need to get the 

value of things, and then social labor can only be expressed in value. They asserts themselves 

as a part of the labor society only through the relation which the act of exchange establishes 

between products. 

The labor theory of value is based on the fetishistic view of social production relation 

which explain the regulation of labor in a commodity economy. 

Message [83] referenced by [85] and [138.22]. First Message by Kids is [32].


[85] Hans: What to do if you don’t know what to write Kids [83] is perhaps a little 

better than his earlier submission [32], but he still has a long way to go. [83] says nothing 

about the Question asked. If you find yourself in a situation where you don’t know what 

to write, I recommend that you send in some ungraded submissions (just put the two letters 

“ug” after the Question number). Then I will comment on it but you will not get a grade for 

it. Working through the archives of the past classes on the web may also be helpful: there 

you will find explanations of things from many different angles, and some of these angles 

may be right for you. 

For those who have been quiet so far or who have not received good grades, I also recommend 

that you come to the class sessions. You are welcome to come to both morning 

and evening class, regardless which class you are enrolled in. I think you will get good 

information there. 

Finally, next week you can send in what you think the “right” answers are to all the past 

questions discussed here, in preparation of the exam. This is another opportunity to get some 

feedback, and here you even have a chance to improve your grade. 


Question 194 is 179 in 1997WI: 

Question 194 Someone says the commodity relation is fetishized because otherwise exploitation 

would not be possible without a police state. Comment. 

[86] Martin: Fetishism or Police state This is incorrectly phrased in a number of ways 

but is an interesting proposition. 

It implies a conspiracy theory of economic and political developments which is not 

Marx’s analysis at all. He does however explain what social formations are relatively stable 

at which stages of economic development, and from this point of view the question needs 

some thought to answer. 

About terminology I think Hans Ehrbar has demonstrated clearly by comparing various 

translations including the French, that the common English translation, “commodity 

fetishism” is wrong. It is not Marx’s meaning to moralise against a desire for use values 

in the form of commodities. On the contrary he anticipates that social progress will be 

associated with an increase in use values. 

It is true that the apparent fairness of commodity exchange (even if people are in very 

unequal situations) masks the fact that the surplus product goes to a small minority of the 

society. In slave societies and in feudal societies, force was specifically given to the exploiting 

class and used to put down periodic slave revolts or peasant revolts. Nowadays 

it is no longer necessary publically to crucify one in ten steel workers when their plant is 

closed down through competition from the far east, in order to keep them socially disciplined. 

Their inability to sell their labor power, and their assumption that that there is no 

alternative, is largely sufficient. 

They may demand other work, and they may demand unemployment benefit, but only 

as second class citizens, because the fetish-like nature of commodities conceals a social 

relation underneath the material reality of the product. They accept that because there is less 


need to produce steel as a use-value within the USA because it can be bought more cheaply 

from abroad, their contribution to the aggregate social labor of the USA really has been 

“devalued”. Instead there should be a redistribution of total social labor within the USA if 

not within the world to enable everyone to work productively. 

The question implies that exploitation is a feature of socialist states. This is clearly not 

Marx’s meaning in his description of the association of free human beings. Certainly a 

social product was created and there is controversy among would be socialists about whether 

the officials in former socialist states shoudl have had any privileges at all and whether by 

doing so, they became part of an “exploiting” “class”. But in the case of the former east 

Germany even Erich Honecker’s wealth was found to be unremarkable by comparison to 

what a leading capitalist of the former West Germany would expect. (I think I am right is 

saying this.) Anyway Marx did not speculate in detail about how socialist societies should 

be run but it is clear from his comments here that he did not regard exploitation as part of 

the process. 

The question however implies further ironically that the controversies about police states 

in former “socialist” countries were because they did not have a mystifying economic system 

of commodities and capital accumulation. Perhaps these problems will become easier with 

more ready availability of highly complex information systems, but I think it is true that in 

the former socialist countries there was a major problem about how to organize democracy 

to get adequate consent for how the surplus product was distributed. This was made worse 

by the real and imagined dangers of capitalist encirclement. 

Yugoslavia which was thought to be less of a police state than most, got torn apart not 

by its different nationalities suddenly becoming intolerant of each other’s religions but because 

of a big disparity in rates of economic development between those regions near the 

European Union, and others. The richer regions wanted to reduce their contributions to the 

federal budget and failing that, to secede. To stay a unified country, Yugoslavia would either 

have needed a period of increased internal repression, or to have quickly gone over to 

capitalist economic methods in the hope that it could have remained a looser sort of confederation 

or at least have had a velvet divorce, like Slovakia and the Czech Republic further 

north. The Yugoslav Federation could have applied to become associated with the European 

Union, and the richer regions could have reduced their “subsidies to the poorer southern 

regions, which could have received subsidies from the European Union.” I fear that to stay a 

separate unified and socialist state under the economic pressures of a semi-commodity based 

economy, would have required greater policing. 

In summary in answer to the question as put, leaving aside the sarcasm and irony, I think it 

is true that for a socialist society in a capitalist world, under present conditions of economic 

development, it would difficult for the state not to have some repressive powers, even if they 

were well regulated by law. 

However perhaps greater “transparency” about economic and financial processes, preferably 

on a world scale, will enable us to move without coercion more easily to a conscious 

free association of all. 

Message [86] referenced by [91]. First Message by Martin is [14].


[91] Hans: Transparency and Power I am convinced that one of the reasons why 

the socialist regimes were so unpopular is that whenever something went wrong, people 

spontaneously blamed the regime for it. The regime served as a scapegoat for everything. 

Once I drove together with an East German through an East German town, and we had a red 

light at every intersection. He said: “They cannot even coordinate the traffic lights.” Even 

the traffic lights were used as an argument against socialism! In capitalism, much worse 

things happen than red traffic lights without anybody ever blaming the system. Whenever 

something goes wrong, people blame themselves, even when they are powerless to change it 

or it is not their doing. This is a consequence of the fetish-like character of the commodity, 

which makes the social relations invisible. 

I think here I am in agreement with Martin [86]. Martin also seems to say that a socialist 

regime either needs a similar cover of mystification, or it needs much more transparency in 

order to be able to exercise its necessary coercive functions. Instead of glorifying power, 

power must be used transparently and self-critically. The system must say: “unfortunately 

we are forced to use power here, because the conditions are so and so, but we are developing 

in a direction in which such coercion will become less and less necessary in the future.” 



Question 197 Which social forms do the three determinations of value take in Marx’s example 

of a socialist society? 

[80] Luc: communism According to Marx, the three “essential determinations of value” 

are (a) “the equality of all human labor insofar as it is expenditure of human labor-power” 

(b) “the social significance of labor time,” and (c) “the existence of interactions between the 

producers through which their labors integrated in the social labor process.” (Ehrbar, 76) 

Each of these determinations of value has specific social forms. First, in form (a), “an 

association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending 

their many different forms of labor-power in self awareness as one single social 

labor force.” In order to understand this sentence we must dissect phrase by phrase. “An 

association of free men” means that no individuals are in bondage, rather all experience a 

type of independence within the society. “With the means of production held in common” 

means that no capitalists are present, the means of production are a common good of society. 

“Expending their many different forms of labor-power in self awareness as one single labor 

force” means that all jobs are different, yet tied together by the concept of labor-power that 

combines as one single labor force. This fragment also deals with the idea of exploitation. 

If one is expending labor power in self-awareness, he or she is aware of the value of their 

labor and is compensated with equality. This determination of value is a social form because 

individuals are working together for the good of society; “the total product of our imagined 

association is a social product.” [171:2/o] 

Second, in form (b) the “social significance of labor time” is manifested when the products 

that are used by the members of the society as means of subsistence are divided fairly. 

“The share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his 

labor-time.” Marx asserts that labor-time takes on two forms: first, “its apportionment in 


accordance with a definite social plan” maintains equal proportions between associations of 

society according to the various needs; second, the labor-time also reflects the part that each 

individual takes in the common labor. (V172:0) 

Third, in form (c) the “existence of interactions between the producers” is illustrated by 

Marx when he states “the social relations of the individual producers, both towards their 

labor and the product of their labor, are here transparent in their simplicity, in production 

as well as in distribution.” This means that there are no secrets and nobody has anything to 

hide. The value of products is common knowledge to all and no exploitation takes place. 

Message [80] referenced by [82]. Next Message by Luc is [142.8]. 

[82] Hans: More about Communism Everything is correct in Luc’s answer [80] until 

the point where he explains the meaning of “Expending their many different forms of laborpower 

in self awareness as one single labor force.” And I am not surprised that he did not 

get this entirely right because the translation he used (the Vintage edition) is lousy here. The 

original translation by Moore and Aveling, supervised by Engels, is much better: 

Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free 

individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, 

in which the labor power of all the different individuals is consciously 

applied as the combined labor power of the community. 

In socialism, the individual labor powers are pooled on an egalitarian basis. In this respect 

socialism is similar to commodity production, but socialism does it consciously rather 

than as the blind side effect of anonymous market interactions. This is a big difference. 

A socialism organized in this way will almost certainly take the individual circumstances 

of production into consideration, while the market blithely disregards those circumstances, 

which can be not only cruel but also counterproductive. 

Luc gets somewhat similar results, but in a different way. Luc thinks that wages are 

so low in capitalism because workers do not bargain confidently enough. Even in areas of 

the country where workers are more confident than in Utah, wages are not that much higher, 

because the capitalist market is simply rigged against the workers. We will learn more details 

when we get to Chapter 25. 

When Luc writes “individuals are working together for the good of society,” then this is a 

common misconception about socialism which has no basis in Marx. Marx’s emphasis has 

always been that in socialism, society is good for the individuals, it is a benign backdrop 

enabling individual flourishing, rather than trying to subordinate the individual to society. 

Regarding the “existence of interactions between the producers” Luc writes: 

The value of products is common knowledge to all and no exploitation takes 

place. 

Marx would even go a step further and say: the concept of value attached to goods as a 

social organizing principle ceases to exist in socialism. The producers are in direct communication 

with each other, rather than communicating only through their goods. 

Message [82] referenced by [2009fa:241]. Next Message by Hans is [84].



Question 203 Marx implies that Ricardo should not have agreed with the following passage 

by Destutt the Tracy: “‘As it is certain that our physical and moral faculties are alone 

our original riches, the employment of those faculties, labor of some kind, is our original 

treasure, and it is always from this employment that all those things are created which we call 

riches ... It is certain, too, that all those things only represent the labor which has created 

them, and if they have a value, or even two distinct values (use value and exchange value), 

they can only derive them from that’ (the value) ‘of the labor from which they emanate’” Are 

there any errors in this passage? What are they? 

[81] Brutal: Labors Marx disagrees with this statement because use value and exchange 

value come from concrete labor and abstract labor respectively. Destutt the Tracy does not 

recognize the two aspects of labor, abstract and concrete, and due to this oversight he lumps 

them together as simply “labor.” Marx makes the point that Ricardo has made the same 

mistake by agreeing with Destutt the Tracy’s statement without correcting it. 

One error in this passage is, therefore, Destutt the Tracy’s suggestion that both use value 

and exchange value come from “labor” without separating “labor” into concrete labor and 

abstract labor. Another mistake made in this passage is the assumption that value comes only 

from labor. This relates to the mistake Galiani made that Marx pointed to earlier when he 

said. “[value is] a relation concealed beneath a material shell” (see Annotations p.70). Like 

Galiani, it seems Destutt the Tracy cannot see through this “material shell” to the relation 

that gives products of labor value. 

Message [81] referenced by [84], [88], [89], [127.2], and [142.2]. Next Message by Brutal is [106]. 

[84] Hans: Destutt’s and Galiani’s Errors Destutt made 3 errors and Galiani made 1 

error. Altogether these are 4 errors. Let’s go through them in turn. 

(1) Brutal [81] correctly identifies Destutt’s first error: Destutt says that both value and 

use value come from labor, although he should have said that use value comes from concrete 

labor and value from abstract labor. This is Detutt’s main error; and since Ricardo agreed 

with Destutt here, Ricardo is making the same error. 

(2) But Destutt makes a second error, which Marx points out but Ricardo tacitly corrects. 

Brutal did not get what this second error is. Does anyone else want to explain this second 

error so that we all understand it? It is an important one. 

(3) Destutt makes a third error, which Marx does not mention, but which Brutal picks up 

on, although Brutal does not formulate it quite correctly. Brutal writes: 

Another mistake made in this passage is the assumption that value comes 

only from labor. 

He should have written: another mistake is the assumption that use value comes only 

from labor. As Marx said in Section 2, use value comes from concrete labor and nature, 

whereas value comes from abstract labor alone. 

(4) Brutal brings in Galiani, although Galiani does not quite fit here. What is Galiani’s 

mistake? It is a subtle one. Galiani seems to have it right. He writes “value is a relation 

between persons”, i.e., he does not succumb to the fetishism which says that value comes 


from the natural properties of things. Marx’s correction is that Galiani should have added 

that this relation is “concealed beneath a material shell.” Why is this so important? If people 

were to deal directly with each other, without the detour over things, they would never treat 

each other in the cruel way they do concealed under the anonymous capitalist market. 

Message [84] referenced by [88], [127.2], and [142.2]. Next Message by Hans is [85]. 

[88] Sprockets: Destutt’s Second Error In Hans’ response [84] to Brutal’s answer 

[81] to question 203 he points out that there is a second error which Destutt de Tracy makes, 

which Hans describes as a “blatant contradiction” (pg. 98 Annotations to ‘Capital’ Bilingual 

Version). As Marx says, “The Frenchman does, in fact, say on the one hand that all things 

which constitute wealth ‘represent the labor which has created them,’ but he also says, on the 

other hand, that they acquire their ‘two different values’ (use-value and exchange value) from 

’the value of labor.’” Marx considers this to be representative of “the commonplace error of 

the vulgar economist”, in particular he refers to the fact that Destutt was oversimplifying the 

value of labor as a commodity. Destutt’s reason for doing this is “to determine the values of 

other commodities.” Ricardo points out, through his interpretation which does coincide with 

Destutt’s statement, that “labor is represented both in use-value and in exchange-value.” This 

is the half of the contradictory statement by Destutt de Tracy that Ricardo accepts, which is 

correct, however, if he is accepting of the other half of Destutt’s statement, Marx is correct 

in implying that Ricardo should not agree with Destutt’s passage. 

Message [88] referenced by [89] and [142.2]. Next Message by Sprockets is [117]. 

[89] Hans: Value comes from Labor, not from the Value of Labor Sprockets [88] picks 

out the right sentence where Marx describes Destutt’s second error, overlooked by Brutal in 

[81]. Marx writes: 

“The Frenchman does, in fact, say on the one hand that all things which 

constitute wealth ‘represent the labor which has created them,’ but he also 

says, on the other hand, that they acquire their ‘two different values’ (usevalue 

and exchange value) from ’the value of labor.’” 

But Sprockets doesn’t quite get it why Marx is taking offense here. Marx’s point is: the 

value of commodities does not come from the value of labor, but from labor itself. It would 

be circular to say it comes from the value of labor, because then we still don’t know where 

the value of the commodity labor comes from. But vulgar economics, in its shallowness, 

does not realize that it is arguing in a circle. 

Practically speaking this means: if you have a job which only pays 5 dollars per hour, 

this does not diminish the value which you create: you probably create between 15 and 20 

dollars per hour, because the value depends on your labor, not your pay. 

Coming back to Destutt, he says the right thing at the beginning when he says that all 

things which constitute wealth “represent the labor which has created them”, (they represent 

the labor itself, not the value of labor), but he says the wrong thing at the end when he says 

that things derive their value from that of the labor from which they emanate (here he should 

have said: they derive their value from the labor from which they emanate, instead of saying 

that their value comes from the value of this labor). 

Message [89] referenced by [127.2] and [142.2]. Next Message by Hans is [90]. 

[127.2] Brutal: Destutt’s mistakes Destutt makes three errors in this passage. They are:


1) Use value only comes from labor. Marx makes it very clear that use value comes from 

nature and labor (133:2/o also see English only Annotations page 26). 

2) Use value and exchange value come from labor. Destutt should have said that use value 

comes from concrete labor and value from abstract labor. This shows that Destutt did not 

recognize the different forms of labor and by agreeing with this statement Ricardo makes 

the same mistake (Brutal [81] and Hans [84]). 

3) The mistake that seems to bother Marx the most is when Destutt says, “[Commodities] 

have a value, or even two distinct values, they can only derive them from that of labor.” What 

Destutt is saying is that the value of a commodity comes from the value of labor. This logic 

leads one in circles without knowing where the value of the commodity labor comes from. 

However, Marx makes it clear (as does Hans) that value comes from labor itself (Hans [89]). 

Next Message by Brutal is [142]. 

[136.1] PowderNow: Marx disagrees with this passage made by Destutt the Tracy and 

feels that Ricardo is making the same mistake by agreeing with the statement. Marx would 

point out that Destutt the Tracy made three errors in the paragraph. First, Destutt proclaims 

that both value and use value come from labor. He does not recognize the two aspects of 

labor, concrete and abstract, but lumps them together as one. Marx would have stated that 

use value comes from concrete labor and value from abstract labor. 

The second mistake that Destutt makes is that the value of a commodity comes from the 

value of the labor. Marx would say that the value of a commodity comes from the labor 

itself. Value is congealed abstract labor, the value is not caused by labor, but is the labor. As 

Hans said in [57], “One does not say ice is caused by water, or ice is the result of water, but 

ice is water.” 

The third mistake made by Destutt is the assumption that use value comes only from 

labor. Marx would say that use value comes from concrete labor as well as nature and that 

value comes just from abstract labor. 

Next Message by PowderNow is [136.2]. 

[137.5] Angus: Destutt’s Errors? Yes, there are errors in this passage. 

First, Destutt fails to take into account the differences between use value and exchange 

value. Use value is based upon concrete labor and nature (which he fails to mention), while 

exchange value is based upon the magnitude of abstract human labor embodied in it. Destutt 

by saying ‘they can only derive them from that’ fails to show that use value can also be 

derived from nature. Marx sums this up best in saying, ‘Labor is not the source of all wealth. 

Nature is just as much the source of use value as labor, which itself is only the manifestation 

of nature, human labor power.’ [mecw24]81:2 

Second, Destutt also fails to explain how use value comes from concrete labor, and exchange 

value from abstract labor. These are two very important differences that he fails to 

mention. In fact, value is abstract human labor. Merlin [36] describes how, “The distinction 

must be made between ‘concrete labor’ and ‘abstract labor’. Concrete labor, or the actual 

labor ‘expended to produce a product,’ (Hans p.20) is not equal, and therefore ‘cannot be 

added up’.” 


Third, he also does not show how use values are ‘material carriers’ of exchange value. 

Although this is a subtle mistake, it is still worth mentioning. For example, something can 

have use value but does not necessarily have exchange value. However, exchange value is 

not derived from use value; but for something to have exchange value it must have use value. 

Fourth, Destutt implies that commodities have an inherent value. However, the value of 

the commodity should be derived from abstract human labor, and not from the value of labor 

itself. 

Next Message by Angus is [228]. 

[138.16] Doc: Disagreement about passage from Destutt hte Tracy There are several 

mistakes in this passage according to Marx. The first is Where Destutt says that both value 

and use value come from labor, but is reality use value comes from concrete labor and value 

from abstract labor. Second: in the line “The Frenchman does, in fact, say on the one hand 

that all things which constitute wealth ‘represent the labor which created them,’ but he also 

says, on the other hand, that they aquire their ’two different values’(use value and exchange 

value) from the value of labor.’” Marx would say that value of commodities comes from 

labor itself, not from the value of labor. 

The third mistake is the assumption that value comes only from labor, but it should be 

use value comes only from labor. 

The fourth mistake is about the value and relations between people but is should add 

“concealed beneath a material shell.” Capitalist society always adds the underlying want for 

material things that mankind has in this type of society. 

Next Message by Doc is [161]. 

[138.2] Kenshiro: According to Marx, Ricardo was mistaken in his analysis of the equation, 

Instead of putting the value of the object based upon the labor. The object already had 

intrinsic value for which labor just added to it. 

Hence, “if they have a value or even two distinct values, they can only derive them from 

that of the labor from which they emanate.” Is a misrepresentation of a value and commodities. 

Value is of itself nothing more than value as is commodities to commodities. 

Marx takes this one step further in his analogy of the “Father of the Church” treating the 

religions of pre-Christian religions. Thus, showing the loss of the natural for the transparent. 

Next Message by Kenshiro is [225]. 

[141.4] Merlin: The errors in the passage by Destutt de Tracy are as follows: 

1. Destutt says that both value and use value come from labor. However, he does not 

make the necessary distinction that use value comes from concrete labor, whereas value 

comes from abstract labor. 

2. Destutt says that value comes from the value of labor. However, value comes from 

labor itself. If value came from the value of labor, then labor itself would become a commodity, 

and we would need to know where the value of labor comes from. 

3. Destutt says that use value only comes from labor, when it actually comes from both 

labor (concrete) and nature. 

Next Message by Merlin is [374].


[142.2] Sprockets: Destutt de Tracy’s Errors Yes, there are errors in this passage by 

Destutt de Tracy. Hans [84] lists Destutt’s first error which is when he says “both value and 

use value come from labor”, which was first pointed out by Brutal in [81]. Hans then adds 

“use value comes from concrete labor and value from abstract labor.” 

The second error which I picked out in [88] is what Hans describes as a “blatant contradiction” 

(pg. 98, Annotations to “Capital”, Bilingual Version). In response to this contradiction 

Marx says, “The Frenchman does, in fact, say on the one hand that all things which constitute 

wealth ‘represent the labor which has created them,’ but he also says, on the other hand, 

that they acquire their ‘two different values’ (use-value and exchange value) from ’the value 

of labor.’” As I said [88], “Marx considers this to be representative of ‘the commonplace 

error of the vulgar economist’, in particular he refers to the fact that Destutt was oversimplifying 

the value of labor as a commodity.” Hans then clarifies what Marx disagrees with 

here [89] when he states that “Marx’s point is: the value of commodities does not come 

from the value of labor, but from labor itself.” Hans further describes how “It would be 

circular to say it comes from the value of labor, because then we still don’t know where 

the value of the commodity labor comes from.” In [88] I also describe the other half of the 

contradictory statement by Destutt, which is “labor is represented both in use-value and in 

exchange-value.” This is the correct half of Destutt’s statement, which is accepted by Ricardo. 

By these two statements being combined together in one passage, Destutt has made 

this second error. 

The third error which was picked out by Brutal [81], and clarified by Hans [84] is that 

“another mistake is the assumption that use value comes only from labor.” Use value comes 

from labor and nature. Quake pointed this out in his correct answer [113] to the first part of 

Exam Question 80. 

Next Message by Sprockets is [142.7]. 


1998WI, 222 in 2000fa, 235 in 2001fa, and 359 in 2010fa: 

Question 211 Is there anything wrong with private property? 

[119] Henrix: Private Property Marx claim that private property is not healthy for the 

people. He says, and I quote from the annotations “In order to relate objects to one another 

as commodities, their keepers must relate to each other as persons, whose wills reside in 

these objects”. 

People, by residing their wills in their commodities and not in their persons, will soon get 

so obsessed in thees things that their lives vill be controlled by their private property. 

I understand that there will always be some negative outcomes by people owning private 

property, but I am wondering how a world would look like without private property. Without 

it, I cannot imagine how there can be any trading of goods. Without any trading of goods, 

I cannot see that anyone vill be willing to produce any goods. Without any goods, how can 

we live? 

Message [119] referenced by [129]. Next Message by Henrix is [129.3]. 


[129] Hans: Things left Unsaid Henrix [119] starts with a summary of the brief arguments 

against private property made in the Annotations immediately preceding Question 

211. He seems to agree that something is wrong with private property. But then he says: 

I understand that there will always be some negative outcomes by people 

owning private property, 

He does not continue “just as everything else can have negative consequences too” but 

even though this conclusion is unsaid, it is implied by the wording of the beginning of the 

sentence. After reading this I have doubts whether Henrix really objects to private property. 

Had Henrix made this explicit, perhaps we could have had an interesting debate: Henrix 

arguing that that what is wrong with private property is merely that it can lead to excesses 

or mistaken attitudes, but this can happen with everything, and others arguing that it is not 

the excess, but the very concept of private property which is detrimental to having a good 

society. This was the kind of debate which I wanted to elicit when I formulated the Question 

“Is there anything wrong with private property?” 

In the remainder of his submission, Henrix no longer speaks about private property but 

presumably he told himself: it is futile to ponder the nature of private property since there is 

no alternative anyway: 

but I am wondering how a world would look like without private property. 

Without it, I cannot imagine how there can be any trading of goods. Without 

any trading of goods, I cannot see that anyone vill be willing to produce any 

goods. Without any goods, how can we live? 

Henrix’s message has been on the internet since Thursday. I did not respond to it earlier 

because I hoped that someone in this class would be moved to say something about this. 

Obviously, those in power, those who benefit from the concept of private property because 

they have exclusive rights over the means of production which we all need, do not want us 

to think about alternative ways of organizing the economy. But if someone claims that such 

alternatives simply do not exist, that private property of the means of production is the only 

possible way of organizing the economy, isn’t that capitulating a little bit too quickly to the 

status quo? 


Exam Question 221 is 180 in 1995WI, 191 in 1996sp, 204 in 1997WI, 211 in 1997sp, 203 

in 1997ut, 231 in 2000fa, 279 in 2003fa, 313 in 2004fa, 328 in 2007SP, 338 in 2008SP, 

352 in 2009fa, 381 in 2010fa, 363 in 2011fa, 377 in 2012fa, and 191 in Answer: 

Exam Question 221 Which “deed” is Marx referring to here? 

[303] Josef: Extra Credit 221 The deed that Marx is referring to in 180:3–181:1 is the 

selection of one commodity as the money commodity. 

Hans: This is the right answer. 

Message [303] referenced by [2003fa:253]. Next Message by Josef is [331]. 

Exam Question 229 is 185 in 1995WI, 163 in 1995ut, 197 in 1996sp, 199 in 1996ut, 218 

in 1997sp, 210 in 1997ut, and 391 in 2010fa:


Exam Question 229 Why does a general equivalent become necessary as the number and 

differentiation of commodities increases? 

[323] Maktub: 229 ex The general equivalent becomes necessary for a simple reason: If 

you didn’t have a general equivalency and you had possibly an infinite number of commodities, 

then you would have an infinite number of ways to exchange these commodities. It 

would be chaos, with each producer not producing what he does best, but producing what he 

will be able to exchange the easiest. No division of labor, no type of manufacturing would 

be able to thrive without a general equivalent. 


[327] Hans: Chaotic Numbers Maktub [323] says there would be chaos because there 

would be an infinite number of ways to exchange these commodities. This is not quite 

the explanation because large numbers by themselves do not cause chaos. An attempt to 

explain better where this chaos comes from might go along the following lines: Both the 

use value aspect and the value aspect of the transaction contribute to this chaos. Use value: 

double coincidence becomes more and more unlikely. Value: the Expanded equivalent form 

becomes longer and longer and becomes too complicated to be an effective expression of 

value. 

At the end, Maktub commits a faux pas which costs him a lot of points. He writes: 

No division of labor, no type of manufacturing would be able to thrive 

without a general equivalent. 

Here Maktub assumes that division of labor and manufacturing must necessarily be marketdriven. 

This is not the case. 


Exam Question 236 is 191 in 1995WI, 202 in 1996sp, 217 in 1997WI, 216 in 1997ut, 226 

in 1998WI, 280 in 2002fa, 294 in 2003fa, 331 in 2004fa, 346 in 2007SP, 356 in 2008SP, 

371 in 2009fa, 401 in 2010fa, 383 in 2011fa, and 397 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 236 Explain Marx’s sentence: “The exchange process gives the commodity 

which it has designated as money not its value, but its specific form of value.” Which specific 

form of value does Marx mean here? 

[315] Broker: This exam question is looking for a specific form of value. As a class we 

have only studied two forms, exchange and use, consequently, Marx must be talking about 

one of the two. But which one? I believe Marx is talking about use value of money. In this 

section Marx, discussess money, namely gold and silver, having been misinterpreted. Marx 

discussess the misconceptions and concludes the section with this passage: “Money, like 

every other commodity, cannot express the magnitude of its value except relatively in other 

commodities. Its value is determined by the labor time required for its production...” The 

value of money is not created when it used as a medium of exchange, its value is created 

before it hits the market, just like all commodities. What creates value? Labor and use value. 

Message [315] referenced by [328]. Next Message by Broker is [333.1]. 

[316] Hans: Forms of Value I’d like to clear up one basic misunderstanding right away, 

so that you won’t get confused for the exam. Marx does not consider use value to be a form 


of value! Furthermore, it is always helpful to answer the questions in context: Find the Question 

in the Annotations and try to understand what Marx tries to say in the passage discussed 

there. The Questions should never be viewed in isolation, they always have something to do 

with this text. 


[328] Hans: The Limits of Social Agreements Broker [315] says that the exchange 

process gives money its use value. I already replied in [316] that use value is not a form of 

value, and I gave the hint that you should look for the answer in the Annotations. Indeed, 

the Annotations say, less than a page before Question 236, that the form of value Marx 

refers to here is the Money form of value discussed in Subsection 3 of Chapter One. This 

is form 4, which differs from form 3, the General equivalent form, only by the fact that by 

social consensus always the same commodity, the money commondity, is automatically in 

the General equivalent form. This social agreement is often taken as a social agreement 

to give money its value. This is why the value of money is considered imaginary, i.e., 

determined by social consensus, instead of being determined by the labor content of the 

commodity. 

Marx shows in this discussion acute awareness of what can and what cannot be decided by 

social agreement. It cannot be decided by a social agreement how much value a commodity 

has, i.e., at what exchange relations people will want to trade a given commodity. This can 

only be found out by competition. But it can be decided by social agreement which use-value 

everyone uses as general equivalent. 


Question 238 is 169 in 1995ut, 348 in 2007SP, 358 in 2008SP, and 403 in 2010fa: 

Question 238 How, why, and through what is a commodity money? 

[128] Dragon: Commodities as Money Comprehending that money is a commodity 

should not be too difficult. How, why, and through what that a commodity is money is 

a little more complicated to understand. Here I will give my best attempt to answer this 

question. 

How a commodity is money is because of its ability to be exchanged for money. Marx 

says that commodities are raw materials or finished goods which are produced for sale or 

exchange. This sale or exchange of commodities may be in the form of money. 

Why a commodity is money is because it is a social expression of value. One major 

function of money is to serve as the form of appearance of the value of commodities. 

In commodity-producing societies, the nature of that society is reflected in the consciousness 

of its members. One widespread view of commodity-producing societies is the property 

of money to generate value and yield interest. Historically, the social mechanism of 

commodity-producing societies has been a deep interest in money. Because money has always 

been a social expression, the value of a commodity can be expressed as money. 

Through what a commodity is money is seen through the process of exchange and the 

amount of labor that goes into the production of commodities. As exchange value grows and 

people become more dependent on exchange, so does the power of money. This relationship


between money and exchange value make a commodity money. Just as the actual exchange 

of commodities creates exchange value, the exchange value creates money. The products 

of labor into commodities are transformed into money. This differentiation of a commodity 

into money develops because the products of labor into commodities are equated into money. 

Labor becomes a commodity; the commodity becomes exchange value; the exchange 

value of commodities is represented by monetary power; monetary power arises in the form 

of money. This development generates the increasing power of money and the notion of a 

commodity as money. 

Message [128] referenced by [135] and [2007SP:838]. Next Message by Dragon is [142.12]. 

[135] Hans: Creative Answers are Welcome Dragon [128] answers the three questions 

“how”, “why”, and “through what” in three different paragraphs: 

“How”: commodities are money because they can be exchanged for money. 

“Why”: commodities are converted into money because money is a social expression of 

value. 

“Through what”: commodities are converted into money through the exchange process. 

Furthermore Dragon also argues that money becomes more and more powerful, i.e., the 

conversion of everything into money becomes more and more central for society. 

I like it because it is a very creative answer. It is not as close to the text as I would have 

wished because it started on the wrong foot: while Marx was thinking of the (logical and historical) 

development of money out of the commodity, Dragon was thinking of the exchange 

of a commodity for money. Marx wrote “a commodity is money” because many of the properties 

of money can already be found in the relationship between ordinary commodities. But 

imagination and creativity are needed to read Marx: therefore keep your creativity but also 

keep yourself open to what Marx says. 


Exam Question 247 is 235 in 1997sp, 237 in 1998WI, 270 in 2001fa, 307 in 2003fa, 344 

in 2004fa, 338 in 2005fa, 359 in 2007SP, 369 in 2008fa, 414 in 2010fa, 400 in 2011fa, 

and 415 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 247 What is the price of a commodity? 

[130] Perro: Price Every single commodity in a commodity-producing society has a 

price. This price can be defined as the sum of money used for trade of the commodity. To 

understand this, we can look closer on the following aspects of Marx’s discussion. 

“Price is the money name of the labor realized in a commodity” (C111:1). With this 

Marx says that each particular commodity contains a certain amount of labor time, which is 

necessary to produce it. 

Marx also discusses in C105:1 “imaginary money”. Here he explains that the amount of 

labor used on a commodity can not always be realized, but has to imagined or evaluated in 

order to set the price. 


We can conclude with what Marx discussed in C104:3. A commodity’s price can be 

determined in one single equation. Here he gives the following example; 1 ton of iron = 2 

ounces of gold (where the gold, the money form, is the socially accepted form of exchange). 


[132] PumpkinStar: Money is worthless...Labor is everything! Price is the monetary 

representation of a commodity. In Marx’s example, he gives the equation: 

1 ton of iron = 2 ounces of gold 

where Marx uses gold as the Universal standard for commodities: “The first function of 

gold is to supply commoditites with the material for the expression of their values...it thus 

acts as a universal measure of value.” (V188:4) 

With the left side of the equation stabilized, commodities on the right hand side can 

now be substituted with other commodities. Labor is the foundation of value, and the labor 

contained within the commodity, matched up against the material on the right hand side of 

the equation will determine the price. Prices will vary, depending on the metal, ie. gold, 

silver or copper, due to the varying amounts of labor expended on the metals. Commodities 

will always have multiple prices, but the value of the commodity (congealed abstract labor) 

will stay constant 

Message [132] referenced by [134] and [136]. Next Message by PumpkinStar is [137.1]. 

[134] Maktub: Don’t you mean in [132] that the right hand side of the equation is now 

stabilized? 


[136] Hans: Definition of Price This Question is an exam question because it has a short 

and easy answer: 

the price is the expression of the value of a commodity in money. 

Perro [130] says it a little differently: 

The price can be defined as the sum of money used for trade of the commodity. 

Perro’s answer is more in the spirit of neoclassical economics, which likes to define 

money by its functions as means of circulation. In Capital, the function of means of circulation 

is not as basic as the function of measure of value: it is discussed in Section 2 of 

Chapter Three, while measure of value is discussed in Section 1. Marx says: money can 

circulate commodities because people measure the values of their commodities in money 

first. 

Perro writes also: 

Marx also discusses in C105:1 “imaginary money”. Here he explains that 

the amount of labor used on a commodity can not always be realized, but 

has to imagined or evaluated in order to set the price.


This is a misunderstanding. Marx says that for putting a price tag on the commodity you 

do not need any actual gold but only imagined gold. Nevertheless this process does depend 

on real gold because the price depends on how much labor there is in gold. 

Perro’s last paragraph is: 

We can conclude with what Marx discussed in C104:3. A commodity’s 

price can be determined in one single equation. Here he gives the following 

example; 1 ton of iron = 2 ounces of gold (where the gold, the money form, 

is the socially accepted form of exchange). 

In this paragraph, Marx does not speak of the determination of a price but the expression 

of value. The equation 1 ton of iron = 2 ounces of gold looks very similar to the Simple 

form of value 20 yards of linen = 1 coat. But there is an important difference: the simple 

form of value is a very limited expression of value because it only expresses the value in 

coats, while other things express their values in other equivalents. The price, by contrast, is 

a society-wide expression of the value, because everything else expresses it value in gold as 

well. 

PumpkinStar [132] has the subject line: “Money is worthless...Labor is everything!” By 

this he means that it is not the money material itself, but the labor which counts. If silver 

instead of gold were money, one would need more than 2 ounces to represent the value of 1 

ton of iron, because silver contains less labor per ounce than gold. 

Maktub [134] points out that one word in PumkinStar’s message is apparently a typo. I 

found this helpful because I thought so too. 


[301] Navin: Extra Credit 247 The price of a commodity is its money form. The equation 

1 ton of wood = 3 ounces of gold is wood’s money form or its price if gold possesses the 

character of money. 

Message [301] referenced by [305] and [312]. Next Message by Navin is [310]. 

[305] Hans: What is a light switch? The question “what is a price?” can be answered in 

many different ways. Which is the right way, and why? 

Navin [301] proposes answer (a) “the price is the money form of a commodity.” This does 

not explain anything because price and money form are synonyma. It is like answering the 

question “what is a car?” with “a car is an automobile.” 

Other possible answers would be (b) “the price is the expression of the value of a commodity 

in money” and (c) “the price of a commodity is the amount of money one needs to 

buy it.” Here Marx clearly prefers (b) over (c). Why? Because (b) is what is called the “real 

definition” of the price, it identifies the underlying forces giving rise to the price. 

According to Marx, everything that has a commodity value, i.e., that has labor in it from 

private production for the market, must express this value, i.e., must let the rest of society 

know that a part of society’s labor has been used to produce this thing; and the price is 

exactly this expression. 


Although it is true that the price of a commodity designates the amount of money which 

one needs to buy it, (c) is not a good definition of price. Prices are not only needed for 

purchases but also in many other situations: firms keep track of the prices of things which 

will never be sold again for the purposes of cost accounting, or tax payers use prices for the 

computation of capital gains taxes. Here prices are needed not because the payment of these 

prices allows things to circulate on the market, but because these prices are an expression of 

the value of these commodities. 

To end with another analogy: what is the real definition of a light switch? Answer (c) 

would be “a device which allows you to turn on or off the light in the room,” and (b) would 

be “a device which opens or closes the flow of electricity to the light bulb.” 


[307] Cartman: A commodity’s price Money, as we know, seems to make the world go 

round. Through it, society expresses many things, and in Marx’s case it expresses the value 

of a commodity. In other words, this is the price of a commodity. It is the expression of 

value (which comes from labor) within a commodity through money. 

Message [307] referenced by [317]. Next Message by Cartman is [371]. 

[312] Hans: More on: what is a price? Navin wrote me that he thought the second 

sentence in [301] was correct. He wrote: 

If gold is the money commodity in the community then expressing wood in 

terms of gold (1 ton of wood = 2 ounces of gold) is in fact showing what 

the price of a commodity is. 

Let me try to reformulate this. Navin’s answer to “what is a price” is: “the price of 

a commodity is an equation in which a certain amount of that commodity is equated to a 

certain amount of money.” What is missing here is what this equation means. The price of 

wood is not the expression of wood in terms of gold, but the expression of the value of wood 

in terms of gold. Gold in this equation no longer represents some arbitrary use value, but 

it is that use value which by social custom serves permanently as the Universal equivalent. 

(This last sentence explains the difference between the price of a commodity and the simple 

form of value with that commodity in the relative value form.) 


[317] Hans: Money makes the World Go Round The answer “the price of a commodity 

is the expression of the value of a commodity in money” is the right answer. But Cartman 

[307] does not understand what this means, and therefore his elaborations, which have the 

purpose of making the issue more intuitive and more alive, end up being misleading instead. 

The first question is: Who is the subject which expresses the value of the commodity in 

money? Cartman says it is society. Marx has a different answer: he says it is the commodity 

itself which expresses its value in money. 

Of course, this is often considered a figure of speech. The translations are good evidence 

that such formulations of Marx’s are not taken seriously. Often, when Marx says in the original 

German that the commodity expresses its value, the translation erases this by translating 

it as “the value of the commodity is expressed.” This seems to be an innocuous change, since 

how can a commodity, an inanimate thing, do anything?


The self-activity of commodities, and then also of money and capital, is a central and 

important aspect of Marx’s theory. Marx says commodities have a fetish-like character 

because they have a life of their own. Notice that I did not say they seem to have a life 

of their own but that they do have a life of their own. How do they do this? Commodities, 

and more strongly money and capital, induce the economic agents to act in certain ways 

towards them. People have their own reasons for acting like this, but in addition to these 

private goals, these actions also have their cumulative uninteded side effects, the sum total 

of which is best described by: it is not the people who act, but it is the commodity which 

acts through these people. 

Therefore Cartman’s formulation “society expresses the value of a commodity in money” 

is in part correct because it makes it clear that it is not the individuals who are acting. The 

expression of the value of a commodity in money is the unintended byproduct of the actions 

of numerous individuals, and as such it cannot be considered their action any more. But 

Cartman’s formulation is in part incorrect because this action should not be considered to be 

the action of “society.” Society is the totality of many different relations and connections, 

which is in flux and changes all the time, but it does not act. It is called “reification” to 

attribute agency to something which cannot act. But although Marx does not proclaim that 

society as a whole acts, he does hold that it is legitimate to attribute agency to commodities, 

money, and capital, which are very specific social relations of production. It is not a 

theoretical mistake to attribute agency to capital, but instead, it can be a practical tragedy to 

be living in a society in which agency has slipped away from conscious individuals and has 

become vested in which anonymous social forces. 

This is getting longer than I intended, and I want to send it out before the computers 

shut down this evening. Therefore I just want to briefly mention Cartman’s second misunderstanding. 

Society does not express the value of commodities in money because money 

makes the world go round. The causality goes in the opposite direction. Because all commodities 

express their values in money, money becomes directly exchangeable for everything 

and therefore develops its “spell” of wanting to become more and more money. And 

in capitalist society, this drive of money to self-expand has become the socially recognized 

principle organizing production. This purpose of self-expansion or valorization is not subordinated 

to other purposes (such as the consumption of the capitalists), but is a goal in itself. 

Because of this it is said, correctly, that “money makes the world go round.” 


[321] Zeek: Extra credit Price is the expression or value given to a commodity by the 

market through money. This expression is not always the true value of a commodity. The 

true value of a commodity is its abstract labor, used in production. As a commodity enters 

the market, it is compared with other commodities similar and not so similar. Money is used 

as the universal expression of this value. The amount of money, however, does not express 

the true value of the commodity, for that is expressed in the abstract labour of production. 

Technology changes and therefore the labour involved in the production is altered. Price 

therefore is not a consistent true expression of the value of a commodity. 

Message [321] referenced by [329]. Next Message by Zeek is [354.1]. 

[329] Hans: Some Basic Misunderstandings Zeek [321] starts out on the wrong foot: 


Price is the expression or value given to a commodity by the market through 

money. 

It is not the market which gives the commodity its value, the commodity has the value 

from the production process, and the market is merely the arena in which this value is expressed. 

In Zeek’s account, money is active and the commodity is passive, while Marx just 

says the opposite. 

Also Zeek’s second sentence has nothing to do with Marx: 

This expression is not always the true value of a commodity. The true value 

of a commodity is its abstract labor, used in production. 

This sounds as if Marx was saying in Capital: the true value of a commodity is its labor 

content, therefore their prices should be measured in labor. This is a serious misunderstanding 

of Marx’s theory. 


Question 248 is 236 in 1997sp, 228 in 1997ut, 238 in 1998WI, 259 in 2000fa, 272 in 

2001fa, 296 in 2002fa, 310 in 2003fa, 348 in 2004fa, 342 in 2005fa, 363 in 2007SP, 373 

in 2008SP, 373 in 2008fa, 388 in 2009fa, 404 in 2011fa, and 419 in 2012fa: 

Question 248 How is the value of money expressed? 

[137] Karlito: Expressing the value of money The value of a commodity cannot be 

expressed until it is sold. Once it has been sold, it can be compared to other commodities 

that can be sold for the same value. Hans [136] explains that price is the expression of the 

value of a commodity in money. Therefore, once the value of a commodity is realized, it is 

assigned a price in terms of money. The value of money is then expressed by totaling all of 

the commodities that can be purchased/traded for that specific amount of money. 

On page 95 of the discussion, we learn that the endless series of equations that are needed 

to express the value of money are already socially given in the prices of the commodities. 

Also, the magnitude of the value of money can be found by reading the price list backwards. 

For example, in today’s world, if one loaf a bread is equal to one dollar, we know that the 

magnitude of a dollar in this society is one loaf of bread. 

Message [137] referenced by [140]. Next Message by Karlito is [138.22]. 

[140] Hans: Expression versus Realization of Value Karlito [137] writes: 

The value of a commodity cannot be expressed until it is sold. 

Karlito is confusing here the expression of value with its realization. Marx stresses that 

things have value before they are sold, they get their value already in the production process. 

After people have produced a commodity, the labor time spent on this commodity is no 

longer a matter of indifference to them: they have spent labor on something which is not 

useful for them and they will not rest until they have made this labor useful for them. What 

do they do to turn this labor into something useful? They link the commodities they have 

produced to other commodities which they want in exchange for them. The linen weaver 

says: if you give me a coat, then I am willing to give you the 20 yards of linen I just


produced. This willingness to make exchange is the expression of values. In order to turn 

this willingness to exchange into an actual exchange, this expression of values must be 

generalized; values must be expressed in such a way that a social consensus can arise that 

this is indeed the value of the commodity. This is why Marx is looking for ways to express 

the value in one uniform standard, namely in money. 

Once it has been sold, it can be compared to other commodities that can be 

sold for the same value. 

Once the thing is sold, the social processes involving this commodity are over. Now the 

thing is in the hands of someone who needs it, and he or she can consume it. This is a private 

matter. The important social processes are happening between the production and the sale of 

the commodity: how is it determined for how much the thing will be offered on the market, 

and how quickly, if at all, will the thing find a buyer at that price? And given this marketing 

experience, will more things be produced? This is the phase when it is important to have 

good and unbiased ways to express the values of things. 

So far, we have discussed how the value of ordinary commodities is expressed. Now 

money is also a commodity, therefore its value must be expressed too. Karlito explains 

correctly how this is being done: 

The value of money is then expressed by totaling all of the commodities 

that can be purchased/traded for that specific amount of money. 

He also talks about an “endless” series, but when he gives an example he uses a very short 

series, indeed a series of length 1: 

For example, in today’s world, if one loaf a bread is equal to one dollar, we 

know that the magnitude of a dollar in this society is one loaf of bread. 

Here Karlito is using the Simple form of value to express the value of gold because he is 

expressing it in only one other ordinary commodity. Since it is gold, its value is expressed 

also in all the other commodities, e.g, one dollar = one loaf of bread or one bus ride or one 

floppy disk or one pound of apples or one gallon of gasoline or one Sunday Newspaper etc. 

This is the Expanded, not the Simple form of value. In other words, when people decide 

what to do with their money they will take into consideration all the things they can buy 

with it, and society makes this possible for them because those prices are available. 


Question 261 is 251 in 1997sp, 251 in 1998WI, 287 in 2001fa, 380 in 2007SP, and 391 in 

2008SP: 

Question 261 If the price of 1 ton of iron is 1 ounce of gold, why can the owner of the iron 

not use his ton of iron to “buy” whatever costs 1 ounce of gold? 

[131] Zed: Iron equals gold Marx concludes that there is a distinct formula required to 

exchange one commodity for another. Rather than exchanging sraight across from that one 

commodity to another, regardless of whether or not the two are perceived to be equal trades, 

it is neccessary to convert the commodity into gold by an exchange for gold and to then use 


that money to trade for the desired commodity. By having the equivilent of 1 ton of iron 

in gold, you now have a more easily exchanged medium of trade with which you may then 

exchange that gold for your desired commodity. 

Message [131] referenced by [138]. Next Message by Zed is [143.1]. 

[133] Maktub: ton of iron Marx states in 198:1, The price form implies both the possibility 

to convert the commodities into money and the necessity of this conversion. Marx 

states that because money now serves as the general equivalent, that it is now necessary to 

convert all commodities (iron) into money so that the expression of value of the commodity 

is in a clear and concise form. Also, by creating a general equivalent in the form of money, 

society moves further and further away from the simple or expanded form of value, and as 

society moves away from that, buyers and sellers will not accept forms of barter as means of 

exchanging things. 

The iron received its pricing through imaginary money, the money didn’t need to be 

present to decide what its price would be, and that implies, says Marx, that the commodity 

must be turned into money, tangible, in order to change hands. I myself don’t see the implication, 

but I do agree fully with the notion of barter becoming less and less of a exercised 

market practice. If people were to still able to buy things using the value of iron, that would 

render the whole idea of using gold to determine prices and to be the general equivalent 

useless, the whole idea behind using gold would be to abandon a barter or simple form of 

value society. 

Just as in today’s world, if I know that a bag of starbursts costs 2 dollars, I can’t walk 

into a McDonalds and give them my bag of candy and expect 2 dollars worth of french fries. 

That is what money is for. 

Message [133] referenced by [138] and [2001fa:178]. Next Message by Maktub is [134]. 

[138] Hans: Means of Circulation is Not the First Function of Money I like Maktub’s 

[133] very much. The first paragraph is very good and very clearly written. I will skip it 

here and start with the second paragraph: 

The iron received its pricing through imaginary money, the money didn’t 

need to be present to decide what its price would be, 

Right. I think “imagined” gold would be be a better translation than “imaginary” gold. 

Although gold must not be present when the price is given, the magnitude of the price is 

very much dependent on the real production conditions of real gold (at least, as long as there 

is a gold standard). It is not a phantasy gold. 

and that implies, says Marx, that the commodity must be turned into money, 

tangible, in order to change hands. I myself don’t see the implication ... 

Not the absence of the gold in the price giving process, but the fact that every commodity 

expresses its price in gold implies that gold also becomes the means of circulation. 

... but I do agree fully with the notion of barter becoming less and less 

of a exercised market practice. If people were to still able to buy things 

using the value of iron, that would render the whole idea of using gold to 

determine prices and to be the general equivalent useless, the whole idea


behind using gold would be to abandon a barter or simple form of value 

society. 

Here you sound like the “idea behind using gold” is to make the exchange more efficient. 

For Marx, means of circulation is one of the functions of money, but it is not the first function 

of money. The first function is measure of value. People want to express the values of their 

commodities with the least possible bias. If they express it in iron, they run the risk that iron 

is in oversupply and they are really selling their goods to cheaply without being aware of 

it. Even if I have what you want and you have what I want and we make a direct barter, we 

will never know whether we exchanged these goods at the socially prevailing exchange rate. 

Money is such a superior medium to express value in, that barter with other commodities is 

only done in exceptional situations. 

Zed [131] says that Marx concluded that the direct barter must be broken into sale and 

purchase. Zed’s justification for this breakup is that money is more liquid than iron, it can 

be converted more easily into everything. Again this puts the function of money as means 

of circulation into the foreground, whereas Marx thinks the function of measure of value is 

the more basic one. 


Question 263 is 244 in 1997ut, 253 in 1998WI, 278 in 2000fa, 292 in 2001fa, 388 in 

2007SP, 394 in 2007fa, 400 in 2008fa, 415 in 2009fa, and 461 in 2012fa: 

Question 263 Why is a commodity producer dependent on selling his commodity? Which 

difficulties may he encounter in selling it or in realizing its full value? 

[139] Winston: Why Producers sell their commodity Producers are dependent on 

selling commodities in a commodity producing society due to the division of labor. Since 

the producer specializes in producing one commodity, the commodity that he produces has 

no use value to the producer, instead it has exchange value for the producer. In order for 

the commodity to be transformed into money, the commodity must have use value for the 

person who possesses money. Once the producer has received money for his commodity, he 

can trade the money for a product, which has use value for him. This cycle is caused by the 

division of labor and is why producers are dependent on selling their commodities. 

The difficulties that the producer may encounter in selling his product can be divided into 

two parts because there are the qualitative and quantitative difficulties with the division of 

labor. 

Qualitative difficulties have to with whether or not the commodity has use value for the 

money owner. A commodity that has use value today could be replaced by the use value of 

another product tomorrow. Page 105 of the annotation states that “it is uncertain whether or 

not the commodity is a use value for the money owner (a) if the product is a new use value, 

or (b) if the want for this product is superseded by other products of the same or different 

kinds.” 

An example of quantitative problems that the producer might encounter would be a farmer 

who takes his apples to the market. When he gets to the market he finds that there are too 

many apples being sold so he has to lower his price. Another quantitative example would 


be if at that time of year the demand for oranges superseded apples, here again the farmer 

would have a hard time realizing the value of the apples. 

Hans: Very good. Only one minor quibble. You write 

This cycle is caused by the division of labor and is why producers are dependent on selling 

their commodities. 

It is not caused by division of labor in general but by a very specific kind of division of labor. I do not want you to 

create the impression that commodity production is necessary because we have division of labor. 

Message [139] referenced by [142], [2001fa:186], and [2008fa:993]. Next Message by Winston is [198]. 

[150] Zeek: The sale of commodities! In the market place, commodities are sold and 

purchased in order for one to get what he needs. A commodity producer produces commodities 

that he/she thinks would have use value in the market or to someone else. Commodities 

as Marx states, “are in love with money.” Difficulties may arise when he goes to sell his 

commodity in the market. The difficulty that he might run into is competition. As other 

producers bring similar commodities to the market, creating a surplus of supply, chances of 

not selling or selling at a reduced price might be inevitable. If the producer does not sell his 

product fast enough, the market might have found a replacement or similar items cheaper. 

As technology changes and improvements in production occur, labor time is reduced, thus 

changing the value of commodities relative to abstract labour. 

Hans: When you say “the difficulty is competition” it sounds like you blame the other competing businesses. You 

don’t see the forest for the trees. The difficulty is the lack of coordination between producers. 


Question 264 is 295 in 2001fa, 392 in 2007SP, and 455 in 2010fa: 

Question 264 Metamorphosis is only a different word for form change. Describe the form 

of a commodity before its first metamorphosis, after its first metamorphosis, and after the 

second metamorphosis. 

[142] Brutal: The metamorphosis of commodities Before its first metamorphosis the 

commodity has only exchange value. As Winston explains in [139], this is due to the division 

of labor. Therefore, the producer makes only that commodity and it has no use value for him. 

The producer must go into the market to exchange the commodity he produced in order 

to satisfy his many other needs. He thus seeks someone with money to sell his commodity 

to. Once he sells his commodity for money the commodity has undergone the first metamorphosis 

and is now in the money form. Now his commodity (in the money form) represents 

all the commodities he can purchase for the money he holds. 

The second metamorphosis takes place when this same person exchanges his money to 

buy a commodity with use value. After this metamorphosis the commodity takes on a form 

that is useful for the individual. 



[148] Guyote: Metamorphosis The metamorphosis of the commodity from C-M-C 

involves changes in the form of commodities from exchange to use values. 

The direct barter system from C-C is a symmetric relationship for the exchange of two 

commodities. However the metamorphosis of the commodity from C-M and M-C is asymmetric.


Before the first exchange, the commodity is valued in relation to its use and the place the 

commodity occupies in the social division of labor. Marx describes the first metamorphosis 

as being contingent on the fact that the commodity holder can only exchange or change the 

form of the commodity for money if his commodity has use value for the money holder. This 

will happen if the the commodity proves to be a useful part of the social division of labor. 

This enables the commodity to be a unit for exchange. The exchange of the commodity 

for money denotes a metamorphosis in the form of the value of the commodity. This first 

metamorphosis takes the commodity form of value and changes it into a exchange value 

form. Marx believes that money holds a special position in the circulation process because 

money is a measure of value. 

Moving to the second metamorphosis, M-C, indicates that the complete exchange process 

from C-M-C, is two sided. Marx believes that the comversion of a commodity into money 

is the conversion of money into a commodity. This is based on the notion that every sale is 

a purchase. Conversely, every purchase is a sale. in order to buy a commodity with money, 

the sale of another commodity is involved. 

The second metamorphosis reflects a purchase. The purchase or metamorphosis of money 

into a commodity reflects the quality money has to be reflected in the commodity form. In 

other words, money reflects the commodity and is thus, materialized. Marx characterizes 

money as being absolutely alienable, this is because money is always welcome on the market. 

The obstacle of money to transform into a bodily form in the second metamorphosis is 

that of quantity. 

By this is Marx addressing the question of money distorting the values of the commoditys 

they reflect? 

In the end the metamorphosis from C-M-C denotes two processes of transformation, the 

fact that every sale is a purchase means that the commodity holder is both a seller and a 

buyer. This links him to the determination of the value of the commodity in the social 

division of labor. The first metamorphosis, from C-M, reflects the exchange value of the 

commodity. The second metamorphosis, from M-C, reflects a use value for the commodity 

holder. 

Hans: You sent a rough draft to the list; it had many unnecessary typos (I corrected over 10 of them in the version 

in the archive). Please be considerate of the many readers of this. It also diminishes your grade. 

You say: 

Before the first exchange, the commodity is valued in relation to its use and the place the 

commodity occupies in the social division of labor. 

Before the first exchange, the only thing that is known about the commodity is how much labor was spent to produce 

it. Whether anybody needs it or whether it has a place in the division of labor is not yet decided. The sale will be 

the test of that. 


[151] Gemni: Metamorphosis I would like to elaborate on clarify on what Brutal[142] 

had to write about on a commodities metamorphosis. I agree with Brutal in that the form of 

the commodity before the metamorphosis only has “exchange value” for the weaver. This is 

indeed because of the division of labor as Brutal points out. Ehrbar’s comments explain the 

necessity of the first metamorphosis on page 106, “the division of labor converts the product 

of labor into a commodity, and thereby makes necessary its conversion into money.” The 


commodity only represents exchange value because the weaver can not survive soley on his 

labor, or his commodities, so he brings his commodity to market and instead of bartering for 

other commodoties, he exchanges his commodity into gold or money. It is this exchange, 

the “sale” of his linen that brings about the first metamorphosis of the commodity. The 

weaver changes his commodity for a new use value (p-104). The commodity rises out of 

the ashes like a phoenix and takes on a different form, that of money. This metamorphosis 

can only happen if his commodity has use value in the market and more importantly, the 

money owner (p-105). The final stage of the first metamorphosis is the starting point for the 

second metamorphosis. Brutal says that the commodity, in money form, now represents “all 

the commodities that he can purchase for the money he holds.” I would like to go one step 

further and instead of saying “all other commodites” I would like to say “other use values.” 

Because after all, that is why the weaver has exchanged his own commodity for money, so 

that he can “purchase” some other commodity that he has use for. 

The second metamorphosis occurs when the weaver takes the “new form” of his commodity, 

the money, and then exchanges it for another commodity for which the weaver has 

need of. Instead of having the linen, his original commodity, he now possesses another 

commodity, the Bible, which now has the same value as his original commodity but with 

different utility (p-104). Marx wants to point out that the metamorphosis of the weaver’s 

commodity at each and every point, (the commodity’s circular path) serve as “two inverse 

partial metamorphosis for two other commodities” (p-109). In other words, every sale(C-M) 

or purchase (M-C) can either be the beginning or the end of the metamorphosis process. 

Many different M-C often come out of one C-M (p-108). 

I agree with most of what Brutal had to say, but he left out important aspects on how and 

why the commodity goes through two metamorphosis. Marx’s idea of the metamorphosis of 

the commodity is complicated, that is why I thought a clarification was necessary. 

Hans: Very good. 


[398.7] Golf: Before the first state of a commodity or the before the first metamorphosis 

that the commodity goes through, the commodity is in the form of exchange value. The 

commodity that is created does not have use value, so the producer must bring the commodity 

to the market in exchange for money. It is during this exchange, commodity to money, 

that the first metamorphosis occurs. 

The second metamorphosis occurs when the original producer of the commodity takes 

his new commodity(money) and exchange it for another commodity that the producer has 

need for. This new commodity has now taken the form of use value. The producer can take 

the money, which was obtained from exchanging his original product for a commodity that 

is useful to the producer. 

Next Message by Golf is [398.9]. 


2009fa, and 457 in 2010fa: 

Question 265 What is the deeper reason that reciprocity agreements, i.e., agreements of the 

form: “I buy this from you if you buy that from me” are illegal in the U.S.?


[145] Senco: Unfair trading practices Reciprocity agreements are illegal in the U.S. 

because they can lead to monopolies and other unfair trading practices. 

Agreements between buyers and sellers tend to form close relationships between everyone 

involved. If these firms or individuals, are making agreements before anyone else has 

a chance to compete, then they are protecting their commodities from outside competition. 

With help of this protection, these firms can drive the competition out of business and establish 

a monopoly. 

Message [145] referenced by [152]. Next Message by Senco is [177]. 

[152] Luc: stifling competition Relative to the illegality of certain reciprocity agreements, 

I agree with Senco’s first paragraph [147]: 

“Reciprocity agreements are illegal in the U.S. because they can lead to monopolies and 

other unfair trading practices.” 

However, I would like to offer an alternative answer to the explanation that Senco gave 

for the above statement. 

According to Marx, “the two inverted phases of the movement which makes up the metamorphosis 

of a commodity constitute a circuit: commodity form, stripping off of this form, 

and return to it.” [207:1]. The “two inverted phases of the movement which makes up the 

metamorphosis of a commodity” are illustrated when the commodity is sold for money and 

the money is used to buy another commodity (C, M, M, C). These two phases “consitute a 

circuit” by completing the pattern that changes the form of one commodity, which starts out 

as a non-use value to it’s owner; and ends up as a use value. (Study Guide, 108) As a result 

we have the “Circle C-M-C.” 

Now we must link the circle C-M-C of one commodity with other commodities. “The 

complete metamorphosis of one commodity is at the same time the second metamorphosis 

of another and the first metamorphosis of a third commodity—This observation furnishes 

the transition from the metamorphosis of a single commodity to the metamorphosis of all 

commodities and their interconnection.” (Study Guide, 109) According to this quote, the 

metamorphosis of multiple commodities depends on the interconnection that exists between 

the circle C-M-C of one commodity to the circle C-M-C of the next commodity, to the circle 

C-M-C of the next commodity, etc. This interconnection of metamorphoses is crucial to 

the survival of the market economy that is found in the U.S. because it fosters competition 

through multiple commodities. 

If two commodities have an agreement of the form: “I buy this from you and you buy 

that from me,” then the metamorphoses of the two goods would exclude other commodities. 

This exclusion of other commodities would stifle competition and “leads to a monopoly,” 

[147] which is theoretically detrimental to the economy of the U.S. 

Hans: I like it that you are trying to apply Marx’s text so closely. You are describing the process by which the 

metamorphoses of the different commodities are interlinked, and you write: 

This interconnection of metamorphoses is crucial to the survival of the market economy that 

is found in the U.S. because it fosters competition through multiple commodities. 

You are certainly right that it is crucial for the market economy that all goods are exposed to the market, and the 

reciprocity agreements are an attempt of the firms involved to shelter their relationship from the market. Senco 

[145] has this implicit but should have said this more explicitly. But I am not sure if the kind of interlinking Marx 


describes here is the only form in which this social connection can be established. This interlinking complicates 

the process by linking things together which have little to do with each other, and it allows illiquidity crises to to 

spread. 

Message [152] referenced by [2002fa:160]. Next Message by Luc is [215]. 

Question 266 is 283 in 2000fa, 394 in 2007SP, and 458 in 2010fa: 

Question 266 How does the result of the circulation of commodities differ from the result of 

the direct exchange of commodities? 

[146] Dragon: Differences in Circulation and Direct Exchange The result of the circulation 

of commodities differs from the result of the direct exchange of commodities in two 

major ways: the ways in which the use values of commodities are processed or exchanged 

and also in the participation of money. 

Exchange is mutually beneficial in a world where exchange is based on freedom of contract. 

For Marx, the words ‘product’ and ‘commodity’ have an important distinction. All 

economies produce products; only in capitalism do products take the form of commodities. 

Products as well as commodities have use value, but commodities need exchange value. 

Commodities are produced mainly, if not entirely, for exchange. In the process of direct 

exchange, the use values of both commodities vanishes when they change hands. However, 

in the process of circulation, the use values do not disappear once they have changed hands. 

This is because of the second major difference; the participation of money. 

Money plays no role in the direct exchange of commodities. In the circulation of commodities, 

the participation of money keeps the cycle rolling because of the variability of 

the willingness to exchange money for commodities. In commodity circulation, money is a 

necessary form through which production must pass. The circulation costs are the expenses 

incurred from the conversion of one commodity form into another. In the circulation of 

commodities, value ratios are established which make these separate products freely transformable 

into one another. Value ratios are established because buyers of a commodity buy 

it and exchange it for the money equivalent of exchange value in order to avail themselves of 

the use value of the commodity. Money is a way to facilitate these transactions and because 

someone always has it, the circulation process continues. 

Hans: Very good. There is only one sentence I don’t agree with: 

In the process of direct exchange, the use values of both commodities vanishes when they 

change hands. 

On the contrary, I would say the use values only appear in circulation, since before the sale the commodity has no 

use value for its owner, but after it final sale it does. 


Question 268 is 299 in 2001fa: 

Question 268 Formulate Say’s Law. How is it proved? Which arguments does Marx bring 

to show that the proof is invalid? 

[149] RfBurner: say’s law Marx argues that Say’s law is invalid. Say’s law states that 

there is an equilibrium with sales and purchases. To prove that this is correct proponent 

argued that there is as much demand as there is supply. They would say that there would


be no reason to produce things unless you had needs to fulfill with a purchase. That is the 

support for Say’s law. 

Marx tries to prove that it is not reasonable to believe that this equilibrium can be met. 

His ideas are simply that there are times that a sale is made and the person who sold the 

good does not always go and then spend that money back into the economy. He argues that 

some times money simply is held on to. This would mean that there would then have to be 

a disequilibrium when the seller held onto the money. Since there would be a sale without 

a purchase to balance it. So Marx believes that the equilibrium that Say’s law talks about is 

not achievable. 

Hans: It is too strong to say that the equilibrium is not achievable. It often is achieved, but there is no guarantee 

that sales and purchases will always be in equilibrium with each other. 



2007SP, 415 in 2008fa, and 430 in 2009fa: 

Question 270 Describe how and why commodity circulation contains the possibility of crisis. 

[141] Perro: Possibility of crisis “...every sale is a purchase, and every purchase a 

sale, therefore the circulation of commodities necessarily implies an equilibrium of sale and 

purchase.” (C123:1) Here Marx points out that the sale by one person is a purchase of another 

person. Further Hans explains, “Annotations” p. 110, that sale and purchase are two parts 

of the same action. The possibility of crises arises when these, the sale and the purchase, 

become independent of each other. 

When the seller has sold a commodity he will receive money and can become a buyer. 

On the other hand, this is not always what happens. Buyers will not always exist for sellers, 

i.e., the person with the money may decide not to use them. In this case the seller can not 

sell his commodities, and moreover not have the money to buy from other sellers. 

Let us say that we have a producer that wants to sell her commodity, but a person who has 

money choose not to spend these on purchase of the commodity. This is where the conflicts 

starts. The producer will not receive money, and therefore not be able to buy anything from 

a third person (other sellers) as the result of absence of purchase decided by the person that 

“started” with the money. This is where commodity circulation contains the possibility of 

crises. 

Hans: I find it interesting that you put money into the plural, apparently thinking of “the dollars.” 


[143] Hans: What is a crisis? Perro gives a good explanation in [141]. But on one place 

his wording is careless: he says “sale and purchase are two parts of the same action.” This 

is not true. They are two different actions, which can proceed independently of each other, 

despite the fact that there is an inner unity between them. This is how Marx defines crises: 

if two things, which have an inner connection with each other, make themselves externally 

independent of each other, so that their inner connection must be reasserted violently. 



[333.1] Broker: Commodity circulation contains the possibility of crisis because of the 

independence inherent in the purchase and sale of commodities. Commodities hold, “two 

independent and antithetical processes. . . .” The process is buying and selling of that 

commodity. Both actions are independent of the other, but both aspects have, “intrinsic 

oneness express(ed) itself in an external antithesis.” 

Marx defines crisis as, “if two things, which have an inner connection with each other, 

make themselves externally independent of each other, so that their inner connection must be 

reasserted violently.” The actual crisis is caused by the stoppage in the link between buying 

and selling. 

When a money purchaser of commodities chooses not to purchase a commodity, that individual 

causes the crisis. Consequently, the seller of the commodity is stuck with something 

they can neither use nor need. If the seller cannot exchange his/her commodity for money, 

the seller cannot purchase someone’s commodity. The complete chain is broken, causing a 

crisis. 

Next Message by Broker is [333.2]. 

Question 282 is 272 in 1997sp, 272 in 1998WI, 299 in 2000fa, 318 in 2001fa, 345 in 

2002fa, 360 in 2003fa, 401 in 2004fa, 420 in 2008fa, 472 in 2010fa, 473 in 2011fa, and 

494 in 2012fa: 

Question 282 When does gold function as money as distinct from its function as measure of 

value or means of circulation? 

[154] Yikes: question 282 If we look back at the universal equivalent form we understand 

that any commodity can take the place of the universal equivalent but, it must be a 

commodity. 

This is how gold which is now considered by society to be “money” functioning as the 

measure of value and medium of exchange can also function as a commodity in its “simple 

metallic presence”. Gold is a commodity like other commodities. It was not always the 

universal equivalent and has a use-value that makes it a commodity. Gold could be used in 

artwork, building, and as jewelry used in this manner it is acting like other commodities, 

even though it is considered “money” by society. 

Hans: You answered the question: “When does gold function as money as distinct from its function as a use 

value”? This is not what is asked, and this is also not what is discussed in the Annotations where this Question is 

placed. 

Hans: This is a grade change. I re-read your message and thought I had graded it soo severely. Sorry about that. 

Message [154] referenced by [161], [163], and [172]. Next Message by Yikes is [181]. 

[161] Doc: Uses of money I think that Yikes [154] does a good job in describing gold 

in its function of money distinct from measure of value or means of circulation but I think 

Marx goes a little deeper in his explanation of this philosophy. 

Yikes discusses the commodity value of gold through use in artwork, construction, and 

building jewelry. It also receives value by being a commodity that is hard to find and is in 

short supply. Paper money is only symbolically representative of gold and equals the same 

value in gold.


Marx also talks about how the gold functions as money when it is in its own golden 

person. In this state it is not representative of measure of value or means of circulation. It 

is then representative of its own commodity. It becomes an individual unit of value, which 

Marx says is the only acceptable use of exchange value, as opposed to its use value where it 

is used as a medium of exchange 

Message [161] referenced by [163] and [172]. Next Message by Doc is [234]. 

[163] Navin: The King Commodity Gold is a commodity and has a separate use value. 

Yikes [154] and Doc [161] do a nice job showing this point. Other than its use value gold 

acts as the money form in the society Marx is discussing. In its role as the money form it acts 

as a function of measure or a means of circulating commodities. At times gold functions “as 

money distinct from its function as measure of value or means of circulation.” This is when 

money becomes the king commodity. 

This king commodity assumes the “emergence” from its other roles when it becomes 

the only “form of existence of an exchange value.” Where money existed only to facilitate 

exchanges it now becomes the sole purpose of exchange. This is very rampant in the society 

we live in. One does not have to look far to find it. 


[170] Josef: Gold, Hoarding, and the Carpenter I agree with Navin [163] that gold 

“emerges” from its function as a measure of value or means of circulation into something 

greater, even the king commodity. I’d like to illustrate this point a little clearer with an 

example. 

Consider the carpenter that makes desks. He sells his desks for money to buy the commodities 

he needs. He sees purchasing power that the money has and desires to have more. 

He makes more desks to get more gold. He enjoys the extra gold so much that he hires 

workers to maximize his gold. 

When the gold becomes more important than the commodities you can buy with gold is 

when “this change of form becomes and end in itself.” [227:3/o] 

Message [170] referenced by [172] and [173]. Next Message by Josef is [192]. 

[172] Hans: When does money function as money? Marx writes in 227:1; V227:1: 

[Gold] functions as money ... when it has to appear in person as gold. 

And in Contribution he writes something very similar: 

in its simple metallic presence gold is money and money real gold. 

Yikes [154] draws the conclusion from this that gold functions as money whenever it is 

used as the use value gold. This is a misunderstanding. If gold is used in artwork etc, then it 

does not function as money, even if the gold standard prevails and gold is indeed money. 

Money functions as money whenever it functions as the embodiment of abstract wealth. 

In this case, gold cannot be replaced by a representative as in the means of circulation, but 

the real thing is required, because something is needed which is indeed part of the social 

wealth. 


Doc [161] draws attention to the fact that gold is value, and therefore he is moving in 

the right direction, but he does not say it clearly enough, and he does not stay in Marx’s 

paradigm since he does not separate use value and value, and he derives value from scarcity 

instead of labor: 

It also receives value by being a commodity that is hard to find and is in 

short supply. 

And “acceptable use” is not a good synonym for “adequate form of existence” in the 

following sentence: 

It becomes an individual unit of value, which Marx says is the only acceptable 

use of exchange value. 

Marx calls money the adequate form of existence of exchange value because money is 

exchange value which is not tied to a particular use value, but which can be converted into 

any use value at will. 

Navin [163] gives a good discussion of the role of money as money, and Josef [170] gives 

a good example where money functions as money instead of means of circulation: when 

someone sells not in order to purchase again but when 

gold becomes more important than the commodities you can buy with gold. 


Question 284 is 320 in 2001fa, 349 in 2002fa, 364 in 2003fa, 424 in 2008SP, 426 in 

2008fa, and 482 in 2011fa: 

Question 284 What is the relation between Marx’s theory of a miser and Keynes’s “paradox 

of thrift”? 

[168] Maktub: misers and thrifties If people decide to save more they become more 

thrifty. This means that they decide to save more at each level of income. If people become 

more thrifty, they consume less at each level of expected income. Keynes’s paradox of thrift 

predicts that total savings will remain the same and income will decline. This theory implies 

that savings will hurt the economy because of the lack of spending. 

Marx’s theory of the miser corresponds to hoarding. Hoarding is the desire of some 

individual to accumulate as much “money” as he can, at the expense of owning commodities. 

In other words, a hoader or miser sells commodites not to receive money to buy other 

commodites, but for the sole purpose of receiving money. Marx believes that hoards are 

an example of the further development of commodity production, and as society becomes 

more efficient, hoards are created and used, when necessary, as reserves. Marx believes that 

hoarding is good, or necessary for the society. 

The relation between these two theories is that they both are centered around savings. 

Keynes theory states that savings, or hoarding in Marxian terms, is bad for society because 

it throws it out of equilibrium if savings rise. Marx’s theory implies that hoarding is necessary. 

As a society develops, “His (producer) wants are constantly making themselves felt, 

and necessitate the continual purchase of other people’s commodities, while the production


and sale of his own goods require time, and depend upon circumstances” (C141:2-142:1). 

Hoarding becomes necessary as the desire for material wealth accumulates. 

Regardless of the outcome of hoarding or savings, the underlying similarities between 

the two theories that that no matter what society you live in, “it is the driving force behind 

the miser, it is also the driving force behind the capitalist” (Ehrbar p.115). 

Message [168] referenced by [171], [173], and [2002fa:163]. Next Message by Maktub is [229]. 

[171] Karlito: misers and thrifties Maktub [168] does an excellent job of identifying 

both Marx’s theory of a miser and Keynes’ “paradox of thrift.” His relation between these 

two theories is also strong, but I feel that there is a bit more to this relationship: 

It is clear that savings is the main similarity between the two theories. But, the difference 

lies within the attitude of the saver/miser. The saver does so as a means of protection for 

future emergencies and/or consumption. The miser hoards his money not for emergencies 

or consumption, but for wealth and power (social). 

I believe that both Marx and Keynes are correct, when attitude is considered. When a 

saver holds onto his money until a rainy day, the economy is thrown out of whack, and 

this lack of spending will be detrimental (Savings will not equal Investment). However, as 

Brutal points out in his side note [167], people are running around trying to get rich. With 

this attitude, hoarding is beneficial. For example, in capitalism, hoarding is key to economic 

growth. In order to offset the loss of money liquidity when capital is compiled (hoarded), 

production is enhanced. The capitalist has no choice but to sell his good in less developed 

markets because everyone in his home market is hoarding. Therefore, as he exploits the less 

developed markets, he is selling and not buying...and increasing his hoard. As capitalists 

run around and get rich (at the expense of either the less developed markets or the working 

class), we see that hoarding is actually helping the economy. Marx considers the capitalists 

to be the modern misers!! 

Message [171] referenced by [173]. Next Message by Karlito is [194]. 

[173] Hans: Keynesian Thrift versus Marx’s Miser Maktub [168] says: According to 

Keynes, saving is bad because it leads to lower output, while according to Marx, saving is 

good because hoards are necessary for circulation. 

There are many differences between the theory of the miser and the paradox of thrift, but 

if you want to condense them in a nutshell the above difference will not do. Hoards, i.e., 

cash balances, are necessary for circulation even today, but nowadays they are no longer held 

as gold coins in the mattress, but the banking system pools the hoards for everyone. Therefore 

hoards are relatively smaller and less conspicuous today. If more money is needed for 

circulation, for instance during Christmas season, the central bank issues this extra money, 

knowing that most of it has flown back by January 15. 

Karlito [171] brings an interesting additional thought: 

The difference lies within the attitude of the saver/miser. The saver does so 

as a means of protection for future emergencies and/or consumption. The 

miser hoards his money not for emergencies or consumption, but for wealth 

and power (social). 


This addresses an important difference between modern mainstream economics and Marx. 

Mainstream economics argues: since money has no use value itself, all its use value lies in 

the things it can buy. Therefore if people hold money, they do it because of the things money 

can buy. This is a “reductionist” argument, since money is reduced to the things it can buy. 

Marx says people hold money for its own sake, as Josef wrote in [170], money is more important 

than the commodities you can buy with it. Keynes, in fact, also knew that money is 

more important than the goods you can buy with it, he attributed it to the higher liquidity 

of money. Patinkin and others have elaborated this argument later. This is an explanation 

through the technicalities of the circulation process, i.e., still a more superficial explanation 

than Marx’s. 

In my view, Keynes’s paradox of thrift is, on a macroeconomic level, an expression of 

the same contradiction in money which on a micro level leads to the miser. But Keynes 

sees it as an expression of the irrationality of individuals. He thinks individuals are naturally 

too cautious, and all this caution is not needed on a social level. This is not a critique of 

the capitalist system but a critique of the behavior of individuals in this system, and fiscal 

policies can remedy it. Marx, on the other hand, sees it as an irrationality built into the 

structure of the economy itself. It cannot be remedied by fiscal policy but it can only be 

remedied by going over to a different social organization of production. 



2002fa, 365 in 2003fa, 427 in 2008fa, 443 in 2009fa, and 505 in 2012fa: 

Question 285 Describe the inner contradiction of monetary abstract wealth which determine 

the goals of a miser, and the ridiculous contradiction of the means by which he is trying 

to reach this goal. 

[167] Brutal: Contradictions The inner contradiction of monetary abstract wealth is 

a contradiction between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of money. Qualitatively 

money has infinite value because it is convertible into any other commodity. Marx puts 

it this way, “Qualitatively or formally considered, money has no bounds: it is the universal 

representative of material wealth because it is directly convertible into any other commodity” 

(Annotations p. 115). However, there is always an upper limit to the amount of money 

one can have. This limit constrains what one can buy with the money they have. Marx 

explains very well how this contradiction drives the miser to continue hoarding (increased 

accumulation being his goal), “The contradiction between the quantitative limitation and 

the qualitative unboundedness of money drives the hoarder and again back to his Sisyphean 

task: accumulation” (Annotations p. 115). 

In order for a miser to reach his goal of increasing his wealth in the form of money he 

must sell more than he purchases. The “ridiculous contradiction” in striving for his goal 

is that in order to get rich the miser must consume less, or in Hans’ words “has to make 

himself poor in order to get rich” (Annotations p. 115). Marx also makes a great statement 

on this point when he says, “Work, thrift and greed are therefore his three cardinal virtues, 

and to sell much and buy little is the sum of his political economy” (C144:1;231:1). Which


reiterates the point that the miser must produce and sell more than he buys in order to be 

“rich.” 

If I can simply add an aside (ug), it seems in our society today that many people are 

running around trying to get rich by earning more money. However, they forget about the 

other side of the equation (wealth=earnings-spendings) and increase their spending at the 

same rate as they increase their income. This adds an additional peculiarity to the situation 

because their goal of “getting rich” is not only ultimately unattainable (since purchasing 

power always has an upper limit), but since they never seem to increase their wealth they 

are disappointed and do not even enjoy their increased consumption. It seems this issue has 

come up in class before and fits in very well with this question. Does anyone have addition 

thoughts on this matter? 

Hans: Very good, I am glad you said this. Regarding your last paragraph I am not so sure: are you advocating that 

people should be more miserly? 

Brutal: No, just making an observation and trying to see if anyone else has noticed this current phenomenon. 

Message [167] referenced by [171] and [2001fa:434]. Next Message by Brutal is [214]. 


2002fa, 367 in 2003fa, 409 in 2004fa, 417 in 2007SP, 420 in 2007fa, and 427 in 2008SP: 

Question 287 Explain how, by the circumstances of commodity circulation, buyers and 

sellers may develop into debtors and creditors, and give examples. 

[153] PowderNow: creditors and debtors In chapter three, Marx talks about the sale of 

a commodity which consists of the exchange of the commodity for money. The seller may 

accept in place of money itself, the promise of the purchaser to pay in the future. The seller 

now extends credit to the buyer and they enter a new relation where the seller becomes the 

creditor and the buyer the debtor. This relation between creditor and debtor is due to the time 

inconsistency of payments. The seller and buyer will have this relation until the promise to 

pay is fulfilled. 

For example, I want to buy a big screen television for my apartment. But the price from 

the seller at the local retail store is above what I have to pay. The seller or store may be 

willing to accept my purchase of the t.v. because I have agreed to make future payments. So 

the retail store now extends credit to me as the creditor and I am now the debtor. If the retail 

store does not enter into the creditor/debtor relationship, they might not be able to sell many 

big screen television sets. I owe the store money and will stay in this relationship until the 

television is paid in full. 

Hans: In your example credit is extended because it is a long-lived consumer good and the buyer would not have 

enough money to buy the thing if he or she had to pay it all at once. This is good but it is not the only example. There 

are other situations, in which commodity circulation leads to the formation of debtors and creditors for different 

reasons. 

Message [153] referenced by [157] and [160]. Next Message by PowderNow is [189]. 

[159] Cartman: Powder now first responded to this question, and I feel that they did a 

very good job. 

However, I also feel that something important could be added that was asked in the original 

question. It asks to explain how, by the circumstances of commodity circulation, this 

change from buyers and sellers results in debtors and creditors. 


Marx says that certain conditions arise due to simple circulation. These conditions arise 

because of an interval of time that separates commodities and the realisation of their prices. 

This interval is caused by differing times of production between two commodities. It takes 

longer to build a house than to make a car. For this reason, the producer of the car may be 

ready to buy before the house builder is ready to sell. 

I feel that what Marx is saying here is that due to this difference in commodities prices, 

because of the interval of time, buyers and sellers have to change their roles to creditors and 

debtors. This change is necessary in order to maintain the exchange of commodities. The 

buyer of the house does not have the exact amount needed to purchase the house, so the 

seller becomes his creditor as powder now explained. The purchaser is in fact buying the 

house before he pays for it. And, he does not receive his use value until after the debt is 

payed in full. By the creation of these new roles for the buyer and seller, circulation can 

continue due to the concept of future money which is used by the buyer/debtor. 

Hans: Very good. You say: 

He does not receive his use value until after the debt is paid in full. 

This is true in some cases, and not always. If someone buys a house on a mortgage, he or she will get the use value 

of the house before the debt is paid in full. But a renter must pay the rent at the beginning of the month. They have 

to pay before they get the use value of the house. 

Message [159] referenced by [165]. Next Message by Cartman is [178]. 

[165] PumpkinStar: In debt? Not necessarily a bad thing... Once the relationship of 

the buyer and seller turn into the creditor and debtor, the function of money changes. It no 

longer is equivalent with the commodity, rather it now serves 2 functions: “first as a measure 

of value in the determination of the price of the commodity sold...secondly, as a nominal 

means of purchase” [234:1] So unlike the buyer-seller relationship, the means of payment 

no longer dictate the exchange of commodities. Only with the promise of payment, the 

commodity exchanges hands before payment has begun. I believe PowderNow [159] gives 

his example of purchasing a TV through credit in an attempt to visualize Marx’s concept of 

this relationship. 

A point PowderNow forgot to mention is that this creditor and debtor relationship cannot 

function without an exchange in roles. In Marx’s example, A pays B, who turns to C to pay 

off his debts, and subsequently, C repays his debts to A. This “retarded first metamorphosis” 

is unique to the creditor and debtor relationship, and the creditor and debtor switch roles: 

“The buyer converts money back into commodities before he has turned commodities 

into money...he achieved she second metamorphosis of commodities before the first. The 

seller’s commodity circulates, and realizes its prices, but only as a title to money in civil 

law...the completion of its first metamorphosis occurs only subsequently” (V234:24) 

The creditor and debtor relationship eliminates money as a means of payment that mediates 

the exchange. Now, money becomes an independent factor which is no longer the 

Money form (a universal equivalent), but returns to the Universal form (a commodity that 

can be exchanged for other commodities, but has no socially accepted universal equivalent) 

and represents the exchange-value of the commodities. 

Hans: You are summarizing some of the things Marx wrote about the function of money as means of payment. 

I would not say that PowderNow “forgot to mention” these points, because the points you make no longer help 

clarify how the roles of debtor and creditor are necessitated by the requirements of simple circulation, which was


the topic of Question 287. Rather, they are an answer to the question how the functions of money change in the 

modified sale compared to a cash-based C-M-C. 

The summary itself is ok except your last paragraph where you seem to have mis-interpreted some of Marx’s 

formulations. 

Next Message by PumpkinStar is [212]. 


2001fa, 369 in 2003fa, 419 in 2007SP, and 511 in 2012fa: 

Question 289 Explain how in the modified sale, in which the payment of money takes place 

a certain time after the commodity has changed hands, money first functions as measure of 

value, then as means of purchase, then as money. 

[157] Maverick: Modified Sale In order to illustrate the different phases of the modified 

sale, I will use PowderNow’s creditor/debtor example in [153]. A buyer who wishes to own 

a big screen TV, but doesn’t have sufficient money to pay up front, can become a debtor 

by promising to make future payments. By extending credit to the buyer, the seller of the 

TV becomes the creditor and can regain possession of the TV if the payments are not made. 

This is a great example of the modified sale. 

In V232:1 Marx describes the value in commodity circulation as possessing a double 

shape. The value presents itself at one pole as a commodity and at the other as money. 

During the process of a normal sale these two equivalents appear simultaneously. The buyer 

of the TV, already having sold his commodity and having received money in exchange, 

approaches the seller. The seller gives him the TV in exchange for the money. 

The modified sale functions differently in that the two poles don’t appear simultaneously 

during the sale. During the first phase money appears as the measure of value. The measure 

of value is reflected in the price of the TV and the buyer is made aware of the amount of 

money required to own it. In the second phase, money acts as means of purchase. Here, the 

buyer actually buys the TV before paying for it. The seller agrees to these terms only because 

the buyer promises to make future payments. In the final phase, the money functions 

as money. Months after the TV was taken out of circulation, payment is due. Money in its 

bodily form is given to the seller and the modified sale is finalized. In V235:3 Marx descibes 

money in this situation as the “individual incarnation of social labor, the independent 

presence of exchange-value, the universal commodity.” 

We can see through this process of the modified sale how money ceases to be a means to 

an end and is transformed into the end purpose of the sale. The seller must convert his TV 

into money in order to satisfy his needs. The debtor must do the same with his commodity in 

order to make payments on the TV and finally the hoarder will sell his commodity in order 

to hold its money form. 


Message [157] referenced by [160], [338.1], [355.1], and [405.8]. Next Message by Maverick is [179]. 

[338.1] Brutal: Functions of Money Maverick [157] does a great job answering this 

question and should get credit for helping me understand this question and its answer. My 

answer is very similar because I don’t know how to explain it any better. To simplify matters 

I will use the TV to represent the commodity purchased in this modified sale. 


In the modified sale money first functions as a measure of value in the price of the TV. 

The buyer of the TV is made aware of the amount of money he would need to pay in order 

to own it. Once the buyer agrees to pay that price and the seller agrees to receive payment 

at a specified future date(s), possession of the TV changes from the seller’s to the buyer’s 

hands. In this second step money has functioned as a means of purchase, even though it 

was not physically present in the exchange. Since the transaction has already been made, 

the future payment(s) for the TV represents a transfer of wealth from the buyer to the seller. 

Since money represents abstract social wealth in this final step, money functions as money 

when the payment(s) is made. 

Next Message by Brutal is [339.1]. 

[342.2] Maverick: The different phases of the modified sale can be illustrated by using 

the creditor/debtor example. It is PowderNow who came up with the following example. A 

buyer who wishes to own a big screen TV, but doesn’t have sufficient money to pay up front, 

can become a debtor by promising to make future payments on the TV. By extending credit 

to the buyer, the seller of the television becomes the creditor. 

During a normal sale, value possesses a double shape, presenting itself as a commodity 

at one pole and money at the other. The buyer of the TV, already having sold his commodity 

and having received money in exchange, approaches the seller. The seller gives him the TV 

in exchange for the money. 

The modified sale functions differently in that the two poles don’t appear simultaneously 

during the sale. During the first phase money appears as the measure of value. The measure 

of value is reflected in the price of the TV and the buyer is made aware of the amount of 

money required to own it. Money acts as means of purchase in the second phase. Here, the 

buyer actually buys the TV before paying for it. The seller agrees to these terms only because 

the buyer promises to make future payments. In the final phase, money functions as money. 

Months after the TV was taken out of circulation, payment is due. Money in its bodily form 

is given to the seller and the modified sale is finalized. In V235:3 Marx describes money 

in this situation as the “individual incarnation of social labor, the independent presence of 

exchange value, the universal commodity.” 

It is apparent through the process of the modified sale how money ceases to be a means 

to an end and is transformed into the end purpose of the sale. The seller must convert his TV 

into money in order to satisfy his needs. The debtor must do the same with his commodity in 

order to make payments on the TV and finally the hoarder will sell his commodity in order 

to hold its value in the form of money. 

Message [342-2] referenced by [2001fa:222]. Next Message by Maverick is [364]. 

[346.3] Pobeda: Let’s use the example of a person buying a T.V. Money first functions 

as a measure of value because the buyer must know the price, which is the value of the T.V. 

expressed in the money form. Next, as a means of purchase because the T.V. changes hands. 

Finally, money functions as money when payments are made months down the road. 

Hans: I would have liked a better explanation of the second point. 

Next Message by Pobeda is [346.4]. 

[354.1] Zeek: A person seeks to purchase a commodity on credit can do so in a modified 

sale. A person may buy a commodity now and pay for it later is the modified sale. Marx


describes value of an item as money as well as the commodity. The price of the commodity 

is the first phase as money measures the value of the item. Secondly, the purchase takes 

place and the person return home with the commodity with a promise or contract to pay the 

money owed. The final phase is complete when the money for the commmodity exchanges 

hand and both parties are satisfied. Phases two and three represent money as the means of 

purchase and money functioning as money. 

I purchased my car this way, first, by shopping prices. I then at a resonable price purchased 

by car with a contract to pay the seller later. Meanwhile I was utilizing the commodity 

or use-value that I had purchased without completing the transaction. I then three years later 

completed the transaction by paying off all my debt to the seller. Money represented the 

value or measure of, then the measure of purchase and finally as money itself as the debt 

was payed off. 

Next Message by Zeek is [354.3]. 

[355.1] Angus: Transfer of Wealth In a modified sale, payment for the commodity takes 

place after the commodity has already been transferred to the purchaser. For instance, Maverick 

in [157] uses the example of how a television can be purchased on credit; therefore 

payment for the television is not actually received until a later date. This example demonstrates 

the three different phases money goes through in a modified sale. First, the money 

functions as a measure of value by determining the price of the television. (Price is the expression 

of the value of the commodity in money.) Second, money functions as a means of 

purchase by allowing the customer to take the television home. (Assuming credit is a socially 

accepted means of payment.) Finally, money functions as money when the customer 

pays the capitalist salesman back for the television when the terms of the credit are reached, 

or in other words when the money is due. 

Since the transfer has already happened, the use value of the television has already been 

transferred to the purchaser. At the due date it is no longer an exchange, it is simply a transfer 

of wealth. According to Hans, ‘money functions as money whenever it is the independent 

embodiment of social wealth’, and (according to Hans) money functions as money during a 

modified sale when the settlement of debt is a transfer of wealth. 

Next Message by Angus is [407]. 

[365.2] Maktub: The modified sale is different from the normal or traditional exchange 

between a buyer and a seller. In the modified form, the buyer agrees to take on the role 

of a debtor, while the seller becomes a creditor. This way, the buyer doesn’t rely on the 

exchange of his commodities into money in order for him to buy what has use-value to him. 

He buys something, say a chair, and agrees to pay for it later. The buyer now has the task 

of exchanging his non use-value commodites into money so he can pay the creditor for the 

chair. The system of C-M-C, in a way, becomes altered. You still have the first C, but it isn’t 

necessary to exchange it for money to be able to purchase a commodity with use value. You 

attain the last C before you have the money to pay for it. 

Money functions as a measure of value. By this I mean that “money appears as a measure 

of value” (Maverick, 157). This appears as the price of something, a chair. It is the required 

amount of money that is necessary to own the chair. 


Money functions as a means of purchase. You buy the chair, at the agreed upon value, but 

because we are talking about the modified sale, which consists of credit and debt, you don’t 

give the seller money at the time of purchase, you agree to make payments for the chair. 

Money serves as money when you actually give money to the creditor and pay for the 

chair. With this transaction is complete, or when the buyer has paid for the total value of 

the chair in money, the buyer now owns the chair in it’s entirety and the transaction between 

buyer and seller is finally complete. 


[379.2] PowderNow: The seller may accept in place of money itself, the promise of 

the buyer to pay in the future. The seller now extends credit to the buyer and they enter a 

new relation where the seller becomes the creditor and the buyer the debtor. The relation is 

because of time inconsistency of payments and they will have this relation until the promise 

to pay is fulfilled. This is an example of a modified sale where the payment of money takes 

place a certain time after the commodity has changed hands. 

Money functions in three ways in a modified sale. During the first phase, money appears 

as the measure of value. The value is reflected in the price of the commodity (say a TV) 

and the buyer now knows how much money it will take to own the TV. In the second phase, 

money acts as a means of purchase. The buyer purchases the TV before paying for it because 

of the promise to pay in the future. In the third phase, money functions as money. A given 

time period has passed and the payment is due. Money is now given or the final amount is 

given to the seller. This completes the modified sale. The money was transformed into the 

end purpose of the sale. 

First Message by PowderNow is [27]. 

[380.6] Hobart: In the modified sale, money serves different functions. The modified sale 

refers to the fact that the payment of money does not actually take place when the commodity 

is received by the buyer from the seller, but the money is paid at a later time. 

Money, is the modified sale first serves as the measure of value. This refers to the fact 

that the money represents that amount to be paid for a particular commodity. This amount is 

agreed upon by both buyer and seller. The buyer is then contractually obligated to pay this 

amount. 

Money then serves as the means of purchase. This refers to the fact that the money is 

promised to be paid to the seller for the commodity, at first, and then it (money) is transferred 

from the buyer to the seller. 

Money then serves as money, or as the absolute form of existence of exchange value, i.e., 

as the universal commodity. This happens when the money enters back into circulation. 

Next Message by Hobart is [381]. 

[382.1] Jedi: In a modified sale, money first functions as measure of value by giving a 

price to the commodity being sold. When the buyer agrees to the asked value and promises 

future payment to the seller in exchange for the commodity, that’s when money functions as 

means of payment. Once payment is complete and actual money changes hands from buyer 

to seller, money acts as money. 

Next Message by Jedi is [382.2].


[383.3] Quake: First money functions as a measure of value as the commodity is labeled 

with a price that represents the measure of the commodities value in money. It is acting 

as a common measure by which we can relatively assess commodities on the market when 

considering a purchase. 

Secondly, money functions as a means of purchase as a price is agreed upon, (either 

the stated price or a negotiated price), and money will act as the means to purchase the 

commodity. Contractually, money is promised or given in part with a promise to complete 

payment(s) later. Credit is extended to the buyer who is buying the product before actually 

paying for it. 

Lastly, money functions as money when compensation is given, (at a later date), in money 

payments to the seller/creditor to finalize the sale. 

Next Message by Quake is [442]. 

[387.1] JoeHill: In the modified sale money functions in three distinct ways. First, money 

as a measure of value. For example, say a merchant offers a freezer for sale. He determines 

a price he believes the market will bear. The buyer considers this price and decides it is a 

fair measure of the value of the freezer. At this stage no money has changed hands, it is used 

only as a reference. The second stage, money functions as a means of purchase. At this stage 

the merchant agrees to release the freezer in exchange for a promise to pay in full at a later 

date. This is a contractual agreement that if the buyer breaks the seller can repossess the 

freezer. At this point still no money has changed hands, it has only enabled the exchanged 

via the contract. The third stage of money functions as a means of payment. In this stage, 

long after the freezer has been purchased, the debt is paid in full and actual wealth changes 

hands. Money is no longer a means to an end but becomes an ends in itself. Here money 

functions as money because it “is the independent embodiment of social wealth.” 

Next Message by JoeHill is [393.2]. 

[389.3] Boarder: Marx talks about the English traders in the 18th Century. He discusses 

the relations between debtors and creditors. He uses the example of how the plebian debtors 

in Rome turned into slaves. I think that Marx is not an advocate of debt. He continues by 

discussing the the feudal debtors, who lost their political power because of their debt. Hans 

says that, “money has much better things to do than mere circulation tasks, circulation gets 

in the way of money.” Along the same lines Marx talks about the English and their trading. 

He says that the English don’t want to pay for a shipment before they receive the goods and 

have a chance to inspect them. So there is a lag in the payment. Marx equates everything to 

some quantity of gold. Gold becomes the universal equivalent, ie 2 lbs gold=20 lbs of ore, 

or something like that, this is where value comes in. If we have 10 lbs of ore then the value 

of that ore is 1 lb in gold. Now that we have value out of the way we can buy things. If 

a given commodity is said to be worth 4 lbs of gold, then if I have 4 lbs of gold I can use 

it to purchase that particular commodity. Because of the lag we see with the English and 

their shipping to other countries, we can’t use the money as money until we have received it, 

furthermore, the money isn’t acting as money until it has changed hands. I could elaborate 

more on the trading and the lag, however, I feel that I covered it well in my first attempt at 

this question. 

Next Message by Boarder is [391.3]. 


[398.3] Hayduke: In a modified sale, the money first functions as a means of value, 

because the price of the commodity is expressed according to its value in terms of money. It 

then functions as a means of purchase when the debtor finally pays for it and the creditor cash 

for the item. Finally, it functions as money, because in the end, this money has unlimited 

qualitative value, i.e., it can be turned into any commodity, up to a certain value. This can be 

a use value commodity, in which case the purpose of the money ends as that product is used 

up. More likely, the money will seek to expand itself into more money, and the capitalist will 

advance it somewhere and let it keep growing. In this way the money never settles, because 

money acting like money seeks to constantly expand its quantitative value along with the 

qualitative value. 

Hans: You are confused about the second step. It should read: 

Money then functions as a means of purchase when the buyer obligates himself to pay a certain 

sum of money in the future and received the commodity in return for this promise. 

And you did not quite understand why money acts as money in the third step: it is no longer means of purchase, 

because the commodity has already changed hands; It is a transfer of wealth from buyer to seller in order to 

extinguish the debt previously incurred. 

Next Message by Hayduke is [398.4]. 

[398.8] Merlin: In a modified sale, money first functions a measure of value through the 

price of the commodity. The price is an expression of the value of the commodity through 

money. Money then functions as a means of purchase because the buyer agrees to pay 

the seller the price of the commodity in order to purchase the commodity. The modified 

sale is not a direct and immediate exchange since the buyer agrees to pay the seller for 

the commodity at a later time. Money finally functions as money when the seller actually 

receives the money in its physical form, promised by the buyer. 

Next Message by Merlin is [402]. 

[404.1] Henrix: If a person wants to buy himself a new car, but does not have all the money 

to pay for the car right away, he can get financing on the purchase and make payments in 

the future instead. Money functions as a measure of value when the price of the car is given. 

Contrary to what I wrote in my exam, money do not function as a means of purchase when 

the buyer is making his payments, but when the contract is written and he agrees to make the 

future payments. Money functions as money when they actually are received by the seller in 

its physical form. 


[405.8] Paul: In the modified sale, money has three different functions that it goes through 

during the process of the sale. The first function of money is as a measure of value that is 

socially acceptable. The second function is the actual means of purchase, i.e., the exchange 

between the consumer and the propietor of the commodity. The third and final function of 

money is in taking the role as money itself. 

The value of the commodity is expressed in terms of money so that both parties involved 

have a clear idea of what the value of the commodity is. Neither buyer nor seller would 

agree to the exchange without an accurate representation of the value of the commodity in 

terms agreeable by society as a whole. 

The second function of money is the means of purchase. Once the commodity has been 

approved by the buyer, money is used to make a payment(s) to the seller. For example,


overseas, it is impossible for both parties to meet in order to approve the transaction. The 

goods then are usually sent first, once received, a payment is later made to the original owner 

of the commodity. Thus, neither need to be physically present for the exchange. 

Finally, the third stage of money is as money itself. The modified sale is a credit exchange, 

so the buyer can purchase a commodity without having the money on hand. “The 

original propietor will receive a payment after the commodity has been taken out of circulation.” 

Installment 2 Maverick [157]. Money itself has become a commodity allowing for 

exchanges without both physically present. 


[405.11] Winston: In the normal sale value has two poles, one where value is presented 

as the commodity and the other where value is presented as money. The modified sale is 

different than the normal sale because these two poles do not appear simultaneously. In the 

modified sale first money functions as the measure of value because it is reflected in the price 

of the commodity. In the next stage money functions as a means of purchase because the 

buyer is buying the commodity before it is paid for. This is accomplished because the buyer 

promises to make future payments to the seller. In the last stage money functions as money 

because buyer makes payments in the form of money to the seller. Through the modified sell 

money ceases to be a means to an end and is transformed into the end purpose of the sale. 


[405.2] Maine: In the modified sale, money first functions as a measure of value and a 

means of purchase before it functions simply as money. 

First money functions as a measure of value. At this stage the buyer, in money terms, 

learns the price of the item to be purchased. In the second stage money becomes a means of 

purchase. The buyer promises to pay at a later date, but takes possession of the item. At this 

stage the buyer becomes a debtor, and the seller becomes a creditor. Finally, money serves 

as money. The buyer pays in full for his purchase with money. This completes the modified 

sale. 


[413.1] RfBurner: In a modified sale money serves three functions. The first function is: 

money acts as a measure of value. Value is determined by the amount of labor power used 

to produce a commodity. To trade a commodity, money of an equal amount to the value 

of the commodity is traded. The commodity has a price equal to its value that can be paid 

in money. This means that money merely represents the value of the commodity; therefore 

money is acting as a measure of value. 

The second function of money is that it is the means of purchase. The buyer has to 

exchange an amount of money equal in the price of the commodity to make the purchase 

of the commodity. Once the money and commodity have been exchanged the purchase is 

complete. The commodity is the property of the purchaser while the seller gets money in 

exchange. At this point money is now functioning as a means of purchase. A commodity 

can be purchased with money. 

Finally money functions as money. Money functions as money when money has become 

more important that the commodity. The amount of money received by the seller should be 

equal to the value of the commodity. So the money should not be more important than the 


commodity. When the seller gets the money as uses the money to make more money, and 

the sellers intention is to continue making more money. At this point money has become 

more important than the commodity. When money becomes more important than the commodity 

then that means that money is funtioning like money. As we can see money has three 

functions in a modified sale. 

Hans: The sentence “To trade a commodity, money of an equal amount to the value of the commodity is traded” 

should not be in your first paragraph, but in the second. This is money as means of purchase. In order to describe 

the function of money as measure of value, you should say something like: “In order to exchange the commodities, 

the traders must agree on a price. For this they use money as a measure of value.” 

You don’t understand what is meant by “modified sale.” This is a sale on credit, in which the money is paid 

after the goods are delivered. 


Question 290 is 272 in 1997ut and 370 in 2003fa: 

Question 290 Why does money function as money when it functions as means of payment? 

Why does it not function as money when it functions as a means of purchase or measure of 

value? 

[160] Quake: money as money This answer could be a near copy of Mavericks response, 

[157], to question 289. The questions are nearly identical. 

Using the same examples as [157] and PowderNow’s [153], the big screen TV is in question. 

Money functions as money when it is physically exchanged. When money is given as 

payment for the commodity in question. This is the only time money actually functions as 

true money. 

Money does not function as money when it is observed on a price tag or invoice. At this 

point money is simply the stated value of the TV, as determined by the seller. The buyer 

evaluates this price in terms of money, and makes a decision to purchase the TV based on 

this price. Money was only observed here as a stated or required exchange value for the 

opportunity to own the TV, but money was not functioning in an exchange. 

Money also does not function as money when the TV is purchased, especially in the 

modified sale where the purchase is only an agreement to pay for the TV, (with money functioning 

as money), at some later time. Money now is functioning as a contractual agreement 

for purchase based on the agreed upon exchange value of the TV and the debtors willingness 

to pay actual money. This credited money acts as an agent for purchase, but not for immediate 

payment, so only a portion of the transaction is completed at the time of purchase. 

Message [160] referenced by [174]. Next Message by Quake is [205]. 

[174] Hans: What does it mean that money functions as money? According to his 

answer [160], Quake thinks that money functions as money in all those functions in which it 

must be physically present. When it is measure of value it does not function as money since 

gold need not be present for someone to put a price tag on his or her commodity. Also in the 

modified sale, in which a promise to pay causes things to change hands, money need not be 

physically present. But Quake’s recipe does not explain why money that functions as means 

of circulation in a cash sale does not function as money, because in a cash sale the money 

must indeed be present.


A better recipe is: money functions as money whenever it is the independent embodiment 

of social wealth. When it is means of circulation in a cash sale, it is just a transitory stage 

in the metamorphosis C-M-C: people are selling their own commodity (nowadays usually 

labor power) in order to get other commodities, and money is only an intermediary in this 

process which only lasts a short time. Here money is not the indepenent embodiment of 

social wealth. At Marx’s time, people did not care whether these payments were made in 

full-weighted gold coins, or in worthless paper money, since they were holding the money 

only for a short time anyway. 

Things are different when you are hoarding money: then the money form is no longer 

transitory and therefore people did care what form it was in and hoarded it in form of gold. 

When a payment is made in the modified sale, after the commodity has already changed 

hands, then it is also not an intermediary in the metamorphosis of commodities. The commodities 

have changed hands already. It is a concluding act in which debts are settled. This 

settlement of debts is a transfer of wealth, and here too, money functions as money. 

Message [174] referenced by [314], [383.10], [405.6], and [408.1]. Next Message by Hans is [175]. 

[349.1] Senco: Money functions as money when it functions as means of payment because 

“it is no longer an intermediate step in the circulation process, but an end in itself” (Hans 

[306] autumn 97 archive). The commodity takes on a subservient role to money, while 

money is considered a more real wealth than the commodities themselves (Hans Archives). 

Money does not function as money when it functions as a means of purchase or measure 

of value because “the merchant who puts a price tag on his commodity does not need to 

have money in his possession to do it” (Hans [306] Autumn 97 archive). Money performs a 

function “subservient to the commodities” (Hans Archives). 

Next Message by Senco is [366]. 

[383.10] Dragon: When money functions as money, the commodity is subservient to 

money. This means that money is the primary form of wealth when it functions as a means 

of payment. Money is not transitory in the metamorphosis of commodities because it is an 

independent embodiment of social wealth [174]. Money does not function as money when it 

functions as a means of purchase or measure of value because money becomes subservient 

to the commodity. Money does not function as money because it is money only temporarily. 

In the metamorphosis of C-M-C, money is just a transitory stage. Money is used in order 

to get other commodities. The commodity has greater emphasis and less emphasis is put on 

money. 

Next Message by Dragon is [383.11]. 

[383.2] Cartman: In the modified sale, money takes on three distinct forms that each 

serve there own specific role. First as the measure of value, then as the means of purchase, 

and finally as the means of payment. Each one of these roles is different in nature although 

on the surface they appear to be very similar. Money functions as money when it functions 

as means of payment, however, it does not function as money when it functions as a means 

of purchase or as a measure of value. 

First, lets look at money as a measure of value. In the modified sale, this is the first 

function that money serves. To function as a measure of value, money does not have to be 

physically present. No money changes hands at this time, as Marx says in Capital, money 


as a measure of value serves “in the determination of the price of the commodity sold; the 

price fixed by contract measures the obligation of the buyer, i.e. the sum of money he owes 

at a particular time.” (V233:2/0) 

Similarly to the first function of money, as the means of purchase, money is not physically 

present. It serves more like a promise from the buyer to deliver the agreed upon price at the 

time of the transaction. This could be when the commodity changes hands, or when the two 

parties have agreed that payment is due. The important aspect of this function of money is 

that it allows or actually causes the commodity to change hands. 

Finally, money as means of payment. This is where actual physical money enters the 

equation and functions “as the absolute form of existence of exchange value, i.e., as the 

universal commodity.” “in short, as money.”(Anno. pg.118) The difference between these 

three functions of money is quite simple. In the first two, money was merely a mediator 

of sorts, it only oversaw what was going on between the seller and the buyer. It served a 

necessary function, however, it was not physically present. In the third function, money 

becomes the focal point of the transaction. It is no longer a passive bystander, but an active, 

independent part of the equation. 

Hans: Very good explanation. 

Next Message by Cartman is [401.1]. 

[391.1] Bluto: Money functions as money in the form of means of payment because it 

is currently in motion or transit. The transitory nature of money works well with the fast 

pace of exchanges. Money does not function as means of purchase because money by itself 

is nothing, which does not work well in the final stages of exchange. The actual paper or 

coins do not equal the commodity in exchange, they only act in there behalf in the short run. 

Money can not function as a measure of value, only the social embodiment of labor time is 

a proper representation. 


[393.6] Guyote: Money functions as money when it functions as a means of payment 

because of the notion of exchange value. Whether or not that money is paper currency or a 

silver coin, money functioning as money means money functioning as a means of exchange. 

When money is functioning as an exchange, the money represents an exchange value. In this 

particular case money can be considered as an abstraction of social wealth. An abstraction 

which is, without a doubt, abstract, meaning that it has no tangible form. 

On the other hand, money does not function as money when it functions as a means of 

purchase or a measure of value. While this may seem to contradict the previous assertion, it 

does not. The distinction is due to the concept of the metamorphosis. The metamorphosis 

refers to the transformation of a commodity from; commodity - money - commodity, and so 

on. When the money is a means of purchase it is an abstract and un-tangible period of time, 

a brief period in which the money is virtually a non-entity in the process of exchange for 

the purchase of a good, commodity, or the like. Additionally, money does not function as 

money when it is functioning as a measure of value. In this regard, I would repeat the fact 

that the only value money has is that of exchange, not value or wealth. 

Hans: Please read the assigned text instead of philosophizing yourself. 

Next Message by Guyote is [394].


[401.3] Zed: Money funtions as money when it functions as a means of payment because 

the price of a commodity is its expressed value in money. It functions as money to give 

equal value to the person who the payment is being made to. Since the exchange must be 

made...Commodity for payment, and the commodity value is reflected in its price, money is 

functioning as a means of payment. 

When money is used as a means of purchase, it takes the role of a tool of exchange. As 

a measure of value, money functions more as an expression of value that is equal to the 

commodity you wish to purchase. Therefore it functions as an object that can be traded 

for the desired commodity whereas as a means of payment it functions more as the value 

reflecting price that takes the form of money. 

Next Message by Zed is [401.4]. 

[404.3] Luc: Money is money whenever it is the independent embodiment of social 

wealth. Money is the independent embodiment of social wealth in the three following examples: 

as a means of payment, or if you want to hoard it, or as world money. If money 

functions as means of payment, it is no longer an intermediate step in the circulation process, 

but an end itself (illustrated by the M-C-M form of circulation). Hoarders care about 

the form of money so they hoard it in form of gold, because gold cannot be devalued, it 

is value. In all three cases, “money counts in it’s own right, as the independent form of 

existence of exchange value, divorced from any use value.” (Hans, Installment: Fall 1997) 

On the other hand, money does not function as money when it functions as means of purchase, 

or measure of value. When money functions as measure of value it does not function 

as money, because the merchant, or shop owner, who puts the price tag on his commodities 

does not need to have any money in his possession to do it. In Marx time money was backed 

by gold, nowadays the central bank uses monetary policy to maintain a stable price level, 

therefore money does not have to be physically present when it functions as a measure of 

value. When money functions as a means of purchase it does not function as money, because 

it is a means to an end and is just a transitory stage in the metamorphosis C-M-C. People sell 

their own commodity (usually labor power) in order to get other commodities, “and money 

is only an intermediary in this process which only lasts a short time.” (Hans, Installment: 

Spring 1999) 

Hans: Very good, this is the right answer. 


[405.6] Sprockets: The Function of Money As Hans says in [174], “money functions 

as money whenever it is the independent embodiment of social wealth”. When the money is 

being used in a transaction as a means of payment, the money is, at that time, an “independent 

embodiment of social wealth”. It is the wealth that you are willing to give up in order 

to receive the commodity which you looking to purchase. 

Money does not function as money when it functions as a means of purchase or a measure 

of value for the same reason (Hans’ quote above). The money is in a form in which it is the 

connection between the person selling the commodity and the person doing the purchasing. 

Although sometimes present, the money is not functioning “as money”. 

Hans: Money functioning as means of purchase could also be considered 

“the wealth that you are willing to give up in order to receive the commodity which you 

looking to purchase.” 


nevertheless Marx does not consider this as a function of money as money. Usually, in a purchase money is only 

the intermediary between the commodity which you are selling (labor power) and the commodities which you are 

buying. 

Next Message by Sprockets is [405.9]. 

[408.1] Navin: Money functions as money whenever it is the independent embodiment 

of social wealth. Money, when used as the means of a purchase, acts in such a way to 

facilitate exchanges. That is to say it circulates commodities in a market. The pattern is C- 

M-C. People make their goods and take them to the market to exchange them for money to 

purchase the goods they need. In this way money is not the independent embodiment of the 

social form of wealth. People do not care whether the money is worthless paper or valuable 

gold. 

However, when money functions as a means of payment things are different. Hoarding 

is introduced. The goods change hands before the payments are made. Money is not intermediary 

any longer. Settlement of debts is is a transfer of wealth (Hans, [174]). Money 

functions as money. 

I would like to correct an error in my in class exam. I mentioned that money paid may 

have interest. Marx did not include interest in his argument. Although interest can be a 

reason for hoarding, it is not included in this particular argument of Marx’s. 

Next Message by Navin is [425]. 


2004fa, 426 in 2007fa, 433 in 2008SP, and 488 in 2010fa: 

Question 294 Why is means of payment, and not means of purchase, the predominant function 

of international money? 

[155] Zed: Payment or Purchase? Having the predominant function of international 

money be as a means of payment rather than as a means of purchase assures that the money 

that is “hoarded”, as Marx says, can be used to make payments and avoid influencing a 

countries internal circulation of money. By having this buffer that was not used to purchase 

items and commodities, it can be used to make payments, even of very large sums, and these 

payments will not sway internal money circulation. 

Hans: Your argument that the money internationally serves as means of payment so that the payers can use the 

national hoards is like saying people are using iron and steel in production so that they can use the ore and coal 

deposits in the ground. This analogy limps somewhat but I hope you get the drift. 

Message [155] referenced by [162] and [175]. Next Message by Zed is [210]. 

[162] Pobeda: world money I generally like what Zed [155] has to say about world 

money and why means of payment are stressed over means of purchase. I agree that it helps 

avoid a country’s internal circulation of money. I do believe that it is a bit more complex 

than this. 

When money is exchanged on the world market, no longer must it comply to the rule 

of trade within that country. Essentially, the labor force of that country is now compared 

to that of the rest of the world. As such, the world money serves as “the universal means 

of purchase and as the absolute social materialization of wealth as such” (C154:1/o:242/o). 

Basically, what I am emphasising is the transformation of value to match the Universal value 

of the entire world instead of in a single community or location.


Also, it is important to remember that Central banks and their reserve of foreign currency 

is a relatively new concept. In Marx’s day, as Hans points out on pg 122, this did not exist. 

Message [162] referenced by [175]. Next Message by Pobeda is [183]. 

[169] Boarder: World Money Means of payment is the predominant function of international 

money because at this point in time international financial institutions don’t have 

other countries’ currencies on hand. They were forced into using gold to settle international 

balances. When a particular country was indebted to another country they could not use 

their own currency to satisy the debt. They had to go back to gold because it was the simple 

form of money that everyone had. This made it much easier to facilitate transactions on the 

whole. I think that without the ability to repay debts or settle balances, trade or purchases 

become impossible. The means of payment is the stepping stone for means of purchase for 

international money. 

Message [169] referenced by [175]. Next Message by Boarder is [208]. 

[175] Hans: Why is Means of Payment Most Predominant? We have three submissions 

to Question 294: Zed’s [155], Pobeda’s [162], and Boarder’s [169]. Each of these tried to 

find the key to an answer in a different passage of my Annotations to the World Money 

section. But these answers did not seem convincing to me. 

It is true that many of the study questions refer to something I wrote in the Annotations; 

but not all do. Question 294 is such an exception. It was motivated by Marx’s assertion: 

Its [the world money’s] predominant function is as means of payment in the 

settling of international balances. 

“Predominant” means here: that function which international money performs most often. 

In internal circulation, the predominant function of money is means of purchase. In 

international circulation, it is means of payment. Question 294 asked: Why this reversal? 

Marx himself does not give a direct answer, although one can get some information from 

his description of the situations in which international money does function as means of 

purchase: 

Gold and silver serve as international means of purchase mainly only when 

the customary equilibrium in the interchange of products between different 

nations is suddenly disturbed. 

In other words, only in a disequilibrium is it necessary to first ship the money and then receive 

the goods; in the ordinary course of business, goods are shipped first and the payments 

received afterwards. Since both sender and recipient deal in their own domestic currency, the 

settlement of payments takes the form of (costly and risky) gold shipments only to the extent 

that there is an overall imbalance in the inflows and outflows of money; the overwhelming 

majority of such payments cancel each other out. 

Why is the function as means of payments predominant here? Let me try this answer, 

which is not in Marx or my Annotations: since foreign transactions are long distance transactions, 

it is impossible that money and goods change hands at the same time, as in a cash 

sale. Either the money must be transferred first, or the goods must be transferred first. Which 

of these possibilities prevails is a matter of contract enforcement. Sending money overseas 


in the hope one will get a shipment of goods afterwards is an uncertain proposition. Sending 

the goods first, so that there is proof that the goods exist and have survived the transport, and 

then having the goods released to the buyer only after he initiates a transfer of money back 

to the seller, is here the more practical solution. 


Exam Question 296 is 419 in 2004fa, 396 in 2005fa, 425 in 2007SP, 437 in 2008fa, 453 

in 2009fa, 490 in 2010fa, 496 in 2011fa, and 518 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 296 Bring examples of situations where money functions as money and not 

merely as measure of value or means of circulation. 

[314] Maverick: Hans [174] states that “money functions as money whenever it is the independent 

embodiment of social wealth.” When money functions as money, the commodity 

takes on a more subservient role and money becomes a more real wealth. Money becomes 

the purpose of the transaction, the finalizing act. 

For example, money functions as money when a man produces televisions for the purpose 

of replacing them with money. He sells televisions in order to hoard money/accumulate 

wealth. The final phase of the modified sale also illustrates how money can function as 

money. The seller of the television has allowed the buyer to take his commodity out of 

circulation, intending to receive future payments of course. The buyer eventually hands 

the money to the seller and the modified sale is finalized. A portion of the buyer’s wealth is 

transferred to the seller. A final example, more applicable during the use of the gold standard, 

is international payment. World money represents universal wealth. To settle international 

balances, world money (gold), was used in transferring wealth from one country to another. 

Message [314] referenced by [320], [2005fa:1346], and [2005fa:1348]. Next Message by Maverick is [342.1]. 

[320] Hans: Money as Money Maverick [314] synthesizes the answers to several related 

Questions, 289, 290, 294, to compose his answer to 296. This is a good way to proceed, not 

only for the Questions labeled “Exam Question” but also the other Questions in Installment 

2. 

In his sentence 

When money functions as money, the commodity takes on a more subservient 

role and money becomes a more real wealth. 

Maverick should have indicated more clearly the points of reference compared to which 

commodities are more subservient and monetary wealth more real. Perhaps along the following 

lines: 

As measure of value or means of circulation, money performs a function 

subservient to the commodities. When money functions as money, it is the 

commodity which takes on the subservient role, and money is considered a 

more real wealth than the commodities themselves. 


Question 298 is 175 in 1995ut, 291 in 1997sp, 279 in 1997ut, 286 in 1998WI, 335 in 

2001fa, and 364 in 2002fa:


Question 298 Give examples of differences between C-M-C and M-C-M that are differences 

in form and other examples that are differences in content or purpose. 

[183] Pobeda: Goals make the difference M-C-M and C-M-C are different in form by 

the “order in which the same two opposite phases of circulation are traversed” (annotations 

124). Basically, one starts with money and the other starts with the commodity. An example 

of C-M-C is given in question 300 where the farmer grows wheat and sells it for money then 

buys seed. M-C-M would be a capitalist who uses money to buy stock, and then sells it for 

a profit. 

It seems to me that the purpose behind the transaction is more important. Under C-M-C, 

the commodity is stressed. Money is only a means to an end, and not the end itself. In 

M-C-M, money becomes the goal. When this happens, the seeker of wealth can never be 

satisfied for the reasons given by Maverick [179] and Veblen [180]. 

It is ironic that those who believe money is the goal give up real wealth in order to obtain 

a perceived wealth. This paradox of the miser was discussed in the previous chapter. I’d 

like to add that most capitalists are misers, but of a different sort. Their goal is the same, 

to accumulate money. But capitalists realize that they need to give money out, then take it 

back at the right time in order to make more money. Thus, they too have the false wealth 

perception of a miser, but they obtain money by a different method. 


[187] Hans: The one-dimensionality of capitalist and miser Pobeda [183] gives a very 

good answer to Question 298, and then, at the end, he comments: 

It is ironic that those who believe money is the goal give up real wealth in 

order to obtain a perceived wealth. This paradox of the miser was discussed 

in the previous chapter. I’d like to add that most capitalists are misers, but of 

a different sort. Their goal is the same, to accumulate money. But capitalists 

realize that they need to give money out, then take it back at the right time in 

order to make more money. Thus, they too have the false wealth perception 

of a miser, but they obtain money by a different method. 

I fully agree with Pobeda that the capitalists have the same “false wealth perception” as 

the misers. The only difference between a capitalist and a miser is that the capitalist is indeed 

successful in his pursuit of more and more money, while the miser’s strategy is ridiculously 

ineffective. 

But let us take a closer look what is wrong with the pursuit of monetary wealth. Pobeda 

says the miser (and by implication also the capitalist) “gives up real wealth in order to obtain 

a perceived wealth.” You cannot dismiss the capitalist this easily. Money is much more than 

perceived wealth. It can easily be turned into very real wealth. 

The problem is not that capitalist and miser go after “perceived” wealth, but that they go 

after the “social form” of wealth. Money is a social relation on the surface of the economy 

which reflects the conditions under which wealth is produced in the core of a commodityproducing 

economy. It is not wealth itself. Monetary wealth is wealth with all the birth 

defects of atomistic competitive production. It is very myopic and only looks at labor. It 


is blind towards non-labor forms of wealth. This is the reason why the pursuit of monetary 

wealth and cost-efficiency leads to pollution, noise, and the destruction of the environment. 

Money also only looks at marketable wealth. This is why child-rearing and education get 

short shrift in the capitalist economy. Our economy is organized in such a way that the development 

of our most valuable resource, our children, takes second place after the production 

of bubble gum and sneakers. I could go on and on about what money is not, and why the 

pursuit of monetary wealth is misguided. 


Exam Question 299 is 197 in 1995WI, 176 in 1995ut, 210 in 1996sp, 227 in 1997WI, 280 

in 1997ut, 317 in 2000fa, 336 in 2001fa, 380 in 2003fa, 425 in 2004fa, 432 in 2007SP, 

443 in 2008fa, 459 in 2009fa, 496 in 2010fa, 506 in 2011fa, and 528 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 299 Give examples for “advancing” and “expending” money. 

[300] Luc: advancement vs. expenditure In order to answer question 299, I first must 

explain how “advancing” money differs from “expending” money. In footnote 3 on page 249 

of Marx’s “Kapital,” Marx refers to the writings of James Steuart to explain the difference 

between “advancing” and “expending” money. Steuart writes, “When a thing is bought in 

order to be sold again, the sum employed is called money advanced; when it is bought not 

to be sold, it may be said to be expended.” This corresponds directly with Karlito’s excellent 

answer to question 302 in [295]. When money is “advanced,” “the capitalist starts with 

M and tries to accumulate more M (or capital). He may do so by purchasing and selling 

a separate C.” On the other hand, money is “expended,” when “the value of C has been 

realized, then it can be exchanged for M. The M received from the exchange (or sale) can 

now be used to buy some other C that has use value to the purchaser,” “therefore terminating 

the process.” 

Now I am prepared to give examples of “advancing” and “expending” money. First, “expending” 

money is illustrated by the example of the weaver. She weaves linen and exchanges 

(or sells) it for money. The money she receives is then used to purchase bread, which she 

eats. The bread has use value to the weaver, and therefore the money is spent once and for 

all. (Marx 249:2) Second, “advancing” money is illustrated by the example of the person 

who buys rice cheap and sells the same rice at a much higher price. In this example, the 

buyer “lays out money in order that, as a seller, he may recover money.” “He releases the 

money, but only with the cunning intension of getting it back.” (Marx 249:2) 

As with other “exam questions” a simple answer (two examples) would have sufficed, 

however, the intension of this answer is to show my fellow classmates the underlying forces 

that give rise to the two simple examples. 


Message [300] referenced by [308]. Next Message by Luc is [308]. 

[308] Luc: correction to question 299 In my earlier submission [300] to this question, 

I quoted Karlito from submission [295]. Since then, Karlito has corrected the quote that I 

used. I too would like to add the updated quote to my submission. In Karlito’s corrected 

submission he explains what he meant by ‘realization of value’:


“The ‘realization of value’ actually occurs when C is exchanged for M (in other words, 

C-M). The producer of C has privately performed labor and does not know its value until his 

C is exchanged for M. Once the exchange of C-M occurs, then ”society’s stamp of approval 

[Hans’ response to [295]]“ has been placed on C and the ‘realization of value’ occurs.” [302] 

This explanation for the term ‘realization of value’ is important to [300] because in order 

for money to be expended the C has to have “socities stamp of approval.” Then the C is 

exchanged for M, which M is used to buy a different C. 


[313] Maine: According to Marx, Advancing Money is the sum employed “when a thing 

is bought in order to be sold again.” Examples of Advancing Money might include real estate 

properties, stocks, and investments. 

Expending Money, according to Marx, would be used in the purchase of something not 

to be sold. Examples of Expending Money would be a loaf of bread, clothing, and transportation 

costs, all of which have use values. 

Message [313] referenced by [318]. Next Message by Maine is [386]. 

[318] Hans: Expenditure on Durables is not an Advance Maine’s examples in [313] 

focus too much on the question whether this same thing will be sold again, and not enough on 

the economic purpose of the thing bought. A real estate property which is bought in order to 

live in it is not an advancement but an expenditure of money. And protective clothing (work 

gloves) provided to employees so that they can work, is an advance of capital, even if the 

gloves themselves will not be re-sold. It is sufficient that the product produced with these 

gloves will be sold. 



2002fa, 381 in 2003fa, 426 in 2004fa, 401 in 2005fa, 433 in 2007SP, 436 in 2007fa, 442 

in 2008SP, 460 in 2009fa, 497 in 2010fa, 530 in 2012fa, and 497 in Answer: 

Question 300 If someone first buys a car, and after two years trades it in for a new car, is 

that C-M-C or M-C-M? If someone first buys a house, then after ten years decides to move 

and sells his house for a profit, is this C-M-C or M-C-M? If a farmer raises wheat, then 

at the end of the year sells his crop and with the proceeds buys the materials to raise next 

year’s wheat, is that C-M-C or M-C-M? 

[177] Senco: In these examples it is important to know where the process starts. The 

amount of time someone holds, either the commodity or the money, is an indicator. 

Professor Ehrbar once clarifies Marx’s view on this, in the annotations on page 124. “In 

C-M-C, the money mediates (the third agent, who both sells and buys, is a commodity owner 

holding money only temporarily); in M-C-M, the commodity mediates (third agent is money 

owner who holds commodities only temporarily).” 

a) This is an example of M-C-M. It can be argued that most people do not buy a car with 

the intention of keeping it forever. If the car was never traded in or re-sold, the answer would 

be different. The money would be spent forever, and the car could only serve as a use-value. 

In this example the car retains value, and in a sense is used like money to get the new car. 


The commodity will be displaced again when the car lot sells the “trade in” to someone else, 

keeping the car only temporarily. 

b) If someone buys a house but waits ten years to sell it for a profit, this is an example of 

C-M-C. The house (C), is sold for a profit (M), but the original home-owner will now need a 

place to live, and probably buy another house soon (C). The same money is displaced twice, 

held only temporarily. 

c) The farmer raises wheat (C), sells his crop (M), then buys more seed (C). This is a 

simple example of C-M-C. 

Message [177] referenced by [182] and [185]. Next Message by Senco is [263]. 

[182] Hans: The car-pitalist People buy and sell commodities all the time. Now Marx 

claims that some sales are the first phase in a C-M-C, and other sales the second phase in a 

M-C-M (and analogously with purchases). But there is no way to verify empirically which 

is which; as transactions, these two kinds of sales are identical. Is Marx making here a real 

distinction, or does it depend on the point of view whether a certain sale can be interpreted 

to be part of C-M-C or to be part of M-C-M? I formulated Question 300 in order to explore 

this. In Question 300 you have to analyze certain transactions where the classification into 

M-C-M or C-M-C is not immedately obvious. This will help us to sharpen the criteria how to 

distinguish M-C-M from C-M-C, and we can test whether it is possible to argue conclusively 

which it is, or whether there is no way to decide. 

Senco [177] argues that buying a car and then trading it in for a new car is M-C-M: 

It can be argued that most people do not buy a car with the intention of 

keeping it forever. 

It is true that a car is usually sold after the owner decides no longer to keep it. Even the 

junkiest car has a little bit of cash value. Therefore you will always get some money back. 

You start with money, then you have the car, and at the end you have money again. Does 

this make the purchase of a car a M-C-M as Marx describes it? I claim that it does not. I 

will stop here. Can you see how I would argue that it is not? 

Let’s discuss this a little more. It deserves some thought, because here we are trying to 

explore things which are below the surface, not directly verifiable empirically, but which are 

nevertheless part of reality. Marx is a depth-realist, i.e., he claims that things do not have to 

lie on the surface in order to be real. 


[185] Jedi: More on Question 300 Senco in [177] asserted that in the case of someone 

first buying a car, and after two years trading it in for a another car is a case of M-C-M. I don’t 

agree with that answer completely. Senco’s reasoning for his answer is that the car retained 

use-value even after the trade-in process. I disagree. To qualify for M-C-M, two separate 

transactions have to be complete. First the spending of money to acquire the commodity, 

and second, the exchange of the commodity for money back. In the case of the car trade-in, 

the second transaction of exchanging commodity for money never took place. Instead, the 

commodity was traded for another commodity. The money spent on the first transaction was 

never recovered. Another point I want to make is the purpose of the transactions. The timing 

of the transactions-two years, shows that the purpose of the car owner was use-value and not


exchange value. The person bought the car in the first place to extract the usefulness of the 

car, not the ability to exchange it for more money. 

In the case of the homeowner. It can be argued either way whether it is C-M-C or M-C-M. 

Indeed the evidence of M-C-M is strong due to the reflux of money. The house owner gets 

his money back with a surplus. However it is important to see the motive or purpose of the 

transactions. If the house was bought to be lived in, then it is not hard to see that it is a case 

of C-M-C. 

The farmer’s case is definitely C-M-C. The money that he received by selling his wheat 

is immediately spent. There is no money reflux or intentions of money reflux. 

Hans: Excellent. 


[398.9] Golf: The car buyer trading in their car in exchange for another car is example of 

C-M-C. The original car, commodity 1, was exchange for another car, commodity 2. The 

car was never traded for money, thus making this transaction C-M-C. 

The home owner selling his home could be C-M-C or M-C-M, depending upon what 

the home owner does with the sale of the house. If the home owner sells his home for 

profit alone, the home owner is then using the profit (money) to go out and purchase another 

commodity. The money from the sale will be used in an exchange for another commodity 

making this transaction M-C-M. If the home owner sells the home to purchase another home, 

the sale will be C-M-C. This would be just like the car buyer who trades the car in for another 

car. 

The farmer who raises wheat and then sells it at the end of the year for materials for next 

year crop is C-M-C. The money received for selling the wheat is spent right away for the next 

years material to raise the wheat for the upcoming. The farmer has no intentions of using 

the money from the sale to purchase other commodities. The farmer only has intentions to 

use the money to raise next years crops, thus making this transaction C-M-C. 

Hans: In class you wrote that the farmer is M-C-M, and that can be defended too, since the farmer does all his 

farming for the sake of having money to buy the things he needs. But the house is usually C-M-C, people need this 

house primarily for its use value. 

Next Message by Golf is [458]. 

Exam Question 302 is 178 in 1995ut, 213 in 1996sp, 230 in 1997WI, 294 in 1997sp, 290 

in 1998WI, 339 in 2001fa, and 383 in 2003fa: 

Exam Question 302 Argue why C-M-C is an independent act, while M-C-M is a link in a 

chain. 

[189] PowderNow: More on C-M-C and M-C-M As mentioned earlier, capitalists will 

start with money with their goal being to accumulate more money, or the equation M-C-M. 

The M that is acquired in the end can then be used to start a new M-C-M equation. This is 

why M-C-M can be considered a link in the chain because a person can continually use their 

money (M’) to put back into the equation and try to accumulate more money. The equation 

could look like this: M-C-M-C-M.....etc. 

With C-M-C, the C that is acquired in the end (C’) will be consumed and the process 

ends. The C-M-C will start again when a new C has been produced and ready for sale. It 


is then sold and the money received is used to buy another commodity and the process ends 

once again. This is why C-M-C can be considered an independent act. 

Hans: Very good explanation, but this was an exam question, therefore no grade for it. 


[295] Karlito: C-M-C vs. M-C-M Marx states that there are definite similarities and 

differences between C-M-C and M-C-M. Hans gives a clear and simple division of these 

characteristics on page 124 of the Annotations. 

C-M-C is considered to be an independent act. Hans states that C-M-C is “first the realization 

of value and then the selection of use value [Annotations 123].” This is important 

because it shows that once the value of the first C has been realized, then it can be exchanged 

for M. The M received from the exchange (or sale) can now be used to buy some other C 

that has use value to the purchaser. Because we know that the C has use value, we know that 

it will be consumed, therefore terminating the process. Once another C has been produced 

and is ready to be sold, the process begins again. This makes each C-M-C process individual 

and independent. 

On the other hand, M-C-M is a link in a chain. The mentality of the capitalist is to 

“transform [money] into capital [247:4/o;V247:4B].” The capitalist starts with M and tries 

to accumulate more M (or capital). He may do so by purchasing and selling a separate 

C. The M that is left once the M-C-M process has ended can be used to purchase another 

C, in hopes of acquiring even more M. This example indicates that the M-C-M process is 

continual. Therefore, the process could now look like this: M-C-M-C-M and so on. 


Once the value of the first C has been realized, then it can be exchanged for M. 

This is not quite accurate. The exchange for M is the “realization” of value, i.e., it is society’s stamp of approval on 

your privately performed labor. 

Otherwise very good. This is the right answer. But PowderNow’s [189] would have been right too. 

Message [295] referenced by [300], [302], and [308]. Next Message by Karlito is [302]. 

[302] Karlito: Revision of earlier submission I would like to correct one point that I 

made within my exam question submission [295]. C-M-C is definitely an independent act. 

But, I misinterpreted a quote from Annotations. Referring to C-M-C, the quote reads: 

“Hans states that C-M-C is ’first the realization of value and then the selection of use 

value [Annotations 123].’” 

The ‘realization of value’ actually occurs when C is exchanged for M (in other words, 

C-M). The producer of C has privately performed labor and does not know its value until his 

C is exchanged for M. Once the exchange of C-M occurs, then “society’s stamp of approval 

[Hans’ response to [295]]” has been placed on C and the ‘realization of value’ occurs. 

The rest of my answer, starting with “The M received from the exchange ...,” still stands. 

Hans: Thank you for telling me what threw you off. I changed the wording in the Annotations to make it clearer. 

In the archive, I excised the last two paragraphs of your submission, because there was no change from [295]. 


Question 303 When Marx talks about the purpose of M-C-M, does he mean the purpose 

an individual might pursue who is performing this movement? If not, how else is it to be 

understood?


[190] Maine: purpose of M-C-M When Marx refers to the purpose of MCM, some 

issues remain uncertain. Hans suggests that Marx did not develop the reasoning in sufficient 

detail. From what Marx does state, I conclude that the purpose of the MCM function is in 

the action, not in the individual. By this I mean that the force behind the self-expansion – or 

valorization – of money need not be from an individual. The individual is only the catalyst 

of the transaction. 

“. . . in the case of money, . . .value. . . is capable of no other motion than a quantitative 

one, to increase itself.” Annotations:126 

Hans adds that “this quantitative expansion is also a necessity rooted in the money form.” 

Annotations:126 

In capitalism, the individual who initiates the transaction to purchase a commodity begins 

with the money form. After the commodity is purchased, it can be resold, and again the 

individual has the money form. Often in capitalism the goal is to initiate resale for increased 

value and achieve greater financial gain. 

“The constant drive beyond its own limitations is therefore inherent in its nature.” Annotations: 

127 

Marx was not referring to the purpose an individual might pursue. He was referring to 

the purpose of the money form. 

Message [190] referenced by [199]. Next Message by Maine is [239]. 

[199] Hans: Purpose or bait? Maine [190] tackles a difficult question. Somehow the 

word “purpose” does not sound right in this connection here. A purpose is something the 

agent owns–but we know that Marx does not blame capitalism on the capitalists but he says 

that societal forces are involved which are stronger than any individual. Also, Marx uses the 

phrases “purpose of M-C-M” and “content of M-C-M” interchangeably. A content can be 

ascribed to a social form, but a purpose can only be ascribed to a thinking and conscious 

human being, can it not? Question 303 asked you to disentangle this a bit. 

Because of the above dissonances I sympathize with Maine’s conclusion that Marx is 

not speaking here of the purpose of an individual but of the purpose of the money form. 

But isn’t it teleology to attribute purposes to the money form? Teleology (not theology) 

is an interpretation of the world according to which the world aims towards a pre-set goal, 

i.e., according to which the world is not pushed by causes but pulled by goals. There is 

a consensus among most Marxists today, including myself, that teleological arguments are 

fallacies. 

To make progress here, it might be helpful to try to understand why Marx uses the two 

words “content” (Inhalt) and “purpose” (Zweck) interchangeably. “Content” belongs together 

with “form”, therefore I’d like to recapitulate what “form” means, too. Here we go: 

Production in any modern society, whether capitalist or not, is a highly complex and 

interdependent process. Many conditions must be fulfilled that it can go on. In capitalism, 

the regulation of this process is not organized directly, by producers and consumers making 

a democratic decision what should be produced and how. Instead, producers and consumers 

interact with each other on the market. Their purpose in these market interactions is not to 


find out how to best produce what, but their purpose is to get the most private gain from these 

interactions. Then, as an unintended byproduct, these interactions also regulate production, 

since those things that are successful on the market will be produced more etc. 

Adam Smith calls this the “invisible hand” and he claims that the outcome of this indirect 

organization process is optimal. Marx agrees with Smith that all these unintended 

consequences add up to a coherent system, but in his view, this system is far from optimal. 

Instead, he says that these chaotic interactions lead to a very peculiar organization of 

production, in which social attention focuses only on abstract human labor as an input into 

production and neglects everything else. I described the undesirable implications of this in 

[187]. This focus on abstract labor does not mean that the laborer is king, but the laborers 

end up being exploited by those who control the means of production. 

But let’s backtrack here a little. Individuals are engaged in production, which is a highly 

interdependent social process, but they do not stand in contact with each other, and they do 

also not have someone directly telling them what to do. Instead, they buy and sell things on 

the market and the outcome of these market transactions gives them the cue what and how 

to produce next. Here Marx calls the market relations the “form”, and the necessities of the 

social production process which are reflected in these market relations the “content.” 

This content is also called the “purpose” because the social relations in which the individuals 

stand on the market motivate them to do certain things in production. Perhaps it should 

better be called a “bait” because it’s all rigged: the market relations put the economic agents 

in a corner where that what they consider in their best interest to do is also what the system 

needs to be done in order to reproduce itself. More detail how this happens will be given 

in Chapter 23. Perhaps one can say: it is the individual’s purpose, because the individual 

does this because he or she considers this in their best interest. But the system is such that 

this individual energy, initiative, persistence does not lead to the fulfillment of individual 

aims. These aims are systematically frustrated, and instead, all the energy people put up in 

their attempts to reach these aims are syphoned off towards the blind and automatic goal of 

accumulation of abstract wealth in the hands of the few. 


Question 306 is 182 in 1995ut, 217 in 1996sp, 234 in 1997WI, 294 in 1998WI, 344 in 

2001fa, 373 in 2002fa, 387 in 2003fa, 442 in 2007SP, 445 in 2007fa, 452 in 2008SP, 455 

in 2008fa, and 474 in 2009fa: 

Question 306 Why does monetary wealth have the urge to multiply itself? (Do not describe 

at this point how it does it but why in modern society the unlimited accumulation of wealth 

is such an overriding and powerful objective.) 

[179] Maverick: monetary wealth It’s clearly explained by Marx in 252:2/o that M-C-M 

is an endless process because of the fact that the beginning and the end are the same, money 

or exchange value. The purpose behind this process is the valorization or self expansion of 

value and this is what converts it into capital. But any amount of money is limited, meaning 

that it will eventually be used up. This creates a contradiction with the quality of money 

which possesses an unlimited range of use values. This contradiction produces an insatiable 

drive for the money to expand beyond its limit in order to capture the unlimited use-values


which money represents. Since the goal of achieving absolute wealth can never be realized, 

any quantity of money has the need to be valorized. 

If I am a trader in the Stock Market, I purchase stock in various companies with the 

intention of selling that stock later for a profit. I have not met any personal needs, therefor 

the movement has not been concluded. There is more money to be made, therefor I take the 

money from my previous transaction and use it to buy stock in another company, hoping to 

make another profit. The accumulation of more wealth becomes my driving force and since 

there is always more money to be made, M-C-M is continual. 

Message [179] referenced by [180], [183], [193], [206], [2003fa:349], [2008SP:458], [2008SP:615], and [2008SP:623]. 

Next Message by Maverick is [239]. 

[180] Veblen: valorization of money Maverick’s statement in [179], that we wish to “capture 

the unlimited use-values which money respresents”, cannot be argued against. However, 

I would like to offer a few more sociological reasons for this phenomenon. I believe that in 

modern society the valorization of money has a number of purposes. 

The first purpose embodies two principles, pecuniary emulation and conspicuous consumption. 

In modern society your worth is determied by your commodity wealth; this basic 

fact underlies the impetus for conspicuous consumption (the more you consume the more 

money you must have and hence the more socially valid you are). Pecuniary emulation, or 

the proving of your social validity by means of conspicuous consumption is another motivation 

an individual would have for acquiring more wealth. 

Let us not ignore the fact that the valorization of money may result from a human desire 

for security or peace of mind. 

Message [180] referenced by [183], [193], [206], [2003fa:349], and [2008SP:615]. Next Message by Veblen is 

[222]. 

[206] Hans: What is stronger: individual or society? Maverick [179] gives a good summary 

of the structural reasons why money generates the insatiable drive for self-expansion. 

Veblen [180] however reminds us that individual motivation plays a role too. People like 

“conspicuous consumption”, and they want security and peace of mind. 

My response to this has three parts. 

(1) whenever something happens in a society, both social and individual levels are involved. 

The social structure may constrain or coerce, but it also enables the individuals, and 

the individuals may have freedom of choice to varying degrees. The structuralists say the 

individuals are the mere marionettes of the social structure, and the methodological individualists 

say “society does not exist”. Both are wrong. One needs a stereo view looking at 

both social and individual levels. 

(2) Now one might try to argue that the social level is the more important one, because 

it is older and the individuals are only a small and dependent part of it. And indeed, in 

most societies this is clearly the case. But this is not necessarily so. My vision of socialism 

is a society in which the individuals “tame” their social connections, convert them into the 

benign and fertile backdrop for the flourishing of the individual. 

(3) How can we then decide in the examples given whether the social forces or the individual 

decisions are prevalent? I will argue that Veblen’s examples are proof that the social 


forces are prevalent, because the individual motivations which he cites are derived from the 

social structure. People compete with each other in monetary income and conspicuous consumption, 

because they are isolated and have no meaningful social interactions. People crave 

for security because economic insecurity is one of the main threats by which people are kept 

in line. (Of course, labor unions and similar organizations would give better economic protection, 

but after a steady diet of rugged-individualist Hollywood movies one tends to forget 

that this is even a possibility.) 

Message [206] referenced by [2003fa:349], [2008SP:597], [2008SP:615], and [2008fa:1138]. Next Message by 

Hans is [207]. 

Question 307 is 183 in 1995ut, 288 in 1997ut, 345 in 2001fa, 388 in 2003fa, 436 in 

2004fa, 456 in 2008fa, and 512 in Answer: 

Question 307 Bring everyday examples illustrating the drive for self-expansion inherent in 

the nature of money. 

[192] Josef: The Expansion of Money One aspect that is inherent in the nature of money 

is that one uses money to purchase a commodity in order to obtain more money in the future. 

There are many everyday examples of the drive for self expansion inherent in money. 

One example is the purchasing of shares in a mutual fund. This is a form of M-C-M 

exchange. One purchases shares in a mutual fund these shares serve as an intermediary for 

the expansion of the original amount of money. This expansion of money requires no labor. 

Another example, is a person who buys a car and sells it for a higher price immediately 

after without ever using it, or having the intention to do so. The car has no use value to the 

buyer/seller. The exchange takes place solely as a means for the expansion of money. 

Message [192] referenced by [193] and [202]. Next Message by Josef is [281]. 

[193] Navin: In [179] and [180] both Maverick and Veblen explain the human nature that 

is involved in the valorization of money. Josef [192] gives two good examples of how this 

works in modern society. Marx says on the subject “value,...,-or the general form of wealth 

- is capable of no other motion that a quantitative one; to increase itself.” (126 commentary). 

In our society individuals play on these facts. However, I believe it is more inherent in 

the business world. Especially in the United States. A visit to the local shopping mall will 

confirm this. One would be hard pressed to find a business in the mall that does not buy 

commodities simply to re-sell them at a profit. Businesses hire people to work for them at 

a profit. They pay their laborers much less than they produce for the company. The only 

motive is the Money. The laborers do not have the capital and therefore work for those that 

do. This is the everyday example of the drive for self-expansion inherent in the nature of 

money. 

Message [193] referenced by [202]. Next Message by Navin is [241]. 

[202] Hans: The spell of money in action Josef [192] and Navin [193] give examples in 

which people perform the act M-C-M’. Of course, if people perform this act, then they probably 

also have the motivation to do it. But in Josef and Navin’s examples, this motivation 

is not visible. Therefore it is not clear whether this motivation comes from the “spell” of 

money or from somewhere else. This is why Josef and Navin’s contribution did not answer 

question 307 properly.


In my own view, the capitalists are not the only ones who by their actions succumb to and 

feed into this drive of money to self-expand. Whenever there is a problem anywhere, the 

gut reaction is usually: if we had more money, this problem could be solved. This is quite 

irrational. It is easy to see that overall, the magic of money creates more problems than it 

solves. Here the “spell” of money is at work. Another example would be the worker who 

eagerly agrees to any overtime offered. He or she is promoting this drive for self-expansion 

as much as the greedy capitalist. A third example would be the worker who spends every 

penny of every paycheck and has no reserves, therefore cannot go on strike or anything. 

Message [202] referenced by [Answer:2], [2001fa:238], and [2008fa:728]. Next Message by Hans is [206]. 

Question 310 is 391 in 2003fa, 457 in 2008SP, 516 in 2010fa, and 551 in 2012fa: 

Question 310 Can a situation which gives you subjective satisfaction be a situation of “enslavement”? 

Are there other examples for this than the capitalist? 

[191] Guyote: masochism Through the comparison of the capitalist to the miser, Marx 

distinguishes between the two types of individuals. The capitalist and the miser are both 

driven by the same thing, making money. The capitalist will take his money and invest it 

over and over into the market until his benefit outweighs his costs and he has reached the 

limit of his own personal aversion to risk before he moves his money elsewhere. The miser 

will make money by not spending it. The capitalist is said to be a rational miser, the miser a 

clumsy capitalist. (254:1) 

The question of whether or not a situation which gives subjective satisfaction be a situation 

of “enslavement”? 

The experience of the self interested capitalist, the selfish miser, and the worker who 

is being taken advantage by both the miser and the capitalist can illustrate the difference 

between enslavement and satisfaction one may derive in relation to their experience in the 

economy. 

Hans notes that that: “Objectively, capitalists are just as enslaved as the workers by the 

impoverished and abstract drive of self valorisation of capital. What distinguishes the workers 

and raises them to a higher level is that they experience their objective enslavement as 

enslavement, while the capitalists find some subjective satisfaction in it” (annotations to 

capital, pg129). 

I have a hard time deciding which bothers me more, the experience of the capitalist or the 

worker. The fact that the capitalist can go home each night, kiss the wife and kids and do it 

all over again and again until the gold watch, retirement, and the motor home come at age 

60, to me, is a form of enslavement liken unto hell. 

That is if your definition is that to be enslaved is to enchain, shackle, control, or dominate 

(random house dictionary). 

At least the worker is freed, thus reaching that “higher level”, due to the fact that he 

realizes that he is being taken advantage of and will be discarded eventually. However the 

worker is enslaved by the truth as well as the reality of his position in the market. Is this a 

case of ignorance truly being bliss? 


Hans asks whether or not a situation of subjective satisfaction can be a situation of enslavement. 

Subjective meaning existing in one’s own mind and enslavement meaning to 

control or dominate (random house). I would say this is the case for sure. 

Masochism can be considered as deriving satisfaction from pain which is inflicted or 

imposed on oneself (random house). 

Masochism, being enslaved, and deriving satisfaction for me all relate to what Marx is 

saying in Capital (V740:2-741:1) where Marx says “While the capitalist of the classical 

type brands individual consumption as a sin against his function, as ‘abstinence’ from accumulating, 

the modernized capitalist is capable of viewing accumulation as ‘renunciation’ 

of pleasure. ‘Two souls, alas, do dwell within his breast; The one is ever parting from the 

other.’”* 

The capitalist is thus, deriving satisfaction from enslaving himself and the opposite must 

hold that subjective satisfaction for the capitalist involves enslavement, at least to his own 

mind. 

* Cf. Goethe, Faust, Part I, Before the City Gates, lines 1112-13, as quoted in Capital 

(V740:2-741:1) 

Message [191] referenced by [207], [2003fa:341], and [2008SP:447]. Next Message by Guyote is [221]. 

[207] Hans: The poor enslaved capitalist Guyote [191] finds it hard to believe that the 

capitalist, who “can go home each night, kiss the wife and kids and do it all over again and 

again until the gold watch, retirement, and the motor home come at age 60” is as enslaved 

as the worker, and on a lower level than the worker because he does not know about his 

enslavement. Guyote remarks that in this case, “ignorance is bliss.” 

As another example where a situation of enslavement can give subjective satisfaction, 

Guyote cites the masochist. Is the capitalist like a masochist, because he enjoys a demeaning 

situation? Marx has made here a controversial point: comfortable blindness is worse than 

misery combined with awareness. 

Message [207] referenced by [2007SP:746]. Next Message by Hans is [216]. 

Question 313 is 300 in 1998WI, 381 in 2002fa, 420 in 2005fa, 452 in 2007SP, and 465 in 

2008fa: 

Question 313 What does Marx mean by an “automatic agent”? 

[176] Perro: Automatic agent Marx talks about capital as an “automatic agent”. In 

the circulation M-C-M, the capital continuously transfers from the money form into the 

commodity form and back again over and over. During this endless process the capital 

always keeps its value, or as Marx 255:1 states it, “It is constantly changing from one form to 

the other without thereby becoming lost,...” This is of high importance. Because the capital 

keeps its value through the circulation one can say, as Hans says in “Annotations” that the 

capital also “maintains its identity”. Further Hans explains that the whole circulation process 

is not a conscious action, but rather totally automatic. Since capital always keeps its value, 

the circulation repeats itself continuously, and the action can be identified as automatic. We 

can therefore conclude that capital is an “automatic agent”. 

Message [176] referenced by [178]. Next Message by Perro is [226].


[178] Cartman: When Marx is talking about an “automatic agent”, he is talking about the 

value of capital. In M-C-M, the value of capital changes from money form to commodity 

form and back again. And amongst all this movement, there is never a change in the level of 

value. Value is never lost, thus it becomes an automatic agent. There is definitely a change 

from money form to commodity form, but the value of capital is made up of the value of the 

material in it. Therefore, as money changes into a commodity, the form of value is merely 

changed as well. But the amount of value stays the same never changing. This is what makes 

the value of capital an “automatic agent”. 

Hans: Everything you are saying was already said in Perro’s [176]. 

Message [178] referenced by [2005fa:1009]. Next Message by Cartman is [233]. 

[181] Yikes: automatic agent Perro is right on, in his remarks about the meaning of 

“automatic agent”. Hans informs us that the movement of value from one form to another 

M-C-M and so on is how value transforms itself into an automatic agent. 

Perro also mentions that this movement is not a conscious movement but an automatic 

movement thus the term “automatic agent”. Adding to what Perro stated, value acts as it’s 

own agent in this process it adds value to itself its valorization is self-valorization. Hans 

states that through this process value no longer relates commodities, and commodity producers, 

to each other but enters a relation to itself. 


Question 317 is 304 in 1998WI: 

Question 317 What is merchants’ capital? industrial capital? money-lending capital? 

[184] Bull: Marx says about merchant capital, “Buying in order to sell, or, more accurately, 

buying in order to sell dearer, M-C-M’, seems admittedly to be a form peculiar to one 

kind of capital alone, merchant capital”. (256:3/o;V256:3) The term ‘Money begets Money’, 

M-M, is a useful tool in understanding the Mercantilist. Hans writes, “The mercantilist 

phrase ”money which begets money“ is a testimony that the mercantilists have understood 

something about capital, despite their confusion of value with its independent form”. (Annotations 

p.131-132) Merchants use money to purchase commodities to resell for a profit. 

This is what Marx means by “sell dearer”. This gives the merchant capital. 

Marx writes about industrial capital, “But industrial capital too is money which has been 

changed into commodities, and reconverted into more money by the sale of these commodities”. 

(256:3/o;V256:3) We can see how closely related that industrial capital is with 

merchants’ capital. They both submit to the M-C-M equation. Thus, industrial capital is 

capital gained on an industrial level through commodities of value as well as use-value. 

Money lending capital or as Marx puts it “interest bearing capital” is capital which requires 

money to multiply or build on a given amount by way of a percentage of that given 

amount. Marx says, “in the case of interest bearing capital, the circulation M-C-M presents 

itself in abridged form, in its final result and without any intermediate stage, in a concise 

style, so to speak, as M-M’, i.e., money which is worth more money, value which is greater 

than itself”. From these three understandings of capital we can see that they are all very 

closely related and are a part of the M-C-M equation. This formula is a general formula of 

capital and these three types of capital a circuit by which they abide. 


Hans: If possible, please work on your spelling, not because spelling itself is so important, but because bad spellers 

are discriminated against. The correct spelling is “writes”, not “rights”, and “puts”, not “putts”. The verb is “resell”, 

“resale” is a noun. (I fixed these mistakes in the archive version.) Neither of these can be caught by a spell checker 

because these are words with a different meaning. Maybe just making a point of reading a lot might help. This also 

has other benefits. 

Also: you do not need to reproduce all the pseudoheaders in your submission. The only pseudoheader you need 

is the ::Question: pseudoheader. 


[186] Hans: A mercantilist is not the same as a merchant Bull [184] gives the right 

definition of a merchant: 

Merchants use money to purchase commodities to resell for a profit. 

But Bull seems to think that a mercantilist is the same as a merchant. It is not. Mercantilism 

is an early economic theory and policy according to which exports and a positive 

balance of payments should be the economic goal of a nation. Marx dubs the mercantilists 

the first “interpreters” of capital, where the word “interpreter” (in German “Dolmetscher”) 

does not mean someone who gives an interpretation, but someone who translates from one 

language into another, here, from the commodity language into the human language. The 

mercantilists understood, in a too crude way, that not use-value, but value, the abstract social 

form of wealth, is the goal of capital. 

Bull’s definition of “industrial capital” is wrong: 

Industrial capital is capital gained on an industrial level through commodities 

of value as well as use-value. 

Industrial capital is not distinguished by its scale of operation, but by the fact that not 

only trade but also production is involved. The “events which take place outside the sphere 

of circulation” Marx refers to are the production process. 

Clearly, money-lending or interest-bearing capital is a business which gives loans and 

makes profits by the interest it receives on these loans. 

Bull concludes: 

From these three understandings of capital we can see that they are all very 

closely related and are a part of the M-C-M equation. This formula is a 

general formula of capital and these three types of capital a circuit by which 

they abide. 

The formulation “three types of capital” is better than “three understandings of capital,” 

because these are indeed three distinct ways of making a profit, not just three ways of looking 

at one and the same process. And instead of saying “they are part of the M-C-M equation” 

it would probably be more accurate to say that these three types of capital share the M-C-M 

equation, at least as long as one only looks at the form they take in the sphere of circulation. 



2007SP, 574 in 2011fa, and 600 in 2012fa:


Question 321 Chapter Six is not the first place where labor power is discussed. Where was 

labor power introduced first? But the discussion of labor power in Chapter Six introduces 

one fundamental new aspect of if which was not discussed before. What is it? 

[209] Bull: Marx insists that there is a distinction between labor power and labor. Labor 

power is the capacity or potential to do useful labor in production. Labor is the actual 

expenditure of human energy with the aim of achieving a productive end. 

Labor power was first introduced in the introduction of Marx’s “Capital”, on page fifty 

paragraph two where he says, “In the third place the worker does not sell the capitalist his 

labour, but his labour power, his capacity to work for a given period of time. This labour 

power becomes a commodity under capitalism”. (V50:2) Here Marx says that labor power 

becomes a commodity itself, giving it value or exchange value like any another commodity. 

The second place is in chapter 1 “The commodity”, where Marx talks of labor power as 

expended to produce human labor which gives value as a commodity. 

In chapter six a fundamental new aspect is introduced; historical specific conditions. 

There are two sets of conditions which are listed on page 134 of Hans’ annotations. Hans 

writes, “Even if labor power produces value, this does not yet automatically make labor 

power itself a commodity. Labor power can become a commodity only under very specific 

historical conditions”. (Annotations p.134) These historical conditions deal with the sale 

and purchase of labor power on a specific level, leading to a better understanding of the 

mechanics behind labor power. 

Hans: The long introduction in the Vintage edition is not from Marx but from Ernest Mandel, a famous contemporary 

Marxist. This probably threw you off. The element that is new in Chapter Six is that now labor power itself 

is a commodity. 



2005fa, 485 in 2007SP, 491 in 2007fa, 498 in 2008SP, 501 in 2008fa, and 524 in 2009fa: 

Question 322 Marx says that for M-C-M’ to be possible labor power must not only be a 

commodity but that it must moreover be sold by the person whose labor power it is. Why 

this latter requirement? 

[214] Brutal: To own oneself Because M-C-M represents a market exchange. As Webster’s 

collegiate dictionary puts it, exchange is “the act of giving or taking one thing in return 

for another.” One cannot, therefore, be the owner of the money and the commodity (or in our 

case the owner of the person and his labor power) used in an exchange. Therefore, one must 

go out into the market and exchange money for commodities or vice versa. That is the only 

way the metamorphosis from money to commodities and commodities to money that Marx 

refers to can take place. If one owns both the money and the commodity he cannot turn 

his money into the commodity because the physical action of taking one for another leaves 

him with both (which he started with in the first place). Thus, exchanging with yourself 

two things that you already own is in itself impossible because you must end up with what 

you had to begin with, which means this is not an exchange at all. This is due to the subtle 

fact that for a commodity to be exchanged on the market, it must, in fact, change from the 

owner’s hands to the buyer’s. 


This principle applies to labor power as it does to any other commodity. Therefore, it 

stands to reason that if a man owns another man he also already owns that man’s labor 

power and cannot purchase it in a market (i.e. M-C-M) exchange. 

Hans: The question says nothing about the seller of labor power owning the money. 

Brutal: Hans, I am affraid you misunderstood my answer. I do not say that the seller of labor power owns any 

money. I am saying that in a market transaction one person cannot own the commodity (in this case labor power 

of another person) and the money used in the M-C-M transaction. I was simply trying to show the impossibility of 

M-C-M when one person owned both the M and the C. I did not mean to say that the actual owner of labor power 

(who would be the slave in this case) owns any money. You are right, this would be irrelevant. 

Hans: Thank you for the clarification. Now I understand you better: you mean if the capitalist already owns the 

slave he can no longer buy the labor power from him. The M-C in slavery would not be a wage payment to the 

slave but the purchase of the slave himself and of the food and other means of subsistence for the slave. 


[463.1] PumpkinStar: In order for labor power to be exchanged on the market, several 

things must occur. Laborers must be “free to” sell their labor power and therefore a voluntary 

exchange must be possible. Second, the laborer must be “free from” any means of 

production. In an analogy, the Capitalist owns a Ferrari. However, he does not have any 

tires. On the other hand, the laborer happens to own 4 tires that fit the Ferrari. The Capitalist 

will come to the laborer, or the laborer will seek the Capitalist, eager to turn the tires into 

some sort of a profit. He cannot force the laborer to sell the tires, and the laborer cannot 

make a Ferrari from scratch. Due to the fact that the laborer alone owns the tires, nobody 

can sell them to the Capitalist, except the laborer himself 


Question 323 is 249 in 1997WI, 313 in 1997ut, 357 in 2000fa, 378 in 2001fa, 411 in 

2002fa, 427 in 2003fa, 477 in 2004fa, 454 in 2005fa, 486 in 2007SP, 492 in 2007fa, 499 

in 2008SP, 502 in 2008fa, 525 in 2009fa, 578 in 2011fa, and 604 in 2012fa: 

Question 323 Why are the conditions for terminating employment regulated by law instead 

of being left to the free market? 

[205] Quake: terminating employment The capitalist left to his own would just as 

soon purchase the permanent rights to the labor power of an individual. This would be 

the cheaper long-term solution as opposed to the ‘temporary sale’ of labor power. The 

capitalist could reduce all the costs associated with re-training, hiring expenses, long term 

market competition for the employee, etc. By removing the temporary nature of this sale, the 

employment relationship would turn into a slave/owner relationship, which would create a 

situation in which the seller and buyer would no longer be on equal ground in the exchange 

process. If I can make this assumption about the nature of the capitalist, then the state 

would have to regulate/mandate conditions for terminating employment to assure that the 

temporary nature of the sale of labor power is maintained. 

Message [205] referenced by [216] and [2003fa:386]. Next Message by Quake is [340]. 

[212] PumpkinStar: Voluntary slave labor...a contradiction in terms. According to 

Marx, the market follows a guideline regarding the trading of money for commodities. In the 

case of selling labor power as a commodity, the state does protect workers against capitalists. 

I believe this question is an extension of Question 324, where the laws are created by the 

state, and the debate lies whether these laws are ample protection from the capitalists.


As stated through the guideline (1b) in the Economics workbook, a buyer cannot “take 

advantage” of the seller. Is it possible to sell oneself into slavery? This is the assumption 

that is made if this transaction were left to the free market without any intervention from 

regulations. 

In a free market, the worker transfers his labor power voluntarily, and the worker himself 

cannot become the commodity. In other words, the term slave labor refers to the worker as 

the commodity, whereas in the free market, unless through voluntary preference, one cannot 

sell himself as a commodity. Hence the term voluntary slave labor. 

Workers today, with the backing of the state, along with powerful unions, have a large 

voice in prevention the exploitation of their fellow workers. Ultimately, it is up to the individual 

when deciding to offer either his labor power as a commodity, or offering himself for 

exploitation. 

Message [212] referenced by [216] and [2003fa:386]. Next Message by PumpkinStar is [284]. 

[216] Hans: Voluntary slave labor...a contradiction in terms? The short answer is 

given by Marx: if the state did not regulate the conditions terminating employment, workers 

would sell themselves into slavery. In Question 323 we can explore whether this is a valid 

argument. 

Quake [205] looks at it from the side of the capitalist and tries to argue how much more 

beneficial it were for the capitalist to buy slaves rather than hire workers. It is not a terribly 

convincing argument because (a) Quake does not mention the many obvious disadvantages 

of the slave relationship for the slave owner, and (b) Quake is silent about the transitional 

states between wage labor and slavery, in which the worker is not formally a slave, but 

he is prevented in various ways from quitting his job. Marx gives some examples of such 

“hidden” slavery in the footnote directly preceding Question 323 in the Annotations, but 

there are many others, even today. 

PumpkinStar [212] looks at it from the side of the workers, and he does not seem to 

buy Marx’s argument. He asks: “Is it possible to sell oneself into slavery?” and argues: as 

long as the markets are free, workers will transfer their labor voluntarily, and they will not 

turn themselves into slaves voluntarily. He points to “powerful unions” which prevent the 

exploitation of worker. His last sentence has the implication: if someone is exploited after 

all, it is his or her own fault: 

Ultimately, it is up to the individual when deciding to offer either his labor 

power as a commodity, or offering himself for exploitation. 

PumkinStar does not seem aware that the capitalists are much more powerful than the 

workers in the labor market, and that workers may in an act of desperation do things which 

are against their long-term interests. How much can you count on the fortitude of your 

character if the alternative is to become homeless or to starve? 


Question 324 Does the state protect the workers against the 


[197] RfBurner: state protection Workers do have protection from the state over capitalism. 

Workers are considered sellers and the employers are considered the buyers, and 

under the state laws these two parties have equal rights. The worker for example has the 

right to not enter into slavery. An employee is always on a time limited schedule with an 

employer, meaning that the employee can leave at any time. In the capitalist world labor is 

to be a commodity for the worker. The worker can decide as they please what to do with this 

commodity. Laws like the one that protects against slavery is proof that the state protects 

workers from capitalism. Laws have been established by the state to keep employees from 

being exploited by capitalism. 

Message [197] referenced by [217] and [221]. Next Message by RfBurner is [335]. 

[211] Henrix: protection I do not believe that the state protects the workers against the 

abuse of the capitalist. However, the state protects the the worker form selling his labor 

power once and for all and consequently it protects the worker from turning himself into a 

slave. 

The reason why the worker are not fully protected, is that he can still be abused by the 

capitalist if the worker finds himself in a situation where the only way of survival is to turn 

himself into the hands of the capitalist. The capitalist will then be in power to abuse the 

worker because he is considered as the only way out from the worker’s point of view. 

Message [211] referenced by [217] and [221]. Next Message by Henrix is [337]. 

[217] Hans: Which side is the state on? RfBurner’s premise in [197] is that the state sees 

to it that all commodity exchange is equal. This is a useful assumption to start with. But Rf- 

Burner’s conclusion, that therefore the worker is protected from capitalism, is a non-sequitur. 

It is an important implication of Marx’s analysis that even if all commodity exchange were 

exactly equal and all commodities were traded at their values, capitalism would still exist 

and the workers would still be exploited. 

Henrix [211] understands this much better. He would have been able to make some 

pertinent comments about RfBurner’s message. Since we have much more traffic now on 

the internet it becomes more important that you build on each other’s answers. If you fail to 

do that, your grade will be penalized. 

Still more can be said about this question. Which side is the state on? Workers, capitalists, 

or is it neutral, or what? 


[221] Guyote: Whose side but their own? In his post, Rfburner [197] asserted that 

the state does, in fact, protect workers from the capitalists. RfBurner cited the fact that the 

workers are the sellers and the employees are the buyers and because of that, employees 

can leave at anytime and are thus, protected by laws and their free will. Henrix [211] noted 

the fact that the state does not protect the workers from the capitalists but only protects the 

worker from selling his labor to the extent that he is a slave. Additionally, henrix commented 

that many times the worker might see slavery as the only way out. 

In response to these two posts I would have to agree more with Henrix than Rfburner but 

still have some of my own conclusions to add to the discussion. 

I can’t help but return to the origins of capitalism when considering this question.


The production for exchange created the conditions for capitalism to grow and gave rise 

to the notion of private property. 

Hans’s comment [217] can complement this underlying assumption. Hans notes that, 

“even if all commodity exchange were equal and commodities were traded at their use values, 

capitalism would still exist and the worker would still be exploited.” 

So when examining whose “side” the government is on, I would have to say that the 

government is on the government’s side. 

As Marx noted in, 280:1, “the sphere of circulation or commodity exchange, within 

whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labor-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the 

innate rights of man. It is the exclusive realm of Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham.” 

Marx goes on to comment that “Each pays heed to himself only, and no one worries about 

the others....they all work together to their mutual advantage, for the common wealth, and in 

the common interest.” 

The government is a holder of private property, and thus reflects the nature of capitalism. 

When it comes to disputes between workers and capitalists, the government is on the government’s 

side, striving to maximize their own utility in the hopes that in accordance with 

the notions of choice and trade, their utility maximizing behavior will yield optimal results. 

For these reasons, and in response to Hans’s [217], the government does not favor the 

workers or the capitalists nor are they neutral, but acts in ways to favor themselves and their 

own survival. It may appear that, from time to time, the government’s behavior favors one 

group over another, however, this is yet another abstraction. 

Message [221] referenced by [227]. Next Message by Guyote is [393.5]. 

[227] Hans: Whose side is it on? In response to my further question “whose side is the 

government on?”, Guyote [221] argues that capitalism means “everyone for himself,” and 

the government, which is a holder of private property and therefore falls under this law, is 

on its own side, striving to maximize its own utility and to ensure its own survival. 

This is an excellent attempt to argue a difficult question on a scientific basis. It is not 

the answer a Marxist would give, but I am impressed with Guyote’s attempts to deduce his 

answer from Marx’s theory. A Marxist might say the following against Guyote: if it were 

the principal aim of government to look out for itself, then there would not be such a strong 

impetus to limit government and cut taxes and to privatize as many government functions as 

possible. 

Government follows different economic laws than the private firms. What Marx writes 

in Capital is therefore not directly applicable to the government and other state bodies (the 

judicial system, the army, etc.) But there is an indirect link because some of the things Marx 

describes in Capital can only work if there is a government as an armed body protecting the 

laws of private property. 

Private ownership of large factories and other means of production is inherently violent: 

some individuals are entitled by society to privately control a resource which they themselves 

cannot use, but which others in society need for their survival. The only purpose 

of this ownership right is to prevent others from making productive use of these resources, 


unless the producers give the owners a large part of the product. It is a form of extortion, 

a silent war of all against all. And in order to keep this war silent so that it won’t disrupt 

productive activity more than it already does, there is an armed body outside society which 

holds the “monopoly of power”. Only the government is allowed to enforce the laws of 

private property if they are broken. The government guarantees the basic rules of the game 

in capitalism, and since these rules favor the capitalists at the expense of the working class, 

it is an inherently pro-capitalist institution. 


Question 325 is 250 in 1997WI, 316 in 1997sp, 314 in 1997ut, 381 in 2001fa, 414 in 

2002fa, 430 in 2003fa, 480 in 2004fa, 457 in 2005fa, 489 in 2007SP, and 505 in 2008fa: 

Question 325 Why is the purchase of slaves and sale of their product not a good way to 

resolve the M-C-M’ challenge? 

[195] Buda: In order for labor power to become a commodity, according to Marx, some 

conditions have to exist. First, a laborer must have the freedom to offer her labor power 

for exchange on the market. Second, in the market both the money owner (buyer) and the 

laborer (seller) are equal in the eyes of the law. To secure these conditions, the owner of the 

labor power then must offer her labor only temporarily to avoid giving up her rights over her 

own commodity (labor power) and transforming herself into a slave. 

Message [195] referenced by [218], [223], and [2002fa:453.1]. Next Message by Buda is [324]. 

[210] Zed: Slavery and the M-C-M challenge By exchanging money for the ownership 

of slaves, at a first glance it would seem that it would convert from that money into a commodity, 

which is what the slaves produce as a final product or the labor power itself, and this 

could be converted back to money. This would follow the M-C-M organization. However, 

labor power is not neccisarily a commodity. The several conditions that must exist for labor 

power to become a commodity include one that that states “ Labor power is to be transferred 

by voluntary exchange, not by direct force” which would not occur in the case of slavery 

where the workers are not performing voluntary labor. Thus slavery would not be a good 

way to resolve the M-C-M challenge. 

Message [210] referenced by [218] and [223]. Next Message by Zed is [304]. 

[218] Hans: Still looking for a good answer Buda [195] cites chapter and verse about 

labor power as a commodity, but the Question was really: can the capitalists not be capitalists 

without labor power being a commodity, as long as the laborer himself is a commodity, a 

slave? Zed [210] sees and describes this possibility, but then he says, like Buda, that this 

contradicts the conditions given by Marx which excluded slavery. Question 325 was: why 

did Marx impose those conditions? Why did he not say: the circuit of capital M-C-M’ can 

be achieved in two ways, either by wage labor or by slavery? Does anyone see why? 


[222] Veblen: efficiency of labor “The wear and tear of a slave, it has been said, is at the 

expence of his master; but that of a free servant is at his own expence”. (Wealth of nations, 

Smith, pg.80) 

It has been argued, that since there are greater X efficiency issues with slave labor it is 

more costly to own a slave than pay a wage labourer. This could have been what Marx 

was referring to as the M-C-M challenge. Perhaps another illusion of the capitalist system?


Though it may appear “easier” or more cost efficient to procure a slave labourer it is indeed 

not so. In the process of the valorization of capital the capitalist is attempting to increase 

the value of his capital as much as possible. In order to do this he must obtain labor power, 

either a wage labourer or a slave. Now it may appear to the capitalist that the preferred 

option is the slave, but in reality the cost of a wage labourer is cheaper. Additionally the 

social relations of production do not allow the ownership of slaves. So I say the real M-C- 

M “challenge” is the valorization of capital using wage labour. Marx did not include slave 

labour in this challenge because he recognized the inefficiences of slave labour. Sorry about 

the rambling!!! Discussion? 

Message [222] referenced by [223]. Next Message by Veblen is [279]. 

[223] Gemni: Veblen [222] has beat me to the punch. He writes about the “inefficiencies” 

of slave labor. Zed [210] and Buda [195] fail to recognize this point. Zed and Buda do 

however lay down the foundation of Marx’s argument; 1a) labor power must be sold by the 

laborer himself, 1b) equality of buyer and seller, 1c) the sale of labor must always only be 

temporary. Veblen elaborates on 1a specifically. 

Can a slave system exist in Marx’s idea of capitalism? I say no, it would cease to be a 

capitalists system. Marx realized, as Veblen [222] noted, that the social relations of production 

(in a capitialist society) do not allow for the ownership of slaves. Marx also says in 

point 1a “it is implicit in the exchange of commodities that there are no other realtions of 

dependence than those resulting from its own nature” (annotations p-134). Slavery is not of 

“its own nature”, that is why slavery can not be used in Marx’s capitialism. Marx realizes 

that ‘ownership’ of the commodity is vital for the “effieciency” of labor power. Slaves do not 

own their labor, they in fact are commodities themselves. The labor power of the wage laborer 

is more efficient than the labor power of a slave. Zed [210] says that labor power must 

be “voluntary.” Freedom is the issue that Zed proposes. He could have elaborated on his 

point and said that because the labor power was not voluntary, it was not efficient, therefore 

that is why Marx did not include it as a solution for his M-C-M challenge. 

Hans: Very good. Although Marx takes pains to argue that capitalism does not give true freedom and equality, it 

is a system based on formal freedom and equality of all. A slave system is not, since the slaves are excluded from 

freedom and equality. This is a big and important difference. 

Message [223] referenced by [380.5]. Next Message by Gemni is [270]. 

[346.1] Kenshiro: Why is the purchase of slaves and sale of their product not a good way 

to resolve the M-C-M challenge? 

If we go back to 1a. “Since labor power is to be transferred by voluntary exchange, not 

by direct force, the laborer must have free disposal over his person.” 

“But in order that the owner of money may find labor power on the market as a commodity, 

various conditions must first be fulfilled. In an for itself, it is implicit in the exchange 

of commodities that there are no other relations of dependence than those resulting from its 

own nature.” V270:3/0 


[355.3] Doc: Marx does not use the purchase of slaves as a method to resolve the M-C-M 

challenge for these reasons, as listed in the annotations, p 134: 


1a) Labor power must be voluntarily exchanged, not forced, which means that the laborer 

must be able to make this choice. 

1b) The price of labor is determined by market forces so seller and buyer must be equal. 

1c) Laborer can only sell himself temporarily. 

2) The laborer cannot sell anything except his labor power because he is deprived of the 

following: He would need pre-existing products, have things to consume before producing, 

the product would need to be sold before he could benefit from this product. 

In addition to these things, Marx states that slavery goes against the very idea of capitalism. 

Hans writes that capitalism does not give true freedom and equality, it is a system 

of formal freedom and equality to all. A slave system would not give these things because 

there is no freedom in slave system. Slavery goes against the social relations of production. 

Slave labor is also not very efficient. It is more costly to the capitalist to own slaves than 

hiring laborers because they are less likely to work hard than a laborer being paid. Slaves do 

not own their labor, they are actually commodities themselves to be sold. 

These are the reasons that slavery does not work in the M-C-M challenge or in capitalism. 

Hans: You are giving here an excerpt of the Annotations but you are not identifying the main reason, which is: the 

direct coercion of the slaves in the labor process does not fit together with the indirect coercion, through the “dull 

forces of economic constraints”, exercised in capitalism. 

Next Message by Doc is [356.1]. 

[355.4] Yikes: One of the key points that Marx makes in chapter six of capital is the need 

for labor to be free! Without this condition there is no form of capitalist production. What 

is free labor? Labor must have the ability to sell their labor power, labor must be equal with 

capital, and labor must be able to choose the time frame that he will work for the capitalist, 

the sale of his labor must be temporary. If a capitalist buys slaves than he is breaking these 

conditions for capital production. Slavery might also be a negative to the capitalist because 

of the increased responsibility that the capitalist will have for the sustenance of the slaves. 

The capitalist will need to provide for housing and food as a slave owner. As a buyer of 

labor power a Capitalist is not responsible for the laborers daily needs. Marx also states that 

the productiviy of a slave is lower than free labor. This is to be expected because a slave will 

spend more time and energy trying to free himself then worry about his next raise! 


[380.5] Veblen: I would like to resubmit the answer I gave in the homework submissions 

if you have a problem with this please alert me. 

“The wear and tear of a slave, it has been said, is at the expense of his master; but that of 

a free servant is at his own expence.” (wealth of nations, Smith, pg. 80) 

It has been argued that since there are greater X efficiency issues with slave labor it is 

more costly to own a slave than pay a wage laborer. This could have been what Marx 

was referring to as the M-C-m challenge. Perhaps another illusion of the capitalist system? 

Though it may appear easier or more cost efficient to procure a slave laborer it is indeed 

not so. In the process of the valorization of capital the capitalist is attempting to increase 

the value of his capital as much as possible. In order to do this he must obtain labor power, 

either a wage laborer or a slave. Now it may appear to the capitalist that the preferred option


is the slave, but in reality the cost of a wage laborer is cheaper. Additionally the social 

relations of production do not allow the ownership of slaves. The real M-C-m challenge is 

the valorization of capital using wage labor. 


Additionally the social relations of production do not allow the ownership of slaves. 

This is right but it is too brief. Gemni [223] said more about this, and this should have been reflected in your exam 

answer. The main argument is not productivity here, as you say in your in-class exam. 


[380.4] Bull: In Marxian economics we learn that the capitalist buys the worker’s capacity 

to labor for a certain sum of money-the wage, or the price of labor power. In installment II 

Gemni and Veblen talk of the inefficiencies associated with slave labor; that is Marx explains 

that ownership of the commodity is crucial for the efficiency of labor power. The labor power 

of wage labor provides efficiency much greater than that of slave labor. I agree with Gemni 

when he says that a slave system has no place in a Marxian society. We reach this agreement 

by reading Marx’s two sets of conditions which lay a foundation for labor power becoming 

a commodity. Marx says, “ it is implicit in the exchange of commodities that there are no 

other relations of dependence than those resulting from its own nature”. (Annotations p. 

134) Gemni puts it right when he says that slavery is not of its “own nature” and this is why 

slavery has no place in a Marxian society. Marx also extends that capitalism does not afford 

absolute freedom and equality, but rather a system built on methodical freedom and equality 

for everyone. In a slave labor system there is no such structure only inefficiency, and where 

there is inefficiency you will NOT find the capitalist. This is why Marx did not include the 

purchase of salves as a solution for his M-C-M challenge. 

Hans: Are you thinking that Marx is advocating capitalism? 


[380.1] Perro: “The M-C-M’ challenge is: to find a commodity which creates more 

value than it costs. Slaves are such commodities” (Hans [1997ut:386]). To understand why 

the purchase of slaves and sale of their product is not a good way to resolve the M-C-M’ 

challenge, we can simply go through Marx’s three conditions listed in “Annotations” p. 134. 

“1a), labor power must be sold by the laborer himself, 1b), equality of buyer 

and seller, 1c), the sale of labor power must always only be temporary.” 

Slave labor does not meet any of these conditions; the slave has not the ability to sell 

his own labor power (1a), the seller (slave owner) is not equal to the buyer in the “eyes of 

the law” (1b), and labor power and labor embodied by a slave is not temporary, but often 

lifelong work against his (the slave) will (1c). 

Next Message by Perro is [380.2]. 

[389.1] Buda: It would be more costly for the capitalist to own a slave than it is to pay 

a wage to a laborer. THe higher cost of owning a slave and the inefficiencies of slave labor 

contribute to the inability to resolve the M-C-M challenge. The real challenge is actually 

the use of wage labor for the volariztion of capital. Also, for labor power to be sold, certain 

conditions have to exist. First, the laborer has to be free and willing to sell her labor. Second, 

both the buyer and the seller are equal on the market. Third, the seller must sell her labor 

power only temporarily to avoid becoming a slave. 

Next Message by Buda is [389.2]. 


[396.1] Gemni: Marx gives three basic arguments that don’t allow slave labor in his 

capitalists system. 1a) labor power must be sold by the laborer himself. 1b) there must be 

equality between the buyer and the seller. 1c) the sale of labor power must always only 

be temporary. All three of these reasons seem valid enough but there are more underlying 

reasons that the products of slave labor is not a good solution to the M-C-M challenge. If 

the capitalists deviated from 1a,1b, and 1c, the worker would eventually sell himself into 

slave labor. Everyone would fall into danger of being enslaved because of the competition 

between the workers. Another important fact to look at is that slave labor would not be very 

‘efficient.’ How much motivation would there be for efficiency by slaves, none. Having 

ownership of the -commodity- and not being one(as a slave is) is the worker’s motivation 

for efficiency. The social relations of production in a capitalists society does not allow for 

slavery. 


[398.5] Karlito: The purchase of slaves and the sale of their product is not a good way to 

resolve the M-C-M challenge because one of capitalism’s central features is that all relations 

of production are market relations. Slavery does not coincide with these market relations 

because of three specific reasons: 

1) Labor power must be sold by the laborer, and in the case of slavery, the slave’s labor 

power is not his to be sold (the slave owner already owns it). 2) There must be equality 

between the buyer and the seller. There can be “no other relations of dependence than those 

resulting from its own nature” and “slavery is not its own nature.” 3) The sale of the labor 

must always be temporary, and the timeframe of slavery cannot be assumed as temporary. 

It is important to note that all social relations must be based on voluntary exchange, not 

on direct force. It is easy to see that the slave is not producing a voluntary exchange because 

he has no freedom. Although Marx pushes the issue that the wage worker’s freedom to sell 

his labor power is only a nominal freedom, this freedom still occurs. Slaves are completely 

excluded from this nominal freedom and equality. 

A second example of why slavery is not a good way to resolve the M-C-M challenge 

is because slaves are less efficient than wage labor. The capitalist will end up paying the 

same amount of money, whether it be the wage of subsistence to the wage earner, or the 

actual subsistence to the slave. Because slaves do not own their own labor power, they not 

only realize that they are not working for themselves, but they will not work as efficiently as 

wage workers. The wage worker, because he was able to sell his labor power to the capitalist, 

believes that he is earning part of the production process, and therefore is more efficient to 

the capitalist. 

Therefore, the purchase of slaves and the sale of their product is not a good way to resolve 

the M-C-M challenge. 

First Message by Karlito is [137]. 

[405.4] Josef: I would like to leave my answer unchanged. 

Hans: I emailed you that I want the exams typed in even if you don’t want to change it, and I am still waiting for 

this. 

Next Message by Josef is [429.1].


[429.1] Josef: It is more expensive to own a slave than to pay a wage laborer. Therefore 

the real M-C-M cahllenge is in the expansion of capital using wage labor. An important 

aspect of effeciency of labor is ownership of labor power. Since a wage laborer owns his 

labor power before selling it, his labor power is more effecient. Although capitalism doesn’t 

offer true freedom and equality, it does offer formal freedom and equality. Slavery on the 

other hand doesn’t at all. 

Next Message by Josef is [429.2]. 

Question 328 is 253 in 1997WI, 319 in 1997sp, 385 in 2001fa, 418 in 2002fa, 434 in 

2003fa, and 461 in 2005fa: 

Question 328 a. What is labor power? 

b. Which conditions must be met for labor power to be a commodity? 

c. Which historical developments must therefore have taken place before the beginning of 

capitalism? 

[201] JoeHill: development of capitalism a.) Labor-power is the capacity to labor. 

Meaning, “the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, 

which he exercises whenever he produces a use value of any description.” (c. 177) 

b.) The two conditions that must have been met for labor power to be a commodity are as 

follow: 1) The laborer must be the free proprietor of his own labor capacity. 2) The laborer, 

instead of selling commodities in which his/her labor has been objectified, he/she must be 

compelled to sell as a commodity that very labor power which only exists within his/her 

living body. 

c.) The essential historical development that must have taken place in order to allow for 

the development of capitalism was the development of a class of free laborers, the proletariat. 

The proletariat are distinguished by the fact that they do not own means of production and 

cannot produce for themselves, and they do not have the money in order to buy means of 

production or support themselves until sufficient returns accrued from their purchase. “Only 

when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the 

free laborer selling his labor power” does capitalism manifest itself. (c. 178) 

Message [201] referenced by [203]. Next Message by JoeHill is [230]. 

[203] PowderNow: Free to and Free from Joehill [201] had a good answer to question 

328 but I think the second part of the question needs a little more explaining. 

The first set of conditions for labor power to be a commodity is a worker must be “free 

to” provide labor power. This means that the laborer must have free disposal to sell their 

labor power unrestrained, not by force. The buyer and seller must be equal and determine a 

wage. Furthermore, the worker will sell their labor power for a definite period of time but 

only on a temporary basis. 

The second set of conditions is that the worker must be “free from” selling a finished 

product on the market. Joehill (201) touched on this in his submission. To add to it, the laborer 

does not own the means of production so their labor power is reduced to a commodity. 

The worker is free from all of the objects needed to produce commodities for sale himself 

and must perform the labor to the capitalist for a wage. 


In conclusion, the worker must be “free to” sell his labor power as a commodity and “free 

from” producing any other commodity himself for sale on the market. 

Hans: You clarified the one point which JoeHill left a little bit too vague. This is a good example of “building on 

each other’s submissions”. 


Question 338 is 337 in 1998WI and 506 in 2007SP: 

Question 338 What are the historical conditions for commodity production, money, and 

capital? 

[215] Luc: The emergence of capitalism Historical conditions for commodity production 

are tied directly to the labor within the commodity production. According to Marx, 

“in order to become a commodity, the product must cease to be produced as the immediate 

means of subsistence of the producer himself.” (Marx, 273:2) In other words, the linen 

is no longer produced for the immediate use of the weaver herself, however, she continues 

to produce it because it is her specialty. This excess linen is used to trade for the excess 

commodities of other producers. This example was historically found in a barter system. 

“If we go on to consider money, its existence implies that a definite stage in the development 

of commodity exchange has been reached.” (Marx, 273:3/o) Following the barter 

system, money was generally accepted and used as a universal equivalent of the world of 

commodities. The money step is another stage in the development of commodity exchange, 

and though not terribly complicated, it was, nonetheless, a social advancement. 

“Capital, on the other hand, is much more of an advanced social institution.” (Trotsky, 

[1998WI:393-1]) In the study guide, Hans writes, “money develops wherever there are commodities, 

but capital, by contrast, does not immediately follow from the existence of commodities 

and money. It depends on the availability of labor power as a commodity, which 

is a very basic relation of production.” (Hans, study guide: 137) For example, the owner of 

a large company finds it profitable to employ a laborer to work for him in exchange for a 

wage. “At this point, the laborer himself becomes a commodity.” (Trotsky) 


[220] Broker: Historical conditions To begin, in my opinion, the overall question stems 

from a statement Marx made. “Nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money 

or commodities, and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labor power. 

It is clearly the result of past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions.” 

Within this last statement Marx dispels any belief that capitalism was a nature 

progressive force. Production, money and capital all were mini-revolutions inside a vast 

economic ecosystem. 

To appropriately answer the question at hand, I will separate the historical conditions 

presented in the question into three separate parts. 

Commodity production: “In order to become a commodity, the product must cease to be 

produced as the immediate means of subsistence of the producer himself.” True commodity 

production must be for others use value and the producers exchange value. This statement 

marks one of the revolutions. Now production is not solely meant for myself, but for others 

benefit also.


Money: The historical condition of money begins with the circulation of commodities. 

Money itself is just a marker of, “(the) very different levels of the process of social production.” 

The money revolution is offset revolution of individuals producing wares for the 

market. Money is an indication of movement of commodities. 

Capital: “Capital arises only when the owners of the means for production and subsistence 

finds the free worker available, on the market, as the seller of his own labor power.” 

Capital is different than commodity production and money. Its existence does not depend 

on the production, but on free available labor. Generating capital, in Marx’s terminology, 

would be purchasing free labor. 

To summarize, the historical conditions in commodity production was the production of 

commodities for something more than use value. The historical conditions for money is an 

indication of the movement of commodities. And finally, the historical conditions for capital 

is the purchasing of free labor power in the market place. 

Message [220] referenced by [235]. Next Message by Broker is [254]. 

[235] Hans: Historical conditions Luc’s answer [215] is roughly correct, but it is too 

long for what it says. It is too rambling and not very precise. 

Luc brings several Marx quotes. Literal quotes from Marx are more interesting if you 

find a relevant passage from elsewhere, not right next to the question in the Annotations, or 

if you want to make a specific point. Otherwise it is often better to put Marx’s ideas into 

different words instead of repeating him literally. It takes up less space and is clearer and 

more instructive to say: “For the existence of commodities Marx gives only one condition: a 

social division of labor” than repeating the Marx’s own convoluted text “in order to become 

a commodity, the product must cease to be produced as the immediate means of subsistence 

of the producer himself.” 

Luc’s Marx quotes create the impression that he is following Marx’s text closely. But 

each of the three parts of the question has an inaccuracy. 

In the first part, regarding commodity production, Luc neglects to say that Marx is asking 

here two questions: (1) what are the conditions for some of the products to be produced as 

commodities, and (2) what are the conditions for the overwhelming majority of products to 

be produced as commodities? 

Regarding money, Marx gives the double message that commodity exchange must have 

reached a certain level for it, but this level did not have to be very high. The following 

sentence seems to be Luc’s rendering of this thought. If it is, Luc did not read Marx’s text 

carefully enough: 

The money step is another stage in the development of commodity exchange, 

and though not terribly complicated it was, nonetheless, a social 

advancement. 

Also regarding the conditions of capital, there is a certain discrepancy between Marx’s 

text and Luc’s rendering of it. Marx writes: 


Capital arises only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence 

finds the free worker available, on the market, as the seller of his own 

labor power. 

Luc elaborates this as follows: 

For example, the owner of a large company finds it profitable to employ a 

laborer to work for him in exchange for a wage. 

If the capitalist is willing to hire workers, this does not yet mean the workers are available. 

Nowadays, most workers are glad when they find an employer who commandeers them 

around and exploits them. This was not always so. The artisans and freehold peasants in 

the Middle Ages were very proud, and quite a bit of economic hardship and coercion was 

necessary before they got used to the idea that they had to work for some boss in a factory. 

Broker’s [220] has a lot of overlap with Luc’s [215] but does not refer to it at all. Failure 

to build on the submissions of others results in a grade penalty. 


[355.2] Yikes: The historical conditions of commodity production can be placed in three 

categories. 1) Commodity production begins when the commodity being produced ceases 

to be a use-value to the producer, it only has an exchange value to him. 2) The capitalist 

must have access to an adequate amount of free labor, ( free labor is defined as the ability of 

labor to sell their labor power as they desire to whom they wish and for a finite amount of 

time i.e., not for ever). 3) Money as a means of circulation, and a measure of value is a child 

of commodity circulation. Money presupposes an early stage of development in commodity 

circulation. This development is not elaborated upon by Marx he only states that it is in the 

infancy of commodity exchange. 

Hans: You lump it all together; the Question really asked for 3 different sets of conditions. 

Next Message by Yikes is [355.4]. 

[356.1] Doc: The historical conditions for commodity production, money, and capital 

starts with commodity production.. 

Commodity production, according to Marx, is the step that laborers take from producing 

only that which is for their own consumption to making a commodity for sale or exchange 

in the marketplace. This marks the start of commodities and exchange or what we would 

call the barter system. 

Money, is the next historical step, and shows a definite advancement in exchange. Money 

is now accepted as a means of bartering between buyer and seller and has a value that is 

acceptible to both.We have now reached a significant stage in the development of commodityexchange. 

Money indicates movements of commodities. 

Capital is also an advancement in production. It relates solely to availability of labor 

and the ability of the capital owner to purchase this labor (commodity). If he has the ability 

to purchase this labor and the laborer is willing to sell his labor power, we now have 

capital added to the production mode. Marx states that capital will arise when an owner of 

production and capital finds in the market a free worker who will sell his own labor power.


The historical conditions for commodity production is the production of commodities 

not intended for personal consumption. For money, it is the movement of commodities and 

capital is the introduction of free labor power in the market to purchase. 

Hans: You seem to look at it all as a matter of technology, and you are missing the social implications of what 

you are describing here. Commodity production is not the only possible alternative to production for one’s own 

consumption. The existence of labor power as a commodity requires the separation of the producers from the means 

of production, which is a violent affair, see Marx’s Chapters about the primitive accumulation. 


[405.5] Veblen: According to Marx the answers to these questions are determined by 

three factors. 

A) Commodity production, “requires a level of development of the division of labor 

within society such that the seperation of use-value from exchange-value,... has already 

been completed.”(Annotations, p.136) So essentially you need a division of labor 

B) Money as a historical necessity, “presupposes a certain stage in the exchange of commodities 

...”(Annotations, p.137) So what is necessary is a division of labor that is complex 

enough that the exchange process requires a universal form of value to ameloriate the complexities 

of exchange. 

C) “Capital,..., ushers in from the outset a new epoch in the process of social production.”(Annotations, 

p.137) This new epoch is the exchange of labor power on the market. 

This is necessary for Capital because Capital cannot valorize itself without a variable element. 

Namely, abstract labor that adds value to the production process. 

Hans: The variable element is people who are willing to sell their labor power, which they will only do when they 

are separated from the means of production. 


[416.1] RfBurner: Commodity production, money and capital all have historical conditions. 

First making a product a commodity means that it has to be produced with the intent to 

be traded not to be consumed by the producer. This function is a critical part of the capitalist 

system. Another condition that is necessary for a product to be a commodity is that the 

society that is producing the commodity must have a developed division of labor. For there 

to be commodities there must be the development of a capitalist system with an elaborate 

division of labor. With in this system products can be produced with the intent to sell and 

not consume. With these conditions comes the existence of commodities. 

Money comes from the production of commodities. In a society that is producing commodities 

a universal equivalent was created in order to create a more developed circulation 

of commodities. Money takes on the function of a measure of value of a commodity, as 

a means of circulation, payment, hoarding, and as a world currency. Having money serve 

these purposes helps to develope an exchange system for commodities. 

Capital also has historical conditions. Capital comes from creating surpluse labor. This 

means that the wages payed to the laborer is less than the value of commodity that they produced. 

This gap allows a capitalist to make money to use as they please, they can consume 

or they can reinvest. But only when a worker sells there labor power can capital exist. These 

are the historical condition of commodity production, money and capital. 



Question 341 If schools are free, then the wage differential between skilled and unskilled 

laborer diminishes, but skilled labor will still create more value than unskilled labor, just as 

in a regime in which schoold are costly. Right or Wrong? 

[219] Sprockets: Education, or lack thereof. Wrong. As I said in [142-7], my resubmission 

of question 88, “we, ourselves, may derive different value from things produced by 

both skilled and unskilled laborers, but initially, in production, skilled and unskilled laborers 

produce the same value per hour.” This statement was based on Hans statement in [45] that 

“society, when it organizes production, sees these labors as quantitative,” where I interpreted 

this “as meaning there is no difference between the two, skilled and unskilled, in terms of 

quantity, and therefore, in terms of value.” 

This is based on the way that society perceives labor. 

Hans: The sentence “society, when it organizes production, sees these labors as quantitative,” means: The market 

does not recognize any qualitative differences between skilled and unskilled labor, only quantitative differences. If 

a dentist works for an hour on your teeth, then he had to spend another hour or more earlier and a lot of tuitition to 

learn this. This is why one hour of working on your teeth is counted as more than one hour. Question 341 is asking: 

what happens with this if schools are paid from general taxes, and the worker himself does not have to pay for his 

education. 



2004fa, 483 in 2005fa, 531 in 2008fa, 554 in 2009fa, 591 in 2010fa, 609 in 2011fa, and 

635 in 2012fa: 

Question 346 Argue why the commodity the worker sells is labor power, and not labor. 

[208] Boarder: labor power vs. labor Marx feels that the the commodity the worker 

sells is labor power because labor power is the defined by a quantity of means to sustain life. 

He is saying that labor power is directly related to maintaining one’s existence. Marx relates 

the example of 3 shillings to labor power. He is stating that if half a day of labor is equal to 

the shillings, and the shillings are equal to required labor power for subsistence, then the 3 

shillings become the price for labor power. This becomes the wage. The 3 shillings is going 

to be the minimum required in order to sustain life for a particular individual. 

Hans: Not the labor power itself but its value is “defined by a quantity of means to sustain life.” You are confusing 

labor power with its value. But although the formulation is unfortunate, you are saying something important. It 

explains why it matters whether labor or labor power is sold. The difference is that if labor were sold, the worker 

would have to get the full value of what he produces. But since only labor power is sold, the worker gets nothing 

more than a subsistence allowance which is far below the amount of value he produces. 

Message [208] referenced by [213]. Next Message by Boarder is [304]. 

[213] Dragon: More on labor power vs. labor. Boarder [208] had a good answer to 

question 346 but I want to add two things to it. First, I wanted to explain a little more 

about what Marx defines as labor power and why it is a commodity that the worker sells. 

Secondly, Boarder argues why the commodity the worker sells is labor power, but Boarder 

doesn’t really say anything about why the commodity the worker sells is not labor. 

Marx defines labor power as the capacity to labor. Labor power is a commodity. It is 

a use value possessed by the laborer which in its commodity form (labor power), has an


exchange value. The capitalist purchases labor power as a commodity. The laborer can 

realize its exchange value only by selling it. Wage is the price of labor power and Boarder 

attempts to explain why it is. I think what he was trying to show was that the value of the 

worker’s labor power depends on the quantity of labor which is necessary to produce it. The 

quantity of labor in this case is to sustain the lives of the worker and possibly his family. The 

exchange of labor power for wage is like all other exchanges. In all exchanges, equivelents 

are exchanged voluntarily and this also holds true for the exchange of labor power for money 

(wage). 

I also wanted to emphasize why the commodity the worker sells is not labor. Marx clearly 

distinguishes between labor power and labor; labor cannot be sold because it is an activity 

and not a thing. Labor is a human activity, not a commodity. It is not bought and sold and 

therefore has no value. It is labor power, not labor which is bought and sold. Value depends 

on the quantity of labor put into a commodity (labor power), not on the activity value of 

labor. 

Hans: Marx would agree that the laborer does not sell his or her labor, but he would disagree with the reason you 

give, “because [labor] is an activity and not a thing.” If this were true, then services could not be commodities. But 

services can be commodities: they are commodities whose consumption takes place at the same time and place as 

their production. The reason the laborer cannot sell his labor and therefore cannot get the full value of his product 

is that he does not have the means of production. 


Question 348 is 48 in 1995WI, 56 in 1995ut, 60 in 1996sp, 58 in 1996ut, 65 in 1997sp, 

347 in 1998WI, 441 in 2002fa, and 523 in 2007fa: 

Question 348 Labor power creates products. The value of the products comes from the 

value of labor power, and the use value from the use value of labor power. Is this a correct 

rendering of Marx’s theory? 

[198] Winston: Does Labor Power create Products? Since this question embodies three 

different statements, I will respond to each statement in order stating whether or not they are 

correct renderings of Marx’s theory. 

First is the statement that “labor power creates products.” This is an incorrect rendering 

of Marx because it is actual labor that creates labor not labor power which is the capacity to 

labor. The example of the difference between labor and labor power that is given in the text 

is the difference between digestion and the capacity to digest...the latter needing more than 

a good stomach, (see page 159, last paragraph). This as the same as labor and labor power, 

labor power needing means of production to produce. 

Second is the statement that “the value of labor products comes from the value of labor 

power.” This is also an incorrect statement because it is the once again the actual labor, the 

brains and muscles that go into the making of the product that give the product value. 

The third and last statement is that “the use value of the products comes from the use 

value of labor.” This statement is partly true because the use value of labor is labor itself. It 

is labor that gives certain properties to products that then make the product useful. 




Question 352 is 282 in 1996sp, 287 in 1996ut, 342 in 1997sp, 341 in 1997ut, and 557 in 

2009fa: 

Question 352 It is often argued that labor power is not really a commodity. Does labor 

power meet the following general characteristics of the commodity? 

(a) It is a non-use-value for its producer. 

(b) It is a use value for the buyer. 

(c) Its use value and its value are two quite different things. 

(d) It is produced for the exchange. 

(e) Seller and buyer only meet on the market; the consumption of the commodity is a matter 

which does not concern the seller. 

[194] Karlito: Is Labor Power a Commodity? The question asks if labor power “meet(s) 

the..general characteristics of a commodity.” The word [general] connotes the idea that these 

characteristics do not always have to be true. I believe that even though labor power does not 

meet all of the “general characteristics” of a commodity, it is still a commodity (see Chapter 

6 of Capital). In both [27] and [100] PowderNow gives the definition of labor power as being 

the potential to work. In this chapter, Marx is not referring to the sale of the products that 

are produced by labor power, but the actual sale of labor power. 

a) A laborer has labor power, but has no use for the labor that he generates without his 

own means of production. If he does not own his own means of production, then to him his 

labor has a non-use-value. 

b) Labor power produces value. If the produced value has a high enough use value for 

the buyer, then he will buy it. 

c) On page 276 of Capital, Marx states that “The ultimate or minimum limit of the value of 

labour-power is formed by the value of the commodities which have to be supplied every day 

to the bearer of labour-power, the man, so that he can renew his life-process.” In other words, 

the value of labor power must be at least equal to the value of the means of consumption 

the worker must have to live. This has nothing to do with use value because the laborer’s 

production output is much higher than the amount that he needs to solely survive. 

d) The potential to work (or labor power) of a laborer is usually created so that the laborer 

can survive. Therefore, labor power is NOT produced for exchange, but as a way of receiving 

the supplies necessary to renew his “life- process.” 

e) On pages 278-279, Marx states that in a capitalist society, “it is the custom not to 

pay for labour-power until it has been exercised...the worker advances the use-value of his 

labour-power to the capitalist.” In other words, the consumption of the commodity is a matter 

which does concern the seller because although the labor power is sold, it is paid for only at 

a later date. In addition to meeting on the market, the seller and the buyer must meet again. 


Message [194] referenced by [342.1] and [2009fa:859]. Next Message by Karlito is [257]. 

[342.1] Maverick: I was very fascinated by Karlito’s correct response in [194] Karlito to 

part A of this question. The basic idea is that labor power is not a use-value to the worker 

unless he owns the means of production. Furthermore, labor power is a use-value to the 

capitalist who buys it, because it can be used to produce value. If the value that labor power


can produce is high enough, then the capitalist will purchase it. Quantitatively, the use value 

and the value of labor power are two different things. As Karlito points out, the minimum 

limit of the value of labor power can be reduced to the most basic consumption bundle which 

the laborer needs to sustain himself. The value that the worker produces far exceeds the 

value of his consumption bundle. Therefore, the use value of labor power for the capitalist 

is much different quantitatively than the value of labor power. Labor power does not exist 

to be exchanged but rather to provide the individual with the ability to sustain himself. The 

seller and the buyer of labor power not only meet on the market but repeatedly after the 

exchange. As Karlito points out, the seller advances the use value of his labor power to the 

capitalist and is compensated at a later date after his labor has been expended. Therefore, 

the worker is concerned with the consumption of his labor power. Although labor power 

doesn’t fit under parts D and E of the general characteristics of the commodity, I believe that 

the evidence favors the idea that labor power is indeed a commodity. 

Next Message by Maverick is [342.2]. 

[463.2] PumpkinStar: a) There is no use-value for the laborer (producer), since he has 

no means of production available to him. 

b) It has use value to the buyer. Without it, the Capitalist cannot produce commodities, 

The Capitalist requires the labor power offered by the laborer. If the use-value offered by 

the producer is high enough, the Capitalist will purchase it. 

c) Its value is based on the producers need to sustain life. The use-value is the capacity 

for the producer to put to use. Therefore, value and use-value are very different things. 

d) Labor power is produced in order for the laborer to sustain life. It is not produced for 

the exchang. 

e) Since the seller will only get paid after the “consumption” of its labor power, they must 

meet again. Consumption concerns the seller. 

Although the physical characteristics of the commodity are there, I would argue that labor 

power is not a commodity because it has other necessities other than to be exchanged. So a 

subtle “no” when asked the question, “Is labor power a commodity?” 

First Message by PumpkinStar is [132]. 

Question 356 is 206 in 1995ut, 228 in 1996sp, 280 in 1997WI, 346 in 1997sp, 345 in 

1997ut, 355 in 1998WI, 442 in 2000fa, and 468 in 2001fa: 

Question 356 Is the question how this geometric possibility might be turned into reality 

something that goes through the mind of every capitalist every day? 

[225] Kenshiro: According to Marx the answer would be a resounding, No. Or as the 

book puts it “that although geometry suggest that it should be possible .... Marx argues that 

the laws of economics do not permit it...” 

I is believed; however, to be a true axiom. It is the lot of the capitalist to try and squeeze as 

much out of his workers in the time permitted. This is why we have companies hire outside 

consultants to come in and “Help us Work more efficiently.” To teach us better ways to do 

our jobs and help us become more productive. This type of thing has been going on well 


before Adam Smith even penned his book on Economics. The Egyptians had the same idea 

but tried a different approach, they beat and savaged the workers. 

A case can be made that Employers and Capitalists, do want to stretch B closer to A; 

however, as Marx has shown it is not possible because A to B will shorten as B to C increases 

in size. 

Hans: Your original submission had funny question marks interspersed (which I eliminated in the archive version). 

Please make sure your submissions are formatted properly; such formalities do affect your grade. There are also 

some mal-formed sentences. You also violated good internet etiquette when you sent the same message to the 

classlist three times. (I deleted the extra copies again). This fills up everybody’s mail boxes unnecessarily, and it 

wastes their time since they must recognize that this is the same message as sent before and delete it. 

Here is a point not about the form but about the content. You are saying: 

The Egyptians had the same idea but tried a different approach, they beat and savaged the 

workers. 

In other words, you are saying that everyone, even the old Egyptians, were capitalists, i.e., capitalism is eternal and 

will always be with us. I hope you are aware that Marx vigorously argues against this. 

Other comments are in message [237]. Despite all this criticism and the above deductions your grade is not 

terribly bad, since there is some good thinking in your answer. 

Message [225] referenced by [237] and [238]. Next Message by Kenshiro is [272]. 

[237] Hans: Economic Laws are Tendencial Kenshiro [225] asserts that Marx would 

say no, since the economic laws which Marx derived do not permit to shift B to the left. 

This argument does not hold because Marx considers all economic laws to be tendential. 

What is a tendential law? Look for instance at the “law of value” which says that the prices 

of commodities will be proportional to their labor contents. There is not a single individual 

in society who wants this law to hold. Everybody wants to sell his or her product above 

its labor content, and buy the other’s products below their labor contents. And often these 

individuals succeed in this. The law of value does not predict every market outcome, but 

it describes the center of gravity towards which relative prices are driven, or around which 

they rotate, by the competing actions of the economic agents. The fact that the individuals 

try everything to prevent this law from holding does not invalidate the law. On the contrary; 

some of the things people do to circumvent the economic laws are in fact enforcing these 

laws. 

Therefore it does make sense to start with something which the individual economic 

agents strive towards, although it is an economic impossibility, and look for ways how this 

individual drive can be reconciled with the laws of economics. This is Marx’s procedure at 

the beginning of Chapter Twelve. 

Message [237] referenced by [225], [238], [380.2], [401.2], and [405.12]. Next Message by Hans is [240]. 

[238] Luc: The shift of point b to the left. In the last paragraph of [225] Kenshiro 

writes, “A case can be made that Employers and Capitalists, do want to stretch B closer to 

A; however, as Marx’s has shown it is not possible because A to B will shorten as B to C 

increases in size.” 

This paragraph is unclear on two accounts: 

1) Kenshiro neglected to set up the argument correctly. In Chapter 12, Marx illustrates 

the given work day geometrically by drawing the line AC.


This line is divided into 2 segments with three reference points. The whole line A——- 

B—C represents the given work day, the section AB represent hours of necessary labor, and 

the section BC represents the surplus labor. Kenshiro did mention that Capitalists “do want 

to stretch B closer to A.” This statement is correct, capitalists do want to shift point b to the 

left, but “the capitalist is usually not fully aware of the implications of his own practice.” 

(Hans, Winter 1998) 

2) Kenshiro writes that “it [the stretch of B closer to A] is not possible.” I would like to 

point out that it is possible for a capitalist to shift b to the left, but Marx “argues that the laws 

of economics do not permit it.” The laws of economics (competition) may not permit it, but 

it happens on a daily basis. 

This illustration helps to show that the answer to question 356 is not a “resounding, No,” 

as Kenshiro states. The answer is not “resounding,” it is more on the subtle side. Though 

the capitalist may not consciously go through the geometric possibility of shifting point b to 

the left, he is always anxiously engaged in this exact process (shifting point b to the left), if 

not, he would be an unsuccessful capitalist. 

Hans: It is amazing that your [238] and my [237] arrived at almost the same time, and we both said very similar 

things. 

Message [238] referenced by [238], [282], and [404.2]. Next Message by Luc is [271]. 

[253] Paul: Using Marx’s example of the work day broken into a geometrical figure of line 

AC. With A representing the beginning of the work day and C as the end of the work day. 

Point B represents the time of the day in which necessary labor becomes surplus labor. [A— 

–B—C] As both Kenshiro and Luc pointed out, the capitalist will always attempt to move 

B back towards A. By moving B back towards A the length of necessary labor is decreased 

and surplus labor is increased. The capitalist, by doing so will increase the efficiency of 

production. 

However, the geometrical example of the work day points out that in order to increase 

the surplus labor, the necessary labor must be consequently decreased. The twelve hour 

day is the given length of time and is defined by the line AC. Marx further points out that 

necessary labor is the labor required for production and also the required compensation for 

the expenditure of the human labor from the worker. The capitalist seeks efficiency and 

profit, thus he may not explicitly look to raise the surplus labor, but does so indirectly. 

“Some of the things people do to circumvent the economic laws are in fact enforcing these 

laws.” [Hans 356] In conjuction with Luc, I have to agree that the answer is not a definitive 

“no” because the capitalist will still try to move B towards A, but like Hans’s answer to 

356 the capitalist may not realize his actions in their full economic perspective. Hence, the 

answer is a “subtle no.” [Luc 356] 

Hans: Good summary of the discussion. 


[380.2] Perro: Marx divided the workday into the geometrical figure, A-B-C. Part A-B is 

the beginning of the workday, which is called necessary labor time. Part B-C is the last part 

of the workday, called surplus labor time. This model shows that the ideal for the capitalist 

would be to move B closer to A, e.g. due to better productivity. However, Marx argues that 

laws of economics do not permit this. On the other hand does he not say that it is impossible 

to do this. “...this is possible, it is the case whenever the capitalist cuts wages below the 


value of labor power in order to increase his profits” [Annotations p.145]. Because these 

economic laws do not permit it, the answer to the question is NO. On the other hand will 

always capitalists move B closer to A, and thus the answer is YES. However, as Hans [237] 

says, people in fact enforces these laws. The final answer to the question should therefore 

be a “weak” NO. 

First Message by Perro is [4]. 

[389.2] Buda: Marx’s example of the geometric figure A-B-C to break up the working 

day. A represents the beginning of the day, and C represents the end of the work day. B is 

the time of the day when necessary labor turns into surplus labor. The capitalist will try to 

move B back closer to A in order to increase surplus labor and decrease necessary labor to 

increase the effeciency of production. THe capitalist is always seeking more profit but she 

doesn’t directly look at it in terms of increasing surplus labor. Therefore, the answer to the 

question would be a “subtle no”. 


[398.1] Karlito: In order to understand this question, we must apply Marx’s example of 

the 12 hour work day as line AC. Line AC is composed of three points namely A, B, and C. 

Marx formulated line AC as: A——B—C. Segment AB represents the socially necessary 

labor time to produce a product, while segment BC represents the surplus labor time. 

The capitalist is obviously looking to increase his profits. This can only happen if segment 

BC increases. This increase is possible only if B moves towards A. An example of this 

(shortening the necessary labor time) would be innovation. The capitalist cannot increase BC 

(or extend surplus value) by extending C because he would then be cutting wages. Cutting 

wages (the price of labor power) is not a possibility because labor power is considered a 

commodity and we assume that it is bought and sold at its full value. 

As segment BC increases, segment AB simultaneously is shortened. Although the movement 

of B to A does not actually go through the mind of the capitalist everyday, he must 

at least look for ways to both exploit the worker as well as increase profits. Because the 

capitalist is unknowingly trying to shift B towards A, the answer to the question is a subtle 

no. 

Next Message by Karlito is [398.5]. 

[401.2] Navin: The answer to this question is not a clear cut no. Capitalist do venture to 

move point B to the left. This is the way for them to increase profits or surplus labor. Hans 

states in [237] that even though marx states that economic laws do not permit point B to 

move to the left all economic laws are tendential. The example he uses is very clear. The 

law of “value” says that the price of a commodity will be proportional to it’s labor contents. 

But everyone wants to sell their own products(labor) for more than it is worth and buy every 

one else’s products(labor) for less than it is worth. These are the forces that drive the relative 

prices. The fact that we are trying to 

prevent the law from holding does not invalidate the law. 

These facts lead us to know that this question is definitely on the mind of a capitalist, or he 

would not be a good capitalist. However, the capitalist do not know the full implications of 

their own practice(hans. winter 98). Capitalist do whatever is necessary to increase profits. 

The theory of economics explain that the goal of the firm is to maximize profits and that is


all, nothing else. A capitalist will do whatever is necessary to achieve this goal even if it 

means trying to move point B to the left against the laws of economics (competition). 

Next Message by Navin is [408.1]. 

[404.2] Luc: In Chapter 12, Marx illustrates the given work day geometrically by drawing 

the line AC. The line, AC, is divided into two segments, with three reference points, ABC. 

The whole line A——–B—C represents the given workday, section AB represents hours 

of necessary labor, and section BC represents the surplus labor. In order to increase the 

capitalist’s profits, section BC must increase in size. This can only happen of B is shifted 

to the left, which would decrease the length of necessary labor and increase surplus labor. 

Capitalists do want to stretch B closer to A, but “the capitalist is usually not fully aware of 

the implications of his own practice.” (Hans, Winter 1998) 

It is possible for a capitalist to shift B to the left, but Marx “argues that the laws of 

economics do not permit it.” The laws of economics (competition) may not permit it, but it 

happens on a daily basis. (Luc, [238]) 

Though shifting B to the left does not go through the mind of the capitalist everyday, he 

is constantly looking for ways to exploit laborers and increase profits. As a result, the he is 

always “anxiously engaged in this exact process (shifting B to the left), if not, he would be 

an unsuccessful capitalist.” (Luc, [238]) 

Next Message by Luc is [404.3]. 

[405.12] Winston: Marx mentions in the A—B-C example (A-C representing a 12 hour 

day) that the law of economics don’t allow the capitalist to shift B to the left. Hans comment 

[237] to this is that this law doesn’t hold because Marx considers all laws to be tendencial. 

Hans further defines this by saying, “the fact that the individuals try everything to prevent 

this law from holding does not invalidate the law” [237]. So the capitalist will always try to 

attempt to move B back towards A. By moving B back towards A the capitalist is decreasing 

the necessary labor and increasing labor surplus. 

The capitalist seeks efficiency and profit, so he doesn’t try to raise the surplus labor 

directly, but rather he does it indirectly. The conclusion then is not a definite no but a subtle 

one. 


[405.10] Paul: Marx brings up a geometric figure to represent the work day. A—B—C. A 

represents the beginning of the day and point C represents the work day. Point B represents 

the point at which necessary labor becomes that of surplus. 

The capitalist is always searching for a way to decrease necessary labor and increase the 

surplus. Which means that the line AB will become shorter in length than BC. The reason 

for this is that the capitalist receives individual profit from the surplus value of the labor. In 

turn, the worker does not realize the full value of his labor. 

“The capitalist seeks efficiency and profit, thus he may not explicitly look to raise surplus 

labor, but does so indirectly.” [Installment 2] The capitalist then does not think of the 

geometric possiblity on a daily basis. The capitalist is constantly looking for ways to increase 

productivity in order to give him the advantage over the competition. By doing so, he 

subsequently searches for ways to raise the surplus value of the workers output, exploiting 


them further. “Some of the things people do to circumvent the economic laws, are in fact 

enforcing these laws.” Hans [356]. The “search” undertaken by the capitalist is something 

that crosses the mind of the capitalist everyday. Making him the true capitalist. 


[429.2] Josef: The question of how this geometric possibility might be turned into reality, 

or moving point B to the left does go through the mind of a capitalist. This however is not 

the only thing that the capitalist is thinking of. The capitalist has other ways to make a profit. 

The capitalist is trying to maximize profits, he will do anything that will help him accomplish 

his goal of maximizing profits. For example, he will cut costs. When a capitalist maves back 

point B towards A he is decreasing neccessary labor and increasing surplus labor. Every 

good capitalist wants to do this. 


Exam Question 357 is 207 in 1995ut, 229 in 1996ut, 281 in 1997WI, 346 in 1997ut, 508 


Exam Question 357 Why does Marx make the assumption throughout Volume I of Capital 

that the prices of all commodities are quantitatively equal to their values? 

[296] Winston: Prices of Commodities Marx makes this assumption so that there is 

constant equilibrium. When prices of commodities aren’t quantitatively equal to their values 

this calls for “a special class of economic mechanisms” (p.185) which make it so that there 

is equilibrium. Marx says that these mechanisms are part of the “sphere of competition.” 

The reason Marx doesn’t address the mechanisms of competition in Capital is because he 

is commenting on the economic laws or structure of capitalism which are “derived on the 

assumption that the forces of competition operate successfully” (p.185). 

Hans: The next sentence on p. 185 is important too: “The specifics of these forces do not add to the overall dynamic 

of capitalism.” Your answer was a little bit too mechanistic. Here is an attempt to say it in a less mechanistic manner: 

The dynamic of capitalism is governed by the tendencies inherent in money and value. The interactions between 

the economic agents on the surface of the economy only have the result to bring these tendencies out in the open. 

Message [296] referenced by [2002fa:243]. Next Message by Winston is [310]. 

Question 358 is 208 in 1995ut, 230 in 1996sp, 230 in 1996ut, 282 in 1997WI, 348 in 

1997sp, 347 in 1997ut, 357 in 1998WI, and 470 in 2001fa: 

Question 358 If the length of the working day is fixed, then the division of the day into 

necessary and surplus labor can be made more favorable for the capitalist in two ways: 

either the necessary labor is shortened by extending the surplus labor, or the surplus labor 

is extended by shortening the necessary labor. Which of these two possibilities is Marx 

discussing here, and why is he not discussing the other possibility? 

[230] JoeHill: how to get more surplus value In discussing how the division of the 

working day, between necessary labor and surplus labor, can be made more favorable for the 

capitalist, Marx is talking about the surplus labor being extended by shortening the necessary 

labor and not the other way around. To shorten the necessary labor by extending the surplus 

labor would be to violate the “assumption that all commodities, including labor power, are 

bought and sold at their full values.” To extend surplus labor implies that the capitalist is 

cutting workers wages, i.e. the price of labor power, below the value of labor power. This


assumption cannot be violated, according to Marx, because he believes that the “forces of 

competition operate successfully,” and that any “discrepancy between [the] value and price 

of labor” will be eroded by these forces (annotations 145). This leaves the capitalist with extending 

surplus labor by shortening the necessary labor. This becomes possible only through 

innovations that improve productivity, thus reducing the value of labor power, meaning that 

the same means of subsistence can be produced in less time. 

Hans: Instead of saying “this assumption cannot be violated” you should have said “this assumption can be violated 

only temporarily.” Otherwise very good, although you should have explained it in a more concise manner. 

Next Message by JoeHill is [268]. 


1997WI, 350 in 1997sp, 349 in 1997ut, 359 in 1998WI, 472 in 2001fa, 511 in 2002fa, 529 

in 2003fa, 582 in 2004fa, 535 in 2005fa, 584 in 2007SP, 591 in 2008fa, 683 in 2010fa, 

703 in 2011fa, 732 in 2012fa, and 683 in Answer: 

Question 360 What is relative surplus-value? Which mechanisms, that were so far taken as 

given, affect the magnitude of relative surplus-value? 

[226] Perro: Surplus-value Marx divided the workday into two parts; the “necessary 

labor time”, and the “surplus labor time”. If the workday were expanded in terms of working 

more hours per day, the result is what he called “absolute surplus-value”. On the other hand, 

if the first part of the workday (“necessary labor time”) get shorter, and the workday as a 

whole stays the same, we get what Marx called “relative surplus-value”. Because of the fact 

that the part “necessary labor time” now is a shorter part of the day, we can conclude that 

the “relative surplus-value” occur as a result of increase in “surplus-value”. 

It is important to understand that this can only happen as a result of an increase in the 

production. Such increase leads to higher output during the the workday. The “necessary 

labor time” will therefore decrease, and thus the “surplus-value” will increase. This increase 

in production can be the result of new- or change in technology and production methods. 

Ford’s introduction of the “assembly line concept” at its time is a good example, and illustrates 

how an increase in production can affect the “relative surplus-value”. 

Message [226] referenced by [228], [229], and [240]. Next Message by Perro is [336]. 

[228] Angus: Relative Surplus Value In order to effectively answer this question I will 

start with the definition of surplus value. Surplus value is the difference between value of the 

product and the value of the inputs used up in the production process. Relative surplus value 

and absolute surplus value are the two ways in which surplus value can be increased. Thus 

Dr. Ehrbar says, “These are not so much two kinds of surplus value as two mechanisms 

to gain surplus value.” (P146) For instance, relative surplus value increases surplus value 

by decreasing the value of labor power. However, absolute surplus value increases surplus 

value by increasing the length of the working day. 

Decreasing the value of labor power increases the magnitude of relative surplus value. 

And according to Marx there only seem to be two ways of decreasing the value of labor 

power: (1) increasing labor productivity (including increasing intensity of labor), (2) “a 

corresponding cheapening of commodities in those industries which supply the instruments 

of labor and the material for labor.” [432:2]. As Marx points out, I think it is important 

to remember that the value of labor power is unchanged when there is an increase in the 


productivity of labor in an industry that does not supply the “necessary means of subsistence 

nor the means by which they are produced.” [432:2] 

I agree with most of Perro’s [226] answer, however the second way to decrease the value 

of labor power (and therefore increasing relative surplus value) was not mentioned. 


[240] Hans: How can relative surplus value be increased? Angus [228] gives the right 

definition of surplus value: 

Surplus value is the difference between value of the product and the value 

of the inputs used up in the production process. 

However here it must be added that according to Marx’s theory, all difference between 

value and cost comes from the fact that labor power produces more value than it costs. All 

other inputs into production add as much value to the output as they themselves cost. This 

was discussed most clearly in Chapter Eight, and since we skipped over this Chapter, I 

thought I mention it here. 

Other than this, neither Angus’s [228] nor Perro’s [226] made me very happy. 

In 432:2, Marx discusses two ways to decrease the value of labor power: (1) increase 

productivity in those industries which produce means of consumption for the workers, and 

(2) increase productivity in the industries producing the inputs for those industries which 

produce the means of consumption of the workers. 

In Angus’s description of these two ways, any reference to the workers’ means of consumption 

is left out, and the impression arises that cost savings in production is the same as 

decreasing the value of labor power. 

I also don’t know what to do with Perro’s submission [226]. Perro does not explain how 

“necessary” and “surplus” labor time are defined, his conclusion that relative surplus value is 

surplus value seems trivial to me, and he confuses more production with higher productivity. 

Why will higher output during the workday decrease the necessary labor time? 

Question 360 really has a fairly short answer: Relative surplus value is surplus value 

gained by decreasing the length of time the worker needs to produce an equivalent of his or 

her wages, and since wages are determined as the value of some modest consumption bundle 

for the workers, the magnitude of relative surplus value is affected by productivity. This is 

the new factor which until now had been taken as given. 


[242] Jedi: Additions To Relative Surplus-Value Relative surplus-value is generated by 

shortening of the required time by the worker to produce the equivalent of what is paid out 

by the capitalist, while holding constant the working day length. For example, an employer 

pays out $100 to an employee for 10 hours of work, if the employee generates $100 in 

revenues in 8 hours, the relative surplus value would be $20. Since labor power produces 

more value than it costs, the real value of the labor is at $12.50 per hour. The question is 

how can the employer shorten the 8 hours? How can the employer motivate the employee to 

make the $100 paid out in less than 8 hours, in our example? There are 2 ways described by 

Professor Hans in [240], “(1) increase productivity in those industries which produce means


of consumption for the workers, and (2) increase productivity in the industries producing the 

inputs for those industries which produce the means of consumption of the workers.” 

I’d like to add to that. If the employer cuts the wage of the employee in my example 

from $100 to $90, under-valuing the work performed by 10%, relative surplus-value would 

be increased. A less obvious way to cut real wages would be inflating prices of the bundle of 

goods for worker consumption while holding wages constant. In either case, since the actual 

work performed by the employee stays constant, the relative surplus-value is gained at much 

higher proportions than the 10% loss in real wages. It would only take 7.2 hours to reach 

the $90 dollars paid out to the worker (calculated at the real value of the labor, unchanged 

at $12.50 per hour), the relative surplus is lengthened by 0.8 hours, compare to the 2 hours 

gained before the wage cut. That’s a 40% gain in relative surplus-value. 

Message [242] referenced by [245]. Next Message by Jedi is [286]. 

[245] Hans: Exploitation if Prices Deviate from Values Jedi [242] says that relative 

surplus value can also be gained by paying the workers less than the value of their labor 

power, or by selling things to the workers at a price which is above their value. 

This is true, and things like this happen all the time. Marx does not discuss it in Capital, 

because of his assumption that all commodities are sold at their values. But it is instructive 

to think through the implications of this. Say I am a capitalist, producing consumer goods 

for workers, and I manage to sell these consumer goods at a price which is above its value. 

This means every sale I make is not just a form change of the commodity sold, but it is also 

a transfer of value from the buyer to me. This increases my profit, but this part of my profit 

does not come from my own workers. This profit is part of the wage of the worker buying 

my product, which this worker loses again in the circulation process. 

Of course it can also go the other way: sometimes I am forced to sell things below their 

values. Let’s assume the price is still above my cost, so that I still make a profit, but this 

profit is less than my normal profit. In this situation I am unable to capture all the surplus 

value my workers have created; part of this surplus value goes to the buyer of my products. 

This latter situation often happens if small supplier firms have to sell to a big corporation. 

The big corporation has so much market power that it can buy the product of the supplier 

firm below its value. Basically this means that the profits of the corporation do not only 

come from its own workers, but also from the workers of its supplier firms. Typically, 

the wages and benefits paid by the supplier firms are much lower than those paid by the 

corporation. The corporation may boast with its high wages and benefits, and at the same 

time make profits off the backs of the low-paid workers of its suppliers. Capitalists do not 

only make money off their own workers, but also off the other workers. Engels said: this is 

mathematical proof that the capitalists form a class. 


[251] Maine: Relative Surplus Value In order to understand Relative Surplus Value, 

we must first clarify Absolute Surplus Value. Absolute Surplus Value is produced by the 

lengthening of the working day; the worker works more hours per day. Relative Surplus 

Value come from the shortening of the necessary labor time. With the work day remaining 

the same length, and the time devoted to necessary labor decreased, the surplus value is 

increased. That increase is the Relative Surplus Value. 


Marx assumes that labor is bought and sold at its full value. Decreasing the price of 

labor is not an option; however one option is to decrease the value of labor itself. This 

can be achieved by shortening the necessary labor time. Another term for this is increased 

productivity of the labor process. Karl Marx states, “By an increase in the productive power 

of labor, we mean an alteration in the labor process of such a kind as to shorten the labor 

time socially required for the production of a commodity.” Annotations 146. 

To alter the labor process, the mode of production needs to change. Hans refers to this 

as “the qualitative revolutionizing of the production process.” Marx clarified this mechanism: 

“The technical and social conditions of the labor process and consequently the mode 

of production itself must be revolutionized if the productivity of labor is to be increased.” 

Annotations 146. 

In conclusion, the mechanism for increasing the Relative Surplus Value must focus on 

improving the condition of the labor process. 

Hans: Well written formulation of the right answer, but everything you say was already said in the 5 submissions 

to this question before you. 


[319] Bluto: extra credit The production of surplus labor is the cardinal object of capitalist 

production. The capitalist will attempt to siphon productiveness of a working man 

through the lengthening of the work-day, through the intensification of work, or through increased 

productivity which has the effect of shortening that part which the worker produces 

a value corresponding to his wage and lengthening that part during which he performs unpaid 

labor for capitalist. The capitalist is forced into this by the power of competition, and 

the fact that he is driven to undercut his competitors. “but all methods for the production of 

surplus-value are at the same time methods of accumulation: and every extension of accumulation 

becomes again a means for the development of these methods. It follows therefore 

that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the laborer, be his payment high or low, 

must grow worse.(Capital p. 645)” 

Message [319] referenced by [326]. Next Message by Bluto is [335]. 

[324] Buda: Extra Credit 360 Absolute surplus-value refers to the lengthening of the 

working day in order to increase productivity. Relative surplus-value, on the other hand, 

refers to not the mere extension of the working day, but rather the change in the quality 

of the production process - increasing productivity. Through increasing productivity, the 

value of the worker’s labor in relation to his/her wage is shrunk. Consequently, more of 

the worker’s labor goes unpaid. Hence, it is relative “because it is an increase in the gap 

between capitalist and laborer.” (Annotations p.146) The magnitude of relative surplus-value 

is increased through the forces of competition and the need of the capitalist to produce more 

than her counterparts without regard to the fact that others are being taken advantage of. 

Hans: Excellent answer! I especially like the last sentence. 


[326] Hans: The answer is one word: technology Bluto [319] writes, among others: 

The capitalist will attempt to siphon productiveness of a working man through 

the lengthening of the work-day, through the intensification of work, or 

through increased productivity which has the effect of shortening that part


which the worker produces a value corresponding to his wage and lengthening 

that part during which he performs unpaid labor for capitalist. 

“Attempt to siphon productiveness” sounds like an euphemism to me. “The capitalist 

enriches himself with the unpaid labor of his employees” is a better description of what is 

going on. Then Bluto gives 3 methods of creating surplus value: lengthen the work-day, 

intensify work, and increase productivity. The first is called absolute surplus value, only the 

second and third are called relative surplus value. 

Bluto is silent about the mechanisms, so far taken as given, which affect the magnitude 

of relative surplus-value. The answer is: the technology of the labor process. 



2009fa, and 686 in 2010fa: 

Question 362 What does Marx mean by the statement: “The general and necessary tendencies 

of capital must be distinguished from their forms of appearance”? Give examples 

of “general and necessary tendencies of capital” and of “forms of appearance” of such 

tendencies. 

[246] Brutal: General tendencies v. Forms of appearance This statement means that 

while capitalists seem to be doing one thing, their long-term, true effects are quite different. 

The form of appearance is the capitalist’s attempt to create extra surplus-value, or extra 

profits through innovation of new technologies. The general and necessary tendencies of 

these actions is to decrease the value of labor power and, thereby, increase relative surplus 

value. 

An example of the “general and necessary tendencies of capital” would be a decrease in 

the relative wages a capitalist pays as compared to the value a worker can produce given an 

increase in technology. For example, computers increased the value of a workers outputs 

faster than the value of labor, an input. 

An example of the “forms of appearance” of these tendencies would be the innovation 

of the computer. It was believed that the computer would increase productivity and allow 

companies to make additional, or extra profits. However, the true effect was only to increase 

relative surplus-value (as illustrated above). 

Message [246] referenced by [256] and [2009fa:749]. Next Message by Brutal is [292]. 

[256] Hans: General Tendencies vs. Forms of Appearance The first paragraph in 

Brutal’s [246] is right. The increase in relative surplus value is a good example of general 

and necessary tendencies. Forms of appearance of these tendencies are: capitalists trying to 

increase their profits by better technology. They are called forms of appearance not because 

the capitalists have illusions about the effects of this innovation on their profits, but because 

this is how those general societal constraints impose themselves on the activities of the 

individuals. They differ from the general tendency, since the capitalists introduce higher 

technology not in order to make the workers’ means of consumption cheaper, but because 

they think machines create surplus value. Only the workers create surplus value. 


In the second paragraph, it seems that Brutal does not distinguish use value and exchange 

value clearly enough, and in the third paragraph, Brutal seems to identify the “forms of 

appearance” with illusions. 


Question 364 is 205 in 1995WI, 238 in 1996sp, 237 in 1996ut, 290 in 1997WI, 355 in 

1997sp, 354 in 1997ut, 363 in 1998WI, 477 in 2001fa, 516 in 2002fa, 536 in 2003fa, 590 

in 2004fa, 543 in 2005fa, 596 in 2007SP, 586 in 2007fa, 598 in 2008fa, 627 in 2009fa, 

690 in 2010fa, 710 in 2011fa, 739 in 2012fa, and 690 in Answer: 

Question 364 Do the workers after introduction of new machinery produce more value 

during the day? 

[233] Cartman: The answer to this question is no, workers do not produce more value 

during the day after the introduction of new machinery. Marx uses the example of a capitalist 

attempting to double the productivity of labor by introducing new machinery. Before this 

“introduction,” 1 hour’s labor is equivalent to .12 cents and a full days work of 12 hours 

equals $1.44. In this time, 12 articles can be produced and each article costs .24 cents. Then, 

the capitalist introduces new machinery to increase productivity. In reality, what happens is 

quite simple. The production time is doubled, so twice as many articles can be produced in 

a normal day’s work of 12 hrs. 

If we were to stop here, the answer to the question would appear to be yes. In the same 

amount of time, we have doubled our productivity and hence, we should have doubled the 

amount of value produced during the day. But this is not the case. By adding new machinery, 

we have actually reduced the amount of time required to produce one article by half. So now, 

instead of 1 hour’s labor being equivalent to .12 cents, it is now only equivalent to .6 cents 

and our final price for each article has dropped to .18 cents. So at the end of the day, our 

final value is still equal to $1.44, our value has not changed. 

Hans: Navin’s response [241] to you is exactly right. You did not read far enough in the text, you are only 

presenting half of the argument. 

Message [233] referenced by [241] and [255]. Next Message by Cartman is [282]. 

[241] Navin: extra surplus value of workers Cartman gives a simple answer to this 

question in [233]. He explains that the production time is cut in half and the labor used to 

produce these goods is still the same in terms of a days wage. Cartman neglects the fact that 

we no longer use the assumption that “the market prices are identical to values.”(annotations 

148) The social value in this example is higher than the individual value. This is because the 

rest of the industry is still using the old method of production. 

This producer can sell his articles for the socially necessary price of two hours or 24 

cents. This extra profit that the producer realises or six cents an article is what Marx calls 

extra-surplus value. This extra surplus value is created by the laborers being introduced to 

a new mode of production. Thus, although Cartman is right that the individual value is not 

increased, workers produce more value in the form of extra-surplus value. 


[255] Hobart: new machinery/more value Marx argues that upon introduction of new 

machinery, workers do not produce more value during the day. I will illustrate this by using 

an example that is similar to the example that Marx gave. Assume that 1 hour’s labor is


represented by $10. As a result, a value of $120 will be produced in a 12 hour working day. 

If the worker produces 12 “widgets” during the day, the value of the means of production 

is $10. In this scenario, the widget would cost $20 ($10 for the value of the means of 

production and $10 for the newly added value in working with those means.) 

Assume now that technology/machinery now allows for the worker to produce a widget 

in half the time that it took previously. This allows the worker to produce twice as many 

widgets during the same 12 hour workday. Now as a result, instead of one hour’s labor 

equaling $10, it now equals $5 (this refers to the value newly added by the labor.) However, 

the value of the means of production still remains the same at $10. As a result, the value of 

each widget falls to $15. It is important to note however, that the final value still remains at 

$120. So although it would seem at first glance that technology/machinery would produce 

more value, it actually remains the same. 

Hans: You are saying the same thing as Cartman [233], it reads like a paraphrase. And what do you make of 

Navin’s [241], who showed conclusively that Cartman was wrong? 



2000fa, 479 in 2001fa, 518 in 2002fa, 538 in 2003fa, 592 in 2004fa, 545 in 2005fa, 

598 in 2007SP, 588 in 2007fa, 596 in 2008SP, 600 in 2008fa, 712 in 2011fa, and 741 in 

2012fa: 

Question 366 What is extra surplus-value? How is it related to relative surplus-value? 

[229] Maktub: extra surplus-value As we learned in the earlier chapters, the socially 

necessary time to produce a commodity determines the value of that commodity. It is the 

social time, not the individual time of production that determines the value of a commodity. 

Extra surplus-value is the difference between the social time and an individuals time that 

it takes to produce something. For example, if I pay someone $2 an hour to work for me, 

and he produces something every hour, then each commodity has an individual value of $2 

or one hour of labor. On the other hand, if everyone else pays the same $2 an hour for labor, 

but it takes them two hours to make, the social value of the commodity is $4. The social 

value ($4) minus my individual value ($2) equals my extra surplus-value. I am realizing an 

extra surplus-value of $2 with every commodity that I produce/sell. 

Relative surplus-value, as Perro [226] says, “if the first part of the workday gets shorter, 

and the workday as a whole stays the same, we get what Marx called ‘relative surplusvalue’”. 

The relative surplus-value is created by the fact that production has increased, or as 

Angus [228] says, the value of labor power has decreased. 

These two types of surplus value (extra and relative), are related because they are both 

ways in which the market and capitalism is expanding and becoming more and more competitive 

and profit driven. By introducing these concepts, Marx, I believe, is making the 

distinction more clear between the production of goods for necessary living requirements, 

and the production of goods for the purpose of selling and making a profit. As these surplusvalues 

increase, so does the gap between the economy driven by the basic needs of a society, 

and an economy driven by forces of competition, and individual innovation, for the purpose 

of more profits. 


Message [229] referenced by [231], [232], [236], [257], [262], and [267]. Next Message by Maktub is [323]. 

[232] PowderNow: short run and long run Maktub [229] gives good definitions for extra 

and relative surplus values but some additional detail could be added to his submission. 

Maktub correctly states that extra surplus-value is the difference between individual and 

social value. One important aspect is that is that the innovative machine does not create 

the extra surplus value but rather the workers operating the machine. Annotations states, 

“the extra surplus value comes from the workers who employ the machine and not from the 

workers who are replaced by the machine” (p.149). 

Relative surplus value is the shortening of the necessary labor time. Extra and relative 

surplus values are closely related. The capitalist is trying to create extra surplus value, 

not relative surplus-value. In the short run, the capitalist will try to create extra-surplus 

value through innovation, etc. But in the long run, the extra-surplus value disappears as 

competition employs the same innovation. This new innovation is now the socially necessary 

labor time. The effect then is the profits remain higher because of the relative surplus-value. 

The capitalist can sell his goods at a higher price while still paying the same wage. In the 

short run, the innovation creates more products which contain more value (extra surplusvalue), 

but in the long run the price is determined by labor content. 

Message [232] referenced by [257], [262], and [267]. Next Message by PowderNow is [258]. 

[243] Bull: Extra and relative surplus value Marx identifies the fulcrum of capitalist 

society as the appropriation of surplus value and the source of surplus value in the exploitation 

of workers through the institution of wage labor. With this understanding it may be 

somewhat easier to formulate a good definition of extra surplus value, and draw a relation 

with relative surplus value. 

I do agree with Maktub when he says, “Extra surplus value is the difference between the 

social time and the individual time that is takes to produce something”. Or as to say, the 

capitalist can find a way to produce more efficiently so that he can attain a greater, or extra 

surplus of value, and as we understand it, more profit. “This gap between individual and 

social value sets in motion powerful economic forces”. (Annotations; p.149) By this Hans 

means the competition to produce and maximize profit becomes a power struggle between 

producers of commodities, thus finding the capitalist. 

Marx calls the shortening of the paid part of the social labor time through increased labor 

productivity, relative surplus value. These two types of surplus value are closely related in 

that they need one another to benefit the capitalist. For a capitalist society to maintain its 

competitive edge the value of labor power will always be manipulated to benefit the capitalist 

in a profit driven world. Thus, the relation between extra and relative surplus value come to 

a common intersection and that is Profit, or relative surplus value aids the capitalists profit 

margin by paying the laborer a steady wage while profits increase. 


[262] Hans: Relative Surplus Value if Value of Money Changes Of the three answers 

received, PowderNow’s [232] is clearly the best. There is only one sentence in it which 

needs to be discussed more closely here. PowderNow explains relative surplus value, i.e., 

the effect of productivity on profits, as follows:


The capitalist can sell his goods at a higher price while still paying the same 

wage. 

In Chapter Twelve, Marx gives a different argument. Let us assume milk can be produced 

more efficiently. Then the price of milk falls, because each gallon of milk has now less 

labor in it, but as long as the dairy capitalist employs the same number of workers, his 

overall revenue remains the same. But since the now lower-priced milk enters the workers’ 

consumption, cost of living has fallen, and therefore wages fall too, and this is where not 

only the dairy capitalist but all capitalists see the higher surplus value. 

This explanation makes one crucial unrealistic assumption. For simplicity let us assume 

we are under the gold standard: then Marx assumes that the productivity of mining gold 

remains constant, so that constant labor content is reflected by constant prices, and falling 

labor content is reflected by falling prices. However if productivity in gold mining rises as 

much as the productivity in milk production rises, then the price of milk remains constant. 

Therefore the higher milk output results in a higher revenue for the capitalist, but since the 

price of milk has remained constant, also wages remain constant. The outcome is therefore 

very similar to what PowderNow has written (and also to everyday experience), it only needs 

a slight reformulation: 

The capitalist has a higher revenue from selling more products while still 

paying the same wage. 

PowderNow gave such a good answer that it is difficult to say more after it. Bull obviously 

tried to explore some deeper and more philosophical issues in [243]. I am open to this, but 

Bull should have worked out his argument better before presenting it to others. 

At the end only one short remark about Maktub’s [229]. His grade suffered a lot because 

he made a very elementary mistake: he identified the value produced by the worker with the 

wage received by this worker. This goes against the core of Marx’s theory. If you notice 

such a basic confusion, please speak up and correct it (politely), so that other list members 

will not be thrown off by it. Participation in this list will be much more beneficial for all of 

us if we can establish a list culture in which it is possible to disagree and correct each other 

in a civil way. 


Question 367 is 366 in 1998WI, 455 in 2000fa, and 482 in 2001fa: 

Question 367 The surplus labor increases from 2 hours to 4 1/2 hours, i.e., by 125 percent. 

The surplus value, by contrast, increases from 24 cents to 72 cents, i.e., by 200 percent. 

Where does this discrepancy come from? 

[231] Pobeda: discrepancy The discrepancy comes from the extra surplus-value that is 

obtained by the capitalist. Maktub [229] does a good job in explaining what extra surplusvalue 

is. The value of a good on the market is set by the socially necessary labor time. If 

a capitalist can produce a commodity faster than the socially necessary labor time dictates, 

he can sell it at the same value as other commodities. The difference between the individual 

value and the social value is extra surplus-value. This accounts for the discrepancy. 



[236] Yikes: question 367 I think Pobeda [231] does a good job in explaining why 

surplus value increases by 200%, 75% greater than surplus value. He states quoting Maktub 

[229] the value of a good on the market is set by the socially necessary labor time, and if 

a capitalist can produce a commodity faster than the socially necessary labor time than he 

will create surplus value. Taking his explanation further Marx tells us that the exceptionally 

productive labor has the effect of potentiated labor; it creates in equal periods of time greater 

values than the labor of the same kind conforming with the social average. This is where the 

discrepancy comes from, potentiated labor. 

Hans: Pobeda’s [231] was already the right answer, and your answer only differs because you are expressing the 

same ideas using a different word, namely, “potentiated.” 


Question 369 is 212 in 1995WI, 243 in 1996ut, 297 in 1997WI, 368 in 1998WI, 457 in 

2000fa, 484 in 2001fa, 597 in 2004fa, 550 in 2005fa, 699 in 2010fa, and 719 in 2011fa: 

Question 369 Does the continual striving by the capitalists to lower the value of their products 

contradict our understanding that they are only interested in value, not use value? 

[234] Doc: lowering the value of products Capitalists are continually striving to lower 

the value of their products to make them more competitive in the market place and gain an 

advantage over their competition. But they are more concerned with the exchange value 

associated with their product than with the value of their product. 

Marx talks about how the only thing that interests the capitalist is the surplus value he 

gains from the sale of the product in the marketplace. As he lowers the value by cheapening 

the labor to produce the product through use of new machinery or cheaper labor practices, 

the surplus value grows and the gap between the laborer and the capitalist grows. 

This gap in labor and capitalist leads us to beleave that capitalists are really only interested 

in use value and not in the value of the product because he is replacing this value with surplus 

value to increase his own gain and not the wages of the labor that builds the product. 

Hans: This is some daring juggling with the words value, exchange value, use value, and surplus value, which 

does not reveal much understanding of the way Marx uses these terms. 


Question 370 is 544 in 2003fa, 551 in 2005fa, 596 in 2007fa, and 700 in 2010fa: 

Question 370 Marx says that an increase in productivity will increase surplus value not 

only through the cheapening of the workers’ means of subsistence, but through other avenues 

as well. Describe some of these other avenues. 

[254] Broker: other avenues Question 370 asks the discussion group to identify what 

Marx means when he writes about other avenues in association with the cheapening of the 

worker. I believe the term other avenues follows the perceived sarcasm in this quote: 

The fact that the worker, when the productivity of his labor has been increased, produces 

say ten time as many commodities as before, and thus spends one-tenth as much labor time 

on each, by no means prevents him from continuing to work 12 hours before, nor from 

producing in the 12 hours 1,200 articles instead of 120.


To interpret this quote I believe Marx is mocking the capitalist by identifying that just 

because you (the capitalist) have increased the productivity of my labor, I still have to work 

just as much and the ultimate advantage is yours (the capitalist). Other avenues, can be the 

more we as sellers of free labor produce, adding greatly to total value, our share of the total 

value stays the same, or decreases. I think Marx is trying to demonstrate that labor sellers 

are yet again at a disadvantage to the labor buyers. The gains from labor buying far out 

weigh the gains from labor selling. 

Increases in surplus labor are solely the advantage of the buyers of labor. The increase is 

an exploitation of labor. Its an other avenue for which the quality of life is diminished by 

the roots of a capitalism society. 

Hans: You are right, everything we are discussing here is yet another avenue how the capitalist benefits at the 

expense of the worker. However the question was framed more specifically and has a very specific answer. Many 

people feel that something is not fair; but very few understand precisely how the capitalist system works. If we 

want to overcome the system we must understand how it works. 



2000fa, 488 in 2001fa, 527 in 2002fa, 547 in 2003fa, 602 in 2004fa, 555 in 2005fa, 608 

in 2007fa, 620 in 2008fa, 651 in 2009fa, 734 in 2011fa, and 608 in Answer: 

Question 373 If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it 

is a duck. What the laborer is selling the capitalist is paid as if it was her labor, and what 

the laborer gives the capitalist during the day is her labor. Why does Marx not draw the 

obvious conclusion from this that the laborer is selling her labor, but insist that she is selling 

her labor power? 

[265] Hayduke: The fleetingness of labor The answer to this lies in the difference 

between labor power, labor, and congealed human labor. Labor power is a worker’s ability 

to work. This is something she can sell, because she has control over when and where she 

decides to render this ability to work, in exchange for wages. However, she is not paid for 

this ability until she actually works, which creates confusion as to what she is being paid for. 

Labor is the actual work that goes in to the creation of a commodity. Because the worker 

is paid in terms of the actual time spent laboring, both she and the capitalist think it is a 

transaction based on labor. However, as Hans notes in the Annotations, on pg. 207 of the 

Green cover edition, “labor itself cannot be a commodity and cannot have a value.” This is 

because labor is a process, and therefore can have no inherent value. It cannot be stored up 

in its pure form, because it only exists in the exact moment that it is occurring. As Engles 

says in the preface to Capital II, p. V101:2, and found on page 209 of the Annotations: As an 

activity creating value, [labor] can no more have any particular value than gravity can have 

any particular weight, heat any particular temperature, electricity any particular strength of 

current. 

Congealed human labor is the value of a commodity, from the labor that was put into it. 

This is what gives the commodity its value, which is what the capitalist is looking for. Labor 

is just the process through which the worker transforms her ‘commodity’, labor power, into 

what the capitalist wants, congealed human labor. However, all these terms end up included 


in the term ‘labor’ because the workers and capitalists both do not understand the underlying 

social relation. 

Hans: Despite my criticism in [266], this is an excellent answer. 

Message [265] referenced by [266], [268], [391.2], and [395.1]. Next Message by Hayduke is [325]. 

[266] Hans: There is Always Something that is Worse Hayduke [265] writes: 

Labor power is a worker’s ability to work. This is something she can sell, 

because she has control over when and where she decides to render this 

ability to work, in exchange for wages. 

This emphasis on how much the worker is in control is an interesting reversal of Marx’s 

analysis. From a Marxist point of view, the worker is forced to sell her labor power exactly 

because she has no control, namely, no control over the means of production. If she had 

control, either individually or, with modern production methods which require cooperation 

on a large scale, collectively, then she would not have to go out and toil for a low wage 

and see the benefit of her labor taken away from her by the private owners of the means of 

production. Instead, she could do the producing under her own command and decide freely, 

together with others, what and how to produce. 

Marx says “there is no such thing as a fair wage” because things cannot be fair as long 

as the wage system itself continues, i.e., as long as workers have to sell their labor power 

and have no control over the labor process as it happens, since at the point of production 

they are no longer their own masters. This is alienation regarding the most important and, 

potentially, most liberating apects of our lives. Even the highest wage cannot make it “fair.” 

Of course, in everyday discourse nobody ever says: too bad we don’t have control over 

the means of production. We are such obedient servants, we don’t even imagine what it 

means to be free. Instead, we look at it from the bright side and say: “am I glad that I am 

not a slave” (this is basically what Hayduke is saying). 

Message [266] referenced by [265] and [405.9]. Next Message by Hans is [273]. 

[268] JoeHill: duck, duck,....noose. I think Hayduke’s response [265] to Q 373 is very 

good. Since this chapter illustrates exactly how the laborer and the capitalist acquire the 

illusion of fair exchange of labor in the market-place, I think there are some points that 

deserve some extra attention. 

Marx did not make the mistake, as most of his contemporaries did, in assuming that 

because it is labor that the laborer gives the capitalist, it is labor for which she is paid. Marx 

realized that if “workers were paid for their labor, the value they create, they would either 

be paid in full, leaving no surplus value, or they would be paid less than the value created, 

which would apparently be a violation of the principle that value is exchanged for value 

(Brewer 63).” If this were the case capitalism would not be possible since its existence is 

predicated on the creation of surplus value. 

Marx makes the case that labor cannot be offered for sale to the capitalist as a commodity. 

One reason Marx gives for this is “if labor were to be sold as a commodity in the 

market, it would have to exist before being sold,” and this is not possible (anno. 155). In 

addition, Marx also contends that the wage cannot represent the “value of labor” because 

this concpept is an absurdity. Labor, being the source of value cannot itself have value, a


point made very well by Hayduke with the gravity/electricty analogies. On this point Marx 

quotes Samuel Bailey stating that because “value depends on the quantity of labor employed 

in production...it follows that the value of labor depends on the quantity of labor producing 

it-which is evidently absurd” (anno. 155) This circular reasoning tells us nothing. The correct 

alternative as Hayduke has already written is value of labor-power for which the laborer 

is paid, and this opens the way for her exploitation. 

Hans: Very good. I especially loved the following: 

Marx did not make the mistake, as most of his contemporaries did, in assuming that because 

it is labor that the laborer gives the capitalist, it is labor for which she is paid. 

Message [268] referenced by [339.1], [347.1], [383.11], and [395.1]. Next Message by JoeHill is [360]. 

[269] Paul: The Duck question! I have to say that I fully agree with what both Hayduke 

and Joehill stated. Hayduke broke the aspect of labor into three different forms. Labor 

power, labor, and congealed human labor. Labor power being the ability of each person in 

the society to offer some sort of human labor. Labor itself consisting of the actual work performed 

by the worker. And congealed human labor is the value of the commodity produced 

in terms of the labor required to produce it. 

“A worker is paid by the hour, i.e., he is not paid for his labor power but for the labor actually 

performed.” [Annotations pg. 153] This quote is rather interesting because it seems to 

reverse what both Heyduke and Joehill were saying, but with further reading we realize that 

what is important is the exchange. What is actually exchanged between the worker and the 

capitalist? Since labor is the actual work performed and labor power is the ability to work, 

then labor power is what is exchanged in the form of a commodity. “When a labourer is 

selling labor power, she/he has to be reimbursed for the reproduction of his/her labor power, 

have to work a normal day/week.” [DeeDee:winter 1998] Which leads us to the development 

of the capitalists somewhat hidden manipulation of the worker. It is hidden because 

“all labor appears as paid labor,” [Annotations] and both the worker and the capitalist can 

not recognize the difference between labor and labor power. Along with the manipulation, if 

the worker was selling his labor then he would have much more control of when and where 

he put it up for exchange. Hence, Marx drawing the conclusion that the laborer is selling her 

labor power and not her labor. 

Hans: Good thoughts but not always expressed very clearly. I think you mean roughly the right thing when you 

write: 

with further reading we realize that what is important is the exchange. What is actually exchanged 

between the worker and the capitalist? 

I would formulate it differently, though: the exchange is only the surface mediation of a process which is really not 

equitable at all, the appropriation of the worker’s labor by the capitalist. 

Message [269] referenced by [273]. Next Message by Paul is [350]. 

[272] Kenshiro: Marx sees that the one is a part of the whole and without the one there is 

of course no way of achieving the other. The laborer sees themselves as selling something 

they have, while in reality if the laborer didn’t already have the skills or knowledge then 

there would be no exchange, or loss of the Skill or Knowledge. 

Marx states: “It is not labor which directly confronts the possessor of money on the 

commodity- market, but rather the worker. What the worker is selling is his labor - power. 

As soon as his labor actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore 


no longer be sold by him. Labor is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but it 

has no value itself.” 

Why, because once the Labor is sold to the Employer it is in turn converted to Capital. 

And, then resold for a profit, not for the enhancement of the Laborer but of that of the 

Employer. Thus, enhancing his pocket. It is only through exploitation of the Laborer Skill 

and Knowledge that the Capitalist is able to produce a profit, he acquires these expertise and 

incorporates them into his/her own. “A worker is paid by the hour, i.e., he is not paid for his 

labor power but for the labor actually performed.” Thus, lending further to the Idea, that the 

laborer is only contributing to the betterment of the Employer and not for him/herself. 

Hans: I don’t know what you mean by the one, the other, and the whole in your first sentence. Your whole first 

paragraph left me wondering if you put the right question number on your answer. 

You say: labor has no value because it does not benefit the worker but the capitalist. This is not how Marx uses 

the word “value.” 

You also say that profits come from the laborer’s skill and knowledge. Again this is opposite to Marx’s theory 

which says exactly that value (and therefore also surplus value) comes from abstract labor, not concrete labor. 

Message [272] referenced by [294]. Next Message by Kenshiro is [335]. 

[273] Hans: What if the worker could sell his labor? Paul [269] writes: 

If the worker was selling his labor then he would have much more control 

of when and where he put it up for exchange. 

Here Paul does not go far enough. His premise, that the worker was selling his labor, has 

much farther-reaching implications. The worker would be able to sell his labor, as opposed 

to his potential labor, i.e., his labor power, only if had access to the means of production. 

And in this case he did not need to sell his labor but he would be able to sell his product. And 

once labor power is no longer a commodity, the main incentive to subject everything to the 

market would fall away, and the producers would probably look for other ways to organize 

the economy. (Note that this is a counterfactual reasoning; the actual transition to socialism 

would go differently.) 

Message [273] referenced by [286] and [405.9]. Next Message by Hans is [287]. 

[281] Josef: Length of the Workday Since this question has been answered many times 

and most of the ideas and arguments have already been discussed by fellow students and by 

Hans, I would like to focus on a subject that nobody has yet mentioned, that is the length of 

the workday. 

The length of the workday is an important indicator that helps us understand that the 

laborer is selling her labor power rather than her labor. Annotations states, “The hourly 

wage is not determined by the amount of value created during the hour, but it is the amount 

which, if multiplied by the usual number of hours worked every week, gives the weekly 

reproduction cost of labor power.” (153) The important part of this quote is the words “usual 

number of hours worked.” If the laborer was selling her labor she would not need to work 

a certain number of hours. Instead she may work very fast and only decide to work three 

days a week. However, she is selling her labor power and she must work a normal work 

week or “the usual number of hours”. In return she is reimbursed with a wage, which is the 

reproduction cost of her labor power. This example shows that indeed the laborer is selling 

her labor power and not labor.


Hans: Good point. In my mind, the short answer to Question 373 is: it does make a big difference whether labor 

or labor power is sold, and that difference shows up in the level of wages. You are saying: the difference shows up 

in the length of the workday, and you are right too. Despite neoclassical economics with its labor/leisure choice, it 

is amazing how little choice the average employee has in terms of how many hours they have to work. Why is there 

no choice? Because we are selling our labor power, not our labor. 


[294] Hans: Surplus Value: from Labor or from Technology? Since we were reading 

Chapter Twelve just before Chapter Nineteen, some class participants, including Karlito 

[257] and Kenshiro [272], seem to think that surplus value comes primarily from the capitalist 

pocketing the increases in productivity. Karlito, for instance, speaks of extra surplus 

value and relative surplus value, but omits absolute surplus value. 

This puts a wrong spin on things, because it creates the impression that not the workers 

but technology generates surplus value. Expecially the extra surplus value, which an 

early innovator garners by selling things above its individual value, seems to be proof that 

machines can create surplus value. But they can do this only in the short run. At the very 

beginning, a capitalist who replaces workers with a machine will cash in from the echo of the 

value created by the workers before they were replaced by a machine. But in the longer run, 

others will innovate too; then this echo fizzles out. The economy finds a new equilibrium 

in which this extra surplus value is now shared by all capitalists as an increase in relative 

surplus value. 


[339.1] Brutal: Selling Labor Power Marx argues that the laborer is not selling her labor 

because if she were she would get the full value of what she produced. In order for a worker 

to receive the full value of what she produces she would need to have free access to the 

means of production needed in production. However, since a small number of capitalists are 

allowed to own all the means of production, they are in a position to exploit those who need 

those means of production for survival. Therefore, capitalist allow workers to use “their” 

means of production in exchange for a portion of their product. Since capitalist want to 

maximize profits (which can only be realized by paying workers less than the value of the 

products they produce), they seek to minimize the benefits to workers while maximizing 

their own gains. They do this by paying workers only enough to live and return the next day. 

There is no need for employers to pay more than this, and this is the value of labor power. 

In this transaction, however, the capitalist gets the full value of the product of his workers’ 

labor, while only paying his workers enough for a modest bundle of consumption needs. 

Hence, it may appear as if workers are selling their labor, but they are actually only able to 

sell their labor power. This exploitation of workers is possible because they do not have free 

access to the means of production. 

JoeHill [268] has helped me understand what seems to be a key to understanding Marx’s 

theory of the workings of a capitalist society. In addition to the above reasoning, JoeHill 

points out in his submission that Marx states that in order to sell something it must exist in 

advance. This is not possible for labor since it is an action. Labor power, on the other hand, 

can exist before the transaction so it can be sold. One other point of reason JoeHill refers to 

is that since labor is the source of all value, it cannot have value itself. 



[346.4] Pobeda: In order to sell something it must have value. Labor does not have value, 

but creates value. If a laborer sold his labor, he would have ownership of the means of 

production and then would sell a commodiy and not his labor. Instead, a laborer sells his 

labor power. This allows the capitalist to exploit the worker because he owns the means 

of production. The capitalist can give the worder less than the value that worker produces, 

thereby gaining profits. This is necessary for capitalism to survive. 


[346.2] Kenshiro: In reference to this question Hans reminds us that “ His premise, that 

the worker was selling his labor, has much farther-reaching implications. The worker would 

be able to sell his labor, as opposed to his potential labor, i.e., his labor power, only if had 

access to the means of production. And in this case he did not need to sell his labor but 

he would be able to sell his product. And once labor power is no longer a commodity, the 

main incentive to subject everything to the market would fall away, and the producers would 

probably look for other ways to organize the economy. (Note that this is a counterfactual 

reasoning; the actual transition to socialism would go differently.)” 

Marx States “ It is not labor which directly confronts the possessor of money on the 

commodity- market, but rather the worker. What the worker is selling is his labor - power. 

As soon as his labor actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore 

no longer be sold by him. Labor is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but it 

has no value itself.” 

Josef also reminds us that “ The length of the workday is an important indicator that helps 

us understand that the laborer is selling her labor power rather than her labor.” Annotations 

states, “The hourly wage is not determined by the amount of value created during the hour, 

but it is the amount which, if multiplied by the usual number of hours worked every week, 

gives the weekly reproduction cost of labor power.” Remembering the Key words are “usual 

number of hours worked.” 

Hans: I prefer your own formulations to a collection of quote, because I cannot tell from those quotes what you 

are making of them. 

Next Message by Kenshiro is [418]. 

[347.1] Senco: It was common for contemporary economists to erroneously conclude that 

the workers were selling their labor to the Capitalists. 

Marx knew it was actually labor power that was being sold. He not only provided a logical 

explanation for his argument but he also backed it up with literature. Marx successfully 

showed the conclusions the contemporaries made can not be correct for two basic reasons. 

1- The conclusions they make are “incompatible” with earlier conclusions made regarding 

commodity exchange, and 2- The observed outcomes are not consistent with their logic. 

In Joehills [268] response to this question, he eloquently states, “if workers were paid for 

their labor, the value they create, they would either be paid in full, leaving no surplus value, 

or they would be paid less than the value created, which would be a violation of the principle 

that value is exchanged for value.” 

Marx furthers his argument showing that labor can not be sold as a commodity. He points 

out that if labor was to be sold, it would have to exist before being sold, which is “practically 

impossible” (anno p.155). The annotations point out that this is practically impossible


because labor can not both hold value, and create value. This would be an absurdity. “The 

fact that labor does not exist independently is exaclty what distinguishes labor from other 

the commodities” (anno p.155). 

This all reaffirms Marx point, that it is indeed labor power, that is sold to the Capitalist. 

Hans: You should have mentioned that the workers cannot get a full equivalent for their labor because they do not 

have control over the means of production. 


[349.2] Hobart: When addressing the fact that a laborer sells her labor power and not her 

labor, a key assertion must be made. That assertion is that labor, in and of itself, cannot have 

value. The reason for this is that labor is not a commodity and a commodity has value. As a 

result labor, which creates value, cannot have value. Engels states: 

“As an activity creating value, labor can no more have any particular value than gravity 

can have any particular weight, heat any particluar temperature, electricity any particular 

strength of current.” 

What a laborer actually is selling is labor power because that is the actual commodity 

that is exchanged between the capitalist and the worker. However, what the laborer actually 

gives the capitalist is her labor. 

Hans: The main difference between labor and labor power is in the wage. 


[351.1] Angus: Exploited ducks The laborer is not selling her labor but her labor power. 

Capitalists buy the ability to do work (labor power) in exchange for wages. In other words, 

labor power is a commodity that is the value of the commodity bundle necessary to produce 

and reproduce labor power. Capitalists get workers to turn raw materials into commodities, 

which can then be sold at a profit. They buy labor power for less than it produces. This is 

how it creates value for the capitalist. Marx argues that exploitation arises from production, 

not from exchange. 

If a person were to sell their labor, a capitalist would never make a profit because the 

commodity produced by the person’s labor is based upon the full value of the product that 

they produce. The laborer however does not own the means of production, so they are 

tempted to sell their labor power. 

Thus, by owning the means of production the capitalist creates surplus value by having 

laborer’s produce goods that are greater than the value of the inputs that went into making 

that good. However, profits are not due to the private ownership of the means of production, 

but due to the existence of surplus labor or surplus value. For instance, if a computer sells for 

$100.00, but only $10.00 goes to labor. Labor is only 10% of the retail price of the computer. 

This is an excellent example of exploitation. If however, the laborer charged the capitalist 

for the full value of his labor ($100.00) then the capitalist would be unable to survive based 

upon never gaining surplus value. Thus, Marx does not conclude that the laborer is selling 

her labor, but insists that it is her labor power. 

Hans: Your second paragraph should read: 

If a person were to sell their labor, a capitalist would never make a profit because his workers 

wages were based upon the full value of the product that they produce. The laborer however 

does not own the means of production, so they have no other choice but to sell their labor 

power. 


This is pretty much what you had in the in-class exam, I guess you got confused when you typed it in. But overall 

this is very good! 

Next Message by Angus is [355.1]. 

[354.3] Zeek: Marx is describing the different forms of labor. Labor power and congealed 

labor. Labor alone cannot be sold or purchased. Labor power is the ability to perform labor. 

Labor does not exist until it is sold. Labor therefore cannot exist as a commodity. Marx 

also states that the value of labor cannot be represented truely by wages. Therefore even 

though it is the labor that the capitalists receives, it is not the labor for which the laborer is 

paid. Capitalists function on the idea that one might create surplus value from the labor of 

the workers employed. This leads to exploitation for a worker is either paid the value of the 

labor or less than the value produced. In the capitalists eyes, workers will be paid less than 

what they create. 

Hans: The aphorism “labor does not exist until it is sold” is only valid if the laborer does not have direct access to 

the means of production. Your formulations “capitalists function on the idea” and “in the capitalist’s eyes, workers 

will be paid less than what they create” (my emphasis) look like you have a subjective notion of value and an 

individualist notion of social relations. This was discussed at length earlier in the Semester. But it seems to me you 

are thinking things through; you are formulating them the way they make sense to you, and not just trying to throw 

the right catch phrases at me. 


[366.1] Maktub: What is labor and what is labor power? Labor power is the ability to 

work. Labor is the actual work done. The laborer sells his labor power because he has no 

control over the means of production. This condition, no means of production, along with 

him being able to control his body constitute his labor power. It is the only commodity that 

he owns, therefore, it is the only thing that he can sell. It has use-value to the capitalist, so 

he will try to buy it. 

When buyers and sellers meet in the market, the seller cannot sell his labor. Hans says 

“labor itself is not a commodity and cannot have a value” (p. 154). This condition makes 

it impossible for the laborer to sell his labor, for it has no value, and is not a commodity. 

The laborer can only sell the commodities that he has, namely, labor power, or the ability to 

work. 

When the capitalist buys labor power, the laborer actually has to give the capitalist his 

labor, the labor is the manifestation of his labor power. It looks like the capitalist is buying 

labor. The laborer is not paid for his labor power, but for the labor actually performed 

(Annotations, p. 153). This is where to confusion exists. The laborer is selling labor power, 

but the capitalist is paying for the labor. 

The commodity being bought and sold is labor power. It becomes more clear when we 

look at it through the wage received by the worker. “ The hourly wage is not determined by 

the amount of value created during the hour, but it is the amount which....gives the weekly 

reproduction cost of labor power” (Annotations, p.153). This sentence by Hans makes it 

clear that the commodity which is being bought and sold is labor power. Value is created by 

labor, and that is not what determines the workers wage. 

Just as in today’s world, when I enter the job market, the prospective firms that I will 

interview with, will look at my Economics degree, which is a reflection of my labor power. 

They hire me because of my abilities, or labor power.


Next Message by Maktub is [423]. 

[379.1] PowderNow: Marx does not draw the conclusion that the laborer is selling her labor 

but insists that she is selling her labor power for many reasons. Labor is the actual work, 

whereas labor power is the potential to work. Labor cannot be a commodity, therefore being 

purchased on the market, because labor is a process and only exists in the exact moment that 

it is occurring. If labor was sold on the market, it would have to exist before being sold, 

and this is not possible. Furthermore, Labor, being the source of value cannot have value 

itself, like gravity having a particular weight. Value depends on the quantity of labor employed 

in the production (congealed abstract labor). Labor is where the worker transforms 

her “commodity”, labor power, into what capitalist wants, congealed abstract labor. 

Marx states that if workers were paid for their labor, they would be paid in full for the 

value they create, leaving no surplus value for the capitalist, or they would be paid less 

than the value created, which is a violation of the principle that value is exchanged for 

value. Capitalism could not be possible without this surplus value. Once labor power is 

sold, the laborer has to submit to the wills of the capitalist and has little choice over working 

conditions. Because of conditions on the market and the creation of surplus value by a 

capitalist, labor power is what is sold on the market instead of labor. 

Next Message by PowderNow is [379.2]. 

[382.2] Jedi: The key to understanding this question is to understand the difference between 

labor power and labor. Labor power is the ability to perform labor while labor is a 

process that creates value in commodities. The capitalist take the labor power of the worker 

from her while only paying for the actual labor performed. The worker sells not her labor 

but her ability to perform labor. This commonly accepted practice is inherently unfair because 

after the worker is stripped of her labor power, she can’t fully enjoy the fruits of her 

owner labor. She doesn’t own the means of production nor does she have any say about the 

production process itself. 


[383.1] Quake: Labor cannot be sold because labor is not a commodity. Labor is not 

something we can package or present on a shelf for exchange or to sell. Therefore, ‘labor’, 

(or the product of labor), does not exist until the owner of the labor power expends labor 

power. Therefor, if labor does not exist in an exchangeable state and is otherwise not meeting 

the qualifications that define something as a commodity, then it cannot be sold. 

What is sold, as the question itself states, is the laborers power to labor. The price paid, 

(the wage), is paid after the labor power has been expended in the process of production. 

As we discussed in class, labor could be sold if the laborer owned the means of production 

as well, but then he would be really selling the products of his labor and this starts to leave 

the scope of the original question. 

Hans: We would not only be leaving the scope of the original question but profits would then be impossible. 

Next Message by Quake is [383.3]. 

[383.11] Dragon: Marx does not draw the obvious conclusion and insists that she is 

selling her labor power because he makes the case that labor cannot be offered for sale to the 

capitalist as a commodity. Marx clearly distinguishes between labor and labor power. Labor 

power is the capacity to labor and this is what is exchanged for a wage when she sells her 


labor power to the capitalist. She is not selling her labor because labor is not a commodity 

and contains no use value. According to Marx, “if labor were to be sold as a commodity 

in the market, it would have to exist before being sold” and this is not possible (675:3, also 

[268]). 

Hans: The difference between labor and labor power is so relevant, and so unbridgeable for the worker, because 

the worker does hot have control over the means of production. 


[391.2] Bluto: Labor power is described as the worker’s ability to do work. Labor by 

itself is nothing until the exchange of labor power has taken place. Hayduke[265] explains: 

“This is because labor is a process, and therefore can have no inherent value”. The amount 

of labor power that is used to create commodities is the only thing the capitalist is after. For 

it is congealed human labor that is used to value a commodity, thus creating the profits for 

the capitalist. 


[391.3] Boarder: To add somewhat to my first try at this question I think that there is an 

indirect relationship between labor, wage, and labor power. Hans tells us that if a worker 

was to be paid on his/her labor power alone he/she would tell the boss what expenses they 

incurred in order to work every day. The worker in turn would be reimbursed for those 

expenses. This sounds a lot like subsistence payments. The worker is only paid enough to 

keep them showing up to work. The boss (capitalist) has to pay enough to keep the worker 

alive and able to work, but that’s about it. The worker is paid by the hour, he is paid for the 

labor that he performed. However, the commodity that is exchanged by the laborer and the 

capitalist is labor power. I would argue that Marx feels that the capitalists are equating wage 

to labor, however, in reality they are not looking at anything but what they have to pay for. 

If we define labor power as the means of subsitence, then I think that the capitalist is more 

than willing to pay for the labor power rather than the actual labor. But I think that this is 

a misconception. The capitalist would like to pay that, but in reality with a competive job 

market, people will go else where if they can. At this time in history, the worker was stuck 

a lot of times and had to work at the wage that was given to them. They didn’t have many 

options available to them. Marx is basically saying that the capitalist is paying only enough 

to keep the worker coming back to work the next morning. The capitalist will pay as little 

as possible in order to ensure this. 

Next Message by Boarder is [393]. 

[393.5] Guyote: What might appear as one thing might, in all reality, be something else. 

This illusion is no better demonstrated than through the appearance of the wage as payment 

for the sale of labor, when in reality, it is the sale of labor power. 

Marx addressed this illusion by insisting that the laborer is not selling her labor to the 

capitalist, she is in fact selling her labor power. The capitalist would have the laborer believe 

that she is being paid for her labor, because if labor was a tangible, marketable, and transferable 

commodity, the price for that labor would be market driven and thus assumed to be 

fair. 

Marx, however, asserts that there is no such thing as a fair wage, it is an illusion, just as 

the sale of one’s labor is an illusion. Take for example the situation where I would, as the 

capitalist, order 15 unit hours of labor just as I might purchase 20 units of raw materials.


This simply cannot happen. Marx is only pointing out the reality, at times it might be 

easier to believe the notion that we sell our labor, but this is not true. 

Surplus labor power (time) is the source of capitalist profits. By reducing the necessary 

labor time of a given activity and increasing the surplus labor time for the worker, the 

capitalist will make profits. 

With this distinction in mind,we can differentiate between the notion of selling one’s 

labor versus selling one’s labor power. Consider this: would the capitalist rather buy labor 

or labor power? 

Next Message by Guyote is [393.6]. 

[393.2] JoeHill: Marx did not make the mistake, as many of his contemporaries did, in 

assuming that because it is labor that the laborer gives the capitalist, it is labor for which 

she is paid. Marx realized that if “workers were paid for their labor, the value they create, 

they would either be paid in full, leaving no surplus value, or they would be paid less than 

the value created, which would apparently be a violation of the principle that value is exchanged 

for value (Brewer 63).” If this were the case capitalism would not be possible since 

its existence is predicated on the creation of surplus value. Marx makes the case that labor 

cannot be offered for sale to the capitalist as a commodity. One reason Marx gives for this is 

“if labor were to be sold as a commodity in the market, it would have to exist before being 

sold,” and this is not possible (anno. 155).“ In addition, Marx also contends that the wage 

cannot represent the ”value of labor“ because this concpept is an absurdity. Labor, being the 

source of value cannot itself have value. On this point Marx quotes Samuel Bailey stating 

that because ”value depends on the quantity of labor employed in production...it follows that 

the value of labor depends on the quantity of labor producing it- which is evedintly absurd 

(anno. 155) 

Hans: There is some good stuff in the in-class exam which you did not put into the resubmission. 

Next Message by JoeHill is [398]. 

[395.1] Gemni: The definition of labor, labor power, and as Hayduke [265] says, congealed 

labor must be stated to start out. Labor is the actual work that goes into making the 

commodity, as Marx would say, labor is the substance of the value of commodities (annotations 

p-153). Labor power, a very important factor in our second installment, represents 

the worker’s ability to work. Finally, congealed human labor is the value of a commodity 

derived from the labor that expended on it. An important fact to point out here is that the 

worker is selling labor power and not labor: since all labor appears as paid labor, exploitation 

becomes ‘invisible’ (annotations p-154). Another way to look at the same premise is to 

refer back to Hayduke [265], 

“Labor is the just process through which the worker transforms his commodity, 

labor power, into what the capitalist wants” 

The most important observation by Hayduke follows “because the workers and the capitalists 

both do not understand the ‘underlying’ social relations.” Both know that the system 

works, they are both unaware of the implications of each others labor and the dependent 

factors of they have to each other. The main factor for why the worker “endures” (although 

for the most part he is oblivious to this notion) his station, cheap labor, the capitalists knows 

that as long as he controls the ‘means of production’ things will stay the same. Joehill [268] 


points out some interesting points. Labor power, not labor is the thing that is offered to the 

capitalist, if it was labor, which can not be a commodity, “it would have to exist before being 

sold.” 

Next Message by Gemni is [396.1]. 

[398.4] Hayduke: The answer to this lies in the confusion between the concepts of labor 

power, labor, and congealed human labor. The worker does not own any means of production, 

so in order to make a living, she must sell something of herself, such as her labor 

power. This is the ability to work. She then goes to work, and is paid according to how 

much she labors, which leaves the impression that she is being paid for labor. However, it 

is impossible to pay someone for labor, because it only exists in the split second that it is 

occurring. Furthermore, the moment it occurs, it no longer belongs to the worker, so she 

can’t sell it. What labor does is create congealed human labor, which gives a commodity 

the exchange value the capitalist is looking for. Therefore, the capitalist is paying for the 

congealed human labor, which is merely labor power that has been transformed through the 

process of labor. 

Hans: You are thinking through it independently. 


[401.4] Zed: Marx does not draw the conclusion that the laborer is selling his/her labor, 

but rather his/her labor power. This is thought because of the labor theory of value which 

is that labor is the substance of the value of commodities. Since labor itself cannot be a 

commodity and cannot have a value, then the worker is therefore selling her labor power, 

not her labor. 

Hans: The worker sells his labor power because he has no other access to the means of production. Your in-class 

exam was here closer to the answer than the resubmission. You had written “the capitalist is paying for her labor 

power, which is the ability to perform labor, rather than her labor, which is the labor she actually performs.” The 

capitalist does not have to pay her a full equivalent of her labor because on her own, she would not be able to 

use her labor power. Back to your resubmission: The capitalist buys the labor power because abstract labor, the 

expenditure of labor power, is the substance of value. 

Next Message by Zed is [436]. 

[401.1] Cartman: Marx does not draw this conclusion because of the difference between 

labor and labor power. Labor power is the ability of the laborer to perform work. And on the 

other hand, labor is what has gone in to the production of a particular commodity and what 

gives it it’s value. In Annotations on pg. 153, Hans says that “labor is the substance of the 

value of the commoditie, but labor itself cannot be a commodity and cannot have a value.” 

The laborer cannot sell the capitalist her labor, as mentioned, it cannot have a value. 

He/she can however, sell labor power. In other words, the socially necessary labor time 

involved in the production of a certain commodity. He/she sells this labor power in exchange 

for wages. 

If the laborer were paid for his/her labor, they would have to be paid in full. In so doing, 

this would leave no surplus value for the capitalist to make any money. Since this is not the 

case, and the laborer is only paid for his/her labor power, (which they do not have control 

over) this opens the doors for exploitation of the laborer. 

Hans: What is missing in this answer is a mention of the separation of the laborer from the means of production. 

Next Message by Cartman is [445].


[402.1] Merlin: There are several reasons why Marx concludes that the laborer is selling 

his/her labor power rather than labor. One, if the laborer were selling actual labor, rather 

than labor power (the ability to work), then he/she would need to be paid for the full value 

of his/her labor, equal to the value that he/she produces. In actuality, laborers are paid 

a subsistence wage for their labor power, below the value of what they produce. This is 

how the capitalist makes a profit. He must reduce the necessary labor time for the worker, 

which increases his surplus value. Therefore, the worker’s wage includes a certain amount of 

unpaid labor. In addition, it is an absurd idea that labor and not labor power is the commodity, 

because the labor would have to exist before it could be sold, which is not possible. Finally, 

if labor was the commodity, it would first have to have value itself, which is also not possible, 

because labor is the source of value for all commodities. We would have to decide where 

the value of labor comes from. 

Hans: Excellent discussion of a very complex subject. And it is literally the same as what you wrote in the exam. 

I am impressed. 

First Message by Merlin is [36]. 

[403.1] Henrix: Labor is not considered a commodity which has value, but labor power 

is. So, “the commodity that actually changes hands between the worker and the capitalist is 

not labor but labor power”[Annotations p.153]. 

The reason why labor is not considered a commodity which has value, is because labor 

is what actually creates the value of commodities, and the source of value cannot have value 

itself. As stated in the annotations; “if labor were something that could be exchanged on the 

market, there would be no need to exchange other products since they all derive from labor” 

[Annotations p.154] 

This is the reason why Marx insist that it is the labor power that is being sold and not the 

labor 

Next Message by Henrix is [404.1]. 

[405.9] Sprockets: Powerful Labor Marx insists that the laborer is selling her labor 

power because she has no choice. The laborer has “no control over the means of production”, 

as Hans says in [266]. If the laborer did have control over the means of production, “The 

worker would be able to sell his (her) labor” (Hans [273]). The reasoning behind this is that 

the necessity of selling one’s labor would be relinquished, therefore the laborer’s power to 

labor would not be a commodity; the labor would be the commodity, by choice. 


[405.1] Maine: Marx insists that the laborer is selling her labor power and not her labor. 

Hans explains this by citing the labor theory of value: “Labor is the substance of the value of 

commodities, but labor itself cannot be a commodity and cannot have a value.” (Annotations 

153) 

One difference between labor and labor power is the level of wages. The capitalist pays 

the laborer for her labor power, just enough to cover the cost of production. We call this 

a wage. If the laborer were selling her labor, then she would earn the entire value of the 

product she produces. The surplus value that the capitalist receives would not exist. The 

length of the workday might be another indicator of the selling of labor power. The laborer 

does not determine how many hours she works. 

Next Message by Maine is [405.2]. 


[405.13] Bull: It looks like labor, it acts like labor, it feels like labor, it must be labor. 

Or is it? To the general capitalist and laborer, labor is not understood very well in Marx’s 

view. For the general capitalist and laborer, labor is exchanged in turn for a wage that is 

given by the capitalist. To Marx, there is much more depth to labor than what most people 

understand it to be. To explain my point, I write the following. In our economy there are 

two general types of people. There are those who own the means of production and those 

who don’t. Those who own the means of production can use those means to hire workers 

and give them wages in order to produce a commodity. They then can sell this commodity 

to the market to make a profit. It is very different for those who do not own the means of 

production. For them, all that they have to offer is their labor in exchange for a wage. This 

is the general understanding of labor. In Marx’s view, he insists that there is more to labor. 

As Hayduke explains, (Installment II Pg. 42) there are three types of labor. Labor, labor 

power and congealed human labor. Labor is described as the actual work that produces a 

commodity. Labor power is the workers personal ability to accomplish work. Congealed 

labor is the value of a commodity from the labor that was put into it. It is very important 

to understand the differences between these types of labor. Because labor power is only the 

inherent ability that enables someone to work, it is not a commodity until that work is put 

into some form of tangible commodity. Hayduke describes this (Installment II Pg. 42) “ as 

an activity creating value [labor] can no more have any particular value than gravity can have 

any particular weight...” Once this labor power is put into action to produce a commodity 

it no longer remains labor power but transforms into labor. If the owner of the means of 

production paid the workers equal to the value of the commodity that labor created, there 

would be no profit to be gained by the capitalist. In order to make a profit, the capitalist 

must pay the worker for his/her labor power in the form of a wage. This type of exploitation 

of labor is how the capitalist continues to make profits with his means of production. If 

the capitalist paid the worker an equal value of the commodity that he produced, a profit 

could not be made and capitalism would cease to be capitalism. For this reason Marx insists 

that the laborer is selling his/her labor power and not his/her labor. I agree with Hans ( 

Installment II Pg. 44) that there is a big difference of whether labor or labor power is sold, 

with that difference being in the level of the wage. If the laborer continues to receive a wage 

for his/her work, there will always be a profit for those who own the means of production. 

Next Message by Bull is [422]. 

Question 378 is 217 in 1995WI, 253 in 1996sp, 304 in 1997WI, 377 in 1998WI, 495 in 


in 2007fa, and 744 in 2011fa: 

Question 378 Why can the inequality in the exchange between worker and capitalist not be 

explained by the fact that the worker represents living labor, and the capitalist objectified 

labor? 

[258] PowderNow: Discrepancy not explained Annotations states, “the difference between 

living and objectified labor is merely a difference in form” (p. 156). That is the 

answer! The inequality in the exchange between worker and capitalist cannot be explained 

by the worker representing living labor and the capitalist objectified labor. This is because 

objectified labor and living labor are the same thing only varying in form.


For example, you have some ice cubes and heat them up (but not to evaporation), they 

now equate to a glass of water. You still have the same amount of ice, but in a different form. 

Marx further states that giving something a different form does not change its quantity. The 

cubes of ice equal the water and the capitalist cannot make a profit on this type of exchange. 

Living labor when expended on an object becomes objectified labor, but this does not create 

more labor. It is still the same amount of labor, the form has just changed. The value is not 

determined by the objectified labor but by the living labor required to produce the object. 

Thus, objectified labor and living labor do not explain the inequality between the worker and 

capitalist. 

Hans: Very good. You have selected one single step in the argument and you bring it to life by explaining it 

really well. The analogy with the ice and water is quite enlightening, and I will put it into the next edition of the 

Annotations. 

Next Message by PowderNow is [310]. 

Question 383 is 502 in 2001fa: 

Question 383 Give examples from other sciences where appearances are different than the 

underlying relations. 

[261] Pobeda: Ducks? Physics is a good example in which appearances are different from 

the underlying relations. One example of this comes from the middle ages. As people lived 

their life, they would see the sun come up in the east and set in the west. The appearance 

was that the sun revolved around the earth. We now know that the earth spins on its axis, 

and the spherical shape of the earth makes it appear that the sun moves around us. In fact, 

the earth orbits around the sun, causing seasons, and the differences between day and night. 

Even deeper, we could describe the gravitational pull by which all of the celestial bodies 

influence one another and keep our earth in orbit. The deep and underlying relations are 

much different and much more complex than the outer appearance. 

Hans: The orbit around the sun does not cause the differences between day and night, but the changes in these 

differences. Otherwise very good. 

Message [261] referenced by [283] and [287]. Next Message by Pobeda is [346.3]. 

[283] Navin: social sciences aren’t perfect either Pobeda [261] gives a great example 

of the how new information in physics changed the whole paradigm. This is a common 

phenomena in all sciences. Especially social sciences. The mainstream economic thought 

has changed many times in the recent past. During the seventies when unemployment was 

high and inflation was high the use of the phillips curves diminished. Even today’s low inflation 

and very low unemployment dispute the relationship Phillips assumed. The underlying 

relationship between unemployment and inflation can not be explained only by the philips 

curve. 

Sociology and Psychology have experienced this phenomena in which the overriding 

paradigm does not explain the underlying relations. When Freud introduced the unconscious 

mind and the power that it has on a persons well being it shattered the existing paradigm and 

people were able to recover from serious mental illnesses. Whereas previously they were 

thought to contain bad spirits or something of that nature. 



[286] Jedi: Imaginary Value in Labor One of the most interesting things in the study 

of philosophy is Plato’s Cave Allegory. Plato, who believes that every human sense can be 

deceived, thinks every appearance can be merely a distortion of reality. His cave allegory 

goes like this. In a dark cave where only two-dimensional shadows are visible to the human 

eye, people are blind to the “real” three-dimensional appearances of things. The false perceptions, 

which are caused by the sun, are the result of casual ignorance. The sun is the only 

object that is true and cannot be distorted by shadows. The sun is the cause of all causes. 

We can relate Marx’s discussion of labor to Plato’s sun. Labor is the cause of value in 

commodities, but cannot in itself have value; as the sun is the cause of shadows but cannot 

in itself have shadows. 

Furthermore, according to Plato, once the cavemen are freed from the cave, and are released 

into the three-dimensional world, they would have a hard time adjusting to the seemingly 

strange world while in fact nothing has changed. However, once they are freed from 

their ignorance, their lives would be forever changed. Professor Hans has illustrated the implications 

of this release from ignorance in the understanding of the difference in labor and 

labor-power, by both the worker and the capitalist. In [273], Professor Hans wrote, “And 

once labor power is no longer a commodity, the main incentive to subject everything to the 

market would fall away, and the producers would probably look for other ways to organize 

the economy. (Note that this is a counterfactual reasoning; the actual transition to socialism 

would go differently.)” 

Hans: Excellent! With your permission, I will take the Sun example into the Annotations. I consider this a much 

more convincing analogy than Engels’s analogies: 

As an activity creating value, [labor] can no more have any particular value than gravity can 

have any particular weight, heat any particular temperature, electricity any particular strength 

of current. 

Message [286] referenced by [2007fa:418]. Next Message by Jedi is [304]. 

[287] Hans: Translation Error Navin was the victim of a bad translation when he 

wrote [283]. The Vintage edition, which places more emphasis on pretty language than on 

accuracy of meaning, says: 

That in their appearance things are often presented in an inverted way is 

something fairly familiar in just about every science, apart from political 

economy. 

This almost sounds like: “every science makes mistakes except political economy.” Navin 

must have understood this sentence this way, because he replies (in the subject line): “social 

sciences aren’t perfect either,” and in the body of his message he brings examples from social 

sciences where certain paradigms were proven wrong afterwards. 

But this is not at all what Marx intended to say. A more precise translation of the sentence 

is: 

That in their appearance things often present themselves in an inverted manner 

is commonly understood in just about every science, except in political 

economy.


Marx talks here about differences between appearance and the underlying (core) relation. 

This is not at all the same thing as a difference between the prevailing scientific paradigm 

and the reality this science purports to describe. Marx talk about a difference between two 

different levels of reality: on the surface, the transaction has the form of a sale of labor. As 

I wrote in the Annotations, this is 

not an illusion but reality: the income of the worker is in fact paid in the 

form: “so and so many dollars per hour of labor,” i.e., it is paid as price of 

labor, not of labor power. 

Pobeda’s examples in [261] indeed spoke about different levels of reality. It is not just 

a wrong theory that the earth stays still and the sun revolves around the earth, but every 

phyical body on the surface of the earth, which is not too large or too slow, almost precisely 

behaves as if the earth was standing still and the sun was moving. 

Marx meant to say: all other sciences know and take it for granted that there is a difference 

between appearance and the real underlying forces (which science tries to uncover), but 

political economy, meaning here mainstream economics, does not know this: they take the 

appearances at face value. 

Taken by themselves, Navin’s examples were quite good; but he should have noticed how 

unlikely it is for Marx to say that all sciences make mistakes except political economy. 



Question 384 At which point in their theories did the classical economists unwittingly 

switch from the thesis that the laborer sells his labor to the implicit assumption that he 

sells his labor power? 

[270] Gemni: Classical Economists’ Folly Marx starts out his argument against the 

classical economists, which he considers “vulgar”, in their process of deriving the price 

of labor. Classical economists explained the price of labor by the “demand and supply” 

(annotations p-158). Marx then goes on to say how oscillations in the market shift this 

balance. When demand and supply are in balance, the “natural price” is derived. Marx 

sees this process as a circular model that can not progress. The economists also realized 

this point so that had to find another way to explain the price of labor, which was through 

value. By sheer accident, they stumbled upon the answer. The natural price “can only be 

its value expressed in money, as that of all other commodities” (annotations p-158). It was 

this transition from the natural price of labor to value of labor that they unwittingly switched 

labor for labor power. This “unconscious substitution” was further influenced ny the cost 

of production, namely the worker and his individual factors. Marx deduced that what the 

classical economists called ‘value of labor’ was in fact the ‘value of labor power’. Marx 

says it best in Das Kapital 

“they never discovered that the course of the analysis had led not only from 

the market prices of labor to its presumed value, but also led them to reduce 

this value of labor itself to the value of labor power” (Capital p-679). 


So in trying to find a basic explanation of the price of labor, they accidently reduced it to 

the point where they were describing labor power, not labor. 

Hans: Good thinking but not explained very well. 

Message [270] referenced by [271] and [288]. Next Message by Gemni is [285]. 

[271] Luc: Those naive capitalists Marx asserts that classical economists naively switch 

from the thesis that the laborer sells her labor to the assumption that she sells her labor 

power. Question 384 asks: at what “point” does this “switch” occur. In [270], Gemni does a 

fine job in explaining why the switch occurs, however, Gemni does a poor job in explaining 

when it occurs: 

“Marx sees this process as a circular model that can not progress. The 

economists also realized this point so that had to find another way to explain 

the price of labor, which was through value. By sheer accident, they 

stumbled upon the answer.” 

I do not think that they merely “stumbled upon the answer” by “sheer accident.” I would 

like to clarify the “when” part of Gemni’s submission. 

By asking for a specific “point,” the question implies that classical economists use a step 

by step theory to derive that which the bourgeois society calls “value of labor.” 

1) The “price of labor,” which is used to determine the value of labor, is explained by supply 

and demand. The changes in the relation between supply and demand explains nothing 

but the changes in the price of labor, i.e. the rise and fall of wages. 

2) When supply and demand cease to fluctuate, a point of equilibrium is reached and they 

cease explain anything. 

3) This point of equilibrium is known as the “natural price” of labor, which is the point 

of analyzation. 

4) According to Adam Smith, the “natural price of labor can only be its value expressed 

in money, as that of all other commodities.” This is the point of transition. 

Point four, which is “the transition from the natural price of labor to the value of labor is 

the point where [the classical economists] were derailed.” (annotations 158) Without knowing 

it, the classical economists substitute value of labor with value of labor power. Adam 

Smith wrote that the value of labor and the value of all other commodities are defined in the 

same way. The value of all commodities is defined by the “cost of production.” The cost of 

production of the worker is the “cost of reproducing the worker himself,” which is the value 

of labor power. 

According to Marx, the accidental mistake of the classical economists is that they replace 

the question: How is the price of labor determined? (this would give the value of labor), 

with the question: What is the cost of production of the worker? (this gives the value of 

labor power). 

“Therefore what they called the ‘value of labor’ is in fact the value of labor power, as it 

exists in the person of the worker, and it is as different from its function, labor, as a machine 

is from the operations it performs.” [677:3/oo]



Message [271] referenced by [285] and [288]. Next Message by Luc is [282]. 

[285] Gemni: Point Taken It is true, I did focus my argument mainly on “why” the 

classical economists ‘accidently’ substituted labor for labor power. As Luc [271] implied, 

I simplified the “when” of the argument. I concentrated more on “how” the change came 

about. To clarify, my point was that the classical economists did not set out to change labor 

to labor power, but even as Marx said, they did not realize what they had done. Having the 

problem of the circular theory, the classical economists realized that one that could not proceed 

unless they change their ideology at the base, changing the natural price. I appreciate 

Luc pointing out my lacking, although I had intended to argue from a different standpoint. 

Message [285] referenced by [288]. Next Message by Gemni is [360]. 

[288] Hans: Cooperative Problem Solving Gemni [270] tried to answer a more interesting 

question than that posed in Question 384: how did it happen that they ended up with 

a false theory? After all, they were no dummies, and they did not deliberately falsify their 

findings either. Preoccupied with this, Gemni did not explain very well at what point this 

switch occurred. This is where Luc jumped in; his [271] is a very detailed and clear explanation 

of all the steps. After this, Gemni confirmed in [285] that Luc had interpreted him 

right. Gemni sent his second message before he got his grade for the first; therefore I am 

basing his grade now on both submissions. 

In his second submission [285], Gemni emphasizes that the economists had not planned 

to make this switch. I agree, and in my view, they made this switch even less deliberately 

than Gemni makes it sound. They did not say “aha, this is a contradiction, therefore we have 

to change our basic assumptions.” They did not realize that they had run into a contradiction, 

and they were not aware that they changed their assumptions to get out of it. Instead, probably 

the following happened: When they arrived at the point where their own logic would 

have compelled them to say: the value of labor is the labor content of the labor, they had a 

gut-level aversion against this step because it seemed a hollow tautology and therefore not 

the right way to proceed. They were groping for an explanation which was not tautological, 

and the thesis that the value of labor is the reproduction cost of the worker seemed to fit the 

bill. 


Question 387 is 222 in 1995WI, 260 in 1996sp, 567 in 2003fa, 623 in 2004fa, and 575 in 

2005fa: 

Question 387 Why is the transformation of the value (resp. price) of labor power into the 

value (resp. price) of labor the basis of “all mystifications of the capitalistic mode of production”? 

[263] Senco: Capitalist illusions According to Marx many “mystifying” things occur 

under the capitalistic mode of production. This mode of production is the system we see 

used every day. One which places us at the mercy of both machines and owners. 

Labor power can be viewed as a commodity with a use-value of producing exchange 

value. Once the Capitalist purchases labor power, it can be used by setting it to labor. During 

this laboring process the worker is creating value. The Capitalist will make the worker 


continue to work until value is generated above and beyond the value of the labor power 

purchased. This is how both surplus value is generated, and workers are exploited. 

Labor alone has no value. The “market value of labor” is actually, a new, different form 

of the value of labor power. This shows how this transformation can be seen as the “basis of 

all mystifications”. 

Marx clearly saw the exploitation and deception that occurs under capitalism. He wanted 

other people to also see these illusions and lies. One of many arguments Marx made to help 

people see the truth is the fact that the value the worker produces is not the value he gets. 

The worker will always receive a wage less than the actual value produced. Once again it is 

clear that the worker is exploited. 

Hans: What you say is good and eloquent, but too general. I would like a more specific answer of the Question. 

Marx’s claim that this transformation is the basis of all mystifications is quite strong, and I’d like to see some 

support why this should be so. 


[280] Doc: Capitalism “mystified?” To a degree I agree with Senco’s (263) description 

of “all mystification’s of the capitalist mode of production” and I believe this is how Marx 

intended his argument to be understood, but I have a differing attitude about this thinking. 

I believe that instead of society being at the mercy of of capitalists and machinery, our 

lives are actually enhanced by the technology that has surfaced in our lifetime and the capitalists 

who have had the willingness and the desire to create methods that will improve 

mankind. Without capitalists, technology would not exist and mankind would still be in the 

dark ages. 

Mankind has an inherent need to make their lives better and in a society without capitalists, 

profits, labor, capital, and mankind’s desire to make a profit, none of the technological, 

medical, or lifestyle breakthroughs of the last century would have taken place. Capitalists 

give labor the ability to make wages while they are employed, they provide security for a 

workers family, and give them the ability to learn a trade and receive training while they are 

being paid. This also gives employees the opportunity to learn enough about their trade to 

open their own business and became a capitalist. 

I don’t believe that laborers are exploited because they agree to do the work for the wages 

that they are contracted for when they hire on. If they want to make more of the surplus 

value, they need to take the risk and go into business for themselves. 

Hans: Thank you for your courage to openly register your reservations. 


[284] PumpkinStar: Creating something out of nothing. The worker/capitalist relationship 

begins with the worker offering his/her labor power to the capitalist. From there, it 

is left to the capitalist to decide how to efficiently allocate the worker’s labor power. 

“Thus we reach a result which seems at first sight absurd: labor which 

creates a value of 6 shillings possesses a value of 3 shillings” (V:680:1) 

In this example, how is it that the capitalist is able to create an additional 3 shillings of 

money through the worker?


In capitalist society, this wage mystery is dismissed through the equation 6 shillings for 

12 hours worked /.5 = 3 shillings for 6 hours. Also, when the production time for the product 

equals 6 hours, the worker has worked 6 hours without getting paid. 

Therefore, the capitalist, through monetary value, is able to mask this denial of surpluslabor 

for the worker, exploiting them for more hours with less pay. 

The mystifications are, therefore: 

How is it that the capitalist is able to seemingly get away with free labor from the worker, 

and being able to justify it through a simple mathematical equation? 

Why is the worker willing to work for free? Or is the worker fooled by the appearance of 

getting paid? 

Hans: In order to get from 6 to 3 shillings you do not divide by .5. You either divide by 2 or you multiply by .5. 

Message [284] referenced by [289]. Next Message by PumpkinStar is [372]. 

[289] Hans: Where does Surplus Value come from? If a 12-hour work day creates a 

value of 6 shillings, but the cost of a worker to keep himself or herself alive and able to work 

is only 3 shillings, therefore the wage is 3 shillings, then the capitalist makes 3 shillings a 

day off this worker. PumpkinStar [284] asks: 

In this example, how is it that the capitalist is able to create an additional 3 

shillings of money through the worker? 

Well, these additional 3 shillings are the result of the worker working all day. They are 

there without the capitalist having to do anything. The question PumkinStar should have 

asked is: 

How does the capitalist get away with paying the worker only 3 shillings a 

day although the worker is creating 6 shillings? 

To answer this, put yourself in the position of an unscrupulous and greedy capitalist and 

ask yourself: what is the lowest wage you can pay your workers? Well, the lowest would 

be to pay the workers their expenses which they need to show up for work every day. And 

there is no reason for the capitalist to pay more than this. If the worker had the option of 

working for himself with his own means of production, then he would not have to accept 

such a bargain. But since all the means of production are monopolized by the capitalists, 

he has no choice. This is why Marx says that the value of labor power is determined by the 

living expenses of the worker. 


Question 388 is 223 in 1995WI, 235 in 1995ut, 261 in 1996sp, 313 in 1997WI, 385 in 

1998WI, 480 in 2000fa, 509 in 2001fa, and 644 in 2008SP: 

Question 388 In a speech which was later published as a pamphlet called Value, Price and 

Profit, Marx says that there is no such thing as a fair wage. What does he mean by this? 

[257] Karlito: Who receives a fair wage? According to Marx, capitalists receive benefits 

or profits from the exploitation of the labor class (the workers). Behind this statement is the 

answer to why he says that “there is no such thing as a fair wage.” 


By the above statement, Marx is implying that within a Capitalist society, the workers 

receive too low of a wage for their work, while the capitalists receive too high of a wage for 

the amount of work that he/she actually realizes. Relative surplus-value and extra surplusvalue 

are two examples of how a Capitalist society produces unfair wages. 

Maktub [229] states that “relative surplus-value is created by the fact that production has 

increased” while the wage of the worker has not. The capitalist captures all the surplus-value 

that the workers have created, resulting in a “profit” or an increased wage for the capitalist. 

Because of innovation, less labor is needed to produce each commodity, and therefore the 

wage paid to the worker is also less (unless the worker works the same amount of hours as 

before, resulting in an even higher surplus value to the capitalist because of the increase in 

production). Relative surplus-value increases the gap between the different wages received 

by the worker and the capitalist. 

PowderNow [232] explains that “extra surplus-value is the difference between individual 

and social value.” This extra value is accessible because of the advantage that the capitalist 

now has over his/her competition due to the innovation (only applicable in the short run). 

Once again, the capitalist is receiving a profit, or higher wage “from the workers who employ 

the machine...” (Annotations 149). 

Therefore, Marx thought it best to abolish the wage system. 

Hans: There is still a big difference between the critique of capitalism you give here and the Marxist critique. 

Please read [294] and [297]: they were both written with you in mind. 

Message [257] referenced by [267], [276], [278], and [294]. Next Message by Karlito is [295]. 

[267] Dragon: The unfair wage. I strongly agree with the first paragraph of Karlito’s 

answer [257] to question 388. He begins by stating that the underlying basis to his answer 

in why there is no such thing as a fair wage is, “capitalists receive benefits or profits from 

the exploitation of the labor class (the workers)”. 

Karlito generates the answer to 388 primarily from Maktub [229] and PowderNow [232]. 

Karlito uses relative surplus value and extra surplus value to show that there is no such thing 

as a fair wage. I want to use a different approach than Karlito. 

In the exchange of labor power for money, equivalents are exchanged freely. If there 

was a fair wage, it would be exactly equal to the exchange value of labor power. But the 

underlying reality in why Marx says that there is no such thing as a fair wage is because of 

the unequal exchange relationship of labor power for money. What Marx means by this is 

that the laborer gives up more use value (labor power) than is contained in the commodity 

equivelent (money) of the exchange value that he receives. Marx’s implication is that wages 

have drifted considerably from the exchange value of labor power. 

The consumption of the use value of labor power reproduces its own exchange value into 

money. There is an unequal exchange relationship because there is a gap between the use 

value and the exchange value of labor power. The reason that this creates an unfair wage is 

because there is an unpaid surplus value between the laborer and the profit receivers. The 

bottom line in why Marx says that there is no such thing as a fair wage is that the use value 

of labor power exceeds its exchange value for a wage. 


Message [267] referenced by [276]. Next Message by Dragon is [354].


[276] Maverick: unfair wage Karlito [257] states that,“the capitalist captures all the 

surplus-value that the workers have created, resulting in a profit for the capitalist.” I believe 

a better understanding of how the creation of surplus-value occurs will help to explain the 

unfair wage. In chapter ten, Marx teaches that the capitalist working day consists of necessary 

labor time and surplus labor time. Necessary labor time is the time it take to produce the 

average daily means of subsistence of the worker. Time worked beyond the hours required 

for sustenance is referred to as surlus labor. In V679:3 Marx says,“...the capitalist always 

makes labor power work longer than is necessary for the reproduction of its own value.” 

This is how the capitalist creates surplus value. Now, in order to achieve such a goal, the 

capitalist deceives the worker in a way not easily observed. 

Dragon [267] argues that the bottom line is that the use value of labor power exceeds its 

exchange value for a wage. Analyzing how the capitalist achieves this is key to understanding 

the unfair wage. The capitalist pays the worker only for the necessary labor time. The 

surplus labor time goes unpaid. So the worker dedicates a portion of the working day to the 

capitalist and isn’t compensated for it. But the worker doesn’t realize that this is occuring 

because the paid portion of the working day appears as the price of the whole working day. 

Therefore, the value which the worker produces throughout the entire working day always 

exceeds the compensation of the worker. No matter how high the wage is, the worker will 

never be fully compensated for the value which his labor power produces. 

Hans: Your very last sentence should perhaps be reformulated as: “Even the highest-paid workers under capitalism 

will never be fully compensated for the value which their labor power produces.” Of course, reality is a little more 

complicated: managerial employees may get wages that are higher than this. The capitalists do this in order to 

make sure that their managers represent their interests. 

Once you begin the sentence with the words “no matter how high the wage is,” you are committed to discussing 

the qualitative, not the quantitative aspect of wage labor. A conclusion of the sentence that fits together with this 

opening might be something like: “it is always an alienated and demeaning situation to have the owner of the means 

of production tell you what to do.” 

Message [276] referenced by [278]. Next Message by Maverick is [314]. 

[278] Winston: Unfair Wages I would like to add another part of this question to the 

previous responses as to why there is no such thing as a fair wage. In a capitalist society 

wages will never be fair because workers are separated from the means of production. As 

long as workers don’t own the labor process they will sell their labor power to the capitalists. 

When workers sell their labor power to capitalists they will always put in more than they get 

back. This results in capitalists getting back more than they put in, which was also mentioned 

by Karlito [257]. 

Maverick mentions [276] that unfair wages exist because the capitalist receives the surplus 

labor after a worker is paid for necessary labor time. This is only true because the 

capitalist owns the labor process and doesn’t pay the worker for the labor that the worker 

puts into the product. Rather, the capitalist pays for the workers labor power resulting in an 

unfair wage. 

If workers were to have ownership of the production process, they would be paid for their 

labor and not their labor power. This would create a more fair wage. 




[290] Hans: Wages are by their nature unfair Marx coined the phrase “there is no such 

thing as a fair wage” in order to make it clear that the evils of capitalism won’t go away if 

the wages of the workers are higher. Marx’s phrase can be understood quantitatively and 

qualitatively: 

(1) Quantitatively, wages under capitalism must always be below the value produced by 

the workers. If they rise above this level and the capitalist cannot make profits any more, they 

will stop hiring, and wages will soon fall to a level again that pleases the capitalists. This and 

other economic mechanisms to keep wages low will be discussed in Chapter Twenty-Five. 

(2) There is also a qualitative dimension to it. Assume, for the sake of the argument, that 

wages are so high that workers get all the value they produce during the day. They are still 

in an unfair and alienated situation because they must sell their labor power, and therefore 

they are not their own masters during the labor process. 

Instead of higher wages, therefore, the ultimate goal of the labor movement must be 

to abolish wage labor altogether. In other words, instead of the owner of the means of 

production telling the workers what to do on the workplace, the workers themselves would 

have a say, along with the consumers, what to produce and how. 


[297] Hans: More on: Wages are by their nature unfair I did not express myself 

strongly enough in submission [290]. Like everyone else who is living in a capitalist system 

and is ultimately dependent on the capitalists, I often shy away from calling things by their 

proper names. 

In [290] I only looked at the situation of the workers themselves and bracketed out the 

thorny issue of how the capitalists fit into all this. I will grasp this nettle right now. The 

distinction made in [290] between qualitative and quantitative unfairness can also be applied 

to the relationship between workers and capitalists. 

One might say the relationship between worker and capitalist is quantitatively unfair because 

the worker gets too little and the capitalist too much of the output. This may sound like 

a critique of capitalism, but it really isn’t. Why not? Because it makes the tacit assumption 

that workers and capitalists produce the product together, but they don’t share the proceeds 

equally. The remedy would be a redistribution which gives higher wages to the workers and 

lower profits to the capitalists. 

If a vampire is drinking your blood, you are not saying to him “it is not fair that you drink 

so much; can you please drink a little less of my blood?” You are telling him to get lost and 

you are fighting him off as hard as you can. With the capitalists we are in the same situation. 

They are not our co-workers who brazenly take more than their proper share. They are the 

parasites who are profoundly subverting the production process by subordinating it to the 

senseless quest for more and more money. The situation will not be fair as long as we have 

capitalism. 

Of course, such a radical critique is against the rules. It is expected of me that I teach 

goodwill and tolerance, and that I seek constructive solutions. I am supposed to ignore the 

damage which this system inflicts on me, my loved ones, and the billions of people whom I 

don’t know, most of them living on the other side of the globe, and to the environment and


the other living species. I am supposed to assume that despite these consequences, which 

everyone can plainly see, those in power only have the best of intentions. Sorry, I cannot 

and should not obey these rules. Modern capitalism is such a criminal system that it cannot 

be fixed by some quantitative adjustments, and tolerance with it is completely out of place. 


[333.2] Broker: Marx states, “there is no such thing as a fair wage.” (Marxian Economics 

Installment II p. 51) Fair wage would indicate that both sides of the wage equation are 

equal. Equality denotes, both equation sides add similar resources and profit equally from 

production. The wage labor equation can be viewed as the employer, capitalist and owner of 

production, and the worker, who owns labor power. 

The capitalists’ ultimate goal is to maximize profits through any and all cost saving techniques. 

Labor’s goal is to chisel out an existence by selling its labor power. A fair wage 

can never be formulated through this type of transaction. Although the transaction of buying 

and selling labor takes place in the market, between two willing individuals involved in 

mutual exchange, the outcome is inefficient. Capitalists gain surplus labor, because they set 

the wage equivalent to the existence level. Any labor produced above the existence level 

equates into profit for the capitalists. 

Wage labor neither sees profit nor the benefits of their surplus labor. Wage labor is alienated, 

because it is forced to sell labor power for money. After being alienated, they are 

exploited because labor does not own the means of production. Wage labor can never be fair 

due to the way the system is constructed. Wage labor does not benefit or profit in the same 

manner as its counterpart in the wage equation. 


Question 389 Find the flaw in the following argument: Labor power is potential labor. The 

capitalist cannot use potential labor, he needs actual labor. Therefore he pays the laborer 

after the work has been completed. The difference between the wage and the price of labor 

power is therefore that the wage is the price of actual labor, not potential labor, paid after 

the delivery of the labor. 

[274] Bluto: Marx was the first to understand the wage form, and the fact that the value 

of labor is not the labor itself, but the labor power. The capitalist works like a Labor broker. 

When an article is exchanged for money, the amount of profit made to the capitalists depends 

solely on the amount paid for labor power. 

The Laborer is put into a position where labor is exchanged similarly to any other commodity. 

The wage form is the way that the capitalist separates the value of labor for labor 

power. The capitalist thus, is paying for the laborer’s effort by placing value on the actual 

work time and not the labor itself. This action empowers the capitalist the means to exploit 

the worker. “The laborer is unaware of the value-creating properties of the commodity he 

is selling, i.e., he does not see the full extent of what he is giving the capitalist.”(Blue Book 

p.161 .1e) 

The two aspects of the market that can effect the value of labor power come from the 

change in supply and demand, but more importantly the effect on the value of the means of 


consumption. The changes in the price of the labor power are insights into the independence 

of labor. Variations in the “means of subsistence” is what affects the value of labor power. 

The laborer can deduce his own idea of the value of his labor power, by the purchasing power 

involved with necessities. 

The capitalist is always going to seek to buy under the “value” and selling over it. If 

“value” was defined; then the capitalist would be forced to pay this “value” to the laborer, and 

the capitalist would have no way to convert money into capital.The capitalist must exploit 

the laborer in a way that remains hidden, for it is the blindness of the laborer that transforms 

his money into capital. 

“Let us consider, on the other hand, the capitalist. He wishes to receive as much labor as 

possible for as little money as possible. In practice, therefore, the only thing that interests 

him is the value which its function creates.”(Blue book p.161.2b.) 

Hans: This is an ok summary of the passage in the Annotations where this Question can be found. 



Question 392 Productivity bargaining, i.e., union contracts which tie wage increases to 

increases in productivity, did not exist at Marx’s time. Should it be included as an additional 

piece of evicence falsely suggesting that wages are paid for labor? 

[275] Maine: Productivity Bargaining I think productivity bargaining is a false piece of 

evidence which would suggest that wages are paid for labor. 

How would productivity bargaining relate to the following example? A man and a woman 

are equally efficient and equally productive at performing the same task. They produce the 

same amount in the same time. Their value of labor power would be equal. However, the 

man’s wages are considerably higher than the woman’s wages. This is evidence that wages 

are not determined by labor. 

Marx cited an additional example when explaining individual differences in wages. He 

compared the labor of slaves and non-slaves. In the slave system, the advantage of a labor 

power above the average affects the slave owner; in the system of wage-labor, it affects the 

worker himself. 

Hans: I agree that productivity bargaining is additional misleading evidence suggesting that workers sell their labor 

rather than their labor power, because payment is tied to output. As an antidote to this you bring a very interesting 

piece of evidence which is not misleading but leads us on the right track, because here the payment is not related to 

output at all. This is the wage differential between men and women for the same labor. 

You are not making it very clear how your third paragraph fits in there. Wage differentials between average and 

above-average workers are a little bit like productivity wage increases, and they too are listed by Marx as misleading 

evidence. 


Question 393 is 225 in 1995WI, 264 in 1996sp, 316 in 1997WI, 389 in 1998WI, 514 in 


in 2008fa, and 773 in 2011fa: 

Question 393 Is the transformation of the value of labor power into the value of labor real, 

or does it take place only in the minds of those who sell and buy labor power?


[279] Veblen: confusion The transformation of the value of labor power into the value 

of labor is merely a transformation of form. In a capitalist economy it is necessary to make 

this transformation in order to hide the reality of the social relations of production. If the 

worker was aware of the full “value of her labor power” she would most likely not accept 

the capitalist/worker relationship. 

Obviously, value of labor is not exchanged, however if looked at from the perspective of 

post-production it is then possible to see the discrepancy between the value of labor power 

and the value of labor. 

I believed that this question is temporal in nature and can be perceived differently if 

looked at from another perspective. 

Hans: Apparently, when you write “it is merely a transformation of form,” you mean it is not real but an illusion, 

a smokescreen in order to hide the underlying exploitation. But how do you think this smokescreen was put into 

place? By a secret conspiracy of all the capitalists? 

That what Marx calls a “form” can be very real. It is usually a social relation on the surface of the economy 

by which the economic agents induce each other to do things which, behind their backs, has the cumulative effect 

of maintaining and promoting the capitalist system. Although this benefits the capitalists, capitalism has not been 

invented by the capitalists. They are the opportunistic beneficiaries of a flawed system. In the last portion of Chapter 

Nineteen, under my subtitle [Necessity of the Wage Form], Marx gives a number of reasons why labor power is 

traded in the form of labor. It is not one reason but the confluence of several reasons. But an intentional deception 

of the workers is not among them. 

Next Message by Veblen is [380.5]. 


Question 398 Bring examples of a situation (in real life, not necessarily connected with 

the subject presently under discussion) in which a time snapshot makes this situation look 

completely different than what is really going on. In your example, would a look at snapshots 

at different times have remedied the situation? 

[348] Pobeda: snapshot I am reminded of a riddle I heard in elementary. A man walks 

into a bar and asks the bartender for a drink. The bartender pulls out a gun and shoots, 

barely missing the man’s head. The man proceeds to thank the bartender and then leaves. 

The answer is the man had hiccups and needed them to be cured. The bartender scared the 

hiccups out of the man, who then thanked the bartender for his help. 

If we took a snapshot when the bartender was shooting his pistol, we could jump to many 

different conclusions. Perhaps the man made the bar tender angry, or stole something. The 

problem is we do not know the underlying reasons behind the action. We only see the action 

itself. Thus, we understand what is happening, but none of the reasons why. If we had multiple 

photographs, it would become much more clear what is really happening. Nonetheless, 

this would be a hard scenario to figure out just through photographs. Sometimes we need 

even more information than what we can observe with our eyes. 


[352] Paul: Snapshots... Snapshots in general are a very vague way to describe a situation. 

For instance, we could be viewing a picture of a man attemting to open a car door by means 

of a “slim jim.” A slim jim is an object used to open a car by inserting it into the widow 

to release the door lock from the inside of the door. Generally a slim jim is only used by 

officers of the law, locksmiths, and thieves. After further viewing the picture we noticed that 


the man is wearing common street clothing. This signifies that the man is neither an officer 

or a locksmith, thus instigating him as a thief. 

Although it may seem that the man is a thief, if you take further snapshots of the situation’s 

surroundings a new perspective is formed. Further inspection reveals that the man is 

actually an off duty locksmith and is attemping to assist a young woman in opening her car 

in which she left her keys. 

As you can see a simple snapshot can lead to entirely different realities, some even incriminating. 

By using a multiple number of snapshots you can achieve an entirely different 

perception of the situation at hand. 


[357] Buda: Snapshot, also... A picture is worth a thousand words. But sometimes, this is 

not so. It is sometimes hard to understand a situation with only one dimension. I compare it 

to trying to understand a book by reading the first and last paragraphs. Anyway, the example 

that I can think of is of the images we are receiving from Kosovo. They are representations 

of the worse kinds of atrocities. But what is really interesting is the way some of the children 

react when the cameras are rolling or someone is taking pictures. They have the urge to look 

into cameras and smile. A snapshot of a face of a smiling child does not explain what the 

truth of the matter is. The camera didn’t capture a happy moment but it brought a smile to 

a face of a child for that moment. That cannot be understood by just looking at that picture. 

It takes snapshots of the circumstances surrounding that child, or the situations beyond the 

provoked smile to get a better grasp of the reality behind that smile. 

Message [357] referenced by [363]. Next Message by Buda is [388]. 

[363] Hans: Misleading Evidence is not the Same as Lack of Information Of the three 

examples received, Buda’s [357] has the most significance in clarifying Marx’s claim that 

the time snapshot of a situation may be misleading. Buda gives the example that even in the 

most miserable situations, children will smile into the camera. This smile is a momentary 

reaction giving misleading information about the actual situation. 

I think this example not only applies to Kosovo. If you ask me which group of the 

population in the USA suffers most under capitalism, my answer is: the children. Everyone 

is under a lot of pressure, and the children are the target where everyone lets off steam. Our 

society has very little respect for children, as evidenced by the miserly amount of money 

spent for education or child care. And the current welfare reform legislation, in which the 

state abandons children and punishes children for being born, sends the message that child 

neglect and abuse are ok. Also the currently widely accepted childrearing practises are very 

abusive. Children have so much need to be loved that they accept the most abusive treatment. 

Their suffering may not be very evident at the time being, because they have so much vitality 

and they cannot admit it to themselves if they are unwanted, but this suffering lays a time 

bomb often preventing happy and fulfilled lives later. 

Pobeda’s [348] is an example of misleading evidence, but the fact that it is misleading has 

nothing to do with the time dimension of the process. The evidence of the shooting bartender 

is misleading, because this shot must be considered a hostile act. Only after one knows the 

bar tender’s motivation, to scare the customer so that he gets rid of his hiccups, will the 

situation become intelligible. This example shows that empirical evidence can be misleading


if one does not know what goes on beneath the surface. In this sense it speaks to the depthrealist 

method of Marx. Marx himself often describes situations in which empirical data 

give a misleading impression of what is going on. But this example has nothing to do with 

the time dimension of the process. 

Paul’s example [352] is the least convincing. If you see a man in plain clothes opening a 

car with a slim jimmy, and a lady standing by thanks the man and then enters the car, gets 

the keys out of the glove compartment and drives off, would you interpret this as theft? Of 

course, if you have only part of this information, then you may come to false conclusions. 

But the reason for this is the lack of information, not the evidence itself, as in the other two 

examples. 


Exam Question 399 is 494 in 2000fa, 523 in 2001fa, 563 in 2002fa, 643 in 2004fa, 592 


Exam Question 399 Why is the part of the capital advanced for wages called “variable 

capital”? 

[351] Angus: Advancing my wage In order to effectively answer this question I will 

first start out by distinguishing between constant capital, fixed capital, and variable capital. 

Examples of constant capital include machinery and raw materials. They are called constant 

capital because they simply transfer their value to the final product. The value of raw materials 

gets transferred in full to the final product, while only a fraction of the value of fixed 

capital gets used up in the production process and transferred to the final product. For example, 

if a machine lasts for five years, approximately one-fifth of it gets used up (worn out) 

each year. However, variable capital refers to that part of capital, which alters in value during 

the process of production, namely labor power. Labor power produces value to replace itself 

in addition to creating surplus value. 

Marx states, ‘While he is converting a portion of the means of production into products, 

a portion of his former product is being turned into money. It is his labor of last week, or 

of last year, that pays for his labor power this week or this year.’ (712:2/o) In summary, 

the part of capital advanced for wages is called variable capital because according to Hans, 

‘what flows back to the worker in the shape of wages is a portion of the product he himself 

continuously produced.’ Therefore, wages (variable capital) are related to the gain of the 

capitalist, hence the variability. 

Hans: Your first paragraph was excellent, but your second paragraph confused the issue again. In it you argue why 

variable capital is not really an advance of capital on the part of the capitalists, but comes from the worker’s earlier 

labor. This is true, but it was not asked in the Question. And then at the end you say that variable capital depends 

on the gains of the capitalist, and this is why it is called variable capital. This is wrong. Variable capital does not 

depend on the gains of the capitalist. 

Message [351] referenced by [2007fa:585]. Next Message by Angus is [351.1]. 


2004fa, 593 in 2005fa, and 703 in 2007SP: 

Question 400 How do the commodity form of the product and the money form of the commodity 

veil exploitation? 


[336] Perro: Exploitation The fact that a wage is paid by the capitalist after the producer 

have produced more than the equivalent for the wage, shows that the producer does not 

receive wage payment in advance. The additional produced products has a value, which the 

producer does not realize because it is not sold at the time. 

Marx sates that “What flows back to the labourer in the shape of wages is a portion 

of the product that is continuously reproduced by him”[712:2/o]. Hans uses the example 

about a shoe-producer and a bread-producer in “Annotations” p.169, to explain this. The 

shoe-producer eats bread, and the bread-producer wears shoes, and during the same time 

they have produced more shoes and bread. This makes it clear that the producers do not 

get paid in advance by the capitalist. Because of this, they do not realize the value of their 

additional production before it is sold, which is how the commodity form of the product veil 

exploitation. 

Marx says that the wages the capitalists pay by money is an illusion, because these money 

is a result of the producers labor of an earlier period. The capitalists does in other words 

again pay wages late and not in advance. By selling the producers previous made products, 

the capitalist have earned money which he can use for paying the wage. This explains how 

the money form of the commodity veil exploitation. 

Hans: Marx uses the phrase “realize the value” of something for converting this value into money form. Otherwise 

very good. 


Exam Question 401 is 496 in 2000fa, 525 in 2001fa, 565 in 2002fa, 594 in 2005fa, 692 

in 2008SP, 696 in 2008fa, and 851 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 401 How does the illusion arise that the capitalist advances something to 

the worker when he pays him a wage? 

[337] Henrix: Illusion The commodity form creates the illusion that the capitalist advances 

something to the worker when he pays him a wage. This is because, and I quote from 

the annotations “the worker is not aware that the product he produced has value because it 

has not yet been sold”. What the worker believes is that since wages are paid in money and 

the product he produced has no value until it is sold, it seems as if wages were an advance 

on the part of the capitalist. But the capitalist obtained this money originally from selling 

the workers earlier product (annotations p170). 

Message [337] referenced by [350]. Next Message by Henrix is [361]. 

[346] Kenshiro: Marx states “The illusion that the variable capital flows to the worker 

arises only because the worker does not see that his own product flows away from him.”... 

He also states “When capital is employed in advancing to the workman his wages, it adds 

nothing to the funds for the maintenance of labor.” 

I believe Marx also shows that it there is an illusion in the heart of the worker, when 

in reality through paying a wage to the worker at such a low level only keeps that worker 

coming back hence creating a sense of security that is not really there. Creating an illusion. 


[350] Paul: illusion or not? In answering the question, I start by exploring the meaning 

of “variable capital.” Variable capital is the portion of capital that is set aside for the workers


by the capitalists. Or is it? Variable capital is where the illusion first arises. Advanced to the 

worker by the capitalist in the form of wages, which according to Marx is not true at all. The 

worker is employed because he can produce enough value in a commodity to reproduce the 

value represented in the wage. What the worker is not aware of is that the actual commodity 

will receive much more value than the wage. The rest of the value received fills the surplus 

value. Thus, the wage or variable capital is not at all advanced to the worker because his 

previous labor value was more than enough to cover the “labor fund.” “What flows back 

to the worker in the shape of wages is a portion of the product he himself continuously 

reproduces.” (Annotations) 

Thus, the illusion perfected by the capitalist upon the worker begins with the variable 

capital. As if just another exploitation that the capitalist places upon the worker. I also agree 

with what both Kenshiro and Henrix [337] stated about the question, yet I felt the variable 

capital required a little more discussion. 


Question 404 Explain how the worker continually produces wealth as capital, and the capitalist 

produces the worker as wage-laborer. Discuss the sayings: “The more we work, the 

more we have to work,” and: “Work does not make us richer; it makes us poorer.” 

[343] Maktub: wealth as capital The worker continually produces wealth as capital. The 

worker, or laborer, is to the exploiting capitalist, nothing more than a source of wealth for 

him. The laborer, doesn’t own any means of production, basically the only commodity that 

he owns that has use-value to the capitalist is his labor power, which he can sell. In 716:1, 

Marx states “the process of production incessantly converts material wealth into capital, into 

means of creating more wealth and means of enjoyment for the capitalist.” In short, the 

laborer produces wealth for the capitalist, through the production process. The laborer is 

separated from the product that he produces, he has no claim on the product, for he has been 

paid a wage instead. It becomes wealth for the capitalist, “and the starting-point of capitalist 

production” (Annotations, p. 172). 

The capitalist produces the worker as wage-laborer, because the capitalist gives life to 

labor. The worker has labor power, and can sell it, but his labor cannot be employed without 

the capitalist buying his labor power, for which he pays him a wage. The worker has no 

means of production, only his labor power to sell. 

The saying “The more we work, the more we have to work”, I believe refers to the 

workers reliance on the capitalist for his means of substinence. The worker is at the mercy 

of the employer. “Work does not make us richer, it makes us poorer”, this quote talks about, 

at least in my limited opinion, about the increasing production of capital produced by the 

worker. The more they work, the more the produce, which equals more capital. More capital 

leads to increased wealth for the capitalists, not for the worker, he is paid a wage which is 

constant. The worker becomes poorer, relatively speaking, because the wealth of others 

increases at his expense. 

Hans: Good answer. The only thing you missed is: the capitalist produces the worker as a wage laborer by paying 

him such low wages that the worker cannot accumulate his own wealth. 




2007SP, 705 in 2008fa, and 804 in 2010fa: 

Question 406 Does the workers’ individual consumption also benefit the capitalist because 

this creates a market for the goods the capitalists have to sell? 

[339] Doc: worker’s consumption Capitalists do benefit financially by the consumption 

of commodities by the working class. This is the two-fold objective of the capitalist. The 

capitalist wants to sell his product in the market and give to the laborer so he continues to 

labor in his production. Marx explains “He profits, not only by what he receives from but 

what he gives to, the laborer.” The laborer receives necessary things from this exchange and 

by the consumption he increases mind and body for his well being as well as new laborers. 

Marx states that, “The individual consumption of the laborer, whether it proceed within 

the workshop or outside it, whether it be part of the process of production or not, forms 

therefore a factor of the production and reproduction of capital.” He goes on to say that no 

matter whose sake the products are consumed for it is still part of the production process and 

is a necessary condition in the reproduction of capital. 

Message [339] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Doc is [355.3]. 

[345] Bull: The Laborers Consumption Marx expresses his views on the workers’ 

individual consumption by saying, “In reality, the individual consumption of the laborer is 

unproductive for himself, for it reproduces nothing but the needy individual; it is productive 

to the capitalist and to the state, since it is the production of the power that creates the wealth 

of others”. [718:1/o] 

There are two ideas that we learn from this statement. The first is the capitalist does 

benefit from the laborer who is a productive consumer to the capitalist. Marx also says 

that is productive to the state. This statement is quite intriguing. (Hans points out that 

Marx gathered this from the Malthus quote). This means that the laborer also provides the 

state with revenue to help support its government funded programs. The second idea that 

Marx brings to light, is the individual consumption of the laborer is unproductive for himself 

because it produces a dependent individual. Dependency of which is capable of keeping an 

individual idle, and idleness destroys ingenuity. 

Message [345] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Bull is [380.4]. 

[355] Golf: Individual Consumption A workers’ individual consumption does benefit 

the capitalist by creating a market for the goods they have to sell. 

The consumption of a worker leads to the creation of a market for the sale of the capitalist 

product. The individual worker has needs and necessities to survive and to be able to perform 

labor for the capitalist. The needs and necessities of the worker cause the capitalist to create 

products to fulfill the needs and necessities of the worker, thus creating a market to sell 

product. The capitalist now is benefitted from the individual consumption of the worker. 

Without the individual consumption of workers, there would be no market for the capitalist to 

sell their product. Also without the individual consumption of the worker the capitalist could 

never benefit from the sale of their products. The individual worker consumes to maintain 

labor power. As the workers labor power is maintained, the worker can produce at a level 

that will benefit the capitalist. The capitalist must have workers’ consuming individually to 

be able to have a market for their product to sell and to benefit from.


Message [355] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Golf is [390]. 

[356] Broker: another attempt at Q 406 Bull’s answer is a noble attempt at the question, 

but I think Bull left out a crucial aspect in the response. Bull states, “. . . the capitalist does 

benefit from the laborer who is a productive consumer to the capitalist.” This statement 

appears only partially correct. “The capitalist only interferes with the consumption of the 

workers in order to keep it low... All the capitalist cares for, is to reduce the labors individual 

consumption...” Capitalist only gain a market for their wares, so long as their labor consume 

very little. 

As I interpret this quote, capitalist don’t gain when they market their goods to labor. It 

is almost counterintuitive, if labor can purchase more they would demand a higher wage. 

The capitalists’ ultimate goal is to decrease costs, not encourage more. The more their labor 

consumes the more capitalists are forced to pay their labor. If production increase, profits 

will decrease. 

For a quick summation, capitalist don’t gain when they market their products to laborers. 

Message [356] referenced by [379], [405.10], and [2001fa:395]. Next Message by Broker is [410]. 

[379] Hans: Workers as Customers In Chapter Twenty-Three, Marx argues that the 

individual consumption benefits the capitalist because it reproduces his most indispensable 

means of production, the laborer. Question 406 asked whether the workers’ individual consumption 

also had a second benefit to the capitalists, since it creates markets for the capitalists’ 

products. 

Doc [339] acknowledges that the capitalist has a twofold objective: 

The capitalist wants to sell his product in the market and give to the laborer 

so he continues to labor in his production. 

But after this, he gives a number of quotes from Chapter Twenty-Three, all of which 

only refer to the second objective, the reproduction of the labor power. Apparently Doc did 

not notice that Marx does not talk in this Chapter about the first objective, the need of the 

capitalist to sell to the worker. 

Doc’s answer is better than Bull’s [345]. Bull apparently did not even realize that the 

market benefit mentioned in Question 406 was any different than the benefit the capitalist 

receives from the workers restoring their strength through their consumption. Bull’s grade 

took an additional hit because he says things very much related to what Doc says, but fails 

to make any connection between his and Doc’s answer, although it appeared on the list 20 

hours after Doc’s answer. 

Golf’s [355] has a very clear and simple structure, and this is what you need in a discussion 

like this. At the beginning he states his answer: yes, the capitalist gets this additional 

benefit, and he then gives reasons supporting it. I wish Golf had said more clearly that we 

are talking here about two different benefits. Most importantly, Golf did not notice that the 

following sentence contains a contradiction to Marx’s theory of surplus value: 

Without the individual consumption of workers, there would be no market 

for the capitalist to sell their product. 


If the capitalists depend on the workers as a market for their products to sell, and if the 

capitalist profits come from the fact that the workers receive lower wages than the value they 

produce, then capitalism would not be possible, because as soon as the capitalists make any 

profits they are unable to sell all their products! 

Broker [356] however does notice this contradiction. He writes: 

The capitalists’ ultimate goal is to decrease costs, not encourage more. The 

more their labor consumes the more capitalists are forced to pay their labor. 

This is the right way to look at it, from a Marxist perspective: the primary and general 

interest of all capitalists is to keep wages low. The fact that the workers are a part of the 

market the capitalists sell to does not create a unity of interests between capitalists and 

workers. 



Question 407 If capitalists are so dependent on the reproduction of the working class, why 

do they not actively see to it that the workers eat healthy food etc.? 

[338] Zed: Working class being taken care of. One of the primary objectives of the 

capitalist is to keep costs low. This also includes wages. Since the capitalists are so dependent 

on the reproduction of the working class, they want to make sure that they are kept in 

good health. The reverse side to that coin is that they want to keep consumption limited to 

what is neccessary to sustain the workers. Marx said that consumption which exceeds the 

minimum is called unproductive consumption and therefore would be less than profitable 

for the capitalist. 

Message [338] referenced by [340]. Next Message by Zed is [401.3]. 

[340] Quake: laborers are the market Zeds answer, [338], states that the capitalist wants 

the worker to be healthy and productive—but the question asks why the capitalist does NOT 

‘actively see to it that workers eat healthy, etc.’. I think his answer is correct in a roundabout 

way, however. Capitalists have to keep their costs as low as possible, and as Zed stated, this 

includes wages. It would seem somewhat obvious to me, though, that the capitalist would 

have some vested interest in actively seeing workers eat healthy, etc. Not only for the fact 

that their production might be increased through healthier and stronger workers, but also that 

the workers’ consumption is also increasing—because laborers are the market. 

This is where my confusion starts. Obviously I cannot decide why the capitalist is necessarily 

so concerned with the idea that the laborer might be able to consume ‘unproductively’. 

Related to question 406, it is obvious that the laborer is the market, (or a big part of the market), 

for the goods that laborers in general are producing. The chapter also goes into depth 

about how advanced wages to the laborer are actually ‘whittled down over time’, to quote 

the Annotations. So at some point foregone surplus value on the part of the capitalist in the 

form of higher wages for the laborers is actually going to act to increase the market for the 

goods produced by the capitalist. (Or I guess I should say produced by the laborer power the 

capitalist employees to produce the goods.)


Additionally, in order to address some of the issues in question 408, it is obvious that this 

consumption on behalf of the individual is only unproductive for the individual alone. The 

capitalist is benefitting in the long run through the increased market and consumption. So 

coming full circle, why not let the laborer have more means to consume? Why advance them 

only enough to survive and thus prevent them from unproductive consumption? See why I 

am confused? 

Message [340] referenced by [358]. Next Message by Quake is [370]. 


2005fa, 715 in 2007SP, 703 in 2008SP, 806 in 2010fa, and 862 in 2012fa: 

Question 408 Regarding the question to what extent consumption is productive, Marx says 

that the individual consumption of the laborer is unproductive for the laborer, but productive 

for the capitalist and the state. Comment on this. 

[358] Bluto: In reference to Quake’s [340] statement “It is obvious that this consumption 

on ‘behalf’ of the individual is only unproductive for the individual alone.” I Agree with 

Quake, if he has chosen the individual point of view (which I think he has) that the individual 

consumption is unproductive to the single Laborer alone, although if you view this statement 

in a social point of view, you may see the unproductiveness of individual consumption on the 

whole working-class. The fact of the matter is that the worker is not “alone” in his unproductive 

consumption, he is in fact a part of a much larger group which is fuelling the beast of 

their (laborers) burden. The individual consumption promotes the capitalists, consequently 

causing the split between the capitalist’s and the working-class. “within the limits of what is 

strictly necessary, the individual consumption of the working-class is, therefore, the reconversion 

of the means of consumption given by the capital in exchange for labor power at the 

disposal of capital for exploitation.” [717:3/o] Individual consumption seemingly has been 

engineered by the capitalists to sustain a constant supply of the working-class. For it is this 

supply which the capitalist relies on for the accumulation of capital. 



Question 413 Which are the similarities and differences between the machinery owned by 

the capitalists and the workers employed by the capitalists? 

[354] Dragon: Machinery vs. Workers in Capitalist Society When contrasting machinery 

versus workers in Capitalist society, the similarity between them is fairly simple to 

see: they are both physical processes of production that are used to produce output. Both 

are factors of production. Capitalists produce output by owning machinery and employing 

workers, often combined with the services of raw materials and the forces of nature. 

When comparing machinery versus workers in Capitalist society, the difference between 

them is a bit more complicated: machines do not create surplus value, it is labor by the 

workers that creates surplus value. Marx would not deny that machines are productive and 

that they have value. But Marx would argue that machines do not create surplus value 

because the value transferred from the machine to the final product is exactly equal to the 

flow price of the machine. In other words, the costs of the machine eliminate any surplus 


value because there is no value created above that incorporated in the purchase price. Labor 

by workers creates a surplus value because there is a gap between use value and exchange 

value in the market for workers. This means that labor is sold by the workers and bought 

by the capitalists, whereas machines are bought and sold by the capitalists and so there is 

no possibility of surplus value being created. It is labor by the workers that creates surplus 

value and not the machines. 

Hans: Excellent. 

Message [354] referenced by [2001fa:361]. Next Message by Dragon is [360]. 

Question 417 is 393 in 1998WI, 512 in 2000fa, 541 in 2001fa, and 666 in 2004fa: 

Question 417 In Wage Labor and Capital, [mecw9], 214:3, Marx wrote: “Capital can 

only increase by exchanging itself for labor power, by calling wage labor to life. The labor 

power of the wage-worker can only exchange itself for capital by increasing capital, by 

strengthening the power whose slave it is. Hence, increase of capital is increase of the 

proletariat, that is, of the working class.” a. Which two different relations between wagelabor 

and capital are summarized in the statement: “Increase of capital is increase of the 

proletariat”? b. Which effect does each of these have on wages? 

[375] Navin: Labor power and the capitalist The relationships summarized in the 

statement are as follows: 1. Workers will only be hired when wages are low enough. 2. The 

success of the capitalist moves opposite with the wages of the laborers. In other words the 

better off the laborers the worse off the capitalist. 

And vice versa. 

Unemployment supports the first relationship that I mentioned. When there is a healthy 

group of unemployed the competition for jobs keeps the wages low. When the unemployment 

low and wages are high capitalist can buy machines to “save money”. Capitalist will 

even replace the workers they have with machines when wages are high. This poses a problem 

for the capitalist. The only means by which they can make their capital grow is by 

trading capital for wage labor with the working class. Machines that are used to replace the 

workers do not add variable capital to the products, only labor does. The profit that machines 

add can be competed away. They only pass on the constant capital. On the other hand, the 

profit from labor power cannot be competed away. This leads us to the second relationship 

that I mentioned above. If the laborers are better off in terms of wages the capitalist is worse 

off. He can exploit less when wages are high. The capitalist is better off when wages are 

low. The exploitation is greater and he can use more laborers to exploit when he can afford 

them. “Wage Labor is only useful for capital if it’s price is low enough.” (annotations 177) 

Thus, capital will grow faster when wages are low and slower when wages are high. The 

capitalist will alway attempt to push the wage rate down. Why? it’s profitable. Both of the 

relationships mentioned above work together to hold wage rates down. 

Message [375] referenced by [396]. Next Message by Navin is [401.2]. 

Question 418 is 386 in 1997ut and 394 in 1998WI: 

Question 418 In Wage Labor and Capital, [mecw9], 215:1, Marx infers from this what is 

the “indispensable condition for a tolerable situation of the worker”. Even without going 

back to this source, what do you think is this indispensable condition?


[368] Josef: tolerable The “indispensable condition for a tolerable situation of the 

worker” that is being referred to is, that the rate at which capital increases is greater than 

the rate at which wage labor increases. 

Capital requires more and more wage labor in order to be able to accumulate. As a result, 

capital is dependent in some ways on wage labor. This may lead to a greater demand for the 

wage laborer. An excess demand for labor will lead to better working conditions and higher 

wages. However an increase in capital does not always lead to a higher wage. Wage labor is 

dependent on capital as well, and because of this the price of wage labor will be competed 

down as low as possible. 

Since the goal or purpose of capital is to increase profits, capital will always have the edge 

in capital accumulation. The capitalist is most concerned about profits and accumulation. He 

will do all he can to make sure that the growth of the working class does not impede upon is 

ability to accumulate and make profits. 

If capital grows at a faster rate than that of the working class, then the excess demand for 

labor will lead to more tolerable conditions for the laborer. These better conditions will be 

in the form of higher wages and a better working environment. 

Message [368] referenced by [383] and [391]. Next Message by Josef is [405.4]. 

[380] Henrix: Indispensable Condition This condition described as a “indispensable 

condition for a tolerable situation for the worker” must be a situation in which the labor 

requirements for capital accumulation exceed the growth in available labor. 

As stated by Hans in the annotations; in order for capital to accumulate, more and more 

wage labor is needed. “This dependency of capital on labor may cause an excess demand 

for labor, higher wages, better working conditions” [Annotations p.177]. 

Hans: [391] helped your grade a lot. 

Message [380] referenced by [383]. Next Message by Henrix is [391]. 

[383] Hayduke: The indispensable is not inevitable Josef and Henrix do a good job of 

explaining the jist of the “indispensable condition” in their emails [368] and [380]. Basically, 

the argument is that the urge for capital to grow occurs faster than the growth of wage labor, 

so wages go up as firms must hire workers. This keeps wages at a tolerable level. Marx also 

points out that by participating in the system, we strengthen capitalism, thereby ensuring 

wages don’t get higher than a certain limit. 

This argument has a new relevance in today’s world, unforseen by Marx. When Marx 

was writing, the labor force was relatively immobile. There was some flocking of people 

from the country to the city, but this had limits. Today, business occurs at a global level. The 

supply of wage labor is virtually limitless, especially for low skilled jobs. This makes the 

mechanism ensuring tolerable conditions defunct, which allows for the existence of sweat 

shops. The point Marx makes here helps us understand how such terrible conditions can 

exist, and that capital really does overrule respect for humanity. 

Message [383] referenced by [391]. Next Message by Hayduke is [398.3]. 

[391] Henrix: Today’s world When I read Hayduke’s submission [383], I realized that 

Josef [368] had made his/her contribution before mine. Since I, apparently had deleted 

his/her contribution before writing mine, I did not make any comments in regards to his/her 

[368]submission. I apologize this. 


Anyway, I would like to make a comment on Hayduke’s [383]submission. He/She is 

saying; “Today, business occurs on a global level”. “The supply of labor is virtually limitless, 

especially for low skilled workers”. He/She implies that this makes the labor force i the 

world today more mobile. First, I agree that a large portion of business today occurs on 

a global level, but I do not believe that it has increased the mobility of low skilled workers 

significantly. Second, is the supply of labor especially lowed skilled labor, virtually limitless 

? I do not agree with this. Today, in the US, the unemployment rate is at approximately 4.4% 

(last time I checked), this means that the economy is almost at full employment. Capitalists 

today, actually find it hard to get people to fill the low wage/low skilled jobs. This has led 

some, to tempt with better working conditions and higher wage. Therefore, I do not believe 

that the mechanism ensuring tolerable conditions is defunct. 

Message [391] referenced by [380]. Next Message by Henrix is [403.1]. 

Exam Question 420 is 323 in 1997WI, 391 in 1997sp, 388 in 1997ut, 515 in 2000fa, and 

586 in 2002fa: 

Exam Question 420 Describe some circumstances in which the labor requirements for capital 

accumulation exceed the growth in available labor. 

[384] Bluto: Tragedy of the Commons Marx explains the rising wages of labor over time 

is “more or less favorable circumstances..” due to the incontestable drive of capitalist production. 

The capitalist will harness profits regardless of wage changes. Jedi[382] explains in 

plain english three of the mechanisms to manipulate and exploit the proletariat. I especially 

partial to:“wage increase serves as false hope and fulfills the shortsighted material desires 

of the worker.” As wages rise, the capitalist choses to reinvest its surplus value, or install 

different amounts of technology. There is no substantial consequences the capitalist must 

undertake, only benefits, due to the long term expansion goals of capitalism. The increase 

in wages act as a multiplier, increasing the consumption of capital, and more importantly 

expanding the population of laborers. 

“Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his heard without limit–in 

a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his 

own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in the 

commons brings ruin to all.” (Hardin. 289. Tragedy of the commons) 

Hans: The Malthusian link between increase in wages and expansion of the population of laborers is much too 

slow, it takes a whole generation. Marx understands his discussion in Chapter 25 to be a refutation of Malthus. But 

your reference to the tragedy of the commons is interesting. 



Question 422 Does Marx overlook a third strand in the relationship between worker and 

capitalist, namely, that the worker, with his wages, buys part the capitalist’s product? 

[387] JoeHill: $.25 each or 3 for $1 Marx does not overlook the strand in the workercapitalist 

relationship that the worker buys part of the capitalists product. In the folowing 

passage this phenomenom is expounded on:


If the additional capital employs the person who produced it, this producer must not only 

augment the value of the original capital, but must buy back the fruits of his previous labour 

with more 

labor than they cost (c.728:4/o). 

This passage is pretty straight forward and illustrates the exploitation of the laborer in a 

concise manner. It is from this differential in values that profits accrue to the capitalist, and 

maintains the laborers dependence on capital. 

Hans: You found one of the rare quotes in the whole book where Marx talks about this aspect of the workercapitalist 

relation. This particular passage does not seem straightforward to me at all. But it comes from an 

interesting part of the book: the argument about the “dialectical reversal of the law of appropriation” at the end of 

Section 1 of Chapter 24 is very intriguing, it is truly dialectical. 

Next Message by JoeHill is [387.1]. 

Question 429 is 332 in 1997WI, 405 in 1998WI, 524 in 2000fa, 554 in 2001fa, 594 in 

2002fa, 618 in 2003fa, 677 in 2004fa, 748 in 2008SP, 786 in 2009fa, 855 in 2010fa, and 

884 in 2011fa: 

Question 429 Does the dependence of the workers on capital decrease when wages are 

high? 

[359] Yikes: Dependence The goal of the buyer of labor power is valorization of his 

capital, it is not to benefit the laboring mass. It is true that a higher wage can benefit labor, 

they might be able to raise their standard of living to some degree, but in the end this could 

lead to an increase in their dependence on capital. Lets look at an example to clarify what 

could happen. 

I work for a major Pharmaceutical company and make a good living, profits are on the 

rise so the corporation gives my department a raise. My natural reaction will be to consume 

more. My wife wants a new house so we buy one with our raise in mind, one that we could 

not have afforded before the raise. Now I will be more dependent upon my employer so that 

I can pay my mortagage. If my corporation goes through a bad year that raise could just as 

easly be taken back or I could be layed off. In summary not only does the dependence of 

workers on capital not decrease when wages are high it is more likley that their dependence 

will increase. 

Message [359] referenced by [364], [373], [376], and [412]. Next Message by Yikes is [444]. 

[364] Maverick: Dependence on capital I will use Yikes’s real life example of worker 

dependence on capital in [359] to give a more technical explanation of why a wage increase 

doesn’t decrease a worker’s dependence on capital. Yikes says he works for a major pharmaceutical 

company. Like all wage earners, his day can be divided into paid labor time and 

unpaid labor time. He says the company is doing very well and the workers are given a raise. 

You could say that Yikes’s unpaid labor time has been reduced a certain amount. But capitalism 

can not exist without that portion of the day in which the worker dedicates time solely 

to the capitalist. In V771 Marx says, “The rise of wages is therefore confined within limits 

that not only leave intact the foundations of the capitalist system, but also secure its reproduction 

on an increasing scale.” This pharmaceutical company will only purchase Yikes’s 

labor power in as much as it can be used to create surplus value/capital. So his job and his 

wages will always be dependent on the creation of capital. After the wage increase, Yikes 


mentioned that he and his wife increased spending and incurred debts. This implies that 

Yikes’s labor power will have to be constantly resold in order to maintain his standard of 

living and in the process he will create more capital for the capitalist. 

Message [364] referenced by [373], [376], and [412]. Next Message by Maverick is [401]. 

[372] PumpkinStar: choking oneself Marx believes that increased wage does not change 

the exploitation that the worker faces. When the laborer sells his labor to the capitalist, 

he/she subsequently creates a “golden chain” around the neck, and with the increase in 

wages, the laborer can only loosen the chain, and cannot become free from the strangulation. 

Although increased wage decreases the number of unpaid hours supplied to the capitalist, 

capital accumulation continues. With high wages, the market will adjust, leading to less 

accumulation until price levels fall to normal standards again. In effect, although a laborer 

might feel a bit more comfortable with higher wages, the noose around his/her neck will 

never be removed, thus the dependence on capital does not decrease. 

Message [372] referenced by [376], [398], and [412]. Next Message by PumpkinStar is [385]. 

[373] Gemni: Another Point of View For the Worker This question seems to be really 

popular among the class. However, both Yikes [359] and Maverick [364] do not really go 

into detail about why the dependence of the worker on capital diminishes when wages are 

high. They do however give a good example of Marx’s theory at work, the pharmacist 

example. I wish to go into greater detail [of] Marx’s theory and Adam Smith’s alternatives 

and then [present] my amendments. 

The accumulation which both Yikes [359] and Maverick [364] [mention] is the starting 

point of Marx’s argument. Yikes “implied” this point with his example of his wife wanting 

a house and so on. The condition of accumulation becomes “easy and liberal” as Eden says 

(Capital p-768). Because of these conditions, it makes it easier for the worker to avst his 

wages, and hoard some of it, “A larger part of the worker’s own surplus product, which is 

always increasing and is continually being transformed into additional capital, comes back to 

them in the shape of means of payment” (annotations p-183). This is exactly what the other 

submissions said before, that accumulation serves to get the worker further dependent on the 

capitalist system. The quote I love in explaining this point comes from the annotations “This 

rise [price of labor] only indicates that the length and the weight of the golden chain, which 

the wage-laborer has already forged for himself, allow this chain to be loosened somewhat” 

(p-183). With the increase of wages, the worker, for a time, gives himself “slack” in his 

golden chain. None the less the worker is still dependent on the capitalists system. Yikes 

says that this may even lead to further dependence. I guess this point can be compared to 

the paradox of thrift, the more that one makes the more that one will spend. I would like to 

give another option at this point. As the worker gets more and more “slack” in his chain, he 

slowly, very very slowly is moving towards independence. Hans may disagree here because 

he writes that “In the best cases, an increase in wages means only a quantitative reduction 

in the amount of unpaid labor the worker has to supply—this reduction can never go as far 

as to threaten the system itself” (annotations p-183). This “lengthening of the chain” may 

be possible when wages are high and at the same time is accompanied by a fall in the price 

of labor. The “slack” that I am talking about refers to Adam Smith’s 2nd alternative with 

regard to the accumulation of capital. I changed the instance in which the word “slack” was 

used (My definiton of slack is not Smith’s slack of accumulation). The 1st alternative is that


price of labor keeps on rising because it doesn’t affect the progress of accumulation. Marx 

does not go into great detail of the 2nd alternative, the alternative which is interesting to me. 

So, according to Marx, the dependence increases on capital for the worker when his 

wages are high. 

Hans, your question was not very specific on whether or not my answer should be based 

soley on Marx, so I hope that you don’t mind the way my submission was written. 

Hans: You are allowed to use other theories than Marxist theory in your homework answers. But if you say 

something that contradicts Marxist theory, you should indicate that you are aware of this. 

But I do have objections to the way you wrote your submission. It was rambling, you were thinking aloud. You 

should have gone back over it and straightened it out. It is not very polite to send something as unfinished to a 

readership of 100 people. I guess you realized that yourself, your second submission [399] was much clearer and 

also showed that you had followed the discussion. This helped your grade a lot. 

Message [373] referenced by [376]. Next Message by Gemni is [395.1]. 

[376] Karlito: High wages can lead to instability I believe that Yikes [359] gives a good 

reason for becoming even more dependent upon his employer by having to pay the mortgage 

on his new home. I like the technical explanation that Maverick [364] gives in support of 

Yikes’ example. Both of these submissions indicate a greater dependence on the capitalist 

because of the worker’s new inflow of wages. Gemni [373] goes as far as to compare this 

situation to the paradox of thrift. 

I think that PumpkinStar [372] brings important insight when he said: 

“When the laborer sells his labor to the capitalist, he/she subsequently creates a ”golden 

chain“ around the neck, and with the increase in wages, the laborer can only loosen the 

chain, and cannot become free from the strangulation.” 

The reason that the laborer cannot free himself from the golden chain is simply that he 

does not own the means of production. No matter his wage, the laborer cannot have control 

over the “important parts of his life.” 

The above mentioned submissions show higher dependence because the laborer will begin 

to spend and consume his higher wage. I believe that when wages increase, his job is 

also at risk. It is important to realize that in the short-run, when wages go up, the profits of 

the capitalist go down, and so does his desire and ability to invest. The end result is that the 

demand for labor decreases (another reason for the worker’s dependency on the capitalist). 

In the long-run, the wage increase is even more harsh. The capitalist will simply replace the 

workers with machines. 

In conclusion, the workers dependency on capital does not decrease, but increase when 

wages are high. Although past submissions state that the reason lies in the worker’s new 

consumption habits, higher wages also pose a threat to the worker’s job. 

Message [376] referenced by [412]. Next Message by Karlito is [398.1]. 

[381] Hobart: the relationship between wages and capital When wages are high, 

workers depend more and more on capital. With the risk of being redundant (in reference 

to other class member’s comments to this question), I would also like to give a practical 

example of this principle. I work with a fellow stockbroker who intentionally goes and 

financially commits himself to a very expensive home and multiple cars to motivate him 

to work harder which, in turn, results in higher wages. It seems to be a vicious circle, 


this relationship between capital and higher wages. Higher wages allow one to purchase 

more capital goods, those capital goods then obligate that particular worker to strive towards 

higher and higher wages which in turn allow to purchase more and more goods. It seems to 

be a continuous cycle where one side feeds off of the other. The worker is then completely 

dependent upon the capitalist as the cycle continues to operate. 

Another key point to make mention of is that as a worker receives higher and higher 

wages, that particular worker may tend to cut more and more into the capitalists profit margins 

and therefore his/her bottom line. Why would a capitalist keep a worker that she has to 

pay $10 per hour when someone else could accomplish that same task for $7 and a machine 

could do it for $2.50 per hour. 

Hans: It is a little strange to call a cycle of higher and higher incomes a “vicious cycle.” And I hope you are aware 

that long-lived consumer goods are not “capital” in the sense Marx uses this word. 

Message [381] referenced by [412]. Next Message by Hobart is [464.1]. 

[382] Jedi: Workers Will Be Workers So far everyone who has answer this question 

has answered it with an emphatic no, and I agree completely. However, so far everyone has 

overlooked one other cause, attributable to the “the third strand in the relationship between 

worker and capitalist, namely, that the worker, with his wages, buys part the capitalist’s 

product” (Question 422). 

The worker’s wage ultimately refluxes back to the capitalist when he spends what he 

earned buying the commodities, which he has no means to produce by himself. An increase 

in workers’ wages by no means threatens the livelihood of the capitalist On the contrary, 

wage increase benefits the capitalist in the following ways. It ensures the regeneration of 

the working class, by that I mean the worker will have enough money to raise a family 

and reproduce the next generation of workers. Secondly, it provides motivation for the 

worker to toil himself for the capitalist; a wage increase serves as false hope and fulfills 

the shortsighted material desires of the worker. At the end, the capitalist who increases the 

wages of the workers can just as easily increase the price of the basket of commodities that 

the workers depend on. The workers’ real wages remain unchanged and so is their level of 

dependence on capital. 

Message [382] referenced by [384] and [412]. Next Message by Jedi is [382.1]. 

[388] Buda: My answer... I guess my timing wasn’t very good and I realize that many 

already took shots at this question. I don’t mean to be beating a dead horse, but I feel that I 

could answer this question also because it is the one that makes most sense to me. 

When wages get high, the worker’s dependence on capital doesn’t decrease per se, but 

rather takes on a different form. What happens is that the higher wages are nothing but 

another form of capital accumulation and exploitation. The capitalist transforms part of the 

surplus labor that the worker has always performed into paid labor. But the real “catch” 

remains unchanged. By raising the wages the capitalist has done nothing but further exploit 

her workers through manipulation and subtle loosening of the rules that serve her first and 

foremost. On the other hand, the worker’s preoccupation and belief that she is now capable 

of going out and purchasing more makes her accepting of the status quo and thus continuing 

to further work for it. 

Message [388] referenced by [412]. Next Message by Buda is [389.1].


[393] Boarder: wage vs capital To start out, I don’t agree with everyone else who 

answered no to this question, for one reason or another. I feel that this answer could possibly 

go both ways despite all of the evidence leaning towards the no. First of all Marx comes 

right out and says that , “Instead of becoming more intensive with the growth of capital, this 

relation of dependence becomes more extensive.” This would definitely lead you to beleive 

that the answer is no. 

I liked what Hobart (381) said, the example that he gave was great evidence of this being 

the case. However, I feel that some people including myself do not act in this way at all. 

You may consider me a miser or something of that nature, but as my wage (not the market 

wage) goes up, I don’t depend as much on capital. I don’t continue to spend to make up for 

the high wage. If the market wage went up then price would increase as well, but for now 

let’s just look at the individual’s wage. For example let’s say I make $100,000 per year and 

I live high on the hog, so to say. If I have more than enough in life, then I am not going to be 

very dependant on the capital. If I only made $10,000 per year, then I am going to be very 

dependant upon the capital because that wouldn’t even be enough to live. So I guess my 

point is that it depends upon the side of the coin that you are on. I know that I am probably 

wrong in my opinion and the correct answer is no, but I do see another side to this. 

Message [393] referenced by [398] and [412]. Next Message by Boarder is [459]. 

[395] Guyote: In regards to the question of whether or not the dependence of the workers 

on capital decreases when wages are high, I would have to conclude that the dependence does 

not decrease. If anything the dependence of the workers would increase. For example, If I 

am a capitalist and I decide to raise wages, it would not be without an increase in my profits. 

As we have seen demonstrated through overall increases in the wages over time, worker 

dependence does nothing but increase. Higher wager would not come without higher levels 

of productivity. Higher levels of productivity would not come with out more productive 

means for production. Such is the case now, where the rapid spread of technology,especially 

the internet, has resulted in higher wages for workers in those industries. However, such 

progress does not come without a price. As overall prices increase, at or above the rate of 

wages, the dependence will only grow stronger and stronger. Eventually, all but enslaving 

the worker to the newer, faster, and more productive means of production. These new means 

of production create wealth at multiple levels from the past. The new, expanded nature of 

wealth creation and capitalist competition will only make the dependence deeper and more 

consuming. 

Message [395] referenced by [412]. Next Message by Guyote is [439]. 

[398] JoeHill: room on the bandwagon? Well, with all that has been written regarding 

this question, I’m anxious to see Hans’ remarks. For the sake of argument, I’ll join Boarder 

[393] in the minority. My point is pretty simple. It would seem to me that higher wages 

lessen the individual workers dependence on capital. First, let me say that we probably 

are slaves to capital, but are we not also slaves to food, or to a myriad of other necessities? 

Before the rise of capital were we collectively better off than we are today? Oh, I’m supposed 

to be trying to answer the question. 

I don’t think that because consumption and wage tend to rise contemporaneously, that 

this means we are more tied to capital. If anything it would seem that we now have a choice, 

we can increase our current standard of living, which means we’ll probably keep having to 


go to work to pay for it, or keep consumption low, and hoard our resources so that we can 

tell our boss at some point to “take this job and shove it,” and retire a little early. 

Pumpkinstar [372] refers to the “golden chain” that is loosened as the wage rises. Let 

me give an example to illustrate why I think dependency lessens. Let’s take for instance 

pro sports. There are a lot of professional athletes out there making exorbitant salaries, 

e.g. Shawn Bradley, who have never produced a dime’s worth of surplus value. If anything 

they’ve weakened the owner’s position as a capitalist rather than help to solidify it. Is 

Michael Jordan a capitalist or a poor exploited proletariat. How did the change occur if not 

through higher wages? I would love to figure out a way to slip my neck into a chain like 

that. If Michael Jordan suddenly decided to pay workers for their actual labor rather than 

their labour power, he would still be able to consume all that he would need to live a long 

and comfortable life. Would any exploitation need to occur from the time he takes this step 

on? It seems that he would be as free from the chains of capital as one can get. 

In regards to profitability, people seem to drop out of the capitalist class all the time, due 

in part to paying excessive wages. I understand what Marx is saying about no such thing as 

a fair wage, but it does not always seem to hold. Am I way off on this one? 


[399] Gemni: Overlooked? I also have the feeling that as the worker continues to accumulate 

his wages, he does loosen his golden chain, in a way he forges another link in 

his chain that moves him further away from dependence. There will always be this dependence 

until the worker can somehow break the chain that he encumbers and acquire his own 

“means of production.” It is the capitalists ownership of these means of production that will 

always bind the worker with dependence. -So, as much as we would like for the worker to 

become independent, it can not happen until he acquires the means of production. 

I had touched on the this point in my original submission, but my argument seems much 

clearer here. 

Message [399] referenced by [373]. Next Message by Gemni is [427]. 

[412] Hans: Yikes’s real-life report [359] is the opening shot for an interesting debate. 

Maverick’s [364] gives an excellent analysis of the situation Yikes described. Maverick 

points out the two basic forces beneath Yikes’s empirical facts: 

(1) the firm is in the business to make money, therefore they will only give raises if they 

themselves make even more profits. I would make this point a little more strongly than 

Maverick. Instead of saying that “Yikes’s unpaid labor time has been reduced a certain 

amount” it is more likely that Yikes’s unpaid labor had risen recently, and the firm paid back 

part of this in the wage hike, but not all of it. 

(2) The other basic force at work is: the worker always have to consume, even if the 

market for selling their labor power is not favorable. Yikes represents this as if it was his own 

fault, as if they should not have moved into the new house, and Maverick goes along with 

this argument, since he implies that the dependence of Yikes on a job only started when he 

had to meet a mortgage payment. Only Karlito [376] sees it right: the worker’s dependency 

cannot be blamed on the workers’ consumption habits, but on the structure of an economy 

which makes the workers the hostages of their needs. The workers’ consumption is not


optional, it should not be limited to the bare necessities, and it should also not be something 

they are only allowed after first making the capitalists happy. 

PumpkinStar [372] gives a pretty good summary answer, but pays no attention to the 

discussion going on. 

Hobart’s [381] brings an interesting example of a stockbroker, who lives extravagantly 

and goes into debt in order to force himself to perform better. I know of a case too where 

someone intentionally went into debt in order to be forced to perform better at his job. He 

was a plant manager at a big auto factory, who then wrote his memoirs. He would not have 

had the gall to drive his workers on had he not been under the self-imposed constraint of 

his debts. It is amazing that some people voluntarily make themelves the character masks 

of capital, as Marx calls it. Perhaps they are trying to escape their alienation by making this 

alienated situation an act of their will. 

Jedi [382] raises some doubts whether higher wages are even possible. He says: since the 

capitalists also sell to the workers, they can simply raise prices after the wages have risen, 

so that in real terms nothing changes. This is the neoclassical view that the market outcomes 

are determined by factors independent of the economic agents (technology, endowments, 

preferences). Whatever you try, you will end up at the same pre-pre-ordained set of equilibrium 

prices. Marxism looks more at the changes over time, and it holds that the economy 

has not one but several equilibria, some with high wages and a low rate of profit, and others 

with low wages and a high rate of profit. Which equilibrium prevails is the subject of fierce 

class struggles. 

Buda [388] brings a fresh insight: dependency does not increase or decrease with higher 

wages, but it changes its form. I think this is the right way to look at it. It is therefore not 

completely surprising that Boarder [393] and Guyote [395] argue the other side. i.e., that the 

dependency decreases when wages are higher. It is a different form of depencency, which is 

in some respects higher and in some respects lower. As JoeHill [398] says, if a worker has 

a higher wage, she has to some extent a choice: does she want to make herself completely 

dependend of capitalism by going in debt, or does she want to live more modestly and build 

up some savings, so that she can go on strike if a situation arises where this is necessary? 


Question 430 is 525 in 2000fa, 752 in 2007SP, 757 in 2008fa, 790 in 2009fa, and 859 in 

2010fa: 

Question 430 Recapitulate the concrete reasoning which leads Marx to the conclusion that 

the accumulation of capital is the independent, and the wage rate the dependent variable. 

[371] Cartman: independent vs. dependent In the annotations, Hans states that the 

reason that capital is the independent variable is due to the fact, “that there is an absence of 

any economic law determining the rate of accumulation.” (ann. pg. 184) There are no set 

rules or boundaries that limit capital in either direction. A change in wages, positively or 

negatively, does not have a direct relationship on the accumulation of capital. Capital is the 

independent variable. 


On the other hand, however, a rise or fall in the accumulation of capital does have a direct 

effect on the wage rate. In Capital, Marx says: “Labor power can be sold only to the extent 

that it preserves and maintains the means of production as capital, reproduces its own value 

as capital...” [768/oo] And since a laborer sells his/her labor power for a wage, we see that 

the wage rate is dependent on capital. Wage rate is the dependent variable. 

Hans: I like the simple logic of your answer: change in wages does not affect accumulation, but change in accumulation 

does affect wages. This is a very good definition of dependent versus independent variables, it makes 

things very clear. But you overstate your case a little when you say 

A change in wages, positively or negatively, does not have a direct relationship on the accumulation 

of capital. 

A change in wages does affect the accumulation of capital: it may cause this accumulation to slacken off. But 

a change in wages does not drive capital into a corner. If the rate of profits falls because of rising wages, then 

capital can wait, it can choose to accumulate at a lower pace, until conditions are better again. By contrast, if labor 

demand falls, workers cannot wait. They cannot withdraw their labor power from the market and wait until the 

conditions are better again. They have to eat, they have to sell their labor power. This is why unemployment is such 

an effective means to keep wages low. 

Message [371] referenced by [386], [392], [2008fa:1172], and [2009fa:1148]. Next Message by Cartman is [383.2]. 

[386] Maine: independent, dependent Marx concludes that the accumulation of capital 

is the independent variable. Marx, commenting on Adam Smith, clarifies that the price of 

labor “does not interfere with the progress of accumulation.” (Annotations 183) Cartman 

[371] says that “there are no set rules or boundaries that limit capital in either direction. A 

change in wages, positively or negatively, does not have a direct relationship on the accumulation 

of capital.” To explain further, Hans stated that “accumulation is not determined by 

the system.” (Annotations 184) However, the rate of accumulation becomes one of the main 

social functions of the capitalist class. Accumulation, therefore, is an independent variable. 

Marx also states that the wage rate is the dependent variable. The wage rate would be at 

the other end of the scale from the rate of accumulation. For Marx, this is evident in two 

scenarios: In the first, “the increase in capital made the exploitable labor power insufficient.” 

In the second, “the relative reduction in the amount of capital caused the exploitable labor 

power, or rather its price, to be in excess.” (Annotations 184) Cartman [371] summarizes 

this by saying that “a rise or fall in the accumulation of capital does have a direct effect on 

the wage rate.” The wage rate remains the dependent variable. The worker, no matter how 

much he earns, will never catch up to the capitalist who is guided by self-valorization. 

Hans: This is a little bit too rambling. You have all the right quotes and the right thoughts, but I wish you had 

organized them better. 

Message [386] referenced by [392]. Next Message by Maine is [405.1]. 

[392] RfBurner: dependent wage In Marx’s mind the accumulation of capital is an 

independent variable while the wage rate is a dependent variable. In capitalism the laborer is 

at a disadvantage because the system is set so that if wages get to high and the profits reduce 

below the level of normal profit then the capitalist would not employ workers or would 

reduce the amount of workers employed. Therefore the workers benefit to have employment 

at the cost of a loss of surplus labor yet decent wage. Due to this system the wage rate 

becomes dependent on capital. If there is’nt enough capital being produced then they will 

reduce workers to get the wage rate at a level where the surplus labor is at a satisfactory 

amount. 

Hans: You should have built on what Cartman [371] and Maine [386] wrote.




2007SP, 730 in 2007fa, 759 in 2008SP, 764 in 2008fa, 797 in 2009fa, 866 in 2010fa, 899 

in 2011fa, and 929 in 2012fa: 

Question 435 Marx discusses here an empirical phenomenon in which technical progress 

“expresses” itself. Which phenomenon is that? Why does Marx speak here of an expression? 

[402] Merlin: The empirical phenomenon that Marx is talking about is twofold. Increased 

productive powers of labor is the “underlying phenomenon,” (Hans, blue cover, 186) while 

higher technical composition is the “surface phenomenon.” (Hans, blue cover, 186) These 

two phenomena are interrelated; higher technical composition is an expression of higher 

productivity of labor. By higher technical composition, Marx means that there are more 

means of production (tools, machinery, raw materials, etc.) relative to the number of laborers. 

This causes an increase in the productivity of workers, which means “a smaller quantity 

of labor produces a greater quantity of work.” [772:2] At the same time, an increase in the 

productivity of workers causes a higher technical composition through the division of labor. 

With the division of labor, more resources are transformed for use in production, which in 

turn increases productivity of labor. Marx speaks here of an “expression” in order to make 

clear the connection between these two phenomena. 

Message [402] referenced by [419] and [443]. Next Message by Merlin is [402.1]. 

[418] Kenshiro: Marx describes the “higher technical composition” as the Phenomenon. 

Marx describes how through the advent of Machinery the increase of production is made. 

The “higher productivity of labor,” means by definition, more production with the same 

effort. 

Marx also goes forward to explain “Those means of production play a double role. The 

increase of some is a consequence, that of the others is a condition, of the increasing productivity 

of labor.” 

Message [418] referenced by [419]. Next Message by Kenshiro is [426]. 

[419] Sprockets: The Empirical Phenomenon and the Expression I agree with Merlin 

regarding his answer [402] which identifies the empirical phenomenon Marx discusses. I 

particularly appreciate the fact that he noted the version of Hans’ Annotations he was referencing 

(blue cover). It is easier to follow someone’s references knowing if you have the 

same version as they do, english-only or bi-lingual. At least you won’t spend time scanning 

a particular page looking for the reference cited, when in fact it is about seventy pages away. 

The page which Merlin references (blue cover, 186) is equivalent to the “green cover” page 

255. 

It appears that Kenshiro [418] did not reference Merlin’s [402] message while preparing 

their submission. The same “Phenomenon” that Kenshiro describes is one of the same phenomena 

that Merlin described two days earlier, but without acknowledgment. Kenshiro also 

did not fully answer question 435 by omitting any reference to Marx’s talk of “an expression”. 

I found Kenshiro’s submission [418] interesting in other ways as well. There seems to 

be some missing punctuation, and unusual capitalization as well. I think it would be to 


Kenshiro’s advantage if they would examine their own writing carefully prior to submitting 

it. Kenshiro’s submission was also lacking a subject, which is not vital to the integrity of 

answer, but it does make it easier to identify when referencing the message amongst all 

the others. As Hans says in the class syllabus, some of our mail programs can “access the 

messages by their subject fields.” 

I would like to add to what Merlin wrote in [402] regarding the “expression”: 

The expression which Marx speaks of is like a mathematical function. The means of 

production are in the image of the growing productivity of labor. This expression is the 

“link” (Annotations, Bi-lingual, pg. 255) between “an underlying phenomenon (increases in 

productive powers of labor) and a surface phenomenon (technical composition).” 

Message [419] referenced by [443]. First Message by Sprockets is [13]. 

[422] Bull: Marx saw capitalist society as having the historical mission of developing 

forces of production, including technology. I agree with Merlin when he says the empirical 

phenomenon which Marx explores is twofold. The first, or underlying phenomenon 

is, increase in productive powers of labor. The second, or surface phenomenon is, higher 

technical composition. Hans gives the explanation of increase in productivity of labor by 

saying, “Higher productivity of labor means, by definition, more production with the same 

effort”. (Annotations Pg. 186) By higher technical composition Marx means that there is 

an advancement of a more efficient means of production through instrumentation, machinery, 

materials, communication, and transportation. Or as Hans says, “Higher ratio of means 

of production to labor”. (Annotations Pg. 186) Thus, we learn through these two definitions 

that productivity of labor and technical composition are interrelated. Merlin states that 

higher technical composition is an expression of increased productivity of labor. By the 

word expression he means that whenever technical composition is present the productive 

powers of labor rise. Marx also uses the word expression to add a link that connects these 

two phenomenon. What we learn from this is technical progress expresses itself by “making 

a smaller quantity of labor produce a greater quantity of work”. (Adam Smith, Annotations 

Pg. 186) Or as to say, technical change under capitalism is motivated by industrial capitalists’ 

attempts to lower their costs of production through exploitation and technical advances. 

Hans: Response to your last sentence: often, the efforts of the capitalists to exploit the worker, and the fact that 

they can get away with it also inhibit technical progress. No need to replace workers by machines if workers are 

cheap. 

And, 3 sentences before that, instead of: 

By the word expression he means that whenever technical composition is present the productive 

powers of labor rise. 

you should have written: 

By the word expression he means that whenever the productive powers of labor rise also the 

technical composition rises. 

You are adding a few new things to the earlier submissions which have not much to do with the Question, but you 

are not sorting things out very well. 


[443] Hans: Empirical expressions of underlying processes In the Annotations (blue 

186, green 255) I wrote that an expression is a “link” between


an underlying phenomenon (increases in productive powers of labor) and a 

surface phenomenon (technical composition). 

Since this sentence was quoted by Merlin [402], Sprockets [419], and Bull [422], I wish 

I had been more careful in its formulation. I should not have used the word “phenomenon” 

twice, but should have written that an expression is a link between an underlying process 

(increases in productive powers of labor) and a surface phenomenon (technical composition). 

The growth in the productivity of labor is a social learning process by which better products 

can be produced than before, and/or more products can be produced with the same effort. 

Marx says that this growth “expresses itself” in a higher technical composition (higher 

ratio of means of production to labor). The word “expresses itself” means here that the surface 

phenomenon “higher technical composition” can be observed whenever the underlying 

core process “rise in the productive powers of labor” takes place. 

Being a depth realist, Marx does not identify the core process “growth in the productive 

powers of labor” with the empirical phenomena on which it is based and/or which it 

gives rise to, just as he does not identify a commodity with its “body,” or as one commonly 

does not identify a human being with his or her body. But Marx says that certain empirical 

phenomena can be “expressions” of a given core process if there is a link between this underlying 

process (increases in productive powers of labor) and the given surface phenomenon 

(technical composition). 



Question 437 Why is large scale cooperation needed in order to get increases in productive 

powers of labor? Can a worker working alone not increase the productive powers of his 

labor just as well? 

[400] Dragon: Labor Theory of Value and Productive Powers of Labor The answer 

to this question relates to Marx’s labor theory of value. In a nut shell, Marx’s labor theory of 

value shows how the social relations of production determine relative prices of commodity 

producing societies. The labor theory of value shows that value depends on the quantity 

of labor embodied in a commodity, not on the value of that labor. Therefore large scale 

cooperation is needed in order to get increases in productive powers of labor. At the most 

general level, a greater quantity of labor is more productive because it creates a greater 

surplus value. 

A worker working alone can also increase the productive power of his labor. The large 

scale cooperation as described above can only come about by combining the productive 

powers of labor of these individual workers. 

Hans: Veblen [411] said that the labor theory of value (which is only valid in commodity producing societies) 

cannot answer the question whether large scale cooperation is needed in order to get increases in productive powers 

of labor (which is an assertion not limited to commodity production but valid for production in all social forms). 

Zeek [421] tried to interpret your answer in a more favorable light. Had you responded to all this input and corrected 

or explained yourself, you would have had a chance to improve your grade. 

Your second paragraph starts with: “A worker working alone can also increase the productive power of his 

labor.” I.e., large scale cooperation is not needed for an increase in productive powers of labor after all? 


Message [400] referenced by [407]. Next Message by Dragon is [462]. 

[407] Angus: Increasing production through cooperation According to Marx, ‘cooperation 

on a large scale, can be realized only through the increase of individual capitals, only 

in proportion as the social means of production and subsistence are transformed into the 

private property of capitalists.’ (775:1/o) For instance, the car, train, and electricity industry 

all require massive capital input and large production units. Big business can therefore exploit 

all the advantages of superior technology, research, markets, and especially large-scale 

cooperation that increases the productive powers of labor. These increases in productive 

powers are realized due to the synergies (production of the group greater than the sum of 

each individual) created, reduced marginal fixed costs for equipment, and social interaction 

that stimulates rivalry and heightens efficiency. [292] 

In [400] Dragon does a good job of relating the productive powers of labor to the labor 

theory of value. However, Dragon’s answer to the second part of the question could use 

some additional clarification. According to Marx, ‘A certain accumulation of capital in the 

hands of individual producers therefore forms the necessary pre-condition for a specifically 

capitalist mode of production.’ (K.775.1) Therefore, it is extremely hard for an individual 

working alone to increase productive powers of his labor if he is not able to accumulate capital 

‘only through the increase of individual capitals.’ (Hans p188) Thus, a worker working 

alone does not realize the advantages of large-scale cooperation such as synergies, social 

interaction, and reduced marginal fixed costs for equipment. 

Hans: You are making the same oversight I pointed out in [433]: the Marx quote which you bring at the beginning 

is only valid “on the soil of commodity production”, it is not valid generally. 


[411] Veblen: Maybe I didn’t understand the question, but why did Dragon bring the 

labor theory of value into the discussion? The labor theory of value, says that the value of 

a commodity is determined by the amount of labor embodied in its production. Marx made 

this determination in order to understand the value of that product on the market. As far 

as I understand, the question under consideration is asking why large scale cooperation is 

needed in order to increase the productive powers of labor (efficiency of labor) not how that 

increase in efficiency affects valuation of the commodity on the market. 

My answer to this would be similar to that of Angus. Basically it is the result of economies 

of scale, or the decreasing marginal cost of production. Marx says that this increase in the 

productive powers of labor, or the technical composition of capital, is the result of capital 

accumulation. This is why a lone worker could not increase his productive power of labor 

as quickly a gigantically exploitative, destructive, and inhumane capitalist firm. 

Hans: Short and to the point. 

Message [411] referenced by [400]. First Message by Veblen is [5]. 

[421] Zeek: working alone In a capitalist society it is often difficult for an individual to 

accumulate or increase productive powers of labor without the cooperation of some sort. In 

capitalism, the laborer is never compensated for the labour, for it would destroy the profits of 

the capitalist. On a larger scale, more exploitation is allowed for the capitalist. As is stated 

in [366], as the value of labour power is pre-determined, and the worker exploited, due to a 

set value for labour power and fluctuations in labour time. The longer the work day the more 

ones labour power is exploited. With an increase in size and cooperation, this exploitation


is often overlooked and cannot be seen as readily. As stated by Angus in [407], increases 

in technology and markets, lead to more efficient uses of productive powers as well as ways 

of exploitation. I do think that Dragon was close to something, in that organizations begin 

on the smaller scale, with the individuals, and they must have some show of increase in 

productive powers or they would not realize outside cooperation to any degree. Cooperation 

begins with the assumption that joining will allow even greater exploitation and increases in 

production powers than currently obtaining. As increase in cooperation functions, greater 

and greater amounts of exploitation occur. The capitalist is constantly trying to increase 

wealth and productive powers, and ways of exploitation, therefore synergies function for this 

purpose. The larger the company, the easier it is to replace an individual, which places an 

greater demand on the individual for greater output of labour power, and therefore productive 

powers increase as a result. 

Message [421] referenced by [400]. Next Message by Zeek is [440]. 


2003fa, 689 in 2004fa, 636 in 2005fa, 764 in 2007SP, 767 in 2008fa, 800 in 2009fa, 869 

in 2010fa, and 932 in 2012fa: 

Question 438 Why can the soil of production of commodities bring forth large-scale production 

only in capitalist form? 

[406] Doc: Marx is discussing how large scale cooperative production is linked to the 

social productive forces of labor. This is brought about in capitalism differently than in any 

other type of production. 

We either have a laborer producing by himself independently from other workers for the 

market, or he has to sell his labor on the market because he does not have the means to manufacture 

alone. This makes the means of his production his alone to sell. Cooperation can 

only come about if he sells his labor to capital along with others to bring about cooperation 

on a larger scale. This can only happen when a capitalist purchases this labor and receives 

large-scale cooperative labor power and social production of labor. 

The capitalist form is the only form of production that can bring these individuals together 

this way because for large scale cooperation to work, social means of production 

and subsistence have to come under the ownership of the capitalist or become his private 

property. 

Message [406] referenced by [420], [423], and [433]. First Message by Doc is [138.15]. 

[420] Paul: To cooperate? That is the question. In the capitalist society, the means 

of production are owned by the private individual. It is the worker that can either produce 

independently, or sell his labor power to the capitalist. I agree with Doc [406] and Marx 

in that the capitalist society is the only form capable of producing this type of cooperation. 

“Namely, co-operation on a large scale, can come about only through the increase of individual 

capitalists, only to the extent that the social means of production and subsistence are 

transformed into the private property of capitalists.” [Annotations, blue-cover, pg. 188] 

However, I feel that Doc may be viewing the cooperative relationship between the worker 

and the capitalist as a little too consensual. “Cooperation can only come about if he sells his 

labor to capital along with others to bring about cooperation on a larger-scale.” Doc [406] 


It sounds as if the worker has a distinct choice in the matter, but if one does not have the 

means to produce independently then he one forced to sell one’s labor power to the capitalist 

in order to survive. 

Ironically, the “cooperation” between the capitalist and the worker is why capitalism has 

the ability for large-scale production. Which in turn may only occur with the increase of 

individual capitalists, i.e. the worker becomes able to produce independently. 

Message [420] referenced by [423] and [433]. Next Message by Paul is [446]. 

[423] Maktub: soil of production The ‘soil of production’, with soil referring to growth 

or development, as defined by Webster, can bring forth large-scale production only in capitalist 

form because private property is necessary for this to happen. Marx says “cooperation 

on a large scale, can come about only through the increase of individual capitalists, only 

to the extent that the social means of production and substinence are transformed into the 

private property of capitalists (Annotations, p. 188)”. 

In regards to Paul [420], I don’t think that Doc [406] is taking the cooperative relationship 

between the worker and capitalist as too consensual, it just depends on your point of view. 

It is obvious to me that the worker with no means of production has to sell his labor to a 

capitalist, he may or may not be aware of the exploitative nature of this relationship, but I 

believe that the worker is often times anxious to sell his labor power to somebody that can 

use it. He needs to live, so he sells the only commodity that he has. The cooperation that 

exists to bring forth large-scale production is beneficial to both the laborer and the capitalist, 

albeit much more to the capitalist. We have been talking about Michael Jordan lately, and to 

me, he sold his labor power to the Chicago Bulls, or a capitalist. The Bulls made millions 

and millions of dollars in extra-surplus value off of Jordan, so by this it means that he was 

exploited. Jordan on the other hand, made millions and millions of dollars being exploited, 

he benefited from the relationship, and I’ll bet he was very consensual in selling his labor 

power. Jordan not only survived by selling his labor power, but thrived. This is assuredly an 

exception to the rule, but it does happen. The laborer is not always in a bad position. 

The growth and development of the production of commodities is dependent on a capitalistic 

form because as Doc [406] states, “the capitalist form is the only form of production 

that can bring these individuals (laborer and capitalist) together...” 


[433] Hans: Commodities not a good basis for cooperation Doc’s answer [406] to 

Question 438 started out on the wrong foot. Paul [420] noticed that something was fishy; he 

questioned why Doc suddenly was so friendly with the capitalists. But neither he nor Maktub 

[423] pinned down the basic oversight in Doc’s answer, instead they perpetuated it. Maktub’s 

first sentence brings out most sharply the common oversight of all three submissions: 

The ‘soil of production’ can bring forth large-scale production only in capitalist 

form because private property is necessary for this to happen. 

Quite on the contrary! Private property of means of production is a big obstacle to largescale 

production! For mass production, many workers must work together, and therefore 

they must have a different kind of ownership / control over their means of production than 

private ownership. They need some kind of communal ownership. In a society in which


commodity production and therefore private property are entrenched, i.e., private individuals 

produce with their own means of production for the market, there is no basis for the 

development of such communal property rights. Large scale cooperation can therefore only 

happen in the perverse form that none of the workers has any rights of ownership over the 

means of production at all. Instead, they are privately owned by a capitalist, who herds many 

wage laborers together, not because he likes cooperation, but because he likes high profits. 

Marx said (and now I am adjusting the translation) “the basis of commodity production 

can support large-scale production only in capitalist form” while everybody here thought he 

meant that production in general can evolve into large-scale production only under capitalism. 

This is their oversight. 

Marx did therefore not say that Doc, Paul, and Maktub thought he said. But this does 

not make it wrong. Would alternative development paths have been possible, i.e., could an 

industrial revolution have occurred without capitalism? Marx was working on this question; 

he studied communal property forms in the Russian villages of his time to see if the Russions 

might skip capitalism and go directly to socialism, and he also was interested in the question 

why capitalism did not arise during the time of the Roman empire. The overall consensus, 

even among Marxists, is that capitalism did play a progressive role historically. Marx wrote 

that a thorough development of the means of production can only take place in opposition to 

the laborer. 

But this was more than 150 years ago. Capitalism is no longer playing a progressive role 

today. 



2004fa, 638 in 2005fa, 766 in 2007SP, 802 in 2009fa, 871 in 2010fa, 904 in 2011fa, and 

934 in 2012fa: 

Question 440 Accumulation increases productive powers of labor and higher productive 

powers of labor increase accumulation. One might think that accumulation of capital and 

the productive powers of labor go together really well—or is there a hair in the soup? 

[396] Winston: Productive Powers of Labor and Accumulation For the capitalist, accumulation 

and the productive powers go together very well. A capitalist cannot accumulate 

capital without higher productive powers and cannot have higher productive powers without 

accumulation. The two need each other to keep growing through this “snowball effect” (annotation, 

p.188). The only problem with the “snowball effect” is that for a snowball to get 

bigger and bigger there must be snow in the first place. The same is true with accumulation 

and increased productive powers, the capitalist must have money to make more money. 

Since the laborer does not have access to capital (money), or the means of production, 

the laborer is unable to switch roles and become the capitalist. This is why the capitalist 

can continue to exploit the laborer. Therefore the “snowball effect” of accumulation and the 

productive powers of labor will never benefit the worker. 

Hans: Money is one requirement for accumulation, but a much more basic requirement is wage labor—and if the 

capitalist replaces the laborer with machines, he undermines his ability to make profits. The hair in the soup is the 

law of the falling rate of profits. Navin [375] gave an apt description of it. 


Message [396] referenced by [414]. Next Message by Winston is [405]. 

[403] Buda: The relationship between the accumulation of caplital and the productive 

powers of labor is that of one causing the other and that contiunes in a circular manner. 

“High productive powers lead to faster accumulation.” (Annotations p188) But to acheive 

high productive powers, capital has to initially exist. Therefore accumulation has to come 

first and be the starting point of the “avalanche.” 

Accumulation now becomes the capital that is used as the basis to accelerate the production 

process and increase the productive powers. With this technical progress and high 

productive powers, accumulation of capital naturally results and contributes to the continuation 

of that cycle. This dependence relationship constitutes one being the pre-condition of 

the other at different times while both develop simultaneously. 

Hans: The avalanche cannot be started by capital alone. This capital also must find wage labor to valorize itself. 

I.e., the “primitive accumulation,” as Marx calls it, consists also in the separation of the direct producers from their 

means of production. 

Message [403] referenced by [414]. First Message by Buda is [142.16]. 

[414] Senco: A little more on Question 440 In [396] Winston starts his submission 

making an important point that is relevant to the question being discussed. He states that 

“For the Capitalist, accumulation and the productive powers go together very well”. He 

continues to effectively explain the relationship between productive powers of labor, and 

capital accumulation. 

I think Winston’s second paragraph in [396] could use some clarification. In the Winter 

1997 archive, Grimley [1997WI:360] every effectively states “the average laborer does not 

have the ability to accumulate capital or increase their productive powers of labor.” He also 

refers to the adage that it “takes money to make money, and the only way to get money isto 

make money.” This is exactly why most laborers can not become Capitalists, (another good 

point Winston also makes). 

The progress of capital accumulation works well for Capitalists as long as the rates of 

exploitation constantly rise. Even the productive workers end up controlling a smaller and 

smaller portion of the social product. I think it is worth noting that Capital accumulation 

further widens the social gap between workers and Capitalists, even when the standard living 

for both is rising. 

Buda [403] says basically the same thing as Winston, but uses different words. Buda 

also has the right answer, but in my opinion, could have been more clear in his explanations 

and grammar. His concluding sentence reads, “This dependence relationship constitutes one 

being the pre-condition of the other at different times while both develop simultaneously.” 

This sounds like he is trying too hard to impress, while not really helping others understand 

the question posed. 

Hans: I appreciate the feedback you are giving to others, but please keep your criticism focused on the subject and 

don’t make inferences about the writer himself. 

Next Message by Senco is [416]. 


2004fa, 642 in 2005fa, 770 in 2007SP, 739 in 2007fa, 774 in 2008fa, 807 in 2009fa, and 

909 in 2011fa:


Question 442 What is the centralization of capital? Show how accumulation leads to centralization. 

Which effects of accumulation are enhanced by centralization? 

[404] Brutal: Centralization Centralization of capital is the combining of already existing 

capitals–a transformation of many small into few large capitals. It is a change in 

distribution of capital and is not dependent on the absolute growth of social wealth–a limit 

of concentration. In this process of centralization large capitals have an advantage over small 

capitals, due to economies of scale. In the case of centralization capitalists are not only trying 

to take advantage of workers, but of other capitalists as well. This is done mainly by 

large companies buying up smaller ones or simply forcing them out of business. It is primarily 

firms that have accumulated relatively large amounts of means of production that cause 

centralization. This is how accumulation leads to centralization. In addition, the larger the 

firm the greater desire there is to centralize capital within that firm. Therefore, the process 

of centralization enhances the attraction of capital to capital and the tendency to centralize, 

making this process snowball. 

Hans: I haven’t worked it out very well in the Annotations yet, but Marx introduces centralization as the negation 

of the negation, which overcomes the limitations of mere concentration, i.e., of the growth of firms by reinvesting 

their profits. 

First Message by Brutal is [1]. 

Question 444 is 416 in 1997sp, 420 in 1998WI, 539 in 2000fa, and 570 in 2001fa: 

Question 444 Is unemployment a sign that there are too many laborers? 

[424] Maine: Too many laborers? Yes, unemployment is a sign that there are too many 

laborers. Technical innovation can be a component to unemployment. With the development 

of new technology and new methods, the labor process can be made more efficient. 

Fewer laborers are required to get the job done. At this point of increased efficiency, the 

company would have too many laborers. As a result, some laborers would be fired. Marx 

clarified: “With the increase of capital, the demand for labor will be in a diminishing ratio.” 

(Annotations 194) Marx called the excess workers the “surplus population.” In his opinion, 

they lost their jobs because of capitalism’s drive to accumulate more value. This drive for 

accumulation would result in increased efficiency which I have shown results in “surplus 

laborers.” 

Message [424] referenced by [437] and [442]. First Message by Maine is [71]. 

[426] Kenshiro: Is unemployment a sign that there are too many laborers? 

Marx call this law “ The law of Progressive diminution of the relative magnitude of the 

variable capital.” 

Hans states that “it looks like the growth of the working population outpaced that of 

capital.” 

However, it is the fact that the capitalist continues to produce until the market is saturated 

by his items. Thus, creating a lack of need and a surplus, this in turn slows the market, thus 

dropping prices, dropping wages and finally, elimination of jobs creating unemployment. 

Message [426] referenced by [437]. First Message by Kenshiro is [66]. 

[437] Hans: Fridge is empty, time to leave Is an empty refrigerator a sign that the family 

is too big? 


Imagine you are coming home from school and you are opening the refrigerator and it is 

all empty except a yogurt and an apple. You ask your mother: why is there so little food in 

the refrigerator, and she replies: it is not that there is too little food in the refrigerator, it is 

that there are too many people in this family. There is enough food for me in the refrigerator. 

Here it is obvious that the amount of food in the refrigerator should depend on the size of 

the family, and not vice versa. 

In Marx’s text we have a similar situation. The amount of capital in society should depend 

on the size and the needs of the population, not vice versa. But we are so brainwashed 

that we do not see it this way! If better technology becomes available, Maine [424] finds 

it completely natural that workers should be fired, instead of shortening the workday and 

raising the hourly wage. And Kenshiro [426], who thinks the real limiting factor is the size 

of the market, does not get the idea that incomes should be raised if production is so high 

that people can no longer buy everything. This is the fetishism which considers the profit 

needs of capital a necessity which our human needs should not interfere with. 


[440] Zeek: 144 technology a factor Unemployment occurs for several reasons in a 

capitalist society. Technology as was stated by Maine is something that does occur as capitalists 

try to increase wealth and value of commodities. Technology on the other hand often 

creates jobs that would not have otherwise been. Unemployment also occurs because of 

externalities. Health of an individual, societal norms being disrupted and being in the wrong 

place at the wrong time(chance) cause unemployment. The market also has a great deal to 

do with unemployment. As Hans stated, wages or incomes should be increased to compensate 

for the large amounts of production increases. Technology often drives up the prices 

of commodities, which should be compensated in wage increases. But when exploitation 

remains or increases in costs/prices of commodities due to the introduction of technology 

people are forced outside the realm of purchaser for lack of income. Unemployment settles 

in causing societal problems. Large populations are however, sometime the forces pushing 

new thought as to how to meet the ever increasing demands of the masses. The invention of 

the vehicle brought jobs not unemployment to laborers. Quantity of laborers is a factor to 

unemployment but not the sole cause. 

Hans: You are trying to use common sense to answer a Question which despite its apparent simplicity needs a scientific 

answer. And it is poorly formulated too. If you write technical progress increases the value of commodities 

you must not have the Marxian concept of value in mind, because this value (labor content) is decreased rather than 

increased. How can being in the wrong place at the wrong time cause umemployment? How can the disruption 

of societal norms cause unemployment? Why would increased technology make goods more expensive instead of 

cheaper? 

Message [440] referenced by [442]. Next Message by Zeek is [467]. 

[442] Quake: More on 444 After reading the responses thus far, I have a twist of my own 

to add. It seems this becomes a ‘chicken or the egg’ scenario very shortly after the capitalist 

firms opens its doors for business. The capitalist is interested in increasing technology to 

realize saved labor expenses. The increase in technology is coupled with growth of the firm 

- each feeding the other. The population supplying the labor observes the firms’ growth on 

one hand and cheers it on, as a bigger firm is certain to require more labor. Behind the 

scenes, however, the population is not readily realizing that the labor component is being 

marginalized - reduced in ratio with the capital component. A net increase in positions hired


by the firm validates their position supporting the firms’ growth, but the growth of the capital 

component outpaces the labor component increases and the laborers lose jobs, relatively 

speaking. So not only does the capitalist benefit from technology as it replaces requirements 

for labor, but they have the labor population acting as cheerleaders as this process unfolds. 

Some of the other responses to 444 hinted at this already: Maine, [424]: “... they lost 

their jobs because of capitalism’s drive to accumulate more value.”, and Zeek, [440]: “Large 

populations are however, sometime the forces pushing new thought as to how to meet the 

ever increase demands of the masses.” 

I likewise agree with Zeek again as he comments on the fact that many times technology 

creates jobs. I work for a corporate IT department here in SLC and we cannot hire people 

fast enough to keep up with the labor demands that increased technology is creating for our 

department. Yes, I realize that someone will ask how many other positions at the company 

were eliminated for each increased IT hire. This is a valid question and hits back at my initial 

paragraph discussing the marginalized increase in the labor component as the firm grows. 

Can we take any consolation, though, in the fact that the technology jobs command a much 

better wage in comparison with many of the positions that I suspect might be eliminated 

with a shift to technology oriented jobs? 

Hans: The rift in incomes between skilled and unskilled labor has become bigger again. 

First Message by Quake is [22]. 


2007SP, 773 in 2007fa, 803 in 2008SP, 808 in 2008fa, 841 in 2009fa, and 944 in 2011fa: 

Question 446 The only way the worker can improve his lot in society is to increase the 

productive powers of his labor. Right or wrong? 

[445] Cartman: is it up to the worker? A worker cannot improve his/her lot in society 

by increasing the productive powers of his/her labor. This is made clear by Marx in the 

capitalist population law. And in fact, the opposite of the question is true. A worker can 

actually make his position in society worse by increasing the productive powers of his/her 

labor. 

In Capital 782:1–784:0 it says, “the same cause which may increase the net revenue of the 

country may at the same time render the population redundant, and deteriorate the condition 

of the laborer.” Capital and demand for labor are inversely related, as capital rises, demand 

for labor will fall proportionally. 

The resulting product from the labor of the worker is in fact capital. Therefore, if the 

worker increases his/her productive powers, they will be producing more capital. And as 

more capital is produced, the situation for the laborer worsens. “Great fluctuations in the 

amount of employment, and great suffering may become more frequent as capital itself 

becomes more plentiful.” [782:1–784:0] 


Message [445] referenced by [461] and [2008fa:1235]. First Message by Cartman is [3]. 

[458] Golf: Can workers increase their lot in society? I agree with Cartman’s answer 

on question 446, which stated the worker cannot improve their lot in society by increasing 

their productive powers of labor. And now adding to this statement. 


No matter how hard the laborer increases their productive powers by way of innovation, 

technological change, or efficiency the laborer cannot keep up pace with the rapid growth 

of social wealth. The accumulation of wealth in society will always outpace the productive 

powers of a laborer. Those who already have accumulated a great amount of wealth will 

keep up with the pace of the increase in production of goods. Those laborers who start 

behind and decide to increase their productive powers to accumulated more wealth will not 

be able to catch up because their work eventually begins to regress. 

In going along with Cartman, the increase in productive power of labor will begin to drop 

for workers, thus lessening the condition of the laborer. As the condition begins to weaken 

for the worker, they once again begin to fall behind in the accumulation of wealth. The more 

productive the laborer becomes the greater the increase in capital. As more capital becomes 

available, conditions for the worker decrease which may eventually lead to unemployment 

for the worker. 

Hans: It seems you are assuming that wages are determined by the “productive powers” of labor, is that something 

like the neoclassical marginal product? Are you saying that if workers increase their input to garner more wealth, 

they will run into the declining marginal product of labor? This is not what Marx is talking about. In Marx’s theory, 

the wages are not dependent on the marginal product of the laborer. And your theory would say that more capital 

will benefit the laborer, because it would increase the marginal product of labor, while Marx denies that. There are 

big differences between Marx’s theory and the neoclassical one. 

Message [458] referenced by [461]. Next Message by Golf is [466]. 

[461] Hayduke: Workers becoming their own worst enemy Cartman and Golf did an 

excellent job in emails [445] and [458] of explaining why workers ultimately hurt themselves 

by increasing their productivity, according to the capitalist population law. This basically 

asserts that as workers work harder, they create more capital. Because workers compete 

with capital as an input for goods, more capital means the value of labor goes down. 

There is another level of competition going on here, which keeps the worker from improving 

his lot in society through working harder. This comes from the competition he 

creates with other workers. In Capital, Marx explains: “If one man does the work of 1 1/2 

or 2 men, the supply of labor increases, although the supply of labor-power on the market 

remains constant. The competition thus created between the workers allows the capitalist to 

force down the price of labor, while the fall in the price of labor allows him...to force up the 

hours of the worker further [689/o].” Basically, this means harder work does not result in 

more pay, just in the expectation that workers will work harder. The only result from hard 

work, is that you will have to work harder in the future, along with your coworkers, who are 

probably very disgruntled by your pointless ambition. 

Hans: Excellent thought. There is a certain awareness in the working class that “harder work does not result in 

more pay, just in the expectation that workers will work harder.” You showed that market mechanisms allow these 

‘expectations’ to take hold. If you want to improve the lot of the working class you should not work harder but 

organize: individual workers are powerless, but together they are very strong. 

First Message by Hayduke is [38]. 



Question 448 What does capital need this surplus-population for? (How come it produces 

exactly what it needs?)


[425] Navin: surplus population Capitalism depends on a large, even excess, pool of 

working class. The expansion of capital generates a larger demand for these “proletarians”, 

but does so at a decreasing rate. This creates a “surplus population”. This surplus population 

is the leverage by which capitalist enforce their own valorization process. That is if workers 

are not willing to work for the going “wage” there is always this pool to supply capitalist 

with labor. Since the workers in this pool are not working they are generally willing to accept 

whatever an employer will pay them. This allows capitalist to continue her valorization. 

This continues today. Companies will downsize and lay off the workers who have earned 

higher wages and benefit incentives. This keeps only those employees that are willing to 

work for less. These workers that are laid off go and enter this “surplus population”. They 

will stay in this population until they can’t afford to not have any income and will go look 

for work for less money. This pool keeps the wages down and the Capitalist a float. 

Hans: Sentences like “these workers that are laid off go and enter this surplus population” should not appear in a 

written discussion. 


[464] Hans: Blaming the Victim Navin [425] writes: 

The expansion of capital generates a larger demand for these “proletarians”, 

but does so at a decreasing rate. This creates a “surplus population”. 

This is a too abbreviated argument. Marx gives a number of quite specific reasons why 

the setting free of workers must outpace accumulation. 

Navin also says that laid-off workers will stay in the surplus population “until they can’t 

afford to not have any income and will go look for work for less money.” This implies that 

one can always get out of unemployment if one accepts lower wages, i.e., that unemployment 

is always voluntary. This is not true. This is blaming unemployment on the individual. Some 

individuals can get out of unemployment by accepting lower wages, but the working class 

as a whole cannot eliminate unemployment in this way. Even Keynesians know that. 



2009fa, 884 in 2010fa, 917 in 2011fa, and 947 in 2012fa: 

Question 450 Why is the surplus-population created under capitalism called “relative”? 

[431] Bluto: The capitalist must create a surplus-population for its subsistence. The reserve 

army will dictate options for expansion for the capitalist. Marx refers to this expansion 

in two ways. One is rapid inter-industry adjustments. This explains how surplus-population 

encourages movement into new areas of industry. The capitalist will not interchange his 

current population, for that of another expansion. The old sphere’s of interest must be unaffected. 

By maintaining a reserve army the capitalist will engage in the further consumption 

of capital in new, related, or the same forms of production. “In all such cases, there must 

be the possibility of suddenly throwing great masses of men into the decisive areas without 

affecting the scale of production in other spheres. The surplus population supplies these 

masses.” (Annotations p. 195) Another instance where the surplus-population is “relative”, 


is in relation to the business cycle. As the activity in the market fluctuates, so does the demand 

on the reserve army. In looking at one sphere of the market we see the movement of 

the army into prosperous areas of development. The absorption of the proletariat causes a 

decrease in the available reserve army. The newly introduced labor blindly creates capital 

up to the point of stagnation. The reserve army has acted as a catalyst in the accumulation 

process. Soon the capitalist will return(downsize) the labor into his reserves, thus sustaining 

the pool of the working class. In essence the capitalist will transform itself according to the 

climate of the market. 

Hans: You write as if “relative” meant “useful for capital.” The surplus population is called “relative” because this 

population is “surplus” only in relation to capital, i.e., capital does not need them. 

First Message by Bluto is [274]. 

[435] JoeHill: using a back hoe to dig our own graves The surplus population created 

under capitalism is considered relative because as “the composition of capital rises, the demand 

for laborers falls relatively” (Brewer 75). Thus, “a larger part of capital goes towards 

constant capital, the means of production, and a smaller part goes toward variable capital, 

labor”. So, with respect to the increasing output caused by capital accumulation, less and 

less laborers are necesary. Marx addresses this phenomenon in the following statement: 

it is capitalistic accumulation itself that constantly produces, and produces 

in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population 

of labourers, i.e., a population of greater extent than suffices for 

the average needs of the self expansion of capital, and therefore a surplus 

population (C. 781:2/o). 

It is important to point out that “the population is not of cource excessive in any absolute 

sense, only relative to the employment that capital provides. Indeed, the working day is 

lengthened and the intensity of work stepped up” (Brewer 75). Marx put this into perspective 

when he said: 

The overwork of the employed part of the working class swells the ranks 

of the reserve, whilst conversely the greater pressure that the latter by its 

competition exerts on the former, forces these to submit to overwork and 

subjigation under the dictates of capital The condemnation of one part of 

the corking class to enforced idleness by the overwork of the other part, 

and the converse, becomes a means of enriching the individual capitalists, 

and accelerates the at the same time the production of the industrial reserve 

army on a scale corresponding with the advance of social accumulation (C. 

789:1/o). 

Hans: Although the word “relative” appears in Brewer’s sentence “the demand for laborers falls relatively”, I am 

not convinced that this is the reason why the surplus population is called “relative.” The Marx quote and the Brewer 

quote after this have better explanations of the name “relative” surplus population. I don’t see how the last long 

quote by Marx is relevant to Question 435. Also your phrases “Marx addresses this phenomenon in the following 

statement,” “It is important to point out that,” and “Marx puts this into perspective when he says” are mere fluff and 

should be replaced by a harder hitting analysis of what is going on. 

First Message by JoeHill is [101]. 

Question 453 is 429 in 1998WI and 548 in 2000fa:


Question 453 In meteorology it is known that low pressure zones are active and high pressure 

zones are the residuals. What is active in the business cycle: sudden expansions or 

sudden contractions? 

[441] Josef: The active part of the business cycle must be sudden expansions rather sudden 

contractions. One argument that explains why sudden expansions are the driving force 

behind business cycles is found by looking at the history of the business cycle. The business 

cycle begin at the same time as large scale production and mechanization. Due to the 

mechanization there was a large increase in production, an expansion. Sudden contractions 

in the business cycle begin after mechanization, or after the economy was able to produce a 

large expansion in a short length of time. These expansions cause powerful impacts to the 

economy. 

Expansions in the business cycle are dependent on a surplus of laborers. In the economy 

there is always unemployment. This shows that surplus laborers are important to capital. 

Expansions are possible due to this surplus of labor. The importance of surplus labor to 

capital is evidence that expansions are the active force in the business cycle. 

Hans: Your first paragraph is very good. In the second, your logic went awry. 

Message [441] referenced by [446]. First Message by Josef is [54]. 

[446] Paul: expansion and contraction I must agree with Josef[441] that the active 

portion of the business cycle is the sudden epansion. For the expansion to occur, there 

nust be a surplus in the labor market. “Surplus-population =¿ sudden expansions,” while 

sudden contractions resulting from the expansion will yield a surplus of labor. “Sudden 

contractons =¿ more surplus population.” (Annotations, blue, pg.195) As josef[441] says, 

“in the economy there is always unemployment.” Such unemployment allows for expansion 

because it provides the necessary surplus labor needed to drive the expanding economy. 

Like the low pressure, the sudden expansion has a residual effect which is the sudden 

contraction. Sudden expansion is something that the capitalist society is striving to increase. 

On the same token, a sudden contraction in the economy will result from sudden expansion 

in the form of unemployment or surplus labor that may not favor the society. Confusion 

sets in when the “effects become causes in their turn, and the various vicissitudes of the 

whole process, which always reproduces its own conditions, take on the form of periodicity.” 

(Annotations, bl, pg196) Through periodicity, it is difficult to see exactly which is the active 

role, sudden expansion or sudden contraction. 

Hans: You ignore the role of mechanization which Paul [446] had argued so convincingly. Build on the answers 

of others; Paul’s was almost 20 hours before yours. 


Question 462 is 438 in 1998WI, 657 in 2003fa, and 790 in 2008SP: 

Question 462 There are two mechanisms by which capital acts on both sides. What are 

they? 

[436] Zed: Capital playing both sides Capital acts on both sides through the following 

mechanisms. One element of Marx’s thought is the consideration of the unity of supply and 

demand. Capital acts on both sides at once because as its accumulation increases the demand 

for labor, it also increases the supply of workers by “setting them free,” while simultaneously 


the pressure of the unemployed encourages employed people to provide labor. As a result of 

this, the supply of labor is somewhat independent of the supply of the workers. 

Message [436] referenced by [471]. First Message by Zed is [131]. 

[471] Hans: Breakdown of the Demand/Supply Paradigm Zed [436] says it all, but 

he should have made the separation between the two mechanisms clearer: if there is excess 

demand for labor, capitalists can (1) replace laborers by machines, and/or (2) force their 

employees to work longer and harder, through the threat of the unemployed. 

Demand of labor and supply of labor are therefore not determined by different forces 

(which is the implicit assumption whenever you draw a demand and supply curve), but 

capital influences both sides simultaneously. 

Message [471] referenced by [2008SP:851]. Next Message by Hans is [472]. 



Question 466 How can the accumulation of capital decrease instead of increase the demand 

for labor? How can a rise in unemployment increase instead of decrease the supply of labor? 

[432] Henrix: The accumulation of capital decrease the demand for labor when the introduction 

of new machinery, or the extension of old result in decreased employment of 

workers. This happens when the workers are ‘set free’ by the accumulation of more capital, 

in other words, they are replaced by the machines. 

A rise in unemployment increases the competition between the employed and the unemployed 

worker. As a result, the employed starts working harder to prevent himself/herself 

from getting replaced by the unemployed. By working harder, the employed worker supply 

more labor. This is how a rise in unemployment can increase labor supply. 

Message [432] referenced by [438] and [451]. First Message by Henrix is [63]. 

[438] Winston: More on 466 I agree with Henrix [432] that the accumulation of capital 

does replace workers therefore decreasing the demand for labor. I want to add to [432] a 

real-life example to further illustrate the two problems addressed in this question. While I 

was studying in Mexico we learned how Multi National Enterprises go into small villages 

to sell their tools and machinery to make the farms more productive. Though increased 

productivity seems like a good thing the end result has not been favorable in Mexico. Those 

who can afford the tools and equipment sold by the MNE’s soon become so productive that 

they were able to let go of their field help and also are able to sell their products much 

cheaper than the other farmers. The less productive farmers are forced to stop producing 

their goods because first, they could no longer keep up with the production of the productive 

farmers, and second, they were unable to sell their products so cheaply. 

Due to this problem, the demand for labor from these less productive farmers and field 

laborers has decreased so much that they move to Mexico City to find employment. The 

result of this is that thousands and thousands of these farmers are moving to Mexico City 

each day. Henrix [432] says that “By working harder, the employed worker supply more 

labor”. This is also the result in Mexico City. Those that have jobs there feel so threatened 

by the thousands of farmers and field laborers moving in each day that they increase their


labor supply so they aren’t replaced by one of the thousands of farmers who are desperately 

looking for work. 

Hans: Very good examples. This brings life to the discussion and is very much appreciated. 

First Message by Winston is [115]. 

[451] RfBurner: According to economic theory the laws of and demand determines the 

level of unemployment. According to these laws it is argued that when the supply of laborers 

increases then wages decrease, and a decrease in wages will increase employment, and 

capital. As unemployment decreases then wages are suppose to react by slowly increasing. 

In opinion these law’s do not always apply. In Marx’s opinion there are times when the accumulation 

of capital decreases the demand for labor. With low wages the amount of capital 

accumulated increase. According to the laws of supply and demand the demand for labor 

should increase. But the capitalist has an option to used their capital to invest in machinery 

to replace the workers. In this case the accumulation of capital was used to by machines 

rather than increasing laborer. So capital accumulation does not mean an increase in the 

demand for labor. 

There are other situations were the laws of labor economics do not apply. At times a rise 

in unemployment can increase the supply of labor. As discussed earlier an increased supply 

of labor is suppose to lower wages and increase employment. But workers tend to increase 

their productivity when the supply of labor is high to help make sure that they keep the job 

that they have. With an increase in productivity the capitalist does not need as many workers. 

Therefore a increase in supply of labor does not always mean a decrease in unemployment 

Hans: Have you read Henrix’s [432] before writing your submission? 

Message [451] referenced by [459]. Next Message by RfBurner is [460]. 

[459] Boarder: RE:466 I would like to comment on RfBurner’s response [451]. I think 

that RfBurner takes the right track. If we look at the Industrial Revolution and the plight of 

the Proletariat we see exactly what RfBurner is referring to. With the invention of the steam 

engine, and the loom, several workers were put out of work. As the capitalist accumulated 

more capital he was able to buy the best means of production at that particular time. The 

demand for labor went down incredibly at this point. Coupled with this was the fact that the 

capitalist was not only putting the proletariat out of work in his factories, but he was killing 

the working man and the small business owners. 

I think that I will take a little different route on addressing the second part of the question. 

I do however agree with the point that RfBurner is making. Let’s start with the increase in 

unemployment. A likely reason for this could be technology. Because of high unemployment 

competition is fierce amongst the workers. This is where I think that RfBurner took the 

other path. If the supply of labor is low, then the worker becomes more valuable. It seems 

obvious to me that if unemployment is high then there is potential for a high supply of labor, 

however, that is limited to potential. If there are no jobs available then they can’t contribute 

to the supply of labor. If there are no jobs available then an increase in unemployment can 

not increase the supply of labor. 

First Message by Boarder is [142.1]. 



Question 468 Why does misery further the growth of the population rather than impeding 

it? 

[427] Gemni: Growth Because of Misery With the accumulation of wealth, there arises 

some problems with labor. 

A surplus in population indirectly occurs when Capitalists demand more youthful workers. 

Surplus population also occurs because “many thousands of workers are out, because 

the division of labor chains them to a particular branch of industry’ (annotation p-202). 

Marx describes this situation best by saying ”the absolute increase of this section of the 

proletariat calls for a form which swells their numbers, despite the rapid wastage of their 

individual elements (misery) (Das Kapital p-795). The growth in population is due to the 

“rapid replacement” of one generation of workers by another. Because the older workers 

are no longer useful to the capitalists, at least not as much, they are moved to the surplus 

population. The labor that the capitalist need must come from somebody. It is this need for 

labor, one that older workers can not supply but younger youthful workers can that brings 

about the increase in population when misery is apparent. 

In summary, when labor can no longer satisfy the tasks that the capitalist puts upon them, 

a new generation of workers are “grown” to fill this void. This explains why misery furthers 

the growth of population instead of impeding it. 

For example, if there was an increase in technology in farming, would you want the older 

worker, who seems almost like a liability or would you want the new youthful worker who 

doubles the output of the old worker. Of course the likely choice would be to choose the 

more youthful worker. Because the older worker and all his friends are almost obsolete, they 

are sent home with their pink slips and the new youthful worker and his friends are hired on 

because of the need by Capitalists. The old generation of workers are “rapidly replaced.” In 

order for this rapid replacement, the population must increase. 

Message [427] referenced by [434], [447], and [450]. First Message by Gemni is [65]. 

[434] Pobeda: miserable children Gemni [427] does an accurate job of explaining why 

their is a shift from older laborers to younger youthful ones. I’d like to add some of the 

reasons why the population grows and the birthrate increases when people live in misery. 

One example is that spurred on by capitalists. They do tend to hire younger workers. Thus, 

if a family wants to increase income, having lots of children who can work can significantly 

raise family income. 

Another reason is people who are in misery want to find joy. Most people find sex fun, 

and children are perhaps the only legacy such an exploited worker can leave behind. Also, 

some cannot afford birth control as the wealthy can. Thus, misery increases the population, 

which is beneficial to the capitalist. 

Hans: You spotted a missing link in Gemni [427], but you do not seem aware of how much misery these people 

had to live in; see Luc’s [447] about this. 

Message [434] referenced by [447] and [450]. First Message by Pobeda is [138.3]. 

[447] Luc: more on misery I too, along with Gemni [427] and Pobeda [434], would like 

to comment on why misery furthers the growth of population rather than impeding it.


As Pobeda stated, Gemni does a good job explaining why there is a shift from older 

laborers to younger ones. Then, Pobeda does a good job explaining why “the population 

grows and the birthrate increases when people live in misery.” [434] However, I beleive 

that both Pobeda and Gemni miss the mark because they neglect to first define misery, then 

explain why it furthers the growth of population rather than impeding it. 

By misery, Marx meant that there were many young child-workers who were overworked, 

which led to early aging, health problems, and a low life expectancy (neither Pobeda nor 

Gemni mentioned why the children were miserable). According to Marx, these abhorent 

conditions “exacerbate” the contradiction that “the consumption of labor-power by capital 

is so rapid that the worker has already more or less completely lived himself out when he 

is only half-way through his life.” [795:1] (As a side note, Marx points out that the life 

expectancy of the average upper middle class person in Manchester was 38 and that of the 

average laboring class person was 17). This means that the child-laborer is soon cycled out 

of his job and pushed into the “lower ranks” of the surplus population. As a result, the 

capitalist’s drive for profits calls for a regeneration of the laboring class, so as to fill the 

positions that the above child-laborers left. This call for regeneration is why there is such a 

huge swell in the numbers of the working class, “despite rapid wastage of their individual 

elements.” (795:1b) Marx goes on to point out that this is the moment when we see the rapid 

replacement of one generation by another in the laboring class. This requirement is met by 

the many early marriages, which bear the fruit of many children. (Please note that this rapid 

regeneration was only prevalent in the laboring class). 

Hans sums this point up nicely in the annotations when he writes, “child labor, a product 

of the drive for maximum profits, has the unintended and for capital beneficial side effect of 

encouraging large families.” 

Message [447] referenced by [434] and [450]. Next Message by Luc is [456]. 

[450] PumpkinStar: An addiction to misery Gemini [427], Luc [447], and Pobeda 

[434] all give different answers to why misery increases the growth of population. They all 

sound rational and correct. I’d like to add another spin. 

Let us begin with the analogy of the gambler in Las Vegas. By entering the casino with 

money in hand, the gambler has committed himself to the casino. Fooled by the false pretense 

of the flashing “million jackpot” signs, he now places his money on the table. He 

understands that there is a large chance that he will not see a reasonable return, but he is 

unable to comprehend “his” money being taken away. Soon he runs out of money, but soon 

after, we find him at the nearest ATM, ready to commit himself to the casino once again. 

As losses pile up, I believe that the feelings of misery breed (no pun intended) a feeling 

of desperation, similar to the gambler, withdrawing more money not to make a profit, but 

instead win back his initial losses. Las Vegas does not make a profit on fist-time gamblers. 

The addiction not to make a profit, but to win back lost bets drive the millions to the city. 

Once in the cycle, there is a high chance that the family will extinguish itself by depending 

on numerous children to bring them out of misery. It is a sad world when a family believes 

that mal-nurished, over-burdened children can break the chain of Capitalism. 


Hans: Interesting spin and a creative contribution. I doubt that these people had many illusions and a gambler 

mentality; I think they were simply numb from the misery they found themselves in and passed the cruelty they 

received on to their children. But it is important to think about how these people react psychologically. 


[460] RfBurner: q468 Misery furthers the growth of population. There is a constant need 

for productive laborers in a capitalist society. Younger workers tend to be more capable than 

older workers. Therefore there is a need to replace the older workers with younger ones. 

To keep up with the constant need of laborer we have seen a constant increase in the world 

population over the years. This population also gives capitalist a larger market to sell their 

goods to. So there are many benefits to the capitalist for an increase in population. They not 

only get a large pool of laborers to choose from but they also have more consumers for the 

goods that they produce. 

Hans: You would have benefited a lot from reading the lively discussion of this topic. 

First Message by RfBurner is [138.13]. 

Question 472 is 643 in 2002fa, 726 in 2004fa, 672 in 2005fa, 801 in 2007SP, 800 in 

2008SP, 805 in 2008fa, 838 in 2009fa, 908 in 2010fa, and 941 in 2011fa: 

Question 472 What is pauperism? 

What is its relationship to the relative surplus population? 

Discuss contemporary forms of pauperism. 

Which political actions can one expect from paupers and why? 

[444] Yikes: pauperism In the annotations Hans informs us that pauperism is the infirmary 

of the active labor-army and the dead weight of the industrial reserve army. Pauperism 

could be called collateral damage, of the capitalist form of production. Maybe a term of war 

isn’t applicable here but those found in the pauper class might disagree. Pauperism isn’t a 

goal of capitalism yet they do nothing to stop it and as Hans points out they have a great 

ability to pass on the responsibility of pauper class on to the proletariat as a whole. 

Paupers are part of the relative surplus population, in fact they are those that scrape the 

bottom of this group. They would be part of the stagnant form of relative surplus population 

capital has no need for this group and would love that they didn’t exist. 

Pauperism can be seen today in many forms. We see large corporations firing or laying 

off older employees close to retirement so they don’t have to support them during their 

retirement, even though these employees have been with the company for forty even fifty 

years, they have definitely earned their pension yet won’t receive. Structural unemployment 

could be considered pauperism. Once capital has adopted a new form of production those 

without the skills to preform in the work place are quickly discarded, if someone doesn’t 

have computer skills today they will have a very hard time finding a well paying job. 

As capital has an innate ability to pass responsibility of pauperism onto the proletariat, 

politicans have taken the same course (pass the buck 101). The pauper class at times has 

been used by politicans to gain votes yet little is done to fight for their rights. Because the 

pauper class has a very weak voice politically, they are at the mercy of those in power. 

Hans: Very eloquent, but the original version you sent out had too many spelling errors. Get yourself a spell 

checker! 

Next Message by Yikes is [457].



2005fa, 802 in 2007SP, 771 in 2007fa, 801 in 2008SP, 806 in 2008fa, 839 in 2009fa, 909 


Question 473 What is worse: the misery of idle impoverishment or the torture of work? 

[439] Guyote: misery and the “or” The question here is a classic example of what has 

been called the “tyranny of the or”. The question asks whether the misery of idle impoverishment 

is worse than the torture of work. In relation to the arguments proposed by Marx, 

the answer is clear. 

In ‘Capital’, Marx makes this clear [C798:3 - C802:1]. Here Marx states that regardless 

of the rate of pay of the worker, his situation will get worse. Marx does not stop here, but 

continues to cite numerous supporting opinions that support this notion. The accumulation 

of misery coincides with the accumulation of wealth. Marx concludes this section with a 

quote from Destutt de Tracy: “In poor nations people are comfortable, in rich nations they 

are generally poor.” [C802, 1] 

In some respects, I can agree with the notion that money does not always bring happiness. 

It is in line with the train of thought which states that in order to find one’s self, one must 

lose himself first. This is a romantic notion. Additionally, there are those in the world who 

live by the law which states that if you have noting, you have noting to loose. However, 

It is hard for me to submit to the tyrannical nature of the question. I would propose that 

in all things there ought to be balance. Knowledge, poverty, wealth, happiness, misery, etc. 

While I willing accept the fact that I openly submit myself to the exploitation of the capitalist 

system, I do it knowingly. 

In this respect I would like to pose a question to Hans. 

I am a bit confused in this regard: one the one hand we have Marx saying that misery is a 

function of capital accumulation. While on the other we have Marx stating that comfortable 

blindness is worse than misery combined with awareness. [message 207, 3/25] 

So how would Marx view the following situation? 

Marx says that the torture of work is worse than idle impoverishment. 

It is not hard to imagine the situation where one is idle and impoverished, and thus comfortable 

with his situation. The same man may be blind to the extent of the misery he may 

otherwise be subjecting himself to. He may live in a way where he is detached from industrial 

capitalist society, such as a small village, this is quite possible. Yet at the same time he 

is, in fact blind. Blind in the sense that he does not know or does not know the extent of the 

exploitation elsewhere. 

Which is worse for Marx? 

Is this man more miserable for being comfortably blind, OR, is this man more comfortable, 

than miserable, for being idle and impoverished and not subject to the torture of work. 

Once again, the tyranny of the “or”. 

Hans: You are misunderstanding Destutt’s quote, but otherwise there are some very deep thoughts in this. 



Question 475 is 601 in 2001fa, 729 in 2004fa, 806 in 2007SP, 775 in 2007fa, 805 in 

2008SP, 810 in 2008fa, 913 in 2010fa, and 946 in 2011fa: 

Question 475 Define and discuss the law of the absolute impoverishment of the working 

class. Does it apply today? 

[449] Broker: question 475 Marx states, “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, 

at the same time accumulation of misery, the torment of labor, slavery, ignorance, 

brutalization and moral degradation at the opposite pole, i.e. on the side of the class that 

produces its own product as capital.” This statement abruptly defines the law of absolute 

impoverishment as the accumulation of capital. In my opinion, Marx foresaw capital accumulation 

as the ultimate evil. The opposing forces associated between the working class and 

the capital class promote impoverishment. Both sides economic goals oppose each other, 

with the capital classes’ prevailing. The working classes’ goal is forced survival and existence. 

The capital classes’ goal is to increase profits through enslaving the working class 

and directly feeding off its labor power. 

Absolute impoverishment is appropriate terminology because the economic system is 

truly absolute. If capitalism, as an economic system, is allowed to continue the working 

class will always be enslaved and the capital class will always prosper. Marx mathematically 

proved this concept by demonstrating the working classes’s work day: only a minute 

proportion is allocation for him/her self. 

The law of impoverishment applies in today’s societies, because equality does not exist 

any were in the world. The relative surplus population, always abundant with in the world, 

promotes the capital class to exploit. What makes the situation worse is relative surplus population 

needs exploiting for its own survival and continuation. The cyclical nature inherent 

in capitalism breeds impoverishment. 

Finally, one of the concluding sentences in the Communist Manifesto, roughly states, 

“Workers take up your chains and unite.” This sentence never had much personal meaning 

until understanding the cyclical nature of capitalism. Marx foresaw the fate of billions of 

people trapped within a pit survival labor. Crushing the choking chains of capitalism before 

it hardened was the only hope the working class had for freedom. 

Hans: You are writing: 

The opposing forces associated between the working class and the capital class promote impoverishment. 

I.e., instead of saying the working class is impoverished because the capitalists monopolize the means of production 

you are saying: the working class is impoverished because there is a struggle between capitalists and workers. Do 

you really mean this? 

Marx’s law of the absolute impoverishment says that the working class will become poorer and poorer not only 

relatively to the capitalists, but also absolutely. Your answer does not address the question whether this is true or 

not. 

Message [449] referenced by [2004fa:612]. First Message by Broker is [162.1]. 

Question 480 is 386 in 1997WI, 456 in 1998WI, 734 in 2004fa, 681 in 2005fa, 780 in 


Question 480 What is the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation?


[430] Angus: Capitalism equals Misery To correctly answer this question we must first 

understand that capital accumulation leads to a long run increase in the Industrial Reserve 

Army. (The IRA is the pool of unemployed, or partially unemployed, workers that is continually 

changing in size and composition.) Capitalists are constantly striving to minimize costs 

and maximize profits by increasing the exploitation of labor and innovating by introducing 

new and more efficient machinery. Capital accumulation involves additional expenditures 

on constant capital and variable capital. Therefore, given a constant rate of exploitation, a 

capitalist can increase the surplus value created by increasing variable capital. (I.e. employing 

more labor power.) As the capitalist gets richer he wants to consume more and 

accumulate less. For the capitalist, capital accumulation is good because it tends to destroy 

the competitive system and creates monopolies. 

According to Marx: 

The relative mass of the industrial reserve army thus increases with the potential energy 

of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labor army, the 

greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus population, whose misery is in inverse ratio to 

the amount of torture it has to undergo in the form of labor. The more extensive, finally, 

the pauperized sections of the working class and the industrial reserve army, the greater is 

official pauperism. This is the absolute general law of capital accumulation. [798:1] 

Thus, the growth of the industrial reserve army allows the capitalist to increase the exploitation 

of labor by decreasing the value of labor power (because of increasing productivity), 

increasing the intensity of labor and weakening the bargaining power of the workers. 

But most important of all, the growth of capitalism leads to increasing alienation. Thus I 

agree with Hans in that, “With the increasing number and increasing poverty of the proletariat, 

capital breeds its own grave diggers.” (Hans, p205) 

First Message by Angus is [6]. 

Question 485 is 227 in 1995WI, 268 in 1996ut, 391 in 1997WI, 455 in 1997ut, and 682 in 

2003fa: 

Question 485 Explain carefully to what extent the relations of production are determinate, 

necessary, and independent of people’s wills. 

[14] Martin: Relations of Production As a lay student both of economics and of German 

I am particularly interested in this question, and value the opportunity of Hans’s comments. 

I do not know how much care though I can bring to my explanation, but I will try. 

As Hans’s notes indicate there is much debate around the relationship between the productive 

forces (I am sorry but I cannot get my head around a further change of terminology 

at this moment) and the relations of production. 

Much depends on the meaning of words like “determinate” and “conditioned” and whether 

the English is a faithful translation of the German with the right connotations. 

A big prejudice against Marxism is that it describes an inevitable progress of history 

which does not respect individual will. 

Now the questions. 


a) to what extent are the relations of production determinate? 

I am afraid I still prefer the traditional English translation of “definite” which may mean 

no more than definite as in “the definite article”. I wonder also if something like “certain” 

or “particular” might work. I think in essence it means concrete. 

Now if the word determined is used, I agree with the notes that this should not be understood 

rigidly. There is a “tendency” for the productive powers/forces to progress. Similarly 

“economic relations have their own dynamic, but they thrive better in one technological 

environment than in another”. 

Mathematicians and physicists use the word “determine” in a technical way. Some nonlinear 

equations can produce results that are “determinedly indeterminate” - that is the variables 

definitely determine certain results but the precise value of those results cannot be 

known in advance. The have a tendency to fall within certain bands. It is interesting that 

Marx claims that the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, can 

be ascertained with the precision of natural science. If so I think the word determinate should 

be used in the determinately indeterminate sense. The scientific sense is different from the 

anthropomorphic sense, like I am determined to put my hand up, or I am determined to 

submit these answers before tomorrow. 

b) to what extent are the relations of production necessary? 

I think this implies necessary given the material productive powers. But at the risk of 

not answering the question, I think there is a fuzziness here, as shown by the different interpretations 

what is primary in this dynamic between productive powers and relations of 

production. I think it is a contradiction in which there is unity as well as struggle, and one 

side of the contradiction at one time or another may have the leading role. 

Whether Russian or China could advance to socialism without an intervening phase of 

capitalism has been a major question in Marxist politics. Is it “necessary” for them to go 

through a capitalist phase? It remains a burning question now. 

c) to what extent are the relations of production independent of their wills? 

Vastly: Marx’s analysis is that certainly under exploiting society humans live at best only 

in a state of semi-consciousness. Even when they think in our society that they are most 

free at present, they are absorbing and reproducing patterns of thinking characteristic of the 

civil society that emerged with the capitalist mode of production. Even with the struggle to 

achieve a deeper consciousness of what is really happening it is extremely difficult through 

even collective will to change the relations of production. These dramatic passages imply 

for Marxists almost a sort of fatalism that could be very optimistic or very pessimistic. 

I see in the Dictionary of Marxist Thought, in the entry on ‘forces and relations of production’, 

that the English marxist economist, Laurence Harris, says that Cohen sees some 

optimism from a factor which lies outside the forces and relations of production: “this motive 

force is human rationality, a rational and ever-present impulse of human beings to try to 

better their situation and overcome scarcity by developing the productive forces.”


I prefer to see the seeds of some new relations of production emerging in connection with 

new productive powers, eg the collective power of cooperative working on the internet, and 

on the basis of such signs to hope for a change in the prevailing relations of production. But 

that means that the relations of production are still essentially independent of human will. 

Even with a political movement to introduce socialism, I think we will have to shape the 

relations of production and cannot just decree that they become socialist, and punish people 

for not obeying. So we are talking about an economic dynamic that is only partly dependent 

on human collective will at the best of times, and is virtually totally independent of the will 

of any one individual. 

Message [14] referenced by [15]. Next Message by Martin is [20]. 

[15] Hans: Relations of Production a) to what extent are the relations of production 

determinate? 

Instead of “determinate”, Martin in [14] proposes the translation “definite” (as in “the definite 

article”), “certain”, or “particular”. All these are possible translations of the German 

word “bestimmt”, but I’d like to know more precisely what any of this means here. Martin 

thinks “in essence it means concrete.” I am not convinced. What are “concrete” social 

relations? Those where you get a good whipping when you don’t conform? Just kidding. 

In my view, Marx uses the word “bestimmt” (determinate) to indicate that these relations 

of production are not arbitrary, but subject to certain laws or to some inner logic. In order 

to see the significance of this, you need to be aware that according to Marx’s understanding, 

there are “gaps” in the economy: not all economic phenomena are determined by economic 

laws, but certain economic phenomena are “indeterminate” in the sense that they are not 

governed by iron economic necessities but perhaps set by the struggle of the contending 

interests. For instance, in Chapter Ten, Marx argues that the laws of economics only give 

very partial information about the length of the working day and the level of wages: the 

working day must be long enough and the wages low enough that the worker produces more 

value per day than he takes home in wages. But how much more is not determined by iron 

economic laws, but by the class struggle between workers and capitalists. This is a different 

outlook than that of neoclassical economics, which claims that wages are set by marginal 

productivity, i.e., a struggle for higher wages is hopeless because it amounts to a violation 

of the laws of the economy. 

I think when Marx says the relations of production are determinate, then he stresses their 

lawful character: these relations cannot be set arbitrarily by the participants, but they are 

subject to certain laws. The character of this lawfulness is the subject of the Preface which 

we are discussing here. 

Martin suggests that the word “determinate” should be taken in the meaning of deterministic 

chaotic systems: although the system itself is fully deterministic, the trajectory of the 

system depens very sensitively on the initial conditions, and since the initial conditions are 

never known with certainty, the system is really indeterminate. I think Marx means exactly 

the opposite: although the historical sequence of events may be very different for the different 

countries, they all end up with very similar relations of production, since these relations 

are determined by certain economic laws and not the result of historical accidents. 


b) to what extent are the relations of production necessary? 

Martin brings here the question whether capitalism is necessary or whether it would be 

possible to go directly to socialism. I don’t think this is the issue here. These relations are 

necessary because people cannot survive outside them. Marx stresses here that we are social 

beings, not independent individuals. 

c) to what extent are the relations of production independent of their wills? 

Here I agree with Martin, who stresses that the economic structure is not only independent 

of individual wills, but that it in turn influences what people think and what they desire. Of 

course, the goal is to overcome this so that individuals in society can have a conscious 

influence on their social relations. Revolutionaries, who try to build a better society, are 

doing exactly that. Marx did not mean to imply that this is hopeless, but it is certainly quite 

difficult. 


Question 502 is 62 in 2000fa, 75 in 2005fa, 88 in 2007fa, and 91 in 2009fa: 

Question 502 Which of the following family relations best correspond to the relation between 

value, use value, and exchange value? 

(a) If you are value, use value is your daughter and exchange value your son. 

(b) If you are value, use value is your brother and exchange value your son. 

(c) If you are value, use value is your father and exchange value your son. 

(d) If you are value, use value is your daughter and exchange value your granddaughter. 

[126] Hans: Third Multiple Choice Question Not Counted I will not count this question 

because there were too few answers which I considered the correct answer. I wanted the 

correct answer to be (b). Exchagne value can be considered the son of value because it is the 

form of value. Use value is the brother of value because use value and value are both in the 

commodity. 

(a) is wrong because one cannot consider “value” the general term of which use value 

and exchange value are subterms. Marx says: vlue and use value have nothing to do with 

each other. 

(c) and (d) suggest a unilinear relation between the three which is not present either. 

As I said, this question will not be counted. 


Multiple Choice Question 503 All of the following statements are paraphrases of sentences 

Marx said in Section 3 of Chapter One. In one of these statements, one words was changed, 

so that this statement becomes wrong. Can you guess which statement is wrong, and which 

word would have to be changed how to make it right? (a) The transition from the Simple 

form of value to the Expanded form is automatic. (b) The Expanded form of value strictly 

excludes any expression of value common to all commodities. (c) The Expanded form of 

value can only arise as a joint work of the whole world of commodities. (d) Only by the 

General Form of value commodities are, for the first time, effectively brought in relation to 

each other as values.

[123] Hans: Multiple Choice Questions (a) is 154:3 

(b) is 158:3 

(c) is wrong, it should say: General Form of value; 

see 158:5/o 

(d) is 158:4 



Multiple Choice Question 504 All of the following statements are paraphrases of sentences 

Marx said in Section 3 of Chapter One. In one of these statements, one words was changed, 

so that this statement becomes wrong. Can you guess which statement is wrong, and which 

word would have to be changed how to make it right? 

(a) The Simple form of value merely distinguishes the value of a commodity from its use 

value but does not show that this value is equal to that of all other commodities. 

(b) The Expanded form of value is the first form in which the value of the linen truly appears 

as a congealed quantity of undifferentiated labor. 

(c) In both the Simple and Expanded Forms of value, it is the private task, so to speak, of the 

individual commodity to give itself a form of value. 

(d) In the General form of value, the relative value of each commodity is different than the 

relative form of value of every other commodity. 

[127] Hans: Fourth Multiple Choice Question Thursday (a), (b), and (c) are correct as 

far as Marx is concerned: 

(a) is 154:2 

(b) is 155:2 

(c) is 158:5/o 

(d) is wrong; it should say Expanded instead of General, see 156:2/o. 

Some people said (b) is wrong because the Expanded form of value is not the only form in 

which the value of the linen truly appears as congealed undifferentiated labor. In the General 

form and Money form one could argue the same thing. Indeed, this was a bad tranlation; 

the word “only” is in German “erst” which means, the Expanded form of value is the first 

form in which the value truly appears as congealed undifferentiated labor. Therefore if you 

checked (b) I counted it as right too. 


Term Paper 907 is 507 in 1997WI, 507 in 1997sp, 907 in 1997ut, 907 in 1998WI, 907 in 

2001fa, 807 in 2005fa, and 535 in 2008SP: 

Term Paper 907 Essay about Chapter Seven: Labor Process and Valorization Process 

[310] Winston, PowderNow, Karlito, and Navin: 7.1 

Chapter seven discusses the consumption of labor power by the capitalist. Section one of 

chapter seven starts out by discussing the labor process, which is the creation of use value. 

Marx again talks about labor power versus labor. Labor power is the potential to work where 


labor is the actual work. If someone cannot sell their labor, they can in fact sell their “labor 

power” to a capitalist for a wage. But Marx discusses the labor process in general, not only 

the capitalist labor process that is the purchasing of labor power. 

There are three elements to the labor process. They are 1) the work itself, 2) the subject of 

that work, and 3), the instruments that are used. An elaboration of each of these concepts is 

needed. The work itself is made up of labor that creates the value. Marx said the following, 

“Labor is, in the first place, a process in which both man and nature participate, and in which 

man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material reactions between himself 

and nature” [283:2/o]. So both labor and nature create the use-value of a commodity. The 

laborer utilizes the forces of nature and manipulates nature so that it fits human needs. The 

laborer previously imagined each project and the result matches their purposes. 

The subject for which the work is taking place is either things that humans have separated 

from nature or things that have already been filtered through previous labor. This second set 

of subjects is called “raw materials” or things that have already undergone some alteration 

by means of labor. But Marx says, “all raw material is the subject of labor, but not every 

subject of labor is raw material...” [284:2/o]. 

The instruments of labor are used to direct the work onto the subject of labor or act as a 

liaison between the subject and the laborer. The use of instruments is a specific characteristic 

of the human labor process. 

Once the labor process is finished, labor is bound up within the subject. It is important to 

understand that except for extractive industries, all other industries deal with raw material. 

As stated above, raw materials are subjects of labor that have already been through the labor 

process. Therefore, raw material is also a product and possesses another use value. The 

product, although it is ready for immediate consumption, can serve as a raw material for 

another product. If we look at the whole process from the viewpoint of the product, we can 

see that both the instrument and the subject of labor (formally raw material) are means of 

production. 

Raw material can be used either as the principal substance of a product or as an accessory. 

As an accessory, it is consumed in the labor process, added to another raw material, or used 

to help accomplish the work itself. For example, it may be used as oil for a machine that is 

accomplishing a certain task, added as cheese to a trap to catch a mouse, or even gasoline that 

is the principal force behind a machine. Sometimes the product of a certain labor process 

will actually be used as raw material within a future labor process of the same type. One 

example given in Capital is that of grapes becoming raw material for wine. Marx states that 

“Products are therefore not only results of labor, but also its essential conditions” [287:3]. 

The determination of the use value’s creation of a product occurs via the process. Finished 

products have potential use value, but must rely on the living labor to realize that potential. 

There are two forms of consumption: product consumption and productive consumption. 

The individual can consume a product as a means of subsistence, or it can be used by the 

laborer to perform the labor process.


As discussed within the class submissions, the capitalist owns the labor power of the 

worker. The capitalist also owns the means of production, resulting in the ownership of the 

product. Because of this ownership, the labor process belongs to the capitalist. 

7.2 

There are two objectives for capitalists in producing commodities. The first objective 

in the production of commodities is to produce a use value which when sold has exchange 

value. The second is to produce a commodity that has a greater value than the sum of the 

values used in the production, which are means of production and labor-power. 

How does the capitalist produce a commodity that has a greater value than the sum of 

the values used in the production? The capitalist achieves this goal because the process of 

producing commodities is not just a labor process, it’s also a process to create value. 

To define how the capitalist produces surplus value, Marx uses the production of yarn 

as an example. To help clarify this example shillings will be changed to dollars. In this 

example the first step is to quantify the labor that is realized in the production of 10 lbs. of 

yarn. The raw material needed to make yarn is cotton, so lets say that to produce 10 lbs. of 

yarn, 10 lbs. of cotton that the capitalist bought for $10 is used. Also in the production of 

yarn is the use of instruments of labor, for this we will use the spindle, whose wear and tear 

is equal to $2. The value of the cotton $10, and the value of the spindle $2, represent the 

socially necessary time realized in making these products. 

Now Marx assumes that the value of one day’s labor is equal to $3, and that $3 is equal 

to 6 hours of labor. Marx assumes that in 6 hrs it is possible to produce 10 lbs. of yarn. 

Up to this point the value of $10 lbs. of yarn is $15 ($10 + $2 + $3), so there is no surplus 

value produced yet. The value of 1/2 day’s labor (6 hrs) is equal to the wage that is required 

to maintain the worker for 24 hours, or the value of labor-power. The capitalist then takes 

advantage of the time still left in the day and employs the worker for another 6 hours. In 12 

hours the worker produces 20 lbs. of yarn which has a value of $30. When the value of 20 

lbs. of yarn produced by a worker in a day is examined it becomes clear where the capitalist 

gains surplus value. 20 lbs. of yarn is equal to $20 cotton, $4 spindles, and $3 labor, and the 

$3 left is surplus value. The capitalist gains $3 surplus value by employing the worker for 

12 hours and paying for only the value of labor-power which equals 6 hours. 

Thus we see that the value of labor-power and the value it creates are two different quantities. 

The capitalist gains surplus value by taking advantage of labor-power to create commodities. 

Hans: Here are some small nitpickings. You says about Section 1: 

Marx again talks about labor power versus labor. Labor power is the potential to work where 

labor is the actual work. If someone cannot sell their labor, they can in fact sell their “labor 

power” to a capitalist for a wage. 

Apparently, this refers to the following sentence in 283:1, which is the first paragraph of the Chapter: 

The buyer of labor power consumes it by setting the seller of it to work. By working, the latter 

becomes in actuality what he previously was only potentially, namely labor power in action, a 

worker. 

This is a transitional paragraph, establishing the connection with the preceding Chapter Six. Chapter Seven itself 

no longer rides around on the distinction between selling one’s labor power and selling one’s labor, but it discusses 


the various components of the labor proces, of which labor is one. The other two are the object being worked on, 

and the instruments of labor. 

Regarding labor, you first brings a Marx quote: 

and then you add 

“Labor is, in the first place, a process in which both man and nature participate, and in which 

man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material reactions between himself 

and nature” [283:2/o]. 

So both labor and nature create the use-value of a commodity. 

We are not talking about commodities at this point. Commodities are things produced for sale. Marx is talking here 

about any labor process, whether or not the product is a commodity. 

The object being worked on is called “subject of labor” in both translations, because it is the thing subjected to 

labor. This is an unfortunate terminology which is easily misunderstood. It is not, as you write, the “subject for 

which the work is taking place”! 

Message [310] referenced by [333]. Next Message by Winston is [396]. 

[325] Hayduke: Capitalism and the end of nature This is in response to the term paper 

by Winston, PowderNow, Karlito and Navin. I think they did a great job in summing up the 

relation of labor and nature in creating use-value. 

In the second paragraph they state “So both labor and and nature create the use value of 

a commodity. The labor utilizes the forces of nature and manipulates nature so that it fits 

human needs.” I know Marx is mostly concerned by the issue of labor in this chapter, because 

he is laying down the foundation of an argument for an inherent contradiction in capitalism, 

where in the pursuit of profit, capitalists will have to keep exploiting labor more, until they 

finally organize and take over the state. However, I think it is worthwhile to consider what 

the implication towards nature are as well. 

Marx states that “Labor is, in the first place, a process in which both man and nature 

participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material 

reactions between himself and nature.” (C187: 14-17). We can see here, that both man and 

nature are vital components in the creation of value. This means that for the capitalist to 

keep pursuing money, which is the top priority for any good capitalist, not only will he have 

to exploit workers more, he will also have to expoit nature more. This is another inherent 

contradiction in capitalism, because we have limited resources. Currently, we are using 

resources at an unsustainable rate, meaning eventually, we will run out, or have to reorganize 

society radically to deal with diminished resources. Furthermore, as conditions deteriorate, 

capitalists have been successfully pitting workers against environmentalists, to detract from 

themselves. For example, in Oregon, the loggers blame environmentalists for them losing 

jobs, even though most of them lost jobs because they were replaced by machines. We need 

to all be clear on where the problem lies, so we do not fight amongst ourselves while the 

root of the problem goes unnoticed. 

Message [325] referenced by [333]. Next Message by Hayduke is [374]. 

[333] Hans: Chaper Seven: Labor and Valorization Termpaper [310] about Chapter 

Seven is very good. It summarizes a good part of the Chapter and also makes it clear why 

the things said in this Chapter are relevant. 

The only thing that I did not like is that the paper goes through long passages of the 

Chapter paragraph by paragraph, but then it also silently skips over other important passages


altogether. The paper should have indicated that it is a selection, and told the reader what 

the criteria for this selection are. 

Hayduke [325] adds one point which is very relevant today: capitalism not only exploits 

the worker but also destroys nature. Did Marx see this, and did he see the importance of it? 

This is a question many Marxists are asking today. Although I like Hayduke’s question, his 

answer is flawed. He starts with Marx’s remark that nature plays a role in the creation of use 

values and tries to derive from this that 

for the capitalist to keep pursuing money, which is the top priority for any 

good capitalist, not only will he have to exploit workers more, he will also 

have to exploit nature more. 

This conclusion is not convincing, since Marx explicitly says that although use values 

are produced by labor and nature together, value is produced by labor alone. But asking the 

right questions is sometimes as important as supplying the answers to these questions. 


Term Paper 908 is 508 in 1997sp, 908 in 1998WI, 908 in 2001fa, 529 in 2007fa, and 539 

in 2008fa: 

Term Paper 908 Essay about Chapter Eight: Constant and Variable Capital 

[282] Luc, Cartman, Josef, and Navin: The production process of widgets In Chapter 

8 Marx deals with the various factors of the labor process that form the value of a product. 

These factors are divided into two categories: constant capital and variable capital. 

According to Marx, constant capital is “that part of capital, therefore, which is turned 

into means of production, i.e. the raw material, the auxiliary material and the instruments 

of labor, does not undergo any quantitative alteration of value in the process of production.” 

[317:3] In other words, “the instruments of labor transfer to the product only that value 

which they lose themselves,” no more or less. (Engels P.169 [203]) 

On the other hand, “that part of capital which is turned into labour-power does undergo an 

alteration of value in the process of production,” Marx calls this variable capital. (V317:4) 

In [238] Luc describes the given work day geometrically: “The whole line A——-B— 

C represents the given work day, the section AB represent hours of necessary labor, and 

the section BC represents the surplus labor.” Marx asserts that the section BC may vary 

depending on the circumstances. 

Constant and variable capital lead to a two fold effect in the labor process: 1. With 

additional quantities of labor, value is added to a product. 2. Through the quality of this 

added labor the value in the means of production is preserved in the product. 

For example, consider Harry the Widget maker. Harry produces one Widget per hour on 

his machine. Then someone invents a new and improved Widget producing machine. On the 

new machine, Harry produces 10 Widgets per hour. His labor can now produce ten times as 

many widgets per hour. Each widget contains only one tenth as much labor as the original 

widget. However, the widgets now absorb a greater proportion of the preserved value from 

the means of production. 


The labor process adds new value to the widget, while, at the same time, transferring the 

value of the new machine to the widget. This value is preserved by adding new value. Marx 

asserts that “the worker does not perform two pieces of work simultaneously. But by the 

very act of adding new value he preserves their former values.” [307:3] 

The process we have described does not affect the difference between constant and variable 

capital, it only affects the quantitative relation between the two. 

Hans: See [293]. Here are a few other passages from your term paper, with my comments: 

On the other hand, “that part of capital which is turned into labour-power does undergo an 

alteration of value in the process of production,” Marx calls this variable capital. (V317:4) In 

[238] Luc describes the given work day geometrically: “The whole line A——-B—C represents 

the given work day, the section AB represent hours of necessary labor, and the section 

BC represents the surplus labor.” Marx asserts that the section BC may vary depending on the 

circumstances. 

The variability of section BC is not the reason why the part of the capital spent on the workers’ wages is called 

variable capital. 

Constant and variable capital lead to a two fold effect in the labor process: 1. With additional 

quantities of labor, value is added to a product. 2. Through the quality of this added labor the 

value in the means of production is preserved in the product. 

This is not an effect of constant and variable capital. The labor process has this twofold effect even in simple 

commodity production without capitalism. 


[293] Hans: Chapter Eight: a Resounding “So What?” Chapter Eight is one of the 

tedious Chapters where Marx endlessly rides around on seemingly pedantic, trivial, and 

obvious things. Under this barrage of triviality it is easy to lose sight of what the significance 

of all this is. The authors of [282] are completely in the dark about this significance. 

If anyone else want to write about Chapter Eight, please ask yourselves: why is any of 

this relevant for an understanding of capitalism? 

Other than giving this summary critique, I only want to point out one very subtle error, in 

order to acquaint you with the fine points of a depth-realist outlook. Termaper [282] says: 

The labor process adds new value to the widget, while, at the same time, 

transferring the value of the [means of production] to the widget. This value 

is preserved by adding new value. 

This last sentence is inaccurate or, at least, misleading. Marx argues that the creation of 

new value comes from abstract labor, but the transfer of the already existing value of the 

means of production comes from the concrete useful labor. It is therefore not the addition of 

new value as such which preserves and transfers the old value. This is why I am taking issue 

with the above sentence. But doesn’t Marx say exactly this in the following sentence? 

“But by the very act of adding new value [the laborer] preserves their former 

values.” [307:3] 

No, there is a subtle difference in meaning. This sentence must be read to mean that the 

old value is preserved in the same process which adds new value. Marx gives the solution 

of this riddle a little later in the Chapter: those things which the worker has to do in order to 

add new value also have the side effect, behind the worker’s back, as Marx says, and without


additional cost to the worker, of preserving the old value. It happens in the same process as 

the creation of new value, but it is not the consequence of the creation of new value itself. 


[332] Doc: Constant and Variable Capital This is in response to the term paper turned 

in by Luc, Cartman, Josef, and Navin. I believe that this term paper didn’t quite hit on the 

concepts that Marx was trying to spell out in this chapter. It is a confusing chapter but the 

key elements that I read from chapter 8 are as follows. 

The value of something is transfered to the product through the labor process. The act 

of adding new value preserves (enhances) the original value of the product. We get two 

distinctive result from the new value to the subject of labor as well as the preservation of the 

former value. This can be explained by the two-fold design of labor, it must create value and 

also preserve value. 

Labor adds new value by virtue of the laborers’ expertise, knowledge, and training. This 

tranfers value to the product: (i.e.: weaver by weaving, spinner by spinning, etc). Also, any 

instrument of labor during its period of service its use value is completely consumed and its 

exchange value is transferred to the product. 

The gratuitous gift of labor (blood, sweat and tears of the laborer) is how the capitalist 

makes his surplus value or preserves his capital. The use value is consumed and by the use 

value being consumed by labor results in the product. Marx states “the surplus value is the 

difference between the value of the product and the value of the elements consumed in the 

formation of the product.” Or labor and production methods. 

Contant capital is raw materials and instruments of labor which do not alter in value. 

Variable capital is labor power which does change in value. 

A change in proportion between these two types of capital does not affect their functions. 

Hans: Many typos in the original submission. 

Message [332] referenced by [334]. Next Message by Doc is [339]. 

[334] Hans: Two Functions of Labor: Create new Value and Transfer Old The labor 

process has two effects: it transfers value from the materials and instruments used up, and it 

creates new value. Marx argues in Chapter Eight that these two effects come from the two 

different aspects of the labor process which we introduced earlier: the transfer of value from 

concrete useful labor, and the creation of new value from abstract labor. 

Doc [332] recognizes this in part, but it is somewhat confused. He writes: 

Labor adds new value by virtue of the laborers expertise, knowledge, and 

training. 

In other words, Doc says that value is created by concrete useful labor. According to 

Marx, this is exactly not the case! Value is added by virtue of the fact that the laborer uses a 

portion of his labor power available to society on this product. The skillful handling of the 

product preserves and transfers the value of the means of production, and the abstract labor 

of the worker adds new value to the product. 


This is why productive labor is often so monotonous and boring: the capitalist is after the 

workers’ abstract labor, and therefore the labor process is stripped down to its most abstract 

components. On the other hand, wastage of materials is high: this is the laborer’s revenge. 

Hurried by the capitalists, he does not put much thought into how to be economical with the 

materials. 


Term Paper 910 is 510 in 1997WI, 510 in 1997sp, 910 in 1997ut, 910 in 1998WI, 910 in 


Term Paper 910 Essay about Chapter Ten: Working Day 

[239] Maverick and Maine: The Working Day The majority of chapter ten consists 

of a historical overview pertaining to the evolution of the working day. Nineteenth century 

England is the primary focus as Marx discusses the struggle of the working class to shorten 

the lengthy working day which the exploitative bourgeoisie had imposed in their neverending 

desire to accumulate wealth. Before mentioning a couple of the historical accounts 

that interested us, we will briefly discuss the mechanics behind the determination of the 

working day as described by Marx. 

Marx begins by comparing labor power to any other commodity which is bought and sold 

at its value. Its value is of course derived from the labor time necessary to produce it. It is 

necessary for a person to work a certain amount of hours a day in order to sustain himself. 

Time worked beyond the hours required for sustenance becomes what Marx referred to as 

surplus labor. The ratio of surplus labor time to necessary labor time is what determines 

surplus-value. We learned in Chapter Four that the sole purpose of capital is the creation 

of surplus-value and this can better be achieved by the extraction of the greatest amount of 

surplus labor possible. Therefore, the owner of the means of production will require the 

maximum amount of hours that his workers can provide. If it were physically possible, the 

owners would force their workers to dedicate all twenty-four hours of the day. 

So the buyer of labor has the right to demand the value of his commodity and to lengthen 

the working day as much as he can. On the other hand, the seller of labor, which can be 

labeled as an exhaustible commodity, has the right to demand a normal working day. Now 

Marx makes an interesting note on page 344, “Between equal rights, force decides.” As 

history suggests, the capitalist proletariat has dominated the working class in this struggle 

for rights. 

On page 345, Marx makes another interesting observation. “...in any economic formation 

of society where the use-value rather than the exchange-value of the product predominates...no 

boundless thirst for surplus will arise from the character of production itself.” As 

an example, he uses the negro labor in the southern states of the American Union. As long 

as production went to meet the needs of the local population, the slaves were treated somewhat 

decently, for slaves. But when cotton became an important export, the slaves were 

overworked for the production of surplus-value. 

The manufacturers of nineteenth century England exploited the working class in every 

way possible in their lust for surplus-value. The working class fought back by implementing


a number of factory Acts that gradually reduced the working day. Before the Act of 1833, 

children were worked all day, all night or even both. (390) By 1847, the ten hours Act was 

established, which would reduce the working day to ten hours. The manufacturers countered 

by reducing workers wages by 25%. (396) This was the ongoing pattern during the struggle 

between the owners and the working class. 

At the conclusion of chapter 10, Marx pleads with the working class. Once a man has 

sold his labor, he becomes subject to the vampire (capitalism), who will not let go until all 

life has been drained from the worker. The working class must come together to form a 

social barrier and protect themselves from the death so inevitable from the moment contract 

with capital is made. (416) 

Message [239] referenced by [248] and [353]. Next Message by Maverick is [276]. 

[248] Hans: Class Biases in Essay Writing Maverick and Maine [239] elected to give a 

bird’s eye view of the Working Day Chapter. It is an excellent paper. The writing is compact 

and clear. But a lot of meaning can be conveyed by small nuances in formulation. Therefore 

I will go through the whole paper here and take a close look on how things are formulated. 

The majority of Chapter Ten consists of a historical overview pertaining to 

the evolution of the working day. 

This sounds too much like: Marx is decribing history for the sake of history. Marx always 

makes a point, or several points, with his historical sketches. Indeed, Maverick and Maine 

will draw several important lessons from the Chapter, lessons which are relevant even today. 

But presently they seem to be keen on creating the impression that the Chapter is only a 

historical study. The next formulation is almost an explicit denial that Marx draws general 

lessons from history: 

Nineteenth century England is the primary focus as Marx discusses the 

struggle ... 

The primary focus is not nineteenth century England but capitalism. Marx selected England 

only because at his time, capitalism was the most advanced and the most pure in England. 

Had he written today, he would undoubtedly have selected the USA. 

Who is struggling, and for what? 

of the working class to shorten the lengthy working day which the exploitative 

bourgeoisie had imposed in their never-ending desire to accumulate 

wealth. 

Bad formulation. The crimes of the bourgeoisie are taken for granted, and the working 

class is depicted as the trouble maker. There is always two sides in this struggle. The ruling 

class has been struggling for centuries to lengthen the working day. This is also in Chapter 

Ten, don’t ignore this! Marx gives drastic descriptions of the ruthlessness of the capitalists. 

I think it is becoming apparent that some seemingly innocuous formulations in this term 

paper convey a pro-capitalist and anti-working-class bias. This does not mean Maverick and 

Maine are consciously pro-capitalist; I rather get the impression that they are open-minded 

and want to be objective. But our exposure to the unceasing pro-capitalist propaganda leaves 


traces on everybody, and we have to consciously combat this. You can only overcome it if 

you recognize it. Therefore please don’t take my criticism personally. 

This is not the first pro-capitalist bias in this essay. Also the emphasis that the Chapter is 

historical and the focus is on England implies that those bad things which Marx describes 

in the Working Day Chapter do not really concern us; they are in the past and in a different 

country. But the system which has committed the crimes described by Marx in 19th century 

England is still with us today, and it hasn’t become any less criminal, as you can see presently 

from the bombing of Yugoslavia and Iraq. 

Before mentioning a couple of the historical accounts that interested us, we 

will briefly discuss the mechanics behind the determination of the working 

day as described by Marx. 

Next comes the first important lesson the authors draw from the Working Day Chapter. 

Read this carefully, this is an important one: 

Marx begins by comparing labor power to any other commodity which is 

bought and sold at its value. Its value is of course derived from the labor 

time necessary to produce it. It is necessary for a person to work a certain 

amount of hours a day in order to sustain himself. Time worked beyond 

the hours required for sustenance becomes what Marx referred to as surplus 

labor. The ratio of surplus labor time to necessary labor time is what 

determines surplus-value. We learned in Chapter Four that the sole purpose 

of capital is the creation of surplus-value and this can better be achieved by 

the extraction of the greatest amount of surplus labor possible. Therefore, 

the owner of the means of production will require the maximum amount of 

hours that his workers can provide. If it were physically possible, the owners 

would force their workers to dedicate all twenty-four hours of the day. 

So the buyer of labor has the right to demand the value of his commodity 

and to lengthen the working day as much as he can. 

This last sentence confuses value and use value. You should have written: “So the buyer 

of labor has the right to use his commodity as he sees fit and to lengthen the working day as 

much as he can.” But the gist of what you are saying is right. Let’s go on: 

On the other hand, the seller of labor, which can be labeled as an exhaustible 

commodity, has the right to demand a normal working day. 

Again there is pro-capitalist bias: you are spending a long paragraph on the interests 

of the capitalist and only one short sentence on the interests of the workers. And instead of 

saying, the workers sell their labor power in order to be able to have a decent living, and they 

are entitled to the pursuit of their happiness like everyone else, you are abstracting from the 

workers as persons altoghether and are only saying that they have an exhaustible resource. 

If they didn’t, would they then not be entitled to a decent life? 

But let this critical side note on my part not detract us from the overall development:


Now Marx makes an interesting note on page 344, “Between equal rights, 

force decides.” 

This is indeed one of the key sentences of this whole long Chapter. Let me reformulate. 

The economic laws leave the length of the working day and also the precise level of the 

wages undecided. Capitalism works with low wages and high profits, but it also works 

with high wages and low profits. Either of those is equally “just.” Which of these scenarios 

prevails is therefore the subject of struggles. The message is here: it does make sense to join 

unions and demoraticize the unions and push for higher wages. But Maverick and Maine 

make sure that the reader will not become too enthusiastic about all this. In the very next 

sentence they write: 

As history suggests, the capitalist proletariat has dominated the working 

class in this struggle for rights. 

It is true, in the long run the capitalist class is in a stronger position. But this does not 

mean we should give up right now. If we try to do something, anything, against the system, 

we will learn from our defeats and find ways to succeed in the end. If we never even try we 

have no chance to get a better system. 

Now here is lesson (2): 

On page 345, Marx makes another interesting observation. “...in any economic 

formation of society where the use-value rather than the exchangevalue 

of the product predominates...no boundless thirst for surplus will arise 

from the character of production itself.” As an example, he uses the negro 

labor in the southern states of the American Union. As long as production 

went to meet the needs of the local population, the slaves were treated 

somewhat decently, for slaves. But when cotton became an important export, 

the slaves were overworked for the production of surplus-value. 

Again a good point. Next, the authors give a brief overview of the course of the struggles, 

which leads to lesson (3): 

The manufacturers of nineteenth century England exploited the working 

class in every way possible in their lust for surplus-value. The working 

class fought back by implementing a number of factory Acts that gradually 

reduced the working day. Before the Act of 1833, children were worked 

all day, all night or even both. (390) By 1847, the ten hours Act was established, 

which would reduce the working day to ten hours. The manufacturers 

countered by reducing workers wages by 25%. (396) This was the 

ongoing pattern during the struggle between the owners and the working 

class. 

This is not the lesson Marx drew here. Maverick and Maine are creating the impression 

that you can’t win: if the work week gets shorter, then wages must decline. If you read Marx 

more carefully, you will see that the capitalists used the cyclical crisis of 1846/7 as a pretext 

trying to create sentiment against the factory Acts. Marx compares this with a pro-slavery 


revolt. Afterwards it turns out that the capitalists were very much able to produce as much or 

more in 10 hours than they had earlier in 12, by adjusting the technology. Don’t believe the 

capitalists if they say: we can’t make profits any more if you raise wages or shorten hours. 

The European workers are presently in the process of making the work week shorter. These 

are very real gains for the working class. Americans should do the same. 

Lesson (4): 

At the conclusion of chapter 10, Marx pleads with the working class. Once 

a man has sold his labor, he becomes subject to the vampire (capitalism), 

who will not let go until all life has been drained from the worker. The 

working class must come together to form a social barrier and protect themselves 

from the death so inevitable from the moment contract with capital 

is made.(416) 

This was not only a pleading. This is a process which the working classes in England 

did go through, forced by the “serpent of their agonies.” It is something which the Amerian 

working class went through during the Great Depression. Do we have to wait for the next 

Great Depression before the American working class develops class consciousness again? 

The American working class is the sleeping giant of the world capitalist system. If it wakes 

up, capitalism would shatter into pieces in a minute. 

Message [248] referenced by [353] and [2001fa:277]. Next Message by Hans is [256]. 

Term Paper 913 is 913 in 2000fa, 913 in 2001fa, 813 in 2002fa, 813 in 2003fa, 813 in 

2005fa, 620 in 2007SP, 611 in 2008fa, 703 in 2010fa, and 753 in 2012fa: 

Term Paper 913 Essay about Chapter Thirteen: Co-operation 

[292] Angus and Brutal: Analysis of Cooperation In chapter thirteen, Marx explains 

the concept of cooperation as it applies to capitalism. According to Marx, “When numerous 

workers work together side by side in accordance with a plan, whether in the same process, 

or in different but connected processes, this form of labor is called cooperation” (K.p443). 

According to Webster’s dictionary cooperation is defined as, “working together or engaging 

in joint economic activity.” Throughout chapter thirteen Marx discusses three main benefits 

capitalist enjoy because of cooperation. 

First, when individuals cooperate they increase the productive power of the individual. 

This difference starts off as purely quantitative, where each individual laborers work is added 

up and if divided by the number of workers would yield the average labor power of the 

workers. As long as a capitalist employs a large enough number of people he does not need 

to worry about individual variances from the average because taken together the average 

labor will be accomplished by each. This is assumed to be true whether the laborers work 

alone or together. However, when people work together a synergy is created making the 

production of the group greater than that of the sum of each individual. Marx gives an 

example of moving goods up a ladder. One person going up and down the ladder will take 

much longer than a group of people lined-up on the ladder passing the goods one to another 

up the ladder. Because of this the capitalist sees more gains through cooperation than without 

it.


Second, Marx also explains how cooperation also benefits all those involved in the capital 

expenditure of labor or capital equipment. The capitalist enjoys some benefits by employing 

large numbers of people instead of only a few. The First benefit Marx describes is the 

reduced marginal fixed costs when many employees work together. As an example, Marx 

states that it is less expensive to build one building to hold many weavers, than to build 

each weaver their own workshop. This means that employers of large numbers of people 

will spend less per unit of output on such fixed costs. Modern economists would call this 

achieving economies of scale: if all inputs are increased in proportion and output increases 

by a greater proportion. 

Third, Marx also believes that humans are social animals. He points out that: 

“Mere social contact begets in most industries a rivalry and a stimulation of the animal 

spirits, which heightens the efficiency of each individual worker. This is why a dozen people 

working together will produce far more, in their collective working day of 144 hours than 

twelve isolated men working for 12 hours, and far more than one man working 12 working 

days in succession” (K.p444). 

The general rule that Marx relates to cooperation is that workers cannot cooperate without 

being brought together: their assembly in one place is a necessary condition for their cooperation 

(K.p447). This rivalry or competitive aspect of humans increases an individual’s 

efficiency even more than the synergy alone. 

Through cooperation Marx says that, “not only do we have here an increase in the productive 

power of the individual, but the creation of a new productive power, which is intrinsically 

a collective one.” However, capitalists do not pay for either the increase in individual 

productivity or the new collective productive power since wages are bargained for individually. 

Because of these three principles, the capitalist is able to achieve the greatest amount 

of exploitation. When the capitalist maximizes exploitation, the highest levels of production 

are achieved. 

Another aspect of cooperation involves having a capitalist who is a competent leader and 

good at directing authority. For according to Marx, “A single violin player is his own conductor: 

an orchestra requires a separate one” (K.p449). In order for cooperation to exist 

many people must come together, being employed by the same capital and capitalist simultaneously. 

Since laborers now work cooperatively for capital, they no longer work for 

themselves, but literally work for capital (this is different than receiving a wage for the work 

they do). Marx states that, “the work of directing, superintending and adjusting becomes 

one of the functions of capital.” Since it is capital that brings workers together and keeps 

them working in a situation of cooperation Marx calls this the “act of capital” (p. 450). 

Marx explains that this act of capital will direct investment into the projects that will create 

the most surplus value. This may seem evident, but Marx points out that this is important 

since the constraint on how many workers an individual capitalist can employ depends on 

the amount of capital he already has to pay them with. Therefore, capital becomes a requirement 

for production in a capitalist society. However, the more capital one is able to use 

in the production process the more people he will employ and thus he will need to spend 

more on managing his workers. Therefore, the many benefits that the capitalist can enjoy 


from cooperation are at least partly offset by the increased capital needed to manage a larger 

number of workers. 

Message [292] referenced by [407], [455], and [2003fa:469]. Next Message by Angus is [351]. 

[304] Jedi, Yikes, Doc, Boarder, Bull, and Zed: term paper chapter 13 Capitalist mode 

of production differentiates itself from other modes of production by combining multitudes 

of workers and engaging them in the production of a single commodity under the direction 

of the same capitalist. 

As numerous laborers work together towards the same goal in the same capacity or in a 

different but connected capacity, they are said to co-operate or to work in co-operation. 

What is the necessary condition for Co-operation to exist? Marx identifies three necessary 

conditions for co-operation. First, the capitalist needs a pre-meditated plan for production 

such as what to produce, where to produce, and who will produce for him and so on. Second, 

laborers need to be brought together by the capitalist with adequate resources to pay them. 

The third condition states that the capitalist needs to procure the needed resource, facility 

and raw materials, adequate for his mass of laborers to work. 

Marx points out that the cost to satisfy all three necessary conditions of co-operation is 

substantial as economies of scale grow. The cost is identified as capital. 

What are the benefits of Co-operation? During the early stage of the cooperative process, 

advantages are only quantitative. As the capitalist amasses labor, the increase in out put is 

merely in direct proportion to the increase in labor. However, the impact of co-operation 

directly affects the scale of production. Production goals once unachievable by isolated 

laborers can now be exceeded through co-operation. 

As the cooperative process continues, co-operation gives rise to a new productive power, 

which is intrinsically a collective one. Provoked by the competitive animal spirit inherent 

in people working together, the resulting social productive power extends in absolute terms 

the length of the working day as well as the scale of production. Additionally, the synergistic 

power of co-operation can be harnessed by the capitalist to heighten productivity and 

efficiency. 

By-Products of Co-operation: Although the capitalist only pays for each individual laborer, 

what he receives in return is far greater than the combined labor of each isolated 

worker; he is granted free of charge, the collective power of co-operation. 

Capitalizing on this additional productive power provided by co-operation, the capitalist 

is a step closer to realizing one of his objectives, the valorization of his capital. As his capital 

grow to a point, it becomes more cost-effective for the capitalist to separate himself from 

manual labor of production into the active role of management. The separation allows the 

capitalist to methodically and to the fullest extend extract the labor power of each individual 

worker, as well as the cooperative power of the multitude. 

The process of separation gives rise to a new class of people, whose role is to control 

the laboring mass. Inherent in the capitalist mode of production is the inevitable struggle 

between the two classes: the controlling, white-collar middle management, and the laboring 

mass of blue-collar workers.


Message [304] referenced by [455] and [2003fa:469]. Next Message by Jedi is [382]. 

Term Paper 914 is 814 in 2002fa, 814 in 2003fa, 814 in 2005fa, 623 in 2007SP, 612 in 


Term Paper 914 Essay about Chapter Division of Labor and Manufacture 

[335] Buda, RfBurner, Maktub, Bluto, and Kenshiro: term paper 914 Section one 

of chapter fourteen talks about the twofold origin of manufacture. The first method that 

Marx talks about is the method referred to as assemblage. This method consists of workers 

finding a specific skill and performing his labor power that is tuned to his specific skill. The 

commodity would pass through the hands of each labourer, each assigned to his independent 

handicraft. The assemblage process is just a conglomerate of independent artificers each 

performing a task that, together, would form a commodity, a carriage for example. The 

manufacture brings the process in-house, and thus forms a union of various independent 

handicrafts, which become stripped of their independence and become specialized to a point 

where they become insignificant to the production of one particular commodity. What starts 

as a simple co-operation, transforms into a group of workers who have lost touch with their 

original handicraft, due to the fact that they have become completely immersed in their 

special assignment. 

The second type of manufacture is just the opposite. It is a group of artificers in one building 

that all do the same, or very similar work. Each labourer makes the entire commodity 

and performs all the duties necessary to finish the commodity, separate and isolated from the 

other artificers. This method, eventually, brings about a division of labor. For example, if 

you have a workshop full of people making airplanes, it will soon become obvious that some 

people are better at certains things than others. We gradually evolve into a systematic division 

of labor, with each labourer performing the specific task that he is best at performing. 

Marx states “the commodity, from being the individual product of an independent artificer, 

becomes the social product of a union of artificers” (Capital, p. 457). This is the beginning 

of co-operation. 

Section two talks about the detail labourer and his implements. As a labourer devotes 

his life to the production of the same task over and over, he converts his whole body to that 

operation. He becomes a detailed labourer. Because he has spent his life doing this work, he 

becomes more and more efficient in his duties. Along with that, he learns how to produce 

the commodity with the minimum amount of exertion. 

Through the life of the detail laborer, he learns skill, which is a by-product of the manufacture 

process. Marx believes that castes and guilds arise from manufacture. He says that 

when a man devotes his life to a particular trade, that it becomes hereditary. He compares 

these castes and guilds with plants and animals, each having their proper role and place in 

society. Marx uses an example, the muslims of Dakka to stress his point about hereditary 

trades. “It is only the special skill accumulated from generation to generation, and transmitted 

from father to son, that gives to the Hindu, as it does the spider, this proficiency” 

(Capital, p. 460). 


This division of labor creates more productivity. When the workers can concentrate on 

one task, they don’t have the transition from one duty to the next. Without this transition, the 

worker can use his time more efficiently. He becomes more efficient for one of two reasons. 

On the one hand it is due to the fact that the labourer has an increased amount of time to 

spend on his task, or on the other hand, because there is a decrease in the amount of time 

that lapses between shifting from one operation to the other. These two reasons are both 

ways of the capitalist attaining more relative surplus-value. Marx believes that an artificer 

who day after day performs the same task inflicts damage on his spirit, because “constant 

labour of one uniform kind disturbs the intensity and flow of a man’s animal spirits, which 

find recreation and delight in mere change of activity” (Capital, p. 460). 

In the first two sections we have looked at the kinds of division of labor and why division 

of labor can make manufacturing more efficient. In the third section we will discuss how 

division of labor has turned into modern industry. 

Once divisons of labor were established capitalist realized that there must be co-operation 

amoung the different divisions in order for their products to be produced efficiently. If a 

capitalist employeed five differnt laborers each one had to create one of the five differnt 

parts of the product. The capitalist would find that some parts take longer and more skill to 

complete. To keep production of the parts equal the capitalist must employ more workers 

where they are needed. This shows that all of the divisions of labor in manufacturing a 

finished product are dependent on one another. They all have to keep pace with one another 

in order for the finished product to get completed. 

Despite the dependence on one another the need for more efficient workers has divided 

the groups into skilled and unskilled labor. Some of the division of labor require more skills 

and training. Consequently we have seen the emergence of wage scales for the different 

labors. Workers are thus put into unskilled or skilled pay levels. This has created incentives 

within the system to create new and innovative methods of production. These methods have 

slowly developed over time to create modern industry. 

Increased productivity established a class division where inequality prevails catering to a 

powerful minority and encouraging less pay to the faultless majority. 

Message [335] referenced by [365]. Next Message by Buda is [357]. 

[344] Brutal: Discussion of term paper This is a response to the term paper on sections 

1, 2, and 3 of chapter 14 submitted by Buda, RfBurner, Maktub, Bluto, and Kenshiro [336]. 

I think the explanation of the first two sections of chapter 14 are very good, and only 

wish to emphasis one point. That is that through the division of labor, whatever its form, 

the capitalist is again able to subject workers to a situation that is not in their best interest. 

As quoted in this term paper, Marx states, “constant labour of one uniform kind disturbs the 

intensity and flow of a man’s vital forces, which find recreation and delight in the change of 

activity itself” (Capital p. 460). 

Section three is more complex and I do not understand it all myself. However, there are a 

few interesting points that I would like to make about this section. First is that Marx explains 

how a watch is made. Many different parts are made by separate individuals and then all the 

parts are put together by another worker. The interesting thing that Marx points out about


this particular form of specialization is that a worker can work from his own workshop or 

his home. Marx explains that even when this is allowed by the capitalist it is not the same as 

working for your own customers, but he does not explain why. From what we have already 

learned, however, we can assume that this is because the worker is still only getting paid 

for his labor power. In this situation the worker and capitalist meet and the worker gives 

the capitalist commodities (the watch parts he has made), and the capitalist gives the worker 

money. Although this may look like the laborer is getting the full value of his watch parts, 

he is actually only paid the cost of reproducing his labor power, or very literally a cost of 

living. This is because the worker, like any other, has entered into an agreement with the 

capitalist to sell him his labor power. 

The second point I would like to make about section three concerns the last paragraph of 

this term paper. That paragraph says: 

“Despite the dependence on one another the need for more efficient workers 

has divide the groups into skilled and unskilled labor. Some of the division 

of labor require more skills and training. Consequently we have seen the 

emergence of wages scales for the different labors. Workers are thus put 

into unskilled or skilled pay levels. This has created incentive within the 

system to create new and innovative methods of production. These methods 

have slowly developed over time to create modern industry. Increased 

productivity established a class division where inequality prevails catering 

to a powerful minority and encouraging less pay to the faultless majority.” 

Here it seems as if the writers are referring to the last two paragraphs of section three. The 

issues discussed in this part of the text are new and complex and I do not fully understand 

them. However, it seems the writers of this paper infer that the difference between the wage 

of the skilled and the unskilled labor is due to the differences in efficiency between them. 

As we know this cannot be so since wages are based on a modest bundle of consumption 

needs. Marx’s explanation of the differences in wages seems to tie into the discussion we 

had earlier about whether the skilled or unskilled laborer produces more value in a given 

time. Although I do not understand how these two concepts fit together, it seems as though 

this is what Marx is explaining in this part of the book. I think it would be helpful if we 

could admit we do not understand all of what Marx is saying and simply start with what we 

do know. This way we can learn from one another and Hans will be better able to teach us 

what we don’t already understand. 


[365] Hans: Division of Labor: By and For Whom? Buda, RfBurner, Maktub, Bluto, 

and Kenshiro’s term paper [335] consistently misses some of the basic points Marx tried to 

make. 

In your description of the two origins of manufacture you never mention the capitalist; 

you act as if this division of labor was initiated by the workers. All this reorganization of the 

production process started because a capitalist has to employ many laborers in order to get 

enough surplus value. 


Building airplanes cannot be done on a handicraft basis but requires machinery and scientific 

engineering. But if it were possible to manufacture airplanes on a handicraft basis, 

like the manufacture of horse-drawn coaches, it would not be an example of the second, but 

of the first origin of manufacture. I.e., the starting point is not many equally trained artisans 

in the same room each building his own airplane, but the starting point is many differently 

trained artisans each responsible for a different part of the airplane. 

Regarding the second origin of manufacture, the reason for the breaking up of one task 

(needle making, paper making) into many different components is not that some workers are 

better at one thing and others better at another, as you write. The reason is, as you say later in 

the term paper, that lots of time is being lost in the transition from one operation to another, 

switching tools etc., and that the collective process is better structured and forces the workers 

to keep up, and that this extreme specialization also allows the workers to develop extremely 

high levels of a very narrow skill. I.e., the splitting up of the production process generates 

differences in skills, not the other way around. In other words, these skill differences would 

be much less pronounced or would be nonexistent if production was organized differently. 

This is also true for modern capitalism: managers have a better overview because their 

job teaches them this, while others are systematically excluded from responsibility and the 

opportunity to learn and advance on their jobs. 

You seem to think that Marx considers skills literally genetically hereditary: 

[Marx] says that when a man devotes his life to a particular trade, that it 

becomes hereditary. 

Marx of course knew better than that, and I am amazed that none of the five co-authors 

objected to this, and indeed that nobody else in class spoke up when reading this. BTW 

Brutal [344] made a good argument about the last paragraph of your term paper which I 

agree with. 

The paper also has lots of typos (I tried to correct them in the archived version). Again 

this indicates that the cooperation in your group cannot have been very good. 


Term Paper 915 is 515 in 1997WI, 515 in 1997sp, 915 in 1997ut, 815 in 2002fa, 815 in 

2004fa, 815 in 2005fa, 589 in 2007SP, 601 in 2007fa, 609 in 2008SP, 613 in 2008fa, 642 

in 2009fa, 705 in 2010fa, 725 in 2011fa, and 755 in 2012fa: 

Term Paper 915 Essay about Chapter Fifteen: Machinery and Large-Scale Industry 

[331] Luc, Navin, and Josef: Machines in Capitalism In chapter 15 Marx answers the 

question of how machinery and modern industry affect capitalism. Marx expresses that there 

are two main themes when dealing with machinery in capitalism. First, the introduction of 

machinery decreases the demand for labor-power, and simultaneously increases the supply, 

which displaces the worker. This results in a great turnover in unemployed workers, stripping 

them of bargaining power, which reduces wages while lengthening the work day. Second, 

mechanization reduces the need for individual labor skills, which makes them even more 

subject to the capitalist. We will discuss these implications using sections: 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10.

Section 1 The Development of Machinery 


Marx introduces machinery which marks the stage of modern industry. Machines begin 

to replace the laborer. This eliminates the limits imposed by the ability of the worker. A 

worker, who operates a machine, is replacing several workers who each produced a part of 

the product. 

According to Marx there is a co-operation of similar machines operated by a single power. 

He distinguishes this from his second premise of a system of detail machines set up similar to 

the division of labor on an assembly line. The growth and combination of these two lead up 

to Marx’s “Mechanical Monster” filling the factories. These changes are not limited to single 

factories, or even a single industry, but that “a transformation of the mode of production 

in one sphere of industry necessitates a similar transformation in other spheres.” [505:1/o] 

Marx is not necessarily opposed to technology or machines only to the bourgeois society’s 

use of them. 

Section 2 The Value Transferred by Machinery to the Product 

Now Marx turns from the production of use-values to the production of value and surplus 

value. The value transferred to each product may be lower and the initial cost is much 

higher when compared to the former methods of production. However, the saving in direct 

labor is much greater. Thus, the value of each unit falls, and the ratio of constant to variable 

capital rises. This answers the “so what” in our essay on chapter eight. As stated above a 

displacement of workers results from more mechanized techniques, Marx calls this “technological 

unemployment”. A capitalist will only be willing to make investments in these types 

of machines if there is a cost savings associated with wages. On the other hand jobs will be 

created in the building of machines, hence a turnover in unemployment or displacement of 

workers. But, more jobs are eliminated than created. 

Section 5 The Strife Between Workman and Machine 

The introduction of machines compounds the long standing class friction, found throughout 

the history of capitalism, causing the workers to turn in anger against the instruments of 

production. This anger is a direct result of unemployment, destroyed skills, longer hours, 

and reduced wages. 

Section 7 Repulsion and Attraction of Workpeople by the Factory System 

Employment in a capitalist society is subject new technology and therefor is cyclical in 

nature. Workers are required to train and retrain according to the newest technology or 

simply be replaced. As a result, workers are often employed and unemployed redundantly. 

Section 10 Modern Industry and Agriculture 

“The Capitalist Mode of Production completes the disintegration of the primitive familial 

union which bound agriculture and manufacturer together when they were both at an undeveloped 

and childlike stage.” This disintegration results in the destruction of “the physical 

health of the urban worker, and the intellectual life of the rural worker.” [637:1/o] Thus, 

“undermining the original sources of all wealth- the soil and the worker.” [637:1/o] 


In Conclusion, by examining sections 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10, we have illustrated Marx’s two 

main themes when dealing with machinery in capitalism and showed how they exploit the 

working class. 

Message [331] referenced by [347] and [353]. Next Message by Luc is [404.2]. 

[342] PowderNow: Introduction of Machinery Luc and Navin did an excellent job 

in summarizing chapter 15. They state that the introduction of machinery can create more 

unemployment and/or lower the worker’s wage. Machinery can also destroy the independent 

skills of the worker. I would like to make some additional comments about these ideas. 

Before the introduction of machinery, the workmen used tools to make the products and 

therefore had individual labor skills. Now, with machinery, the tool is taken out of the hands 

of the worker, whose specialized labor is no longer needed in the manufacturing stage. The 

laborer is reduced to running the machine. This machine can now take the place of several 

workers, as seen by the invention of the power loom. Even though some jobs are created in 

the building of machines, more will be lost because of the machine-using industry. 

One section not discussed by Navin and Luc is section three. Machines make it possible 

for women and children to be drawn into the labor force. Most handicrafts activities require 

a certain strength, but minding a machine does not. The value of labor-power is determined 

by what the working class family needs to survive. If more members of the family work, the 

cost is spread over more workers and each can be paid less. These lower wages then mean 

that women and children would have to now work for the family to survive. 

Furthermore, the greater unemployment intensifies competition for the jobs, which could 

result in lower wages, longer working hours, working late or early shifts, and intensification 

of the work. 

So we see that the introduction of machines can have negative effects on the worker. The 

machine displaces the worker and at the same time makes it possible for women and children 

to enter the labor force. The demand for labor is reduced, which leads to increased unemployment, 

destruction of independent labor skills, and greater subjection to the capitalist. 

Hans: Good additional remarks. 

Message [342] referenced by [347]. Next Message by PowderNow is [379.1]. 

[347] Karlito: Mechanization Chapter 15 discusses many aspects and effects of mechanization. 

Luc and Navin’s [331] summary of this chapter is very clear and concise. They 

identify two main themes of the chapter: the decrease of both the demand for labor-power 

and the need for individual skills. Both of these themes not only create unemployment, but 

“make [the workers] even more subject to the capitalist.” 

PowderNow [342] makes an observation that caught my attention: “Even though some 

jobs are created in the building of machines, more will be lost because of the machine-using 

industry.” This point is more heavily addressed in section 6. 

Marx states that some economists fight the criticisms of mechanization by asserting that 

the amount of jobs that are lost due to mechanization are offset by jobs that are created in 

other industries (such as the building of these machines). It is true that as an economy grows, 

the number of jobs in that economy should increase as well. Marx points out the irony of


this statement throughout chapter 15. In all actuality, as the economy grows (by way of 

mechanization), the workers actually become more and more obsolete. 

Marx’s opponents point out that no matter the results of mechanization, there will still be 

the same amount of subsistence available. This is actually irrelevant because even though 

this subsistence is available, the workers now are unable to buy it due to wage loss or unemployment. 

The point stands that mechanization creates unemployment. 

Because mechanization leads to higher profits for the capitalist, an expansion of domestic 

services occurs. The unemployed workers can now find a wage serving and catering to the 

rich. Hans stated in [216] when referring to voluntary slave labor: “How much can you count 

on the fortitude of your character if the alternative is to become homeless or to starve?” What 

other option has the capitalist left the workers? 


[349] Pobeda: Are machines really bad? I am writing in response to Karlito [347], and 

to offer another point of view on the subject. I think it has to be conceded that mechanization 

causes unemployment. There isn’t much to argue against that. I would have to say that it 

also creates jobs. Most computer technicians and car mechanics have a very specialized job 

because the process of mechanization has occurred in the modern world. The argument put 

forth is that more jobs are lost than created. I feel that those people who lose their jobs due 

to mechanization COULD be used to work in another area, which will further the economy 

and everyone within it. The problem is that these displaced workers often find themselves in 

a dead-end situation, with nowhere to work. 

I feel that mechanization on the whole is a good thing. It helps progress our society, 

and if used correctly, can make the laborer’s life easier and give him more leisure to pursue 

other worthwhile ends. The focus needs to be not on stopping mechanization, but putting 

the means of production into the hands of the workers. If the laborers own the machine 

they operate, I don’t see how the machine is detrimental. Also, for those workers who are 

displaced by machinery, we should try to help find another job in a useful field where they 

are satisfied and happy with the means of production they own and the work they perform. 


[353] Hans: Machines in Capitalism Essay [331] is very good. Its style is clear and to 

the point, as some of the responses remarked. I will reproduce here the essay and give some 

criticisms and make some additional remarks. But the essay covers a lot of material, and 

despite this criticism it got an excellent grade. 

The first sentence of [331] is: 

In chapter 15 Marx answers the question of how machinery and modern 

industry affect capitalism. 

The question how machinery affects capitalism is the second question Marx asks. First he 

wants to know how and why capitalism develops the modern industrial technology. Chapters 

13-15 study in detail the connection between the relations of production and the productive 

powers. 


Marx expresses that there are two main themes when dealing with machinery 

in capitalism. First, the introduction of machinery decreases the demand 

for labor-power, and simultaneously increases the supply, which displaces 

the worker. This results in a great turnover in unemployed workers, 

stripping them of bargaining power, which reduces wages while lengthening 

the work day. 

That the machines replace workers is an ongoing leitmotif in Chapter Fifteen. But the 

market effects of this replacement is only one aspect of it. Marx first shows that machines 

take on the roles of the workers in production. It is not surprising that machines throw workers 

out of work, because their whole technological design, especially of the early machines, 

is that of an apparatus which takes the place of the worker but has many more arms than the 

worker and therefore can handle many more of the worker’s tools at the same time than the 

worker himself. 

Second, mechanization reduces the need for individual labor skills, which 

makes them even more subject to the capitalist. We will discuss these implications 

using sections: 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10. 

Section 1 The Development of Machinery 

Marx introduces machinery which marks the stage of modern industry. 

What you call an “introduction” is Marx’s development of a “real definition” of machinery. 

Machines begin to replace the laborer. 

Here in Section 1 Marx does not speak of the replacement of the laborer in the market 

place, but in the production process. This becomes clear in what you say next, but I just 

wanted to point this out because earlier you talked about replacement of the worker only in 

terms of the labor market. 

This eliminates the limits imposed by the ability of the worker. A worker, 

who operates a machine, is replacing several workers who each produced a 

part of the product. 

Yes; a mechanized process can be performed by much stricter scientific principles than 

handwork. 

I’d like to interject something before we move on. In order to understand what drives the 

development of machinery, Marx does not look at the individual machine but at the whole 

system of machines that filled the factories during the industrial revolution. Why does he 

begin with the totality instead of the single element? Because this look at the totality shows 

him which of the elements is the most crucial one. This is why Marx suddenly starts talking 

about the machine system instead of the individual machine. 

According to Marx there is a co-operation of similar machines operated by 

a single power.


Instead of “operated” you should have written “driven”. Factories at Marx’s time had one 

huge motor (typically a steam engine) which drove many machines through an intricate and 

conspicuous mechanical transmission mechanism. With cheap electric power this centralization 

of the driving motor is often no longer necessary today: today most machines have 

one or several electric motors built in. 

He distinguishes this from his second premise of a system of detail machines 

set up similar to the division of labor on an assembly line. The 

growth and combination of these two lead up to Marx’s “Mechanical Monster” 

filling the factories. These changes are not limited to single factories, 

or even a single industry, but that “a transformation of the mode of production 

in one sphere of industry necessitates a similar transformation in other 

spheres.” (V505:2) 

Marx looks here at the introduction of machinery as a process which spreads from one industry 

to the next by its own logic. It finds its culmination when the production of machines 

is taken over by machines as well. 

Marx is not necessarily opposed to technology or machines only to the 

bourgeois society’s use of them. 

Section 2 The Value Transferred by Machinery to the Product 

Now Marx turns from the production of use-values to the production of 

value and surplus value. 

Here it might be useful to reiterate that machines do not produce new value, they only 

transfer their own value to the product. 

The value transferred to each product may be lower and the initial cost is 

much higher when compared to the former methods of production. However, 

the saving in direct labor is much greater. Thus, the value of each unit 

falls, and the ratio of constant to variable capital rises. This answers the “so 

what” in our essay on chapter eight. 

This not only has consequences for the workers, who no longer find jobs, but it also has 

consequences for the capitalists. By replacing variable capital, i.e., fertile capital, which creates 

surplus value, by constant capital, i.e., sterile capital, they undermine their profitability. 

This is the so-called “falling rate of profit,” which Marx considered to be one of the most 

basic economic laws. 

As stated above a displacement of workers results from more mechanized 

techniques, Marx calls this “technological unemployment”. A capitalist 

will only be willing to make investments in these types of machines if there 

is a cost savings associated with wages. 

Yes. Marx also stresses that the amount of labor which the machinery replaces is much 

larger than the cost savings, since not all labor is paid labor. In other words, by keeping 

wages low, capitalism dampens technical progress. 


On the other hand jobs will be created in the building of machines, hence a 

turnover in unemployment or displacement of workers. But, more jobs are 

eliminated than created. 

Section 5 The Strife Between Workman and Machine 

The introduction of machines compounds the long standing class friction, 

found throughout the history of capitalism, causing the workers to turn in 

anger against the instruments of production. This anger is a direct result of 

unemployment, destroyed skills, longer hours, and reduced wages. 

This description of the class struggles is too one-sided and dismissive, like that in term 

paper [239] about Chapter Ten, which I criticized in [248]. It ignores completely the class 

struggle from above. You omit Marx’s historical evidence that many workers literally starved 

because of the introduction of machinery, and Marx’s economic evidence that machinery is 

intrinsically hostile to the workers, since the extra surplus value it creates is in proportion 

to the workers displaced. The destruction of machines by the workers was not blind rage 

against machinery but one form of resistance (maybe not the best form) against a mode of 

production which is hostile to the workers. 

Section 7 Repulsion and Attraction of Workpeople by the Factory System 

Employment in a capitalist society is subject new technology and therefor 

is cyclical in nature. Workers are required to train and retrain according to 

the newest technology or simply be replaced. As a result, workers are often 

employed and unemployed redundantly. 

Your formulation “employment is cyclical” is a euphemism for the crisis-ridden ups and 

downs of the business cycle. And the reason for this is not the new technology but capitalism. 

In a rational economy, innovations would lead to shorter hours for everyone, instead of 

depriving some workers of their livelihood altogether, and forcing others to work overtime. 

You also imply that only those workers who fail to retrain will be replaced, i.e., you are 

blaming the victims. 

Section 10 Modern Industry and Agriculture 

“The Capitalist Mode of Production completes the disintegration of the 

primitive familial union which bound agriculture and manufacturer together 

when they were both at an undeveloped and childlike stage.” 

I.e., the rift between rural and urban life became bigger. But Marx has a very differentiated 

view here: it also replaces the irrational and habit-driven peasant mode of production 

by a conscious technological application of sciences, and thus creates the foundation for a 

higher synthesis. 

This disintegration results in the destruction of “the physical health of the 

urban worker, and the intellectual life of the rural worker.” (V637:2) Thus, 

“undermining the original sources of all wealth- the soil and the worker.” 

(V638:1)

This last quote is a favorite of ecologists. 


In Conclusion, by examining sections 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10, we have illustrated 

Marx’s two main themes when dealing with machinery in capitalism and 

showed how they exploit the working class. 

Very good. 


Term Paper 920 is 920 in 1998WI, 920 in 2001fa, and 820 in 2002fa: 

Term Paper 920 Essay about Chapter Twenty: Time Wages 

[366] Zeek, Pobeda, Senco, and Sprockets: Time wages Wages according to Marx take 

on many different forms. Marx discusses two fundamental forms of wages, namely, time 

wages and piece wages. Chapter 20 focuses on time wages. Time wage is determined by the 

daily value of labor power divided by the working day of a pre-determined number of hours. 

Marx discusses how the price of labor is determined. The wages of labor generally depend 

upon the price of labor and the amount of labor performed. Increasing the wages of the 

laborer does not always increase or enhance the price of labor. Marx states, citing West: 

“The wages of labour may be considerably increased, while the price of labour may continue 

the same.” 

The value of labour will never fully be compensated under capitalism, because that would 

destroy the profits of the capitalists. Instead, the laborer is paid for their labour power. This 

allows the capitalist to exploit labor and pay them at wage lower than the value the laborer 

produces. 

The value of the worker’s labour-power is determined by the ratio of the daily value of 

labour-power divided by the working day, given a pre-determined number of hours. This 

ratio leads to exploitation because an employer can pre-determine wages of an employee, 

only later to further exploit this employee by lengthening the working day or week. This 

occurs because the denominator increases much quicker than the hours increased. Since 

the numerator is greater than the denominator, wages increase as prices of labour remain 

constant. 

Frank, en employee of CARS AUTO works ten hours a day unpacking parts. The value 

of his labor power is 50 dollars a day. His hourly wage is therefore 5 dollars. This is done 

by taking 50 dollars (labour-power) divided by 10 (hours worked). Frank’s employer, due to 

increased customer demand, lengthens Frank’s work day to 12 hours. This example shows 

how the employer takes advantage of Frank. Frank’s labour-power increases exponentially 

as the hours worked increase geometrically. Frank is required to use more labour-power not 

in proportion to the increase in hours. The extra labour-power Frank must use will not be 

compensated. The employee thus receives surplus of labour power from Frank. Because of 

this, the wage of the employee could be increased without an increase in the price of labor. 

However, this is unlikely to happen under the capitalist structure because it would cut into 

the profits of the capitalists. As long as the capitalist can get away with it, he will exploit the 

worker. 


Message [366] referenced by [405], [421], [462], [470], and [472]. Next Message by Zeek is [421]. 

[374] Hayduke and Merlin: Time wages as cyclical exploitation Term Paper: Chapter 

20/Time-Wages 

Wages take two main forms, time-wages and piece-wages. Chapter 20 discusses timewages. 

Time-wages are measured in definite periods of time, such as hourly, daily or weekly. 

It is important to note that the laws of wages operate very similarly to the laws of labor power 

and surplus value. Although the wages per hour or week can change, the price of labor does 

not necessarily change, and vice-versa. Therefore an average price of labor can be found 

by dividing the average daily value of labor power by the average number of hours in the 

working day. For example, the working day might be extended from 10 hours to 12 hours, 

but the daily wage can remain the same, meaning that the average price of labor falls. If the 

worker is compensated for the extra two hours, the average price of labor remains the same 

but the daily wage increases. 

The Capitalist can manipulate the working day through shortening or lengthening the 

number of hours he employs his workers in order to increase his surplus value. Although 

the wage is still determined according to an average 12-hour work day, the capitalist can 

“annihilate all regularity of employment and according to his own convenience, caprice 

and the interest of the moment, make the most frightful overwork alternate with relative 

or absolute cessation of work.” [686:1] This means that an employer can hire a laborer for 

8 hours a day, with the wage still calculated with 12 hours as the average work day. The 

average value of labor power remains the same, but the wage per hour goes down. The 

worker is now “insufficiently employed,” and is denied “the labor time necessary for his 

own subsistence.” [686:1] In this way, the capitalist gains surplus labor, and makes a profit 

from the exploitation of the worker. The consequence of this exploitation is that the worker 

is forced to work overtime to earn enough to survive. Although the wage for overtime is 

higher than that for hours worked during the normal work day, it is still only a fraction of 

the full value of labor. 

Capitalism creates a cycle of exploitation; the longer the working day, the lower the 

wage. As wages are lowered, workers are forced to work more hours, and therefore longer 

work days, in order to meet their most basic needs. Competition also plays a role in this 

cycle. If a single worker is exceptionally productive, the capitalist is able to lower wages 

due to the competition created between other workers. The supply of labor power on the 

market is constant, but the supply of labor increases due to the added productivity of one 

worker. As the cycle described above dictates, as wages decrease, the number of hours 

workers must work increases. Competition is also created between capitalists themselves. 

The amount of unpaid labor allows the producer to lower the price of their commodity. Other 

producers are then forced to lower wages and increase the work day in order to keep up with 

their competitors. In London, in 1862, some bakers complained about being forced into 

this process: “If I got only 12 hours out of my men, and my neighbor 18 or 20, he must 

beat me in the selling price.” (V690:1) This shows how a capitalist system perpetuates its 

violent nature; the well-intentioned businessman is often forced to change his behavior or is 

competed out of business.


Capitalists, however, remain unaware that this cycle is going on. They do not understand 

that every hour contains both paid and unpaid labor, and that this applies to overtime as well. 

Therefore, they view the overtime as entirely extra money to the worker, even though it is 

merely bringing the worker’s wages to the minimum value of labor power. However, now the 

worker has to work a couple of extra hours to achieve the value of his labor power, because 

the average price of labor has dropped to the point that overtime is required for the worker 

to receive enough money to sustain himself. Thus, the capitalist thinks he is being generous 

offering his workers extra wages in overtime, when in fact, he is just part of a system that is 

making the workers work longer for the same labor value. 

Hans: Why did you put the following sentence (your third) into your summary? 

It is important to note that the laws of wages operate very similarly to the laws of labor power 

and surplus value. 

What do you expect the reader to learn from this? What are the “laws of labor power and surplus value”? Did 

you go through Chapter Seventeen (this is what Marx refers to here), and convince yourselves that this is really 

important? 

Your next two sentences are misformulated: 

Although the wages per hour or week can change, the price of labor does not necessarily 

change, and vice-versa. Therefore an average price of labor can be found by dividing the 

average daily value of labor power by the average number of hours in the working day. 

The “therefore” in the second sentence is out of place. Here is this idea formulated properly: 

The average price of labor is the average daily value of labor power divided by the average 

number of hours in the working day. This means, the wages per hour or week may change, 

although the price of labor does not necessarily change, and vice-versa. 

Then your example fits: 

For example, the working day might be extended from 10 hours to 12 hours, but the daily 

wage can remain the same, meaning that the average price of labor falls. 

This is not so far fetched. To some extent it has happened in the USA: hourly wages have slipped, and people have 

made up for it by working longer hours, or by having now two breadwinner per household instead of formerly one. 

Now let’s skip down to your sentence: 

The average value of labor power remains the same, but the wage per hour goes down. 

No, in the example you give the wage does not go down per hour, the hourly rate is the same as before, but the total 

wage goes down because the number of hours decreases. 

A little later you write: 

The consequence of this exploitation is that the worker is forced to work overtime to earn 

enough to survive. 

You are saying: if business is so bad that the capitalist sends the workers home early and pays them correspondingly 

lower wages, the workers must turn around and work overtime to make up for this. There is no overtime available 

during this time! 

Message [374] referenced by [405], [408], and [472]. Next Message by Hayduke is [383]. 

[405] Winston: Response to essay about Chapter 20 [366] does a good job of explaining 

the time-wage. The only thing I would like to add is that there are certain qualities of the 

capitalist society that contribute to letting the capitalist exploit the laborer through the timewage, 

and keep the “exploitation cycle” going [374]. 

The main reason the cycle functions is because if a laborer is unwilling to work the extra 

hours, the capitalist is always able to fire that worker and employ another who is willing to 

work the extra hours. Another factor for why the capitalist is able to extend the length of the 

working day is due to competition between workers and capitalists as mentioned in [374]. 


Another part that I would add to [366] is that because the lengthening of the normal 

working day means a reduction of hourly wages, the actual wage received might be different 

from the value of labor-power. 

Hans: I disagree with your last paragraph. As long as the total wage received equals the reproduction cost of the 

labor power, the law of value is satisied. Despite what [366] says, the hourly wage is connected with the value of 

labor power only very indirectly. 


[410] Broker: discussion of chapter 20 After reading the essays on time wages, I have 

come the conclusion that every writer understood Marx’s text quite well. Each essay recaptures 

the main ideas around Marx’s text. I would like to go one step further and speculate on 

the deeper meaning behind Marx’s text for my rebuttal remarks. In my opinion, Marx wrote 

on many different analytical levels. It is almost as if he entices the reader to look deeper into 

what he hypothesizes. I will discuss what influenced me most about the subliminal concepts 

hidden within chapter twenty. 

Throughout Capital, Marx is persuading the reader that something is inherently wrong 

with the prescribed economic system of the world. He aggressively argues the fatal flaws 

associated with the present economic system. He directly criticizes a system were only a 

few individuals prosper through blindly robbing the masses creating their prosperity. 

Wages are an attack on the one thing capitalist give back to their workers. Marx bluntly 

dispels wages as an intricate aspect in the overall system forcing workers into more and more 

dismal situations. I could even further say, wages are the umbilical chords trapping workers 

inside the capitalist womb. Wages are the life line for all labors while simultaneously 

becoming the poison inside illegal narcotics. The one thing capitalist give back is the same 

thing that holds laborers down. 

This contradiction is a powerful example of why capitalism is flawed. Wages are simply 

an example of how capitalism shelters itself against advancement from the working class. 

As wages stay constant and the price of labor constantly falling, labor can never get ahead. 

Fundamentally behind the economic game, labor continually lacks any ability to alleviate its 

own suffering. 

Hans: Excellent. I recommend to other people writing their termpaper comments to “go deeper” like this too. This 

is something the term papers themselves are sometimes lacking. 

Message [410] referenced by [462] and [472]. Next Message by Broker is [449]. 

[462] Dragon: Chapter 20 and Broker’s careful illustration I agree with Broker that 

the writers of Chapter 20 understood the text quite well. The definition of time wages in 

[366] was well formulated and supported by well developed paragraphs based on Marx’s 

discussion. Here it is again: 

Time wage is determined by the daily value of labor power divided by the 

working day of a predetermined number of hours. 

I like the way Broker goes a step further and attempts to find the deeper meaning of why 

Marx would talk about time wages. Broker illustrated how Marx uses time wages to show 

how capitalist society exploits laborers which ultimately hurts the capitalists as well. I love 

how Broker illustrated this.


Wages are the umbilical chords trappings worker inside the capitalist womb. 

Wages are the life lines for all labors while simultaneously, becoming the 

poison inside illegal narcotics. The one thing capitalist gives back is the 

same thing that holds laborers down [410]. 

There was one sentence in Broker’s discussion that I don’t agree with. He says in [410], 

“As wages stay constant and the price of labor constantly falling, labor can never get ahead”. 

As I understand, the price of labor is the wage. I don’t see how the wage can stay constant 

while the price of labor falls. It may be that I am misunderstanding Broker’s implications. 

I think that labor cannot get ahead because there is no such thing as a fair wage. We know 

this because the use value of labor power exceeds its exchange value for a wage. Well done! 

Hans: The difference between the price of labor and the wage is discussed at length in Chapter Twenty. Did you 

comment on Broker’s paper without even reading the Chapter? 

Message [462] referenced by [472]. First Message by Dragon is [128]. 

[470] Bull: More on chapter 20 “Time Wage” In reading the term papers and the 

discussions on chapter 20, I found the material presented well informed an in accordance 

with Marx.. Both papers that I read were well expressed and the Marxian ideology was 

present. Understanding the time wage is not as difficult as some of the other ideas that Marx 

presents. My comments will be more directed at [366]. I find the information in this paper to 

be very informative about the presence of Time Wage. I will however like to add a different 

perspective concerning the exploitation of the worker and the capitalist. In [366] they say, 

“This allows the capitalist to exploit the labor and pay them at wages lower that the value the 

laborer produces”. This means that the laborer is being paid for his labor power, but not in 

full. The capitalist in essence is not paying the laborer the real amount that they are worth. If 

they were, then there would be no surplus. The idea that I would like to present, is that of the 

exploitation of the capitalist. Can the capitalist be exploited by the laborer? The capitalist 

is paying the laborer by a Time Wage. If the laborer is not producing efficiently while the 

capitalist has his back turned then the exploitation of the capitalist is underway. In essence 

the capitalist is paying the laborer for inefficiency. In this case surplus value decreases and 

the capitalists lose. We see the example of this every day when we drive to work on I-15. We 

see the ten laborers who all have shovels but only one of them is working. For the capitalist 

he is paying nine men to tend a shovel and one to expend his labor power. Can the capitalist 

gain a surplus in these conditions? It becomes very difficult to do so. So can the capitalist 

be exploited? You be the Judge. 

Hans: There is a big difference between resisting being exploited by the capitalist and exploiting the capitalist. 

First Message by Bull is [97]. 

[472] Hans: The Emperor’s New Clothes Zeek, Pobeda, Senco, and Sprockets’s term 

paper [366] first clarifies, correctly, that the time wage is one of the two fundamental forms 

of the wage of labor. Unfortunately, after this it introduces a big terminological confusion, 

which permeates the entire subsequent discussion: 

Time wage is determined by the daily value of labor power divided by the 

working day of a pre-determined number of hours. 

This is not what Marx calls “time wage,” but what he calls “price of labor.” Two sentences 

later they say: 


The wages of labor generally depend upon the price of labor and the amount 

of labor performed. 

This is right, and had they noticed that it contradicts what they just said, perhaps they 

would have been able to clear up their confusion. Instead, they plow right ahead, and a little 

later they make things even more confusing by following self-contradictory statement: 

The value of the worker’s labour-power is determined by the ratio of the 

daily value of labour-power divided by the working day. 

What they call the “value of the worker’s labour-power” is again the price of labor, now 

in its third incarnation. 

With the faulty apparatus they set up, which confounds all the distinctions which Marx is 

trying to make, it is impossible for them to explain such puzzling statements as: 

Increasing the wages of the laborer does not always increase or enhance the 

price of labor. 

Obviously they don’t feel the need to explain this, all they do is cry “exploitation!” 

Hayduke and Merlin’s term paper [374] is generally better, but they too confound the 

distinctions which Marx is trying to make. They write: 

Time-wages are measured in definite periods of time, such as hourly, daily 

or weekly. 

They, too, do not notice that Marx makes a big distinction between the hourly wage, 

which he does not call a wage but the “price of labor,” and the daily or weekly wage. 

Every single one of the four discussion papers commends the authors of the term papers 

for having understood and explained the material well. A typical case of the Emperor’s 

New Clothes. Only Dragon [462] acknowledges the blatant contradictions these papers got 

themselves into. He quotes Broker [410], another discussion paper: 

“As wages stay constant and the price of labor constantly falling, labor can 

never get ahead”. 

and then adds: 

As I understand, the price of labor is the wage. I don’t see how the wage 

can stay constant while the price of labor falls. 

But he does not push his point because it might be his fault that he is misunderstanding 

something. 

If all this is indicative of the level of intellectual curiosity and scientific rigor in the 

Economics profession, then the capitalists have nothing to fear. 

First Message by Hans is [2]. 

Term Paper 921 is 921 in 1998WI, 821 in 2002fa, 821 in 2003fa, 821 in 2004fa, and 821 

in 2005fa:


Term Paper 921 Essay about Chapter Twenty-One: Piece Wages 

[361] Henrix and Perro: Term Paper Chapter 21 concerns piece wages, which is “a 

converted form of wages by time”. Marx discusses in this chapter how the capitalist takes 

advantage of this wage system. The system does according to Marx lay the foundation of a 

hierarchically organized system of exploitation and oppression. 

Contrary to the time wage system, the price wage system is a measure of the number 

of pieces the laborer has produced within a given time frame. This form of wage payment 

automatically controls the quality and intensity of the work embodied by the laborers. In 

other words, the number of pieces produced increases. Because increasing the number of 

pieces produced in this time frame, the laborers daily or weekly wage will rise. 

The amount of wage per piece received by the worker is set by the average total number 

of pieces produced by all the workers within the given time frame. If the average number of 

pieces produced increases, the capitalist is able to reduce the piece wage. Further, this leads 

the workers to intensify the workload in order to make their ends meet, or make the same 

amount of money as earlier. This becomes a continuous process, which leads to “constant 

battles between capitalist and labour”. 

This shows how the capitalists by this wage system oppress and exploit the laborers. 

Message [361] referenced by [415], [416], [455], [456], [457], and [468]. Next Message by Henrix is [380]. 

[385] PumpkinStar: Chapter 21. The underlying evil... Piece-wages, which are similar 

to “quotas” in our modern society, may give the impression that the worker is in control of its 

own labor, and can physically denominate his wages through his total production. However, 

as Marx states in this chapter, piece-wages exploit the laborers to the extent that they may 

eventually cause more harm to the laborer, compared to time-wages, and eventually destroy 

his/her labor potential. 

“Malthus remarked at the time...: I confess that I see with misgiving, the great extension 

of the practice of piece-wage. Really hard work during 12 or 14 hours of the day, for any 

longer time, is too much for any human being.” [699:1] 

Workers who feel that they can receive more wages through the piece-wage system understand 

that in order to do so, they must intensify their labor power. However, with an 

increase in production, the Capitalist sees fit to lower the piece-wage, forcing the laborer to 

work even harder to sustain their previous wages. Another disadvantage to the laborer is that 

piece-wage is an exact measurement of the intensity of labor. 

With the implementation of piece-wages, wages will vary from individual to individual, 

due to differences in strength, skill, experience, and stamina. However, for the factory as a 

whole, the difference in wages averages out. The disturbing image of piece-wages becomes 

apparent here. Every laborer is producing at the maximum output (believing that harder work 

and more hours will bring in more in terms of earned wages) causing unsustainable wear and 

tear on the body that will eventually cause the labor power in the individual to diminish. The 

Capitalist, perhaps fearing the potential loss of output, lowers the piece-wage, forcing the 

laborer to increase output beyond acceptable limits. The cycle continues until the laborer 


can no longer sustain the labor power necessary to produce at the necessary output, and a 

new laborer replaces him/her. 

This reckless exploitation of the laborer is no longer a “constant battle between capitalists 

and laborers” as stated in Quake’s Essay on Chapter 22 [370]. There is no battle. The 

laborers are at the Capitalist’s mercy. Laborers, unable to have access to any means of 

production, are forced to work under the Capitalist’s terms. The Capitalist has the advantage 

of having access to a disgustingly large pool of labor power. Laborers, on the other hand, do 

not have the same privilege. If the laborer cannot meet the standards of the Capitalist, then 

a replacement will be found. Although the next section strays from the chapter summary, I 

would like to address the topic. 

From [297]: 

“If a vampire is drinking your blood, you are not saying to him ”it is not 

fair that you drink so much; can you please drink a little less of my blood?“ 

You are telling him to get lost and you are fighting him off as hard as you 

can. With the capitalists we are in the same situation. They are not our 

co-workers who brazenly take more than their proper share. They are the 

parasites who are profoundly subverting the production process by subordinating 

it to the senseless quest for more and more money. The situation 

will not be fair as long as we have capitalism.” 

What can you do when the only way to clothe and feed your family is by having the 

vampire suck your blood in exchange for money? The dependence on Capitalists is too 

deep for one to have a rational understanding of the actions taking place around us. We 

can question the action of the vampire, we can deny the vampire blood, but we know that 

for every person that denies that vampire, hundreds are willing to offer their blood for the 

money that will allow them to survive for another day, when in fact, having their blood 

slowly drained is probably going to kill them before they starve, freeze, etc. So, I ask all of 

you, what can we do? Shall we kill the vampire that threatens our livelihood? I find it almost 

comical to think that the vendor that sold them the garlic, stake, and coffin in order to slay 

the vile beast is probably a vampire himself, and as soon as his competition is gone, he need 

not waste any time in knocking on your door to ask for your blood. 

Society is going to change. Whether Capitalism will give way to Socialism is anybody’s 

guess. Vampires need our blood. Without it, they cannot survive. If society becomes one, 

and rids the world of them, would this be the ideal economic world that Marx envisioned? 

Some day, this may come about. However, I would like to warn everyone. Who will [organize] 

the Red Cross blood drives? Just make sure that the blood you give for a worthy cause 

is really going to a worthy cause... 

Message [385] referenced by [455] and [456]. Next Message by PumpkinStar is [450]. 

[401] Maverick: Response to 921 I just have a few comments regarding the summary 

of chapter 21 written by Perro and Henrix. In the first paragraph, the authors state that the 

piece wage lays the foundation of a “hierarchically organized system of exploitation and 

oppression.” After making this statement, they fail to elaborate on this interesting aspect of 

the piece wage system.


Marx says, “Since the quality and intensity of the work are here controlled by the very 

form of the wage, superintendence of labor becomes superfluous.” [695:1] This allows for 

a middleman to step onto the scene and act as a mediator between the capitalist and the 

worker. Marx refers to the mediator as a parasite because he feeds off the wages of the 

worker. He doesn’t produce value with his own labor but shares a portion of the fruits of the 

worker’s labor. By the time the workers receive their share, it is disproportionately lower 

than it should be. 

The capitalist makes a contract with the middleman, who often is the most important 

worker of a particular trade, and promises him so much per piece produced. It is now in the 

middleman’s best interest to exploit his fellow workers and overwork them. It pits worker 

against worker. 

The hierarchy created by the piece wage system is probably one of the most effective 

forms of repression implemented by capitalism. How can the workers ever rise up and make 

any changes if their goals and interests aren’t the same? 

Message [401] referenced by [416] and [467]. First Message by Maverick is [74]. 

[415] JoeHill: my $.02 [361] was a good summary of Ch. 21, the transformation of 

time wages to Piece Wages. There are a couple of points I would like to focus a little more 

attention on. [361] states, “Contrary to the time wage system, the piece wage system is a 

measure of the number of pieces the laborer has produced within a given time frame.” This 

statement, is correct but I think it would be helpful if it looked back a little further from 

which the wage is derived. The piece wage stems from the value of labor-power, that which 

the laborer needs to sustain himself. This is amount is aggregated from all the workers and 

then averaged. This average becomes what the laborer will receive in wages. However, 

the value that she actually supplies is this necessary value (paid labor), and surplus value 

(unpaid labor). “The normal wage per piece is the daily value of labour-power divided by 

the number of pieces produced under average conditions in a working day of normal length 

(Brewer 65).” Although this has been said again and again, I think this helps to remind us that 

within each piece the worker produces is congealed exploitation. Under this system, neither 

producing more nor less will change the fact this fact as the wage paid per piece always 

factors in unpaid labor. I also liked what Brewer said (p. 65) when he states, “Piece-work 

reduces, indeed eliminates, the need for superintendence....it helps to raise the intensity of 

labour, and is ‘the form of wages most in harmony with the capitalist mode of production’” 

[697:1/oo]. Overall I thought [361] was quite good. 


[416] Senco: Discussion of 921 Henrix and Perro did a good job starting the discussion 

about Chapter 21 by briefly explaining how the Piece wage system promotes exploitation 

of workers. The only part they were a little carelss in their wording, is when they stated 

in [361] that “Because increasing the number of pieces produced on this time frame, the 

laborers daily or weekly wage will rise.” This is a little misleading because it sounds like 

they are saying the laborers begin enjoying higher salaries. We must remember, even if the 

real wage and standard of living is rising for the worker, this only suggests they are being 

exploited to a greater extent. 


As large capitalist enterprises accumulate more capital, and take over other less successful 

smaller ones, the Capitalist society deteriorates because of the obsession over profits and 

carelessness about any positive social contribution. The workers find themselves in a worse 

situation, excluded from making any significant decisions, and in the control of the elite 

Capitalists. 

In response to Maverick’s final thought in [401] where he asks, “How can the workers 

ever rise up and make any changes if their goals and interests aren’t the same?” 

As Hans has mentioned before, the problem roots to the fact that people spend too much 

of thier salary, and save too little. Workers need to help themselves out by saving money, so 

if a strike is necessary, it is a possibility. 

Hans: Higher wages do not automatically mean more exploitation. But if wages rise because the workers perform 

more for the capitalist, then you are right. 

First Message by Senco is [46]. 

[455] Jedi: Commentary on Chapter 21Term Paper Henrix and Perro’s [361] and 

PumpkinStar’s [385] are both excellent essays. I particularly liked PumpkinStar’s analysis 

of piece-wage and relating it to the vampire analogy. Here is my opinion on the subject. 

Piece-wage system is a double-edged sword; the reduction in the piece-wage is resulted 

directly from increased productivity. The capitalist does not sharpen the edges of this sword 

all by himself; the workers are responsible as well. The reason I make this claim is that the 

increase in productivity in the piece-wage system is largely in the workers’ control. Due to 

the heightened “animal spirit” and competitiveness under a cooperative environment such as 

in a factory, “the piece-wage therefore has a tendency, while raising the wages of individuals 

above the average, to lower this average itself” (v697: 1). “Moreover, the lengthening of 

the working day is now in the personal interest of the worker” (v696: 1). It’s no accident 

that cooperation (see chapter 13 summaries, [292], [304]), combined with the piece-wage 

system, is best suited for the capitalist mode of production. 

A second point I’d like to make has to do with dead weight loss. It’s not inconceivable that 

in the piece-wage system, a very talented worker who could normally produce commodities 

with very high quality, provided he is properly compensated for his work, would produce 

under the piece-wage system, the same commodities with merely acceptable quality. In 

order to save their strength to produce higher numbers, people will not produce quality that 

is better than the minimal standard. This would contribute to a loss of talent on an individual 

basis, as well as dead weight loss to the society as a whole 

In conclusion, to answer PumpkinStar’s question. In order to get the “vampire” off of our 

necks, there needs to be a concerted and unified effort by the workers themselves to stand 

up to the capitalist. It would take a massive strike or even the bloodiest revolution to change 

the present situation. 


First Message by Jedi is [75]. 

[456] Luc: Ah yes, more on Chap. 21. I too would like to comment on the earlier 

submissions regarding Chapter 21. I enjoyed Pumpkinstar’s synopsis of Piece-Wages [385]. 

First, his point that there is no such thing as a “constant battle between capitalist and 

laborer” [361] is key to arguing the finer criticisms that Marx illustrates in this chapter. I too


had the same feelings when reading submission [361]. Capitalist’s would like laborers to 

think that they are on the same level, fighting against one another, when in actuality, laborers 

are only fighting against their individual self. This is due to the fact that laborers do not own 

the means of production and are therefore alienated from the finished products they produce. 

Second, I would like to comment on JoeHill’s $.02 in [415]. This too is a fine description 

of the finer points of Marx’s critique. The derivation of the piece wage is, in actuality, very 

simillar to that of the time wage. The laborer’s are paid an amount equal to the cost of the 

production of labor power. The cost of labor power is cost of the means of subsistence for 

the laborer. This amount only accounts for a fraction of what the laborer actually produces, 

Marx refers to it as the section of necessary labor. The remainder of what he produces is 

surplus labor. Surplus labor is the amount of profit the capitalist makes off each product. 

The irony of the piece wage is that laborers actually think that the more they produce, the 

more they are paid. This does not hold true, because no matter how much they produce, the 

cost of the means of subsistence stays the same. The capitalist is fully aware of this and as 

a result he lowers the peice wage, which in effect shortens the amount of necessary labor 

per product and simultaneously lengthens the amount of surplus labor per product. Now the 

laborer has to produce more products in order to maintain the same level of subsistence. In 

my opinion, this type of exploitation is more heinous than that found in the time wage. 

I would like to add a modern day example of the piece wage. I have friends who are 

employed at a factory that pays by the piece rate (or piece wage). They believe that the 

more they produce, the more they make. This is temporarily true, however, over a period 

of time they find that the piece rate conveniently begins to be reduced (ever so slightly). At 

this point, my friends now have to produce more to maintain the same level of income. My 

friends eventually find a system that helps them produce even more products. They believe 

that they are “cheating” their employer because they are making so much money. On the 

contrary, their employer is cheating them. The more they produce, the less they get paid 

per product and the more profit their employer gets per product. This is due to a systematic 

decrease in the amount of necessary labor per product and an increase of surplus labor per 

product. 

First Message by Luc is [57]. 

[457] Yikes: more on capter 21 Henrix and Perro [361] did a good job in chapter twenty 

one, my comments are not directly related to their submission. I would like to relate this 

chapter to our time. As stated by Hans piece wages are not used in our society today, even 

though it would be more advantageous to the capitalist in creating more surplus value. 

I think if we look closer at some of the new labor practices that are in use today they have 

many of the same characteristics as piece wages yet are not so openly exploitive. 

The practice that I am referring to is hiring only part time employees, or contract employees. 

Many corporations use this practice today to save on administrative costs that they 

would otherwise incur if they had a full time work force. Health insurance pension plans, 

and even tax withholdings are expensive costs to any Corporation by hiring only part-time 

or contract labor they cut out all of this extra overhead by not offering these benefits, and 

pass on these costs to the workers, yet they receive in return very productive labor. 


I did state very productive labor. I believe that most of the part time labor force works 

as hard or harder than their full time contemporaries with the goal of obtaining full time 

employment which of course is futile because Capital has no reason to give them a full time 

job this would lower their surplus value. I know this isn’t an exact connection with piece 

wages but more of a similar principle, Capital is using labor like they would a machine. 

A Corporation will hire labor for a specific job and when it is complete they will just as 

quickly divorce them. In this manner Capital has complete control over labor as in piece 

wages, if a laborer is not as efficient as the rest of the group they will be fired or as a contract 

worker their contract will be terminated. This is much easier to do if the employee is a part 

time employee, labor becomes very expendable. 

Hans: Temporary employees should be seen more as a derivative of time wages than piece wages. But you are 

saying something very important about piece wages too: they are too openly exploitative. I think this is one of the 

reasons why they are not more common today. 

First Message by Yikes is [59]. 

[467] Zeek: Re: Chpt 21 I liked the ideas and the expression used by Pumkinstar in 

explaining chapter 21. I thought he had some good points and expressed them well. When I 

think of piece wage, I have to think of time wage as well. We in our society have similiarities 

that compare to both of these types of wages. Many people are paid by the hour which would 

be considered the time wage. Others are paid by the job or piece wage. I know that often 

times it is easier for exploitation to occur in the time wage accounting for the employer 

exploits the worker and the worker through his slow endeavor exploits the employer. Piece 

wage is a better system in that it alleviates the middleman and creates less exploitation by the 

employee as stated by Pumkinstar. As production increases so does the exploitation and the 

surplus for the capitalist. As production increases so does the size of the firm or corporation, 

creating more jobs and demanding better and faster work/productivity fromt the employed. 

I like how Luc stated in that the employee thinks that if he produces more he will be paid 

more, thus increasing production and labor power. The employer by being aware of this 

decreases the wages or time and adjusts compensating for the increase. In all I think both 

sides are aware of the exploitation and it is just a matter of who outsmarts the other. It is a 

constant struggle non-the-less. 

Hans: “Smarts” is not the issue. If you have control over the means of production you don’t have to be very smart 

to take advantage of the laborer. 

Regarding the middlemen, Marx argues that piece wages exactly make middlemen possible, see Maverick [401]. 

First Message by Zeek is [41]. 

[468] Hobart: In regards to Henrix and Perro [361], I would like to expand upon their 

previous statements concerning the piece wage system and its inherent fallacies. Laborers 

may seem, at first, to be advantaged by the piece wage system. They get paid per item. This 

gives them the ability to produce more items during any given day, and as a result, earn a 

higher wage. However, as more items are produced, the wage per item is reduced by the 

capitalist. This causes a laborer to work more and more hours to get paid less and less for 

each item produced. This increased exertion leads to decreasing productivity down the road 

because continuously working 12-15 hours a day can be very taxing after time. When a 

worker becomes worn down, the capitalist can then replace that worker with another laborer 

and the same process starts all over again. Another problem with the piece wage system 

is competition. Workers being paid a wage per item produced will tend to compete with


one another. Workers then cannot unify to attempt to better their lot in life because they are 

competing with one another. 

Hans: Both of your points were made by several others before you. 

First Message by Hobart is [255]. 

Term Paper 922 is 922 in 2000fa, 922 in 2001fa, 822 in 2002fa, 822 in 2003fa, 822 in 

2004fa, and 822 in 2005fa: 

Term Paper 922 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Two: National Differences of Wages 

[360] JoeHill, Dragon, Gemni, and Paul: National Differences in Wages Chapter 22 

of Capital deals with national differences in wages that result from differences in intensity 

or productivity of labor. This paper attempts to show the implications of these differences in 

the context of world trade in a step by step manner. 

In explaining national differences in wages, it is important to examine production in a 

given country as the starting point. Once this analysis is done we can then compare that 

country’s production with regard to “normal” international production. 

We will begin by assuming that through innovation, country “A” has developed a higher 

intensity or higher productivity of labor. In capitalist economies the wage is determined as 

the price of labor-power, the capacity for work. In this society the laborer must consume 

the equivalent of 10 commodities daily to replenish herself for the next day of exertion. The 

laborer sells her labor-power, but in fact, it is her labor that the capitalist receives. If we 

look at this geometrically, using the time line A—B—C. A——C makes up the length of the 

working day and equals 10 hours. Segment A—B depicts necessary value, this is what the 

laborer receives as wage in return for her labor-power. Segment B—C depicts surplus value, 

which accrues to the capitalist. Let’s assume it is determined that the worker’s labor-power 

is valued as equal to the production of 10 commodities and those commodities are valued at 

$1 each. She is therefore paid $10 (A—B = $10), yet she works the full 10 hours creating 

surplus value of the magnitude equal to B—C, which equals an additional 10 commodities 

or $10. To summarize at this point, she produces $20 of value and is paid $10 per day in 

wages. 

Now, let’s assume that country “A” decides to change the way wages are paid from timewages 

to piece-wages. From the laborer’s point of view, she believes that since she produces 

20 commodities in a day and receives a wage of $10 that she is paid $0.50 per commodity, 

and this is where we will assume the piece-wage has been set. This system will encourage 

the worker to try to increase output by increasing the intensity of her labor or extending her 

work day. If she accomplishes this she can boost output to 25 commodities per day up from 

her previous level of 20. On a piece-wage system this will increase her income from $10 

a day to $12.50. As we will see this increase will only be in nominal terms. If we look 

again at the geometrical model A—B—C, and assume that intensity of labor has improved 

vs. the lengthening of the workday we see that point B has shifted to the left increasing the 

capitalists surplus value: A——B————–C. The new surplus value resulting from the 

shortening of necessary value is referred to as relative surplus value. 

Although the laborer has increased her output, we know she will still only be paid for 

her labor-power. Examining this point more closely we see that this increase in wage is 


merely nominal. We know that to survive the laborer must consume 10 commodities a day. 

Therefore, to compensate for this increase in wage, the price of the commodity must rise 

so that the ratio between wage and commodity remains the same. In this example the price 

of the commodity would rise to $1.25 over time ($12.50/10). We see here that the price 

level within this economy has risen. We can also see how the capitalist reaps greater surplus 

value. The laborer is now producing 25 but is still only paid for 10. At $1.25 per commodity 

the capitalist receives $18.75 (15×$1.25). 

The above example of country “A” now gives us a basis in understanding national differences 

in wages. At this stage we can now look at this scenario in terms of international trade. 

If we assume that through innovation country “A” has increased its productivity above the 

normal level of production as determined in the international arena, then we can compare 

country “A” to country “B”, which we will use to represent the world average. Country 

“B’s” current level of productivity is equivalent to country “A’s” before innovation. It is easy 

to see that country “A” now produces more value per day in real terms than country “B”. The 

average worker in country “A” produces 25 commodities per day while the average worker 

in country “B” only produces 20. If we analyse this we see that while the laborer in country 

“A” receives a higher wage, this wage as a proportion of both surplus value and as a proportion 

of the product is lower. In country “A” the wage to surplus value is $12.50/$18.75=2/3; 

country “B” is $10/$10=1. In country “A” the wage to total product is $12.50/$31.25=0.4; 

in country “B” is $10/$20=0.5. 

Marx makes the statement that the value of money in the more advanced country, “A”, 

will be less than in the less advanced country, “B”. As we see from the example this is 

the case as it takes more money in country “A” ($1.25) to buy the same commodity than in 

country “B” ($1). 

Finally, when we look at the world market, we can compare the magnitude of value 

created by each country in terms of the number of commodities produced in a given time 

period. Because these commodities have the same use value and are traded on the world 

market for the same price, country “A”, which can produce more commodities in the same 

amount of time as country “B” creates more value and will accumulate greater wealth. As an 

aside, it is our speculation that this resulting accumulation of wealth helps the more advanced 

country develop more and more capital and therefore increase output at an accelerating rate. 

Hans: You start out with a situation where the worker gets $10 per day and produces, in addition to an equivalent 

of his wages, another $10 for the capitalist. I.e., in A—B—C, the point B is right in the middle. 

Then the worker is put on piece wages, speeds up his work, and gets $12.50 per day. This seems to be a better 

situation for the worker, nevertheless Marx says that in such situations point B is moving to the left. How? 

You say: because after increasing the wages the capitalist increases prices. The capitalist claims that his costs 

have increased because he has to pay now $12.50 per day instead of $10, and therefore he must increase his price 

from $1 per piece to $1.25. But then he realizes that his cost per output has not increased after all, since he has 

now more output than before. I.e., all this price increase goes into his own pockets, and voila you have a more 

unfavorable division of the newly created value between capitalist and laborer. 

Of course this is not the story Marx had in mind. According to Marx, the more intense labor produces more 

value, at least initially. I.e., the workday produces now a value of $25, with $12.50 going to the laborer and $12.50 

going to the capitalist. But then over time several tendencies are at work: (1) the increased intensity of labor will 

be considered normal, the worker will get a lower piece wage premium for his accelerated work. (2) Also the 

capitalist will get a lower price for his output, since this output contains a lower amount of labor. (3) the worker is


now getting a higher wage than is necessary for his reproduction, and as soon as market forces permit this will be 

taken away from him again. Therefore after some time point B will end up to the left of the midpoint. 

I.e., the effect which you say comes about immediately will come only after some time. This is the only weak 

point in your paper, otherwise it is very good. It is interesting that, with the exception of Quake [378], none of the 

subsequent discussion pieces mentions your paper—and even Quake seizes on a rather tangential point. The reason 

seems to be that your paper is too solid. It does not offer an easy entry point for discussion. Your paper received so 

little attention because it would take too much work to discuss it. This is not your fault, but you should be aware 

that things like this can happen. 

Message [360] referenced by [378] and [397]. Next Message by JoeHill is [387]. 

[370] Quake: Summary and brief discussion of Chapter 22. Perhaps the most entertaining 

segment of this chapter comes in the form of criticism of H. Carey by Marx. It came 

in regards to H. Careys proposed theory that wage differences in different nations might 

be directly proportional to the productiveness of labor in each nation. Marx described this 

effort as “... his usual uncritical and superficial fashion, shuffling to and fro a confused 

mass of statistical materials.” With that quote, I present my term paper... a confused mass of 

information from my best, but superficial still, interpretation of Chapter 22. 

To summarize, this chapter (22) was an explanation of the national differences of wages. 

Marx does this by taking the micro approach to labor-power value, similar to what we have 

seen in previous chapters and then uses this micro definition to arrive at a common unit of 

measure, the uniform working-day. After this micro examination, the elements are aggregated 

to the national level, where each individual nation now becomes the micro component 

in a macro comparison of national wage levels. An average of these national components 

creates then an average unit of universal labor. 

In a little more detail, Marx starts by asking us to consider all the factors that determine 

the value of labor-power. In my own words, this includes the cost of the base things required 

for the laborer to survive, i.e. food, clothing, shelter, etc. As we are currently discussing 

this in class, I am to understand that this is the very base necessities of life and nothing 

more - certainly no nonproductive consumption. We also have to consider who is working, 

as in many cases this includes women and children, and how productive each worker is, 

including the intensity of this labor. Once we combine all these elements we then break this 

value down into what Marx terms as day-wages. The last step in this reduction to a lowest 

common denominator is to take this day-wage based on time and convert it to a ‘piece wage’ 

so that we can accurately compare the productivity and intensity of labor. Marx now takes 

a macro view of the national labor value. National averages are now compared with other 

national averages in the universal market and we see the conclusion that Marx reaches, that 

more intense national labor produces more value which we see as more money. The only 

caveat offered at this point is that this conclusion might not be true if competition in the 

world market has forced the more productive nation to sell its product at the actual level of 

their value. 

These products produced in different countries might then meet each other in an international 

marketplace. Their prices, a rough representation of the labor-power value of the 

country that produces the good, are not equal in comparison with competing products from 

different countries. Marx concludes that this representation of prices and wages shows that 

more developed countries also have nominal wages that are proportionately higher than their 


less developed counterparts. This does not translate to real wage equivalents, however, as 

the value of money in the less developed country is higher. The mistake we should not 

make, then, is to assume that higher wages/prices are indicative of labor that is more productive. 

The conclusion is that the price of labor is higher in ratio to surplus value in the 

more advanced country. With increased wages and production also come smaller surplus 

value ratios. This is compounded, in my opinion, by the mixture of money value in terms of 

country A, used to pay the lower wages in terms of money value in country B. In this case, 

the firm does not use labor from his/her own country because the wages are relatively higher 

than in foreign countries. The products are then produced using the cheaper foreign labor, 

where the surplus value of such labor is also greater in ratio to the cost of the labor. Instead 

of pricing these products, however, in general equivalents of the labor power, (foreign), cost 

they are priced at levels that more closely reflect the labor power cost of labor if they had 

been produced domestically. This seems like a win-win scenario for the firm from country 

A! 

Hans: The consumpton bundle which determines the value of labor power is usually not merely the “base necessities 

of life” but it has, as Marx says, also a moral and historical element in it. This “moral and historical” element 

is exactly the reason why wages differ so much between countries. Angus [408] corrected you there. 

At the end you got confused: Marx says that the more productive country has the higher wages but at the 

same time also the higher rate of exploitation. Your proposal that the company in the high-wage country should 

have its products produced in the low-wage country therefore did not work in Marx’s time, and indeed Marx gives 

several examples where the capitalists in England found out that they could not take advantage of the lower wages 

in Scotland, Germany, and Russia. Again Angus [408] noticed this and translated the Scotland example into a 

contemporary scenario regarding the production of computers in Texas versus Mexico. 

Message [370] referenced by [385], [408], [417], and [465]. Next Message by Quake is [378]. 

[378] Quake: Regarding Essay about Chapter 22 This is in response to Essay [360] on 

Chapter 22. Having done an essay on the same chapter, I had special interest in reading this 

essay. I appreciated the analytical approach that was taken in this essay. My one comment 

is really more of a question. In Essay [360], the authors say at one point, 

“Now, let’s assume that country ”A“ decides to change the way wages are paid from 

time-wages to piece-wages.” 

My question is whether this conversion to piece wages is actually intended by Marx as an 

explicit action taken by a country, or was Marx implying that this conversion was necessary 

for international comparison of wages? My paper assumes that the conversion is implicit, 

in arriving at a lowest common denominator of sorts for the comparison of productivity and 

intensity of labor. It could be that I am wrong in this interpretation, or that this explicit 

conversion in essay [360] was intended solely for the purpose of illustrating their point. 

Hans: You are right, Marx says one should convert time wages to piece wages in order to get a better idea whether 

wages are higher or lower in the other country. This is not a real conversion, it is only a measurement device. But 

termpaper [360] did not say anything that is against Marx. The authors of [360] used the conversion to piece wages 

in their story in order to motivate why work will be more intense. It could also have become more intense because 

more modern machinery allows better control of the worker. 

Message [378] referenced by [360]. Next Message by Quake is [383.1]. 

[390] Golf: Term Paper-Chapter 22 As was discussed in Chapter 17 two things were 

discovered in labor-power. First the value of labor-power and the many different changes 

brought upon it was talked about. And second the price of labor-power might undergo 

changes “independent of, or different from,” affecting this price (C701:1). The issues raised


in Chapter 17 about labor- power lead into the discussion in Chapter 22, wages. Chapter 

22 takes a look at the differences in wages among the various nations. All factors causing 

change in labor-power value must be looked at when comparing wages in different nations 

which are; the price and the extent of essentials of life, expenses for training workers, the 

role women and children play in labor, the productivity of labor, and its “extensive and 

intensive magnitude” (C701:1). The next step in determining the differences in wages is to 

agree upon a uniform working day. 

The extent of the workers intensity only alters the measurement of value if the work is 

above the national average. Therefore work done down below the demand is not counted as 

labor of “normal quality” (C702:1). Depending on which country, the average magnitude of 

labor changes. The more money in a wage becomes directly related to the intensity of labor 

in each nation, the more excessive the labor, the greater the money. The intensity of labor 

increases above the international level as developed countries turn to a capitalist production. 

But the more a developed country adapts to the capitalist production mode, the less relative 

value of money. Thus, in terms of money expressed in labor-power, nominal wages will be 

higher. This doesn’t guarantee that real wages also go up. 

The last section in Chapter 22 discusses writings from H. Carey who tries to prove in his 

essay that the degree of productivity in a working day, is directly related to the differences 

in national wages (C705:2). Marx disagrees with Carey and his reasoning on the wage 

difference among countries. Marx observes that Carey has an attitude in his writings that 

is “uncritical and superficial” (C705:2). Marx also criticizes Carey for not asserting things 

as they actually are, according to Carey’s theory. Carey states that state intervention has 

falsified the natural economic relation because part of the workers wage goes to the state in 

taxes. Marx argues that the “state expenses” of taxes are the “natural fruits” of a capitalist 

development (C705:2). Lastly, Marx challenges Carey’s view that trade destroys “the inborn 

beauties and harmonies of the capitalist mode of production”, and goes on to say if Carey 

goes any further he will find that capital itself is its real enemy in a capitalist production 

(C706:1). 

Hans: You say correctly that under capitalism, work below a certain minimum level of intensity and productivity 

is not counted as labor of “normal quality,” and the worker will therefore be fired. But you missed the important 

fact that this aspect of the law of value is “modified” in the international realm: A nation whose labor is below the 

average intensity and productivity can still compete, but its prices must be lower. 

There are several other basic misunderstandings and some malformed sentences. 

Message [390] referenced by [469]. Next Message by Golf is [398.7]. 

[394] Guyote and Veblen: chapter 22 In Chapter 22 of ‘Capital’, Marx addresses the 

apparent differences in national wages, or the wage paid for labor in different countries. 

Marx starts by asserting that in order to understand the differences in wages in different 

countries we must take into account the different factors which affect the value of labor 

power. Some of the most notable factors which affect the value of labor power are: the price 

of the necessities of life, the cost of training of the laborers, the role or extent to which the 

labor of woman and children in a particular country exists, and the productivity of the labor 

in the country. 

In relation to the fore-mentioned factors, we also must consider the average intensity of 

the labor. The average intensity of labor can be considered as changing from country to 


country. Countries whose average levels of labor intensity are above average or above those 

levels of other countries are considered to be more productive. More intense labor is more 

productive and is thus, more profitable, in the sense that more productive economies are 

manifested by more money. 

One factor which distorts this simple distinction is the skewed nature of international 

prices. For example, two countries may produce the same good in the same amount of labor 

time, however their prices may be different. The expression of the different values, in the 

form of prices, will be less in a country with a more developed means of production. 

In this case, the skewed nature of prices can be attributed to the presence of capitalist 

competition. Without this factor, the nominal wage as well as the real wage would be reflective 

of the differences in intensity and labor productivity. However this is not the case, 

as in the less developed country, the price of labor is actually higher. The difference in the 

real wage in the lesser developed country is due to the employment of a less productive 

means, creating lower surplus labor values. In this way, we may deduce one reason why 

more developed countries exist, because of greater profits for capitalists. 

Hans: Intensity of labor is only one factor; Marx also talks about productivity, and today the differences in productivity 

are more important than those in intensity. This is one of the things Paul [448] reacted to. 

In your third paragraph you are saying that competition leads to distortions in the market. This contrary to 

Marx’s view and also the modern view that lack of competition leads to distortions in the market. The nations Marx 

is talking about have economic significance, and the laws of value has to be “modified” in the international context, 

exactly because there is not a throrough enough competition between the commodities offered in these different 

countries. 

In your third paragraph you are also coming to the wrong conclusion: you seem to say that prices will be lower 

in the more advanced country, but Marx says they will be higher. Your last paragraph gets it right again: despite 

higher nominal wages in the more developed countries, capitalist profits are higher too. 

Message [394] referenced by [397], [448], [452], and [465]. Next Message by Guyote is [395]. 

[397] Gemni: Real vs Nominal In regard to Veblen and Guyote’s submission [394], and 

to add to our term paper [360], I would like to bring up one little thing. In the second country 

which is less advanced, they remarked that the real wage would be lower. I disagree. I say 

that the real wage is about the same as it is for the first country. As soon as nominal wages 

go up in the first country, economic factors will cause prices to increase which would mean 

that the nominal increase in wage was not really an increase, especially not in terms of real 

wages. The workers in country a are just paying more, but buying about the same amount. 

Country had no increase in nominal wages, so they are going to stay the same. Marx also 

realizes that the increase in nominal wages does not necessarily mean an increase in real 

wages, or even a decrease. The only time that the worker can take advantage of his nominal 

wage increase is to act quickly before the economy of that country is able to adjust and set a 

new higher price. The use of ‘real’ and ‘nominal’ wage must be closely scrutinized. 

Hans: Good point. 


[408] Angus: Discussion on Chapter 22 [370] gives a good overall analysis of the 

national differences of wages, and the value of labor power in different countries. With 

all due respect to Quake’s response I will attempt to add and perhaps clarify some of the 

admirable points that were made.


Marx explains that within every country there is a different average intensity of labor, 

and also that the average intensity of labor changes from country to country. Thus when 

a countries average intensity and productivity is above the national level, they are able to 

lower (may be forced by competition) their selling price to the level of their value. Thus, the 

relative value of money will be less in the nation with more developed capitalist modes of 

production than in the nation with less developed modes. (K. 702) 

Quake gives a good example in paragraph 4 of the relationships in value of labor to 

different countries, however I feel it helps to make the following distinctions. I think it is 

important to distinguish between piece wages and time wages, especially since it has not 

been addressed in the submissions. Time wages are measured in definite periods of time, 

such as hourly, daily or weekly. [374] Piece wages are determined not as with time wages 

by the fraction daily value of labor-power/working day of a given number of hours but by the 

producer’s capacity for work. [K.692.2] Now that we properly understand these differences, 

we can go ahead and reduce to the lowest common denominator as Quake describes in 

paragraph 3 and this relation to surplus value in paragraph 4. When comparing the wages 

of different countries it is important to realize the difference in production that may effect 

the price of the time wage and piece wage. For instance, it may be cheaper to produce a 

computer in Texas then Mexico. (Assuming that the apparent price of labor is usually lower 

in Mexico.) However, due to the fact that the necessary capital equipment is in Texas the 

price of labor actually ends up being cheaper than in Mexico. From this example we can 

conclude that piece labor for computer is cheaper in Texas, while time labor is cheaper in 

Mexico. 

Another point that is worth clarifying is Quakes definition of labor power in paragraph 3. 

Labor power is determined by the value of commodities in the subsistence bundle required 

for the maintenance of the worker and the means for reproducing more workers. However, 

it is important to note that the subsistence level is not a physical minimum. It increases over 

time due to the increasing prosperity of society. 

Beside these relatively minor adjustments/additions, I felt that Quake did a great job of 

analyzing chapter 22. 

Hans: Very good points. 


[417] Maine: I am responding to Quake [370] and his explanation of the national difference 

of wages and how it applies to the trade market. He realizes that “higher wages / 

prices are [not] indicative of labor that is more productive.” One would think that goods on 

the world market would reflect the labor-power of the country in which they were produced. 

Marx had concluded that the “representation of prices and wages shows that more developed 

countries all have nominal wages that are proportionately higher than their less developed 

counterparts.” 

Some companies in more developed countries try to circumvent the disadvantage placed 

on them by higher wages. Quake cites the example of a company from country A, a developed 

country, using the labor from country B, a less developed country. An example of this 

might be Nike, an American company which has shoes produced in Indonesia. The shoes, 


sold in America, reflect a higher ticket price than they would in Indonesia. Quake concludes 

that this is a win win scenario for the firm from the developed country. 

Hans: You are misled by an error in Quake’s [370] which Angus [408] has already pointed out: Chapter 22 is 

full of examples where the English capitalists could not take advantages of the lower time wages abroad, because 

measured by the piece, the wages abroad where higher. 


[448] Paul: response to 922 In response to veblin and guyote[394], I am curious about 

some of their phrasing. “More intense labor is more productive and is thus, more profitable, 

in the sense that more productive economies are manifested by more money.” guyote[394] 

The country who works harder than the next will receive more profit for their commodities. 

What if a country has more superior means of production? The laborers of the superior 

country may not have to work as hard to produce the same commodity. 

This is something that I did not fully understand with chapter 22. “marx has argued 

that the productiveness and intensity of labour rise as capital develops, so an hour of labour 

will create more value in an advanced than in a less advanced country.” (A guide to Marx’s 

Capital, ch22, pg. 65) This states that the superior country also is the more intense because 

of the development of capital. But does Marx consider the superior country with less intense 

labor not possible because of its developed capital? 

Hans: You are right, Veblen and Guyote should also have mentioned productiveness (Marx did). Your Brewer 

quote says “productiveness and intensity”, and productiveness (what you call “superior means of production”) is 

much more important today than intensity. 

Message [448] referenced by [394]. First Message by Paul is [104]. 

[452] Maktub: 922, again. I want to critique [394], even though many submissions have 

already been made about this essay. I find the deduction made in the last sentence of their 

submission “In this way, we may deduce one reason why more developed countries exist, [is] 

because of greater profits for capitalists”, intriguing. I think that it is just the reverse. To me, 

a highly developed country has the perfect attributes to foster a high surplus-value economy, 

but the development comes first. Capitalistic forces spring up from this development, not 

the other way around. I get the idea that [394] is saying that a highly developed country 

is created for the purpose of high profits, by capitalists. Highly developed countries do not 

exist for the capitalists, but capitalists sure do thrive in that type of setting. Switzerland, for 

example, is a highly developed country, and they are not capitalists. 

They also talk about the price of labor being higher in a less developed country. If we 

want to talk in strictly Marxian terms, they should have rephrased that to say the price of 

labor power is higher, for we all know that it is labor power that is bought and sold, not labor. 

Labor has no value, so it can’t have a price. I also have a hard time understanding this. If 

the price of labor power is higher, that would lead to higher wages for the laborers, which 

would lead to higher prices for the commodities that they produce, which in turn would keep 

everything relatively the same. I think that the better way to say that would have been to 

say that it takes more time to produce a commodity with less productive means. Because it 

takes more time, the value of the commodities they produce are relatively higher in the less 

developed country, so they cost more, relatively speaking, making the wage received lower, 

which makes the country poorer. As Marx says “the relative value of money will, therefore, 

be less in the nation with more developed capitalist mode of production than in the nation 

with less development” (Capital, ch. 22, paragraph 4). In the less developed countries, the


value of money is higher, things cost more. The more developed countries can produce more 

in the same amount of time as the less developed. 

Hans: When Guyote and Veblen wrote: “more developed countries exist because of greater profits for the capitalists” 

they probably meant: countries with higher technology and higher wages are economically feasible in the face 

of the competition of the low-wage countries because the higher technology allows the capitalists to make higher 

profits. 

How do you get the idea Switzerland is not a capitalist country? 

Labor has a price, but this price does not come from the value of labor (which does not exist) but from the value 

of labor power. But the link between the value of labor power and the value of labor is indirect enough that a higher 

price of labor is not the same thing as a higher price of labor power. 

You seem to still have some quite basic misunderstandings regarding Marx’s theory. 

First Message by Maktub is [40]. 

[465] Guyote: I feel compelled to comment on Chapter 22. Specifically on the term 

paper by Quake [370]. Firstly, I’d like to start off with aspects of Quake’s paper that I 

liked. Overall, Quake did a good job at summarizing chapter 22. I think the overall analysis 

in Quake’s submission was clear and well formulated. This was especially the case in the 

introductory paragraphs. Additionally, Quake did a much better job than my group did in 

our explanation of the existence of higher nominal wages in more developed countries. In 

this respect I felt that our submission [394] fell a little short. However I do feel that Quake’s 

analysis didn’t have the stamina I would have expected. By this, I mean that I felt the recount 

of chapter 22 began to unravel towards the end. In this respect, one particular line struck me 

as being vague and, in fact, contrary from my interpretation of chapter 22. In [370] Quake 

wrote that nominal wages are higher in developed countries but that 

“this does not translate to real wage equilivants, however, as the value of 

money in the less developed countries is higher.” 

While this section Quake’s analysis may appear to be trivial, and hardly worth commenting 

on, I believe that the message is central to the whole chapter. I think that in this respect, 

Quake has confused the arguments, which Marx is critizing, of H. Cary with the comments 

of Marx himself. Marx said that in relation to H. Cary’s attempt to describe the differences 

in national wages he does not take into the account the fact that: 

“The different national wages must therefore be calculated on the assumption 

that the part of them goes to the state in the form of taxes was received 

by the worker himself” (C705:2). 

With this in mind, I think that if Quake had taken this factor into account, his conclusion 

regarding real wages in the the developed economies versus those real wages in less 

developed economies might be different. 

If we do assume that the part of the worker’s wage which is paid in the form of taxes 

is returned to the worker in some way, then it would follow that this may be considered as 

a factor in determining the real wage. The level of social goods provided to the worker. 

However, we also know the reality of the case. The fact that, more often than not, the returns 

from tax payments for workers in developed economies tends to be higher than the return on 

tax payment in lesser developed economies. 


This could be due to lacking efficiency, technology, corruption, or the sort. Even today, 

we see the case where workers are slaving away in foreign owned factories in the developing 

world. Corporate profits are exported to the U.S or Eurpoe. Additionally, the worker is taxed 

by the state government. This government revenue often disapears, with little trace. The end 

result is a rising of real wages in the developing economy due to the exported profits as well 

as the wasted investment by the worker, in the government. Therefore, real wages would, 

essentially, fall. 

Hans: I wish you had made more specific corrections of your own paper, so that I would be able to reflect this as 

an amendment in the grade of that paper. 

You are noticing that Marx agrees with Carey’s finding that wages are higher in the countries with higher 

productivity, I don’t think many others noticed this. The next question is then, of course, why is Marx so down on 

Carey? Your answer is: because Carey should have used before-tax wages. But the use of before-tax wages was not 

Marx’s proposal but Marx’s rendering of Carey’s argument. Marx apparently found it so outlandish that he did not 

even respond to it specifically but replied with a rather philosophical criticism of Carey’s whole approach. I myself 

find it legitimate to wonder whether wages should be measured before or after taxes, and I don’t quite understand 

why Marx dismisses it out of hand. 

First Message by Guyote is [141.7]. 

[466] Golf: 922 Comments on chapter 22 Guyote and Veblen did an excellent job of 

their term paper. Their comments were easy to understand, making the paper interesting to 

read. Now to comment on their paper. 

The first section of their paper focuses on factors that affect the wage among different 

countries. It is interesting to see the different factors that effect wages among other countries, 

such as: price of necessities of life, the cost of training of the laborers, and the productivity 

of the labor in the country. From these factors the ones that seem to have the greates impact 

upon wages would be: the cost of training employees, and how productive the labor is. 

The next section deals with the intensity of labor. The higher the intensity level, the 

more productive a country will be. They make a very vaulable point when they state, “More 

intense labor is more productive and is thus, more profitable.” This makes sense because 

usually higher profits come from harder work. 

The part of their paper that I would like to comment on is the last section. This section 

talks about capitalist competition. The competition that exists in a capitalist economy is the 

cause of the “skewed nature” of prices. If this factor is taken away then nominal and real 

wages would be determined from the differences in intensity and labor productivity. The 

less developed country shows us that this is not the case, because the price of labor is higher 

in these areas. Guyote and Veblen have done an excellent job on this term paper. 

Hans: When you write: “higher profits come from harder work” I hope you are aware that, according to Marx’s 

theory, it is the harder work of the worker, not that of the capitalist, which is responsible for the capitalist’s profits. 

And the assertion in your last paragraph that wages are too high for the level of productivity in the less developed 

countries also has nothing to do with Marxism. 

First Message by Golf is [42]. 

[469] Navin: Golf’s term paper [390] is a little bit jumpy and therefor is a little hard to 

follow. He uses some very good quotes in the essay. Some very effectively. I would like 

to focus on his second paragraph that deals directly with the question of whether wages are 

higher in a country that capitalism is more advanced or one that is less advanced.


Golf states that the more money in a wage is related to the intensity of the labor in a 

country. This is true in the fact that the more goods that they produce in a given work day 

the more they get paid. The real question is how does their wage compare with those in a 

similar occupation in a country with a lesser intensity of labor. The answer is that both of the 

goods produced have to be sold on the same world market. Value is exchanged for value on 

the market. If an hour of one countries labor will not trade for an hour of another countries 

labor it is because the values are different. (A guide to Marx’s Capital p. 65-66.) 

Thus, wages and buying power can and usually are higher in a more advanced country 

(more advanced in capital). The rate of surplus value can and usually is greater also. This 

conclusion differs from Golf’s and several other term papers on the subject. I think having 

to sell our products on the same market explains the differences. 

Hans: A free market benefits the countries with more technology, because they can use their technology to appropriate 

the labor of others in an unequal exchange. 

First Message by Navin is [56]. 

Compiled by Hans G. Ehrbar 2013-07-07 04:18:41.

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ... - University of Utah

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?