Question 6 The first thing t - University of Utah

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ALL STUDY QUESTIONS
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH FALL SEMESTER 2010
Question 6 is 5 in 2008fa and 6 in 2011fa:
Question 6 The first thing that Marx says about the commodity is that it presents itself to
the economic agents as a thing with two different properties, use-value and exchange-value.
Why does the title of the first section then say that the two factors of the commodity are
use-value and value, instead of use-value and exchange-value?
[1] Cougar: graded A Value or Exchange Value. A commodity is defined as “... something
produced for sale or exchange,” on page four of Hans’ annotations on Karl Marx’s
Capital. Although not explicitly written by Marx, anything “... that is produced for sale,”
is considered to him a commodity. The first section describes two unrelated measures of
value for a commodity. “Use-Value” refers to any possible use of a commodity, from the
purpose of its design to its abuse for improvised purposes. The second measure, “value” is
inferred by the question to have replaced the term “exchange-value” mentioned in an earlier
version of Marx’s text. As defined by Hans’ annotations on page one, “Value is that property
inherent in the commodity which is responsible for its ability to be exchanged on the market.”
According to Marx, “value” is purely an economic measure of a commodity. Inherent
in the term “commodity” is its purpose for exchange in a marketplace, as defined by Hans.
Thus the “value” of a commodity is the inherent property which provides its demand for exchange
in an economic marketplace. Exchange is an intrinsic characteristic of commodity,
therefore, “exchange-value” of a commodity is redundant. “Use-Value” and “value” serve
merely as revised yet substantial vector coordinates of a commodity when considering the
parenthetical text following the section title: “Substance of Value, Magnitude of Value.”
Message [1] referenced by [3] and [2011fa:274]. Next Message by Cougar is [101].
[2] KA: Exchange Value vs. Value. Marx substitutes the term exchange-value for value
to emphasize the quantitative relationship between commodities. It is the “magnitude” of
the exchange of commodities. Marx illustrates the differences in very simple terms in
127:4–128:1: “Such properties come into consideration only to the extent that they make
the commodities useful, i.e., turn them into use-values. But clearly, the exchange relation of
commodities is characterized precisely by its abstraction from their use-values.” To further
elaborate on these differences, I have provided examples of each term.
Use-Value: The emphasis of “use-value” is best described through the value derived by
utilizing the characteristics/traits of a resource/commodity to produce another product/commodity.
This will enable one to exchange one good for the consumption of another good. For example,
land can best be described as a use-value by it inherent traits of what it can produce.
1
2 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Land can be used to produce a series of products/commodities that can eventually mature to
the stage where one can barter/exchange it for another product/commodity. It is the usefulness
of the land that makes it a use-value, either through the potential economic gains that
can be realized after production or its immediate consumption.
Exchange-value: Exchange-value was replaced with the term “value” to express a level of
barter. In order to obtain one product/commodity, an individual must give up the consumption
of another product/commodity of equal value. This transaction could translate into a
1:1 exchange or 1:2 exchange (or higher ratio) depending on the intrinsic value one assigns
to their supply goods of versus their demand for a another good. For example, your demand
is for 1 commodity, say apples and your exchange supply is oranges. You are willing to give
up 2 oranges for every 1 apple. This subjectively defines your exchange-value or “value” for
apples. Hans highlights this on pp. 2 of the annotation by stating that “not its substance but
its magnitude.” The exchange proportion of one commodity versus another is the magnitude
one demands for consumption with respect to their inventory of equivalent bartering goods.
Hans: Your quotes from Marx and the Annotations do not say what you think they say.
You seem to think that the Marx quote says that exchange-value is something quantitative. But the word
“quantity” does not even show up in this quote. “Abstraction from use-value” is not the same as “quantity.” The
Marx quote says that exchange-value cannot derive from the physical properties of things, because these physical
properties are not a constant in the exchange, they are all over the place. Admittedly, this is a difficult argument.
It takes some thought to wrap one’s head around it. And if one cannot quite follow Marx’s argument it is easy to
make up one’s own thoughts and think this is what Marx is saying.
The quote from my Annotations is taken out of context. The phrase “not its substance but its magnitude.” can
be found in my text, but the context is not that I say exchange-value depends not on the substance of the use-value
but its magnitude. I was simply saying that in one part of section 1 of chapter One, Marx discusses the substance
of value, and in the next part he discusses not its substance but its magnitude. You are really putting words into
my mouth which I clearly did not mean to say. If that were a real debate, you would get a sharply worded rebuttal
from me, questioning whether you were really interested in a debate or whether you were just using every trick in
the book to push your own agenda.
Message [2] referenced by [5]. Next Message by KA is [48].
[3] Hans: Why value and not exchange-value? Cougar read the Annotations carefully,
and he will get an A for submission [1]. But his thinking is obviously grounded in the
mainstream economic framework, and he did not quite realize how different Marx’s theory is
from modern mainstream economics. For instance when I write in the Annotations “Value is
that property inherent in the commodity which is responsible for its ability to be exchanged
on the market” Cougar thinks I am talking about that inherent property which “provides
its demand for exchange in an economic marketplace.” Khub [2008fa:7] had similar ideas.
Khub thought the concept of value encapsulated those aspects of use-value which everybody
can agree on.
Marx was thinking along completely different lines. In his theory, the thing inherent in
the commodities which determines its price is not the usefulness of the commodity, but it is
the labor content of the commodity. This is what Marx calls “value.”
Therefore value in Marx’s theory is really quite different than exchange-value. Value is
labor content, i.e., it is generated in production. Exchange-value is the commodity’s ability
to fetch other commodities in the market. In order to illustrate how they are related, allow
me to give an example from my own life:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 3
When I was in elementary school in Germany in the 1950s, the teacher once discussed
the differences between men and women. I thought I knew all about it: women have breasts
while men don’t, their genitals are different, and women have long hair while men have short
hair. I was baffled when the teacher rejected my third criterion, in fact, I was so baffled that I
still remember this today. Of course, the teacher rejected it for a good reason. The hair style
is not what makes a woman a woman. The hair style is irrelevant for her ability to bear and
raise children. Rather, the hair style is society’s reaction to her womanhood.
Marx’s theory makes an analogous distinction between value and exchange-value. In
152:1 (section 3 of chapter One) Marx writes:
When at the beginning of this chapter we said, in common parlance, that a
commodity is a use-value and an exchange-value, we were, strictly speaking,
wrong. A commodity is a use-value or object of utility, and a “value.”
It represents itself as this twofold thing, that it is, as soon as its value assumes
its own, from the bodily form of the commodity different form of
appearance, that of exchange-value.
The inherent quality which really matters is value, i.e., the labor inside the commodity.
The exchange-value is only society’s reaction to the labor inside the commodity, think of it
as an echo, just as the long hair is society’s reaction to somebody being a woman (at least in
1950’s Germany).
It is therefore not an accident that Marx says the two factors of the commodity are usevalue
and value. Value is the thing inherent in the commodity, namely the labor content.
Exchange-value is society’s reaction to this inherent thing, but it is not itself an inherent
thing in the commodity and can therefore not be called a factor of the commodity.
Message [3] referenced by [515] and [2011fa:274]. Next Message by Hans is [5].
[5] Hans: Please read the text carefully. Reading a text and getting out of it what the
author intended, rather than what is floating around in your own head, is difficult. KA [2]
is not reading Marx carefully enough. The reading assignments are not long, but don’t be
surprised if you have to read it several times before you really get it. Marx has to be read
carefully because he does not say things which a modern reader would expect him to say. I
made some more detailed comments about [2], which you can see when you download the
pdf archive
or
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/halfpage/2010fa.pdf
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/2010fa.pdf
Next Message by Hans is [11].
[420] Jon: A commodity is a product that is produced with the intent to sell or exchange.
When Marx talks about the use value he refers to the person’s use of the commodity after
it has been exchanged for that can differ from commodity and by person. Exchange value
on the other hand is the value of the commodity that it is traded for, there is an intrinsic
factor for all commodities and that is labor as has been discussed. The reason that Marx
refers to Exchange value as simply “Value” is that when talking about a commodity it is
4 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
redundant to place Exchange in front of that value when it is inferred that the commodity
will be exchanged based on the fact that it is a commodity and made for the purpose of
exchange.
Hans: Exchange-value and value are two different things, not two words for the same thing.
Next Message by Jon is [421].
[426] AM: A look at the definitions of the terms use-value, value, and exchange value
is important for an understanding why Marx says that the two factors of the commodity
are use-value and value rather than saying the two factors of the commodity are use-value
and exchange-value. My in-class answer failed to provide definitions of the terms, which I
remedy below. Use-value is defined as the different uses of any given commodity. Since usevalue
is determined by the individual there is as Khub [7] says variety among use-values.
Value is defined as the labor content in a commodity. It is important to note that Marx
explicitly states that the labor content is inherent in a commodity. Exchange-value is “the
commodity’s ability to fetch other commodities in the market.” To help clarify what this
means Hans suggests that we think of exchange-value as a reaction to the inherent labor
content in a commodity. These definitions came out all wrong in my in class attempt to
distinguish why Marx used the terms use-value and value. I said that “exchange-value and
value share an inherent something; that something is labor.” This is wrong. Since labor
is inherent in a commodity and exchange value is not, Marx would not include exchange
value as a factor of a commodity. I go on to suggest that exchange-value and value can be
used interchangeably and present that as the reason that Marx did not use exchange value
is his title of the first section. This again is wrong (perhaps the pressure of an exam had a
horrid effect on my ability to express my understanding of Marx’s basic principles, although
my understanding of Marx is not as advanced as perhaps Hans would like). Instead of
saying that these terms are interchangeable I should have presented, as Hans does in response
to Chad [13], value as an “intrinsic property of the commodities governing the exchange
proportions”. This shows that value and exchange-value are different concepts rather than
interchangeable ones.
Next Message by AM is [430].
[431] Fisher: Use value, as we are all well aware of at this point, refers to the “menu of
uses” for that particular commodity. Marx refers to it as the “opposite” of exchange value.
Value, on the other hand, is referred to by Marx as the “property inherent in the commodity
which is responsible for its ability to be exchanged on the market”. According to Marx “usevalue”
has nothing in common with value, except the word. The real value of a commodity
comes from its ability to be exchanged with other goods in the market place. Use value
means simply how we use an item never alluding to its ability to be exchanged.
Hans: The definitions are correct, but this does not yet answer the question.
Message [431] referenced by [515]. Next Message by Fisher is [435].
[515] Milly: content A late penalty 1% In my first in class submission I believe I clearly
defined the terms use-value, exchange-value and value, just like Fisher did in [431], however
we really didn’t answer the question. There is actually a reason Marx purposely starts the
first section with use-value and value. Although the answer is within the difference between
the definitions of value and exchange-value, the question is asking why Marx chose value. It
is because value is the thing that is inherent in the commodity, where exchange-value is not.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 5
Exchange-value is just the social relation or society’s reaction to the thing that is inherent. It
is the labor content that is really important inside the commodity, which is value. [2010fa:3]
Next Message by Milly is [517].
Question 9 is 2 in 1996sp, 1 in 1997WI, 1 in 1997sp, 1 in 1997ut, 1 in 1998WI, 1 in 1999SP,
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 2011fa, and 1 in Answer:
Question 9 Can one say that happiness is the only true wealth?
[4] Alex: content B+ form 90% Happiness and True Wealth. Marx states that wealth in
a capitalistic production market is defined by a “heap of commodities.” Hans explains that
he refers here to material objects that enhance human life. However, defining wealth as only
a material asset could be a debatable topic, which could be touched on when answering this
question.
So, replying to this question with regards to Marx’s definition of wealth, and with Hans’
explanation, happiness is not the only true wealth experienced by humans because happiness
is, well, not material. Happiness cannot be included in the “heap of commodities”
which Marx mentioned in his excerpt because according to the annotations, “a commodity
is something produced for sale or exchange” in which Marx refers to a “commodity is everything,
whether raw material or finished good, whether a specialized brand name article
or a staple, that is produced for sale.” Can we produce and sell happiness? Not directly. We
get the usefulness or value of commodities that we buy, which produce happiness, but we
cannot buy happiness as a material wealth.
My understanding is that Marx wants the reader to recognize that wealth is described
as tangible objects, commodities, and not ideas or feelings that give us some kind of value
or utility. Nevertheless, the other interpretation of wealth is that it is something that enhances
human life and not necessary has to be material, in this case happiness, or maybe joy,
or health. These concepts surely enhance human life for many individuals, however, they
would not fit under Marx’s idea, or category of wealth. From Marx’s point of view, the only
“true wealth” that would accommodate his definition of wealth would be exactly the “heap
of commodities,” or material items that enhance human lives, such as money, properties,
etc. Hence, true wealth would be experienced by having abundance of material items that
enhance our lives, and nothing else aside from that.
Hans: Your original answer was one long paragraph; I broke it into three. I also broke up a couple of your winding
run-on sentences. Please work on this. Go back over your text and edit it so that it is easy to understand for the
reader.
Message [4] referenced by [12] and [147]. Next Message by Alex is [31].
[6] Cmellen: graded A+ If you are speaking from the ideology of Marxism, then no, happiness
is not the only true wealth. To be even more clear, happiness can never be wealth, for
wealth is tangible and happiness is a feeling. “Man is a wealth-seeking animal” (Hodgkinson
1982). Wealth consists of goods or commodities, (which are not free) that enhance human
life. This is not only pertaining to luxury items in life, but anything such as food, clothing,
shelter, education, etc. Wealth endows one with a supposed potential of happiness. However,
if the wealth is not spread around to all, then the society cannot be happy as a whole.
One may perceive that life is a cycle of wealth acquisition, consumption, and distribution.
6 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
We all think we know what wealth is, and we want it because it will result in happiness.
Still, happiness is a presumptive end of man; it’s a feeling that is not tangible, real, or solid.
Wealth is the means to the end goal (i.e. happiness). Wealth is the material, concrete, and
substantial commodities that will enable the happiness one strives for in the end.
Reference 1. Hodgkinson, C., Wealth and Happiness: An Analysis and Some Implications
for Education. Canadian J Education, 1982.7(1): p.1-14
Hans: This article is on Jstor. If someone wanted to write a Marxist critique of it, I would accept this as a term
paper (and maybe you could even publish it). Usually the connection between wealth and happiness is made only
on an individual level, and I like Cmellen’s extension of this connection to society as a whole. If I remember right,
this is a new thought which none of the dozens of answers to this question in the archives ever had. But it is entirely
logical, because wealth can only be produced in a social context. But Cmellen should not have used the figure of
speech “spreading around wealth” which frames the issue in a right-wing manner: it conjures the image of wealth
being created by individuals, some of whom are more industrious than others, and then those who work hardest get
expropriated. If you start with the notion that the production of wealth is a social process, then the next question is
whether the social distribution of wealth is fair or whether it could be improved.
One last point. You are using the word “commodity” in its colloquial meaning, as synonymous to “good” or
“article.” But Marx reserves the word “commodity” only for goods that are produced for sale. Therefore strictly
speaking, from the point of view of this class, your use of the word “commodity” in your answer was wrong both
times.
Final Grading Note by Hans: Whenever you participate, you give it 150%; but your participation comes in bursts;
it would have been better to have a more steady presence in class.
Message [6] referenced by [10] and [28]. Next Message by Cmellen is [43].
[7] Kraken: (graded A–) Happiness and wealth. According to Marx, wealth is anything
that enhances human life. Included in his definition of wealth would be both physical possessions
that we personally own and other things that we don’t own like clean air and crime
free cities and beautiful public parks. So to answer the question: Can one say that happiness
is the only true wealth? The answer would be no. Wealth is what makes happiness a possibility.
Most people need life enhancing things in order to be happy. A life completely devoid
of physical comforts, safety, good health and beauty (which all fall within Marx’s definition
of wealth) would be unhappy indeed.
Hans: You answered the question: “can one be happy without material wealth?” This is a different question than:
“is happiness the only true wealth?”. But since you include ecosystem services in material wealth, it is a very timely
issue. People are not aware how much they depend on the environment being just right for humans. After the full
brunt of climate change can be felt, there will be a rude awakening.
Message [7] referenced by [426]. Next Message by Kraken is [29].
[8] Hal: graded A+ Wealth and Happiness. Wealth is not a state of mind; it is purely
material. Wealth consists of the material things that improve our well being and enhance our
lives, while happiness is the recognition of good things in life. Therefore, as mentioned in
previous answers to this question (located in the archives), wealth is an input and happiness
is an output. To equate happiness with wealth is to redefine wealth and make its meaning
more ambiguous – even mystical. It is a clever use of words that I believe is meant to cause
people to, on some level, believe that they can achieve happiness in ways they cannot.
If one claims that happiness can be achieved independently of wealth, why even suggest
that it is some form of wealth? If wealth is useless, why connect it with such a wonderful
emotion as happiness? It would be more direct to say that wealth is useless in obtaining
happiness. Perhaps with such a direct claim, it is easier for the listener to look at his/her own
life and determine that some amount of wealth is indeed necessary.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 7
Even Ghandi was the beneficiary of a good education and a stable upbringing. He practiced
a form of voluntary simplicity, rejecting many forms of wealth, but voluntary simplicity
feels much more noble than involuntary simplicity. Our society is becoming increasingly
aware that there are many expensive goods and services that will not provide us with greater
happiness. However, we should not jump to the conclusion that we are giving up wealth and
remaining just as happy. In actuality, we are trading certain commodities for other forms of
wealth, such as clean air and more leisure time. We have simply become aware that many
goods and services are taking away more wealth from society (i.e. clean air) than they are
providing.
Hans: Excellent answer. Originally, the last sentence in your first paragraph said: “It is a clever use of words that
... is meant to cause people to ... believe that they can achieve wealth in ways they cannot.” I changed “wealth” into
“happiness” because I think you misspoke, you really meant happiness. Let me know if I guessed wrong.
Message [8] referenced by [19]. Next Message by Hal is [233].
[28] Somramthom: Happiness Improves your Health. Cmellen [6] states that happiness
isn’t the only true wealth and that happiness isn’t wealth at all because it isn’t tangible.
Cmellen also states that “Wealth endows one with a supposed potential of happiness.” and
“Wealth is the means to the end goal (i.e. happiness).”
I would have to disagree. Marx doesn’t state that all wealth is tangible, but rather refers to
a type of wealth: “material” wealth. Wealth is something that enhances human life. Cmellen
argues that these material things are what make us happy or rather what drives our happiness.
In our modern society of consumerism, it is becoming increasingly evident that this is more
a false statement than it is true.
I suggest that attitude is the determining factor in obtaining and maintaining happiness.
There can be two men of equal social stature, economic status and demographic region. Yet
these two men could be polar opposites by means of happiness. This would be true for two
wealthy individuals with little concern for economic well being or two men in a slum. The
principle is the same.
Also, happiness is an aspect that improves human life. According to one study, Happy
people are “less likely to suffer heart attacks, strokes, and pain from conditions like rheumatoid
arthritis.” (http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/061217/25happy.health.htm)
Thus happiness is a type of wealth, albeit an intangible type.
Wealth influences your happiness, but doesn’t directly cause it. So while happiness is not
the “one true wealth” it is a type of wealth despite being intangible.
Hans: Interesting thought. What do others think about this? This question is no longer assigned, but if you make an
ungraded submission, i.e., if your first line is ::Q:9ug, then it will be accepted and it will count as a free discussion
contribution for you.
Next Message by Somramthom is [156].
Question 10 is 3 in 1995ut, 2 in 1996ut, 2 in 1997WI, 2 in 1997sp, 3 in 2003fa, 6 in
2005fa, 9 in 2008fa, and 7 in 2012fa:
Question 10 Wouldn’t scarcity be a better starting point for understanding how a given
society is functioning than wealth? When there is scarcity, this means there is a need to act,
whereas wealth consists of dead things. Scarcity leads us to discover what drives society,
wealth does not.
8 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[9] RexManning: graded A When a society functions in scarcity, it is driven by more
pure individual instincts of survival, there is not a lot of care or concern for the society as
a whole, but the focus is on the individual who is merely trying to survive. Ricardo states
that, “Even during a famine, corn is imported because the corn-merchant thereby makes
money, and not because the nation is starving.” During these times of scarcity, people are
more concerned with their own wellbeing and not the wellbeing of society, which makes it
difficult to understand how a society functions. When there is wealth in society, people are
more likely to operate as if there were not any outside inference. An example is that in most
wealthy countries there are entire organizations devoted to the wellbeing of the environment,
the less fortunate, and their communities. It is easy to see that wealthier countries function
in a way that benefits society, because they have the means to do so. A society that is
functioning in scarcity is going to be less concerned about society as a whole.
Message [9] referenced by [288], [295], [337], and [734]. Next Message by RexManning is [161].
[288] Somramthom: graded A Scarcity vs Wealth. In my opinion, the most important
part of the question to consider is the phrase, “a given society...” This question is asking about
the behaviors of a society and how the society functions, not how an individual functions.
RexManning [9] mentioned that societies don’t function as well in time so of scarcity as in
times of prosperity and great material wealth. In scarcity the functions of the individuals
focus on the individual and away from the society as a whole. This is similar as if each cell
in a multicellular organism functioned to satisfy its immediate and direct needs (individual
needs) rather than functioning in its specialized manner for the overall good of the organism
(societal needs). It is easy to see in this circumstance the organism would not flourish, but
die. Thus it is difficult to understand the behaviors of an organism (society) when it is
struggling to survive. It cannot do its simple actions because each cell (individual) is not
doing its part in the complex multicellular organism.
If the individuals do not do their part, then the wealth cannot enhance human life to the
extent it could in a society where the means exist to reach out to the less fortunate.
Hans: Most of those people whom you call “less fortunate” are in Marx’s view systematically robbed of the fruits
of their labor. It is not an accident that there are so many poor people in capitalism. Capitalism creates wealth for a
few and poverty for the majority.
Message [288] referenced by [295] and [734]. Next Message by Somramthom is [346].
[295] Hans: Oops, this question will not be in the exam. Answer [9] got an A because
it has interesting fresh thinking. It makes one big mistake which I should have caught but
didn’t. When Marx uses the word “wealth” he does not mean “abundance.” Any use-value,
even if it is Kool-Aid, is part of society’s “wealth” as Marx uses the word. Because of this
oversight I pulled the question from the exam, it will not be in the exam. The “right” answer,
in a nutshell, is that according to Marx, the most important social relations, those which you
have to understand first in order to get a grip of all the other social relations, are the relations
in and with respect to production, and production produces wealth. This is why you need to
study wealth, not its content (use-value), but what Marx calls its “social form.”
And what about “dead”? This is a teaser I wrote into the question in order to see if you
notice. We just studied the fetish-like character of commodities. I.e., in capitalism, wealth
is far from dead but very much alive.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 9
Somramthon’s answer [288] is also very good and worth reading. I think it’s a look ahead;
we will soon experience how social relations change when people are pushed closer to their
survival limit through the multitude of climate-change induced crises heading our way. I
think it can already be felt and, to be honest, I think a religious community is not a bad
place to be in times like these. Somramthon’s emphasis that wealth is social is very much in
Marx’s sense.
It you are interested to read more about the Marx answer to this question, look at my
[1997sp:2] (the entire discussion in that Quarter is useful) and my [2003fa:7]. The question
is still assigned so that you can get credit if you want to respond to this. But I am going to
take it out of the next version of Installment 1, and it will not be on the exam.
Message [295] referenced by [337], [680], and [734]. Next Message by Hans is [307].
[337] RexManning: There was no big mistake. In response to Hans [295] finding a “big
mistake” in answer [9], Marx does use the word “wealth” in a very broad sense. To quote
directly from the annotations “Marx uses the word ‘wealth’ not only for ABUNDANCE or
EXTRAVAGANCE of things enhancing human life; anything which enhances human life,
however modest it may be, is part of society’s wealth.” So it seems that wealth does include
abundance (along with anything else that enhances life), at least according to the annotations.
Hans: The sentence “wealth includes abundance (along with anything else that enhances life)” is illogical because
abundance is not a thing. A sentence without this logical flaw would for instance be “wealth includes private jets
(along with anything else that enhances life).”
The word “abundance” refers to a situation where people have more than enough things to satisfy their needs.
In [9] you wrote “when there is wealth in society” in the meaning “when there is abundance in society.” This was
your mistake.
It is not a mistake considering the modern usage of the word “wealth.” Nowadays, this word is often used to
mean abundance. But Marx did not use the word “wealth” in this way. Even in a society where there is barely
enough to keep people alive, Marx thinks the production of wealth (by which he means all use-values, from Kool-
Aid to private jets) is the most important social activity to look at first.
Next Message by RexManning is [455].
Exam Question 11 is 3 in 1995WI, 6 in 1995ut, 6 in 1996sp, 4 in 1997sp, 3 in 1998WI,
3 in 1999SP, 6 in 2004fa, 7 in 2005fa, 12 in 2007SP, 10 in 2007fa, 10 in 2008fa, 10 in
2009fa, 11 in 2011fa, and 8 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 11 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.)
[296] She: graded A Concisely Defining a Commodity. A commodity is anything that is
produced for sale or exchange regardless of if it is ever actually sold or exchanged.
Message [296] referenced by [303] and [307]. Next Message by She is [298].
[302] KA: Definition of a commodity. Marx states, “The commodity is, first of all, an
external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind.”
Marx goes further to say that a commodity can be both raw materials or finished goods,
so long as they can be exchanged or sold. He states this as, “Nor does it matter here how
the thing satisfies man’s need, whether directly as a means of subsistence, i.e. an object of
consumption, or indirectly as a means of production.”
Message [302] referenced by [303] and [307]. Next Message by KA is [304].
10 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[303] Lindsey: A different definition of a commodity. I realize that this exam question
has been answered by both She [296] and KA [302] but I believe I give a rather different
definition of a commodity, the key difference being that a commodity must intrinsically
contain abstract human labor. My definition:
A commodity is a good, which has both value (created through abstract human labor)
and use-value (possible uses that humans can find for the object). It may also be exchanged
within a society for other such goods (Marx calls this exchange-value).
Message [303] referenced by [307]. Next Message by Lindsey is [361].
[307] Hans: Commodities, H2O and dead cats. She’s [296] is correct.
KA [302] is wrong, despite the literal Marx quote: “The commodity is, first of all, an
external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind.”
This is not Marx’s definition of a commodity but only the first step in the analysis of the
commodity. A paraphrase might be: “The first thing we notice when we pick up a commodity
is that it is a physical object with a use-value.” But a few sentences later Marx says it also
has an exchange-value. Marx never defines the commodity; he assumes the reader knows
what he is talking about when he calls a thing a commodity.
Lindsey [303] gives what is sometimes called a “real” definition, she enumerates the
essential qualities which make a commodity what it is. It is like defining water by saying
water is H2O. At the beginning of the chapter, Marx does not yet know the essential qualities
of commodities, he is trying to derive them. He needs a simple definition which can be
understood before we know all the ins and outs of commodities. This is She’s definition.
At the end a quibble about She’s definition. If it confuses you just ignore it and stick to
my earlier assertion that She’s definition is correct. She writes: “A commodity is anything
that is produced for sale or exchange regardless of if it is ever actually sold or exchanged.”
This is like giving as definition of a cat, saying “a cat is this and this” and then adding
“regardless of if it is dead or alive.” The reader would scratch their head and think: “is there
really something to it with the nine lives of a cat, do cats really not care whether they are
dead or alive?” It would have been better to say “A commodity is anything that is produced
for sale or exchange even if it is never actually sold or exchanged”, but I think the best thing
is to just leave it out and simply say “A commodity is anything that is produced for sale or
exchange.” More info why the definition of a commodity seems a little awkward is in my
[2005fa:582].
Next Message by Hans is [309].
Multiple Choice Question 22 is 14 in 1999SP, 14 in 2001fa, 14 in 2002fa, 16 in 2004fa,
21 in 2007fa, and 21 in 2009fa:
Multiple Choice Question 22 Which of the following paraphrases best captures the spirit
of Marx’s 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 everything that is produced in capitalist societies is produced for sale.
(c) In capitalist societies only those are considered wealthy who own many commodities.
(d) In capitalist societies only those consider themselves happy who own many commodities.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 11
(e) The capitalist idea of being wealthy leads to excessive commodity consumption.
(f) Marx thinks that only those who own lots of material things can be happy.
[12] Hans: Shoot the messenger! Alex says in [4]: Marx defines wealth to be material
goods, and happiness is not material, therefore it does not fall under Marx’s definition of
wealth.
What is wrong with this? It takes the flaws of capitalism and tries to smear them over
Marx the person—although Marx is not a capitalist but a scientist who is telling us about
these flaws.
It is odd that under capitalism wealth is reduced to a pile of things, and Marx is aware
and critical of this. In a primitive nomad society, being wealthy means to have a lot of sheep.
For this you must be a good shepherd, i.e., you must have the skills to keep a big herd of
sheep alive. In capitalism you can be the greatest idiot and still have a lot of money in your
bank account. Marx writes about this in Grundrisse p. 222.
In other words: if Marx tells us that capitalist society reduces wealth to the mechanical
relation of a person to a pile of things, this does not mean Marx wants it this way. Alex’s mistake
is to read Marx’s critique of capitalism as a flaw of Marx himself. Other answers in the
archives make the same mistake, see for instance the first paragraph of Goran’s [2009fa:447].
Question 22 is not one of the assigned study questions but a multiple choice question
which you might have to answer in the first midterm. I am sending my commentary about
Alex [4] under this question number because Alex’s and Goran’s mistake is the wrong answer
(f). The correct answer is (b).
Message [12] referenced by [147]. Next Message by Hans is [18].
Question 40 is 21 in 1995WI, 29 in 1997WI, and 38 in 2008fa:
Question 40 Take some simple object, a shoe or a rubber ball, and differentiate between its
properties, its usefulness, and its use-value.
[10] Spiral: The commodity is a lamp. The lamp is hard, made of brass, but also fragile
where it’s made of glass. When connected to an electrical circuit the lamp emits light within
the visible spectrum (and hence is dependent upon the technology to access an electrical
power supply). Visible light is the only way humans can use their sense of sight, and seeing
is useful as one of the five senses humans use to gather information on their environment. I
enjoy having a source of visible light (the lamp) because it is easier to know features of my
environment.
Hans: I think you mean the right thing, but you should have made it very explicit what are the properties, what is
its usefulness, and what its use-value, and why.
And one more quibble: don’t call it a commodity. Whether it is produced for sale or not is completely irrelevant
for what you are writing. I said something similar also in my notes for [6].
Next Message by Spiral is [503].
Question 46 is 43 in 2007fa and 43 in 2008fa:
Question 46 Certain use-values are produced with the purpose never to be used. For instance
nuclear weapons which are developed for the sake of deterrence. It is true for these
use-values too that their use-value actualizes itself only in its use?
12 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[35] Proletarian: Use-value of a nuclear weapon. Marx asserts that “use-value (of a
commodity) actualizes itself only by use or consumption (of the commodity).” However,
this assertion appears to run into a barrier when considering commodities produced without
the intention of ever being used. Nuclear weapons, for example, are commodities that are
developed with the intention of never being used and are instead developed for the sake of
deterrence. Because these nuclear weapons are never used, does this mean they do not have
a use-value?
What some could consider an apparent hole in Marx’s argument stems from a reading of
the word “use” that is too narrow. Just because a nuclear weapon is never “used” (detonated)
doesn’t mean that the nuclear weapon isn’t actually used. In fact, nuclear weapons are used
every day and have enormous use-value. Just because the nuclear weapon is not exploding
does not mean that the nuclear weapon is not being used.
The primary use of the nuclear weapon is not to cause damage but is instead to act as
a deterrent against others that would make war against those who possess the commodity.
Simply by possessing the nuclear weapon and having it targeted upon a potential enemy
in such a way that the enemy is deterred against causing harm to the those possessing the
nuclear weapon, those with the nuclear weapon are using it and are realizing use-value from
the weapon The nuclear weapon has enormous use-value as deterrent.
So, since the primary use of a nuclear weapon is as a deterrent, the nuclear weapon
indeed does have use-value which can be actualized without detonating the device. Now, if
the nuclear weapon were to simply be manufactured and stuck in a warehouse without ever
being targeted at anyone and without anyone ever being told of its existence, then the nuclear
weapon would not be considered a deterrent and would therefore not be considered in use
and would therefore would have no use-value at that point for the owner. The use-value of
the weapon would not be actualized until the weapon was put to use by letting others know
of it’s existence as a means of deterrence.
In summary, Marx’s argument that “use-value actualizes itself only by use or consumption”
indeed holds up in the case of nuclear weapons if one frames the use of the term “use”
properly. If one considers that the use of a nuclear weapon is not to inflict damage but is
instead to impart restraint in one’s enemies through deterrence, then a nuclear weapon is
being used simply by having it targeted at the enemy and by having the enemy know of the
potential for destruction that would be experienced if the nuclear weapon were launched.
Next Message by Proletarian is [38].
Exam Question 50 is 25 in 1995WI, 35 in 1996sp, 33 in 1996ut, 36 in 1997sp, 34 in
1998WI, 38 in 1999SP, 41 in 2004fa, 42 in 2005fa, 48 in 2007SP, 47 in 2008fa, 49 in
2009fa, 55 in 2011fa, and 54 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 50 What is the exchange-value of a commodity? (Give its definition, not
an analysis where it comes from).
[290] Alex: graded A Exchange value of a commodity is established to be a different concept
from that of use value, which is how useful a commodity is. Marx introduces the idea
of exchange value as “the commodity’s ability to fetch other commodities in the market.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 13
In simpler terms, it is a quantitative relation among the commodities—the price that the
commodity is worth. Commodities are capable of having many exchange values or prices
given the situation. Reading back on the archives from earlier semesters, I found that Stuart
[2007fa:15] gave the exemplary definition of exchange value, stating that it is “the social
relationship that allows commodities to be traded for other commodities or money, but at
the same time its value is not socially determined.” He says it’s a “social relationship” because
Marx describes exchange value as relative, as in the relationship that commodities
have on the market, with an expression that is intrinsic labeled by the labor content inside
the commodities.
Message [290] referenced by [291]. Next Message by Alex is [434].
[291] Hans: Please take every word you are writing very seriously. Alex’s [290] is
a very good answer. Nevertheless I’d like to plug it apart and go through it sentence by
sentence so that you know how I read your stuff and what I am looking for. Here is Alex’s
entire text again with my comments.
Exchange value of a commodity is established to be a different concept
from that of use value, which is how useful a commodity is.
Good idea to give the definition not only of exchange-value but also of use-value, since
they form a pair. Exchange-value is not only a different concept than use-value, but for the
practical agents, commodities have two different properties—truly different in the sense that
they cannot be derived from each other: use-value and exchange-value.
Marx introduces the idea of exchange value as “the commodity’s ability to
fetch other commodities in the market.”
Right, although I would have left out “the idea of” and would simply have said “Marx
introduces the exchange-value as ...”
In simpler terms, it is a quantitative relation among the commodities – the
price that the commodity is worth.
What you just said is not a reformulation of the previous sentence in “simpler terms”
but this is a deepening and elaboration of the previous sentence. Exchange-value is a social
relation. If you go into a store, give the grocer $3 and say “I’d like a gallon of milk,”
the grocer will not say: “what are you talking about, do I know you?” or “why would
you want to do that?” but he will fetch the milk from the refrigerator and give it to you,
even if you are a perfect stranger. (Assuming the milk’s price is advertised to be $3). In
the Annotations I describe this situation as “exchange-value is that social relation or social
custom which allows commodities to be traded for each other or for money.” More about
this in [1997ut:22].
Commodities are capable of having many exchange values or prices given
the situation.
This is a true fact, but this is not part of the definition. Marx emphasizes it because after
introducing exchange-value as a second property of commodities in addition to their usevalue,
Marx turns around and says: “Are you sure exchange-value has something to do with
14 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the commodities? It looks pretty relative to me, as if it was determined by circumstances
alone.” (I am paraphrasing here 126:2). I.e., here the issue is whether exchange-value is
really intrinsic in the commodity like use-value. The clause in the question “don’t give an
analysis where exchange-value comes from” meant that I wanted you to stay out of this can
of worms.
Reading back on the archives from earlier semesters, I found that Stuart
[2007fa:15] gave the exemplary definition of exchange value, stating that
it is “the social relationship that allows commodities to be traded for other
commodities or money, but at the same time its value is not socially determined.”
Stuart is wrong if the says “its value is not socially determined.” Stuart thinks if it is
intrinsic in the commodity it cannot be socially determined. Marx’s “value quasi-material”
by contrast is an ingredient inside the commodity which is not material but social.
He says it’s a “social relationship” because Marx describes exchange value
as relative, as in the relationship that commodities have on the market, with
an expression that is intrinsic labeled by the labor content inside the commodities.
The “with an expression” clause at the end should read: “It is a social relation which is
the expression of something intrinsic inside the commodities, their labor content.”
I went through it in such detail not because you need to write all this in an exam but
because after grading [230] yesterday I decided I had to go on a campaign admonishing you
to take every word in your own writing very seriously—because Marx is taking every word
in his writing very seriously too. Best definition of exchange-value in the archives is my
[2005fa:949] before I start speaking about baby teeth.
Message [291] referenced by [468]. Next Message by Hans is [295].
[304] KA: Define Exchange-Value. Exchange-value is derived socially through a series of
commodity exchanges. An exchange only between two parties does not qualify as exchangevalue
if the exchange is isolated. Furthermore, the exchange-value of a commodity lies
within the commodity, not the commodity owner.
Hans: Correct.
Next Message by KA is [305].
Exam Question 55 is 24 in 1995WI, 32 in 1995ut, 39 in 2001fa, 40 in 2002fa, 46 in
2004fa, 47 in 2005fa, 52 in 2008fa, 54 in 2009fa, 60 in 2011fa, and 58 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 55 Explain in your own words what it means to say that use-values are the
“material carriers” of exchange-value.
[298] She: Use-values as the material carriers of exchange-values. I am having some
trouble explaining this in a concise manner. I feel as though my thoughts are a little jumbled
on this topic and am hoping to get some helpful feedback. Marx says on page 126 of Capital
that use-values are...“conditioned by the physical properties of the commodity” and cannot
exist without being physically manifested. He goes on to conclude that the actual physical
body of the commodity actually IS the use-value. Exchange-values are assigned by society

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 15
and are nothing more than a “mode of expression,” (127:1). Without getting too analytical,
exchange-values are a sort of signal which tells economic agents how much of one usevalue
is worth in comparison to other use-values. Exchange-values are assigned by potential
exchangers based on use-values.
I see that exchange-values are just relationships; they are not tangible. So, this would
seem that we would need something concrete, or tangible, to base them on. Marx explains
that the physical body and properties of the commodity is its use-value. Basicallly, the
relationships are based upon the usefulness of a commodity which is “conditioned by the
physical properties of the commodity.”
Message [298] referenced by [299] and [309]. Next Message by She is [359].
[299] LuBr: Use-values as the material carriers of exchange-values. In response to
She [298],
Marx implies by “carriers” to mean the weakest connection between use-value and exchange
value. Marx says that use-values are the “material carriers” of exchange values. So
first, you need use-value for the commodity to be deemed exchangeable. If the commodity
loses its use-value then the exchange value is gone. However, use-value does not determine
exchange value, this can be seen in something with high use-value, for example air, that is
plentiful to everybody demanding it, therefore there is no exchange-value for air.
See Hans’s comments from previous years, they really help to clarify these specific technical
meanings: [2001fa:130] and [2002fa:145].
Hans: Thank you for the prompt response to She’s answer.
Message [299] referenced by [309] and [2012fa:19]. Next Message by LuBr is [495].
[305] KA: Material Carriers of Exchange-Values. If a commodity’s use-value deteriorates,
so does its exchange-value. If exchange-value is socially derived and socially there
is no longer a use-value of the commodity, the exchange of this commodity is de minimis.
The exchange-value of a commodity is a function of the use-value given there is a demand.
However, if there is an abundance of goods dispersed freely there can still be a use-value but
no exchange-value. This abundance of free goods no longer presents value for its exchange
since anyone can freely obtain them, but the use of these commodities remains constant.
Hans: This is the utility theory of value. It is different from and incompatible with Marx’s labor theory of value.
Next Message by KA is [306].
[309] Hans: Why a carrier is necessary. In response to She [298], I think LuBr [299]
answered it correctly. At least LuBr correctly summarizes what I say in the Annotations.
But She’s formulation “exchange-values are just relationships; they are not tangible. So, this
would seem that we would need something concrete, or tangible, to base them on” caused
me to think about it a little more deeply. Maybe the following thought is helpful: the exchange
relationship is a social relation of production which is detached from the producers.
The producers do not interact with each other directly but through their commodities. The
commodities are the conduit for this relationship. Electrons don’t care if the conductor is
copper or aluminum or gold or saltwater, all they care about is that the circuit is not interrupted.
In the same way, exchange-value does not care which use-value is its carrier or
conduit—but a broken use-value or no use-value at all would be like an interrupted circuit.
Message [309] referenced by [2012fa:19]. Next Message by Hans is [313].
16 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 58 is 33 in 1998WI, 54 in 2007fa, 55 in 2008fa, and 60 in 2012fa:
Question 58 The use-value of a commodity is the utility one gets from using it; the exchangevalue
is the utility one gets from using those things one can trade the commodity for. Right
or wrong?
[65] Tyler: Utility in use-value and exchange-value. Simply put, the use-value and the
exchange-value of any given commodity do not depend on the utility one gets from using it.
It is explained in the readings that a use-value is “the body of the commodity, such as iron,
wheat, diamond, etc.” [126:1]. On the other hand Marx describes the exchange-value as “the
quantitative relation, the proportion, in which use-values of one sort are exchanged against
use-value of another sort” [126:2]. Utility refers to the amount of satisfaction one might
receive from a given commodity, but according to Marx this has no effect on its inherent
use-value or exchange-value.
Hans: Your answer is basically right, see [68], but both of your Marx quotes are taken out of context. The first
quote is not a definition of use-value itself but the convention to use the word “use-value” also for commodities
as material objects, because people need these material objects only because of their use-values. See 127:4–128:1
about this. And the second quote is not the definition of exchange-value but only the first form in which exchangevalue
presents itself.
Message [65] referenced by [67], [68], and [89]. Next Message by Tyler is [89].
[67] Zarathustra: I think the answer is Yes. I read Tyler [65]. It is ambiguous (because
he doesn’t say a straight Yes or No) but I think his answer is No. On the contrary, I think the
answer is Yes.
Next Message by Zarathustra is [72].
[68] Hans: Marx does not define things through their effects on people. Tyler [65]
only got the definition of use-value wrong, everything else was right. I like to define the
use-value of a commodity as the menu of its possible uses. Not the utility people get from
it but what can be done with it. The question text gives two examples of anthropocentric
definitions. This is how modern economics likes to do things, but Marx tried to look at
things directly, not through the lens of human feelings of pleasure or discomfort.
The anthropocentric view prevalent in modern economics assumes that humans are in the
center of the universe. Acting as if humans were in the center of the universe while they are in
reality one link in an interconnected ecological web can have disastrous consequences. This
is apparent in environmental economics. This wrong-headed approach to the environment
causes humans to saw off the branch on which they are sitting.
Message [68] referenced by [65], [72], and [401]. Next Message by Hans is [69].
[72] Zarathustra: I’m still not convinced. In response to [68], I thought (and still think)
the answer is Yes. However, I think someone could legitimately object to my answer and say:
if exchange-value has a contradictory character (it’s rooted in something unchangeable—
value—and is also determined differently in different contexts), the answer cannot be Yes.
So, what is the answer?
Hans: You are looking at the question from a deeper level than the level at which it was posed. There are situations
when exchange-value is determined on the market and not in production—for instance when toddlers trade toys
in the sandbox. (This is why the parents undo the trades again afterwards: “you can’t give away your expensive
handcrafted doll for for this cheap plastic airplane!”) Even in this situation, Marx would not define exchange-value
by the utility which the traders get from the things traded. Please look again at my [68]. I added some text since it
was in the archives. Maybe this will convince you now.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 17
Next Message by Zarathustra is [73].
[377] Oreo: graded A The use-value of a commodity is the utility that one gets from using
it. Marx defines use-value as a menu of possible uses of the commodity. However, exchangevalue
is not the utility one gets from using those things that one can trade the commodity for.
Exchange-value is a social relation between commodities that allow them to be exchanged
with each other or money. It is a way that commodities communicate, and does not have
to do with the relationships of the commodity owners. Therefore, exchange-value is not the
use that an individual gets from using the things that they can trade the commodity for.
Hans: You got the main point of the answer correctly (namely, the one about exchange-value). Regarding usevalue,
if one wanted to be stickly one could argue that the menu of possible uses is different from the utility one
gets from the commodity—but this is a finer point, and it is a good first approximation to say that they are identical.
Message [377] referenced by [498], [2012fa:7], and [2012fa:610]. Next Message by Oreo is [378].
[401] SMIKEC: The use value is the menu of possibilities, as stated by Hans in [68], that
one gets from using a commodity. So it’s not the utility one gets from it but more of what
can you do with it. Exchange value or simply value, is a commodity that can be taken to
market in order to exchange for another commodity. An exchange value is still produced,
even if it is never taken to market. Exchange value is created by the market and not socially
determined. This is why it makes sense for an individual who has linen to exchange that
for a coat. The tailor needs the linen and can make a coat more efficiently than you. If
you kept making inefficient exchanges, at some point there wouldn’t be enough hours in the
day to sustain your life due to the losses you suffered by not exchanging at all, or making
poor exchanges of value out of the realm that the market put in place. As stated by Hans in
[68], Marx does not define things through their effects on people, therefore utility is not a
determining factor of use value or exchange value.
Hans: There are other ways to organize an economy with division of labor than a market.
Next Message by SMIKEC is [402].
[422] JB: graded A I think that what the question says is wrong. Use-value is the physical
qualities of the commodity define its possible use-values. Use-values are human needs,
wants or desires which the commodity can satisfy. The exchange-value is the amount of one
commodity you can obtain in exchange for a definite amount of another commodity. It has
nothing to do with utility.
Next Message by JB is [424].
[423] Bigwhite: Marx says that the double character of the commodity is the use-value
and the exchange value. The exchange value is the relationship between two commodities.
It is purely relative because it can be influenced by externalities. And the use value is the
utility one gets from using said commodity. So I believe that it is a correct description of the
two. This is different than what i wrote at first, yet says a lot of the same.
Next Message by Bigwhite is [425].
[437] Deadfamous: graded A– The First part of the question is correct. The Use-value
of a commodity is the utility on gets from using the commodity. This is correct as long as
the word utility is referring to “a use-value actualizes itself only by use or consumption of
itself.” For example, an ax does this when it chops down trees.
The Second part I thought it was important to remind you that I asked you in class what
the using was referring to in part 2 “the exchange-value is the utility one gets from using
those things one can trade the commodity for. I asked Hans if using in this context is using
18 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
for trade or consuming, he stated it was for consuming. I was not sure if this was a miscommunication
but now I realize it was. So since we know that exchange-value in Marx’s mind
means “the commodity’s ability to fetch other commodities in the market” is only right if
we realize that he was speaking of trading.
Hans: You originally had “a commodity actualizes itself,” I replaced “commodity” by “use-value.”
Regarding your second part, there was no miscommunication. The question asks if exchange-value is the utility
from consuming the traded things. It assumes you don’t want to trade them again but you traded or purchased them
for consumption. The answer, as you say, is “no.”
Next Message by Deadfamous is [441].
[438] TINDOZ: The answer to this question is wrong. The use-value of a commodity is
what it can possibly be used for. As such, a commodity could have multiple uses depending
on the circumstances. For example, a Boston Cream Pie can be used to be eaten, or a clown
could use it to smash into someone’s face as part of a performing sketch. It should however
be noted that use values are not intertwined with utility as the question asks. Use value is all
about what a commodity is used for (even if the intended or hopeful use is to not use it at
all—as is the case of a nuclear weapon being used as a deterrent to aggressors simply by its
existence being known to them).
Exchange-value also has nothing to do with utility—neither the utility of the exchanged
commodity or the utility of the received commodity (from the exchange). Marx defines exchange
value as “the commodity’s ability to fetch other commodities in the market.” So
exchange-value has nothing to do with either utility or use-value. A specific aspect of
exchange-value is that a commodity can be exchanged for all sorts of different items, for
example a pair of sunglasses could be exchanged for another item of apparel, or it could be
exchanged for concert tickets, or a textbook. The exchange value has everything to do with
what the commodity can be exchanged for—not the utility one gets from using the things
one can trade the commodity for.
Next Message by TINDOZ is [450].
[460] Balrog: graded A Use-value, Exchange-value and Utility. This statement is
wrong. The use-value of a commodity are the few or seemingly endless uses a commodity
possesses. Utility is the satisfaction that a person receives from using a particular commodity.
Use-value does not involve the measurement of satisfaction that a person receives and
thus does not deal with utility.
Exchange-value of a commodity is the ability it has to be exchanged for other commodities.
Exchange value is not derived from the utility of a commodity or how much people
want it but is derived from the reaction people have to the labor inherent inside of a commodity.
Utility is more commonly associated with mainstream economics and not with what
we have studied thus far in our Marxian Economics class.
Next Message by Balrog is [621].
[468] Zohan: This is a false statement. First of all, utility is generally used to describe
the level of satisfaction that an individual experiences from using a commodity. According
to Marx, the utility that one gets from the commodity does not determine its use-value or
exchange-value. The use-value of a commodity is not the utility one receives from it, but
can be thought of as “the menu of all the possible uses of the commodity.” If you were to

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 19
measure a commodity’s use-value by its utility, essentially you would be saying that individuals
could influence a commodity’s use-value, instead of its own usefulness. In addition,
Marx introduces exchange-value as “the commodity’s ability to fetch other commodities in
the market,” Hans [291]. Exchange-value doesn’t come from the use-value or the utility of a
commodity, but from a “social custom.” Society determines a commodity’s exchange-value,
not its utility.
Hans: As I said in my notes to [336], you are right that exchange-value is a social relation, but society does not
just pluck it out of thin air; it bases it on the abstract human labor in the commodity.
Next Message by Zohan is [693].
[488] Hit: That statement is right. Value is the amount of labor that goes into producing
a commodity. A commodity is something that is human made by means of labor, regardless
of whether it is actually ever used or traded. Use value of a commodity is the value one
gets from using a commodity, example driving a car to work. Exchange value is value of a
commodity one can receive for trading a commodity for another commodity.
Hans: Your definition of commodity is wrong. It was already wrong in [253]. And What you call “value” in
sentences 4 and 5 has nothing to do with what you call “value” in sentence 2.
Next Message by Hit is [489].
[498] Kohhep: The statement that exchange value is the utility one gets from using those
things one can trade the commodity for is wrong. The former half of the full statement
about use value is correct however. Exchange value is a commodity’s ability to fetch other
commodities on the market. Exchange value has no relationship so use value otherwise.
Thus, exchange value is not determined by use value.
Hans: See my comments to [377].
Next Message by Kohhep is [499].
[509] Phayze: content A+ late penalty 1% Right and wrong. With respect to the definition
of use-value, “the utility one gets from using it” would be a correct definition. Marx
states that “The usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value” (Marx, 126). The description of
exchange-value is entirely wrong. Exchange value is the relative value of a commodity in
relation to being exchanged for other commodities. Marx states that use-value is a “carrier”
of exchange value (which denotes a weak link between the two), but otherwise they are two
aspects that are entirely unrelated. The value of a commodity, which is “congealed abstract
labor”, is created during the production process and manifested in exchange relations. The
two-fold character of labor produces both the use-value and the value-quasi material, but it
is important to note that labor is not the the only requisite for the production of use-values...
“We see then, that labor is not the only source of the use-values it produces or of material
wealth. As William Petty puts it: labor is its father and the earth its mother”. In other words,
nature also plays an important role in the production of use-values. Exchange value however,
is the quantitative aspect of a commodity that is whispered through the production process
and tumultuously expressed in the surface relations.
Hans: I like your whisper metaphor.
Next Message by Phayze is [737].
Exam Question 60 is 26 in 1995WI, 37 in 1996sp, 35 in 1996ut, 32 in 1997ut, 39 in
1999SP, 42 in 2001fa, 45 in 2003fa, 49 in 2004fa, 57 in 2007SP, 57 in 2008fa, 65 in
2011fa, and 63 in 2012fa:
20 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Exam Question 60 Which empirical evidence might lead to the conclusion that exchangevalue
is not something inherent in the commodity?
[306] KA: I read 1.1.b. [From Exchange-Value to Value] to further understand what
“exchange-value is not something inherent in the commodity” and made the connection
between time and place; two variables not “inherent” in a commodity. I may be leading this
answer in the wrong direction and would appreciate any of your suggestions.
Marx states “a proportion which constantly changes with time and place.” illustrates that
the same commodity trades in Country X may exchange in Country Y on completely different
terms. This proportion change can also exist in time as well as place. For example, Year
1 may have a completely different exchange-value than in Year 2, and can be offset or even
magnified due to location. The concept of time and place is not inherently obvious in the
exchange-value of a commodity.
Hans: The value of the same commodity may be a little lower this year than last year due to changes in productivity
(learning by doing) etc., and a commodity may have different values in different countries which use different
technologies. This is not what Marx means with a proportion which constantly changes between time and place.
Marx is thinking of situations where the same commodity may be available at different prices in different stores in
the same city, and next week one of the stores has a “sale” and the price changes again. Marx views this not as
time-dependent prices but as randomly fluctuating prices, he uses the word “accidental.”
Message [306] referenced by [312]. Next Message by KA is [370].
[312] Orville: graded B Outside the Box. To add to KA’s comments in [306], I believe
there is another good way to show that exchange-values are outside the commodity. Take
movie popcorn for example. Suppose one was able to make a batch of popcorn and split it in
half. If the supplier was able to sell that popcorn inside the theater, it would clearly sell for
a higher price than if one was to sell it at a weight watchers, even if it were the same person
buying popcorn at the theater or the weight watchers meeting. This means that although
the use-values are the same and that the commodity is the same, the exchange value has
changed. In order for this property to hold true, the exchange-value should stay the same as
long as the commodity stays the same.
Message [312] referenced by [315]. Next Message by Orville is [391].
[315] Hans: Popcorn blockers. Orville’s example [312] is not one of fluctuating prices,
but of prices being determined by something other than labor-time. Marx would say: instead
of popcorn prices being higher in movie theatres than in weightwatcher meetings, the
typical outcome would be that prices are the same but more popcorn will be available at
a movie theatre than at a weight watcher meeting. The law of value is a tendential law.
What I just described is the equilibrium situation which the economy would tend towards
spontaneously. The theatre knows this, therefore they actively block this adjustment by not
allowing competing vendors in the theatre and not even allowing the customers to bring their
own popcorn. You might say that the signs at the door “don’t bring food into the premises”
are evidence in favor of Marx’s theory.
According to Orville’s theory, one should go to weightwatcher meetings if one wants
cheap popcorn. But if you actually go to a weightwatcher meeting, instead of cheap popcorn
you will find no popcorn for sale at all. This again is evidence in favor of Marx’s theory.
Message [315] referenced by [442]. Next Message by Hans is [316].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 21
Question 62 is 58 in 2007fa, 59 in 2008fa, and 70 in 2011fa:
Question 62 In 126:2, Marx says that certain superficial evidence seems to indicate that
exchange-values are accidental and relative. How much truth is there to this? To what
extent are exchange-values indeed accidental, and to what extent are they indeed relative?
(This question requires familiarity with things Marx says later.)
[24] Lindsey: Despite short-term price variations, exchange-values are inherent. Certain
“superficial evidence”, such as empirical evidence from the NYSE or any other recordkeeper
of commodity prices through time would likely lead to the conclusion that exchangevalue
is not something inherent in the commodity, but rather accidental and relative. These
numbers would show that over both long and short time-periods, the market price (or exchangevalue)
of a specific commodity often varies greatly. For example, the market price of gold
may have a daily trade range of one or two dollars on any given day, meaning that at one
point in the day gold was worth 1 or 2 dollars more than it was worth at another point on
the same day. This great and sudden variation of price does not seem to be justified by some
change in the inherent qualities of the commodity because there couldn’t possibly have been
such a sudden change in the these qualities in such a short time-period, but its exchangevalue
changed nonetheless.
From these great variations in exchange value (especially over short time-periods) comes
the theory that value is accidental and relative, not intrinsic or inherent in the commodity.
Marx disagrees with this conclusion, however, because he emphasizes that “valid exchangevalues”
are the only comparable values. I would think that Marx would agree that the outside
circumstances that sometimes affect exchange-value are “accidental” and the changes they
cause in the exchange-values are relative, but when all variables (such as time and place
or other “accidental” outside factors) are held constant, exchange values are inherent in the
commodity. Robert’s [14] example of the drastic change in the exchange-value of a bottle of
water in New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina is a great example of how the presence of
“accidental” outside factors usually indicates the presence of great exchange-value relativity
as well. Marx would argue that it is easy to confuse these sorts of extraneous circumstances
to be proof that exchange-values are relative, but in fact, when all other factors are held
constant, the exchange value is inherent in the commodity and the production built into it.
Hans: Very good. The reader might also find [2007fa:155] helpful.
Message [24] referenced by [342] and [412]. Next Message by Lindsey is [44].
[70] JJ: I believe that there is much truth to Marx’s statement that exchange values are
both accidental and relative.
They are accidental to the extent that the exchange value depends upon the time and place
and circumstances of the exchange. For example, the exchange value of gold to parachutes is
very variable and accidental when one finds himself on a crippled airplane that is destined to
crash. Versus this same exchange value when one finds himself with his feet firmly planted
on the ground.
Exchange values are also relative. We see that exchange values are relative to what is
being exchanged. Gold for parachutes versus gold for silver gives us two different exchange
values that are relative to what is being exchanged.
Message [70] referenced by [71], [73], and [1173]. Next Message by JJ is [102].
22 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[71] Hans: Someone Just Volunteered as a Guinea Pig! JJ’s answer [70] could have
been written by someone who has not followed Marx’s argumentation or our discussion
about it such as my [54]. This means JJ would not have received a good grade (fortunately
it was submitted with the ug marker, so the grade will not count). On the other hand, we can
still benefit from [70] because it is informative to compare Marx with what a modern naive
observer of capitalism would say.
JJ does not bring evidence from market exchanges in capitalism but he is trying to tell
us that anybody would be willing to voluntarily trade their parachute away while sitting in a
crippled airplane that is going to crash.
From this we can draw two lessons:
(1) Marx does not take it for granted that goods are exchangeable—while modern young
people growing up in capitalism are taught that exchange is the most natural thing in the
world. The crippled airplane is only the most bizarre example showing how ingrained it
is in us to think that exchanges happen always and everywhere. Another situation where
there are no exchanges is inside a business, or also inside a community in which everyone
works together for the common good. Say a peasant family where everyone is assigned
specific chores. The son is making apple cider while his little sister is carefully collecting
eggs from the chicken house. The son would never get the idea to trade a cup of cider
against an egg, because he would not consider the cup of cider his private property which he
had the authority to trade away or to withhold from his sister. If the sister were thirsty she
would get the cider from him without trading, and in the evening everybody is sitting around
the dinner table eating eggs and drinking cider. These things are considered to belong to
everyone and are not the private property of any one family member. (Of course the letters
from his girlfriend are the son’s personal property and he is carefully guarding those and
will not share them.) Very specific social structures are necessary for exchanges to happen
and to become as common as in modern capitalism. Marx is looking at these structures.
(2) Marx is actually looking at capitalism itself to make his inferences (although his argumentation
is so abstract and sophisticated that this may not be readily apparent), while JJ’s
arguments come from childish fables in introductory economics books. These introductory
books show what an ideology has to do if it wants to pose as a science. They are written in
such a way that the reader must think: yes of course, this is how it is—and they are carefully
hiding the tacit assumptions necessary to make these fables plausible. The utility theory
of value is only plausible to someone who has things but not the ability to produce these
things (i.e., lacks access to the means of production), and the whole idea that prices ultimately
derive from individual preferences overlooks that we all are embedded in a powerful
social structure which has its own dynamic—which we through our individual actions are
unwittingly recreating but which we have little control over.
Let me repeat: don’t feel bad if I am critical of what you are saying. A Marxist would
say your mistakes are not your fault. You live in a social structure which does not readily
reveal its true character (we will hear more about this when we talk about the fetish-like
character of commodities), and whose ruling class (yes we are a class society) subjects you,
in addition, to carefully orchestrated indoctrination. It is never pleasant to become aware

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 23
of this. Marx wrote Capital because he thought the victims of capitalism must understand
capitalism in order to be able to overcome it.
Message [71] referenced by [75] and [1173]. Next Message by Hans is [75].
[73] Zarathustra: (graded A) It seems to me Marx is using his dialectical reasoning here,
that is, to illustrate both sides of a thing (phenomenon, etc). Exchange-value (EV) as JJ [70]
said “[is] accidental to the extent that the exchange value depends upon the time and place
and circumstances of the exchange.” I cannot argue against that. I think Marx would say it
is true, but it is only one side of the EV. This is the social (from outside) aspect of EV.
EV also has an essential/natural (from within) aspect. EV is only a reflection of something
deeper. Let me rephrase this. It is rather a deflection of something deeper. This deeper
thing is at the core of a given human-made commodity and is totally independent to the
circumstances of the circulation. It is something implanted in the process of production. If
this reasoning is valid, I think, Marx is talking about human labor power embedded in a
commodity.
Hans: Very good. I made some small edits, hoping to clarify what you wanted to say.
Next Message by Zarathustra is [79].
[342] Cmellen: graded B– Marx believes that exchange value seems to indicate it is accidental
and relative. He originally came to the conclusion that exchange value was attached
to a commodity, but then later realized that it is a relation and cannot be accredited to any
one commodity alone. He points out that exchange proportions are relative in the sense they
are affected by external conditions. These external conditions consist of various time and
place. The very same commodity can possibly have a different exchange value at different
proportions. The proportion is constantly changing due to the time and place. Marx states
the exchange value SEEMS accidental; this is due to the limited viewpoint at which was
obtained in his first manifestation of exchange value. (Das Kapital 1.1 Use-Value and Value
pg 21-22)
Hans: You are describing the superficial evidence which makes exchange-value seem accidental and relative. But
you are misunderstanding Marx’s argument. Marx did not change his mind, he describes here a contradictory state
of affairs. Marx’s position is that those who say that exchange-value is inherent in the commodity are at least
partially right, and those who say that exchange-value is completely relative and accidental are also partially right.
Question 62 wants you to identify what is right in the latter position. Lindsey [24] says that there are accidental
outside factors (Katrina) which might detract exchange-value from their normal level. Another factor might be
technological change. These are the things you should have said in this answer. Your in-class answer describes
one mechanism which makes exchange-value variable: “a commodity may lose its use-value.” You should not have
dropped this but maintained it in your resubmission. Apparently when you re-read Marx’s text you forgot what the
question was and simply tried to summarize Marx’s text.
Next Message by Cmellen is [564].
[412] Tyler: Accidental and Relative. Marx says there may be some superficial evidence
which indicate exchange values are accidental and relative because prices of commodities
through time may change. Lindsey [24], in her post to the class uses the NYSE as an example
of how the price of a commodity will change over time, which would lead some to
believe the “exchange value is not something inherent in the commodity, but rather accidental
and relative.” The fact that prices may differ depending on time and location suggests that
exchange values are not inherent. As was pointed out in my original answer, circumstances
such as a hurricane can affect an exchange value accidentally and the resulting price changes
caused are relative. Again, I feel Lindsey [24] describes the situation best when she states,
24 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
“when all other factors are held constant, the exchange value is inherent in the commodity
and the production built into it.”
Next Message by Tyler is [414].
[451] Alex: graded A– Marx indicates that exchange values or prices are both accidental
and relative, which is indicated by the superficial evidence. At first, I did not understand
what he was referring to with the “superficial evidence” but Hans helped me to understand
this concept by deciphering what Marx meant. Prices are accidental because in capitalism,
prices of similar commodities vary throughout stores, or markets, but this variation of prices
is not only ok with the consumers, but it is also beneficial for the market. One simple
example that made me grasp my head around this concept more clearly was that of the
milk prices being different in different stores according to Hans. He states that milk, or any
commodity, has the given price according to the circumstances surrounding it. Another great
example of this was made by Robert when he said that after Hurricane Katrina, bottled water
would undergo a change in its price excessively because of the current circumstances. When
Marx talks about relative prices of commodities, he is referring to the exchange relation
between two commodities, and these exchange relations are exterior surface manifestations
of intrinsic values, also as explained by Hans. Producers of the same commodities have
similar production costs (the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity), which
also makes the prices relative to one another. In my conclusion, commodities can have
both the accidental and relative exchange values, which is what makes them belong in a
capitalistic market system (as opposed to Hans example of the socialist market where people
were astonished that milk had different prices at one point back in Germany).
Next Message by Alex is [524].
Question 64 is 61 in 2008SP and 61 in 2008fa:
Question 64 Marx discusses at length the question whether value is intrinsic to the commodity
or relative. What is the view of mainstream economics? Does it consider value to be
intrinsic or relative?
[13] Lana: Intrinsic vs. Relative Value. Marx has the theory of thought that value
is relative to a commodity. “Hence exchange-value seems to be something accidental and
purely relative. A ‘valeur intrinsèque,’ i.e. an immanent exchange-value, that resides in the
commodities, seems therefore a contradiction in terms.” [126:2] According to Hans’ Annotations,
a commodity’s worth is measured by its interactions with other commodities, and not
intrinsically. On the opposing side, mainstream economic theory has adopted the concept
that value is, in fact, quantified intrinsically. According to the “common consciousness,”
the worth of the commodity is in the actual good/service/etc itself, ignoring the relationship
between other commodities. Marx claims this is a mass misunderstanding and this method
of thought can be attributed to peoples’ contradictory “lived experiences.”
Hans: Your conclusions are wrong as I try to explain in [23]. But since you have backed up your conclusions with
quotes from Marx and the Annotations, your grade is not as bad as one might guess from reading [23]. Generally,
in this class, the more verbal abuse you get from me disecting your essay, the less I feel I have to signal to you
through a low grade that something is wrong.
Message [13] referenced by [20], [23], [25], [42], and [426]. Next Message by Lana is [45].
[20] Zarathustra: (graded B) Intrinsic vs. Relative Value. I thought of the question 64
and Lana’s note [13] helped me to understand it better. But it also made me think differently.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 25
For instance, say, I am a baker and you are a shoemaker. I spend two hours in making a loaf
of bread and sell it to you for $10, and you spend two hours in making a pair of shoe that
I will buy for $20. Does it mean that your labor is more valuable than mine? It is true the
value is relative, but doesn’t mean that considering value relative mean we will have to value
people differently? Is that what Marx meant, or what capitalism is?
That would be great, if Lana or anyone could answer that.
Hans: You missed the mistakes in [13] and although there are a few subtle and difficult answers outstanding which
cry out for feedback, you are trying to start an entirely new discussion (which seems, by the way, related to your
[2009fa:96]). Zarathustra is one of my graduate student co-teachers.
Next Message by Zarathustra is [21].
[23] Hans: Now it’s Intrinsic, now it’s Relative. Lana [13] has things exactly backwards,
but she supports her wrong conclusions with quotes from Marx and from my Annotations—
i.e., with the highest authority in this class. This must be confusing. I imagine it must be
even more confusing for you that others don’t call Lana out on her mistakes but instead, as
Zarathstra [32] did, say that [13] helped him understand things better. Therefore let’s sort
out what is right and what is wrong in [13]:
[13] says that in Marx’s theory value is something relative. Wrong. In Marx’s theory,
value is intrinsic, it is based on a commodity’s labor content which is inside the commodity.
(This is what “intrinsic” means.) More details in my [2008fa:46].
BUT [13] brings a quote where Marx is obviously down on an intrinsic value and seems to
promote that value is relative. That is exactly why I said on Friday in class that the readings
assigned this weekend are so interesting. I will not go more into this at the moment, because
right now I don’t want you to forget that Marx’s theory of value is intrinsic, not relative.
[13] also says that modern mainstream economic theory (i.e. the stuff with the utility
functions and demand and supply) has an intrinsic concept of value. Wrong again. In mainstream
theory, the market value of a commodity is determined by marginal utility, i.e., by
how much people want this commodity. This is a relative concept: value does not lie in the
commodity itself but in the people desiring the commodity. If you don’t want it its value
disappears. Poof. You cannot get more relative than that.
BUT [13] says that it is part of common consciousness that the value of a commodity lies
in the thing itself. Well, this means that the common consciousness does not always conform
with mainstream economic theory. The poof! theory of value is so absurd that people only
sometimes believe it (for instance when they are in an Econ 101 exam) but often they don’t
believe it. Not even the mainstream believes it all the time. Accountants don’t have a poof!
theory of value, but they have an intrinsic theory of value. More details in [2008SP:18].
Message [23] referenced by [13], [25], [33], [36], and [42]. Next Message by Hans is [26].
[25] David: Relative, intrinsic? No, just dialectics. Some of the answers (and responses)
given to this question, particularly [13] and [23] seem to highlight the apparent
contradiction pointed out by Marx. Overcoming this confusion, and finding a possible
answer to the question at hand, require a basic understanding of what Marx is doing
here. He is engaging in a dialectical examination of commodities in a capitalist system.
Dialectics is, as Hans points out in the Annotations, “the discovery of contradictions”
as well as “their subsequent resolution.” (For a good definition of dialectics, visit
26 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
http://www.philosophybasics.com/general glossary.html). The contradiction is made clear
by Marx, and further highlighted by Question 64. As dialectics consists of a proposal,
counter-proposal, and resolution, I would suggest that there is a dialectical resoultion harmonizing
the two contradictory statements.
First, in order to be as precise as possible, let us assume that when Question 64 says
“value” it is actually referring to “exchange-value,” as that is the subject discussed in the
preceding paragraphs and questions in the Annotations. Next, examining the proposal of
relative value, Marx states that the exchange value of a commodity is “the proportion, in
which use-values of one sort are exchanged against use-values of another sort” – sort here
meaning commodity. As this proportion is determined by its location in time and space, it
can vary. Hence value is relative. This is widely acknowledged in mainstream economics
by what Hans refers to as the “poof! theory of value” in [23].
In apparent contrast, the intrinsic value counter-proposal suggests that because exchangevalue
is “carried” by use-value in a commodity, it is inherent in the commodity. However,
simply because the property of exchange-value is intrinsic, the quantity may not necessarily
be (although this fact may often be overlooked by the “common consciousness” Lana refers
to in [13]). Thus the resolution of contradictions sought after by dialectics arising is that
the property of exchange-value is inherent in a commodity, assuming the use-value of the
commodity is greater than zero, i.e. it always has the potential to be exchanged, but the
quantity measuring that exchange value is relative and may fluctuate by circumstance. (I
think this is what Hans is stating, though in a more succinct manner, in his response to
Ziggy in [2008fa:78]
This fact though often unstated and overlooked is, I believe, intuitively understood by
mainstream economists. This is especially probable given that they analyze society from
a scarcity standpoint, as scarcity would tend to reduce the possiblity of commodities being
viewed as having zero use-value, a logical pre-requisite to an exchange-value.
As a final disclaimer, I recognize that Marx put forth intrinsic exchange-value as the
initial thesis and relative exchange-value as the counter-thesis in his investigation. I have
set them forth in the opposite order here for the sake of developing an easily-comprehended
dialectic argument.
Hans: Your Philosophy Web Site defines dialectics as: “the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments, respectively
advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses), in arriving at a conclusion (synthesis).”
I.e., dialectics is defined here as a debate. There is also a stronger view of dialectics, which not only says
that theories of the world may be in contradiction with each other, but that the world itself may be in contradiction
with each other. Marx holds this stronger view of dialectics. In this view, a contradiction is not sign of a confusion,
but a real aspect of the world.
You say that the exchange-proportion is “determined by its location in time and space.” Marx would disagree.
The fact that you can draw a timeseries of prices does not mean that prices are determined by time. Marx holds the
view that not everything in the world is determined, but some things are indeterminate or “accidental.” Inventing a
determination where none exists is an often-made error in mainstream economics, and it is a version of actualism,
see [2009fa:383] about it.
In Marx’s view, the fact that use-value is the carrier of exchange-value does not make exchange-value intrinsic.
The word “carrier” means that a commodity must have a use-value in order to have exchange-value, but that
nevertheless the use-value does not determine the exchange-value. I think this is what you mean when you say that
the quantity of value is not intrinsic. I.e., that what you offer as the reconciliation would for a Marxist be the thesis
of a relative exchange-value.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 27
Marx’s position is that exchange-value is intrinsic even though it does not depend on the physical properties of
the commodity. Instead it depends on the amount of (direct and indirect) labor necessary to produce the commodity.
[29] Kraken: graded B Value - intrinsic or relative? Marx believed that the value of a
commodity was immanent or intrinsic to that commodity. While it is true that every commodity
has a certain amount of built-in value due to its utility, mainstream economics does
not attach value to an item by looking at its intrinsic value, but rather by looking at how
much of another commodity (namely money) it can be exchanged for. This exchange rate
changes over time relative to people’s demand for certain items. An example of this would
be some investment property which I purchased several years ago, before our current economic
recession. Before the housing market crashed, I could have easily sold the property to
another investor who was hoping to make a profit in real estate. Now, although the property
still has the same intrinsic value and still provides the same utility and shelter for those who
live there, the exchange value of the property has fallen. Relative to other investments and
necessities of life, the value of the property has changed regardless of its intrinsic value.
Hans: You are right, in Marx’s theory commodities have intrinsic values which determine their exchange relations.
But this intrinsic value has nothing to do with use-value. It comes from the direct and indirect labor content of the
commodities.
Message [29] referenced by [33] and [41]. Next Message by Kraken is [60].
[33] Babyceta: graded A+ Intrinsic v. relative: Marx and the Mainstream. The relative
(subjective) theory of value, held by many mainstream economists including Bentham,
Marginalists, and many Austrian school economists asserts that there is no intrinsic value
contained in commodities. The value of a commodity, they contend, is subjectively determined
by scarcity and/or the ability of a commodity to satisfy human wants (not determined
by price, as Kraken contends in [29]). It is therefore subjective because individuals in the
market determine the value of commodities based on the personal beliefs or needs, and do
not consider the “production perspective” or the labor embodied when determining value.
For example, I may value a pair of shoes more if I am shoeless than someone else in the
market who dons a perfectly good pair of shoes. But not everyone is shoeless so their value
cannot be determined by my unique and unfortunate situation. And price is merely the
mechanism of communication between buyer and seller; it has nothing to do with value. My
desire or need only gives value to the object. Price (or money) was itself a “special commodity”
that was generally used as a numeraire. Marx calls this special commodity the “third
thing” [Capital 127:2].
Marx, however, believed commodities held intrinsic value in the form of embodied labor.
“This property [use-value] of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required
to appropriate its useful qualities” [126:1]. Exchange-value, to Marx, was completely separate
from use-value. Use-values differ in quality, says Marx, and are only realized in use or
in consumption [126:1]. “If we disregard the use-value of commodities,” Marx says, “only
one property remains, that of being products of labour” [128:2]. It is the common denominator
of all commodities, whether useful or not, and since all commodities are produced for
exchange, they all have intrinsic value in the form of labor and labor only.
Hans explained much of this in [23], but I would like to elaborate on the social nature
of embodied labor. Labor, too, like commodities, contained not only quantitative aspects,
but qualitative as well. According to E.K. Hunt, Marx defined value as “a qualitative social
28 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
relation with a quantitative dimension.” For example, if I consume a product your labor has
produced, we are in a sense dependent on each other. However, I will, most likely, be unaware
of that relationship. Although your social labor gave intrinsic value to the commodity
I purchased and consumed, our connection was reduced to an abstraction. I believe Marx
advances the theory of intrinsic (labor) value to set the stage for abstract labor (if commodities
have certain unique characteristics then so, too, must labor) and subsequently capitalist
labor relations. But I am probably getting way ahead of myself here.
Message [33] referenced by [34], [36], [41], and [42]. Next Message by Babyceta is [55].
[34] Kat: Marx considers the value of a commodity to be intrinsic because the only
determinant of value is the labor necessary to produce it. Mainstream economics, on the
other hand, considers the value of a commodity to rely solely on what a consumer is willing
to pay for it. That is, if consumers are not willing to pay anything for a given good, it is
worthless. This school of thought would argue that the fluctuations of supply and demand
determine where prices of a commodity will land and these price fluctuations would not be
possible if a commodity’s value was inherent. So, the value of a good is strictly relative to
the market forces surrounding it.
Hans: You mis-characterize mainstream economics. As Babyceta remarked correctly in [33], mainstream economics
does not say value is determined by price. This would be a circular definition. Value is determined by
utility functions and production functions and endowments.
You also mis-characterize Marx’s theory of an inherent price. It does not mean the price is fixed according
to labor input ignoring demand and supply. Marx thinks that the spontaneous play of competition in the long run
drives prices to a level where they are proportional to labor inputs.
Message [34] referenced by [36] and [41]. Next Message by Kat is [204].
[36] Kohhep: intrinsic vs. relative. Modern economics view the value of commodities to
be relative based on what society is willing to give (usually money) for the item (or service).
Although mainstream economics weighs certain things like labor into the exchange value,
but ultimately, as Hans put it in [23], the “poof! theory of value” is put in. I’m still working
on getting my head around on how to absorb these ideas and such, and also how to present
them. Any guidance or constructive critiquing would be very helpful!
Hans: Your first sentence is very similar to the sentence “Mainstream economics, on the other hand, considers the
value of a commodity to rely solely on what a consumer is willing to pay for it” in [34]. If you repeat something
just said in the discussion, you will not get credit for it. You are expected to build on the answers of others. Since
Babyceta said in [33] that value is not determined by price, there would have been a great opportunity to argue that
willingness to pay is not the same as price, or that Babyceta is wrong.
Also please try to be precise in your formulations. What do you mean by “putting in” a theory?
Message [36] referenced by [41] and [42]. Next Message by Kohhep is [61].
[40] Pweber: Intrinsic Value. As others have said, Marx considers the value of commodities
as intrinsic: “Now we know the substance of value. It is labour. We know the measure
of its magnitude. It is labor time.” Although that statement by itself does not bestow inherent
intrinsic value, Marx’s argument further establishes the relationship between labor time
and the value it bestows upon commodities–a diamond is very valuable relative to the same
quantity of other commodities because of the labor time required to extract diamond.
Modern economic thought does not address labor value directly, at least in the way Marx
frames the question. The value of a commodity is determined through the supply of a product
and its inverse relationship to the demand of the product–price is only an agreed upon
valuation, not necessarily value by itself. If the equilibrium value of fire-roasted tater tots is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 29
20 bags of the stuff, then that’s its value in that market. If a market exists that is addicted
to fire-roasted tater tots (it has inelastic demand), then the “value” of the tater tots is higher
compared to the first market, because there is more demand for the product, the supply is
higher, and the “price” is higher.
I’m interested to see how Marx addresses the value of labor. In this section of reading, he
says that, “The total labour-power of society, which is manifested in the values of the world
of commodities, counts here as one homogenous mass of human labour-power, although
composed of innumerable individual units of labour-power. Each of these units is the same
as any other, to the extent that it...is socially necessary.” Modern economic thought ascribes
value to labor power through the same means it ascribes value to commodities–through
supply and demand. It would be difficult to argue that an engineer has equal labor value to a
cashier; there is a scarce supply of engineers relative to a cashier, and as such they have more
value to society than a cashier does (and this is reflected not only in their product, but also
their wages). It seems that Marx’s model, as it stands, runs the risk of being as marginal as
he says use-value and exchange-value are, because there is no built-in method of ascribing
value to labor.
Hans: Very thoughtful.
Message [40] referenced by [41]. Next Message by Pweber is [127].
[41] Hans: How to avoid circularity in a theory of value. In quick succession, Kraken
[29], Kat [34], and Kohhep [36] said that in mainstream economics value is determined by
price or the “willingness to pay”—although Babyceta [33] rightly protested that this is not
the case. And it is my mistake to begin my commentary to Kraken [29] with the words “you
are right” and not pointing out his error.
In economics, a “value theory” is a theory which shows the ultimate reasons why prices
in economics are what they are. Saying prices are determined by “willingness to pay” is
not satisfactory, because then you have to ask: where does this willingness to pay come
from? It is certainly not in your genes or psychological makeup. Mainstream economics
says that prices are determined by utility functions, production functions, and endowments.
This is far enough removed from the economy that you can get a non-circular definition.
The assumption there is that people’s utility functions do not depend on their incomes but
only on some inborn preferences or tastes. If the utility function changed with income, then
we would be back to circularity because that what supposedly determines prices depends on
prices.
Pweber [40] surmised that Marx’s theory of value might be defective because it does not
tell us what the value of labor is. But if labor is the source of value then labor cannot have
value itself, otherwise we are again in a circular theory. This will be discussed in much more
detail when we read chapters 6 and 19.
Next Message by Hans is [42].
[42] Hans: Some Practical Matters. In his answer to question 64, Kohhep [36] is having
difficulties with the material and is asking how to study. Here are some hints:
(1) If you have difficulties with the material then you should come to class. You can ask
questions there, and I always try to explain things as simply as I can.
30 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
(2) Answer questions which are very specific about Marx’s argumentation. Alex [31]
tried his / her hand on a very specific question, and got a detailed response from me in [33].
Question 64 is not terribly good for understanding Marx better, because it does not really
talk about Marx but about mainstream economics. The best answer came from Babyceta
[33], and she learned it from Kay Hunt and not in this class here.
(3) Whenever you make an assertion, try to back it up as well as you can. Lana did this
in her answer [13] to this question here, and she got a detailed response from me in [23].
(4) Don’t try to guess what I want to hear but rely on your own thinking.
(5) Carefully read all the submissions I make to the class. I try to address those issues
which people seem to be struggling with.
(6) Before you answer the question you selected, look at all the earlier answers this Semester
and my comments to them. I make lots of comments which are never sent to class but
which are in the pdf transcript of the class. Download this transcript regularly. I personally
like the screen version better than the halfpage version: it is at
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/2010fa.pdf
(7) Submit questions with the ug marker (as I did with this one here) so that they are
ungraded. You will still get comments from me and an informational grade. Alex [31] was
an ungraded question. If the grade is in parentheses you know the question is ungraded.
Submitting questions with the ug marker has an additional advantage: you can submit
them even after the deadline, and you get credit for it as a free discussion contribution.
Next Message by Hans is [50].
[346] Somramthom: Exchange value. Just making sure I am getting all of this.
For most of us in a capitalistic society, it is easy to see the exchange value of a commodity.
We therefore think that it is intrinsic to the commodity. While it isn’t intrinsic, the expression
of a commodity’s exchange value shows the labor content of a commodity, or its value. The
labor content of a commodity is intrinsic to the commodity.
This misunderstanding of intrinsicity seems to stem from the type of consumers most
capitalistic consumers are. We are mainly consumers with little or no sense of production.
It is largely unknown to us. It is therefore difficult for us to determine a commodity’s value
through an assessment of labor input.
We use exchange value as a medium to display and understand the commodity’s value
just as an artist uses a canvas as a medium to display his artistic abilities.
Message [346] referenced by [347]. Next Message by Somramthom is [458].
[347] Hans: For Somramthom. If you want to make sure you are catching the meaning
of Marx’s writings, you have to rid yourself of the notion that Marx’s Capital says what a
commodity-producing society should look like.
If I understand your [346] right, it is based on a serious misunderstanding of Marx’s
theory. You are saying the true value of commodities is their labor content. We do not
value things at their true values because we usually cannot judge how much labor something

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 31
contains. Therefore we use exchange-value which reflects not the true value of things but
which reflects our valuation of the use-values of the things.
I am not sure if this is what you meant, but here is what Marx’s theory really says. Marx
says that despite the fact that people do not know much about production and make their
individual purchasing decisions based on their preferences, the market outcomes arising
spontaneously behind their backs from demand and supply and the reactions of the producers
to the market outcomes is that exchange value is determined by labor content.
The problem with our separation from the means of production is not, as you say, that it
prevents us from knowing the labor content—it is not necessary for the consumers to know
the labor content—but that it makes a utility theory of value plausible which keeps supply
fixed and therefore leaves out the adjustment of the producers to the market. This is what I
said in [54].
Next Message by Hans is [358].
Question 65 is 36 in 1996ut, 33 in 1997ut, 62 in 2008SP, and 73 in 2011fa:
Question 65 Formulate in your own words the two contradictory statements Marx makes
about the commodity when he introduces exchange-value.
[353] Wolf: When Marx first introduced the commodity, he noted that it appeared as
if exchange-value was inherent to the commodity, otherwise how could commodities be
exchanged (because they must have some equal substance in order to be exchanged), and
that, on the other hand, exchange-value appeared to be entirely relative and based on other
commodities, subject to fluctuation. A commodity wouldn’t have an exchange-value if it
was in isolation from every other commodity. This is the contradiction that Marx notes. He
later deduced that this contradiction is merely a surface expression of the substance of value
(composed of congealed abstract labor) and the magnitude of value (measured by sociallynecessary
labor time).
Next Message by Wolf is [354].
[371] Atticus: graded A Marx forms two contradictory ideas about the concept of exchangevalue.
First he claims that it is a volatile relation between all commodities and then he claims
that it is fixed. He realized that an impasse had been reached and that this fact required a
deeper look into the matter. The matter was then analyzed and the apparent impasse was
no longer an issue. A dialectical argument was unveiled and a deeper understanding of the
matter at hand resolved the dilemma.
Both concepts regarding exchange-value at first seemed contradictory but it was realized
that the constant fluctuations in exchange-values is caused by profit motives and competition.
This in turn homogenizes production processes and fixes exchange-values.
Next Message by Atticus is [372].
[406] Baseball: Marx defines exchange-value as the social relation which allows commodities
to be traded for each other for money. When Marx introduced exchange-values, he
stated that it is something attached to a commodity’s use-value. He means that the exchangevalue
of a commodity is intrinsic inside the commodity and is fully manifested within. But
Marx contradicts himself by saying the exchange-proportions of two commodities is not, in
32 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
fact, a full manifestation of their exchange-value. There are other elements such as money
which can buy every commodity and is also a manifestation of exchange-value.
Next Message by Baseball is [407].
[413] Long: Exchange-value is something that is have a quantity relations of each use
value of a commodity in which it is being exchanged. This can change constantly anywhere
in the market where the commodities are being exchanged. Since it is accidental and related
and an intrinsic value. Exchange value of a commodity is in term of quantity like dozens of
eggs, pounds of wheat or acres of land etc... The relations of exchange value is accidental is
the fact that when one commodity is being exchanged for another commodity given in terms
of how many of say pounds of wheat is equal to one ton ot iron.
Next Message by Long is [601].
[470] GoUtes: When Marx introduces the exchange value of a commodity he describes
it as follows “the commodity’s ability to fetch other commodities in the market.” However,
Marx also brings up the point that exchange value is “relative” where the value and exchange
for a commodity is not determined by society as a whole but on an individual basis. The
exchange value could vary according to what the value of a particular commodity is to each
individual consumer. Where one consumer may trade a pen for a paper clip, another may
trade a pen for a notebook. The exchange value is socially determined.
Hans: What you call “socially determined” Marx would call “accidental.” It seems as if the exchange-value depends
entirely on the circumstances. This is in contradiction to it depending on the commodity’s ability to fetch
other commodities.
Next Message by GoUtes is [471].
[494] Kat: In Marx’s introduction of exchange-value, he explains that a commodity has
both inherent value, which is anchored to the commodity itself, and value which is associated
with its relation to another commodity. In Capital, he says “exchange-value seems to be
something accidental and purely relative....... and immanent exchange-value.... seems therefore
a contradiction in terms.” Marx then suggests that this contradiction is something that
people living within a capitalistic society live with everyday, without understanding that it is
contradictory. He explains throughout his work that labor instills value into a commodity; an
exchange-value it holds as a lone commodity before an exchange relation ever takes place.
He then goes on to explain the variability of exchange-values in different times and places.
This variability would not seem possible if the value were inherent in the commodity. So,
the contradiction of exchange-value is where the value is determined by a relation of one
commodity to another standing in contrast to the assumed inherent value anchored to the
commodity.
Next Message by Kat is [496].
Exam Question 66 is 28 in 1995WI, 37 in 1996ut, 34 in 1997ut, 54 in 2004fa, 62 in
2007SP, 63 in 2008fa, 76 in 2011fa, and 75 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 66 Why does Marx’s inquiry sometimes reach an impasse which can only
be resolved by “considering the matter more closely”?
[391] Orville: graded A Contradiction Resubmission. Throughout “Capital”, Marx contradicts
himself to show that many of the assumptions citizens take for granted are actually
misconceptions. He uses logic to lead the reader down a path that seems like a fairly obvious
one then Marx pulls the reader back and lets them wake up and smell the roses. Marx does

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 33
this do demonstrate what he sees as the contradictions capitalism hides. The dialectical way
that Marx chooses to write in “Capital” allows him to “consider the matter more closely.”
This is to take a deeper look at what exactly capitalism is and what it means to live in a
capitalistic society. I believe he doesn’t give the answer right away because his conclusions
might not make sense if he did it that way. The conclusions drawn in this book might not
make sense if they were stated without some prior knowledge. Marx contradicts himself in
order to keep the reader engaged to the point where it is more obvious how his theories and
ideas make much more logical sense.
Hans: In your in-class answer you wrote: “Marx wants to show that the easy answers are rarely right.” I see it
differently. Marx or Engels said somewhere that the secret of dialectics is that you can do your thinking one step at
a time, you don’t have to come up with the correct answer all at once. I.e., the easy answers already have enough
truth in them that they can be the starting point for a fertile dialectical development.
I think there is also the idea in the background that you cannot jump over the negation to arrive at the negation
of the negation.
Next Message by Orville is [392].
Question 67 is 63 in 2007fa, 64 in 2008SP, 64 in 2008fa, 66 in 2009fa, 61 in 2012fa, and
67 in Answer:
Question 67 The French economist Le Trosne wrote that the value of a thing consists in
its exchange-proportions with other things. Does Marx agree with this, or how would he
re-formulate this proposition to make it correct?
[16] Bigwhite: Exchange proportions. Le Trosne states that the value of a thing consists
of its exchange-proportions with other things. Marx says that he thinks that this is only
one part that goes into figuring out the value of a certain commodity. He agrees that the
exchange-proportion is important but that it is also replaceable. Replaceable meaning that
for instance wheat could be exchanged for gold, silk, or iron—not just one commodity but
many. Marx would say that you also have to consider the producer or the production of the
commodity as well before you can get a complete value for the commodity. Because with
the exchange-proportion that can be affected by relationships between the two producers
being it that they are friends or that they have a certain interest in a commodity more so than
another consumer.
So any given commodity can fetch numerous other commodities in exchange but it is not
solely based on the exchange proportions you also have to figure in the intrinsic substance
of the given commodity that is not entirely clear yet but it does hold value as well and needs
to be considered when talking about the value of a given commodity.
Hans: The text of the question should have clarified what I belatedly did in [26] and [30], that the thing which Le
Trosne calls “value” is the same thing which Marx calls “exchange-value.”
I.e., at this point we are not yet investigating the link between value and exchange-value, but we are only looking
at exchange-value.
Is Le Trosne saying something wrong about exchange-value? Yes he is. I just wrote [30] to explain what it is.
Le Trosne defines exchange-value as a relation only between two commodities, which leaves out the important fact
that a given commodity can be exchanged against all other commodities.
You are saying this too, which is good, but you are calling it replaceability, which is confusing because replaceability
is already the next step. Replaceability means that all these exchange relations are equivalent, one is as
good as the other. This is additional info about the exchange relations. To stay with the polygamy metaphor from
[30], polygamous marriage relations are not replaceable but on the contrary there is a strict and contested hierarchy
among the wives, as the movie series “Big Love” shows. But exchange-relations are replaceable, and from this
34 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
replaceability Marx concludes that all exchange-values of the wheat say something about the wheat alone. I.e.,
replaceability is the bridge between (1) and (2) in [30]. Your second paragraph goes a little bit in the direction of
saying this.
Therefore there is good thinking in your answer. Most of the things that are wrong are my fault and not yours,
because I did not clarify that Le Trosne’s value is the same as Marx’s exchange-value, and because I think now I
made mistakes in the archive answers to this question. My Annotations benefit from this class exactly because the
answers of attentive students like yourself show me where the Annotations are deficient.
Message [16] referenced by [22]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [103].
[22] Goldtone: graded A The value of a thing is just as much as it will bring. Marx
agrees, to an extent, with the statement Le Trosne makes about exchange-value and it being
only equal to what an item / commodity can be bargained / traded / exchanged for in return.
This agreement by Marx is obvious with his quote: “Exchange-value appears first of all
as the quantitative relation, the proportion, in which use-value of one kind exchange for
use-value of another kind.” Where Marx would reformulate Le Trosne is in his stopping at
just that. Instead, Marx would continue to argue that two different things being exchanged
have some “element of identical magnitude” already within them. In turn, this identical
magnitude makes their exchange-values reducible to a third thing. The first idea that came
into my head for this “third thing” was cash / money. Marx, if I remember correctly, is
thinking more along the lines of human labor.
Hans: Your subject line is not from Le Trosne but from Butler in a different footnote. Other than this, I think you
would benefit from reading my comments to [16].
Next Message by Goldtone is [74].
[26] Hans: Le Trosne—did I get it finally right? In 126:2, Marx writes:
“Exchange-value manifests itself at first as the quantitative relation, the proportion,
in which use-values of one sort are exchanged against use-values
of another sort ...”
and in the footnote Marx quotes Le Trosne:
“The value consists in the exchange proportion between one thing and another,
between this amount of one product and that of another.”
Since these two sentences sound so similar, question 67 asks whether Marx quotes Le
Trosne because he agrees with him?
So far this message is identical to [2008SP:20]. But from now on it is different since my
own understanding has evolved:
The answer is no. Marx is critical of Le Trosne. He uses Le Trosne as witness for one
half of the issue, but at the same time as an example for an analysis of exchange-value which
only sees half of the issue.
Before I continue, two clarifications:
(1) The discrepancy between Marx and Le Trosne is not that Marx is talking about
exchange-value and Le Trosne about value. Marx’s word “exchange-value” and Le Trosne’s
word “value” mean the same thing. In this class we are using Marx’s terminology, not Le
Trosne’s, therefore let’s pretend from now on that Le Trosne had written:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 35
“The exchange-value consists in the exchange proportion between one thing
and another, between this amount of one product and that of another.”
(2) In Capital, Marx often proceeds in a way that is so unfamiliar to modern readers that
it is easy for them to miss how Marx argues—simply because a modern reader does not
expect Marx to argue this way. Here is a summary of the steps in Marx’s argument at the
very beginning of chapter One.
(a) After spending a couple of paragraphs on use-value, Marx introduces exchange-value
as an additional property which commodities have besides use-value. I.e., he introduces
exchange value as something intrinsic to the commodity.
(b) But when he gets to investigate this exchange-value, his first observation is that
exchange-value manifests itself in a very relative way, through exchange-relations between
commodities. This is where he brings the Le Trosne quote.
(c) Marx says there is a contradiction between value being intrinsic and this relative manifestation
of value.
(d) Now comes a kind of argument modern readers are no longer used to. If a modern
scientist runs into a contradiction, they will usually take this as a sign that their theory is
wrong, and they try to find a theory without contradictions. Not Marx. Marx cherishes
contradictions. Following Hegel, Marx thinks the world itself is full of contradictions, and
someone who wants to understand how the world ticks must identify and explore those
contradictions.
The Annotations explain how Marx explores contradictions, and how the contradictions
allow Marx to see things which would otherwise be invisible. I will not go into the details,
because I have already said enough to show how Marx differs from Le Trosne. While Marx
thinks that exchange-value is a contradictory phenomenon which is in a weird way intrinsic
and relative at the same time, Le Trosne only sees one leg of the contradiction—the relative
leg—and loudly declares that exchange-value is relative and not intrinsic. Marx would say
that Le Trosne’s undialectical view of exchange-value makes it impossible for Le Trosne to
see where exchange-value comes from.
Message [26] referenced by [16] and [30]. Next Message by Hans is [30].
[30] Hans: Third time is a charm. Here is another version of [26], which itself is a
derivative of [2008SP:20]. It comes at the issue from a slightly different angle. In order to
move unimportant issues of terminology out of the way, I silently replaced the word “value”
in the Le Trosne quote with “exchange-value”:
In 126:2, Marx writes:
“Exchange-value manifests itself at first as the quantitative relation, the proportion,
in which use-values of one sort are exchanged against use-values
of another sort ...”
and in the footnote Marx quotes Le Trosne:
“The exchange-value consists in the exchange proportion between one thing
and another, between this amount of one product and that of another.”
36 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Since these two sentences sound so similar, question 67 asks whether Marx quotes Le
Trosne because he agrees with him? The answer is no. Marx does not agree with Le Trosne.
In a debate, Marx would say the following to Le Trosne:
(1) By defining exchange-value as a relationship between two commodities only, you are
leaving out an important aspect of exchange-value, namely, that it encompasses all commodities.
Just as it makes a big difference whether a man is married to one woman or to
several women, so it also makes a big difference whether the wheat can be exchanged for
iron only, or whether wheat can be exchanged for iron, silk, gold, shoe-polish, or any other
commodity.
(2) If exchange-value is indeed, as you say, a completely relative matter, a symmetric
relation between two commodities, can you explain why it is not perceived as something
relative? Why do people speak for instance of the exchange-value of wheat, as if exchangevalue
was intrinsic in one of the two commodities?
Does Marx have a better theory of exchange-value which is immune to these objections?
Yes, he does. In Marx’s theory, exchange-value is relative too—it is the relationship which
commodities have on the maket—but this relationship is the expression of something intrinsic,
namely, of the labor content inside the commodities.
Since all products contain labor this explains (1), the universality of exchange-value, and
since people know from their life-long experience in capitalism that the exchange relation
between commodities is really a statement about the commodities involved, this explains
why they have no problem considering the exchange relations as something inherent in the
commodities.
Message [30] referenced by [Answer:11] and [16]. Next Message by Hans is [32].
[409] Kraken: graded A Marx does not agree with Le Trosne’s statement. Marx believes
that what Le Trosne is describing is “exchange-value”, which is actually just a surface expression
of the inherent value of a commodity. Marx looks deeper to discover the source of
a commodity’s value. Marx believes that a commodity has value due to the social labor-time
which is expended in order to produce the commodity.
Next Message by Kraken is [410].
[439] Kaush: Resubmission. Marx does not agree with the French economist Le Trosne.
Marx’s reformulation would be that the exchange-value itself is not inherent in the commodities,
but the exchange-value is the surface expression of the social labor-time amassed
in the production of the commodity. Le Trosne does not see the commodity’s labor content
of which the surface relation is the reflection.
Next Message by Kaush is [527].
[495] LuBr: By “value” Le Trosne is referring to “exchange-value,” so in answering this
questions we are to analyze whether Marx and his definition of exchange-value would agree
with Le Trosne’s concept of exchange-value. From Le Trosne’s description of exchangevalue
it is clear that Marx would not agree with his conception of exchange-value. This is
because Le Trosne believes that value is produced on the market through exchange while
Marx thinks that value is created in the production process. Because the starting point of
value is different for Le Trosne than it is for Marx, Le Trosne then goes on to imply that
the definition of exchange-value is a relation between two commodities being exchanged

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 37
on the market. Marx would disagree and say that one must see the value of a commodity
as congealed abstract labor contained within the commodity. So in contrast to Le Trosne,
a commodity’s value is intrinsic, and although the exchange value is not intrinsic within a
commodity, it is a reflection of the congealed abstract labor within the commodity, which
is inherent. Le Trosne’s version of exchange value on the other hand only sees the relative
nature of exchange-values, which exist only on the surface of market exchange.
Next Message by LuBr is [500].
Question 68 is 65 in 2008fa:
Question 68 The English economist Barbon wrote that nothing can have an intrinsic exchangevalue.
Does Marx agree with this, or how would he re-formulate this proposition to make it
correct?
[17] Kleenex: The paradox of exchange-value. Marx would agree with Barbon’s statement
that nothing can have an intrinsic exchange-value, to an extent. Marx writes of a
“common something” that exists within and inside a commodity even before it has been
exchanged. He clarifies what he means by “common something” with his metaphor of polygons
and triangles: in order to find this “common something,” each commodity to be exchanged
“must therefore be reducible.” At the core of each commodity is a shared value.
This common substance is not unique or specific to only two commodities being exchanged:
it exists in many different commodities, as wheat can be traded for silk, shoe polish, gold,
as well as iron.
However, because exchange-value is a social relation as well, it “constantly changes with
time and place” and is dependent on external circumstances. It follows that “exchangevalue
seems to be something accidental and purely relative,” hence my earlier hypothesis
that Marx agrees with Barbon to an extent. Robert’s example in [14] of a bottle of water
having a different exchange-value during normal times and after the devastation of a hurricane
illustrates this point. In addition, why would an exchange-value have such a name
if an exchange was not going to happen? Exchange-value is also described in the text as a
“mere mode of expression” that is “remotely controlled,” or distant from the deeper layers of
Barbon’s so-called intrinsic exchange-value. Exchange-value is only a superficial or surface
manifestation of the many social relations linked to the commodity.
To conclude, Marx agrees, and disagrees with the English economist. In one sense,
exchange-value is somewhat natural and intrinsic in that a commodity contains in itself a
substance that has value. In another sense, Marx sees that social relations between commodities
drive exchange-values.
Hans: You are right, Marx agrees and disagrees. But the disagreement is stronger than the agreement. Let me
explain.
Exchange value itself is not intrinsic but relative, it is a social relation between commodities indicating that and
at what exchange ratios they are exchangeable on the market. To that extent Marx agrees with Barbon.
But exchange-value is the surface expression of something that is intrinsic in the commodity. This intrinsic
common substance in the commodities, which Marx calls “value,” comes from the labor necessary to produce the
commodities. The exchange-value which we see on the market is therefore driven by something that happened in
production. To say it again, the exchange-value itself is not intrinsic but it is driven by something that is intrinsic.
This is a big point of disagreement between Marx and Barbon. Barbon says exchange-value is created on the market
place, and Marx says that exchange-value is created in production.
38 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Kleenex is [83].
[37] She: (graded A+) Intrinsic Exchange value? When deciding whether or not Marx
would agree with Barbon’s statement that ‘nothing can have an intrinsic exchange value’ we
must first decide if Marx and Barbon even agree what an exchange-value is.
On the first page of chapter one, Barbon says value comes from “supplying the wants
of the mind” or fueling desire. If value is created this way, in the mind of the desirer, it
would obviously be subjective and relative, and assigned when it comes to the marketplace
not something that is embodied in the commodity during production.
Marx says the exchange-value APPEARS as the quantitative relation—he does not say
it IS the quantitative relation. The quantitative relation, which Marx does NOT believe
exchange-value is, changes constantly with time and place. This in turn gives exchangevalue
the appearance of being “accidental” and “purely relative.” If we are led to believe that
the exchange-value is simply the quantitative relation that appears on the surface, the concept
of intrinsic value will seem a contradiction and an impossibility, as it does to Barbon.
Marx illustrates an example on page 127 of the many exchange-values that a single commodity
can have. He deduces from this observation that these different exchange-values, if
valid (See submission [14] by Robert for definition), would be “mutually replaceable or of
identical magnitude.” He goes on to conclude that, “. . . exchange-value cannot be anything
other than the mode of expression. . . of a content distinguishable from it.”
Marx believes the fact that exchange of different commodities can and does occur illustrates
that there must be a common element of identical magnitude that exists between them.
Everything that has an exchange-value must therefore be reducible to this common element.
To define this common element, Marx breaks away from seeing commodities as their
physical manifestations but views them as products of labor; he even breaks them down into
being products of the same measurement of labor—so they are equally comparable. The labor
that has been used in production of these things is now embodied and intrinsic in them.
The homogenous labor he tediously defines becomes the atom of the molecule, the “crystals
of this social substance [commodity value].” This homogenous labor is the commonality
earlier discussed by Marx, which allows the exchange-values to serve as the mode of expression;
expressing, as he says, something equal, the labor intrinsic in the commodity. Marx
believes the exchange-value is nothing more than “the necessary mode of expression” while
Barbon appears to believe it is the actual value of the commodity.
Marx says on page 130 that, “As exchange values, all commodities are merely definite
quantities of congealed labor-time.” This means the value of a commodity would remain
constant and would not be the quantitative relation that it initially appears to be and that
Barbon believes it is. Barbon’s position is seen by Marx as not differentiating value from
exchange-value.
In order for Marx to reformulate Barbon’s proposition, they would first need to agree on
the definition of value. Barbon believes it is a subjective judgment based on individual desire
for the object and Marx believes it is derived from the labor that produced it and is therefore
intrinsic to it.
Next Message by She is [88].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 39
[442] Rmc: graded C+ Marx would agree with Barbon that no commodity can have intrinsic
exchange value. Intrinsic means automatic, or “belonging to naturally, essential”
according to Apple’s Mac dictionary. Marx argued in Das Kapital that exchange-value is determined
by broad social factors, preventing commodities to have intrinsic exchange-value,
or even use-value. He also states that exchange-value for one and the same commodity may
change over time and/or space. He would point out that exchange-value reflects use-value
and that whether a commodity has use-value to begin with depends on the market—again,
which changes over space and time.
For example, parkas or wool coats are commodities that would be use-values in places
such as Alaska, Russia, or Canada, where winter is very cold, but they would not be usevalues
in places like the Bahamas or Singapore whose climates are the opposite, year-round.
Parkas are designed to be used in cold climates, so people living in very hot areas would
not identify parkas as use-values. In other words, these commodities are use-values in some
places but not others, therefore, their exchange-values have changed (along with use-value
status) across space.
If use-value changes (or disappears), so does its exchange-value. This disproves that
exchange-value is intrinsic in the commodity.
Hans: Saying that “exchange-value reflects use-value” is an unacceptable misunderstanding of Marx which at this
point will automatically lead to a bad grade. Your example of parkas in the Bahamas is similar to Orville’s argument
that popcorn is more expensive in movie theatres than in a weight watcher meeting. Read my response [315].
By an “intrinsic” exchange-value Marx means an exchange-value anchored in the body of the commodity itself.
Its opposite would be an exchange-value depending on the circumstances of the exchange. With this definition,
the fact that the exchange-value of a commodity disappears when its use-value is destroyed is evidence in favor of
exchange-value being intrinsic.
Message [442] referenced by [443]. Next Message by Rmc is [443].
[461] Somramthom: graded A Marx vs Barbon—The ultimate showdown! Marx
would agree on some terms with Barbon, namely that exchange values are not inherent
and that exchange values determine market exchange ratios.
However, Marx does not agree on Barbon’s idea that exchange value is derived from the
market. Instead, Marx says exchange value is derived from the production of the commodity.
Since Exchange value is a social reflection of the inherent value of the commodity (i.e. the
labor input) exchange value itself is not an inherent quality, but it reflects value, which is an
inherent quality of the commodity.
Next Message by Somramthom is [462].
Question 70 is 47 in 2001fa, 48 in 2002fa, 50 in 2003fa, 55 in 2004fa, 55 in 2005fa, 66
in 2007SP, 66 in 2007fa, 67 in 2008fa, 69 in 2009fa, and 77 in 2012fa:
Question 70 Why does Marx write in 127:1 “the valid exchange-values,” instead of simply
“the exchange-values”?
[14] Robert: graded A+ Valid exchange-value. Clair in [2009fa:14] quotes from Webster,
defining the word “valid” as that having legal efficacy or force, well-grounded or justifiable,
logically correct, or appropriate to the end in view. Used as a qualifying adjective
to exchange-values in Marx’s phrase the word valid takes on the meaning of well-grounded,
40 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
logically correct, and appropriate (legal efficacy does not seem to be the concern of his arguments).
By carefully inserting this word Marx implies that a distinction exist between
some instances of exchange-value, i.e., some are valid and some are not. Marx in 129:2,
in a different context (i.e., describing the labor-time required to produce a commodity) introduces
the phrase “under the prevailing socially normal conditions.” By the phrase “valid
exchange-value” Marx seems to be referring to an exchange-value determined using wellgrounded,
logical and appropriate considerations in the instances he later identifies as “under
the prevailing socially normal conditions.” Instances wherein exchange-value is subjected to
abnormal external factors wherein grounding, logic, and appropriateness may not be the
primary considerations in its determination (i.e., conditions different from those of the prevailing
socially normal conditions) may result in an invalid exchange-value.
For example, the news of the day reminds us of the circumstance in which the residents of
New Orleans found themselves in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina five years ago. Under
the duress of such a disaster a commodity, such as a bottle of water, may have a different
exchange-value than it would when New Orleans was under normal conditions. A valid
exchange-value for a bottle of water in New Orleans would best be determined when bottles
of water are present in the usual, prevailing socially normal conditions of New Orleans.
Another example of an invalid exchange-value is provided by Clair in [2009fa:14] of a gold
ingot having the exchange-value of a rock to smash open clams on a deserted island, a
situation outside the prevailing socially normal conditions in which a gold ingot would have
a different, valid exchange-value.
Marx carefully identifies the exchange-values he uses in his discussion as those that are
valid (ordinary under normal conditions), and not invalid (extraordinary under unusual conditions).
Marx is obviously aware that the exchange-value of commodities may fluctuate
when conditions are other than normal, but for the purposes of this discussion, he chooses
to eliminate this variability in exchange-values by dealing only with valid exchange-values.
Message [14] referenced by [17], [19], [24], [37], [39], [51], [52], and [459]. Next Message by Robert is [52].
[19] Hans: Grothendieck Answers. Grothendieck is a French mathematician. In the
math profession in Germany in the 1960s, the saying used to be “where Grothendieck was
once sitting, no grass grows any more” (Wo Grothendieck sich hingesetzt hat, da wächst
kein Gras mehr). In other words, if Grothendieck has written a paper about something then
this thing is over and done with—because Grothendieck has already said everything about it
that can be said.
In the homework discussions we also sometimes get Grothendieck answers, i.e., answers
that are so correct and comprehensive that they stop the conversation—because it would be
difficult to add to them. We already had two Grothendieck answers this Semester, Robert’s
[14] in the present homework period, and Hal’s [8] in the last period.
To ordinary mortals I can only say: don’t be intimidated by this. In some Semesters the
discussion is much more profound than in others. Fall 2003 was an exceptionally productive
class, and Fall 2008 was another one. The few days of discussion so far hold the promise
that this class will be a high level class too. For the grades this means that you all benefit.
Everybody’s grades will be higher on the assumption that you learn more sitting through a
class with exciting high-level discussions than sitting through a lame class.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 41
But some classes started out on a high and promising level and then the level of the
discussion fell off—presumably because others were thinking “I can’t play in the same orchestra
with these virtuosos” and gave up. Please don’t give up. Except for the geniuses,
people will need to be a little hard-nosed in this class because you will probably get a lot of
criticism from me, at least at the beginning. Please stick it out. I expect that at the end you
will be glad you did because you will learn a lot, and you will learn things which no other
class on campus has to offer.
But for those who signed up for this class because they expected an easy A, I recommend
that you drop the class again on or before Wednesday, September 1. Come back later when
you have more time for it. Even if you drop the class, you are not required to unsub from
the mailing list, if you still want to listen in.
Message [19] referenced by [77], [2011fa:265], and [2012fa:131]. Next Message by Hans is [23].
[31] Alex: (graded A–) Valid Exchange Value. We have established that exchange value
“is the commodity’s ability to fetch other commodities in the market” according to Hans.
In 127:1, Marx is describing the exchange value using the examples of one quarter of the
commodity wheat being exchangeable for different amounts of silk, shoe polish, or gold, and
in accordance with the definition. But instead of describing wheat as having an exchange
value, Marx refers to it as having a valid exchange value instead of simply an exchange value.
When I first read this question, I understood it to be that the exchange value of commodities
is relative to not only time and place, but also to the amount that is exchangeable. For
example, one pound of wheat might be exchangeable for x amounts of silk, y amounts of
polish, and z amounts of gold, therefore, 2 pounds of wheat could be exchangeable for more
silk, or more polish, or more gold. In other words, 2 pounds of wheat have more exchange
value than one pound. When Marx refers to valid exchange value, it would mean that the
value of the two items being exchanged is equal. An invalid exchange value would be for
example, on pound of wheat for 2x of silk, or 3 pounds of wheat for x silk, according to
Marx’s original example. Marx would not write simply exchange values, in my opinion,
because there are instances where the exchange values of commodities might not be valid,
as in the examples of Hans’ annotations of “trader having to make a fire sale or being misinformed
about the exchange-value of his or her product.” This is because the value given
for one item is more, or less, than the value of the other item, which creates a discrepancy.
Message [31] referenced by [32], [42], and [147]. Next Message by Alex is [80].
[32] Hans: How does Marx arrive at his qualification of “valid” exchange-values?
Here is the beginning of Alex’s [31] again, with some small edits of mine and my comments:
We have established that exchange value “is the commodity’s ability to
fetch other commodities in the market” according to Hans.
Yes that’s the definition of the word “exchange-value”
In 127:1, Marx is describing the exchange value using the examples of one
pound of the commodity wheat being exchangeable for different amounts
of silk, shoe polish, or gold, and in accordance with the definition.
Marx focuses here on a fact which we all know, but which is by no means trivial (as
we shall see): Wheat can be exchanged on the market not only with one but with many
42 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
different commodities, even such an oddball of a commodity as shoe-polish. (And wheat is
no exception here, every other commodity is equally broadly exchangeable.)
Just to illustrate why it matters whether every commodity is broadly exchangeable or
not, think of the marriage relation. It matters a lot for the character of this relation whether
you live in a monogamous or polygamous society. Marx is basically saying here, regarding
exchanges, commodities are polygamous.
But instead of describing wheat as having an exchange value, Marx refers
to it as having a valid exchange value instead of simply an exchange value.
You just made a fast forward through Marx’s argumentation, folding three steps into one.
No wonder you are puzzled that Marx suddenly pulled the concept of “valid” exchangevalues
out of his hat. In the rest of your essay you are then guessing what Marx might
have meant with “valid”. Your guess that Marx calls an exchange-value “valid” only if it
conforms with the labor content is especially bad – because labor content is not something
imposed by Marx on the exchange process, but (in Marx’s theory) a spontaneous outcome
generated by market competition.
If we follow in detail how Marx argues, we will get a better idea what Marx probably
meant.
(1) Marx’s next step is that all the different exchange-values of the wheat are replaceable.
This means the following. If the market allows wheat producer A to exchange a pound of
wheat with with y amount of silk, then the market also allows wheat producer B to exchange
a pound of wheat with y amount of silk. You don’t need a special relation with the silk
producer to be able to make this exchange. Whoever you are, if you bring a pound of wheat
you get the deal.
(2) From this Marx concludes that each exchange-value is as good as any other. Getting
z gold is not a better deal than getting y tea, because if it was, then those who traded their
wheat for tea would have traded it for gold instead.
Note that replaceability is necessary for this step. To come back to our polygamy example,
the wives of the same polygamous husband are not equal to each other but on the
contrary, as the movie Big Love shows, there is a contested hierarchy among them.
(3) The next step is difficult but important: all exchange-relations say the same thing
about the wheat. Since they are equal among each other, the only thing they depend on is the
wheat, they are different reflections (or, in Marx’s terminology, expressions) of something
that has to do with the wheat alone.
In future steps Marx will argue that they are not a reflection of anything that has to do
with the use-value of the wheat, but instead a reflection of the labor content of the wheat. I
will not get into this, I will stop my enumeration of Marx’s steps here, because this last step
is where Marx throws in the qualification of “valid” exchange proportions. Only the valid
exchange proportions are a reflection of something about the wheat.
This validity requirement seems to have fallen from the sky, but if you have followed
the argument so far you know that “valid” is simply a different word for “replaceable.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 43
Only the replaceable exchange values, i.e., the exchange-values open to all, the competitive
exchange-values, are an expression of the wheat. The others are, well, an expression of the
circumstances which make then unique and not replaceable.
Message [32] referenced by [23]. Next Message by Hans is [41].
[51] Hans: Exchange-Values can be valid without trading equal values. It is impossible
for me to respond and correct every error made in every submission sent to the class.
And sometimes I also overlook errors; sometimes I simply don’t “get” what you mean and
just assume that you mean the same thing I have in my head. (So I am making the same
mistake with respect to you which some of you are making with respect to Marx.)
For instance I realize now, prompted by your responses to Robert, that I did not read
critically enough the last sentence in Robert’s [14]:
Marx is obviously aware that the exchange-value of commodities may fluctuate
when conditions are other than normal, but for the purposes of this
discussion, he chooses to eliminate this variability in exchange-values by
dealing only with valid exchange-values.
Robert means here that only those exchange-values are valid where equal value is traded
for equal value; everything else is invalid. I didn’t get it at first that this is what he meant,
therefore I must say now belatedly: No, Robert, this is not the right definition of “valid.”
Your definition of “valid” is is like running a regression and then throwing out all data
points which do not lie on the true regression line. This is of course impossible (how can you
tell) and would be infeasible even if it were possible (because the probability of a data point
lying on the true regression line is zero), and Marx also does not mean this. He knows that
actual exchange proportions always have noise in them: they are either higher or lower than
the value proportions. This does not make them invalid. No, the invalid exchange-values are
only the ouliers, they are those data points where some special circumstance was overriding
the thing measured by the regression line. In a statistical analysis it is legitimate to eliminate
those outliers where you can tell, by investigating the specific case, that something special
was going on—perhaps a transcription error, a malfunctioning instrument, a thunderstorm,
or whatever. But those outliers where you cannot find such irregularities should not be
eliminated. They may be the most informative data points of the data set.
Message [51] referenced by [39], [52], and [361]. Next Message by Hans is [54].
[52] Robert: Corrected exchange-value. Hans [51] correctly pointed out some sloppiness
in my wording in [14] regarding the explanation of “valid” exchange value. I understand
that Marx did not intend for valid exchange-values to be held constant (as my statement implies)
across all situations. Marx intended, I believe, as Hans points out, only to eliminate
the extreme cases such as those I cited (stranded on a deserted island, New Orleans after
Katrina) from the definition of exchange-values. Therefore, I believe valid-exchange value
are those various exchange-value that occur under prevailing normal social conditions and
exclude those “outliers” (as Hans defines) of exchange-values that occur under extraordinary
and non-normal social conditions.
Next Message by Robert is [76].
[343] Goldtone: graded A Marx writes “the valid exchange-values” instead of “the exchangevalues”
because he wants to distinguish socially normal conditions leading to exchange of an
44 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
item from abnormal conditions. Exchange-values vary considerably across time and place
due to different conditions. For example, water is worth more to someone who has just been
through an earthquake and no longer has direct access to it. This would be an abnormal condition
for residents of most developed countries, due to the fact that, under socially normal
conditions, clean water is easy to come by. Hans notes in the annotations that this distinction
is important “because only those exchange-values are replaceable with each other which
have general validity”, which acts to eliminate in-valid (abnormal) exchanges.
Next Message by Goldtone is [344].
[361] Lindsey: Valid exchange is comparable exchange. Marx writes about “valid
exchange-values” because under different circumstances, the socially perceived value (exchange
value) can change. An example of this that was used in class discussion was that bottled
water would be more expensive in Louisiana during/right after Hurricane Katrina than at another
time. The price of bottled water after Hurricane Katrina would not be comparable with
the price of bottled water in the same location just before anyone was aware of the storm
coming. A “valid exchange-value” is an exchange-value where all variables (such as time
and place or other “accidental” outside factors) are held constant. Valid exchange-values are
the only comparable values.
Hans: The accidental factors do not have to be held constant. In terms of [51], a valid exchange is a data point with
an ordinary error term, not an outlier. Katrina produces outliers. Marx would say the price of bottled water during
the hurricane is not an expression of the production cost of water but an expression of the hurricane emergency. But
don’t throw the accidental element out altogether!
Next Message by Lindsey is [363].
[469] Hal: graded A+ The notion of “valid exchange-values” is synonymous with replaceable
exchange-values. Valid exchange-values are those exchange-values that prevail under
normal social conditions because those are the exchange-values that are replaceable. Invalid
exchange-values prevail under special circumstances, and are therefore not replaceable. For
example, invalid exchange-values could occur when commodities are traded between two
merchants that are family members. Invalid exchange-values could also occur with certain
high-need commodities during times of crisis. Marx illustrates that the exchange-value between
commodities A and B and the exchange-value between commodities A and C are both
determined by certain characteristics inherent to commodity A alone. That is only the case
when the two exchange-values are replaceable.
Next Message by Hal is [472].
Question 72 is 277 in 1996sp, 56 in 2005fa, 67 in 2007fa, 68 in 2008SP, 68 in 2008fa,
and 71 in 2009fa:
Question 72 First give Marx’s arguments how one can come to the conclusion that exchangevalue
is not something inherent in the commodity. Then reproduce, in your own words,
Marx’s rebuttal that, despite these arguments, exchange-value seems to be something inherent
to the commodity after all.
[39] Wolf: Relative exchange-value and Marx. Marx says that exchange-values “appear”
to be “accidental and purely relative” because they change from time to place (126:2).
While there may be many more reasons for the fluctuation in exchange-value, Marx didn’t
address these for the reason that these fluctuations are beyond our control (pg 23-24 in
the annotations). Marx specifically focuses on normal social circumstances. Robert [14]

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 45
explained this quite well where he clarifies the distinction between socially normal “valid
exchange-value” and mere “exchange-value”.
However, Marx refutes this notion with two examples. In his first example (127:1), Marx
shows that a given commodity can have many exchange-values. This broader picture obscures
the assumption that they are purely relative and accidental because the commodities
which have an exchange-value with the given commodity can be exchanged with each other,
rather than the given commodity, for an equal magnitude as that between the given commodity
and the other commodities. Had we chosen an example where we lookod only at the
relationship between two traders, we may find otherwise. When you step back and look at
the broader structure, this makes more sense. As shown by Marx’s second example (127:2),
where he shows that two commodities exchange-value is equal, alludes to a further underlying
social relation, one in which exchange-value is merely an expression of it.
Hans: Careful reading and nice enumeration of Marx’s steps, but there are still a few mistakes.
Regarding your first paragraph, please see my [50] and [51].
Regarding the first example, which I call in the Annotations the first thought experiment: Marx’s point with
replaceability is not that they can be exchanged for each other, but that neither is a better deal than the other for the
owner of the wheat.
Regarding the second example, the end of your submission was originally the malformed expression ”one in
which exchange-value is merely an expression of it,” and I changed it into what I think you mean.
I am not happy with it that you are only describing Marx’s steps, you are not presenting them in enough detail
that the reader could make a judgment whether Marx’s argument is sound or not. But I think this has to do with
it that you have your own reservations about the validity of Marx’s steps. You are probably not alone with this,
therefore I wrote [50] and [51] to clarify things.
Message [39] referenced by [46] and [50]. Next Message by Wolf is [110].
[46] Zarathustra: (graded A) Relative exchange-value and Marx. I read Wolf’s answer
[39] but its sophistication didn’t allow me to understand it. The following is what I think
about Q: 72.
Exchange-value (EV) is not inherent because it’s something socially determined. If it
was inherent it should have been the same for a given commodity in every place and time.
In this sense, it is similar to use-value (UV) because it is also determined differently in
different contexts, say, I sometimes use my pen to write a paper and other times as a tool to
play with my cat. Both EV and UV are accidental and relational. But if EV is something
immanent and only “carried” by the commodity why should it vary in different contexts?
Hans says “People have contradictory notions in their heads because their lived experience
is contradictory”( 50.) For Marxists and philosophers contradiction is a blessing, that is, it
is sign that shows the researcher has discovered two dissimilar aspects of one phenomenon.
I think one possible answer to this contradiction is that EX is (i) social and rooted in
(ii) value which is a qualitative matter; however, in reality (marketplace) it is quantitatively
defined in terms of UV of another commodity which its consumption (usefulness) is desired
individually. This type of measuring qualitative and social aspects of commodity through
quantitative and individual criteria might be where we should look for the root of this contradiction.
Next Message by Zarathustra is [67].
46 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[50] Hans: Instead of Predicting, Understand Persistent Forces and Tendencies. Wolf
[39] takes issue with Marx calling the fluctuations in exchange-values “accidental.” If I understand
Wolf right, he thinks that there are reasons for these fluctuations, and Marx should
not have thrown up his hands and called them “accidental” but he should have built models
which incorporate these reasons and are precise enough to predict the fluctuations.
If this is Wolf’s argument (and I am not clear if it is, I am guessing here), then my response
is:
(1) Marx would probably say it is not possible to predict such fluctuations, and modern
science agrees with him here. Due to the “butterfly effect,” it is not possible to make weather
forecasts for more than a week in advance, and energy prices depend on the weather: therefore
it is impossible to predict every up and down in energy prices. Only their general trend
can be predicted from economic mechanisms. Another example would be that everybody
knows oil prices are likely to go up if there is a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, but it is
impossible to predict how fast and how far and for how long.
(2) More importantly, Marx would say, and again he is backed up by modern philosophy
of science, it is not the purpose of science to predict. Events are the intersection of many
different forces, and as scientists we study the forces one at a time, not the events themselves.
Marx is studying the economic mechanisms.
Message [50] referenced by [39]. Next Message by Hans is [51].
Question 74 is 59 in 2005fa, 71 in 2008fa, and 82 in 2011fa:
Question 74 Comment about the following critique of Marx: When Marx asks what is
the meaning of the exchange relation between two commodities, he commits the error of
treating the economy like a literary text. The actions of the economic agents must be causally
explained, but any reflection about their “meaning” is an interpretation which does not help
us understand what is really going on.
[27] PLG: graded A– Economy as a Literary Text. The critique in question 74 refers to
Marx’s methodology in looking for an exchange relation between two commodities. Rather
than looking for a quantitative comparison between goods, Marx begins by deducing the
“meaning” of the exchange relation between two goods. This is what is meant by treating
the economy as a “literary text”. Marx’s methodology is a crucial step on the path to understanding
the exchange value of commodities. Marx’s literary style is what leads him to
a deep understanding of the social relationship between commodities, and more specifically
to the social relationship of a commodity’s production.
Marx’s first thought experiment describes how a commodity can be exchanged for many
different commodities, making a good’s exchange value less relative, and more intrinsic.
The second thought experiment looks at an underlying equalization of goods. Although a
commodity may be intrinsic on its surface value, there is an underlying equalization of these
goods before they enter the “second act” of commodity exchange. Marx treats the economy
like a literary text in his methodology of understanding commodity exchange in order to dig
deeper into a more human element of a commodity’s production.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 47
His equalization of wheat and iron (pg. 27) seems to be a step back from his prior intrinsic
value conclusion of a good. Instead it is a step forward to equating the social implications
of the production of one good, to the social implications of the production of another good.
In this “literary” process Marx is thinking through the different layers of a good’s value;
surface expression, use value, and finally the underlying substance. As he digs deeper, he
finds that the surface value “speaks” to the production of a good, bringing greater meaning to
a commodity’s production (pg. 28). The private producers of a good then receive a message
from the exchange market.
The social ties to commodities, and the social relationship to the production of commodities
are crucial for Marx’s theory of exchange value. His “literary” technique is valuable
for gaining an understanding of the social context of commodities, rather than a quantitative
context.
Hans: What you call Marx’s “literary style” is presumably his attention to qualitative issues and contradictions
etc., instead of just quantitative issues. This looks so unusual because modern science has almost entirely come
away from looking at the quality of things. Nowadays people even think: if it is not quantitative, it is not scientific.
Modern mainstream economics tries to take advantage of this prejudice: it formulates highly quantitative theories
in the hope that people will take this as proof that mainstream economics is a science. (Marxists say that modern
mainstream economics is an ideology posing as a science.)
But this is a little bit of a tangent off the question, because the question wondered whether it makes sense to
look at what the surface relations “say”, see 127:2 (this is a simpler and better translation than talking about the
“meaning” of the surface relations). The answer is in your essay: what the surface relations “say” is of interest
because it characterizes the flow of information which the producers receive from observing the market outcomes.
Next Message by PLG is [113].
Question 77 is 31 in 1995WI, 40 in 1996ut, 38 in 1997ut, 55 in 2002fa, 57 in 2003fa, 62
in 2005fa, 73 in 2007SP, 73 in 2007fa, 74 in 2008fa, and 90 in 2011fa:
Question 77 Marx argues that commodities are exchangeable only because they contain
some common substance. Bailey denies this. He compares the exchange-value of commodities
with the distance between points, which is not based on a commonality between the two
points but is purely relative: “As we cannot speak of the distance of any object without
implying some other object between which and the former this relation exists, so we cannot
speak of the value of a commodity but in reference to another commodity compared with it.
A thing cannot be valuable in itself without reference to another thing any more than a thing
can be distant in itself without reference to another thing.” . Comment.
[38] Proletarian: graded A Marx vs Bailey and the fallacy of the “distance” metaphor.
Perhaps I have always viewed the world, in some ways at least, in a Marxist manner. I have
always viewed money, value, and price as some sort of measurement of work. Because I’ve
always looked at the world this way, it did not seem strange or new to me when I read Marx’s
assertions that commodities have an intrinsic exchange value and that commodities are only
exchangeable because they contain some common substance, which is to say the amount of
labor it took to produce the commodity.
Bailey, however, takes exception to this view. Bailey asserts that a commodity only has
exchange value in relation to other commodities. He claims that the exchange value is not
some inherent property in a commodity, but that the exchange value is purely relative and
cannot be determined without something for which to exchange the commodity. In making
48 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
his argument, Bailey compares exchange to distance, and claims that the distance of an
object cannot be determined without some other object to reference.
I disagree with Bailey’s argument, and believe that the comparison of exchange value to
distance is a fallacy. While it may seem like a nice metaphor, distance and value are two
entirely different things. A commodity still contains within itself some intrinsic value based
on the amount of labor that went into creating that commodity.
For example, let’s say that one puts 10 hours of labor into a field of wheat and at the
end of those 10 hours has created a commodity: 1 ton of harvested wheat. Let’s say that
at the same time another worker puts 10 hours of labor into a piece of stone and ends up
creating 10 hammers. Would one say that the resulting commodities from these two workers
have no exchange value if these commodities are never traded? Of course not. These two
commodities have some intrinsic value, and that value is best defined by the amount of labor
put into the creation of the commodity.
For example, if the worker who harvested the 1 ton of wheat needed a hammer, he would
be unlikely to trade his whole 1 ton of wheat for 1 hammer. In the amount of time it took him
to harvest that 1 ton of wheat (10 hours) he could have made 10 hammers if he put his labor
into making hammers. Instead, one could logically deduce that the worker who harvested
the wheat would be willing to trade 1/10 of a ton of wheat for the hammer. Essentially, the
opportunity cost for the worker who harvested the ton of wheat is 10 hammers (in terms of
hammers).
However, the only reason the number is 10 hammers is because that is what the worker
could have done with his 10 hours of labor instead of harvesting wheat. The opportunity
cost could have easily been 2 shirts (at 5 hours a shirt), 5 yards of rope (at 2 hours per yard),
or 1 ton of oats (at 10 hours per ton). What holds true across all the different measures of
opportunity cost is one underlying unit of value: labor. Therefore, one can easily calculate
the intrinsic exchange value of a commodity based upon how much labor went into the
production of that commodity.
Now, if one must use Bailey’s poor comparison of value and distance, there is a better
way of looking at it. Instead of saying that exchange value is only relative as distance is
since one “cannot speak of the distance of any object without implying some other object
between which and the former this relation exists,” consider the metaphor differently. If
one object starts at one point and moves in some direction, despite not having a destination,
or even another object to relate to, did that object not move? Of course the object moved.
There is some real distance that object has gone, even if there is nothing to relate to. In the
same way, a commodity has some intrinsic exchange value because of the labor put into its
creation, even if there is no other commodity for which to exchange.
One who labors for 10 hours on something is not going to say it has no value. If you
were to go to the worker who harvested the 1 ton of wheat and ask to take it for nothing in
exchange, even if the worker is not going to use the wheat himself, he is not going to simply
give you the wheat for nothing. This is because he knows that the wheat he has produced has
some intrinsic value because he is the one that put the work into making it. He knows there
is some underlying value in the labor he put into the wheat, and he is not going to part with

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 49
that wheat unless he receives something in exchange that is equal in the amount of work
involved in its creation to the amount of labor he put into creating his ton of wheat.
When thought of in this manner, Marx’s position on the intrinsic exchange value of a
commodity not only makes more sense, it seems naturally true.
Hans: This may seem natural as long as they consider themselves independent self-interested strangers, rather than
partners working together for the goal of providing for everyone.
Message [38] referenced by [54]. Next Message by Proletarian is [239].
Question 79 is 93 in 2011fa and 91 in 2012fa:
Question 79 In 127:4–128:1, Marx says that the exchange relation is characterized by an
abstraction from use-values. What does this mean? Explain it in such a way that your
12-year old would understand.
[43] Cmellen: graded C Marx says that the exchange relation is characterized by an abstraction
from use-values. This means the utility of a thing makes it a use value. To explain
in layman terms we can take for example the Discovery TV show, The Colony. If you watch
this show you see that in different circumstances some items are more vitally needed for
their utility than they would be to someone else not in that circumstance.
This is seen when they are trading the scarce items they already have (and they have
scavenged for), in exchange for other goods that normally wouldn’t seem that valuable (i.e.
a jar of homemade alcohol and a lb of rice was traded for a generator with less than a gallon
of gas left in it). To one individual, the homemade alcohol and lb rice isn’t of much value if
you have an entire kitchen stocked of food and beverage, but to someone who hasn’t eaten
much in the past 10 days, yet already has electricity at their disposal, the rice and alcohol
is worth much more than a generator. Therefore use values become a reality only by use or
consumption.
Hans: Do you know the difference between use-value and exchange-value?
Cmellen: I think I do. Use-value is how you can use the item, not the worth of what its made of, but what you
can actually do with it. Exchange value is the quantity in which you can exchange one item for another item. Am I
correct?
Hans: Yes, this is correct enough for our purposes (although Marx would say that exchange-value is much more
than just the quantitative exchange proportion). But why did you then insert in both of your submissions, in [43]
and in [49], the sentence “This means the utility of a thing makes it a use value” after the sentence “Marx says that
the exchange relation is characterized by an abstraction from use-values,” and then you argue that exchange-value
is determined by use-value?
Cmellen: I didn’t realize my error in understanding until after I had submitted my questions. I really appreciate
your response to others’ questions as well. It helps me to grasp concepts (sometimes a bit too late).
Message [43] referenced by [43], [47], [49], [54], [63], [179], and [2012fa:30]. Next Message by Cmellen is [49].
[47] Lindsey: Clarifying my thoughts. This is in response to Cmellen’s [43] answer to
question 79. It turns out that even Marx’s basic points can be very hard to understand so I
just want to clarify my own understanding because I understood something different from
the reading than Cmellen did.
I thought that Marx’s point in this section was to talk about how exchange relations are
NOT directly related to use-values (“characterized by an abstraction from use-values”—or
in other words a movement away from use values).
50 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Cmellen seems to focus on the different perspectives of different consumers while I don’t
remember Marx saying anything about individual consumers’ perspectives or demands affecting
exchange-values (at least not yet). Marx only talks about how the use-value of different
commodities can be converted into one common unit: exchange-values. In this way
different things can be traded: “For, if considered according to its exchange-value, one commodity
is just as good as any other, as long as it is present in the right proportion”
I did like Cmellen’s example of rice and jam being a fair trade for a generator because
it seems to me like a good illustration of how completely different things may be traded. It
also is an interesting example because it illustrates how quantity is important: the exchangevalue
of 1 lb of rice was not equal to the exchange-value of the generator, so jam was added
to the rice side of the exchange.
How did everyone else see this part of Marx’s argument?
Next Message by Lindsey is [123].
[54] Hans: Barters in a survival game do not follow the labor theory of value. Imagine
an economy (an ongoing economy with production, not a group of people stranded on an
island) in which, to take Cmellen’s example from [43], a jar of alcohol and a pound of rice
was traded consistently on the market for an electric generator. Nobody would be producing
generators and everybody would rush into producing alcohol and rice, because it takes so
much more labor and resources to produce a generator than to produce alcohol and rice, see
Proletarian’s careful explanation in [38]. Quickly, a shortage of generators and a surplus of
alcohol and rice would appear on the market. The price of generators would rise and that
of rice fall. This adjustment would go on until prices would be in line with labor content.
In the Colony, such an adjustment cannot take place because there is no production. The
Colony is an example of an economy where the neoclassical utility theory of value is correct
at least for those things which cannot be produced in the Colony. (I don’t watch TV, I’m just
guessing, please correct me if I am guessing wrong.)
But of course we consumers in capitalism are carefully taught not to think of the production
side of it. This may seem strange because we are the producers, or at least those of us
who are working class are the producers. But the trick in capitalism is that the producers do
not have control over the means of production. The capitalists have monopolized the means
of production, that’s why they are so rich. And economics is taught in such a way as of
production did not exist, so that we don’t get the idea the working class should have a say
about production.
Message [54] referenced by [58], [59], [71], and [347]. Next Message by Hans is [58].
[57] KA: Abstraction of Use Values. Individuals can only infer that the relationship embodied
in the exchange is the ultimate value of its exchange in terms of use. Individuals are
only exchanging the use of a commodity for another, given that the exchange is in proportion
to each other. Marx isolates this argument to an abstraction of use-values since the general
characteristics of the exchange are displaced from its actual instances. The argument that
one proposes is that exchange-value is established based on use-value, since the exchange is
dependent on one’s use. Therefore, Marx argues that “exchange-values is characterized by
an abstraction from use-values.” Commodities can only be exchanged based on their quantitative
differences and cannot be derived based on qualitative differences.

Explaining this to a 12-year old would be as such:
U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 51
Marx explains to us that an exchange-value is an abstraction of use-value because of how
an individual expects the exchange of a product to be useful to us when we give up another
product. A book that I read a few years back discussed the origins of wealth, and how it
was created. The first chapter of the book talks about how wealth in primitive times was
measured by how many heads of cattle you had. This measurement enables individuals to
transact in a very simple market place. If you wanted to obtain some grains or wheat you
would simply transfer the amount of cattle for a certain amount of grains or wheat. The
usefulness of the cattle became an exchange-value for grains and wheat, but the inverse
cannot be true. Your cattle cannot be an exchange-value determined on the use-value. The
very simplest explanation of exchange-value is that its abstraction is based off of the social
aspect of the product (cattle).
Hans: Keep on trying. It is difficult to think on such an abstract level, but it takes practice.
Next Message by KA is [171].
[63] Hans: Do Exchange Relations Abstract from Use-Values? This is a difficult
question. Before actually answering it, let’s look at its context. Marx does not believe that
exchange-relations are determined by use-values. Therefore Cmellen’s answer [43] is not
something he ever would have written, whether in connection with his assertion that the
exchange-relations abstract from use-values or not.
On the other hand, Marx just went through a painstaking argument that exchange-value
is immanent, i.e., it depends on something inside the commodities. This seems to lead him
back to use-values. But here he protests (I paraphrase him of course): No, no, it’s not usevalue!
Can’t you see, it’s obvious if you just open your eyes, that the exchange relation
abstracts from use-value and therefore cannot be determined by use-value?
He does use the word “augenscheinlich,” which means “in plain view, not hidden.” That
is why I formulated question 78. If Marx says it’s obvious and we readers don’t see it, how
can we follow his other arguments which are no longer obvious?
For you, on the other hand, this makes this question doubly difficult, because you have
been taught in mainstream economics that exchange-value is determined by use-values. This
question asks you to find obvious evidence before your eyes that your beliefs are wrong.
Here is another stumbling block which makes this question difficult: if an individual
makes an exchange (or a purchase), it is certainly not true that they abstract from the usevalues.
To modern consumers it is very important which use-values they get. Every nuance
counts. Shopping is a national pastime. Doesn’t this contradict Marx’s claim that exchange
relations abstract from use-values?
Interestingly, the reverse holds. Individuals can only choose so freely whichever usevalues
they like best because exchange-relations abstract from use-values or, as Marx elaborates,
“one use-value is just as good as another, as long as it is present in the proper quantity.”
So if you wanted a gold-plated urinal, the market will not say “urinals should not be goldplated”
but the market will give you a gold-plated urinal if you have enough money to pay
for it. Lenin once remarked “capitalists will sell you the rope by which you are going to
52 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
hang them.” If the exchange-relations are so indifferent towards the use-values then, Marx
argues, use-values cannot be what determines exchange-relations.
Message [63] referenced by [2011fa:22], [2012fa:30], and [2012fa:68]. Next Message by Hans is [64].
[399] PLG: graded A– Use values are the physical properties of goods that provide the
owner with utility. The exchange value is the market value of a good. Use-values provide
the motivation for consumers to obtain goods, but they do not determine the market value
of a good. Thus a use-value must be “prepared” for the market before an exchange can take
place.
This market preparation takes place by an abstraction of a use-value into its “common
substance”. For example, a baseball is great for hitting, throwing and catching. This is its
use value. But if the baseball wants to be traded for a basketball the market must disregard
the use-values, and consider the congealed abstract labor within each good, or the “common
substance”. There is an abstraction of the commodities’ value that has taken place in this
exchange.
Marx uses the term “common substance” to describe the exchange value within the commodity.
The “common substance” is the congealed abstract labor in the good. When a usevalue
is abstracted into its common substance, it is empowered for exchange on the market.
This is what Marx means by the exchange relation being characterized by an abstraction.
Hans: Your in-class answer was quite different and it was more on target given the question. The resubmission
mixes in elements of the form of value which have nothing to do with the question.
Next Message by PLG is [429].
Question 80 is 63 in 2005fa, 75 in 2007SP, 76 in 2008fa, 94 in 2011fa, and 92 in 2012fa:
Question 80 Marx says that the exchange-relations are characterized by an abstraction
from use-values. But use-values do affect the exchange proportions. If a use-value is in high
demand compared to supply, then it commands a higher exchange-value. If a competitor
brings out a better product, the firm’s own product may not sell any more. Can this be
reconciled with the claim of abstraction from use-value?
[49] Cmellen: graded C Marx says that the exchange relation is characterized by an abstraction
from use-values. This means the utility of a thing makes use-value. However
use-values do affect the exchange proportions. If a use-value is in high demand in comparison
to scarce supply, then it commands a higher exchange proportion to be equal to one
unit of the high demand item. If a competitor brings out a better product, the firm’s own
product may not sell anymore. To examine this one would look at the use-value of the two
competitive items. Does the new product have a greater use-value, so great that it makes the
previous use-value obsolete and unwanted? Is that what makes it a “better product”? If so,
then individuals would trade for the better use-value, making the original product obsolete.
Hans: You are still making the same mistake as in [43].
Message [49] referenced by [43] and [179]. Next Message by Cmellen is [121].
Question 85 is 44 in 1996ut, 67 in 2004fa, 79 in 2007SP, 81 in 2008SP, 80 in 2008fa, 97
in 2011fa, and 95 in 2012fa:
Question 85 Why did Ricardo’s discovery of the determination of value by labor attract
the following critique: “Mr. Ricardo’s system is one of discords . . . its whole tends to the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 53
production of hostility among classes and nations . . . His book is the true manual of the
demagogue, who seeks power by means of agrarianism, war and plunder.”
[55] Babyceta: graded A– Marx’s Critique of Ricardo. In order to better understand
Marx’s critique of Ricardo, it will be beneficial to provide some historical context. Ricardo
first published The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation 1817 and at that time Ricardo
was more interested in establishing a correlation between the price of agricultural
goods through “relative time” and their direct effect on the price of manufactured goods. Ricardo
believed that an increase in the price of agricultural products would have to be offset
by a decrease in the prices of at least some manufactured goods. Remember, one of Ricardo’s
main contributions was to show how as soil quality diminished labor would be less
productive, and rent would squeeze out profit. (He unconditionally accepted Malthus’ theory
of population which surmised that as profits and wages increased, so, too, would the birth
rate. More people translated to increased demand for agricultural products, resulting in the
need to cultivate more land. Since the most fertile soil had already been employed, land of
inferior quality would have to be developed. Less fertile land meant less productive labor.)
Ricardo believed this applied, too, to the manufacturing sector since there was, he supposed,
an inverse relationship between manufactured goods and agricultural goods. If less food was
being produced as population increased, food prices would rise. Scarcity increases demand
and factory workers would have to provide more labor in order to subsist. Providing more
labor in the factory would mean increased productivity and more manufactured goods. An
increase in supply usually translates to lower prices.
What does all of this have to do with the labor theory of value and Marx’s critique?
Well, Marx refers to Ricardo’s Principles as a “manual of the demagogue”; a demagogue
being (roughly) someone who champions the cause of common people to gain power or
favor. Next, Marx accuses Ricardo of agrarianism which, in eighteenth and nineteenth century
England meant any land reform movement that sought to redistribute cultivated lands
equally. So, if labor becomes less productive over time as population increases and less productive
land must be employed because all of the good soil is already in production, then the
commodities themselves will essentially be worth less because the labor embodied in them
is less productive labor. If one hour of labor used to produce 10 bushels of wheat and now
one hour only produces 5 bushels of wheat, then there that wheat contains less value in the
form of embodied labor. If a nation runs out of productive soil to cultivate (and remember
there’s a relationship with manufacturing) then that nation will have to go to other nations to
get more land and resources.
Marx, I believe, was critical of Ricardo (and this is where the “war and plunder” comes
in) because Marx believed Ricardo was attempting to generate public support for policies
that encouraged colonization and mercantilism. And since people in most countries will not
generally give up their land and resources without a fight, Marx believed that Ricardo’s labor
theory was essentially a veiled attempt at advancing a political agenda; mainly agrarianism,
war and plunder.
54 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
One final note on the “hostility among classes” Marx referred to. Ricardo was a staunch
defender to the capitalist class (he was very wealthy and made a fortune in the stock exchange
before migration to England from Holland). Marx, obviously, championed the working
class (having witnessed the deplorable conditions facilitated by the industrial revolution).
Malthus, not surprisingly, defended the rights of property owners (landlords). Wages, rent
and profit are all prominently represented by the three men, and any rhetoric engineered to
improve the advantage of one over another would certainly be viewed as an attempt to provoke
class hostility. It is not surprising that Marx was contemptuous; he saw Ricardo’s book
as an overpopulation scare tactic geared at generating capitalist opportunities packaged as a
thesis on political economy.
Source: E.K. Hunt, History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective, M.E. Sharp,
New York, 2002.
Message [55] referenced by [56] and [64]. Next Message by Babyceta is [56].
[56] Babyceta: Some thoughts from another source. A brief explanation. Some of
you may have noticed that [55] is my second straight submission where I have referenced E.
K. Hunt, a former economics professor here at the University of Utah. I believe Dr. Hunt’s
book “History of Economic Thought”, along with Hans’s annotations, can provided students
with a more comprehensive understanding of how the theories and ideas in Marx’s “Capital”
differ from other classical and neo-classical economists. I’m sure Hans would agree that K.
(as he was known to friends and students who were fortunate enough to get to know him) was
a true economic visionary and thinker, and had a knack for articulating complex material into
language that even the most uninitiated econ student could get their hands around. I believe
there are inexpensive copies of his book still available in the bookstore.
Next Message by Babyceta is [66].
[64] Hans: The Critique Did Not Come from Marx. The subject line in [55] already
exhibits the main weakness in Babyceta’s answer: The quote did not come from Marx but
from an American businessman who in his later life turned into an economist. Marx himself
liked Ricardo a lot. Look at my relatively short answers [2008fa:100] and [2008SP:33] why
the labor theory of value is feared by the capitalists.
Next Message by Hans is [68].
[66] Babyceta: An Apology. Wow. I feel like an complete idiot. I totally misread the
question and assumed the quotation was from Marx. I read more into the quote than was
intended and provided a long-winded response based more on the terms “demagogue” and
“agrarianism” than on labor theory of value. I apologize.
Hans: I slightly edited your answer (as I usually do): I struck out the “very” in “very long-winded.” Deadwood
modifier.
Message [66] referenced by [69]. Next Message by Babyceta is [108].
[69] Hans: No apology needed. Babyceta [66], no need to feel bad. Your definitions
of agrarianism and demagogy were useful. And your error regarding the Marx-Ricardo
relation tells me I should have made it clear in the question that the critique did not come
from Marx—on the contrary, Ricardo’s labor theory of value was similar to Marx’s, and
the critique applies to both Ricardo and Marx. Marx said that he learned philosophy from
the Germans (Hegel), political economy from the English (Ricardo), and socialism from the
French (Proudhon). He was critical of all three of them, but he studied them carefully.

Next Message by Hans is [71].
U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 55
Question 86 is 100 in 2011fa and 98 in 2012fa:
Question 86 Take two very different kinds of labor, such as teaching and construction work,
and discuss in what respect they are equal.
[44] Lindsey: Comparing Different Types of Labor. The labor of a Chef and a Computer
Programmer are very different, however they have many basic similarities as well:
• Both types of labor require specialized knowledge which they use to create a product.
(mental labor)
• Both types of labor combine individual things and convert them into a whole → Both
types of labor aim to produce something (for example: a chef takes chicken, cheese, ham,
and breading and converts them into Chicken Cordon Blue; a computer programmer takes
binary numbers and codes and converts them into a game or software.)
• Both types of labor require time
• Both types of labor require at least some bodily movement (the chef has to stir and the
programmer has to type)
• Both types of labor may be performed in steps (as they could be written in an instructional
booklet like a cookbook or “Programming for Dummies”)
• Both types of labor require tools (a stove/oven/pans; a computer/keyboard/CD)
Hans: Computer programmers do not convert binary numbers into code. They usually improve pre-existing code
or build applications on top of it. The compiler converts their code into binary numbers which a given hardware
can understand. Only in rare cases do the programmers have to look at the binary numbers themselves.
Not all production processes are hacked into discrete steps. Some of the more advanced production processes
are continuous (and then startup and shutdown becomes a big issue).
Message [44] referenced by [48] and [59]. Next Message by Lindsey is [47].
[45] Lana: Labor comparisons. The labor of a professional surfer and a successful
drug dealer are very different. One is praised by society as an amazing athlete, the other is
generally looked down upon as a plague in the system. However, these two professions have
numerous labor requirements in which they are equal.
• To be a professional surfer one must be able to surf incredibly well (i.e. dropping in,
riding the waves, doing tricks/maneuvers, etc). To be a drug dealer one must know how to
be successful (i.e. “flying under the radar,” having limited clients, etc).
• Surfers must understand and accept the risk of serious injury or death involved in their
occupation. Drug dealers must understand and accept the risk of becoming imprisoned or
facing severe harm to themselves and others.
• Surfers must know how to read tide/swell charts in order to predict the surfing conditions.
Drug dealers need to be able to easily determine drug quality in order to predict its
market value
• Professional surfers should be able to market their surfing abilities in order to obtain
quality company endorsements. Drug dealers know how to market their product to gain
more important clients.
56 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
• Surfers must be able to put themselves in the right position to catch the wave. Dealers
need to locate themselves in a place that’s drug market is without their product, therefore
filling the void.
• Professional surfers must know and follow the rules of surfing competitions. Dealers
must know the rules and protocol for dealing within the industry.
• Professional surfers use their acquired funds to purchase newer gear and take more surf
trips in order to improve surfing skills and reputation. Drug dealers use their acquired funds
to obtain better quality drugs and entire higher industry circle, raising their position in drug
cartel hierarchy.
Hans: The points with marketing and reinvesting are not general characteristics of production processes but specific
to capitalist relations of production.
Message [45] referenced by [48] and [59]. Next Message by Lana is [109].
[48] KA: Lindsey [44] and Lana [45] each provide an interesting observation to how two
very different kinds of labor have very similar qualities. Marx asserts that the common
element of labor is not only the productive nature to make things useful, but also what
separates one labor from another. The comparison of a surfer and drug dealer is interesting
since both labor units enable a product to be useful, either by a form of entertainment or
consumption. The differentiation of the labor units is the common element, the extraction of
human labor. Marx states, “They no longer differ from each other, but are altogether reduced
to equal human labor, human labor in the abstract.”
Next Message by KA is [57].
[59] Hans: Commonalities in labor. I posed this question because I wanted to know
what different labor processes have in common besides being the expenditure of human
labor-power.
Evaluating [44] and [45] I am getting the following:
All labor processes are the expenditure of human labor-power. The skill levels needed
for different labor processes are different, but every labor process needs some level of competence.
All labor processes need means of production produced by different labor processes. To
continue harping on the same subject as in [54] and [58], this aspect is de-emphasized in
your education so that you don’t notice how crippling the capitalist control over the means
of production is for the working class. What counts as “primitive” in a “reality” show is a
state very similar to capitalism, where people are deprived of access to means of production
so that they can never be independent. Are there any reality shows where people have access
to arable fields and well equipped handicraft workshops able to produce everything they need
to survive? I have the hunch that there are some computer games going in this direction but
no reality shows. But I am neither a gamer nor a TV watcher, and I am looking forward to
your input about this.
All labor processes need some material to work on. This too is de-emphasized in your
education. The Solow growth model only has labor and capital as factors of production. It
omits the earth. Herman Daly took issue with Solow about this. If you have a finite earth and
limited substitutability between natural resources and capital, then the infinite exponential

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 57
growth of the Solow growth model is an illusion. Stephen Hawking’s warning that we should
not seek out but rather try to stay away from extraterrestial intelligent beings seems has to do
with this: “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into
something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having
used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps
become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.” This is
from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece.
All labor processes are social processes. Even if you are producing alone, you could not
have done it without others in society doing complementary things enabling you to do what
you are doing.
All labor processes have an element of risk.
All labor processes take time.
Neither of the two submissions said this, but all labor processes also need energy.
Message [59] referenced by [2011fa:17] and [2012fa:33]. Next Message by Hans is [62].
[60] Kraken: (graded A) Landscaper vs. Brain Surgeon. By comparing the labor of a
landscaper and a brain surgeon one can see many similarities. Both require physical effort.
Both require the mental capacity to understand the task at hand. Manual dexterity is required
to accomplish the task correctly. Both require a degree of training and familiarly with the
tools of the trade. Observation and problem solving skills are necessary in both occupations.
Communication skills are required to both give and receive instruction and information from
fellow co-workers. Decisions must be made as to what to cut, what to keep and what to
discard.
If we look at it abstractly enough, the labor of a landscaper and the labor of a brain surgeon
are equal, being reduced to just “equal human labor”. But in reality, the differences are
greater than the similarities. Can all labor really be “reduced to equal human labor, human
labor in the abstract”? I’m sure as the class progresses, the reasoning behind this mental
exercise will become clear, but for all practical purposes it seems ridiculously abstract and
inapplicable to anything in the real world. In real life, differences in human labor do matter.
I wouldn’t want a landscaper attempting to remove a brain tumor. There is a qualitative
difference in the labor of a landscaper and a brain surgeon that makes them different types
of labor.
The element of water can be thought of in the abstract, but once again the differences in
quality are so profound that they are for all intents and purposes different things. Drinking
water from a pure crystal spring will refresh you and sustain your life, whereas drinking
water from a sewer system will make you extremely ill or kill you.
Hans: You are asking some good questions.
Message [60] referenced by [61] and [62]. Next Message by Kraken is [78].
[61] Kohhep: comparing labor. Comparing a school teacher to a construction worker,
it’s easy to see what similarities they do possess, along with what they also do not share.
both of these professions require training and understanding in their required tasks. both
require energy, time, patience, understanding of jargon in the workfield, and also know how
to navigate their work environments. however, i do not see how you could fairly measure the
58 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
labor of these two professions. when a construction worker completes their task, there is a
newly erected school building. you could measure the time, materials, or even quality of the
structure to determine the labor inside this commodity. the school teacher, on the other hand,
has no physically measurable outcome at the end of their job. you could use the time the
teacher spent in the classroom while teaching the kids, ask the teacher how they are doing to
determine the energy spent, but ultimately, a teacher’s job is to educate their students. how
can this kind of labor possibly be measured accurately? you could use standardized tests to
determine if the students learned the material, but these arguably are not accurate enough
since they do not account for many other variables like language barriers, handicaps, and
poor personal environments.
How could many of today’s professions and commodities be weighed against each other?
to say that a lawyer’s single hour is equivalent to a secretary’s hour just because they shuffled
the same amount of papers just does not seem correct. i don’t want to sound like an echo of
Kraken [60] but how can you measure the value, or labor, of a product that doesn’t physically
exist? i hope i just missed something.
Hans: Try this, not for capitalism but for socialism, assuming law schools have free tuition: A lawyer’s hour is
equivalent to a secretary’s hour because both kinds of labor are necessary, one cannot be done without the other,
secretary and lawyer are working equally hard, and both are equal as human beings.
Message [61] referenced by [75], [81], and [86]. Next Message by Kohhep is [498].
[62] Hans: Is the Abstraction of Labor Relevant? According to Kraken [60], the
reduction of labor to what is common in all labor processes “seems ridiculously abstract and
inapplicable to anything in the real world. In real life, differences in human labor do matter.”
What do others think about this?
Next Message by Hans is [63].
[130] SMIKEC: Taking two very different fields of labor in the world and comparing them
can be done very easily. Taking the example of a brain surgeon and replacing the landscaper
with a construction worker you can find comparisons. Again as previously stated throughout
the thread of these discussions each unit of labor has a value add. Each individual has a share
in the market place to help make the world “go around”. They each take energy, expertise
and a formed skill set in order to achieve a task that is above standard and acceptable to the
consumer. One could argue that a construction worker does not have to go to school to learn
how to hammer nails, where the doctor spends many years of his/her life getting schooled on
techniques and procedure in order to be able to do his/her job down the road. I would argue
that the construction worker does go through school via on the job training/ apprenticeship
versus a sit down in class setting such as the doctor experiences. What the Doctor and the
Construction worker do commonly share is that they rely on each other, inadvertently. If it
wasn’t for the construction worker, the doctor would be stitching you up in his back yard
and if it wasn’t for the doctor, the construction worker would still have a broken leg after
falling off the ladder that’s was leaning against the in progress medical building! At the end
of the day the commonality is effort. The effort put forth is another dollar earned, building
erected or broken leg fixed.
Next Message by SMIKEC is [293].
Question 90 is 46 in 1996ut, 45 in 1997ut, 83 in 2007SP, 84 in 2008fa, and 105 in 2011fa:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 59
Question 90 Does Marx’s “value quasi-material” (Wertgegenständlichkeit) have properties
similar to physical matter?
[53] Trap: Yes “value quasi material” does have some similarities to physical matter.
When Marx is discussing “value quasi material” he is considering the labor-power that has
been put in, which is of course different from him simply saying labor, and it is a “material
object without being a material object.” Labor power, as I understand it, is basically the
potential of the workers to create an end product. Marx is saying that “value quasi material”
is indeed a product, but more than that, he is looking into what else is in that product, the
labor power of the worker. So while physical matter, is similar in that they both create a
product that needs to be sold for money, or as he states it the quasi material is reincarnated
in money. I found this extremely interesting, I believe he is saying that in every product,
quasi or physical, there is much more in it than is tangible. While he is considering “value
quasi material” as something more abstract than an actual physical object, it ends up being
very similar, especially when you consider that everything made has the same labor-power
as all other objects.
Hans: You originally said “Labor power, as I understand it, is basically the potential of the workers to create an
end product, but capitalism often decreases that potential.” I deleted the clause about capitalism, because this is not
relevant right now, and I don’t want to confuse future readers. Other than that, your thoughts are going in the right
direction. The thing is: potential labor does not produce anything, only actual labor does. Why does society then
keep track of the potential labor as potential labor, although this potential labor was then turned into actual labor
which was then turned into the product? Why is it not enough just to have the product? Because this potential
labor could have been used to produce something else. If P amount of product A is exchanged against Q amount
of product B, the reason is that the labor needed to produce P amount of product A could also have been used to
produce Q amount of product B. That is why the owners of the products consider this an equal exchange. Because it
could have been used differently, this potential labor measures how much of the other product I can get in exchange.
I am still groping for words to communicate these abstract connections in such a way that they become palatable.
Other attempts are in [2008fa:107] and the earlier messages linked from there.
Message [53] referenced by [432]. Next Message by Trap is [105].
[381] Utefan: Marx’s quasi material value does have physical properties similar to physical
matter. We use the example of linen to show how 1 hr. of labor produces 20 yards and
is exchangeable with other products that have taken similar labor hours. The quality of the
product also described in question 176 of this exam shows that linen or any commodity has
to be produced well enough to meet exchangeable standards. The standards are the physical
like properties of the product. Marx explains that it is abstract material of labor, a thing
made of thought, those ideas suit fine to describe materiality; the coat exchanged for linen,
linen has a material physical like property that the coat maker desires and couldn’t achieve
with an exchange of corn, or wheat.
Hans: You think value quasi-material is a specific use-value (linen as opposed to corn or wheat).
Please re-read choice (b) of the multiple choice question 176:
(b) by their decisions what to exchange for what the producers signal to the market not only the quantity of
value, i.e., the labor content of their products, but also the quality of the value quasi-material in their products,
namely, they signal that value is a uniform substance different from use-value.
I.e., by offering coats for money, the coat maker says that coats, as value, consist of the same social substance
as every other commodity, namely congealed abstract labor. The question asks: why does Marx call congealed
abstract labor a “quasi-material”? In what ways is it similar to physical matter? See [2008fa:107].
Utefan: No, I do not think they are use-values. I nowhere in my answer say they are use-values. You are reading
it wrong. I am saying that linen is linen and nothing else can be linen. That has nothing to do with use-values.
Next Message by Utefan is [385].
60 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[432] JSmits: graded A I think that Marx’s “value quasi-material” does have properties
similar to physical matter because that potential labor or past labor was eventually turned
into the post labor product so part of the potential labor has properties similar to physical
matter. After reading [53] and Hans’s response my understanding is “value quasi-material”
is a product but within that product there is also the labor power of the worker.
Both physical matter and “value quasi-material” have physical characteristics in the production
process. One is the job of the laborer or his skill set (brick layer) and the other is
that he will get tired while working (abstract labor). Value itself is not something that has
physical properties but through its social relation the production of value has that physical
component which is the expenditure of labor-power.
Next Message by JSmits is [433].
[491] Intaglio: Value Quasi-Material. Value quasi-material is mistakenly thought of as
being a physical property of matter, when it is actually abstracted human labor. Human labor
is a social process and does not have properties similar to physical matter. Nevertheless,
people in capitalist economies still treat value quasi-material as physical matter. So, to them
it does have properties similar to physical matter even though this is a false assumption
Hans: It is not a false assumption but it is a social relation which takes the form of a quasi-physical ingredient of a
thing (the commodity). If this is a false assumption then the respect which most US Americans have for the flag is
a false assumption too, because a flag is just a piece of cloth. Marx thinks that people should not have this respect
but they should consider themselves as proletarian internationalists, and he also thinks social relations should not
go through things. But as society exists right now, people do have this respect and social relations do go through
things. This is a fact about our society, it is not a false assumption.
Next Message by Intaglio is [906].
[530] Hans: The Answer. The thing which Marx calls “Wertgegenstaendlichkeit,” translated
in my Annotations as “value quasi-material,” is a social relation which has properties
resembling the properties of a physical substance. This is certainly something to scratch
your head about. I tried to make it more palatable in [2007SP:38]. Here is the the relevant
passage:
We must make ourselves aware that there are different kinds of social relations.
Many social relations take the form of a relationship between different
individuals. Such social relations are often called “interpersonal” relations.
But this is not the only kind of social relation. The language which
we all speak is also a social relation, so are manners or traffic laws. They
are not interpersonal relations, but they still constitute a social backdrop for
our individual activity.
Another example which I did not bring but could have brought is private property. This is
also a social relation, again not taking the form of a direct interaction of people, but people
have to respect the things I own as my private property. People are not allowed to use my
car even if it is parked right there on the street and I am obviously not using it myself right
now. Here is the continuation of [2007SP:38]:
An interpersonal relation represents the social command or expectation or
permission to behave in certain ways towards other people, otherwise there
will be consequences. The value of a commodity is the social compulsion

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 61
to treat each commodity in such a way as if the labor needed to produce this
commodity was still present as a non-physical substance inside this thing.
One must be very rich before one no longer has to make this calculation
with everything one does.
If you want to read more about this, you may also want to look at [2007SP:313].
OK, after all this language attempting to remove the objection from of your minds that
a social relation cannot possibly have properties resembling physical matter, let’s see concretely
if we can find properties of value quasi-material where it does visibly resemble physical
matter. I can think of three.
(a) If your watch falls on the floor and gets smashed, then the value quasi-material inside
it disappears as well. I.e., a physical act can destroy a social relation as if this relation was
something physical.
(b) In our society, many people die because they cannot afford medical care although the
doctors and hospitals are there and have empty beds etc available. It is as if these hospitals
were fenced in so that people cannot enter them. The value quasi-material can act like a
fence or a brick wall barring people from access to available resources. Well, price stickers
do not look anything like a wall, so how about this analogy: Value quasi-material is like rat’s
poison or bug repellent sprinkled over our hospitals and many other beautiful use-values
out there (Snowbird), preventing a large part of our population from using them. (In this
analogy, the poor are our rats or bugs.)
(c) Just like physical use-values, value quasi-material is produced during an actual production
process. Even if the quasi-material itself is not physical, the process producing it is
physical. This last point is elaborated in [2007SP:27].
Message [530] referenced by [2011fa:21]. Next Message by Hans is [534].
Exam Question 93 is 38 in 1995WI, 47 in 1995ut, 49 in 1996sp, 47 in 1996ut, 46 in
1997ut, 58 in 1999SP, 60 in 2001fa, 73 in 2004fa, 72 in 2005fa, 85 in 2007SP, 85 in
2007fa, 86 in 2008fa, 110 in 2011fa, and 108 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 93 What is value (according to Marx)?
[310] School: Can we Measure Value? Marx doesn’t say that commodities have value,
but they are values “as crystals of abstract human labor”. He later compares that a “value”
is a social relation, meaning you can have two commodities and depending on what those
commodities are and who is trading, they will determine the value of those commodities.
Message [310] referenced by [313]. Next Message by School is [396].
[313] Hans: Two individuals don’t make a society. School’s definition of social relation
in [310] is wrong but I am glad he spelled it out explicitly because others probably have the
same misconception:
A “value” is a social relation, meaning you can have two commodities and
depending on what those commodities are and who is trading, they will
determine the value of those commodities.
62 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
This is wrong. Values as Marx understands the word cannot be set by two people in
an exchange. Values are determined by much broader forces, the competition of millions
of people on the market and the reactions of the producers to the market outcomes which
result in an equalization of their labors. If value is a social relation this means for Marx
basically that individuals are price takers. Also look at the famous letter by Engels about the
parallelogram of forces in the Annotations pp. 97/98.
Also, values are created in production, not on the market, by the socially necessary labor
time in the product. (I know, right now I am reducing value to its quantitative dimension,
which is a no-no for Marx. Marx insists that value also has a quality. But right now I am
stressing the fact that value is social—and this is perhaps easier to see if we only look at the
quantity.)
Next Message by Hans is [314].
Question 96 is 55 in 1997sp, 49 in 1997ut, 65 in 2002fa, 67 in 2003fa, 77 in 2004fa, 76
in 2005fa, 89 in 2007SP, 89 in 2007fa, 89 in 2008fa, 92 in 2009fa, 115 in 2011fa, and
113 in 2012fa:
Question 96 Why is labor measured here by labor-time, and not by counting how many
movements were made, or by the drops of sweat of the laborer, or by the discomfort of the
laborer?
[75] Hans: If it’s equal you must be able to measure it, don’t you? Kohhep submitted a
forward-looking answer [61] because, although it was written in the last homework period,
it addresses the central issue in the readings assigned right now over the Labor Day weekend
and in the next homework period after this. If, as Marx says, all these different labors are
equal, then it must be possible to measure them against each other, and Kohhep is asking
how this can be done.
Since Kohhep discusses something before we get to it in the readings, I can do the same
thing I did in [71], namely, compare how someone living today addresses this question with
how Marx addresses it.
Kohhep takes it as given that the labor must be measured by its output, but he shows that
this is impossible. Kohhep brings two different arguments:
(1) The output of a construction worker can be measured precisely, but that of a teacher
cannot.
(2) Then he compares a lawyer with a secretary. Physically they produce similar things:
memos, letters, emails. But what matters is the immaterial content of these communications.
They are so different that Kohhep is reluctant to give the physical aspect of their labor equal
weight. In his own words: “to say that a lawyer’s single hour is equivalent to a secretary’s
hour just because they shuffled the same amount of papers just does not seem correct.” But
then he adds “I hope I am missing something.”
Marx starts out with a much simpler solution. If all labors are equal, then you measure
them by time because this is how labor is measured. See 129:1 in the presently assigned
readings. But this leads him to the lazy worker paradox. The resolution of this paradox is
not to use the actual time but the “socially necessary” time, as explained by Goldtone in

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 63
[74]. Here Marx tacitly assumes all output can be measured. Complications such as the
difficulties in measuring the output of a teacher are ignored.
The concept of socially necessary labor-time allows to account for differences between
workers producing the same thing. How about workers producing different things? Here
Marx says there may be quantitative differences. A lawyer’s hour produces maybe twice the
value of a secretary’s hour because for each year practising law the lawyer had to go to a
year of extra schooling, and this schooling time counts as well.
Kohhep and Marx differ less than it might first seem. Marx starts with a straighforward
logical derivation which leads him directly into the fangs of an impasse, and then he resolves
this impasse. Kohhep by contrast tries to avoid the impasse. That is why he measures labor
time by output. This is a direct way of measuring socially necessary labor time instead
of actual labor time. But then he forgets that he is looking at output only as a means to
measure labor time, and his argument crashes when he tries to compare outputs of different
production processes. This cannot be done because these outputs are qualitatively different.
What he overlooks is that in order to compare the abstract labor of lawyer and secretary it is
not necessary to compare their outputs. All you have to do is look at their training, and this
can be compared quantitatively.
Message [75] referenced by [287]. Next Message by Hans is [77].
[80] Alex: graded A– Labor Time. It would seem to me rather peculiar that labor involved
in producing tangible commodities would be measured in labor time instead of movements
made, or drops of sweat by a laborer. This type of labor measurement would be normally
considered for a service performed, such as the time it took for a cab driver to drive a passenger,
or one of the simplest forms, how many hours of babysitting a nanny performed.
Especially in the case where Marx introduced the concept of the lazy laborer, whose labor
is more valuable because of the more effort put into it. This would instead lead me to believe
that labor should be measured by quantity and quality produced, as in how many of
the commodities produced per shift, and how well manufactured they were by a particular
individual. If a lazy laborer is indeed present, his/her work should not be any more valuable
than the other non-lazy coworkers since it took them both the same amount of effort to
manufacture a certain commodity. I say this because since their labor is counted by time,
the non-lazy worker manufactured more goods than the lazy worker in a day, or say an hour,
and also because they do not have the same amount of willingness to perform such job (I
contrast laziness to willingness). Therefore, the person who is not lazy should be essentially
paid more or have more value because he is willing to perform the job more, and probably
would do a better quality of the job than the other lazy worker, which is my opinion.
This is not what Marx says, however, because he states in 129:2 that “the more lazy and
inept the laborer, the more valuable his commodity would be, because more time would
be required in its production.” Since I see a contradiction of my thoughts with what Marx
wrote, I read further to find the reason why he measures labor in labor-time and not by
movements made as stated in the question. The conclusion I came up with was that Marx
measures the value of a commodity with labor-time spent in the making of the commodity.
However, since the commodities are found in a society, the labor-time is an average of all
the laborers’ labor times found in that society. As stated by Marx, “The total labor-power
64 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
of society, which represented in the values of the commodities produced by that society,
counts here one and the same human labor-power, though it is composed of innumerable
individual labor-powers.” Hans explains as well how then the labor of the lazy worker is
measured with the labor of the non-lazy individual and taken into account as the same when
incorporated in the glob of human labor power. He does so by describing that “the labors are
equal to each other because they are expenditures of one and the same human labor-power.
Being expenditures of one and the same human labor-power explains why they are equal to
each other—and now we no longer have to deal with the social relation of equality but with
the glob of human labor-power from which these labors are derived.” So in conclusion, I
suppose Marx would describe the measurement of labor in time instead of effort because it
is an “average labor power of society,” (even though as Hans stated, it doesn’t necessarily
mean arithmetic average), he is counting labor as an accumulation of the society’s labor
rather than labor done individually by each member of the public.
Hans: The output of a taxi driver can be measured by distance, and I understand that normally taxis do charge by
distance. Time kicks in only if it takes exceptionally long for the distance driven, i.e., traffic is so slow that distance
is meaningless, or if the cab has to wait for you. Then they charge for extra time on top of the distance.
Please look at the Marx quote with the lazy or inept laborer again. Marx does not say they produce more value.
He says it might seem that they produce more value, but really they don’t.
Message [80] referenced by [81] and [82]. Next Message by Alex is [147].
[82] Frida: graded A How should we measure labor? It seems to me that labor is
measured by time simply because there is no other means of doing it that works for all
types of labor. Measuring labor by movements made seems like it would be the best way to
measure certain types of labor, maybe number of stitches made by a tailor, but this definition
would become meaningless for, say, a teacher. Similarly, there are many jobs that don’t
entail sweating or discomfort.
If we are to define the value of a commodity by the “congealed labor” we are going
to need a way to measure labor that is useful for all types of laborers. Alex [80] mentioned
quality and quantity of products produced as a possible measurement of labor power. Quality
obviously won’t work here. In our capitalist system, as long as commodities meet certain
“standards” supervisors don’t care about the quality of the products. Any laborer who can’t
meet these standards is simply fired, and anyone who tries to make higher quality products
is simply wasting their effort. In actuality anyone who puts extra effort into what they
are making is probably penalized for taking too much time and wasting the boss’s money.
Quantity also won’t work, since we are looking for a way to define the congealed labor in
commodities. So the amount of labor to make a shoe would be defined as “the amount of
labor to make one shoe” and this is circular.
The only other thing I can think of that is common to all types of labor is this elusive
quality, “effort”. The foremost problem with measuring labor this way is that it is impossible
to come up with a standard for measuring this quality since it is hopelessly subjective. Also,
as we mentioned above, capitalists don’t reward extra effort or care so this doesn’t seem like
it will work as a measurement of value.
Message [82] referenced by [87]. Next Message by Frida is [146].
[88] She: graded A Labor is measured by labor-time and not by any other metric because
it is the only thing that is required in the production of every type of commodity. You

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 65
cannot count the movements required because different commodities require different movements.
How can you compare the labor of a novelist to that of a house framer? How many
keystrokes equal a swing of a hammer? Measuring the drops of sweat is even more impractical.
Does a novelist even sweat while writing? Does a framer in Arizona sweat more than
one in Alaska? The discomfort of the worker cannot be reduced into a meaningful metric
as it is far too subjective. Movements, drops of sweat, and discomfort all have too many
qualitative variables to be reduced to a quantitative value.
Marx explains that in order to measure the quantity or magnitude of value embodied in a
commodity we must breakdown the labor into identical units of human labor-power which
are the same across a society. The first step in accomplishing this is to break away from
seeing commodities as different products of specialized, concrete labor and to view them as
simply materializations of abstract human labor.
All the abstract human labor is pooled together into “. . . one homogenous mass of human
labor-power,” [129:2]. This homogenous mass is broken down into equal units that are
measured in socially necessary labor-time. Marx has thus created a common denominator of
comparison and exchange present in all commodities, regardless of the concrete labor form
used to create them.
Message [88] referenced by [91] and [97]. Next Message by She is [218].
[91] Hans: How to Measure Abstract Labor. I submitted [81] because every single
one of you rejected the solution proposed by Marx. Marx says that time is the only way to
measure labor, while you all said unanimously: no no, you can’t use time. I really didn’t
know why Marx’s reasoning was so uniformly rejected, therefore I asked at the end of [81]:
“Why does the idea of measuring labor by time meet so much resistance?”
I think in the meanwhile I figured out the answer. Using Marx’s terminology, the disagreement
comes from the fact that your submissions were discussing how to measure concrete
labor, while Marx is discussing how to measure abstract labor. Just as I was composing
this answer, messages [87] and [88] came through which did in fact discuss abstract labor
and which said things similar to what I am going to say. They made the present message a
little outdated. Please understand that this is a response to the earlier messages, and that I
am in agreement with [87] and [88].
I will say in a minute what the concepts “concrete” and “abstract” mean, for now let’s just
say that concrete labor is labor as one usually thinks of it, and abstract labor needs a little
bit of explanation. If one wants to measure concrete labor, then you all agreed (and I agree
too) that the best way to measure it is by measuring its product (assuming the labor leaves a
measurable product).
Now what is abstract labor as opposed to concrete labor? For this let’s look at the context
in which Marx asked the question how to measure labor. From observing the exchange
process in a commodity society Marx concluded that exchange proportions are proportional
to labor input. But this statement only makes sense if you can measure labor input, this is
why Marx is asking how to measure labor input.
66 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Measuring by the product does not work here because Marx needs to compare different
kinds of labor, and the products of different kinds of labor are qualitatively different and
cannot be compared.
So how should labor be measured instead? For this we need to understand a little better
the reasoning behind the labor theory of value. Here is one way to think of it. Society has
only a limited pool of labor-power available, and the value of a product is determined by
how much of this pool was used to produce this product. If 20 yards of linen have a value
equal to 1 coat, this means that they absorbed equal amounts of that pool, i.e., the laborpower
needed to produce 20 yards of linen could also have been used to produce 1 coat.
This does not necessarily mean the linen weaver is also skilled to produce coats, it may
require retraining etc., but society’s pool of labor-power is flexible enough that it can be put
to different uses.
This pool of labor-power consists of living human beings who are able to do various
different kinds of labor. But each of them only has a limited number of hours available
every day, they cannot work 24 hours but also need to rest and eat and sleep. If Marx
talks about the abstract labor represented by a product, he means exactly this: how much of
society’s pool of available labor was occupied to produce this product. If you want to put a
number on this, labor-time is a good method. If we know the production time under average
conditions, we know how much of a bite the production of a product took out of a worker’s
daily capacity to work, time which could also have been used to produce something else.
She: Hans concludes this comment by stating that the time used in the production of a commodity could have been
used to produce something else. This is opportunity cost. I find it helpful to pick out pieces of Marx that are focused
on basic economic principles that are easily understood. It makes understanding the larger concepts much easier
and facilitates further exploration into the underlying minutiae.
Message [91] referenced by [112] and [287]. Next Message by Hans is [92].
[97] Zarathustra: (graded A+) For She. The following quotes are from She [88].
Your first sentence: “Labor is measured by labor-time and not by any other metric because
it is the only thing that is required in the production of every type of commodity.” I cannot
agree with you. Is really time “the only thing that is required in the production”? What
would time do without human labor?
Your second sentence: “You cannot count the movements required because different commodities
require different movements. How can you compare the labor of a novelist to that of
a house framer?” True, I agree, but what about the next sentence which is your conclusion?
Your last sentence: “Marx has thus created a common denominator of comparison and
exchange present in all commodities, regardless of the concrete labor form used to create
them.” Is the concept of time “created” by Marx or by capitalist mode of production? I think
Marx is here explaining capitalism and not creating anything. I might be wrong, but if I’m
right, I think, if Marx was free to “create” a standard, he would not come up with ‘time.’ I
think Marx would take individuals/ ability and need as the standards. He would talk about
social potential of individuals, and not time.
I might be wrong though—I would like to hear what you think.
Hans: I like your precision. What you say about Marx not creating anything was spot on. That is what earned you
the A+

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 67
Your first paragraph is overstated. She did not mean time itself but the labor performed during this time. You
might have said: “I know you mean the right thing but your formulation is unfortunate.”
In your second paragraph you indicate you disagree with something but you are not telling us what you disagree
with or why.
She: My first sentence is perhaps poorly written or organized. The emphasis I intended was not on the word
“only” but on the words “every type.” Perhaps my thoughts would have been better articulated had I added the
word “common” after only. I meant abstract labor is the only common contributor to all forms of commodities;
certainly time cannot spontaneously produce commodities. I think it is important to think of labor-time as not being
time, but being the unit of measurement for abstract labor as deduced by Marx in the reading for this section.
Again, in my conclusion, I could have been more articulate and made my ideas more presentable. I did not
intend to give the representation that Marx created “time.” He created, or formulated, a way to 1) Find abstract
labor 2) Measure it in universal units to facilitate comparison and exchange. I don’t think Marx really considers
individuals much in his labor theory of value as he breaks down labor into “social” terms. He views labor in
the aggregate. He makes clear the abstraction of use-value also takes away any individual contribution to the
commodity. The concrete forms of labor (specialized labor of an individual) are stripped away in the first step of
measuring the magnitude of value. Most importantly, what Marx created is a formula of finding value-he did not
create time. He simply uses labor-time, as he defines it, to be the metric to allow comparison between two products
of different kinds of specialized labor.
Message [97] referenced by [147]. Next Message by Zarathustra is [100].
Question 97 is 57 in 1997WI, 57 in 1997sp, 63 in 1999SP, 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 2009fa, and 117 in 2011fa:
Question 97 Is it a character flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system?
[76] Robert: graded A+ What is lazy and is it bad? Interestingly much of our language
is loaded with emotional meaning, which leads to different understanding of the same word
by different people. For example, George Lakoff has written a book entitled “The Political
Mind” in which he describes how politicians can use short emotionally charged phrases
such as “cut and run” to appeal to the irrational impulses of their constituents. This method
is particularly effective when critical thought may lead to conclusions outside of the political
motives of the speaker.
For me at least, this question employs two words that evoke an emotional response. The
first is the word lazy. Since the context of the question is an exploitive system such as the
capitalistic system in which most of us reading this question find ourselves, I suggest that the
emotion invoked in most of us by the word lazy is greatly affected by the our culturization in
modern capitalism. Protestantism adapted rapidly to capitalism (or capitalism appropriated
religion in general and Protestantism in particular to further its exploitation of the workers)
and the Protestant work ethic is systemic in our capitalistic society. Therefore, hard work
is a positive, godly trait and laziness is “the devils workshop.” (The fact that hard work by
workers increases the profits of the owners of production is not much discussed in western
religions.) Therefore, almost immediately upon reading this question we all emotionally
react to a “lazy” as a negative thing.
Furthermore, “character” is also full of societal meanings. In our society the definition of
character may include such ideas as industriousness but almost assuredly in includes such
things as honesty. The idea of an “honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay” in our society
68 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
seems to apply much more to the work side of the equation than to the pay side of the
equation.
Our question, in exposed emotional language, then becomes something like: is it honest
for a worker to act negatively by performing less work than his exploitive employer thinks
he should. Hans in [2009fa:93] outlined four reasons why the worker may do less work
and be labeled “lazy.” Hans takes the emotion or, at least, the judgment out of the analysis,
(although it appears laziness if still viewed negatively, although possibly justifiable, in his
examples) which is very instructive in understanding the question. With this answer I hope
to add the explicit understanding that most of us cannot help but respond emotionally to the
fact that laziness is negative and a character flaw as defined in the eyes of capitalism. Hans
helps us understand that there are other eyes with which to view the situation.
I would also like to suggest a fifth reason or motivation for why the worker may appear
to be lazy. The worker may be a very present, mindful, and aware individual, whose concern
is not in pleasing his employer but in performing his work in a matter that is fulfilling to
himself. He may find self-actualization in carefully and beautifully placing the bolts into the
product of an assembly line. The employer may not care at all about how beautifully the
bolts are placed, just that so many are placed by the employee in a certain amount of time so
that he can exchange the product as quickly as possible for the greatest profit margin. The
employee in this example is likely to be labeled as lazy, with all of its negative conations
in our society, and coerced by his employer, fellow employees and, possibly, his clergy to
produce more (and disregard his own psycho-spiritual development).
In my view, the individual I describe does not have a character flaw, but possibly has the
highest possible character trait: honesty to oneself. Conversely, I would argue that many
workers who are hard working might do so as a way to avoid confronting their own psychospiritual
development. While society may pat these individuals on the back (i.e., owners of
production, who profit by their hard work, may hold them up as exemplary) they may suffer
from the great character flaw of not being true to themselves.
Next Message by Robert is [153].
[753] Bigwhite: Just enough. Im intrigued by the argument that labor is under paid
and justifiable so, yet on the other side of the coin there is the worker that is reaping all
the spoils while being lazy and taking full advantage of the technological advances that are
afforded to him. Everyone is arguing that anyone that is on a salary wage is being vastly
underpaid for their excessive hours worked. I’d like to be a cynic and say that a lot of
workers milk the system and do just enough to get by and keep their jobs. Which seems like
a valid thing to do since their being underpaid anyway, why not work half ass if you’re being
exploited. I feel like this is the case in almost every business there will always be the worker
or workers that do not produce what they are being paid. So does that hurt the other laborers
in the capitalistic dynamic, by making them work harder to cover what the other workers are
slacking on?
Message [753] referenced by [755] and [756]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [771].
[756] Frida: Stereotype of the lazy worker. Your argument in [753] seems to imply
that only the fastidious workers are underpaid while the lazy ones are overpaid and that the
capitalist is just paying out a just average between the two. The fact is that even the laziest

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 69
minimum wage worker is producing a lot more value with her labor than the capitalist is
paying her.
Another point, I don’t know what your job experience has been, but the only workers
I have ever seen get away with excessive laziness are people with managerial and similar
positions. Especially in this job market, it is easy to replace unskilled workers. (Not that
Manager is really that skilled of a job, the main purpose a manager serves in capitalism is
to keep workers in their place. Barbara Ehrenreich in her book Nickel and Dimed states
numerous examples of times when managers could have helped their workes but didn’t, and
that she never came up with a purpose they could serve other than keeping workers in line.
Managers usually don’t know as much about the work as the workers do. There are, of
course, many many exceptions to this rule and I have known a ton of managers that have
been helpful and kind and useful, but it is usually when they are fulfilling a role that is not
managerial) This image of the lazy worker that will only do the minimum to survive is, in
my opinion, a myth mostly propagated by people who stand to benefit from it. It is a classic
stereotype that was born during the capitalists struggles against unionization more than a
century ago.
Next Message by Frida is [800].
Question 99 is 70 in 2003fa, 92 in 2007SP, 92 in 2008fa, 95 in 2009fa, 118 in 2011fa,
and 117 in 2012fa:
Question 99 Regarding the question how to measure the quantity of value, Marx first gives
a wrong answer, which is based on an oversight, and then corrects it. Why doesn’t he give
the right answer right away?
[101] Cougar: graded A– First a wrong and then a Right? I was hoping others would
attempt this question. Hans’ comments [2007SP:65] in Spring of 2007 were most helpful in
addressing Marx’s methodology:
“...Marx is trying to give a critical analysis of capitalism as it existed during his time,
and as it still exists today. His critique of capitalism has two prongs. On the one hand,
Marx establishes that the market value of commodities is determined by labor-time. In other
words, only the workers, not the capitalists or managers or banks create this value.”
Marx begins by introducing actual labor time as a quantity measure of value. He is
building a foundation to critique the Capitalist ideology. According to Hans’ annotations,
the universal characteristic of value, that allows for the exchange of all commodities with
one another, is human labor. As Marx points out, human labor cannot be quantified and
measured as a common denominator among all commodities unless it is indeed equal among
all human inputs. The concept of the “lazy” or “inept worker” introduces the social aspect
of abstract human labor. In essence, two workers may not produce the same amount of given
commodity in the same amount of labor hours due to varying levels of efficiency. Therefore,
Marx does not believe that the “capitalist” quantification of value (actual labor hours) is an
accurate representation of labor input. As Khub [2008fa:138] refers to in the fall of 2008
archive, Marx uses a “lazy” method of response to critique the initially proposed “capitalist”
measure of value. This “lazy” method effectively emphasizes the conundrum posed by the
first or “incorrect” method of quantifying value and provides a valid critique.
70 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Your long quote from [2007SP:65] is off the subject: it is not an answer to the question itself but my
response to the misconception by those who tried to answer this question that Marx was designing a blueprint for a
better society.
In your last paragraph, you originally had “The concept of the ‘lazy’ or ‘inept worker’ introduces the social
aspect of human labor.” I clarified this by adding the word “abstract.” This is the invisible social element I am
talking about in [112].
Message [101] referenced by [112]. Next Message by Cougar is [227].
[112] Hans: One can’t be faulted for overlooking something that is invisible. Cougar
[101] picked a difficult question. His answer collects some interesting tidbits from the Annotations
and the archives about it, but they don’t make a coherent answer. I have been
puzzling over this question myself, that’s why I asked it. Here is how I am thinking about it
right now.
Marx is at an impasse again, similar to the impasse at the beginning of the discussion of
exchange-value, when he had to say in 126:2: “Let us consider the matter more closely.”
But the way how this impasse arose is different. In the earlier impasse, Marx noticed that
exchange-value sometimes manifests itself as something intrinsic to the commodity, and
sometimes as something relative. Both of these manifestations were right, it is not that Marx
did not see things right. The contradiction was not his fault but it was the exchange-value’s
fault. Therefore Marx asked why exchange-value manifests itself in such a contradictory
fashion.
The impasse with the paradox of the lazy worker arose in a different way. Marx is arguing
in his careful step-by-step manner how to measure abstract labor. He arrives at the
conclusion that it should be measured by time. I tried to explain in [91] how he arrives at
this. In short, he has to use time because abstract labor is the opportunity cost of the time
used to produce the product. There is nothing wrong with his reasoning, so it seems. Yet
if he tries to apply this reasoning to the real world, he realizes that he would get an absurd
result. If he measures abstract labor by time then a product produced by a lazy person is
worth more than the same product produced by a competent laborer.
But then he says he overlooked something (that abstract labor is “equal” human labor),
and when this thing that he overlooked is considered (by taking averages to eliminate individual
differences), then the impasse is overcome. This is why I’d like to ask Marx: when it
was your fault that you got into the contradiction (because you overlooked something), why
didn’t you present the whole issue from the beginnning without this oversight?
In order to answer this, we must understand better what this oversight consisted in. The
next two paragraphs explain this; they are literally from the Annotations.
Let us recapitulate where we are in the overall argument. We observed that commodities,
on the market, were treated as equals. Since they are not equal as physical objects, their only
commonality being that they are products of labor, this equality must be the surface echo
of the fact that in production, the labors producing these commodities count as equal. Of
course, the producers can only then successfully and enduringly treat the different labors as
equal if there is something actually equal in them. We found such a thing: the actual equality
of all labor processes consists in all labor being the expenditure of human labor-power.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 71
But when we tried to use this insight to determine the quantity of value, we ran into the
paradox of the lazy or incompetent laborer. What did we overlook? Our mistake was that
we tried to explain a social relation by a physiological fact, i.e., we committed the error of
reductionism. The physiological equality of all labor is the material basis, the condition for
the social relation of abstract labor, but it is not that social relation itself. In other words,
the fact that all labors are the expenditure of human labor makes it possible for society to
treat all labors as equal, but is by itself not yet this equal treatment. This equal treatment
is a social act. Until now, human labor in the abstract had been introduced simply as the
expenditure of human labor-power, without a social element. The lazy worker reminds us
that abstract labor is indeed social.
The question is therefore: why didn’t Marx introduce this social dimension from the
beginning and in this way avoid the paradox of the lazy worker? The Annotations try several
explanations, but the one I like best is simply: because these social relations are invisible.
The commodity producers themselves do not know either how much value their commodity
has, all they know is how much time their concrete labor takes. Due to this invisibility,
the paradox of the lazy worker signals a real contradiction—that individual labor processes,
necessarily different from each other, come together to produce the socially uniform “value
quasi-material”—and not a flaw in Marx’s argument.
Message [112] referenced by [101]. Next Message by Hans is [117].
[386] Trap: In Capital, Marx is trying to decipher capitalism and starts by breaking
down the important elements, that are necessary to understand in order to see the big picture
of capitalism. In chapter 1, entitled “Commodity” he tries to understand the commodity,
and the thing inherent in it, the value. He specifically spends time trying to discover a
way to measure the quantity of value. In his first attempt he decides to measure it based
on the amount of time spent producing each commodity, meaning values of commodities
would vary greatly from producer to producer, since value is created by abstract labor. He
overlooks the lazy and inept laborers who would benefit from this, because they take so
much longer to create the commodity, therefore making more of a profit than a laborer who
takes half the time. So Marx revises his measure of the quantity of value to make the value
based on the average time spent, thus enabling productive workers to receive the same as
unproductive workers, who could spend twice as long on creating the commodity. This
creates an equality among workers. According to Marx this is the only way to estimate the
value of commodities, the only commonality among all commodities is labor. Hans says in
the 2009 annotations that “abstract labor is the opportunity cost of the time used to produce
the product.”
Marx doesn’t give the correct answer right away because it is not a simple idea, and it is
necessary to elaborate and develop the idea, in order to come to the correction. He says that
social relations are invisible, making it hard to recognize right away, which is why it takes
some time to understand it.
Hans: Your wording that Marx “decides” to measure abstract labor by time is a little ambiguous. It is not Marx’s
decision since, as you also say, this is the only way to measure abstract labor. See also my [364] about this.
Next Message by Trap is [388].
[473] Guh: According to Hans, “Marx did not begin with the right answer because the
right answer is not a fixed and finished thing that can be delivered to your door step. The
72 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
understanding of the subject, here capitalist society, is necessarily a process, a development,
and Marx takes his time elaborating each stage of the development before moving on.” Moreover,
Marx gives the wrong answer at first, because Marx is trying to give a critical analysis
of capitalism as it existed during his time, and as it still exist today, as Hans states. Furthermore,
Marx then gives the examples and critiques capitalism. First, he talks about the
market value of commodities as it is determined by labor-time. Secondly, Marx explains that
the wages of the workers are far below the value they create.
Next Message by Guh is [474].
Question 100 is 68 in 2002fa, 72 in 2003fa, 82 in 2004fa, 80 in 2005fa, 93 in 2007SP, 95
in 2008SP, 93 in 2008fa, and 118 in 2012fa:
Question 100 Imagine you were studying Marxism together with a friend, and the friend
said to you: Doesn’t the labor theory of value imply that, the more lazy and inept the laborer,
the more valuable his commodity would be? How would you answer your friend?
[74] Goldtone: graded A Dear misguided friend, At first glance, and without further
understanding, my friend seems to have a valid argument. Marx seems to make a huge
mistake in attaching value to its duration or labor-time. He personally brings the immediate
and logical counter argument involving the lazy worker (lazy labor-power), and how it seems
that the more lazy the worker, the more valuable his or her commodity.
This would be true, if Marx didn’t also later in his argument say: “Each of these individual
labor-powers is the same human labor-power as any other, to the extent that it has
the character of the average labor-power of society and takes effect as such, and therefore
requires, for producing a commodity, no more than is socially necessary.” (My own emphasis).
The phrase “average labor-power of society” is critical here. This essentially means that
one can average out all the individual workers’ labor-powers into one big “glob of human
labor-power”, as Hans puts it. Personally, I thought of the normal curve, and how 95% of its
mass (or labor-power in this case) is within one standard deviation on either side away from
the mean. This 95% would be the “average labor-power of society” that Marx is talking
about, and would serve as the standard measuring device for value and its link to labor-time.
In more concrete terms, as Hans points out, “the reduction of a given labor-power to this
average labor-power is made by the speed of the output (i.e., a labor-power that produces
twice as fast as the average also produces twice the value).” Those workers that work twice
as fast will be rewarded by producing twice the value that the slower workers would. This is
why the lazy worker counter argument, although initially seemingly valid, actually falls flat
on its face.
Message [74] referenced by [75], [81], [87], and [477]. Next Message by Goldtone is [154].
[78] Kraken: (graded C weight 50%) Lazy and inept laborers. I would tell my friend
that just because a lazy or inept worker took twice as long to make a product, that doesn’t
make the product twice as valuable. Marx placed value on a product by looking at what was
the average labor power required to produce that product. So although the lazy/inept worker
took twice as long to do his job, once you averaged him in with the rest of society, his effect
on value would be virtually imperceptible. In order for Mr. Lazy to really increase the value

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 73
of something, he would have to convince a large segment of the workforce to slow down and
quit being so productive and recalculate the average.
Hans: Marx’s Capital is not a proposal how products should be valued. It is not Marx placing value on a product
but Marx analyzing how market values are determined in capitalism. From investigating capitalism, Marx came to
the conclusion that prices are determined by labor content. This does not mean workers in capitalism get paid a full
equivalent of the value they produce. We will get to this later.
Message [78] referenced by [79], [81], [92], and [147]. Next Message by Kraken is [99].
[79] Zarathustra: Workers of the World Unite. Kraken [78] made me think of something
totally unrelated. But I think I should say that. Kraken said “[Mr. Lazy worker] would
have to convince a large segment of the workforce ...” I think this suggestion is the core of
Marx’s work, that is, in order to do something and being effective people must collate, group
up, and launch a movement. But with the current mode of globalization and international
trade the coalition must be global. I think this is why Marx said workers of ‘the world’ unite.
Lastly, workers don’t need to be less productive. They could be hourly as productive as
before and demand the same weekly wage for less hours, say, 25 hours, per week. In the
new situation the output of the given business will decrease, but it doesn’t mean that workers
are slacking; rather it means they are having a better life (without being lazy) in a more just
system.
Hans: Yes, Marx certainly thinks so. Capitalism is not just the fault of some greedy individuals, but it is a defective
social relation. Individuals cannot change social relations. They have to organize to become a social force.
Message [79] referenced by [81]. Next Message by Zarathustra is [86].
[81] Hans: How naive, measuring labor by time, tsk tsk. The answers submitted so
far have an emotional undercurrent which I am trying to understand better. Goldtone [74]
implies that Marx would have made a huge mistake had he measured labor by time, but
fortunately he came to his senses and is measuring by average time. Kraken [78] mistrusts
the average measure too since it can be gamed if all workers agree to work slowly. Kohhep
[61] says: “to say that a lawyer’s single hour is equivalent to a secretary’s hour ... just does
not seem correct.” And Alex [80] says that maybe services should be measured by time, but
not labor producing tangible products.
Here Kohhep might say I am misrepresenting him by leaving out part of the sentence,
but I think the omission reveals the underlying argument. And Kranen did not say that
he mistrusts the concept, he only said that it can be gamed and let the reader draw the
conclusion.
Zarathustra [79] does not join in the mudslinging againt labor time. This does not weaken
my argument because Zarathustra rarely follows the general consensus anyway.
All this is in stark contrast to Marx who acts as if labor time was the only way to measure
labor. I want to clarify that Marx is not discussing how labor should be measured, but Marx
says this is how markets spontaneously measure and compare labor—by time. But I think
your objections are not that Marx’s theory is wrong but that labor shouldn’t be measured by
time. Why does the idea of measuring labor by time meet so much resistance? Shouldn’t we
be glad that markets come to such a fair and equitable outcome?
Message [81] referenced by [86] and [91]. Next Message by Hans is [91].
[83] Kleenex: the lazy farmer is not better off. I would tell my friend that he is wrong:
Marx’s labor theory of value does not at all imply that the lazy or inept worker produces
74 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
commodities with higher value, just because more labor-time was spent during the production
process. Marx writes, “the individual commodity counts here generally as an average
sample of its kind.” When a consumer looks at a commodity, he or she does not see how
much labor-time was put into producing the commodity. The consumer will rather consider
the commodity’s use-value and the “average labor power” found in it. The consumer won’t
know that it took 10 minutes for a farmer to harvest one bunch of grapes, or that it took the
next farmer only 2 minutes to harvest the same thing. All the consumer sees is the use-value.
He or she will pay the same price for either of the bundle of grapes.
To illustrate and continue on my discussion of grapes, let’s suppose that on average, it
takes 2 minutes of labor-time to harvest one bunch of grapes. Let’s also suppose that a lazy
farmer wants to take 10 minutes to do the job, if he is truly lazy, and not just deliberately
taking extra time to produce a better product. (Longer time in production does not always
imply laziness.) His output is not 5 times more valuable than the grapes that took 2 minutes
to harvest by the average farmer because he took 5 times the average labor-time. Also,
this lazy farmer could not reasonably expect to trade his grapes with another commodity
that on average, requires 10 minutes of expenditure of human labor-power to produce. In
conclusion, the lazy farmer does not benefit with a higher-value commodity in the end,
rebutting my friend’s statement.
Hans: You are coming to an interesting and, in the scenario you describe, also correct conclusion. The lazy worker
does not benefit. This raises the question: why is he then lazy? According to your argument, the lazy worker also
does not harm others, he only harms himself if he wastes his own time. Again: why is there then such a strong
negative sentiment against lazy workers? All this has to do with it that you are talking about independent producers
selling their own product, while our usual experience with lazy workers comes from capitalist wage labor.
Message [83] referenced by [398]. Next Message by Kleenex is [289].
[86] Zarathustra: (graded A) In Capitalism, Labors are Not Equal. It seems when
we juxtapose different occupations (e.g. a lawyer vs a secretary, a surgeon vs gardener,
etc.) some of us are inclined to value the more sophisticated job better, and then come up
with various solutions, such as asking workers to slack. As far as we are talking about how
capitalism works, these answers (e.g. Kohhep [61] says: “to say that a lawyer’s single hour
is equivalent to a secretary’s hour ... just does not seem correct”) are right. By that I mean,
if I were Kohhep, I would rephrase my statement and then state: based on the criteria of our
capitalist society one hour of a lawyer’s time is more precious than one hour of a secretary’s
time.
But if we change our paradigm (getting out of this capitalist societal system)—change our
yardstick—the above answers, I think, are not right. If instead of juxtaposing occupations
we put a lawyer next to a secretary as two human beings, their times and life (abstract and
equal human labor power) are equal. Hans asked at the end of [81]: “Shouldn’t we be glad
that markets come to such a fair and equitable outcome?” As far as one hour of my life (my
labor power) as a farmer is equal to all other farmers, it is fair. But since the value of one
hour of my life is not equal to that of a businessman, I think the market is unfair.
(I am not quite confident now, however. Because Hans said Zarathustra “rarely follows
the general consensus anyway” my emphasis.) I am not the guy who just disagrees with
everything. I don’t want to play the devil’s advocate. I would like to hear from you guys,
particularly Hans, Goldtone, Kraken, Kohhep, Alex.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 75
Hans: I did not mean to portray you as a guy who disagrees with everything, but as someone who is following his
own thinking more than the average person. This is a good thing, especially at a time when humankind seems to
go over the climate-cliff like lemmings. Most people have their antennae trained on what others are doing and use
that as guidance for themselves. A minority of people are less concerned about what others are thinking but follow
their own compass. You are one of this minority. I am one too. When I see people in this class submitting answers
which carefully go with the flow of what everybody else is saying, I am always amazed. I would never be inclined
to do this. I can’t even follow a textbook written by someone else when I teach, I have to write my own.
Next Message by Zarathustra is [95].
[87] ANK: But what about pottery? I would explain to my friend that the labor theory
of value is based on the socially necessary, or average, labor time needed to produce a given
commodity. If a lazy and inept laborer takes twice as much time to complete the labor
process, their commodity has not doubled in value. Value is determined by how much social
labor went into the commodity, not the labor of a lazy worker. Lazy workers do not change
the value of a commodity. My friend may continue to argue that the more time and labor put
into the labor process will increase the value of the commodity, using pottery as an example.
Consider two individuals (A and B) who are both equally skilled in pottery. If individual A
spends 12 hours on a pot and individual B spends 6 hours on a pot, then individual A’s pot
will have less flaws and more detail when compared to individual B’s pot.
I would argue this example by introducing the difference between concrete and abstract
labor. Concrete labor is the measure of an individual’s labor. The labor of the lazy worker
or worker who spends twice the time to make a pot falls under concrete labor. Hans states
in the Annotations, “Commodity producers themselves do not know either how much value
their commodity has, all they know is how much time their concrete labor takes” (pg 47-48).
Abstract labor is based on the average worker in normal working conditions producing any
given commodity. The labor theory of value is based on this abstract labor. I would continue
to explain to my friend that the value of pottery is determined by the average or socially
necessary amount of labor to produce a pot, and not on the labor time of a detailed or lazy
worker. I agree with Goldtone [74] when the reference to the normal curve was made and
when it is stated how “95% of its mass (or labor-power in this case) is within one standard
deviation on either side away from the mean. This 95% would be the ‘average labor-power
of society’ that Marx is talking about, and would serve as the standard measuring device
for value and its link to labor-time.” I believe the lazy worker and detailed pottery worker
are represented in the 5% that fall outside of the mean and standard deviation. Therefore,
I would once again remind my friend that the value of a commodity is determined by how
much socially necessary labor went into producing it.
Hans: There is a little more going on than you see. A market system does not reward special efforts by individual
workers. Frida mentioned this in [82]: “In our capitalist system, as long as commodities meet certain ‘standards’
supervisors don’t care about the quality of the products.” High quality pottery is not a good example for this because
you can actually sell it at decent prices to the millionaires in Park City, but the occasional worker in an ordinary
industry who puts extra care into her product does not get rewarded for her extra labor. Teachers and nurses are
underpaid because many of them feel compelled by the nature of their work to put in extra effort. The capitalists
says: if you want to work extra hard, be my guest, but don’t expect me to pay you for it. (Strictly speaking we are
not talking here of wages but of value created, but the hard-nosed attitude of the capitalists comes from the fact that
this extra labor—not of a lazy but of an exceptionally committed worker—does not translate into higher market
values.)
Message [87] referenced by [91]. Next Message by ANK is [231].
76 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[90] Utefan: Re: How should we measure labor? Marx made the comment that anyone
that wanted to help the value of a certain commodity grow they would use the amount of
labor time to increase such value. The idea is that the more time taken to produce said
commodity would therefore raise the value because a lazy or less capable worker would take
more labor hours to make a commodity.
Two aspects of said idea create flaws and therefore constituent only a comment. The first
is the overwhelming societal propensity to already have an average of what any commodity
should take to produce and for that reason already has a value assigned to it. The only thing
that seems to be true historically is that value will decrease as technology advances or where
someone lives—a PS3 costs $3000 pesos in Argentina, that is $1000 dollars, and only $300
dollars here in the states. Being able find better ways to make commodities only make values
decrease.
Second, is the ability to make a new commodity and therefore set the value from how
much labor is involved to produce it. Now the flaw is that when others through open market
capabilities are allowed to produce the same commodity the average hours to produce level
out and the value goes down. Such commodities already exist and would not make it easy
for anyone to make a new value.
Value will only fluctuate according to the ability to make said commodity more valuable
through more quality or scarcity.
Hans: In Marx’s theory, quality and scarcity are poster children for what does not determine value. If you missed
this, then you have not followed the discussion. The price distribution of a PS3 over the different markets is a
matter of corporate strategy. Presumably prices are low in the US because the manufacturer has to sell enough of
them to recoup the high development cost and to motivate software manufacturers to write software for it. Then
in Argentina they can charge monopoly prices. In the manuscript “Results of the Immediate Production Process”
included in the Vintage edition of Capital, Marx addresses this. The law of value applies not for each individual
product but for the firm’s output in its entirety. If most of the output is sold at high prices, and a small excess portion
is dumped at low sales prices, this is profitable for the firm, even if the few individual consumers snatching up the
products on sale pay less than value.
Message [90] referenced by [216]. Next Message by Utefan is [131].
[103] Bigwhite: I would tell my friend that according to Marx and his ideology that the
lazier worker’s commodity would not garner more exchange value than that of a worker that
finished his product in a more timely manner. Marx follows the writing of Hegel and that
is that people want to do things to benefit the community as a whole; they aren’t caught up
in self-interests. By this logic Marx may assume that all workers are going to do their jobs
efficiently, why would someone want to spend more time on something that is necessary?
That would be selfish and not be benefiting the society as a whole. Another thing is when
you go to exchange a commodity people don’t know how long it took you to produce it, they
figure if it took them 2 hours to make their commodity it probably took you about the same
time to make yours. Labor is looked at as equal. One man’s labor is not valued more than
the next man’s. Quantity is quantity.
Hans: This is of course all wrong. Capital is not based on Marx’s ideology of altruism but it is a critique of
capitalist relations of production. See [2007SP:65].
Message [103] referenced by [122]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [133].
[359] She: graded A Marx’s Labor Theory of Value does not imply that the more lazy and
inept the laborer, the more valuable the commodity will be. Marx realized this assumption

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 77
would be naturally made when he declared that, “[The ‘value-forming substance (labor)’] is
measured by its duration,” (Capital, 129:1). This is why he immediately refutes this in the
next paragraph. Marx elaborates upon his previous statement and says that for the kind of
labor he is talking about, every unit is equal; so, although the lazy or inept laborer requires
more time, he does not actually use more units and therefore, there is no additional value
added to the commodity. It seems unnatural and somewhat illogical to assume that all labor
is equal so Marx further elucidates with a thorough explanation of how to arrive at this
conclusion.
To grasp this concept, we need to remember that Marx has already defined the value of
labor in commodities to be the magnitude of abstract human labor and we are no longer
entertaining the notion of concrete labor (128:3). Marx explains that the total labor-power,
or potential to do work, of society is, “. . . one homogeneous mass,” which is divided into
equal-sized units [129:2]. These identical units are “socially-average” and to produce any
given commodity, a society will expect that only the amount of labor required to produce it
is the “socially necessary labor-time,” [129:2]. The socially necessary labor-time is determined
and enforced through competition on the market; it is something beyond the control
of the individual producer. A single-producer’s commodity will not be valued above another
identical commodity simply because it took longer to produce. The value, or the socially
necessary labor required, is beyond his/her control. A laborer who takes twice as long to
produce a commodity will still have the socially necessary labor-time standard applied as
the value-measure to that commodity. Therefore, the lazy or inept laborer does not create
more value, just spends more time creating the same quantity of value. This does not result
in increased price, just reduced profit.
Next Message by She is [393].
[366] Giant: graded C+ I would explain to my friend that there are two big problems with
that assumption. The first one is that Marx does not believe in the ability of the individual
worker to influence the market, so one slow or lazy worker is not going to be able to change
the market value of a product. The second problem with her assumption is that the value
of the commodity is not based solely on the time and effort put into the product but on the
use-value the consumer will get from that commodity.
I would educate my friend that Marx’s labor theory of value is based on the social value of
a product in the market, not the individual laborer’s efforts of producing a product. The social
value of producing a product is determined by the producers of the product. The producers
go out into the market and observe what resources are needed to produce the product and
then reflect the costs of the resources through the prices on the production market, see Hans
[2009fa:266]. This is why individual labor does not affect value because no one wants the
same product to be valued individually (since labor-time is just one of many resources being
imputed) when the same basic resources are being imputed into the same product. This is
why the social medium is used to base a product’s value, see Winn [2009fa:266].
Hans: You are misunderstanding the labor theory of value in two ways:
(a) You write “the value of the commodity is not based solely on the time and effort put into the product but on
the use-value the consumer will get from that commodity.” This is not true for “value” as Marx defines it. What is
called “value” by Marx depends on labor input only.
78 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
(b) You write “no one wants the same product to be valued individually (since labor-time is just one of many
resources being imputed).” The labor theory of value converts all inputs into labor time, i.e., it uses all direct and
indirect labor content. It does not leave out any inputs (but it reduced them all to labor).
And please look again what the producers do according to my note to [2009fa:266]. It is not what you say they
do.
The dictionary definition of “impute” is “attribute or credit to.” Did you really mean “impute” or did you mean
“input”?
Next Message by Giant is [367].
[369] Frida: graded A I would tell my friend that she had not read enough of Marx’s text
and had based her implication on an underdeveloped labor theory of value. If one claimed
that the value of something was defined by how much individual labor went into it this would
be the implication, but this is not Marx’s developed theory of value. Marx says that the value
of something is determined by the socially necessary labor time. This will be the same for
the coat made by a lazy tailor as the coat made by the skilled and industrious one. It is
defined to be the amount of labor that is necessary on average to produce a coat.
Hans: It is not just the issue of not reading enough Marx. Labor-time, the only thing which the commodities have
in common, resists measurement. This is a real contradiction.
Next Message by Frida is [390].
[394] Kobe: “The theory’s basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively
measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity”
(1). According to this quote, the value would not be determined by the production of a single
worker. The labor theory of value, according to Marx, could explain the value of all commodities
in an economy. This theory is based upon the hourly average of society it takes to
produce a particular commodity. Marx believes “the value of a product is determined more
by societal standards than by individual conditions,” according to Wikipedia. This quote
would validate that “my friend” is wrong when saying “the more lazy and inept the laborer
the more valuable his commodity would be.” Therefore it is not only how lazy or inept a
laborer is at producing a commodity but it is a combination of the labor forces’ production
in that particular commodity and the “socially necessary” labor required for the goods value
to be determined.
1. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html
2. Wikipedia
Next Message by Kobe is [452].
[398] ANK: I would tell my friend that he is wrong and the reason that the value of the
commodity produced by the lazy worker is not greater than an efficient worker is because
the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary or average labor time of
all producers of the given commodity. If the lazy worker takes twice the time to produce a
given commodity the profit they receive is actually less than the efficient worker because the
efficient worker was able to produce two commodities in the same time period it took the lazy
worker to produce one commodity. Because the value of this given commodity is determined
by the socially necessary labor time, whether produced by the lazy or efficient worker it has
the same value. Therefore, the efficient worker has two commodities to exchange in the
market whereas the lazy worker has only one commodity for exchange. As Hans states
in the comments of message [83] “the lazy worker does not harm others, he only harms
himself”. I would tell my friend that he is wrong and re-emphasize that the value of a

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 79
commodity is determined by the socially necessary or average labor time of all producers of
that commodity.
Hans: I wish you would not just tell him that he is wrong but explain how to get from his wrong answer to the
right answer.
Next Message by ANK is [400].
[419] Sly: Technically No. First I would explain to my friend that the labor theory of
value, tries to find commonalities of the substance or use of a commodity to determine the
value of said commodity. Different labor times don’t up the price of a commodity because
that isn’t something that is a commonality. I would go even further by referencing to the
fact that the value of a commodity is determined by socially necessary labor, which can be
defined simply as the amount of time it takes to produce a good, service, etc. in the most
efficient manner possible because that is what laborers and consumers have agreed on as
being fair. I then would solidify my answer by giving a concrete example such as this: If I
was looking to buy a laptop computer and went to the electronics store and the laptop that
was made by the slow or inept worker cost $900 and the exact same laptop made by the
more efficient or skillful worker cost $600, why would I buy the exact same laptop for $900.
Simply put I wouldn’t because it makes absolutely no sense to pay more for the same item.
Hans: Socially necessary labor is often not the most efficient production process.
Next Message by Sly is [572].
[440] Smartergirl: The more lazy and inept worker’s commodity is not more valuable.
Marx states that value is comprised of the glob of human labor power. It is the total labor
power of society that determines the value of a commodity. One lazy worker does not drive
up the value of a commodity because he does not represent the labor power in its entirety.
Marx theorizes that by grouping unskilled workers with advanced workers the labor will
create an average for that particular society. The value of the commodity is then based on
that average. The means to determine the average is unknown and causes some concern for
how effective this calculation would be but combining workers and grouping them by skill
level is a strong means to get an average which can then be used to determine value.
Hans: Grouping novice workers with advanced workers so that the novices can learn from the advanced workers
would be a rational way of handling the inevitable skill differences among workers. But Marx’s book is not about
how things should be done in some rational society but about how things are done in capitalism. You don’t seem
to be clear about this, especially also as you worded your in-class exam. You also gave a wrong answer to multiple
choice question 56. Marx thinks exchange-value is determined by labor content, not by use-value.
Capitalist are interested in promoting team work and interaction and learning among their workers. Some
modern researchers (not Marx) conjecture this is the reason why all workers usually get the same pay. If pay were
differentiated by individual productivity, then workers would not work with each other but against each other.
Next Message by Smartergirl is [446].
[444] Husani: I would explain to my friend that the lazy worker could get away with
this but only if the society in which he lived had very few people producing the same good
as the one the lazy worker produces. In a large economy many different people produce
any one good so this makes it extremely difficult for the lazy work to fetch a price higher
than what the market is offering. The market will push the price down to what people are
offering because there is nothing special about the lazy worker’s product. It is the same good
as every other good of the same type so no one will consiously buy what the lazy worker
made because there are many cheap goods for sales using the average labor time necessary
to produce the product.
80 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The lazy worker may use more labor hours to produce his product making it more difficult,
but the value comes from the labor time necessary to produce the good. A lazy worker
uses more time but it is unnecessary time. This means that every extra minute of labor time
that is more than the average is worthless and will not increase the value of the commodity.
Next Message by Husani is [454].
[455] RexManning: graded A In the situation of the lazy laborer, a case is made that
the commodity produced by that laborer would be worth more because of the amount of
labor, measured in time, required to produce the commodity. This logic, although wrong,
does present a valid point. If Marx measures value by the amount of labor time to produce
a commodity, wouldn’t a lazy worker produce a more valuable commodity? Marx does
address this problem specifically and clears up any confusion. In order for commodities to
be exchanged on the market, they must be equal, not equal in a physical sense, but equal
in labor. Without this equality, a producer would not exchange his/her commodity for one
of lesser value. According to Marx, and Hans, the substance of value is equal human labor.
Human labor is the expenditure of all human labor-power. In order for this equality to exist,
there must be a social context to it. This social aspect of labor is the combination of all
individual labors. Since labor is a combination of what is socially necessary to produce a
commodity, the case of the lazy laborer does not hold.
Next Message by RexManning is [463].
[477] Rico: As I mentioned in my initial response – it would be difficult not to laugh at
my friend’s response. As a response to my friend, I would try to explain the significance of
the labor theory of value and the average labor-power of society.
According to the labor theory of value, the more time invested in a commodity, the more
valuable the commodity becomes. But this does not indicate that one can be lazy in their
labor. Goldtone gives a quote directly from Marx in [74], which says, “Each of these individual
labor-powers is the same human labor-power as any other, to the extent that it has
the character of the average labor-power of society and takes effect as such, and therefore
requires, for producing a commodity, no more than is socially necessary.” Goldtone uses this
quote to show that Marx’s labor theory of value is measured by time and by the “average
labor-power of society.” Average labor-power takes the average of all the potential labors
that individual workers are capable of having. This average is used as a “standard measuring
device for value and its link to labor-time,” as Goldtone explains.
As a society, we have adopted a measurement of labor using time as our units. By calculating
time in the average labor-power of society, we can calculate the quantitative and
qualitative value of our production. In the diamond industry, diamonds are monetarily expensive
due to the labor time involved in discovering the precious mineral. The average
labor-power is calculated and a monetary price for diamonds is determined. If a person is
twice as fast at finding diamonds as the average worker, they will be rewarded with twice
the value due to their increased aptitude in finding diamonds. The same rule would apply to
lazy workers, only their outcome would be less rewarding than the average worker.
Hans: I liked the following sentence in your in-class answer, and regret that you didn’t take it over into the resubmission:
“The labor theory of value measures the labor not only in quantitative measures but also qualitative
measures.” This is a nutshell explanation why the lazy worker produces less value per hour.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 81
The outcome you describe in your last paragraph holds only if the worker sells the diamonds he or she produces.
If a worker working for a capitalist were to produce half of what others produce, the coworkers would be disenchanted
because they would have make up for this, and eventually the slow worker would get fired or reassigned.
Regarding workers who work faster than others, look at the discussion thread starting with [2005fa:1416].
Next Message by Rico is [478].
[512] JJ: Laziness does not build value. At first glance, the inexperienced reader (my
friend) could easily make this mistake when interpreting the labor-theory of value. Marx
himself comes upon this contradiction in his dialectic concerning the labor-theory of value.
He resolves this contradiction by clarifying that the value added to a commodity by a laborer
is not determined on a case by case basis for every item which any particular laborer produces.
This might make two products seem of different value that are equal in every physical
way in their final product form, except for the amount of labor time that was put into them.
One product was worked on slowly by the lazy worker and the other quickly by the efficient
worker. Does this really make one product more valuable than the other? Marx shows us
that this contradiction is only valid when we mistakenly try and apply the labor-theory of
value on such a micro scale.
Marx clarifies by defining value as the quasi-material intrinsic in a commodity, which
is the amount of congealed and abstract human labor that has gone into it. Yet, he defines
this amount of human labor as the “socially necessary” amount of human labor. Marx says,
“Each of these individual labor-powers is the same human labor-power as any other, to the
extent that it has the character of the average labor-power of society and takes effect as such,
and therefore requires, for producing a commodity, no more than is socially necessary.” By
doing this Marx refutes the misunderstanding of my friend that laziness could somehow add
value to a commodity in the labor-theory of value. He also shows us that the labor-theory of
value can work when considered in context of the average labor-power of society.
Next Message by JJ is [513].
Question 103 is 83 in 2005fa, 96 in 2007SP, 98 in 2008SP, and 96 in 2008fa:
Question 103 The value of the product is determined by the socially necessary labor-time.
What are the implications of this for a capitalist supervising his employees?
[89] Tyler: Capitalist Supervisors. According to Marx, the value of a product is directly
associated with the “socially necessary labor-time” required in its production. However, this
is drastically different in a capitalist society. In a capitalist society the value of a product
is determined not from the labor-time in its production, but in its demand. A supervisor in
a capitalist society does not concern him/herself with an average time frame of production,
rather their goal is to increase output to its maximum rate.
In the readings it is noted that “the capitalist sees to it that he (the worker)...only uses as
much labor-time is necessary in the average for the production of the product” (annotations
pg. 52). Further, it is pointed out that “a worker who is slower than the others will not
find a job in capitalism” (annotations pg. 52). Therefore, the implications of value being
determined by the socially necessary labor-time are decreased production and profit.
Hans: What you say in the first paragraph contradicts what you say in the second. I am getting the impression
that you are bringing the numerous quotes from Marx and the Annotations both in [65] and in this message here in
order to cover up for it that you are not working through the assigned readings.
82 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [89] referenced by [92]. Next Message by Tyler is [243].
[92] Hans: Marx’s Capital is not a Blueprint for a Better Society. Tyler’s [89] needs
an immediate response and clarification. Tyler writes: “In a capitalist society the value of
a product is determined not from the labor-time in its production, but in its demand.” Marx
does not think so. If Marx were alive today he would think that even in today’s capitalism,
value is determined by labor-time and not by demand. You are free to disagree with Marx
and argue why he is wrong, but for this you must understand what Marx intended to do
in his book. If you think Marx was drawing out the blueprint for a more just society, you
are misunderstanding him on a very basic level. Kraken [78] got a bad grade for the same
misunderstanding. Don’t expect a good grade if you have it in your head that Marx is talking
about socialism or something. The book is called Capital and it is Marx’s attempt to analyze
and understand capitalism.
The idea that value comes from labor does not rule out exploitation of the workers but,
on the contrary, allows us to understand how exploitation works in capitalism. Marx has not
yet discussed wages, but when he does, you will see that the workers, although their labor
produces all value, are paid wages that are much lower than the value they produce. The
difference flows into the pockets of the capitalists as profits.
Message [92] referenced by [122], [239], [245], and [2011fa:675]. Next Message by Hans is [94].
Exam Question 104 is 42 in 1995WI, 51 in 1995ut, 53 in 1996sp, 51 in 1996ut, 60 in
1998WI, 66 in 1999SP, 70 in 2001fa, 84 in 2005fa, 97 in 2007SP, 97 in 2008fa, 100 in
2009fa, and 123 in 2011fa:
Exam Question 104 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?
[364] Hans: You should know this answer even though it is not terribly simple. This
has been an exam question only since Fall 2008. Earlier it was one of the ordinary homework
questions. I changed it into an exam question not because it is too easy for a homework
question, but because it addresses some basic concepts you all should be aware of.
This question has three parts, I will answer them one by one.
(a) Why does the labor of an exceptionally slow worker not create as much value per hour
than that of a worker working with normal skill and intensity? One possible answer would be
“because the products are indistinguishable on the market and therefore have equal values.”
Marx does not give this answer! Marx’s answer is “because the labor of the slow worker is
not at par with the labor of others and therefore counts as less labor.” For Marx, the basic
thing one needs to know about relations of production in capitalism is that society considers
all labors as one homogeneous mass; there are no qualitative differences, only quantitative
differences.
Now let me answer the third part of the question before the second part.
(c) How is it enforced? Now Marx brings in the market, he would say “because the
products are indistinguishable on the market and therefore have to be sold at equal prices.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 83
An identical commodity sold at a higher price is not able to compete. But Marx stresses that
competition is only the enforcer, it is not the place where economic laws are born.
(b) Whose decision is it? This question goes beyond Marx’s text, I am not aware of
anything Marx wrote which would directly address this. One might perhaps answer: it is
nobody’s decision, it is a spontaneous outcome. I think this answer lets us all off the hook
too easily. An answer which puts more responsibility on the individuals would be: the
individuals in capitalism are collectively making this decision because they are ok with it
that their social relations go through things. Here is a third alternative answer which pushes
this point even further: It is one of the major attractions of our alienated state (in which
the producers do not deal directly with each other and the consumers but only through the
market) that this takes care of those who do not pull their full weight. We do not have to
confront them “hey, you are part of this society, but you are not contributing enough.” We just
let the market do its thing. Unfortunately, the market’s “thing” goes far beyond this. Besides
this one relatively fair outcome the market generates plenty of very unfair outcomes—and
since about 20 years we know that the market is even about to render the planet uninhabitable
for humans. Maybe it is time to re-think whether we want to stay in our alienated state.
Hans: Also look at Quake [1999SP:22] including my brief comment, which is elaborated more in [1998WI:75].
Message [364] referenced by [386] and [2011fa:301]. Next Message by Hans is [376].
Question 112 is 45 in 1995WI, 54 in 1995ut, 56 in 1996sp, 60 in 1997WI, 63 in 1997sp, 59
in 1997ut, 79 in 2002fa, 81 in 2003fa, 90 in 2005fa, 104 in 2007SP, 107 in 2008SP, 105
in 2008fa, and 131 in 2012fa:
Question 112 How is the value of raw materials determined in Marx’s theory? How does
the scarcity of these materials influence their value? Is Marx’s argument still valid in the
case of an exhaustible resource, which is present only in finite supply?
[84] Max: graded A The value of raw material according to Marx, is measured by the
same means as other commodities are measured; by congealed labor time. Marx almost
explicitly states this when he discusses diamonds in 130:1/o: “Diamonds are of very rare
occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery requires on an average a great
deal of labor time. Consequently they represent much labor in a small volume.” So, like any
resource, the more congealed labor time required to extract (which, in capitalism, equates
with produce) a resource corresponds to the exchange-value (price).
In capitalism, the scarcity of the material being mined does not influence its value relative
to their congealed labor time. Yes, when resources become depleted they require more
drastic means of extraction which usually equates to more labor and a higher price. However,
the fact that the resource is limited does not affect the value outside of labor costs. In other
words, there is no extra value placed on a scarce resource just because it will be gone in the
future. Modern economics do not take into account the externalities that are associated with
extractive industries.
How can you put exchange-value on clean air or clean water, which extractive industries
so often tend to disregard? (Marx does mention they do have use-value “...without being a
value.”) This is something BP is trying to do right now in the Gulf coast. BP is trying to figure
out what a healthy functioning ecosystem was worth to the tourist industry and fishermen of
84 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the area, but they can’t do it. People who are receiving checks from the corporation know it
isn’t enough - especially when taking into account that their industries may be crippled for
years, if not forever. Is it even possible to value the services provided by our earth?
Hopefully I didn’t deviate from the original question too far. What I am trying to say is
that Marx’s theory of value based on congealed labor somewhat suffices as an appropriate
means of valuing extractive industries. However, a whole other side of these industries is
left out of the picture. This is a massive problem with accounting only for exchange-value
(which, correct me if I am wrong, capitalism seems to do). And it is blatantly apparent today
because of the environmental movement, global warming, etc.
Message [84] referenced by [93] and [94]. Next Message by Max is [169].
[85] Ferox: (graded B–) Value of Raw Materials. The value of raw materials is determined
by Marx as the labor time necessary to extract and process the materials into a usable
form. For example, a heap of rocks containing iron ore must first be smelted to produce pig
iron, limited value on the market due to its limited use-value. This pig iron can then be made
into a usable form of iron by removing carbon impurities or into steel by even further processing.
Both of these processes demand more labor time and therefore increase the value
of this commodity. The end product, iron or steel in this example, are both valuable in part
because of the labor time needed for manufacturing these commodities, but this value due to
productive power of labor as Marx elaborates in [130:1/o]. The technology involved - how
powerful the furnace is or whether the ore was mined by hand or machinery - is a factor
that can be historically traced to affect the value of iron commodity in society (though this
begins to veer off topic).
Additionally the scarcity of a raw material affects its value. While iron is an abundant
resource on our ferrous Earth, iridium is quite rare. From a Marxian perspective, the value
of iridium when compared to iron lies in the extensive use of labor power needed to locate,
refine, and process iridium into a useful form. Exhaustible resources also gain value from
the scarcity of the resource, but a Marxist would add that the finite supply of a resource is
another productive power of labor variable.
Hans: You are mixing Marxian and mainstream theories. They cannot be mixed because they contradict each
other. In Marx’s theory, pig iron has a limited value on the market not because of its limited use-value, but because
not much labor is materialized in it. In Marx’s theory, scarcity of a raw material does not affect its value. According
to Marx, only the labor content determines the value of a product. The powerful technology of the furnace does
not add to the value of the product either. You are misreading the Marx quote which you are referring to. It does
not say the productive power of labor adds value, but it says the value changes with every change in the productive
power of labor. This change goes in the opposite direction than you think: an increase in productive power of labor
does not add to but reduces the value of the product, because after this increase in productivity it takes less labor to
produce the product.
Message [85] referenced by [93]. Next Message by Ferox is [196].
[93] Atticus: graded B+ According to Marx’s theory the value of raw materials is determined
by the labor-time required to abstract these raw materials from the earth. The value
of raw materials is determined by the amount of a common substance between all raw materials.
Marx calls this common substance “congealed labor time” (annotations pp. 54). Value
determined by congealed labor-time remains constant as long as the “productive power of labor”
remains constant (annotations pp. 54). This last statement basically states that as more
commodities can be made with increased technological innovations in the same amount of

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 85
labor-time, the less value each commodity holds in terms of congealed labor-time. The same
holds true with exhaustible resources. The scarcer a commodity is the more difficult it becomes
to obtain. More labor-time would be required to extract scarce raw materials, thereby,
increasing their value.
For example, a pearl diver who abstracts pearls from a body of water with an abundant
supply of oysters will obtain many pearls in x amount of labor-time. Another pearl diver
with comparable skills will abstract fewer pearls in a body of water with a scarcer supply
of oysters with same amount of labor-time as the more fortunate pearl diver. Each pearl
obtained by the less fortunate diver has a greater amount of congealed labor-time. Therefore,
the less fortunate diver actually has commodities that are more valuable than the more
fortunate diver.
Hans: Everything you say in the first paragraph is right, but it is no longer new. At this point in the discussion you
should have addressed the mistakes of Ferox [85] instead of repeating what Max already said in [84]. Your example
in the second paragraph is wrong for the reasons pointed out by Zarathustra [95].
Message [93] referenced by [95]. Next Message by Atticus is [134].
[94] Hans: The Fatal One-Dimensionality of Markets. Max says in the last paragraph
of [84] that “Marx’s theory of value based on congealed labor” leaves out “a whole other
side of these industries.” Max means the extractive industries, but everything we do has to
do with natural resources. Max should therefore have said: an economy which bases value
only on labor disregards an important factor of production, namely the natural resources.
If Marx’s theory is right that capitalist market prices are based on labor content, then this
statement has to be amended one more time: not only Marx’s theory of value but the entire
capitalist market economy leaves natural resources out of the picture.
Let me recapitulate how this omission comes about. In a nutshell, Marx’s argument
leading him to the labor theory of value says: If markets are measuring everything with a
one-dimensional yardstick, namely money, this can only work if production is also in some
sense one-dimensional—since markets are the institution guiding production. And indeed
Marx found something one-dimensional in production, namely, human labor. Basically, all
capitalists are doing is to decide how to allocate human labor to the different spheres of
production, and the markets help them with this.
Natural resources are left out of the picture, and in the past this was not a problem because
they were plentiful. If you needed more you simply allocated more labor to their extraction.
Due to this one-dimensionality, the economy exclusively concentrated on productivity of the
labor process, and it worked wonders in increasing this productivity.
But today things have changed. The binding constraint on production is no longer the
productivity of labor but the availability of natural resources and the planet’s ability to absorb
our waste products. But since we still measure everything in money, the markets still only
tell the capitalists how to allocate labor, not how to use natural resources sparingly or how
to preserve our environment. The economy as a system is blind to this.
Imagine you are hiking in the wilderness and some radioactive debris is hidden in the
bushes. (I leave it up to your imagination how it got there; maybe someone tried to smuggle
it in from Russia, but their plane was detected and they found it wise to dump it). Since
humans have no sense organs which can sense radioactivity, you will probably not do the
86 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
right thing avoiding the danger, and when you notice something is wrong it is already too
late. This is the case with our market system. It does not have the sense organs to see and
wisely deal with environmental constraints.
If Marx’s explanation is correct why and how markets work, then we have to get rid of
markets in order to avoid environmental catastrophe.
Message [94] referenced by [99], [102], [106], [123], [158], [195], [198], and [1072]. Next Message by Hans is
[106].
[95] Zarathustra: (graded A+) For Atticus. You said in [93]: “The scarcer a commodity
is, the more difficult it becomes to obtain. More labor-time would be required to extract
scarce raw materials, thereby, increasing their value.” So far I agree with you. Then you
proceed by saying:
“Each pearl obtained by the less fortunate diver has a greater amount of congealed labor
time. Therefore, the less fortunate diver actually has commodities that are more valuable
than the more fortunate diver.” I cannot agree with your conclusion because you are now
comparing individual workers. I think, by doing that you are taking the labor-time socially
necessary out of the equation.
Marx says in 129:3/o: “That which determines the magnitude of the value of any article
is therefore only the amount of socially necessary labor, the labor-time socially necessary
for its production” (my emphasis.)
Also Marx says in 130:1/o: “The same quantity of labor provides more in rich mines than
in poor. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the surface, and hence their discovery
requires an average a great deal of labor-time. Consequently they represent much labor in
a small volume.” On the contrary to what you said (“the less fortunate diver actually has
commodities that are more valuable than the more fortunate diver”) Marx doesn’t say the
diamond extracted from a richer mine is less valuable, I think, because he is also thinking of
the socially necessary labor time (an average).
Hans: Good and valid critique of [93], delivered in a non-offensive tone.
Message [95] referenced by [93]. Next Message by Zarathustra is [97].
[108] Babyceta: (graded A–) Scarcity of Resources. If I understand Marx correctly, he
considered labor power itself a commodity whose value could be determined in much the
same way that the value of other commodities is determined. If we take our labor to the
market with the sole intention of creating exchange (and not use value), then even in the
abstract labor is a commodity with physical characteristics. What happens in a society in
which labor itself becomes a scarce resource that must be extracted by applying more labor
to secure labor? What if, for example, labor to harvest my crop of strawberries becomes
scarce and I must entertain the notion of extracting labor from other markets or industries
which would require more labor on my part)?
Hans: Capitalism shields itself against the scarcity of labor by alway producing unemployment. This will be
discussed in chapter 25.
Hans discusses a total “pool” of available labor, and that commodities essentially have
value in the abstract by the percentage of that labor pool contained in their production. If
the “pool” of labor is depleted (or at least diminished) then commodities would contain a
larger percentage of that total pool. Would it mean that they are more valuable because of a

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 87
scarcity of labor? I believe that it does. In a market where labor power is a scarce resource,
commodities contain greater exchange value and therefore command a greater price.
Hans: When I said “portion of this pool” I did not mean percentage, but an absolute measure: how much labor was
absorbed to product a given commodity.
And, finally, what about improvements in technology? They would certainly make labor
more productive. If I’m an Alaskan halibut fisherman who has a sonar device on my boat, I
will catch more halibut than the captain of a boat without sonar. Technology, in many ways,
is our answer for the issue of scarcity. How does this notion fit into Marx’s views? Any
thoughts?
Hans: You can catch halibut only if there are halibut in the water. Modern fishing technology, especially the
location of schools of fish by satellite, have led to overfishing and the extinction of the last fish without the price
even going up—because the last fish were as easy to catch as the first. The labor needed to catch fish is therefore
not a good criterion for mining fish.
Message [108] referenced by [122]. Next Message by Babyceta is [162].
[122] Hans: We are not yet discussing wages! Babyceta [108] is right, Marx considered
labor-power to be a commodity too, but this has different implications than Babyceta thinks.
It will all be explained in chapter Six.
Right now Marx acts as if capital did not exist and labor-power was not a commodity and
commodities were produced by individual producers (peasants and artisans) owning their
own means of production. Marx does this because he wants to know: which features of
capitalism do not come from the existence of capitalists but from the fact that capitalism
is a commodity-producing society? And his result will be that you cannot truly abolish
capitalism without abolishing commodity production.
But this method of first looking at commodity production in abstraction from capitalism
makes it difficult to see that Marx is criticizing capitalism, because the economic laws of
commodity production seem deceptively fair. Bigwhite [103] is an example for a wrong
reading of Marx. Look at [92] and [2007SP:65].
Message [122] referenced by [239] and [245]. Next Message by Hans is [125].
[384] Max: graded A Value of scarce resources. In Marx’s theory, the value of raw
materials is determined by the amount of labor required to extract the materials. The value
of these materials remains constant “as long as the labor-time required for its production
also remains constant.” However, when the material becomes scarce, the value is affected.
Value “changes with every variation in the productive power of labor.” This means that the
more labor required to find and extract a raw or scarce material, the higher the value of
the resource will be. Other factors besides scarcity affect the value or raw materials. For
instance, the “workers’ average degree of skill, the level of development of science and its
technological applicability, the social organization of the production process, the extent and
effectiveness of the means of production, the conditions found in the natural environment,
and others.” These factors all affect the value of any resource because of the change of labor
time required for extraction.
Hans: Good summary of all the factors affecting the value of every commodity (including natural resources). For
those who are still new to Marx note that wages are not among those factors. Wages tell me how much of the newly
created value is reimbursed to the worker, it does not tell me how much value was created in the first place.
In your in-class answer you had the added sentence “The problem with this method of value is that it doesn’t
take into account the resource for future generations.”
88 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Max is [387].
Question 122 is 112 in 2008fa, 118 in 2009fa, 142 in 2011fa, and 141 in 2012fa:
Question 122 If the product is useless, can the labor producing it still be considered useful
labor?
[104] Orville: graded A– Useful Uselessness? In the annotations, Hans states that “the
term ‘useful labor’ does not involve a judgment about the use-value of the product.” After
reading this it becomes apparent that the use-value and the useful labor put into the item
work independently of each other. The product can have useful labor as long as the product
does what it was intended to do (Hans’ note to [2008fa:228]). The product has use-value as
long as someone can use the item in any way they choose. Therefore the question becomes:
What if you produce a product that has no use value but does exactly what you intended it
to do?
The question becomes harder if you try to think of an example. Personally I can’t think
of an item which anyone could produce with which no one could find a use for. Use-value
seems like such a fluid term that there has to be a use-value for anything and everything
produced no matter how small that use-value may be. As Marx says in 132:2 and Hans
notes in the following paragraph, the use-value is something that is contained inside the
“physical quality of things”. Therefore, no matter what you produce, there will always be a
use-value or usefulness to an item assuming it is something which can be used in the making
of another product.
Message [104] referenced by [117]. Next Message by Orville is [145].
[105] Trap: Useful labor vs. use value. When Marx uses the term “useful labor” this
does not take into consideration the use-value of the product. If a product is completely
useless to the consumer, it will still have involved useful labor. Useful labor is understood to
be the labor that goes into the finished product, so as long as the product has been completed,
regardless of whether or not it is useless, in terms of use value, it has useful labor. By saying
an object is useless, you cannot assume that it has not use-value, because use-value is a
society driven concept, and not something that is intrinsic within the item. Therefore, it is
unreasonable and incorrect, to make an assumption about the useful labor of a commodity,
if all you know is that it is a useless item, for as long as the commodity was finished, it had
to have involved useful labor.
Message [105] referenced by [117]. Next Message by Trap is [229].
[115] Baseball: There are two different ways to view this question. If a product is considered
useless, meaning it has no use-value or demand in the market, the labor producing
“said product” would not be considered useful as well. Labor is only valuable or beneficial
to society and the economy if it produces goods which help circulate and keep the economy
steady. If a company produces a commodity which no consumer would purchase that labor
and time used to produce that commodity is wasted. It is in people’s best interest to make
things which will be employed to their maximum value. It benefits nobody if labor is wasted
producing goods which will not sell. As stated in the textbook “labor is useful if it produces
a product that has any use-value of whatever kind,” and “Labor is useful to the extent that its
product is useful.” On the other hand, Marx says “or in fact that its product is a use-value,”
regarding the question of whether labor producing a unusable product is considered useful

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 89
labor. I think that Marx means to raise the question “what if the product itself is a use-value,”
which throws a wrench into our thinking. If the product itself is a use-value then that would
mean the labor used to produce said product is justified. Also, “the term useful labor does
not involve a judgment about the use-value of the product.” When first thinking of this question
we tend to assume that useful labor means producing a product which can be sold for
great profit. But in fact, “even if the end product is useless, or even destructive, the labor
producing it is called “useful labor” as long as it manages to produce this end product.”
Message [115] referenced by [117] and [138]. Next Message by Baseball is [284].
[116] Kraken: graded B+ Useful or Useless? The book states that: “The term ‘useful
labor’ does not involve a judgment about the use-value of the product. Even if the end
product is useless or even destructive, the labor producing it is called ‘useful labor’ as long
as it manages to produce this end product.” Using this definition as our guide, the answer
to the question would be – yes, it would still be considered useful labor. One can’t say that
a product is useless because that would be a judgment call. What is useless to one person
may have great value to another. The example of the nuclear weapon is a good one. You and
your friends may find it useless to have a nuclear bomb, but a group of terrorists may find a
nuclear bomb to be very useful and consider it extremely valuable. As long as the product
functions as intended, the labor used to produce it is considered to be useful labor.
Message [116] referenced by [117]. Next Message by Kraken is [120].
[117] Hans: How useful is this thing really? A big body of scientific literature has
found out that the microwave radiation used for cell phones and wi-fi is damaging to your
health and brain functions, especially for children. The ancient US safety standards are long
overdue for a revision in light of this research. They need to be considerably tightened. This
issue is hotly debated in Europe, but the public in the USA and Canada is, unsurprisingly,
kept entirely in the dark. See e.g. www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=563
In other words, your convenient wi-fi access point or cell phone may not really be a
use-value but it undermines your health and especially the health of your children.
Does this mean that the labor producing this access point or cell phone does not count
as useful labor? Unfortunately not. The market cannot tell whether a product is ultimately
useful or not. As long as the product can be sold to unsuspecting consumers, the labor counts
as “useful” labor. Kraken [116] came up with an even more memorable example: the labor
producing nuclear weapons is useful because terrorists are eager to get these weapons on the
black market.
Let’s stay with the example of a wi-fi access point or a dsl modem or cable modem. The
consumer versions of these devices have limited lifetimes. Geeks have a jokular expression
for this: they say after some time these devices turn into “bricks.” This means you still can
use them for something, as a door stopper or a paperweight, but no longer as a modem. (The
web also has instructions how to “un-brick” certain devices.) Assuming your workforce
turns out modems which turn into bricks already after two weeks of use. You cannot argue
that this is useful labor because it produced cute paperweights with ears. Here even the
market notices that this is not useful labor.
In the first paragraph of [104], Orville says some right things, but he makes the rift between
usefulness of the product and the useful character of labor too deep. This error leads
90 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
him then in the second paragraph to dig himself into the hole even deeper, saying that usevalue
does not really matter because if you have a material thing you can always find some
use for it. Trap [105] sharpens the message in Orville [104]. Trap leaves out everything
that is correct in Orville and goes straight to what is wrong in it. Trap seems to revel in
absurd conclusions—but after all, we are here in a class about Marxism aren’t we? Baseball
[115] goes back to Orville’s original misunderstandings. Too much text exegesis and too
little thinking. Kraken [116] is shorter but he seems to have thought a little more. He brings
the nuclear example but does not argue it out properly. The question is not whether you
or I think nuclear weapons are useful but whether they are useful for humanity. I think a
world socialist system would come to the conclusion that neither nuclear weapons nor nuclear
power are useful, and the technology of enriching uranium or thorium would simply
not be used. But this is a controversial issue, therefore I replaced this example in today’s
message with the modem example, hoping it is a clearer illustration of the issues at hand.
Message [117] referenced by [138]. Next Message by Hans is [119].
[138] Hans: Bullet point fight. In the Annotations, the two bullet points
• labor is useful if it produces a product that has any use-value of whatever kind,
• labor is useful to the extent that its product is useful (meaning, beneficial for its consumers
and/or society.)
are alternatives: they say different things, therefore the question arises which of the two
interpretations captures better the meaning of Marx’s term “useful labor” (answer being: the
first).
Baseball [115] does not treat them as alternatives but lists them side by side, as if reinforcing
each other. Which led me to wonder if Baseball knows how to read, he is certainly
not thinking through my argument, he is just picking out sentences not worrying how they
fit together. That’s why my [117] said about Baseball [115]: “too much text exegesis and
too little thinking.”
I think I understand now better why Baseball overlooked how I was arguing, this is why
I am writing this message here. In Baseball’s mind the two bullet points follow from each
other. Baseball argues: if a product is useful in the first sense, that it finds a buyer, then it is
also useful in the second sense, it helps the overall economy, because it “keeps the economy
steady.” Producing a saleable product, making a great profit, and helping society are in his
mind more or less the same. Some version of the invisible hand, and an interesting insight
into the capitalist mindset.
In my mind, producing a product that can find a buyer, and producing a product that
is good for society, or even good for its buyer, are two different things. The illegal drug
trade is not the only example. Plasma TVs have great use value for the viewer but they
are energy hogs. They cause the construction of coal-fired power plants, which dooms the
planet. Nuclear weapons, cellphones which lead to brain tumors are different examples.
We live in the 21st century. The possibilities of what we can produce are almost endless.
Whether it is in our interest to produce all the things we can produce is another question.
Next Message by Hans is [142].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 91
[202] Jon: What is so useful about a useless product? For my free discussion I choose
to direct my thoughts to what Marx describes as useful labor. He further states that useful
labor is used even in producing a useless product as long as there is a finished product at
labor’s end. This has been a hard thing for me to accept knowing that labor is best used or
most useful when it is creating something that is useful. In my mind the opposite should be
true as well that a product with no use value then labor must have been wasted or at the least
not useful.
Use-value of a product is somewhat a judgment call knowing that I have a different
thought of what is useful from others even in this class. The thing that changed in my
mind to help me agree with Marx is the idea that nothing is wasted or that there is a lesson to
be learned even in failure. A person may spend the whole day laboring over a product that
has no use-value. The truth is that the person has learned something in the very least that the
product is not useful, and therefore will not waste their time and labor to produce it again.
There is also the fact that the person has spent the day practicing skills that would have a use
in the production process of other commodities. Even though the product is useless to the
rest of the world the experience that is gained by the laborer is what in my mind makes that
labor useful labor.
Message [202] referenced by [1110]. Next Message by Jon is [250].
Exam Question 126 is 51 in 1995WI, 61 in 1995ut, 63 in 1996ut, 71 in 1997sp, 66 in
1997ut, 92 in 2003fa, 103 in 2004fa, 118 in 2007fa, 118 in 2008fa, 146 in 2011fa, and
145 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 126 (a) Why is it necessary for the exchange of commodities that they
contain qualitatively different kinds of useful labor?
(b) Can commodity production exist without division of labor?
(c) Can division of labor exist without commodity production?
(d) How does commodity production influence the division of labor?
[289] Kleenex: division of labor. Question 126 asks if division of labor can exist without
commodity production. Though I know that the Marx answer would be yes, according to
the Annotations, I’m having a hard time understanding and relating this to real life. What
are some modern examples or applications of production where division of labor exists,
but commodities are not being produced? I’m guessing if division of labor exists, then
something is being produced...but what? Any ideas would be appreciated.
Message [289] referenced by [339]. Next Message by Kleenex is [292].
[339] Hans: Simple answers which you should know. This question may seem intimidating,
but the answers are not rocket science. I classified it as exam question because
everybody should know the answers.
(a) in order to be exchanged, commodities must have different use-values, therefore different
labors.
(b) Division of labor, i.e., different workers specializing on different products, is necessary
for commodity production. Why would the linen weaver exchange linen for coat if she
could produce coats as efficiently as the tailor? She would make her own coats.
92 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
(c) Division of labor can exist without commodity production. This would be any system
which produces products not as private production with distribution through a market. The
Soviet Union produced based on a plan, i.e., the products were not commodities, but there
was division of labor. I hope this answers [289] (sorry for the delay).
(d) Commodity production deepens the division of labor. There is an incentive to do
things differently in order to fetch market share away from the rest.
Message [339] referenced by [734], [829], and [2012fa:323.1]. Next Message by Hans is [347].
[631] Hans: What is wrong with this answer? One class participant wondered why
they did not get an A with the following in-exam answer. Perhaps others can explain what
is wrong with this answer? I made question 162 part of the current homework assignment
so that you will get homework credit if you respond. Aklthough it says “ungraded exam
question” you will get a real grade for it. Here is the answer of your peer, typed in by me:
(a) As described by Marx, use-values are the “carriers” of exchange values in commoditie.
Commodities must have use to be exchanged. For example the linen weaver is willing to
trade “x” of her linen for a coat because she is in need of a coat, which she has none of, and
she has plenty of linen to trade, which she has no need of.
(b) Yes, due to the homogeneous nature of the societal pool of labor-power, (within reason)
any laborer can produce any given commodity with proper training, facilities, etc.
(c) In this case, no! Without commodity production, there would be no need for specialization
of labor, or even labor-power for that matter.
(d) Commodity production allows for specialization or division because of the exchangeability
of commodities. Since all commodities are composed of a labor input, they can be
exchanged with others of equal value. Labor can be divided to maximize and increase the
efficiency of production where finished products can be traded away for other commodities
of required use-values.
Message [631] referenced by [634], [636], and [734]. Next Message by Hans is [635].
[634] Proletarian: graded A+ What was wrong with that answer. In message [631]
Hans asks why the individual who gave the answer to question 126 on the exam did not get
the A they were expecting (the individual’s answer is reproduced in Hans’ post). While this
is not meant to be rude or mean, the reason that the individual who penned the answer to this
question did not receive an A is because, bluntly, the answer is almost completely incorrect.
While the answer suggests that the respondent read the material, it shows that he or she
either did not read the material closely enough or that he or she did not fully understand the
material (and probably should have asked more questions in class or in the open discussion).
I do not purport to be an expert on Marx; after all, I took this class to learn more about
his thoughts and writing. The material is at points quite challenging and is a big departure
from the kind of economic thinking that most of us have been exposed to in our lives. Still,
I believe that I can explain why the respondent to this question did not receive the A that he
or she was expecting.
126 (a): Why is it necessary for the exchange of commodities that they contain qualitatively
different kinds of useful labor?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 93
The respondent answered: “As described by Marx, use-values are the ‘carriers’ of exchange
values in commodities. Commodities must have use to be exchanged. For example
the linen weaver is willing to trade ‘x’ of her linen for a coat because she is in need of a coat,
which she has none of, and she has plenty of linen to trade, which she has no need of.”
First of all, use-values are not “carriers” of exchange-values in commodities. Use-values
are the benefits that consumers of commodities experience from the use of commodities.
For example, a coat has a use-value to someone if it keeps them warm in the winter and they
need to be kept warm. A use-value is not quantifiable and is a strictly individual valuation
(as opposed to a social valuation). A commodity only has a use-value to a person if they will
experience a benefit from the use or consumption of the commodity.
Now, that being said, the answer given isn’t 100% wrong, and the respondent starts to
head in the right direction. First of all, he or she (I will just use he from this point to avoid
the tedium of using ‘he or she’) is correct in the statement that commodities must have usevalue
in order to be exchanged, though the more correct formulation of this statement is that,
in the simple model of exchange, the commodities which each party receives in the exchange
must have a use-values to them. This makes logical sense because nobody would enter into
an exchange for something for which they have no use.
The respondent comes even closer to being right when he says “for example the linen
weaver is willing to trade ‘x’ of her linen for a coat because she is in need of a coat, which
she has none of, and she has plenty of linen to trade, which she has no need of.” Still, the
respondent falls short of correctly expressing the right answer. What he says is indeed true:
the weaver would be willing to trade her linen for a coat because she needs a coat and has
no need for linen. Still, the respondent falls just short of providing a concise and correct
answer.
What the respondent could have said is: commodities must contain qualitatively different
kinds of useful labor because if they didn’t contain different kinds of useful labor, every
producer of commodities could simply produce what they need for their own personal consumption
and would have no need to enter into exchange. If all useful labor was the exact
same, the linen weaver would not devote his entire life to weaving linen but would instead
weave the linen he needs, harvest the wheat he needs, etc. However, since commodities
contain different kinds of useful labor, this leads to specialization. Tailors make clothes,
weavers weave cloth, farmers harvest crops, and so forth. Because of these different kinds
of useful labor and labor specialization, different commodities with different use-values are
produced and are brought to market. Because these commodities have different use-values,
people are willing to exchange the products of their labor for them.
This is where the respondent comes closest in his answer. People would not enter into
exchange for identical use values because if they have 1 unit of use-value A, they have no
reason to exchange that unit for a different, but quantitatively and qualitatively identical,
commodity with the same use-value. This is obvious—after all, why exchange 1kg of potatoes
for 1kg of potatoes? One would not engage in this trade because one could simply avoid
the hassle of going to market and keep the 1kg of potatoes one already owns and end up with
the same use-value.
94 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
126 (b): Can commodity production exist without division of labor?
The respondent answered: “Yes, due to the homogeneous nature of the societal pool
of labor-power, (within reason) any laborer can produce any given commodity with proper
training, facilities, etc.”
From this response it seems like the respondent is trying to get at the idea that sociallyvalid
labor is valued equally and is the source of value in commodities. He is, unfortunately,
missing the point of the question and is answering incorrectly.
The correct answer is no, commodity production cannot exist without the division of
labor. Division of labor means that different people perform different kinds of labor and
produce different items, i.e. the tailor makes clothes, the farmer harvests crops, and so forth.
Without the division of labor, everyone would be producing for themselves the items that
they need to consume, and since everyone would be producing only for themselves, there
would be no exchange. While consumable items would still be produced, they would not be
commodities since commodities, by definition, are produced to be exchanged. The division
of labor allows people to produce only one or a few items which they intend to take to
market and exchange for other items. Since the items produced are taken to market to be
exchanged they are, by definition, commodities. This taking to market for exchange would
not occur without division of labor, and therefore without the division of labor, commodities,
and thereby commodity production, would not exist.
126 (c): Can division of labor exist without commodity production?
The respondent answered: “In this case, no! Without commodity production, there would
be no need for specialization of labor, or even labor-power for that matter.”
This is simply incorrect. First of all, this answer seems to contradict the answer the respondent
gave to part (b) of this question. In part (b) the respondent asserted that commodity
production can exist without the division of labor, but here in his answer to part (c), he seems
to argue that commodity production requires the division of labor.
Second, this is incorrect because the the respondent asserts that there is no need for the
specialization of labor (division of labor) without commodity production. This is an empirically
inaccurate statement. When the respondent provides this answer he is only considering
societies that recognize individual ownership. While capitalist societies operate under
a concept of individual ownership, there are plenty of other societies that view ownership
differently.
For example, there are tribal societies where ownership is communal but division of labor
still exists. Division of labor in these societies may lead to some individuals being responsible
for hunting for meat, while others may be responsible for gathering vegetables, and still
others may be responsible for weaving clothing. In this example it is obvious that division of
labor is still present, but since ownership is communal there is no exchange of commodities
since the individuals don’t individually own the product of their labor but rather are producing
for the common good. If the hunter were to come back from the hunt unsuccessful, he is
not going to be denied a share of the harvested crops or a piece of clothing. However, if the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 95
hunter was hunting in a capitalist society that subscribes to the concept of individual ownership
and he returned home from the hunt unsuccessful, he would have nothing to exchange
and would therefore be unable to legally receive harvested food or tailored clothing.
Finally, the mention of labor-power seems entirely out-of-place in this answer. Laborpower
is the potential for productive labor. Labor can be specialized, but labor-power cannot
be. While the eventual products of labor-power may be different and may be products of
laborers who engage in the division (specialization) of labor, the labor-power, the unrealized
(to be expended) labor, is not specialized.
126 (d): How does commodity production influence the division of labor?
The respondent answered: “Commodity production allows for specialization or division
because of the exchangeability of commodities. Since all commodities are composed of
a labor input, they can be exchanged with others of equal value. Labor can be divided to
maximize and increase the efficiency of production where finished products can be traded
away for other commodities of required use-values.”
As with his answers to the previous three parts of this question, the respondent’s answer
has some aspects that are correct, or nearly correct, but his answer still falls short. The exchangeability
of commodities is not what “allows” for the division of labor. As demonstrated
above (in my response to part (c)), division of labor empirically occurs without commodity
production. However, the inverse of the respondent’s assertion is true, commodity production
cannot occur without the division of labor (as explained in my response to part (b)).
The second sentence of the respondent’s answer to part (d) is also partially correct, though
it is a simplistic and lacking explanation of how/why commodities are exchanged. All commodities
do contain some amount of socially valid labor and are therefore exchangeable
with other commodities containing the same amount of socially valid labor. I believe this is
what the respondent means when he states that “Since all commodities are composed of a
labor input, they can be exchanged with others of equal value.” If so, he is correct, though he
is not expressing his thoughts as clearly as he could. Since congealed socially valid labortime
is the source of value in a commodity, quantities of commodities containing an equal
amount of congealed human labor are directly exchangeable (i.e. 20 yards of linen containing
X amount of congealed human labor are exchangeable for 1 coat if it contains the same
amount of congealed human labor (at socially accepted levels)).
The final sentence of the respondent’s answer to part (d) of this question is among the
most correct of his entire response to question 126. The respondent says: “Labor can be
divided to maximize and increase the efficiency of production where finished products can
be traded away for other commodities of required use-values.” For the most part this is
accurate, though it could have been explained much more clearly. A clearer response would
have been:
Commodity production influences the division of labor because of the production efficiencies
realized in the division of labor. For example, a person who commits 100% of his
time to what he is best at, for example the production of linen, will be able to produce more
linen with his labor than he would be able to without the division of labor. If division of
labor were not undertaken he would not have the opportunity to hone his skills and become
96 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
as efficient a linen producer as possible because he would have to spread his time around
sewing clothes, harvesting food, etc. Because of the division of labor, production becomes
more efficient and more units of each commodity is produced, increasing the amount of
commodities and potential use values available in the aggregate.
For example, without division of labor, each person may be able to produce one shirt, one
pound of food, and one pair of shoes. However, with the division of labor and the production
efficiencies realized from said division of labor (with one person specializing in production
of shirts, the other in shoes, and the other in food), a total of six shirts, six pounds of food,
and six pairs of shoes could be produced. Thanks to division of labor, everyone in this simple
example, after participating in exchange, could potentially have two shirts, two pounds of
food, and two pairs of shoes each (as opposed to one unit of each commodity per person
without the division of labor).
Since the division of labor increases the amount of total output in the economy it allows
everyone to get more use-values than they would have without the division of labor. In the
above example everyone expends the same amount of labor in the production of consumable
items, but thanks to the division of labor, after exchange, everyone will have twice as many
goods as they would have without the division of labor. Therefore commodity production
influences the division of labor by encouraging division of labor because the division of labor
leads to greater overall output (more units of production per unit of human labor) which
increases the amount of use-value afforded to participants in the market after exchange.
Message [634] referenced by [635] and [636]. Next Message by Proletarian is [636].
[635] Hans: Quick remarks about point (d) and about politeness. Commodity production
encourages and deepens division of labor, not only because of the productivity gains,
but also because it encourages “product differentiation,” i.e., the development of different
and more specialized use-values. If you have a different use-value than others, you may be
able to sell it more easily and at a higher price than if you have the same use-value as the
other suppliers. Product differentiation is also a way to get away with price discrimination.
You make small variations of your product which appeal to the richer customers, and you
charge an arm and a leg for this small difference.
Otherwise [634] is an excellent answer although it is in fact a little rude. You are allowed
to say that the answer is incorrect, but needling the author by saying that he or she “either did
not read the material closely enough or that he or she did not fully understand the material”
and that the author “should have asked more questions” was not necessary. On the contrary,
these remarks make it harder for the author to read the rest of your answer. I used to do
this as a little kid with my older sister. I criticized her, but I intentionally formulated my
criticism in such offensive ways that she could not learn from it—because I wanted to keep
criticizing her.
You are not in an adversarial relation with your peers. Or maybe I should say: you are
in fact in an adversarial relation with your peers because you compete with your peers for
grades, therefore it is in fact advantageous to beat down others rather than building them
up—but this class has the declared aim to overcome this competition.
Message [635] referenced by [636] and [2012fa:323.1]. Next Message by Hans is [637].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 97
[636] Proletarian: An apology to the author of the answer to 126. Hans points out
in [635] that my comments in [634] are “a little rude.” I want to sincerely apologize to the
original author whose response to exam question 126 has been the subject of [631], [634],
and [635]. After a revisitation to the request for input in message [631] I realize that what
was really being sought was simply an explanation of what was incorrect in the answer
reproduced in [631] and not an explanation of how the original author arrived at his or her
answer.
It is not my position as a fellow student to evaluate how or why one arrived at a particular
answer. As I said in [634], I’m no expert on Marx’s writings, and I’m learning new things
every day about the subject mater, both from Hans and his notations, as well as from the
responses from other class members submitted to the email list. I know that this class is
not a zero-sum game, and in my response to [631] I was simply trying to enhance the class
discussion and help clarify the topics brought up in question [126]. In a course such as this
we all learn together or not at all, and I wanted to make a contribution which I felt would
enhance everyone’s understanding of the course material. It was not my intention to “beat
down” on a fellow classmate, though I can clearly see how my response could have come
across that way.
Again, I want to apologize to the original author whose answer was reproduced in [631].
My response certainly came across as rude, and that was not my intention. In my response,
which itself was imperfect as explained in [635], I simply tried to clarify topics from the
course and enhance the understanding of the material for everyone enrolled in the course.
I stand by the content of my response, but I certainly could have composed it in a more
constructive manner.
Best regards to everyone, and especially to the author of the answer reproduced in [631],
Proletarian
Next Message by Proletarian is [903].
[732] Cougar: You call this reconsidering an exam? I had no idea that after I asked
Hans to reconsider a question on my first exam that my submission would be plastered
on the mailing list for the class to see. I think it’s hilarious that Proletarian, with Hans
blessing, went home immediately and began researching the question so he could “school”
me. What a cowardly gesture. That is exactly the kind of arrogant, vitriolic, self-serving,
phony-aristocratic behavior that gives academia a bad “vibe.” I’m sure it took a lot of brains
to research the question after-the-fact and belittle me. I guess the pseudonym system grants
some with a boost of courage. I do, however, accept your apology, but please realize this is
the first class on Marxian thought many of us have ever taken.
I would now like to take this second opportunity to defend my answer. I may not have
answered the question how Proletarian thought I should (a bit wordy though, not my style),
or even how Marx would have answered it but I still feel I answered with at least an understanding
of the material. I proposed ideas and supported them with the tools provided
in the discussions and text. I appreciate Hans giving us the opportunity to question our
exam grades and hope I haven’t over-stepped my bounds to defend my integrity. I feel my
argument here is no more abrasive than the protest I received weeks ago. Thank you.
98 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [732] referenced by [734]. Next Message by Cougar is [911].
[734] Hans: To Cougar. Your claim that you are accepting Proletarian’s apology does
not sound believable in view of all the epithets you are throwing at him in the same message
[732].
Yes, you did apply Marx’s categories in answer [631]. The only lapse was in point (c),
where you seem to have confused “product” and “commodity.” That is why your grade was
a B, i.e., I only counted point (c) as wrong and the others as right.
You are not the only class participant who got question 126 wrong. I thought this question
was pretty straightforward, but of the nine people who had it on the exam, a whopping four
answered (b) with yes and (c) with no. When grading the exam on Tuesday evening Sep 29
(right after the exam), I sent [339] to the list for the benefit of those who got it wrong during
the exam. Apparently, this message didn’t reach you, since you asked me in class about this
question. Therefore I sent your answer to the list too. Again, this did not reach you at first,
because a week later in class you asked me about this question again and you had not seen
that I had responded to you on the list.
This brings me to the question why there is not more privacy in this class. I am giving
you high-quality individualized feedback, which takes a lot of time. I say on p. 768 of the
Annotations: “I can justify the large amount of time spent on this feedback because this
feedback is seen by more than one student.” I know that this feedback often does not reach
the class participants at whom it is aimed, but I trust that others can learn from it too. I.e.,
there is a tradeoff between privacy and the depth of feedback I can give.
Knowing that this is a delicate issue, I try to protect the privacy of the class participants
by the pseudonyms. And regarding your case, Cougar, I sent your exam answer to the
class without revealing your pseudonym. I appreciate you coming forward and owning this
answer, but this must be your decision, not mine. Therefore I don’t think your integrity was
at stake in a public sense. You may also have noticed that, whenever I am critical of some
submission, I often don’t name the author. For instance in message [295] I did not mention
the pseudonym of the author of [9] because I was critical of [9], but I did mention the author
of [288] because I only had good things to say about [288].
Next Message by Hans is [752].
Question 127 is 121 in 2008SP and 124 in 2009fa:
Question 127 Marx says in 133:1 that it does not matter for the use-value of the coat
whether it is worn by the tailor or by someone else. Is this correct for every use-value?
If you write a computer program for yourself then you often obey different principles than if
you write it for others to use. A program which “works for me” is often poorly documented
and does not consider all the possible situations which different users of the program might
find themselves in.
[109] Lana: Of coats and surfboards... I accept the statement that “it does not matter
for the use-value of the coat whether it is worn by the tailor or by someone else.” A coat is a
coat and can really only be used as a coat. All people who would use the coat would use it
on their body for warmth in the same fashion as any other person. This, however, is not true

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 99
for every use-value. Consider a surfboard: to a person who is a professional board shaper
and trained surfer, the board is incredibly useful. But to someone who say, has never surfed
before in their life, the surfboard has very little use to them.
Final Grading Note by Hans: All your contributions are creative and interesting. If you were to combine your
creativity with a careful reading of Marx it would be even better.
Message [109] referenced by [142]. Next Message by Lana is [165].
[142] Hans: Coats of indifference. Lana [109] says: the use-value of a surfboard is
different for someone who knows how to surf than for someone who doesn’t. Agreed. But
Marx does not compare expert surfers with non-surfers. He compares consumers who are
life-long specialized producers of surfboards with consumers who are not. A longer explanation
is needed why Marx even divides the consumers of surfboards in such an awkward
way into two classes.
In paragraph 133:1 Marx argues against division of labor. Although it is true that different
use-values require different kinds of labor to produce them, Marx argues here that even in
modern production with many specialized use-values, there is no necessity that workers have
to specialize on one use-value only.
Marx brings three arguments in 133:1. The one easiest to understand comes last: Coats
were produced long before any one individual specialized their work-life on producing coats.
The second argument digs a little deeper. Marx says that the relationship between the
coat and the labor producing the coat is not affected by it that this labor belongs to a tailor.
In other words, a tailor has to do exactly the same thing when producing coats as someone
producing coats who is not a tailor. From the objective side, the nature of the production
process gives no special advantage to tailors. Tailors may still have an advantage from the
subjective side, since a life-long tailor has more opportunity to deepen his or her skills. Marx
does not discuss this obvious point. Marx is asking here: does the production process, by its
structure, need us to be tailors, and the answer is “no.”
Since this argument is on a higher level of abstraction than most of us are used to think,
Marx tries to ease the reader into this way of thinking by first saying something that he
expects to be abundantly clear to the reader. Marx’s first argument in 133:1, which so-to
say introduces his main point that tailors have to do exactly the same thing as non-tailors
when producing coats, Marx says that being a tailor also does not give any advantages in the
consumption of coats. The coat does not say to the tailor wearing it: “Since you produced
me, I love you as if you were my father, and therefore I will stay especially wrinkle-free for
you.” On the contrary, the coat relates to its own producer as an ordinary use-value, the same
way as it relates to everybody else. Perhaps Marx thought that the reader would be more
familiar with consumption issues than production issues, but I think Marx’s attempt to make
it clearer really made the issue more difficult to understand.
Not only is this first step not strictly necessary and probably confusing instead of being
helpful, but question 127 wonders if this step is even correct. If I write a crude computer
program for a simple task, and something goes wrong because there is a bug in it, I will
probably know immediately why things went wrong and be able to fix it in minutes. If I give
this same crude computer program to someone else, who does not know how it works, and
that other person hits a bug, it will be much more difficult for that other person to recover
100 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
from this bug. It is as if the computer program said to its producer: “Since you produced me,
I love you as if you were my father, and therefore I will stay especially bug-free for you.”
Next Message by Hans is [144].
Question 129 is 121 in 2008fa and 148 in 2012fa:
Question 129 Would a society in which people tailor in the morning and philosophize in
the afternoon not be filled with dilettante tailors and philosophers neither of whom has time
to get to the bottom of their profession?
[107] Rico: Morning Tailors and Afternoon Philosophers. According to the annotations,
Marx famously said, “people can be tailors in the morning and philosophers in the
afternoon.” Here Marx points out that a person doesn’t necessarily need to be tied to one job
in order to be effective. Question 129 asks if a society would be effectively productive if its
people were tailors in the morning and philosophers in the afternoon? As I began contemplating
the question, my initial thoughts were contrary to Marx’s statement, however after I
thought about the statement in further detail, I found various instances were many societal
institutions insist that females and males allocate their time to multiple facets of production.
I cannot think of a society that does not have parents who are raising children. Parenting
is an important aspect to each society because it helps produce future generations. These
future generations include young, dependent children, who depend on their parent’s ability
to provide the basic necessities for them. A parent will work in their profession in order to
provide food, shelter, and protection for their children. The “production process” not only
comes from wage producing firms, but also from other labor-intensive activities, such as
being a parent.
There are other examples of people allocating their time to multiple sources of production,
but the main idea of my example is to point out that humans are capable of having various
responsibilities and tasks, while still being able to be effective in their production. Thus, a
society can have “tailors in the morning and philosophers in the afternoon” and still have
time to be effective in their professions.
Message [107] referenced by [119] and [129]. Next Message by Rico is [235].
[119] Hans: Most things have more than one side. I am happy to hear that Rico [107]
could get himself to agree with Marx. But generally I want your essays to be a little more
critical than Rico’s and also mention the downside of things. He should not have swept
under the rug the following two things:
(1) Highly specialized labor is definitely more productive. The question is whether this
increased productivity is worth it or whether we are sacrificing humans on the altar of productivity.
(2) The dilettante role of parents has been criticized. Some people say you need a licence
to drive a car but not a licence to raise children.
Regarding (2), I think here the problem has a lot to do with two capitalist phenomena:
stress and lack of time.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 101
Capitalism is stressful. People are forced to perform under threat of starvation and homelessness.
Unfortunately, it is in our psychic makeup to pass on the stress to others, and the
dependent, vulnerable and innocent children in our midsts are irresistible targets.
And capitalism, especially in the USA, places high demands on our time. Parents in the
USA today usually don’t have enough free time to devote to their children.
For environmental reasons we need less production, i.e., more free time. This will definitely
benefit the children. For environmental reasons we also need fewer children. This,
too, allows parents to devote more time to each child. I am less optimistic about stress. The
succession of crises heading towards us will increase our stress levels considerably. People
will resort to drugs, magical thinking, they will try to find scapegoats, etc. The remedy is
“mindfulness,” i.e., awareness of your feelings and your fears. If you push them out of consciousness,
they will get the better of you in unexpected ways. It is better to confront them,
even if it is painful.
Another remedy is not to face the crises alone but band together. Children are wonderful
community builders. They start playing with your neighbor’s children in a second. This is
an opportunity for you to get to know your neighbor better too. Turn your neighborhood into
a mutual aid network.
A third remedy is to fight back. Instead of swallowing all the damages which the corporations
and the state inflict on you, stand up and fight for your rights. This will do wonders
for your sanity.
Message [119] referenced by [129]. Next Message by Hans is [122].
[128] Pweber: Specialization Leads to Innovation. I don’t agree with Rico in this case,
and Hans really hit the point I was going to make: specialized labor is more productive than
labor in general. I’d much rather have a professor that is very specialized in his field and actually
knows what he’s talking about than some guy who waltzed into the President’s Circle
looking for a job. Being good at something requires specialization, and so does innovation.
Capitalism has one element that I believe has made it so prevalent—innovation. Capitalism’s
naturally competitive nature drives people to come up with new ideas—while this
leads to stress like Hans pointed out, we do get something in return. We wouldn’t be able
to debate about a book written before our grandparents were born on a computer from the
comfort of our air conditioned offices and homes without capitalism’s inherent innovation.
Innovation naturally requires specialization, especially at the level of technology and information
we have in society today. The reason who know and remember people like Leonardo
DiVinci, Ben Franklin, and others is that there are very few people who are good at almost
everything. Most people need to specialize in something to be successful at it—without
division of labor, we’d all be living in mud huts.
Giant: While specialization can benefit specific areas in society, it can also create more problems at the same time.
If you have a door that is broken, a window, and a water pipe you will need to call three different types of specialist
to fix each of these problems. While you can be reassured that they know what they are doing because they are
specialists, it would be more efficient to call a general repair man to fix all these problems, even though they are
not specialized in one particular field.
Message [128] referenced by [129] and [132]. First Message by Pweber is [40].
102 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[129] Hans: Retraction. In [119] I told you all what I think Rico should have said in
[107]. I wanted Rico’s essay to be a little more like the second paragraph in [2008fa:194],
which addresses exactly the point made by Pweber [128]: doesn’t scientific work require
lifelong specialization?
I thought about it a little more. Here is another possibility how Rico could have clarified
his argument. Rico could have said: even today, in a society which pretends to value efficiency
over everything, we have situations where people do as Marx suggested. They are not
fishermen in the morning and philosophers in the afternoon, but they are perhaps accountants
during the day and child educators in the evening. Rico could have used the argument
in the first paragraph of [2008fa:194] saying that many people nowadays have to hold two
part-time jobs because the employers have eliminated full-time jobs so that they don’t have
to pay benefits. When it is done for the benefit of the corporations, nobody complains about
it that this turns our nation into a nation of dilettantes. Why are we complaining about it
when it is done for the benefit of the workers?
Actually I find it possible now that this was Rico’s train of thought. Rico told us that he
had to mull over this question for a while. Possibly he came across the kind of thoughts I
just said while he was contemplating the issue. But he had to formulate it in a way that is not
critical of today’s system but praises the system—because this is what we all are taught to
do. In view of this possibility, I restored Rico’s grade: he is getting a full A. Quite often class
participants submit deep and original thoughts expressed in such a way that it is a nontrivial
task to recognize them. I’m trying to do my best to give credit to these hidden geniuses.
Next Message by Hans is [135].
[132] Utefan: I agree with Pweber [128]. The motivation to provide better solutions for
life’s problems adds to the technological boom we have had. Just as recently as 200 years
ago most people ate from farms that they themselves cultivated, now we have the ability to
buy food that others have grown on their specialized crops. If someone is a jack of all trades
then that person is a master of none of them. Without this mastery, society would never
progress past the need to supply ourselves with comfort or food or shelter. However; we
only benefit while maturity and integrity govern those actions.
Next Message by Utefan is [214].
Question 130 is 79 in 1999SP, 94 in 2003fa, 105 in 2004fa, 106 in 2005fa, 119 in 2007SP,
and 120 in 2007fa:
Question 130 When Marx wrote that labor is the father and natural forces are the mother
of use-values, should he also have included produced means of production in addition to
nature and labor?
[113] PLG: graded A– The Mother and Father of Use-Values. In section 1.2a of Hans
Ehrbars “Marxian Economics,” the sources of use-value are discussed. Marx breaks down
the production of use-values into its most natural elements; matter, and the human modification
of matter. Marx uses an analogy to describe the basic elements of use-value production:
“As William Petty puts it: labor is its father and the earth it’s mother”.
Question 130 asks “When Marx wrote that labor is the father and natural forces are the
mother of use-values, should he (Marx) also have included produced means of production

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 103
in addition to nature and labor.” In its most basic form Marx defines the production of usevalues
as the modification of matter. Therefore within this definition there are two elements
“matter” which in the analogy comes from the mother, and “modification”, which in the
analogy is from the father. To include produced means of production would be to include
a repetitive step, such as: the modification of matter, which then leads to a more efficient
modification of more matter. This is a redundant concept. There was no need for Marx to
include the produced means of production in the analogy.
In discussing this question it is important to consider why Marx is discussing this at
all. What is the true purpose of this discussion relative to Marx’s theories about capitalism?
Marx leads into this topic with a discussion about the social ties of labor, and how production
must be a cooperative effort. Marx is looking at how capitalism affects the human social
structure, and how the social structure is tied to the production of use-values. He then takes
the opportunity to discuss how production of use-values is a natural human behavior. These
two human aspects of use-value production will be crucial in Marx’s theory of capitalism,
and its long run survival.
Message [113] referenced by [144]. Next Message by PLG is [195].
[118] Jon: Mother and Father of material wealth. I don’t believe that Marx needed
to add produced means to this statement. If you read footnote 13 on page 133 of Capital it
says: “All the phenomena of the universe, whether produced by the hand of man or indeed
by universal laws of physics, are not to be conceived of as acts of creation but solely as a
reordering of matter.” When using this explanation of production it is labor that reorders
the matter that is created by mother nature to produce a product with use-value. Regardless
if a laborer uses something that was previously produced such as the linen in the making
of a coat, the laborer is still simply rearranging the linen that was previously rearranged
from mother nature. This means that there are steps in production but we must still see that
the original means of production come from mother nature and it is through labor that it is
changed from raw materials into products with value.
Message [118] referenced by [144] and [1110]. Next Message by Jon is [202].
[121] Cmellen: graded B No, it is not necessary for Marx to have included produced
means of production to nature and labor. If you want to use the analogy of labor being the
father and natural forces being mother, then production would be the offspring, or child.
Nature grants the raw materials needed; labor takes action upon those materials along with
natural forces (labor is assisted by natural forces). We merely change the form of the matter
created in nature with labor and natural forces. Production is the transformation of matter.
Marx states labor is necessary to mediate between man and nature, (human life). Also it is
pointed out that a solitary man cannot produce. “Production requires skill and the produced
means of production” (annotation). Therefore produced means of production is not included
with nature and labor. Remember, as labor forms use-value, it is a necessary circumstance
in human life.
Message [121] referenced by [144]. Next Message by Cmellen is [222].
[144] Hans: Producing with your bare hands. PLG [113] writes:
104 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
To include produced means of production would be to include a repetitive
step, such as; the modification of matter, which then leads to a more efficient
modification of more matter.
This evokes the idea of producer A producing means of production with his bare hands,
just using labor and the earth, and then giving these means of production to producer B who
uses them to make his own production process more efficient. “More efficient” than what?
Producer B apparently previously was producing with his bare hands also. But this is not
what is happening! You cannot find a single production process where people produce with
their bare hands without produced means of production. On the contrary, the closer you are
to the earth itself, the less bare-handed the production process gets. Just think about the huge
trucks and sophisticated chemical facilities of Kennecott. Isn’t that a relevant enough fact
about production that Marx should have mentioned it instead of ignoring it?
Jon [118] uses the fact that labor does not produce something new but only rearranges
what is already there. If you go further into an analysis what the production process actually
does you will see that labor can only rearrange matter by applying matter to matter according
to the laws of physics (or chemistry or biology or zoology) itself. I.e., the “bare hands”
cannot do anything as long as they are really bare. The only way we can produce something
without means of production is to use our own bodies as means of production, i.e., as physical
objects acting through the laws of physics on other materials. I.e., if we don’t seem to use
means of production this is only because the means of production are attached to our own
bodies, they are is our fingernails or our teeth etc. I think this strenghens the case against
leaving out the means of production.
Besides echoing Jon’s point, Cmellen [121] quotes the Annotations: “Production requires
skill and the produced means of production.” From this Cmellen concludes that “produced
means of production is not included with nature and labor.” I don’t understand the argument.
If it is true that production requires skill (which is simply a produced intellectual means of
production) and also produced physical means of production, then it seems to me that they
exactly should be included with nature and labor.
Frankly I think Marx blundered here: he should have criticized Petty for not including the
produced means of production into his metaphor. And none of your arguments convinced
me otherwise. [2004fa:35] gives more reasons why one should not omit this fact when
talking about capitalism. The capitalists’ control over the produced means of production is
so crippling for the working class exactly because no production is possible just with labor
and nature.
Next Message by Hans is [149].
Exam Question 132 is 54 in 1995WI, 63 in 1995ut, 67 in 1996sp, 71 in 1997WI, 80 in
1999SP, 85 in 2000fa, 106 in 2004fa, 107 in 2005fa, 152 in 2011fa, and 151 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 132 Is labor the only source of the use-values of its products, or do other
factors contribute to the use-values as well? Is labor the only source of the values of its
products, or do other factors contribute to the values as well? (“Value” is here the property
which makes things exchangeable.)

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 105
[294] Goldtone: graded A+ Creating a Door Without Wood. Labor is not the only
source of use-value of a product, because nature or matter is also a source. Akudiya [2004fa:205]
gives a perfect example of this when she says “when someone is making a door, they craft
a piece of wood. If use-value was only created by labor, then the laborer would not even
need the piece of wood to make a door.” She goes on to clarify this point “the commodity
is something that has specific characteristics inside it. Use-values are merely activated by
labor, never created.” Which I think is a good answer to the first question.
The second question, asking if labor is the only source of value (not use-value), is different.
Akudiya does not answer this, but Hans [2004fa:207] does. Hans states that “Here
the answer is just the opposite: labor is indeed the only source of the value in the commodities.
Nature does not create value.” Value is a social property, and only created by workers
wanting to exchange their commodities, not by nature.
Hans: Excellent! I love your very last sentence. This is a fresh and insightful formulation of the same old idea,
not copied from anywhere in the Annotations or the vast archives, as far as I can tell.
Message [294] referenced by [2011fa:29] and [2012fa:324.1]. Next Message by Goldtone is [343].
Exam Question 139 is 57 in 1995WI, 66 in 1995ut, 70 in 1996sp, 75 in 1997WI, 84 in
1999SP, 89 in 2001fa, 99 in 2003fa, 159 in 2011fa, and 158 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 139 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.
[292] Kleenex: Is dangerous labor abstract too? It has been repeated in the Annotations/Marx’s
text that at the root of value is “human labor in the abstract” in commodity
production. Both the linen weaver and the coat tailor, to use examples from the text, expend
human labor-power. My question is, are relatively more dangerous jobs, such as the duties
of soldier or a miner, considered more “valuable” or even any different than less dangerous
jobs, such as the duties of a salesman? Again, I understand that they all have congealed
human labor in common, but if there is little or no differentiation by society between the
soldier and the salesman, what incentive is there to have a more dangerous job?
Hans: When Marx wrote that concrete labor processes are qualitatively different from each other, this is perhaps
nowhere clearer than with dangerous jobs. A dangerous job is clearly qualitatively different than a non-dangerous
job. A commodity economy turns these qualitative differences into quantitative differences, i.e., this labor produces
more value per hour than a non-dangerous job and it pays a little higher wages too. And people adjust to it.
Regarding mining jobs, I found the documentary “Bonecrusher” interesting which is available as DVD in the
Marriott Library. People like the mining jobs despite the danger and despite the fact that everyone has relatives
killed in the mine, because these are decent Union wages, not hunger wages (at least in the East), and the workers
like the comraderie and cooperation on and off the workplace which arises exactly because the job is so dangerous.
Next Message by Kleenex is [360].
Exam Question 141 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, 86 in 1999SP, 98 in 2002fa, 114 in
2004fa, 115 in 2005fa, 128 in 2007SP, 132 in 2008fa, 161 in 2011fa, and 160 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 141 What is the difference between labor and labor-power?
[111] LuBr: Distinguishing between labor and labor-power. Marx, in his labor theory
of value, tries to find a common substance that would determine the value of a commodity.
Commodities do not have exchange value in common, for any commodity may be exchanged
106 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
at varying quantitative levels for one another. It is after all just a “form of appearance.” Commodities
also lack commonality in use-value, as the only reason that commodities would be
exchanged is if their use-values were qualitatively different. Marx says this common substance
must be something social and not natural.
What then, does Marx conclude to be the only property left that all commodities share
in common? The labor embodied within commodities. This labor can be useful labor, in
other words, labor that contributes to the useful aspects of commodities. This can be seen as
qualitative differences in labor expended, be it by a mason, a carpenter, or a weaver. However,
the market ultimately abstracts the types and forms of labor producing use-value, and
turns labor into a single mass of abstract labor in which all labor is created equal. Therefore
in Marx’s quest to find a common substance from which value can be derived, he must dig
deeper than useful labor.
This brings us to labor-power. Marx describes that all humans have within them a potential
labor-power, from which all labors derive. Labor-power pays no mind to how and
by what form the commodities were produced. This equalizes labor and allows Marx to
determine the magnitude of a commodity’s value by measuring the amount of labor-power
congealed within the commodity. Labor-power of all kinds is reduced down to the “measuring
stick” of basic labor-power.
Hans: In your first paragraph you say: “commodities do not have exchange-value in common.” Yes they do,
all commmodities are exchangeable. This is something they have in common. But if someone asks: what do
commodities have in common that makes them exchangeable, then the answer “they have in common that they are
exchangeable” is circular. We need a different, underlying commonality.
But I absolutely love what you say next: “Commodities also lack commonality in use-value, as the only reason
that commodities would be exchanged is if their use-values were qualitatively different.” This is an amazingly
simple interpretation of what Marx might have meant when he said “exchange relations are characterized by an
abstraction from use-value.” I will take that over into my Annotations.
This is an ungraded exam question because it has a simple answer which everybody needs to know in order
to understand Marx properly. This answer is formulated for instance in [2004fa:184]. But you are going way
beyond that, you gave an excellent summary of Marx’s entire argument that led him to introduce the condept of
labor-power. Therefore you will get a grade for your answer.
Next Message by LuBr is [170].
[293] SMIKEC: Exam Extra Credit. Labor is simply the capacity to do useful work
which adds value to commodities. It’s the vehicle that transforms commodities into forms
that can be exchanged. Labor Power is a means for the capitalist to create a timeline for
the utilization of labor. The capitalist pays the worker just enough to reproduce him/herself,
food, shelter, etc, to ensure that he can show up for work the following week, along with
having time to replicate the work force by raising their children. This is a carefully thought
out equation to ensure the worker is in the labor force long enough to produce more value.
This is where surplus value comes into play, and is the biggest distinction between labor and
labor power.
Hans: About your first sentence: the “capacity to do useful work” is not the definition of labor but of labor-power.
Labor is the useful work itself, not just the capacity for it. What you are calling a “carefully thought out equation
to ensure the worker is in the labor force long enough to produce more value” is simply labor-power becoming a
commodity and falling under the laws of commodities, i.e., labor-power being paid its reproduction cost. This will
be discussed in chapter Six.
Next Message by SMIKEC is [401].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 107
Question 147 is 76 in 1997ut, 131 in 2007SP, and 134 in 2007fa:
Question 147 Is Marx’s appeal to experience regarding the reduction of complicated to
simple labor a circular argument?
[182] Kaush: Marx’s appeal to experience regarding the reduction. The experience
here, that markets, which pretend that all labor-powers are equal and different quantitatively,
succeed despite the fact of the qualitative differences among labor-powers. Marx’s appeal
to experience is a realization that there is no general law to govern this reduction from
complicated to simple labor and the realization that markets survived.
The argument is circular in that Marx answers the premise regarding “the reduction of
complicated to simple labor” by pointing to the success in the market instead of proving why
the market succeeded despite the qualitative differences among labor-powers. So Marx’s
argument is a circular one since it is using the conclusion (the markets survived) to answer
the premise (the reduction of complicated to simple labor).
Hans: The labor power of great artists or athletes is qualitatively different from society’s average labor power—
yet their products are sold for money like everybody else’s. How much commodity-value do they create with their
performances? Marx says this cannot be known because there is no systematic way to reduce their qualitatively
different labor-powers to average human labor. Therefore there is no competitive mechanism driving the prices at
which they sell their products to some “natural” level; rather it is determined by demand and supply. This does not
bring the economy down to its knees because they are a small part of the economy and we are rich enough so that
we can afford it if a small part of society’s pool of abstract labor is perhap mis-allocated.
I am not aware of any research asking why markets work despite not being a 100 percent accurate surface
representation of the structure of the capitalist production process. It may be too difficult given the present state of
knowledge of society. Not doing this research does not mean that the argument is circular.
Such discrepancies exist in engineering as well. Every internal combustion engine vibrates because the force
exerted by the pistons on the crankshaft are determined by the chemistry of combustion and are only approximately
what a steady turning motion needs.
Next Message by Kaush is [203].
Question 148 is 135 in 2007fa and 144 in 2009fa:
Question 148 Just as a horse has muscles and bones in it, a commodity has useful labor
and abstract labor in it. Explain. Is this also true for a product which is not a commodity?
[124] Husani: Useful and Abstract Labor. To thoroughly explain why a commodity
has both useful labor and abstract labor we must know the difference between the two
and how they contribute to the value of a commodity. First we look at what Marx says on
page 132:2 about useful labor: “We use the abbreviated expression ”useful labor“ for labour
whose utility is represented by the use-value of the product, or by the fact that its product is
a use-value.” This tells us that every use-value is created using useful labor. We then look
at page 132:3 to see why we need abstract labor: “If the use-values were not qualitatively
different, hence not the products of qualitatively different forms of useful labor, they would
be absolutely incapable of confronting each other as commodities.” This statement shows
us that useful labor is not enough to deteremine the value of a commodity when compared
with other commodities because the type of labor is fundamentally different. The labor used
to create a computer program is fundamentally different from the labor needed to created a
textbook. We now look at page 70 from the annotation in which Hans gives the definition of
108 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
abstract labor, “Equality of entirely different kinds of labor can be arrived at only by an abstraction
from their real inequality, by a reduction to the characteristic they have in common,
that of being human labor in the abstract.” This states that abstract labor is the reduction of
human labor in all forms, although they are different, to an equality that represents human
brains, nerves and muscle in the form of human labor.
All commodities have both useful labor and abstract labor. Useful labor is present because
it is the labor that makes the commodity a use-value. Abstract labor is present because it is
a way to give a commodity value when compared to other commodities that were created
using a different types of labor than itself.
I don’t believe this would be true for products that aren’t commodities. Marx says that a
product created for personal use isn’t a commodity. So if someone created a coat to use for
themselves, it would have a useful value built into because it is a use-value to its creator—but
because he isn’t looking to exchange the coat it wouldn’t have abstract labor in it.
Hans: Let me clarify what you say in your last paragraph. The coat made for home consumption still has the
useful labor in it—not as labor, but instead the coat shows the effects of this labor by its usefulness as a coat. The
maker of the coat also used his brain, muscles, etc. to make the coat, but this abstract labor has been consumed
and is no longer present—neither in the coat nor anywhere else. Had the coat been produced as a commodity, then
this abstract labor would still linger on in the coat. It would be visible in the price of the coat, and if the tailor
exchanges the coat for linen, then he has retrieved his abstract labor back out of the coat and converted it into labor
that produced something useful for him, namely, linen.
Next Message by Husani is [230].
Question 150 is 133 in 2007SP and 170 in 2011fa:
Question 150 Since productivity is a quality of useful labor, one might not expect it to play
a great role in capitalism. But it does. Why?
[143] Milly: Productivity in capitalism. At first glance, one would not expect productivity
to play a major role in capitalism. The more efficient a commodity can be produced,
results directly in a decrease of the value of that commodity because it takes less labor or
effort to produce. However, even though a product is being sold for less, when companies
become more efficient and technologically advanced, they are able to produce more product
at a faster rate and increase profit.
In [2007SP:100], Tokolosh answers this question and gives an example of Capitalist A
and B. Capitalist A produces a widget faster than Capitalist B and therefore is able to lower
price and produce more product. In response to Tokolosh, Hans asks “since capitalists are
interested in profits, i.e., more surplus-value for themselves, why are they trying so hard to
decrease the values of their products?”
The focus of a capitalist is not to decrease the value of their product, that just happens to
be the end result of increased productivity. As long as the quality of the product remains the
same, higher efficiency will lead to an increase in the quantity produced, which will result in
more surplus-value. This increase in production outweighs the cons of a decrease in product
value.
Next Message by Milly is [172].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 109
Question 155 is 86 in 1998WI, 93 in 1999SP, 98 in 2000fa, 98 in 2001fa, 138 in 2007SP,
141 in 2007fa, 145 in 2008SP, 143 in 2008fa, 150 in 2009fa, and 174 in 2012fa:
Question 155 If the first chapter is such a systematic discussion of value, why is it then
called “Commodities” and not “Value”?
[156] Somramthom: graded C Value in Commodities. Commodities are tangible things
that improve human life. Value is an intangible, yet noticeable, social relation from the use
of a commodity. A value cannot exist without a commodity. It is difficult to understand
the social effect of a commodity without understanding what the commodity is. So while
value is the main subject of the first chapter, it is easier to understand the tangible aspect of
commodities first and then follow with the more abstract concept of Value.
Feedback would be appreciated.
Message [156] referenced by [157], [162], and [179]. Next Message by Somramthom is [288].
[157] Hans: Quick Feedback. Somramthon [156] recognizes correctly that commodities
in our society are connected with each other by an “intangible, yet noticeable, social
relation”. But then he says two entirely wrong things about commodities:
First of all, this social relation (as Marx analyzes it) does not come from the use of the
commodity, as Somramthon says, but from the production of the commodity.
Secondly, Somramthon’s definition of a commodity is wrong too. The definition is not
“tangible things that improve human life” (that is Marx’s definition of “use-value”) but products
produced for sale or exchange.
These false definitions guarantee that Somramthon will not get a good grade for his answer.
It is one of Marx’s basic messages that value does not come from the usefulness of the
commodity, but from labor. As we will see, in Marx’s theory money represents labor hours,
and capitalist profits are produced by the unpaid labor of the workers.
Message [157] referenced by [162] and [2012fa:130]. Next Message by Hans is [158].
Question 158 What is the definition of “form of value”?
[404] Babyceta: graded A+ When commodities are produced for exchange, they carry
with them the social relations of production. These relations are invisible and buried deep
within the commodity, and are represented as congealed, abstract human labor. This socially
necessary labor, Marx calls value, cannot surface on its own but must do so in the market
as exchange value. Essentially, this form of value is the means in which producers and
consumers entice the value of commodities to the surface so that exchange can occur. Hans
states in the Annotations [p. 93] that a form of value is a property of commodities allowing
them to relate to each other as values.
Marx’s objective in Section 3 (Chapter 1) is to explain the genesis of money, and he develops
the simple or accidental form of value, first, to illustrate how, out of barter, money
emerges. When commodities leave the sphere of production they contain not only use-value,
exchange-value, and value as determined by labor content, but they also carry a price tag
110 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
and the DNA of money itself. Here, the commodity indeed processes dual form (possessing
use-value and exchange-value), and an asymmetric relationship develops between two
commodities; one having relative (active) value, and one equivalent (passive) value.
The relationship between commodities becomes more complex when the form of value
expands from its simple form to include many commodities. Here, the relative value of the
first commodity, produced solely for exchange to obtain other commodities with different
use-values, expresses itself now in many ways since the commodity with equivalent value
can be virtually anything. However, we then lose the simplicity of the accidental exchange
because the expanded form has negated the first.
In an effort to negate the negation, the general form of value emerges. In the simple
and expanded forms of value, commodities of relative value expressed themselves in the
use-values of other equivalent commodities. However, once commodities are exchanged
for a general equivalent, use-value is no longer considered; only that other commodities
will express themselves in that same general equivalent. [I]n other words, says Hans, the
equivalent commodity can be used to buy all other commodities. [Annotations, p. 158]
Initially, Marx abstracts away money, itself a commodity, to show us why money is necessary.
Not only is money a measure of value it is also a form of value (as are prices) since
all other commodities can express their value in terms of price. Price, which has traveled
incognito with the commodity from the sphere of production to the sphere of circulation,
now presents itself as a declaration of that mysterious social information buried deep in the
commodity; the value of that congealed, abstracted human labor found in all commodities.
And, thus, the cycle is complete. In Marx’s words, form of value springs from the concept of
value, and monetized market relations are essentially socialized surface relations signaling
production mandates in a capitalist economy.
Next Message by Babyceta is [411].
Question 164 In Contribution, 270:1, Marx writes: “Although use-values serve social
needs and therefore exist within a social context, they are not an expression of a social
relation of production.” Is this correct? For many products, consumers need product information,
instructions how to use it, assistance in setting up the product, warranty services if
the product is defective, and maintenance. Are these not relations of production?
[134] Atticus: (graded C) My Things are Mine and Mine Only. Marx claims that physical
possession of a commodity, which has a specific use-value, is not in itself a social relation
(Annotation p. 84). I believe this means that the actual physical act of possessing an object
is not a social relation; the use-value that an object possesses is the actual social relation
that not just the object’s owner can access. However, possessing particular objects—mainly
commodities—may come with ownership rights, which is a social relation (annotations pp.
84). An object is basically a component of modified materials obtained from the earth that
has been modified through useful labor by the natural forces and instincts inherent in human
beings.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 111
I find this to be a persuasive theory and an effective way of explaining how to critically
look at the seemingly natural ways that capitalism operates to shape social behavior in human
beings. But I don’t believe I can say whether it’s actually correct or not. It’s definitely a
unique way of looking at social behavior. I’m not pro capitalism by any means though. The
idea of people being able to foster their own interests and abilities to their fullest potentials
without a few people exploiting the masses at the expense of the environment and human
kind may be the radical change the world needs to stop self destruction.
Some products have become so complex that consumers need information, assistance and
instruction in order to even identify and use a product. This is part of the production process
that helps the producer identify for the consumer the use-value embodied in a product. They
are commonly expensive so it’s in the producer’s best interest to provide warranty and maintenance
service to satisfy the needs of the consumers and encourage repeat purchases in the
future to maintain profit and growth. These extra services that are provided with products
are relations to production.
Hans: I don’t understand why you consider use-value to be a social relation. What is social in the use-value of
a peach to be nutritious and tasty food? It is the relationship between the physical properties of the peach and
human needs, treated as if it was some intrinsic property of the peach. It is a relationship, say better a one-on-one
interaction, but not a social relation.
I also don’t get what the things you are saying in the first paragraph have to do with the operation of capitalism.
If you would clarify this, I’d appreciate it. I sincerely have no idea what you are talking about.
Atticus: In the beginning the texts were extremely difficult for me to fully absorb, digest and understand. I responded
too late to your feedback and I’m not even exactly sure what I meant but what I think went wrong was my
understanding of the term social relation. Other terms were also difficult for me in the beginning, such as: abstract
labor, use value, exchange value, etc. However, it did become easier and I enjoyed the readings.
Next Message by Atticus is [140].
Question 166 is 127 in 2004fa, 128 in 2005fa, 151 in 2008fa, 157 in 2009fa, and 996 in
2012fa:
Question 166 If a commodity is only produced because of its value, why did Marx not say
that commodities come to the world in the form of values?
[131] Utefan: As Marx states a commodity is only a commodity when it has a double
form, a use-value and value form. The use-value is their plain form i.e. iron, linen, corn.
Their dual nature makes them a commodity. The objectivity of commodity deals mainly
with human labor and their value is purely social. Commodity must react socially with other
commodities to describe value. In essence gasoline wouldn’t be as valuable, as a commodity,
if we didn’t have vehicles that used gasoline.
The social reaction returns a value that changes within that social realm, as in the above
example gas prices fluctuate and are different in other socially different climates.
Message [131] referenced by [137], [154], [179], and [216]. Next Message by Utefan is [132].
[137] Hans: Terminological clarifications. Utefan [131] seems to say the right things
until he illustrates his abstract formulations as follows:
In essence gasoline wouldn’t be as valuable, as a commodity, if we didn’t
have vehicles that used gasoline.
112 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Here the word “valuable” refers to use-value. This is not what Marx means. When he
talks about “value” (without “use-” in front of it), he means the congealed abstract labor in
the product, which makes things exchangeable on the market. Also please remember that the
word “commodity” does not just denote any use-value, but the use-values produced for sale.
The statement “a commodity is produced for its value” means therefore: the purpose which
a commodity producer has in mind when he produces a commodity is to sell the commodity
on the market, not to use it himself.
Finally, people who need this clarification should not try to answer question 166. They
should first try to understand what Marx did say, before guessing why he did not say something
else.
Message [137] referenced by [145], [154], and [216]. Next Message by Hans is [138].
[154] Goldtone: graded A Commodities in the Form of Value. Marx did not say that
commodities come to the world in the form of values because “value”, according to Marx,
is only realized when the commodity is exchanged for some other use-value. Hans explains
this in [149] while talking about a linen maker exchanging 20 yards of linen for a coat. The
linen is an expression of value to the linen maker, and the coat is an expression of use-value.
The opposite would be true for the coat maker making this trade.
To elaborate, (and similar to what Hans wrote in pages 83-84 in the annotations), the
direct benefit of use-value can come from physical possession alone, whereas value can only
come from a social relation. Hence, an individual can consume / use a commodity that they
have made themselves, and bypass any kind of “value” according to Marx. Hans clarifies
this in his response to Utefan [131] in [137]: “The statement ‘a commodity is produced
for its value’ means therefore: the purpose which a commodity producer has in mind when
he produces a commodity is to sell the commodity on the market, not to use it himself.”
This is not always the case, when in fact people do use commodities they have made for
themselves, give commodities away to others, and have commodities stolen. In each of
these cases “value” is not necessarily present, because the commodity was not exchanged.
Hans: It would be wonderful if a commodity’s value disappeared the minute it gets stolen. Then we all could leave
our doors unlocked. (Other than this, what you say is correct.)
Message [154] referenced by [2012fa:124] and [2012fa:159]. Next Message by Goldtone is [294].
[297] Kaush: Commodities come to the world. A commodity is use value immediately
after its birth, because that is the purpose of its production. It is value too because of the
social abstract labor embedded in it. But that does not mean the commodity has an exchange
value. Because of that, one cannot say that commodities come to the world in the form of
values.
Message [297] referenced by [316] and [555]. Next Message by Kaush is [436].
[316] Hans: A simple barter exchange-value is not good enough. Kaush [297] said
things so neatly and concisely that this clears the ground for fresh perspectives. When I read
it I thought: is it true that commodities don’t have an exchange-value when they come out
of the production process? I confirmed this as true when Winn said it in [2009fa:276], but
right now I no longer think it is true.
If the linen weaver announces to others in the market: “20 yards of linen is worth 1 coat”,
she does not really give her linen an exchange-value. She wishes she could do this, but she
does not have this much power. All she does is guess what this exchange-value is and test

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 113
her guess by making an offer based on this guess. But if she has to guess the exchange-value
this means the exchange-value of the linen exists out there already.
The problem is therefore not that the commodity lacks an exchange-value, but that a
direct-barter exchange-value is too primitive, it is not sophisticated enough. In a developed
commodity economy one will quickly discover that one cannot get far with direct barter.
Money is necessary. Marx discusses this in 182:1 where he describes the historical instead
of the “logical” development. The existence of money and prices is the value form which
the commodies need. This value form is not automatically given with the production of the
commodity, but the establishment of money is a social act taking place in circulation.
Now after the establishment of money we must conclude, by the same argument as above,
that commodities have prices already when they come out of the production process. They
truly have a double form, the physical thing on the one hand and the price tag on the other.
But this second form is no longer home-grown; the entire economy takes part in its creation.
This is why Marx says the production process only produces the use-value form, and the
value-form comes afterwards. In 184:3/oo Marx says the money commodity gets it value in
production and its specific form of value in circulation, and I think he would also say that
the price forms of ordinary commodities is generated in circulation too.
Message [316] referenced by [336], [375], [528], [555], and [2012fa:124]. Next Message by Hans is [318].
[336] AlexDaily: graded B+ Commodities have two types of value; exchange value and
use value. Commodities are made because of their exchange value. But society gives the
commodities their value. Therefore, Marx could not say commodities come to the world in
the form of values.
Hans: Value comes from labor, i.e., value is created in the production process. Value is a social relation, but
society does not just pluck the value of a commodity out of thin air; it bases it on the abstract human labor in the
commodity. This is why your sentence “society gives the commodities their value” is wrong. On the other hand,
as I tried to explain in [316], society at large plays a much bigger role in the exchange-value. I would not go as far
as saying that society gives the commodities their exchange-value, but I think one can say that exchange-value is
not only generated in the production process. That is why Marx did not say commodities come to the world in the
form of values.
Message [336] referenced by [468]. Next Message by AlexDaily is [356].
[360] Kleenex: Marx writes that commodities come into the world, not in the form of
values, but in the form of use-values. It is true that the commodity possesses value from the
production process. It is also obvious what the use-value of the commodity is when you’re
examining it. However, the producer does not yet know what the value of the commodity
is until it “surfaces” in the market. The producer is familiar with the labor that went into
creating this commodity, but does not yet know the price tag, or what another person is
willing to trade for it. Once the commodity does emerge into the market, the value-form
becomes evident. As Thugtorious wrote in [2005fa:748], “the commodities are not values
until they are put into relations with other commodities.” Marx also uses the analogy of a
newborn baby to illustrate his point. When a baby is first born, it is unaware of its social
surroundings and needs, other than being fed and loved, at the most basic level. When the
baby grows up, though, it develops relationships with others and learns its value and place
in the world, just as a commodity finds its exchange-value once it “grows up” and emerges
on the surface of the market.
Next Message by Kleenex is [365].
114 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[375] KA: If a commodity is only produced because of its value, why did Marx not say
that commodities come to the world in the form of values?
A commodity comes into the world and is produced for its use-value; the production process
gives this commodity its use-value. This use-value enables the commodity owner to
exchange it for another commodity that is useful to him. Therefore, the use form allows the
commodity owner to take advantage of its use. On the other hand, when Marx discusses
“value,” this is a different concept than use-value. Value form enables the commodity owner
to take advantage of what value the commodity brings to the table. While the commodity’s
use-value presents an opportunity to gain “value,” the commodity has a two-fold form of
value, “its bodily form and its value form.” A further emphasis must be made on what commodities
come into the world as. If a commodity does come into the world and undergo
a form of production its value may never be derived, since “value” is determined on “congealed
abstract labor.” This is why Marx did not say that commodities come into the world
in the form of values; his definition of values has a two-fold explanation.
Hans: If it is true that a commodity’s use-value “enables the commodity owner to exchange it for another commodity
that is useful to him,” then the commodity does not need a value-form. Read my [316].
Next Message by KA is [380].
[415] Lana: This question can be addressed with the relationship between wood and a
finished table. Man used the wood to create the table and I as a consumer, purchase the table
to put in my home. Therefore, the wood has value to the Man and use-value to me. The Man
must create the table from the wood in order to have something to exchange for his desired
use-values. A chunk of wood would hold no value to me because I do not possess the skills
or desire to work with it and create a table. As is such, I would purchase the table, satisfying
my needs/wants. Contrastingly, the finished table holds no use-value for the Man because
he does not need/want the table, but he does want to exchange it. This relationship between
commodities, human labor and their value, is a social interaction.
Next Message by Lana is [416].
[505] Tunda: Marx did not say that commodities come to the world in the form of values
because he concluded that there was a double form of a commodity to have a bodily form
and a value form in order for that commodity to have worth. There is a use-value and value
and in order for a commodity to enter the world it has to gain those two forms of commodity.
Next Message by Tunda is [506].
[510] Cougar: content A+ late penalty 1% After reviewing submissions of students and
Hans’ feedback, I have come to the conclusion that it is through circulation in the market
that freshly-produced commodities establish exchange-value and not through their production
alone. Because of the social nature of value, commodities and more specifically their
circulation through the market reveal important relationships among producers, their competitors
and consumers. Taking from the example used by Hans, the linen weaver cannot
adequately predict the socially accepted value of “x” yards of linen as it relates to other
commodities the weaver requires. The socially accepted value of linen is established in both
its market production and circulation through various social transactions. Where barter is
too primitive a method to measure these relationships, limited by the highly relative nature
of the expanded form of value, money provides a standardized method of measuring
the circulation of commodities, from production to consumption. Once socially accepted

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 115
commodity values are established among producers in the market, “price” provides a bridge
between the labor content of those commodities (unknown to consumers) and their associated
use-values (known and desired by consumers). This delay, in which commodity values
are established through circulation in the market after production, provides the perspective
that value is established through social interactions and not labor content alone.
Hans: Your formulation is still a little too fuzzy. According to Marx, value is established by abstract labor alone
(which itself is something social), but it manifests itself on the market by the exchange relations.
Next Message by Cougar is [573].
Question 174 is 86 in 1997WI, 85 in 1997ut, 92 in 1998WI, 115 in 2002fa, 118 in 2003fa,
133 in 2004fa, and 134 in 2005fa:
Question 174 How does Marx’s statement in 138:2/o that a commodity’s value quasimaterial
“does not contain a single atom of physical matter” relate to his other statement
in 177:3–4 that “no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value in pearl or diamond.” Do
they say the same thing or something different?
[133] Bigwhite: Atoms and Chemists. I think both statements say the same thing. The
first statement goes along with what Marx has said previously that the value quasi material is
like a human’s soul: it is there, it adds value, yet it is not physically tangible. He also refers
to it as a ghost of the commodity. The value quasi material is embedded in the commodity
through the production or birth of the commodity. There is no way to measure it for each
individual commodity but it’s there.
Same goes with the chemist statement. There is no physical thing in a pearl or diamond
that justifies its trade value, they are valuable because people want and desire them. In reality
no one needs a diamond like they need water yet water is cheap and diamonds fetch a high
price. There is nothing physically in the diamond that makes it more valuable than water yet
its exchange value is higher.
Final Grading Note by Hans: There is evidence in your answers that you are doing the readings fairly carefully,
but nevertheless again and again you miss some important parts of Marx’s argument. Here you are good about the
subtleties of value quasi-material but you miss (or have forgotten again) that according to Marx, value comes from
labor and not from people’s wants. I am puzzled by this inconsistency. Maybe JJ’s experience recounted in [1173]
speaks to you.
Message [133] referenced by [136], [139], and [179]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [321].
[136] Hans: Desire does not create value. Bigwhite [133] says: “pearl or diamond ...
are valuable because people want and desire them.” This is mainstream economics but not
Marx’s theory. If Marx’s theory is right, then pearl or diamond are valuable because labor
was needed for their production. The labor that produced them is still visible in their price
tag. The thing that Marx calls value quasi-material is this past labor, it is what the price tag
measures. It is not concrete labor but what Marx calls “abstract” labor; think of it as the
opportunity cost of the labor which was used to produce pearl or diamond but which could
also have produced different things.
I hope this clarified the question. A detailed analysis how the two statements in the
question are related is in my [2003fa:98].
Message [136] referenced by [430]. Next Message by Hans is [137].
116 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[139] Oreo: graded A Invisible exchange-value. I believe that both of these statements
say the same thing. They each illustrate exchange-value as something that can’t physically
be found in the commodity. Marx states at the end of the chapter that it was economists,
rather than chemists, who discovered exchange value. This is because chemists study the
physical properties of things, while economists are known to focus on the abstract, which in
this case in the exchange-value.
I understand where Bigwhite [133] is coming from when he says that commodities, such
as pearls and diamonds, are valuable because people want them. According to the supply and
demand models that we have become so familiar with in our basic economics classes, this
is a perfectly logical conclusion. However, as Hans points out, Marx believes that value is
based on the amount of labor put into a commodity, rather than the desires for it. The reason
that a diamond is more valuable than water, according to Marx, is because the diamond
contains a greater amount of congealed human labor within it. The miners who acquire
diamonds spend an extensive amount of time seeking and obtaining them, while water is
discovered and collected using much less labor time.
This congealed human labor, as Marx tells us through both of the aforementioned statements,
is not physically detectable in the commodity. Therefore, it is impossible to determine
the actual exchange-value of a commodity just by looking at it. To determine an exchangevalue,
you must know the amount of labor that went into it.
While I understand Marx’s point of view, I don’t think that it is applicable in every situation.
For example, a CD from a popular band is priced a lot higher than a CD from an
emerging/unknown band. So even if each of the artists used the same amount of labor, the
better-known artist’s CD would have a higher exchange-value than the less popular one.
Another example is clothing. Brand named jeans are much more expensive than jeans purchased
at Wal-Mart, even though they likely contain the same amount of congealed human
labor. Aren’t the brand-name jeans priced higher because the desire for them is greater than
Wal-Mart jeans? I have trouble siding with Marx’s theory of exchange-value, and am leaning
more towards Bigwhite’s view of desire determining exchange-value. Any thoughts?
Next Message by Oreo is [197].
[159] TINDOZ: Value is not molecular. Marx’s two statements about the physical matter
of an atom-less commodity’s value quasi-material and the exchange-value being undiscoverable
by a chemist go hand in hand in saying basically the same thing (with each statement
backing up the other). These two statements relate to each other (in relation to commodities)
from two distinct aspects, one being value and the other being exchange-value with
the commonality between the two being a sense of intangibility (at least in the physical
world) to these two forms of value. He speaks of atoms and references the work of chemists
(who would look at an item on the molecular level) to show how physicality (no matter how
minute) cannot contain the value itself and he mentions two different forms of value (both
value and exchange-value) as complements to each other in the idea of physicality playing
no part in the make up of the actual forms of value—for the physicality is only the vehicle
(or the tangible place holder). This all implies that the value that something has goes beyond
what it is made out of.
Hans: Value and exchange-value are not two different forms of value. Rather, Marx only talks here about one form
of value, what he calls “value.” Exchange-value is how this value manifests itself on the surface of the economy to

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 117
the economic agents. Value and exchange-value belong together; their other is use-value (but Marx says that value
and use-value have nothing in common except the word).
When you say that the commonality between value and exchange-value is “a sense of intangibility,” this is pure
phantasy. This is not a mis-interpretation of Marx, this is someone guessing who has read Marx only in the most
superficial way if at all.
She: I think those statements work nicely together. As I interpret the concept, value, being the congealed abstract
labor embodied in an object, is not visible nor is exchange-value. Exchange-value is simply the social relation
between commodities. It is described as a signal in the annotations. Neither one is something you can see, hold,
or touch. We can see and touch the natural form of something, but Marx explains that ”commodities possess an
objective character as values only in so far as they are all expressions of an identical social substance, human labour,
that their objective character as values is therefore purely social.(138:2)
Hans: She, first of all, please use the notes at the bottom of existing submissions only if you have to give feedback
to that particular submission. Otherwise you should submit it per email. You can add ug after the question number
to make it ungraded; in this case you can also answer questions which are no longer assigned. Another possibility
which many class participants have done is submit it under question 888 and indicate the question number in the
subject line.
Secondly, exchange-value can be seen from the exchanges a commodity makes. Exchange-value is a surface
category and I would consider it visible.
Message [159] referenced by [162]. Next Message by TINDOZ is [395].
[162] Babyceta: The Soul of Commodities. Some thoughts on what Somramthom [156]
says about why the first chapter of Capital is called Commodities and the idea that commodities
do not contain a single atom of physical matter addressed by Tindoz [159]. First, I believe
that Marx begins with commodities because, as Hans [157] elaborates on, commodities
are the pivotal element in a capitalistic society. They indeed contain value when produced
for exchange, but also embody the invisible social relations contained in their production (I
may be dependent on the goods you produce and likewise you may also be dependent on
whatever I am producing, and therefore we essentially need each other to exist. But we may
not be aware of each other even though our existence is dependent on this relationship and
our lives are interconnected).
I will go on to say that I believe what Marx is saying is that the whole idea of capitalism is
based on the principle of keeping us, the producers who sell our labor to exist, separated from
the means of production by keeping this social relationship invisible. We are kept alienated
from each other and the means of production by design so that the labor and exchange value
we give to commodities can be exploited. Commodities then essentially become objects
that embody the souls of workers, and in a sense if we covet and become fetishistic about
commodities (again, I’m probably getting ahead of myself), then our mania is utilized by
the capitalist to ensure that the cycle continues and that we are in essence slaves to the
commodities themselves. I believe that is why Marx begins with commodities; they are the
epicenter of capitalism on many different levels, and without understanding the nature of
commodities, we cannot understand Marx’s critique of capitalism.
I believe that Tindoz [159] also fails to capture the esoteric nature of social relations of
commodities by focusing on the physical matter component of the question. The same ideas
I mention above apply to the physicality of commodities. Personally, I don’t think Marx was
as concerned about the molecular structure of commodities as he was about showing that
the soul of commodities comes, once again, from the labor of workers who toil to exist in a
capitalist society and never realize that commodities unwillingly capture a small portion of
the their existence. It’s funny but the one thing that sticks out to me from Hans’s first lecture
118 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
is the analogy of approaching Marx’s ideals like scaffolding on the exterior of a building; to
appreciate Das Kapital you have to see the perfection in the framework of his arguments.
Marx begins with commodities to illustrate their physical nature so that he can show that it
is indeed not their physical qualities that give them value or make them important. It is the
unseen soul of the commodity that breathes life into capitalism.
Next Message by Babyceta is [308].
Question 175 is 134 in 2004fa, 160 in 2008SP, and 158 in 2008fa:
Question 175 Marx writes: “Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum
of relations in which the individuals stand.” Why did he switch from “consist” to “express,”
i.e., why did he not write “society consists of the sum of relations in which the individuals
stand”?
[152] Giant: graded A– Consist vs. Express. Consist is defined as, “to be made up or
composed. To be comprised or contained.” While express is defined as, “clearly indicated;
distinctly stated. To show, manifest, or reveal.” These two definitions have almost opposite
meanings. When Marx switched consist for expressed he altered the meaning of his
sentence, breaking it into two different subjects.
The first part Marx is explaining that society is not constructed by individuals. He reemphasizes
this when he says, “Society is therefore not seen as a group of individuals with
rubber bands between them” (pg 89). The second part in which Marx switches “consist”
with “express” changes his emphasis to explain that different areas in society construct the
individual.
The statement, “society consists of the sum of relations in which the individuals stand”
gives the impression that all individuals pooled together make up the structure of society.
This is not true, which is why it was not used. As Marx explained, a person fulfills certain
social roles and depending on their desires goes into that particular role. If a person loves
taking care of animals, they will fill the role of vet or another job that involves animals. This
role was not created by the individual but by society.
Message [152] referenced by [153]. Next Message by Giant is [201].
[153] Robert: (graded A) I appreciate what Giant writes in [152] in answer to this question
but I personally wonder if Marx wasn’t going a little deeper with his statements.
The amalgamation of people does not itself create a society, as Giant helps us see. Society
exerts its influence through its historical customs, cultures, religions, language, and many
other ways on the individuals who currently comprise that society. I think Giant was also
making this point; however, there may be two other influences to consider. The individuals,
each in her unique way, also exert an influence on society by constantly creating new history
and evolving through other customs, usually incrementally but sometimes revolutionarily.
Individuals also exert influences on one another. These influences: society on individual
(as Giant states), individuals on society, and individuals on individuals, are “the sum of
relationships in which the individuals stand” and the expression of this sum of relationships
is what society is.
Next Message by Robert is [164].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 119
[155] Hans: From Ontology to Epistemology. This is one of the questions where I
am not sure of the answer myself. My best understanding of the issue right now can be
formulated in two points (a) and (b):
(a) Marx switched from “consists” to “expresses” because the first half of the sentence is
an ontological statement, it tells us about the nature of society, while the second half is an
epistemological statement: it tells us about the meaning of the word “society.” I.e., a slightly
more detailed paraphrase of Marx’s sentence would be, as I wrote in [2008SP:97]:
Society does not consist of individuals, but the word “society” expresses
(a more modern formulation would be: signifies) the sum of connections,
relations, in which these individuals stand with respect to each other.
(b) Now why did he switch from ontology to epistemology? This is difficult to know,
and I’m not familiar with anything Marx said elsewhere which would allow us to guess.
Therefore right now I would just be content with answering this part of the question with a
shrug. We don’t know why he switched. In the Spring of 2008 we had a deep discussion
about these issues, starting with and triggered by the excellent [2008SP:84]. But this was all
speculation on our part. It did not have much to do with reading Marx.
Hans: The reader should look at my remarks to [485] which give an important amendment to this answer.
Message [155] referenced by [373] and [485]. Next Message by Hans is [157].
[373] Robert: graded A Ontology and epistemology. In the first phase of this sentence,
Marx is making an ontological statement. Ontology means a particular theory about the nature
of being or the kinds of things that have existence (Merriam-Webster online dictionary).
He is stating what comprises a society (or does not comprise a society, in this case). Marx
does not believe that a group of individuals “with rubber bands between them” (Annotations,
p. 89) is what we mean when we say society. Marx is searching for the ontological unit of
society...what is the smallest unit into which society can be broken down and he decides it
is not the individual.
In the second phase of the sentence, Marx makes an epistemological statement. Epistemology
means the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with
reference to its limits and validity (Merriam-Webster online dictionary). Marx is trying to
explain how we know what a society is, or what meaning the word society conveys. He decides
that “society” means (Marx uses the word expresses, Hans in [155] suggests the word
“signifies”) all of the relationships between the various individual in that society.
So, paraphrasing Marx: society is not just a group of people; rather, it means all of the
relationships that exist between the people in society. He could not have accurately said, in
the second phrase, society is all of the relationships between people because he showing that
society “means” all of the relationships not that it is those relationships.
Now, the tougher question is why Marx is so careful about this distinction. The insight
I had briefly during the in class exam was that Marx may have been emphasizing that the
proper ontological unit for economic analysis was not the individual. If we look past society
to the individuals in that society, we are leaving out society, the crucial element of the political
economy. If, Marx believes the correct economic ontological unit is society it is not a
very helpful statement to say society consists of individuals.
120 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Since society is the ontological unit, then the best approach to understand what we mean
when we use the word “society” is an epistemological approach. When we undertake such
an approach, we see that what we really mean when we are discussing society is the relationships
between the individuals in society. This understanding is very helpful and key
to subsequent discussion of such concepts as the fetish-like character of commodities and
commodity fetishism.
Message [373] referenced by [374]. Next Message by Robert is [374].
[427] BBM: graded A– Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of
relations in which the individuals stand.
Marx uses the word “expresses” instead of “consists” because the word “consists” implies
that society is made up of a sum of individuals and their characteristics and that’s it.
But when using the word “express” it implies that it consists of much more than just individuals
and their characteristics, but relationships between other individuals and how they
interact. “Expresses” also explains occupation, ethnicity, religion, financial status, and all
these factors together is what makes up society. This is why Marx uses the word “expresses”
instead of “consists.”
Next Message by BBM is [428].
[445] DMorris: Marx is very particular in this word choice here. Rather than using the
word consist, he uses express. By using express, Marx is speaking of the disconnect between
society and the individuals therein. People do not form relationships with the intent
of changing or establishing a society. Rather, society forms as a secondary effect of the
relationships between people. For example, consider a small classless village, wherein every
individual contributes their full labor to the village. Then, assume that one individual
proclaims that for whatever reason he is now the director rather than a laborer. By changing
his relationships with others, he has indirectly caused a large change in society itself. By
stating that “society....expresses the sum of relations in which the individual stands,” Marx
is again making the point that no individual can structure society the way he or she wants it
structured. In actuality, Marx is making an even more potent statement; that even the sum
total of the individuals in the society can not change it; rather that in order to change society,
the relationships between individuals must change. This is similar to Marx’s later statements
regarding fetishism of commodities; the system was created by society, but many members
of society forget that the mysterious qualities of commodities are a result of society.
Hans: People in an egalitarian society cannot become directors just by declaring themselves a director. This is
not how social relations change. Marx said that early societies in the Middle East were not egalitarian but despotic
because the despot was responsible to keep up the irrigation system on which everybody depended. This is how
Marx thinks about social relations: it is not just what people say to each other.
Next Message by DMorris is [453].
[447] Proletarian: graded A+ Marx says “society does not consist of individuals, but
expresses the sum of relations in which the individuals stand.” Why does Marx switch from
the word “consist” in the first part of the sentence to the word “express” in the second
part? It’s not necessarily because the word “consist” would be wrong in the second part, but
because “express” is a much clearer and more accurate word choice.
Society does not consist of individuals. If there were 300 million individual people all living
in the vicinity of one another, but they had no interaction, no relationships, there would

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 121
be no society, just 300 million individuals that happen to live near each other, all wandering
around doing their own thing. Social interaction, social relationships, are absolutely necessary
for society to exist. Once these 300 million individuals start interacting and having
relationships they are no longer simply 300 million people but instead a society. It is these
relationships, these interactions, that make a society possible, not the individuals.
So why then is it better and more accurate to say that society “expresses the sum of
relations” instead of society “consists of the sum” of relations? Because, society is not
really the sum of these relationships, but rather a manifestation, an expression of all of the
relationships. Relationships exist in all kinds of different societies; every society is capable
of having mother-son relationships or tailor-farmer relationships. These relationships are
real things, but they are not unique to a given society. When all of these relationships are
added up they are a sum of those relationships, but that is not the same as society. It would
be better to call that sum something like “sum of relations” or “total relations.”
The reason for this? Because those relationships can exist in more than one, and in
more than one type, of society, and can be expressed in different ways. The relationship
between a son and a mother or a tailor and a farmer can exist in many kinds of societies,
but can take different forms. The form that a society takes is an expression of all of these
relationships. These relationships could express themselves in many different societal forms
(western society, eastern society, etc). Since these relationships can express themselves in
so many different forms, as so many different kinds of society, then it is more accurate to
say that a society is the expression of the sum of all relations rather than the relationships
themselves.
Think about this in a similar way to how we think about exchange-value. Exchange-value
is the surface manifestation of value, which is congealed human labor. In this case society
is to the sum of all relations between individuals as exchange-value is to value. Exchange
value is a surface manifestation, an expression, of the value of a commodity. In a similar
way, society is the surface manifestation, or expression, of the real relationships between
individuals.
Next Message by Proletarian is [448].
[456] Ryan: The reason why Marx states that society does not consist of individuals but
is an expression of the sum of the relations of these individuals is because Marx makes it
very clear in a few examples that the individual can not set value or define the abstract value
of labor but can only be a portion of the equation to define these items. Also Marx states
that characters (or roles) in a society do not have to have a specific individual to fill them but
only need the definition of what all of them do, examples being, fireman, police, teachers.
One fireman can not impact all of society but firemen as a whole can. I think that Marx’s
definition of value is the best example to express this. Marx explains that one party can
not determine the value of a single item, but that their actions can contribute to the value as
formulated by society. Value, according to Marx, is determined by society buying all items
that are produced at the value they see fit. Then that information makes its way back to the
producer, which in turn will create an equilibrium of its use of labor to maximize its efforts
to produce the goods the society had purchased.
122 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx’s definition of value shows that one individual does not make a society but their
actions can be expressed as a contribution to a whole.
Next Message by Ryan is [457].
[475] Jo: Marx uses the term “express” to better illustrate the expression of value in
society. A capitalist society is very individualistic. Marx is trying to help us to break out
of the individualist mindset and look at the output of society as a whole. Hans writes,
“the declaration that ‘society does not consist of individuals’ implies that ‘the social’ is
not reducible to the conscious actions and intentions of individuals” (p. 89). It is difficult
for a capitalist to think of labor as a congealed mass, with contributions from people with
different education levels being equally valuable. The term “express” brings us back to his
previous discussions of use-value and exchange-value, and helps us consider the labor force
as a whole, instead of as individual laborers whose labor is not equally valuable. Marx’s
statement also emphasizes his belief that the individual does not control society, but rather
that society grows, as Hans explains, “behind the backs of the individuals.” He reduces
trade between commodity owners to social interaction between the commodities themselves,
driving home the idea that society (or social relations involving any form of value) truly does
not consist of individuals.
Hans: What you say is a correct and insightful rendering of Marx’s thinking, but you are reading too much into
this one sentence. When Marx switched from “consist” to “express” in the sentence “Society does not consist of
individuals, but expresses the sum of relations in which the individuals stand,” I am almost certain he didn’t do it
for the reasons you describe, although the thoughts you describe were somewhere in his head.
Next Message by Jo is [476].
[485] Ferox: graded A+ Marx switches from ‘consist’ to ‘express’ in order to place emphasis
on the emergent properties of the capitalist system. To say a society ‘consists of’ is to
say that society is the total sum of individuals—that at the individual level of analysis capitalism
can be understood. This approach is the downfall of classical bourgeois economics.
Marx, however, realizes the gestalt characteristic of society—namely that the sum (of individual
exchange relations) is greater than its parts (individuals). By examining the emergent
behaviours of society, the interactions of individuals are understood from a more complete
level of analysis.
Hans: You are right! Had he said “consists” the second time, he would simply have switched from one kind
of atomism to a different kind, instead of viewing society as a totality of relations. It is not only the individual
relations, but the relations between the relations that matter. I knew this in [2008SP:97] but had forgotten it when I
wrote this Semester’s [155].
Message [485] referenced by [155]. Next Message by Ferox is [486].
[503] Spiral: Marx switches from “consist” to “express” as a way to better reflect the fluid,
intangible nature of social relations. Society is constantly in motion, vibrating in place, so
long as individuals are engaging in numerous social relations with each other society exists.
When these interactions stop individuals remain but no longer constitute a society because
as defined by Marx society is more than the sum of its parts i.e. society requires not only
individuals but relations between them too. It appears for Marx society is alive on a higher
plane which leaves the explanation “society consists of the sum of relations in which the
individuals stand” left wanting.
Next Message by Spiral is [504].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 123
Question 186 is 69 in 1995WI, 77 in 1995ut, 80 in 1996sp, 81 in 1996ut, 87 in 1997WI, 90
in 1997sp, 86 in 1997ut, 142 in 2005fa, and 162 in 2007fa:
Question 186 What does Marx understand to be the riddle of money? And how does he
solve this riddle in section 3?
[527] Kaush: Riddle of money. To Marx, the riddle of money is “money can buy everything”.
He solves the riddle by reasoning that money is the commodity’s own equivalent
form of value broken off into a specialized commodity such as gold.
Hans: The riddle of money is the question why money can buy everything. You did not answer this but you gave a
beautiful one-sentence summary of Marx’s theory what money is. Does Marx’s theory as you formulated it give an
answer why money can buy everything? For this you need one more step. Marx’s theory of money not only says
that money is a broken-off part of every commodity, but that every commodity must become this broken-off part
in order to function as a commodity. Commodities need to get laid, I mean need to get sold. The power of money
to buy everything comes from the commodities, not from money. Commodities have to catch up with the part of
themselves which has broken off.
Message [527] referenced by [555]. Next Message by Kaush is [554].
Question 188 is 125 in 2003fa, 142 in 2004fa, 143 in 2005fa, 160 in 2007SP, 163 in
2007fa, and 166 in 2008fa:
Question 188 Why doesn’t Marx say that the simplest value relation is that between commodity
and money?
[145] Orville: graded C Monetary Woes. As anyone in our class could tell you, Marx
isn’t the most traditional of people. It is no surprise therefore that he has a problem with
relating commodities and their seemingly infinitely many use-values with one monetary
value put on them by the market. I believe the reason he doesn’t say that there is a simple
equation between commodities and money is because in his eyes, that is not possible. By
proving so thoroughly that each item has a different use-value for just about any situation
you can think of, it makes sense that it can’t be represented by one amount of money.
As Hans says in [2008fa:267], “the place of a certain kind of use-values in an economy
cannot be measured by one number.” As we’ve discussed through our posts and as Marx
has said throughout Capital, you can’t simply look at an item and know what the use-value
because that depends on the future use of the item. A more concrete example of this might be
when someone asks you to use a word to describe your political views in a word. No matter
what word you choose, you can’t possibly express all of your views because one word could
never be enough. This example works much in the way that Marx believes monetary value
doesn’t represent the infinitely many dimensions a commodity possesses.
Hans: You are confusing use-value and value, something which should no longer happen at this point of the class.
As I said in [137], whenever Marx uses the word “value” without “use-” in front of it, he does not mean use-value
but he means value—the congealed abstract labor in the commodity which, if Marx’s theory is correct, makes
commodities exchangeable. Value relations are relations between commodities where they relate to each other as
globs of abstract human labor. These relations have nothing to do with the use-values of the commodities.
Message [145] referenced by [179]. Next Message by Orville is [190].
Question 195 The linen weaver’s willingness to trade her linen for a coat cannot be an
expression of the value of the linen, due to the principle that “bygones are bygones.” The
labor is a thing of the past, it no longer concerns the weaver; all that concerns her is what
124 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
exists in the present, which is the linen. The decision to trade the linen must therefore be
based on the linen itself and not on the labor used in the past to produce that linen. If the
linen weaver trades coat for linen, she therefore reveals her preference of the use-value of
the coat over that of the linen, and does not express the value of the linen. Is this a correct
argument, and if not, where is the error?
[140] Atticus: (graded A) Hey! I Made That. The error is in the very first sentence: “The
linen weaver’s willingness to trade her linen for a coat cannot be an expression of the value
of the linen, due to the principle that ‘bygones are bygones’” (annotations pp. 98). Hans
states that the decision of the weaver to exchange her linen for the coat is an expression of
value (ibid pp. 97). Although she may be unconscious of the value she places on her linen,
she instinctively trades her linen by personal knowledge for the amount of labor she used to
create the linen. She will attempt to exchange her linen for no less than she feels that she
deserves because she intuitively knows how much energy she expended to create the linen.
The linen has no use-value to the weaver but the coat does. However, the linen is carrier of
value and that is useful to the weaver to exchange for other use-value that she may need at
the time.
Hans: You are re-arguing why the coat is an expression of the value of the 20 yards of linen without specifically
addressing the “bygone is bygone” objection. Therefore my [151] tried to clarify what was asked.
Although you didn’t quite answer the question, what you did say is accurate except for one point. The linen
weaver is not free to decide how much linen she wants to offer for a coat. The exchange proportion between linen
and coat are given by the market. Marx says this in 147:2, but he does not work through the implications of this.
The linen weaver either has to trade linen for coat at the exchange relation given by the market, or she cannot make
the trade at all. If the coat is too expensive, she may have to keep herself warm with other means. If everything is
too expensive, she may have to quit being a linen weaver and produce something which pays better on the market.
All this changes the quantities supplied and demanded until prices are indeed proportional to labor content. See my
[2007SP:586] and [2005fa:966].
Next Message by Atticus is [225].
[151] Hans: Paul and Karl. Paul A Samuelson has a conversation with Karl Marx in
heaven. Paul says: If the linen weaver trades 20 yards of linen for one coat, this is not an
expression of the value of the linen, it simply means that 1 coat ranks higher in the weaver’s
utility function than 20 yards of linen.
Marx replies: no no, you see it all wrong. The linen weaver does not look at the linen
as a use-value. She does not need linen. Her dress, her bedspread, her wallpaper, her lamp
shades, are made of linen. Linen is coming out of her ears. She is maxed out on linen. She
does not need an ounce of extra linen. Yet she keeps producing linen, not because of the
use-value of the linen for her but because the linen is a carrier of value. She is materializing
her labor in linen because she is good at it, this is her specialty, and on the market she trades
her labor for someone else’s labor who has specialized in producing something the linen
weaver needs.
Karl really got going now, he can’t stop here, therefore he adds: I know you neoclassicals
have banished the concept of value from your thinking, but if you don’t think about it
this does not mean value suddenly goes out of existence. For every commodity producer,
including the linen weaver, it is important to get a fair reward for the labor they have put in.
Not because of the warm and fuzzy feeling of being treated fairly, but because a coat is not
the only thing the linen weaver needs. If she has to give the entire week’s linen product for

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 125
the coat, while the coat took only half a week for the tailor, then she is so much behind that
she won’t be able to afford the other things she needs.
Paul ignores Karl’s tirade about value, because in this ear he is indeed a little deaf. Instead
Paul says: It is irrational to go by the linen weaver’s intentions. You have to look at her
choice set. The linen is already produced, she can no longer go back and use her time in a
different fashion. Bygones are bygones. She must go by what she can change now. Right
now she has two options. Either keep the linen, or exchange the linen for the coat. If she
goes through with the exchange, this clearly means that the use-value of the coat is higher
for her than the use-value of the linen.
How would Karl respond to this? This is the subject of question 195.
Message [151] referenced by [140], [396], and [555]. Next Message by Hans is [155].
[396] School: Trading Coats for Linen. I would say that this is an incorrect argument.
Just because the weaver trades a coat for linen this doesn’t show the weaver’s preference for
linen. The linen weaver could have exchanged 50 coats for the same amount of linen and
this still would not reflect the weaver’s preference. If we were to write an equation for this it
would be 1 unit of linen = 1 unit of coat. Both the one unit of linen and the one unit of coat
could have changed in this equation. Although the exchange value is determined by labor it
is the linen and the coat that trade each other and not the weaver. That is why I think this is
an incorrect argument. It is because the commodities strangely trade themselves.
Hans: Linen and coat don’t trade themselves. Marx uses the metaphor in chapter Two that they are eager to change
places with each other, because for them an exchange is the social validation of the labor inside them, but the final
decision of the trade stays with the commodity owner, who not only looks at value but also use-value.
What you write has nothing to do with the bygones is bygones principle. You should have carefully read [151]
and continued the argument there.
Next Message by School is [397].
[480] Cosmopolita: When the linen weaver is willing to trade her linen for a coat, this
does not only express the value of her commodity towards a coat itself but also sets a “value”
of the linen itself. Now the linen has diffracted into a bewildering multitude of different
expressions.
Since the linen weaver might have multiple needs as well as other memebers of that
society and he active members of the market of trade it gives the linen a certain magnitude
for exchange purposes.
Hans: This resubmission has little to do with the question. Your in-class answer was better.
Next Message by Cosmopolita is [616].
[482] IrvingHowe: This argument is only half correct and deserves explanation in any
event. First, the labor invested by the linen weaver cannot simply dismissed as “bygones.”
Rather, it is this very labor that instills the linen’s exchange value. That is, had she not
invested an amount of labor similar to the amount needed for the production of the coat, she
could not have made the trade.
Second, it may be that in a state devoid of all possessions that the weaver may in fact
prefer the use value of her linen to that of a coat. However, her circumstances do tell us that
she must prefer the use value of the coat. Probably due to the fact that she has an abundance
of linen.
Hans: You don’t have the right answer, but nobody did this Semester, and at least you are asking the right questions.
126 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [483].
Exam Question 199 is 72 in 1995WI, 80 in 1995ut, 83 in 1996sp, 84 in 1996ut, 90 in
1997WI, 93 in 1997sp, 88 in 1997ut, 95 in 1998WI, 112 in 2000fa, 117 in 2001fa, and 147
in 2004fa:
Exam Question 199 Explain the different parts played by coat and linen in the equation
“20 yards of linen = 1 coat.”
[319] RexManning: graded A My time to explain one equation. In the equation, 20
yards of linen = 1 coat, the 20 yards of linen is playing an active role, where the coat is
playing a passive role. The role of the linen is active because the weaver did not labor to
make 20 yards of linen for herself, she produced the linen in order to exchange it for her
other needs, in this case a coat, and until her need is met, she will actively look for ways to
meet this need. The active role of the linen can also be described as having a “relative form
of value,” meaning, its value is considered in relation to something else, the coat. Where the
coat takes on the “equivalent form of value,” because it is in need by someone, the weaver,
who has a commodity that can be used to pay for the coat.
Message [319] referenced by [320]. Next Message by RexManning is [337].
[320] Hans: The emphasis is on “different”. RexManning’s [319] is the kind of answer
I am looking for. I want you to stress the differences in the roles. The linen is the commodity
which expresses its value, this is the active role. The coat serves as measure of value.
Next Message by Hans is [323].
Question 247 is 103 in 1995WI, 125 in 1998WI, and 180 in 2005fa:
Question 247 Labor was not equal in Ancient Greece—how could the Greeks then exchange?
[164] Robert: (graded A–) Slaves’ labor is also value. This question seems to go right
to the heart of Marx’s argument. Even though owners of slaves in Ancient Greece (or early
U.S.) did not pay for the labor of their slaves the commodities the slaves still imbued the
commodities they produced with value. The Greeks implicitly recognized this value when
they exchanged products even though they explicitly did not recognize it when it came to
rewarding the slave workers for the value they created.
It is not such a far step from the plight of the slave to that of the exploited worker. If a
worker does not receive fair compensation for the value he creates she is exploited by the
owner of the means of production for the labor value she creates in excess of the fairly compensated
labor. She receives no more compensation for this excess labor than a slave receives
for his labor. Slaves in Ancient Greece produced value that was kept by their owners or exchanged
by their owners for other value which they kept. Likewise, owners of production
exchange or keep the excess value created by their exploited workers for themselves.
Hans: You are addressing an important issue. A worker—whether a wage worker or slave—does not create any
less value because he or she is not fairly compensated for the value created. The difference between the value they
create and what they get (either in wages, as the wage worker, or in food and housing, as the slave) is the profit of
the slave owner or owner of the means of production.
Two remarks about this:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 127
(a) slave labor in antiquity was primarily used for the consumption needs of the slave owner, not for profit.
Therefore your remarks are more applicable to slavery in the US than to slavery in ancient Greece.
(b) Question 247 does not address the exploitation of slaves but asks a more fundamental question about Marx’s
value theory. Marx is telling us that by exchanging their products, the producers acknowledge that the labor in these
products are equal. Ancient Greece seems a counterexample to this: although commodities were exchanged, labor
was clearly not equal. Marx himself says in 151:5/o that labor was not equal in Greece—and it does not disturb
him that this seems to contradict his theory of commodity production. Should he be disturbed?
Message [164] referenced by [549]. Next Message by Robert is [167].
[549] Kiko: The Greeks could exchange based on the fact that even though the one
particular individual (master) did not labor. He/she owned the labor produced by the slave
by caring for, feeding, providing basic needs. This gave the ownership of the slave’s labor to
himself. The “master” could then in turn take “his” commodities to the market for exchange.
Value has no regards for who actually made the item, just the output. Example: One does
not have to do anything much to a tree for it to bear fruit, but if one owned the land that the
tree is on then he can harvest the fruit and exchange it for other commodities without having
to actually bear the fruit. He only has to have the capacity and the knowledge to procure the
fruit and make the exchange. For the man does labor, but more so in the exchange and not
the production.
Hans: Regarding your last sentence: According to Marx, the labor used for the exchange process (writing the price
signs and waiting for buyers on the market) does not create value. But you described part of the labor of the tree
grower in the previous sentence: the necessary knowledge takes labor to acquire, then also the labor of irrigating,
pest control, protecting the trees from frost and snow if necessary, harvesting, transportation and storage of the
fruit. All these take economic resources which have labor embodied in them.
Generally about your answer, you ignored my remark (b) in [164]. This hurt your grade (more in the resubmission
than in the in-class answer).
Next Message by Kiko is [1205].
Question 249 I just wrote: “The power of commodity B to purchase A is an expression of
the value of A.” Shouldn’t it rather be: “The power of commodity B to purchase A is an
expression of the value of B”?
[147] Alex: graded B– A vs. B. Once again, Marx directs back to the ideas of use value
and exchange value to describe some of the elements of a commodity. In this case, he
talks about the value relation of a commodity, which is also the exchange relation, as being
born from the production of the commodity. When Marx compares two commodities, he
compares the amount of labor being put in these items. The value of these items is according
to Hans “the abstract human labor in equal amounts” which comes to the conclusion that the
exchange relation is represented by the exchangeability of these two items in regards to
the labor put into them. Marx then states that “the value of a commodity is independently
expressed through its representation as ‘exchange-value’,” and as Hans explains, “the power
of commodity B to purchase A is an expression of the value of A which is independent of its
use value.” To answer the question in this segment, I think that Hans did not say “the power
of commodity B to purchase A is an expression of the value of B” as opposed to “the power
of commodity B to purchase A is an expression of the value of A” because here Marx is
highlighting the exchange value of A, and so measures it as A’s intrinsic value, and labor it
took to complete it, and how much it’s worth (I’m guessing that’s what it means when it says
the “power” of the commodity). So then in my own words: the power or ability of item B to
128 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
purchase item A is measured by how much A is worth, or is measured by how much labor
it took to complete A, as a comparison to item B. So if A is an expensive commodity, like
diamonds, the power ability of B, say pencils is very low, because the labor it took to make
pencils would be insignificant compared to the labor in producing diamonds. If it would
have been “the power of commodity B to purchase A is an expression of the value of B,”
this would turn out to be: the ability of B to purchase A is measured as B’s value. In the
example, it would be: the power of pencils to purchase diamonds is measured on how much
pencils are worth, which doesn’t make sense to me, because diamonds will always be worth
more than pencils, or have a higher exchange value than pencils according to the labor it
took to make them. To me, the first statement that Hans made in the annotations made sense,
and I would not think the latter comparison would fit coherently as did the first comparison
in the annotations.
Hans: Here you are making a mistake similar to your mistake in [4] of attributing to Marx himself things which
Marx says are done by the markets. You are writing: “When Marx compares two commodities, he compares the
amount of labor being put in these items.” You should have said: “According to Marx’s theory of capitalism, if the
capitalist market exchanges two commodities, it makes a comparison of them—a comparison based on the amount
of labor put in these items.”
Another sentence of yours says “here Marx is highlighting the exchange value of A, and so measures it as
A’s intrinsic value.” I am tempted to respond to this with a similar formulation as Zaratustra [97]: “Marx is here
explaining capitalism and not highlighting anything.” Marx is describing how the market highlights (Marx uses the
word “expresses”) certain aspects of production in the sphere of circulation but he does not do his own highlighting.
Kraken made the same mistake in [78]. I am a puzzled that you are reverting to an error which you made in [4]
and which I thought my [12] explained in detail. In [31] you didn’t make this mistake, or did I just not notice? Did
you think Marx considered only some of the exchange-values generated by the market to be valid in the sense of
conforming with what Marx thought exchange-values should be? If you did, then this was wrong too.
Message [147] referenced by [149]. Next Message by Alex is [290].
[149] Hans: Pencils Versus Diamonds, Oops Linen Versus Coats. Alex [147] picked
an interesting question which goes to the heart of the subject matter of the currently assigned
readings. This question can be posed in two different scenarios, with the answer being the
same in both.
First scenario: we are in a direct barter society without money. The linen weaver has
produced linen all week long, and on Saturday she goes to market and offers her linen for
trade. She announces that she is willing to give 20 yards of linen in exchange for 1 coat and
asks if there are any takers. By this offer she enables a coat (commodity B) to “purchase”
20 yards of linen (commodity A). In other words, after hearing her offer, the tailor is free to
decide whether he wants to approach the linen weaver, give her 1 coat, and receive 20 yards
of linen in exchange, as if he had purchased the linen with the coat. Is this an expression
of the value of the linen or of the coat? From the point of view of the linen weaver, it is
an expression of the value of the linen. She knows exactly the expenses and the labor that
goes into the linen, but the does not know very well the expenses and the labor going into
the coat. But the knows the use-value of the coat, and she needs a new coat because winter
is coming. In view of this knowledge, she is willing to give twenty yards of linen for a coat.
This is an expression of the value of the linen in the use-value of the coat. It cannot be an
expression of the value of the coat because the linen weaver does not even know the value
of the coat. But if a tailor agrees to make this trade, then for him this is an expression of the
value of his coat in the use-value of the 20 yards of linen.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 129
Second scenario: We are in a monetized economy, say gold is money. We are no longer
privy to the knowledge or the needs of the linen weaver, instead we are observing the market.
We see what people do in the market without knowing why they do it. We see the linen
weaver offering 20 yards of linen for 1 ounce of gold. She does this because she needs a
coat, and the coat is offered elsewhere for 1 ounce of gold. We do not know this half of it,
we only see that she is offering 20 yards of linen for 1 ounce of gold. Is this an expression
of the value of the linen or the value of the gold? It is again an expression of the value of the
linen, because it compares the linen with all the other things 1 ounce of gold can buy. It by
itself is not an expression of the value of the gold. The value of 1 ounce of gold is expressed
in all the use-values this ounce of gold could buy, not just the linen.
Marx gives both these scenarios. Although Marx himself does not stress this, I think the
parallelism of the linen weaver’s individual motivation with the general information exposed
by the market is important. It allows the individual market participants to use the market to
express the values of their goods. The expression no longer just lives in the brain of the
linen weaver. Rather it sends information about the value of the linen to the other market
participants, as if the other market participants were able to read her thoughts. (The same
for all the other commodities.)
Message [149] referenced by [154], [363], and [2012fa:478]. Next Message by Hans is [151].
[363] Lindsey: Money expresses the value of other things. B is an expression of the
value of A because it is the “equivalent form of value” of A. It represents that A has the
ability to fetch other commodities. Paper money is a clearer representation of this because it
represents the value of other goods but no one would actually exchange anything for money
if it did not have the socially-given power to represent the value of other goods. Money (the
equivalent form of value) measures the value of other goods with a quantitative price tag,
those goods that you can buy with money do not represent the value of money.
Hans: If I understand you right, you are saying: in a paper money regime, a price cannot be the expression of the
value of money because money does itself not have value but it is just paper. But even if money is valuable gold
coins, the argument can still be made that a price is not the expression of the value of money. I showed in [149]
how to argue this.
Next Message by Lindsey is [403].
[421] Jon: The first way that this is put is the correct way to say this sentence: “The
power of commodity B to purchase A is an expression of the value of A.” The 20 yards of
linen (commodity A) is used in exchange for 1 coat (commodity B), the weaver knows the
labor and the time and expense that went into producing the linen when they place the coat
as what they wish to exchange for the tailor has an option to accept or deny that offer. At
this point of the transaction the weaver knows the use value of the coat but not the value of
the coat, this is how it is seen that the value of the linen or commodity A is expressed in the
coat but the coat is not. One thing not to forget is that if the tailor accepts the offer of 20
yards of linen for the 1 coat then the value of the coat is now known since it must equal that
of the 20 yards of linen for the exchange to take place.
Next Message by Jon is [661].
[435] Fisher: The value of commodity A, according to Marx, is “expressed by the direct
exchangeability of commodity B with A”. So, as A gets a value by being compared to commodity
B in a possible exchange, B also is given a value based on its ability to be exchanged
130 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
with A, or another commodity. I think what he is basically saying here is that as commodities
are compared with other commodities in the market place, they qualitatively express
their individual values through their ability to be exchanged with another commodity. Only
through demand for one commodity can it gain value, after it is compared with another in
the market. So, I think that the power of commodity B and A are equally as powerful of an
expression of both of their values, since they both represent value and are exchanged.
Hans: How commodities express their values is a different question than how they “gain” value.
Next Message by Fisher is [585].
[472] Hal: graded A+ For commodities A and B, we assume that if B is purchasing A,
that means the producer of A made the initial offer to exchange A for B. For example, the
producer of A may offer to sell 1 unit of A for 3 units of B. B purchasing A means the
producer of B accepts the producer of A’s offer and exchanges 3 units of B for 1 unit of A.
The producer of A bases her exchange offer on the value of A, which she knows intimately,
and the use-value that she would receive from B. She does not base her offer, on the value of
B, so the power of B to purchase A is not a reflection of the value of B; it is only a reflection
of the value of A and the use-value of B. As a side note, if the producer of B decides to
accept the offer, he would be basing that decision on the value of B and the use-value of A,
so his decision to accept or reject the offer is a reflection of the value of B.
Next Message by Hal is [633].
Question 261 is 216 in 2007fa, 223 in 2008SP, 221 in 2008fa, 234 in 2009fa, 225 in
2011fa, and 235 in 2012fa:
Question 261 How does it become plain here that it is not the exchange of commodities
which regulates the magnitude of their values, but rather the reverse, it is the magnitude of
the value of commodities which regulates the proportion in which they are exchanged?
[171] KA: Magnitude of value. Marx discusses that the magnitude of which value is
created in a commodity must be widely accepted as the common means of an exchange
for other commodities. This magnitude is established as a common denominator when an
exchange is done. This common denominator, say linen, sets the basis for the proportion in
which other commodities are valued to, say coats. In his example, 20 yards of linen can be
exchanged for 1 coat, suggests that the common denominator is linen. The magnitude of the
commodity’s value is 20 vs 1.
The magnitude of the value in this example suggest that 1 coat has a higher valuation to
the consumer than their 1 yard of linen, and, therefore, requires additional yards of linen
(20) to equal (or be in proportion) to the value of 1 coat. This magnitude establishes the
proportion of 20 yards for 1 coat. A common agreement must be established between both
parties in order for an exchange to be made. The coat merchant established the value of
their coat to cover all associated costs of labor, is of a higher magnitude for its production
than the labor embodied in the production of 1 yard of linen. While linen is the common
denominator for an exchange (in this example), its value in comparison to a coat is in lower
proportions. Marx’s example suggests that the significance of the commodities is the basis
for determining in what proportion an exchange can be made.
Hans: Question 261 was posed in the context of the Expanded form of value, where 20 yards of linen is in the
relative form, and coat, tea, iron, gold etc. are in the equivalent form. The equivalent form is the denominator. I.e.,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 131
instead of measuring many different commodities with one denominator, which would be the right way to do it, and
which is what you have in mind, Marx arrived at one commodity measuring itself in many different denominators.
Marx arrived at the wrong way of measuring value because there is a natural transition from the Simple form to
the Expanded form. After hopping up to the Expanded form he must turn the Expanded form around to get to the
General form which is the right way to do it.
These forms of value do not come from the “valuation to the consumers” or “significance of the commodities.”
If you say that, then you are confusing use-value and exchange-value and you will get a bad grade as the others
who said this.
Message [171] referenced by [178], [179], [186], and [2012fa:196]. Next Message by KA is [176].
[178] Kraken: (graded A) Fluctuating value? Marx believed that a commodity had value
because human labor power was expended in the creation of said commodity. Please read
this as a correction to [171]! If that is the case, the value of the commodity would remain
constant, regardless of the proportion at which it was exchanged for other commodities. In
the short term, there will always be unequal exchanges in which something containing a lot
of human labor power is exchanged for something containing little human labor power. This
is due to spikes in demand for certain commodities. But in the long-run, the proportion at
which commodities are traded will eventually return to trades containing equal amounts of
human labor power. An example would be several years ago when “Tickle Me Elmo” dolls
were extremely popular. Although the human labor power used in the production of the dolls
did not change, the price which people were willing to pay, using their human labor power,
to get the dolls continued to increase. Eventually supply met demand (and people returned
to their senses) and people returned to the long run condition of exchanging equal amounts
of human labor power (until the next fad came along).
Hans: You write: “the value of the commodity ... remain(s) constant, regardless of the proportion at which it (is)
exchanged for other commodities.” You are right, Marx differentiates between value and price. Prices can deviate
from values, but values are the “center of gravity” for prices.
Message [178] referenced by [179], [186], and [402]. Next Message by Kraken is [228].
[179] Hans: A thank you to Kraken for setting the record straight. KA [171] and
Kraken [178] discuss the mechanism through which the magnitude of value of commodities
regulates the exchange proportions. This is not exactly the same as the question, which
quotes Marx 155:3/o and asks how the Expanded form of value makes it plain that the
exchange proportions come from value. But it is close enough, and it is certainly an issue
that needs explanation.
I commend Kraken for not following KA in saying that in Marx’s theory value is assigned
by consumers, just as in mainstream economics. Kraken states right at the beginning that
value comes from labor. According to Marx, value is created in production, not in marketing
or consumption. Kraken should have made it clearer that the price drop after the initial fad is
not only due to the fad wearing off, but also due to increasing quantities supplied. Producers
allocate more production capacity, ultimately more labor, to those things that sell well. This
reallocation of labor only stops when all labor is equally recognized by the market, i.e.,
when prices are proportional to (direct and indirect) labor input. (This is the rough story, it
abstracts from some finer points.)
KA is not the only one who thinks that Marx’s theory of value is identical to mainstream
utility theory. Messages [43], [49], [131], [133], [145], and [156] made the same error. It
is an issue for some, therefore Kraken’s submission was probably helpful for many class
132 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
participants. I wrote in the syllabus that I want you to help others understand the material.
Kraken did this, and in order to reward him for this I added a cross reference into his
submission and he will get a full participation point for this cross reference.
Message [179] referenced by [378]. Next Message by Hans is [184].
[186] JJ: What came first the Chicken, or the commodity value? I agree with Kraken
[178] in that Marx has made it very clear that value of a given commodity is determined
by the amount of human labor that has gone into it. Marx elaborates on this very subject
throughout this chapter. If this expression of value of a commodity as a factor of the human
labor that went into it has still escaped us, then we might try reading the annotations much
slower on our second go around. I am finding that I must read them slowly thrice.
After completing a very long and microscopic analysis of the relationship of use value,
exchange value, relative value, and equivalent value, Marx very clearly states, “Our analysis
has proved that the value form or the expression of value of the commodity springs from
the nature of the commodity value, instead of value and magnitude of value springing from
their mode of expression as exchange-value.” [Capital, 152:2/o]. I believe that in this one
statement he very clearly sums up his arguments thus far and at the same time provides us an
answer to question 261. It is clear up to this point that he has established that the nature of
the commodity value is the human labor that was put into making the commodity. He also
clearly states that it is this human labor that determines its magnitude of value, and hence the
magnitude of value that determines the proportions in which the commodity is exchanged
for its equivalent value of another commodity. Thus he has finally solved the great riddle
and shown that it was the chicken that came before the egg and not the other way around.
Marx clearly warns of the perils of considering the expression of value as a merely quantitative
relationship. Rather, he shows that we can only really begin to express relative value
of one commodity by showing its equivalent form in another commodity. He further shows
that we can only begin to consider the proportion in which they are exchanged, by considering
the amount of labor that went into these commodities. I believe that he is setting us up
to really see that the only common form of value in any commodity is human labor which
will allow him to dispel our capitalist ideas about the value of money being the basis for
exchange. Hans shows us in his response to [2007fa:101] that Marx indeed is preparing our
minds to accept this basic barter system and show its expression of value in labor before
introducing us to the more complex barter system of money.
Making the mistake that it is by some common agreement of the owners of a commodity
which determines the exchange value, as in KA [171], is incorrect. This implies that it
is the owner of the commodity that determines that commodity’s value, and that he might
only exchange it if he gains greater utility from his exchange. This type of utility form
of value makes the other mistake that Marx warns us about. That is the mistake of the
neo-mercantilists of placing too much emphasis on the qualitative side of the expression of
value, and hence on the form of its final equivalent value, money. Determining exchange
proportions or exchange rates on one’s preference ultimately discounts the true commodity
form of labor. Allowing exchange proportions in this manner could lead to classism, where
the human labor of one is valued over the human labor of another. In [Kraken] [178] we
are given the example of the “Tickle Me Elmo” doll. I’m nearly certain that there was an

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 133
Ebay market for these dolls where they were being sold at exorbitant prices. The exorbitant
asking price of the seller was a qualitative assessment of the exchange proportion of Elmo
dolls to money rather than an equivalent value of money to the relative value of the doll in
terms of labor. Thus Marx leaves no place for greed of a seller when determining exchange
proportions.
Although Marx clearly answers q.261 in showing us how things should ideally be; I don’t
believe that he is saying that the reverse does not happen as stated in the question. That is
to say that in some circumstances in capitalist society, I think he would agree that, we do
let the exchange of commodities regulate the magnitude of their values. If we only look at
the quantitative side of the value expression then we have nothing. We have no value and no
magnitude of value, except in the expression of value in the exchange relation. This is why
we could all be millionaires now in our capitalist society, if we had only bought AIG when
it was down to 50 cents a share. This is an extreme example but I think it paints the picture
of how ignoring the real labor value of commodity can be dangerous.
Lastly, [Kraken] [178] states that “the value of the commodity remains constant, regardless
of the proportion at which it is exchanged for other commodities.” Hans agrees with this
definition. I am slightly confused by this definition. I understand that the value of the commodity
is independent of the proportion at which it is exchanged for other commodities, but
do not see how the value of a commodity can remain constant. I refer to the examples that
Marx gives in this section to the variable amount of labor that might go into the production
of Linen from year to year. He gives three examples: I, II, and II; that show how poor soil
for flax or better looms will change the amount of labor that went into 20 yards of linen.
This changes the relative value of linen to an equivalent value of some other commodity. Is
this not an example of the value of commodity fluctuating?
Hans: You escaped the error about the origin of value only to run into the other common misunderstaning about
Marx, that Marx “shows us how things should ideally be.” Sorry, the world is complicated.
Regarding constancy of value, I don’t think Kraken [178] meant to say that value is immune to technical
change—it is not. But if commodities are sold at prices above their values, this will not cause their value to
change. Marx does not believe that prices can sometimes determine value. He thinks value comes from labor, and
most prices are determined either directly or through a detour by values. (There is an occasional price which is
determined by extra-economic forces, such as the price of labor and the interest rate.)
Next Message by JJ is [256].
[378] Oreo: graded A To answer this question, we must first understand what value is.
Marx describes value as the amount of abstract labor congealed within a commodity. It
is intrinsic to the commodity and is generated during the commodity’s production. Therefore,
value does not change after production. The exchange of commodities simply cannot
regulate the magnitude of the commodity’s values because the values are already predetermined.
Exchange of a commodity cannot change its intrinsic value. Since the commodity
has this predetermined magnitude of value in it when it enters the market, it is able to regulate
the proportion in which commodities are exchanged. Quantities of the commodity to be
exchanged are based on the magnitude of its value.
Hans: In order to fully answer the question you should also say how the facts as you describe them “become plain”
in the Expanded form of value. But as I said in [179], just describing these facts is close enough for an answer,
especially in an exam.
Next Message by Oreo is [606].
134 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[402] SMIKEC: Value is set by society as a whole. Individuals can not come in and set
their own prices, well, I guess they could but wouldn’t be very successful, unless society
supported them. If the going rate on peaches is $2, you can’t come in and charge $4. As
stated by Hans in response to [178] “Marx differentiates between value and price. Prices
can deviate from values, but values are the ‘center of gravity’ for prices.” In today’s society
people would spend $8 on an organic peach or an inflated price for a tickle me Elmo as stated
by Kraken. This is created by the hype of the item or prestige of having one. It’s a keeping
up with the Jones’ idea that they need one no matter what the price is. Even though prices
can flucuate above the market, again, the value has not changed, because the production
process has aready been completed and doesn’t change once it is put into the market. The
price of the commodity in the long run will come back down to its value or even drop below
after the craze is over. Hence, is tickle me Elmo even still around?!
Next Message by SMIKEC is [561].
[424] JB: graded A The belief that exchange of commodities regulates the magnitude of
their values represents the orthodox view where value is determined by supply and demand.
However, Marx believes that supply and demand only account for the fluctuations of price
around a constant value. That constant is determined by the amount of labor embodied in a
commodity.
First Message by JB is [422].
[459] Balrog: graded C+ Magnitude of Value Regulates Exchange. Value is the amount
of labor used in the production of a commodity. The exchange of commodities can not
regulate values because the rate of exchange fluctuates.
Robert gave an effective example in [14]. He stated that during the period of Hurricane
Katrina a bottle of water would have held a much higher price than normal due to the current
situation. Outside conditions can cause the exchange value of a good to fluctuate whereas
the magnitude of labor intrinsic in a commodity does not change.
When determining the value of a commodity we determine how much value or human
labor power it contains. (The magnitude of its value). This is what is used to regulate the
proportion in which the commodity is exchanged.
Hans: What you say in your last paragraph seems similar to [2009fa:519]. Look at the links I give there.
Next Message by Balrog is [460].
[466] Zohan: Value not magnitude. Marx believes that value is not determined by the
price or the worth of a commodity. But, he would say that value is created in the production
process by the amount of “socially necessary labor time” put into the commodity. Not all
commodities have the same amount of socially necessary labor time, therefore, different
commodities will have different values. In an exchange each party trades for a different
commodity. But in many cases the different commodities will have different values, or in
other words they have different amounts of labor time in their production. In order for an
exchange to occur an equal amount of value must be exchanged. For example, if a coat
has twice the value of a hat, then in order for an exchange to happen, one would need to
exchange two hats to receive one coat. This indicates that it is the value of a commodity that
regulates the proportions of which they are exchanged, not the other way around.
Hans: I edited in the word “necessary” where you consistently used the phrase “socially labor-time.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 135
You are illustrating what it means what Marx believes to be the case, but you are not giving any arguments to
support or contest it.
Next Message by Zohan is [468].
[489] Hit: It is the magnitude of the value of commodities which regulates the proportion
in which they are exchanged because a car is worth a lot more than a bicycle. So when a
person wants to exchange their car for a different commodity they are going to assert the
value of their car first then they will look at the value of what they are trading for to make
an equal trade.
Hans: That a car is worth a lot more than a bicycle is not the reason why the magnitude of value regulates prices.
And the next sentence is something from chapter Two which has nothing to do with the question.
First Message by Hit is [253].
[508] Phayze: graded A It is essential to first recognize that “value” according to Marx, is
created within the production process through the utilization of “human labor power”. The
labor power expelled during the production process animates itself as “congealed abstract
labor” within the commodity. This congealed labor then manifests itself as “value” of the
commodity. So it is within the production process rather than the surface exchange relations
that the regulation of the commodities’ magnitude of value is established. The magnitude
of value is therefore determined by the amount of “socially necessary labor time” needed
to produce a commodity. Value does however manifest itself on the surface relations in
exchange value. Since it was determined that values are all qualitatively similar (derivatives
of abstract labor), the only difference would be of a quantitative nature. The perpetual theme
of “quantitative differences implying qualitative equality”, is then applied to abstract labor
to arrive at a homogeneous “essence” equal in all labor processes. This commonality is
identified as “labor power”, and the theme is again applied to it...
Next Message by Phayze is [509].
Question 264 is 154 in 2001fa, 199 in 2004fa, 219 in 2007fa, 224 in 2008fa, and 240 in
2012fa:
Question 264 Why doesn’t Marx go from the Simple form of value directly to the General
form of value by letting everyone express their values in the same commodity?
[170] LuBr: Homogenizing the form of value: from abstraction to social coordination.
The concepts involving this question were brought up in class, and so it is my intent to utilize
what Hans touched upon, as well as my own understanding from Chapter 1.3, to answer this
question.
Marx begins this section by trying to understand how the general public knows the
amount of labor embodied in the production of commodities when these commodities are
produced in a black box and then exchanged on the market. He begins by abstracting away
the necessity for prices and money. These simply (however importantly) serve as a measure
of value. Money does not explain the form by which these commodities express their value
on the market.
Through abstraction, he starts by outlining his Simple form of value. On this basic level of
accidental exchange, 20 yards of linen is equivalent to 1 coat. This exchange was facilitated
because the weaver of linen knows how much socially-necessary labor was embodied in the
production of 20 yards or linen, and enters into the exchange seeking a commodity with the
136 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
use-value of 1 coat. In this exchange, the value of the linen is reflected in the use-value of
the coat. While Marx comes to an form of value different from the commodity’s use-value,
one runs into the situation of a highly relative form of value that would vary qualitatively for
all commodities.
Instead of moving from the Simple form of value to the General form, which gives rise
to the introduction of money, Marx brings an intermediate step which serves to negate the
negation that Marx arrived at in the Simple form of value abstraction. In the Expanded form
of Value Marx develops further the idea of the form of value by introducing more use-values
that the weaver of linen is going to want to exchange for her 20 yards of linen. Marx admits
that this is still an abstraction in the absence of money, but could potentially work in a social
exchange whereby there is one dominant commodity that is used to exchange for a range of
other commodities (i.e cattle in an agrarian society). If we continue with linen, all use-values
contained in the body of each individually equivalent commodity now reflects the value of
linen. Again, this is a further and more illustrative step in distancing value from use-value,
because we have many different commodities with many different use values that reflect
the value of linen. Also, the Expanded form of value introduces the idea that exchange
is social and does not just begin and end with 1 producer meeting another in an informal
market. However, the major defect is that by differentiating value from use-value to such an
extent, value in this intermediate stage loses all form of 1-dimensionality. Now value is not
equivalent to any value.
However, the most significant reason for Marx to include this intermediary step before
reaching and developing the General form of value is to illustratively inverse the expanded
form of value, to arrive at the General form of value. In this way, value becomes homogenous
with no qualitative differences. The Expanded form of value illustrative a case in which
one form of value, that of linen, was expressed in countless use-values, and thus no one
commodity could serve as the expression of value. To express value in any one commodity,
means to express every other commodity relatively and equivalently.
Marx uses the General form of value to do just he opposite, and homogenize value around
one socially agreed to commodity. All other commodities gain an expression of their value
through general convergence around this commodity. By taking us through the intermediary
form of value we see clearly the General form is the best way to measure value, because it
allows us to view all commodities as equivalent and directly exchangeable. This becomes a
united, social expression and coordination of the world’s commodities whose exchanges on
the surface represent the productive core of the economy.
Message [170] referenced by [173], [497], and [2012fa:180]. Next Message by LuBr is [263].
[173] Hans: Clarifications. I’m extremely pleased with LuBr [170]. Here are some
clarifications, things I wish I had said more clearly last night in class. LuBr writes:
[Marx] begins by abstracting away the necessity for prices and money.
Marx does not abstract away the necessity for prices and money, he abstracts away money.
He begins with a counterfactual situation without prices and money in order to derive why
prices and money are necessary. Marx begins with a developed exchange economy without
money—something he knows cannot exist, that’s why I called it a counterfactual—because

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 137
he is trying to explain how money comes about. Not the historical process but the structural
necessity that wherever there is commodity production there is also, by necessity, some form
of money.
LuBr continues:
These [prices and money] simply (however importantly) serve as a measure
of value. Money does not explain the form by which these commodities
express their value on the market.
LuBr should have said: the existence of money, whose first and most important function
is to serve as a measure of value, is one of the ways how the production in the black box
projects information about itself on the surface of the economy or, as LuBr says, to the
general public. Being money is, as Marx says, a “form of value.” Only one commodity can
be in this form. Money allows all other commodities to express their values in prices. A
price is also a “form of value.” All commodities (except the money commodity) can have
prices.
You may wonder why I am so enthusiastic about LuBr if he says exactly the opposite of
what I say he should have said. Answer: saying the exact opposite of the truth is sometimes
infinitely closer to the truth than saying something unrelated to the truth—because all you
need now is a mirror to invert it. (This message here tries to be this mirror.)
Since we are already (implicitly) talking about negation of negation, here is another point
where I’d like to clarify LuBr. LuBr says:
Instead of moving from the Simple form of value to the General form,
which gives rise to the introduction of money, Marx brings an intermediate
step which serves to negate the negation that Marx arrived at in the Simple
form of value abstraction.
This is an interesting perspective on Marx’s methodology. LuBr views the abstraction
(which omits money) as a negation of empirical reality and the Expanded form of value as
the negation of the negation. This could be called an epistemological dialectic, the dialectic
of Marx’s scientific process. This interpretation is defensible, but it is not the usual interpretation
how Marx’s development in section 3 of chapter One can be viewed as a negation
of a negation. The usual interpretation gives an ontological dialectic, the dialectic of reality
itself: the Simple form of value is the point of departure, the Expanded form is its negation,
and the General form the negation of the negation.
It is not possible to go in one step from the barter of commodities to a money economy.
You need two steps: you have to negate the barter, and then you have to negate the result
of this negation. In some sense this second negation is a return to barter—because sale or
purchase of a commodity look like a direct barter in which one of the bartered commodities is
money. But in another sense the second negation preserves the gains from the first negation
(the Expanded form of value)—because money is not an isolated individual commodity, but
money is connected to all commodities through the prices of these commodities.
Message [173] referenced by [434]. Next Message by Hans is [174].
138 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[365] Kleenex: Marx takes a while in developing his argument and doesn’t jump immediately
from the Simple form of value to the General form because there are many layers
of analysis to peel back to get to the heart of the matter. Marx starts at the Simple form of
value, comparing two ordinary commodities. Marx writes in Capital 139:2 that it is obvious
that “the simplest value relation is that of one commodity to a single commodity of a different
kind.” He uses the example of coats and linen, that 20 yards of linen can be exchanged
for 1 coat. The coat serves as the embodiment of the linen’s value, or the medium through
which the linen expresses its value. The coat is an “incarnation of value,” as Marx writes.
He then transitions into the relative and equivalent values. Here the linen is in the relative
form of value, and the coat in the equivalent form. This illustrates their relational paradox:
they can’t be separated from each other, but they are totally different, yet they express the
same value. We soon find out that the coat is an equivalent or “thing exchangeable” for the
linen. As he writes throughout the text, “20 yards of linen = 1 coat,” and vice versa. Next, he
writes about the expanded form of value: now the 20 yards of linen not only equals 1 coat,
but it can also be exchanged for 5 pounds of wheat, or 1 chicken, or 2 pieces of jewelry, just
to illustrate. The linen’s exchange value is no longer expressed only in the coat, but also in
many other commodities. Finally, he discusses the General form of value, in which all other
commodities are expressing their values in a general equivalent, money. Here’s where the
“negation of the negation” comes into play. Marx now inverses the argument and introduces
money as a same equivalent. Money, in the proper quantity, (since qualitative asymmetry
exists), can purchase a vast array of commodities, if not all commodities. Money, in a
way, gives a standard of which the market can standardize exchange value without having to
barter. So in short, Marx did not go directly from Simple to General forms of value because
it would have given inadequate information and would not have done the development of his
argument justice.
Hans: It is impossible to jump from the original state directly to the negation of the negation; you have to go to
the negation first. But this is a too general argument; I’d like to see in that particular example what is the obstacle
to going directly to the negation of the negation.
Next Message by Kleenex is [379].
[380] KA: Simple to General Form. The Simple form expresses exchanges in “equivalent
forms” of value. For example, the Simple form of value looks at the exchange value of (one)
commodity A for another commodity B, in terms of commodity A. Marx did not go directly
to the General form from the Simple form because there needs to be a transition phase. This
transition phase is the Expanded form. The Expanded form expresses exchanges through
“generally accepted social forms of value,” so long as one commodity can be exchanged for
many different commodities. The Expanded form introduces the common denominator of
an exchange, for example cattle, for other goods. The Expanded form sets the transition to
the General form, where all exchanges in society can use a common commodity (gold) as its
exchange.
Hans: Good enough, although I’d like to hear it argued more clearly why the Expanded form, and not the General
form, is the obvious negation of the Simple form.
Next Message by KA is [585].
[416] Lana: In the Annotations by Hans, this section discusses the Expanded Form of
Value. However, Marx begins with the Simple Form of Value, 20 yards of linen is equivalent
to 1 coat. As previously discussed, use value is not the same as value, therefore this basic

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 139
exchange will not be upheld in a normal market as each individual will have different needs
and wants and may not be willing or able to make that particular exchange. The expected
next step would be to bring in the General form, introducing money as currency. Instead,
he acquaints us with the concept of the Expanded Form of Value, giving the linen producer
more use-values in the exchange in a one-commodity society.
Marx includes this extra step because it is not possible to simply move from a barter
economy to a money economy. The trade must be removed from the equation and then
the result of this must be abated. As money is related to all commodities via prices, this
somewhat return to “barterism” experiences improvement due to the Expanded Form of
Value.
Next Message by Lana is [590].
[434] Alex: graded A When reading Marx’s rationalizations about Simple and General
form of value, I would have also assumed that a logical way to compare these two ideas is to
jump from one straight to the other, so as to compare them side by side. I was thinking this
would have been the logical way to go about, however, Hans explains it otherwise. Hans
states in [173] that this was due to the fact that Marx wanted to demonstrate the necessity
of money as a form of value as its most imperative quality through a negation of a negation.
First of all, Marx negates the form of barter, or the Simple form of value, when he states that
“since the bodily form of each individual of commodity is here one Particular equivalent
form amongst innumerable other Particular equivalent forms, the only equivalent forms in
existence are limited equivalent forms, each of which excludes any of the others.” This
analysis explained in simpler terms by Hans because “although the Expanded form of value
covers all commodity owners offering linen, there is not one Particular equivalent which is
accepted by every commodity-owner offering linen.” This is explaining that Marx negates
the simple form of value, which is barter, by stating that barter is useless and money is
necessary in this case since its is “connected through all commodities through their prices.”
Which then leads to the negation of this negation (the negation of the Expanded form)
and it is where this agreement comes that money is what the linen holders have in common,
and it is the exemplary form of exchange of commodities. This is the General form of value,
which is the negation of the negation.
Hans: You should pay closer attention to the transitions from the Simple to the Expanded form of value, and from
the Expanded to the General form of value.
Next Message by Alex is [451].
[497] Cougar: graded A+ It is the input of labor in all commodities that validates the
simple form of value where, in the case of a linen weaver, 20 yards of linen is worth the
use-value of 1 coat. Although the weaver may not fully know the socially-acceptable labor
content of the coat, her evaluation of the coat’s use-value is expressed in her willingness to
trade 20 yards of linen, of which she fully understands the labor content. As LuBr [170]
points out, the value of the linen is expressed in the use-value of the coat in this particular
social exchange. In this phase of Marx’s abstraction money is still non-existent. The
weaver has focused her commodity production solely on linen and must utilize that linen to
acquire other necessities by means of exchange. Naturally the simple form of value expands
to an intermediate, where the weaver can exchange linen for other commodities justified by
140 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the homogeneous input of labor in all commodities. Just as with the coat, the weaver expresses
the value of her linen in terms of other use-values required. The progression of the
simple form of value to this point reveals the fetish-like character of commodities. Upon
exchange with other use-values, the value of linen is established in the market. Because of
the homogeneous nature of commodities, suddenly value becomes a very complicated characteristic.
Linen could have millions of potential values based on its exchange with other
commodities in the market. Taking from Hans’ comments to LuBr [170], the negation of
this intermediary step by Marx leads readers back to a simple form of value where the value
of all commodities is expressed in only one measuring commodity: money. In this “general
form of value” all commodities express their value in terms of “price,” or amount of money.
Like labor, price becomes a homogeneous characteristic of all commodities and provides for
their direct exchange in the market. Following LuBr’s concluding remarks in [170], money
coordinates the social aspects of labor in the producing realm with the use-value(s) required
by consumers.
Message [497] referenced by [2012fa:180]. Next Message by Cougar is [510].
[506] Tunda: The reason why Marx states the forms like this is because they transition
from the Simple form into a more complete form which is the General form.
Next Message by Tunda is [1194].
Question 267 is 172 in 2002fa, 175 in 2003fa, 202 in 2004fa, 219 in 2007SP, 222 in
2007fa, and 227 in 2008fa:
Question 267 In 158:4, Marx writes the following about the general form of value: “Only
this form, therefore, has the effect of relating the commodities with each other as values, or
enables them to appear to each other as exchange-values.” Why didn’t he write: “or enables
them to appear to each other as values”?
[167] Robert: graded A+ Marx carefully picked his words (in this case, at least). Marx
is intentionally stating that the general form of value allows two different analyses of commodities:
1) “relating” values inherent in commodities and 2) observing “appearance” of
socially derived exchange-values between commodities.
In the first analyses, the general form of value enables the congealed abstract labor of one
commodity, which is inherent in the very core of that commodity, to relate to the congealed
abstract labor inherent in the core of another commodity. “Relating” is a substantive, real
activity that can only occur at this core level. In the second analyses, “appearance” is a
social, imaginary function that occurs only at the surface. Exchange-value also occurs at
the surface of the commodity, i.e., it does not go directly (only by information sent through
channel (2)) to the core of a commodity’s value. Therefore, the general form of value also
allows a surface comparison of the surface attributes society places on commodities
Marx’s sentence as written states: the general form of values allows commodities to relate
at the core level of value and appear on the surface to be interchangeable. If Marx wrote
“enables them to appear to each other as values” in the last clause, he would have been
saying, the general form allows commodities to appear to society on the surface to have
value (congealed abstract labor) at their core. This statement makes no sense because Marx
arguments have shown that the socially-derived surface appearance of what the capitalist

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 141
believe is the commodity’s value is different than the true value inherent in the core of the
commodity (congealed abstract labor.)
There has been much written in the past in response to this question. The responses in
[2003fa:105] and [2007SP:143] and the threads to those responses seem to provide a good
answer to the question. My intent here is to consolidate and clarify the answer.
Message [167] referenced by [174]. Next Message by Robert is [211].
[174] Hans: My Method for writing the Annotations. The switch from “value” to
“exchange-value” in the same sentence seems significant to me. If I don’t understand why
Marx switched words, or if I think Marx should not have switched but should have written
“value” both times, then I am likely to have missed something in his argument. Therefore
I throw this out to you, my captive audience for this Semester, as one of the homework
questions. Robert [167] took it on, and I am grateful that he did it, because he is a careful
reader and thorough thinker. What I will write now is in part inspired by his answer.
Following Robert’s lead, I will look at the two statements one by one.
(1) Only this form has the effect of relating the commodities with each other as values.
Here is what I think this means. By expressing all exchange-values in in one and the same
denominator, the General form of value is the first form of value that allows the producers to
see which production methods have the lowest cost and which commodities are in high demand
and to adjust their production schedules accordingly. This reaction by the commodity
producers equalizing their labors is called here by Marx “relating the commodities with each
other as values.” The relation of the commodities as values can only take place in production
since value is a category of production. Marx describes here the effect which the surface
relations have on production.
Now the second statement:
(2) Only this form enables the commodities to appear to each other as exchange-values.
My interpretation: Only if the commodities are produced as values is it possible that their
exchange relations are remotely controlled by their value. Presumably this is what Marx
means by the formulation that only now the commodities are enabled to “appear to each
other as exchange-values.” He does not say they relate to each other as exchange-value,
because their real relation is their relations as values in the production process, i.e., the
commonality of all commodities as blobs of abstract labor. He says “appear,” because the
exchange relations on the surface are the form of appearance of, they are remotely controlled
by, the value relations in production. I think Marx would not have considered it wrong to
say “they appear to each other as values,” but he did not say it because on the surface their
value makes itself felt indirectly, not as value (which is a category of production) but as
exchangeability. This is why he says “they appear to each other as exchange-value.”
You may think I am reading a lot into Marx. Indeed, if you take only this one sentence,
it alone gives little basis for my interpretation. This interpretation can only then claim to
be taken seriously if it fits together with interpretations of the other obscure formulations
by Marx in Capital which cohere with this interpretation here. My procedure writing the
Annotations is therefore not to be too shy but write down carefully what I think I see, and try
142 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
out whether other things Marx says elsewhere can be interpreted using the same framework.
And in this class I can try out whether my interpretations make sense to you, and I also
benefit from the fresh eyes with which you are looking at the text.
Next Message by Hans is [179].
[185] Deadfamous: graded B+ The Simple form of value is derived from the commodities’
use-values being exchanged, the Expanded form derives it value from exchanging several
use-values of several commodities, that is the only thing being exchanged, nothing to do
with materials or labor or anything, just use values of all commodities to satisfy each other
in whatever combination. However the General form of value completely changes directions
and forgets about use value—and realizes that these commodities are directly exchangeable
through a certain substance that all commodities can be exchanged for; this substance which
is the blob of abstract human labor is important because there evolves a social connection
to the production process and trade of all commodities. So to sum up, Marx did not want
to write “they appear as values” since we are no longer using use-value as a derivative of
value but we have not named the substance in which all commodities are equal in some way;
this is why he writes “they are enabled to appear as exchange values,” since we don’t really
know what they are equal to yet at this point (abstract human labor).
Message [185] referenced by [183] and [187]. Next Message by Deadfamous is [223].
[187] Hans: Wow, now I get it! A lesson in the art of reading. 21 minutes after I submitted
[184], Deadfamous submitted [185] making the same mistake again, even emphasizing
that value is not derived from labor but from the exchange. Deadfamous writes
the Expanded form derives it value from exchanging several use-values of
several commodities, that is the only thing being exchanged, nothing to do
with materials or labor or anything,
But then Deadfamous says the General form is completely different – and at this point
I understood where he got his misconception from. Marx and the Annotations say that the
Simple and Expanded form express the value of the linen in the use-values of the commodity
in the equivalent form. In other words, when the linen weaver decides to exchange 20 yards
of linen for a coat, then she does not compare the labor which she needed to produce the
linen with the labor needed to produce the coat—for two reasons. First of all, she does not
know how much labor is in the coat, and secondly, because the coat labor is not relevant for
her. What matters for her exchange decision is the use-value of the coat. By making this
exchange she says that she finds it worth while to put her labor into 20 yards of linen in order
to get the use-value of the coat. Marx, with his somewhat more abstract terminology, says
that she expresses the value of the linen in the use-value of the coat. I hope you understand
now that this does not mean that the value of the linen is derived from the comparison of the
use-values of linen and coat—the value of the linen is still derived from the labor it took to
produce the linen.
With the General equivalent the expression is a little different, because the usefulness
of gold for filling teeth is eclipsed by its usefulness for buying everything that is on the
market—therefore it is this second usefulness, not the first, which the sellers consider when
they set their prices.
Lessons:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 143
(1) Simple, Expanded, and General form of value are not different kinds of value, but they
are only different ways to express the same old commodity value, i.e., congealed abstract
labor, on the market. “Form” means here: what the thing looks like from the outside, i.e., on
the surface of the economy.
(2) Deadfamous read the Annotations carefully, but he had certain misconceptions in his
head which caused him to interpret the things he read completely differently from what
Marx had in mind when he wrote it. This is not just Deadfamous’s problem; this is a known
problem whenever you read something. It is quite difficult to stay on the same wavelength
as the writer of the text and not read things into the text which are not in the text but only in
your brain. Consider this class as a lesson in the art of reading.
Message [187] referenced by [183]. Next Message by Hans is [189].
Question 268 is 144 in 1999SP, 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, 234
in 2011fa, and 244 in 2012fa:
Question 268 Describe the joint work of all commodities which is necessary to appropriately
express the value of one commodity.
[172] Milly: graded B+ Joint work of all commodities. Marx states in 158:5/o, “a commodity
only acquires a general expression of its value if, at the same time, all other commodities
express their values in the same equivalent.”
First, commodities must be able to be exchanged in different quantities of use-values,
where a certain number of use-values of one kind can be exchanged for a certain number of
use-values of another kind. The commonality that allows this to happen is labor. Tonight
in class Hans pointed out that it is impossible to compare a computer programmer to a
brick layer, however the market acts as if all labor powers are equal. Value then becomes
homogeneous and commodities can be traded with everyone and representation of value is
in every exchange.
Hans: You are bringing fragments of the theory which are right but you are not connecting them. All the things
you are saying are pieces of one coherent theory. It is not trivial to get this coherent theory into your head, but it is
also not rocket science. Keep trying.
Message [172] referenced by [184] and [385]. Next Message by Milly is [224].
[180] Guh: Joint work. The value of a commodity according to Marx in 158:5/o is
“a commodity gains a general expression its value only when, at the same time, all other
commodities express their values in the same equivalent.” The joint work of all commodities
is needed in order to determine the value in a generic form. Moreover, after a commodity
has created a general value it then be compared to other commodities. This then allows for
the appropriate expression of each commodity’s value in the general equivalent, so that the
value can be quantitativley compared to all other commodities (see [2008fa:497]).
Message [180] referenced by [184]. Next Message by Guh is [206].
[183] Fisher: Commodities working jointly. The joint work of all commodities that
Marx mentions, is the act of each individual commodity having been traded for another
good to gain an identity or value. A commodity can be compared to another with a similar
use value and equivalents, it can gain an identity and history, which gives people assurance
of its quality when trading for that commodity. Once all commodities are on record and
144 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
have established an identity for their use, then open trade may take place with confidence
among traders. When many commodities are traded then there is a joint work at hand. It is
interesting when he mentions that it “must be supervised by the state”, which in my opinion,
might have led to monetary policy.
Hans: What you are writing contains the errors I discussed in [184] and [187]. But there is a big difference between
your message here and [185]: I do not recognize any elements of Marx or the Annotations in your answer. Have
you read the assigned readings? There are only faint echos of [1999SP:153.1] and [2002fa:159.4] in your answer,
i.e., I do not see that you could have obtained this answer from the archives of past class discussions. Do you think
you know telepathically what Marx means without reading him or anyone who has read him?
Next Message by Fisher is [241].
[184] Hans: Joint work versus work in parallel. The presently assigned readings are
not discussing how to create or determine value. We already know how value is created: by
labor. The creation of value requires the work of the laborers, not work by the commodities
or their handlers. Commodities already have value before they even enter the market.
The subject of the present readings is the form of value, i.e., the relations between the
economic agents that tell them that their commodities have value. Marx’s criterion for the
forms of value is amazingly simple: he says that the forms of value must reflect on the surface
of the economy as faithfully as possible the things which we know about value. The
Marx quote used by Milly [172] and Guh [180] is therefore not the definition of value and
has nothing to do with how value is determined. It formulates a condition that needs to be
satisfied so that the commodities reflect their values accurately on the surface: all commodities
must express their values in the same commodity, called the General equivalent. (Marx
is talking here not about quantitative accuracy but qualitative concordance.) A more detailed
explanation what this Marx quote says is in my [2009fa:107].
The most instructive example of such a surface reflection of value is money. Money is
a simple homogeneous commodity (gold) which measures the values of all ordinary commodities
by their prices, and into which all other commodities have to be converted in order
to find the way from producer to consumer. Commodities express their values in money,
i.e., they have prices (which are only capable of quantitative differences) because their value
comes from the abstract human labor which produced them, which is likewise only capable
of quantitative differences.
Do commodities have to work in order to get prices? Guh’s answer in [180] is that
expressing their values in one and the same commodity (gold) is work. This is true but it is
not joint work; rather it is work which each commodity has to do separately. They all do the
same but they do not cooperate, rather they work in parallel.
But there is one aspect of this which does require coordination, i.e., joint work: namely
the selection of the General equivalent. All commodity owners have to agree on expressing
the values of their commodities in one and the same commodity (gold). This act, Marx
called it the “preparatory act of circulation,” is the only occasion where they have to perform
joint work. This coordination is the reason why Marx says in 158:5/o, in the sentence before
the sentence quoted by Milly and Guh, “The General form of value ... can only arise as a
joint work of the whole world of commodities.”
Message [184] referenced by [183], [187], and [808]. Next Message by Hans is [187].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 145
[372] Atticus: graded B– The joint work of all commodities describes the relation between
all commodities expressing their values in each other. Laborers use concrete labor to produce
commodities that are qualitatively different from one another. Without these qualitatively
different forms of labor exchanges could not be made. Use-values are exchanged for other
use-values. The amalgamation of all exchanges are done through the relations between all
commodities expressing their values in one another. This is done quantitatively by reducing
all concrete labors to a common factor, abstract labor. Abstract labor is congealed in all usevalues
and this is the common factor that all commodities can exchange themselves with one
another.
Hans: The joint work is the selection of one and the same commodity in which they all express their values.
Next Message by Atticus is [575].
[385] Utefan: Going back to linen; 1 hr. produces 20 yards and is exchanged with other
commodities that also took 1 hr. to produce, i.e. 1 coat, 1 bushel of corn, 5 c.d.’s, etc. These
other commodities that are traded help producers identify the value of linen for they know
that after exchanging a coat, bushel of corn, or 5 c.d.’s they will receive 20 yards of linen
which also took the same amount of abstract labor to produce. We can also now understand
that if 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, and 20 yards of linen = 5 c.d.’s; then 1 coat = 5 c.d.’s.
Hans: My [2009fa:107] applies to this answer too.
Utefan: If my answer is also applicable to yours then why did I get a C- for it?
Utefan: Everything I just said is the same as your answer only compact not to mention in the book with the
annotations you had us buy. Read it again.
Hans: In [2009fa:107] I said: “Ivan thought that a commodity gains value only through its exchange for all other
commodities,” and I tried to explain the error in this. Your error is similar though not identical as Ivan’s. You are
saying “these other commodities that are traded help producers identify the value of linen.” Since you don’t see
how my [2009fa:107] applies to you, I will send out a message explaining in detail what in your answer is wrong.
But first I have to grade the resubmissions of everyone.
Utefan: No, that is not what I am saying I am saying that through the exchange one can see how commodities are
exchanged. In your annotations on page 159 and 160 We are saying the same thing. Not to mention how poor the
grade is in comparison. You misunderstood me with both questions.
Utefan: I just read over the review you gave us and the student named Milly under post [172] received a B+ for
saying the same thing I did. Why are my grades so much lower?
Next Message by Utefan is [546].
[428] BBM: graded A– If you take a good to a market and want to know its value you will
have to speak with each merchant to find out how much of their good they will give you for
yours. The number of ratios you would have to remember would be infinite. However if all
commodities expressed themselves in one commodity then you would be able to figure out
how much your good is worth in terms of this one commodity.
First Message by BBM is [427].
[457] Ryan: The joint work of all commodities needed to express the value of one commodity
can be expressed as the exchange-value of each individual item, one to another. As
items begin to change hands from one party to another they are given a value. First their usevalue.
Their use-value is not given by the party that owns the item but by the purchaser of
the item. This of course is because the purchaser places the value of the item based on need
to want, the owner of the item can not affect these. Once the use-value is determined by both
parties, then the exchange value can be determined, typically one item (and consumer) will
take an active role as the item was produced to be sold for a needed good. The other item
will take a passive role as it is what is needed and the owner must think the other item has a
146 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
high enough use value to even want to trade. Once exchange-value have been determined for
every commodity (that is available for exchange) will we then gain a value in which we can
measure the exchange value of all items in the market. Once we introduce money into the
equation then it becomes easier to value each item as they are compared to the same thing,
money. Once money has been added, then all value for all commodities can be compared
(one to one) without having to worry about a third or fourth. For example three items may all
have a different exchange-value between them. But when all three are compared to money
it is very easy to determine the value of each as it relates to the others.
Hans: You are explaining how everything gets better once money is introduced in the equation. Alas, money does
not fall from the sky. The joint work of all commodities is therefore the decision which of the commodities will be
the money commodity.
Next Message by Ryan is [709].
[471] GoUtes: In order to truly understand the value of a commodity, we need to understand
the joint work of all commodities and understand how value is measured. One thing
that Hans mentions is “the most instructive example of value is money.” One commodity
such as a pie crust can be measured by its monetary value, a pie crust alone may cost 1
dollar alone but add chocolate mousse which could cost 1 dollar and some whip cream, another
dollar, to create the pie with three separate elements may cost 3 dollars. If you add
the elements together and factor in labor and all the commodities, its value would be more
as is indicated in stores, a pie costs 8 dollars. So what may be a lesser amount as separate
commodities, when joined to create a pie with all commodities joined together, the value
goes up.
Hans: This is not what Marx meant.
Next Message by GoUtes is [704].
[496] Kat: The joint work of commodities necessary to express the value of a single
commodity by determining its relationship to all other commodities. As Hans says “the
relations between the economic agents that tell them that their commodities have value.”
A “General Equivalent” must be determined through which all commodities can express
their value. The most common equivalent is money, whether it be American dollars or
gold, through which commodity prices establish value. What Marx calls a “preparatory act
of circulation” is the joint work commodities must go through in order to agree upon one
equivalent through which to express their value.
Hans: You had “necessary to establish and express.” I deleted “establish” because the value is already established
in the production process. Right now the question is how to express the established value on the surface, and you
answered this correctly.
Next Message by Kat is [567].
Exam Question 277 is 166 in 2001fa, 184 in 2003fa, 211 in 2004fa, 207 in 2005fa, 227
in 2007SP, 239 in 2008SP, 250 in 2009fa, 245 in 2011fa, and 255 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 277 What is the difference between commodity fetishism and the fetish-like
character of commodities?
[308] Babyceta: content A+ form 90% Fetishism and Fetish-like are Opposites. Fetishism
of commodities is the belief that inanimate objects possess certain social determinations
given to them by physical nature—and the ability to transmit these properties to individuals.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 147
Like Hans’s example of his mother saying gold is valuable because it is shiny and beautiful.
Or we may realize that these determinations are social, but accept them as if they were
natural outcomes, believing there is nothing that can be done about the situation.
The fetish-like character of commodities, however, is a social structure in which the products
of society are carriers of social relations resembling natural forces, and are capable of
behaving in humanistic ways, or of transforming physical matter. They are essentially a
conduit of social relations transmitted by physical characteristics. We may say, for example,
that our money in the bank is growing because of compounding interest, or that inflation is
causing the economy to behave in a certain manner. Fetish-like is a natural force based on
social construction, and fetishism is a social force based on natural construction.
Hans: Great thinking, but your original writing in this particular piece was terribly sloppy—so much so that it
made your essay almost incomprehensible. Here are your passages which I changed:
Your first sentence (the changed words in italics): Fetishism of commodities is the belief that inanimate objects
process certain social determinations endowed by physical nature that enable them to transmit these properties to
individuals.
I reformulated your “accept them as natural outcomes” to say “accept them as if they were natural outcomes.”
So far I think (hope) I did not change your intended meaning but made it clearer. If this is not the case please
let me know. The next change I made is major surgery, because you made a logical error which I tried to fix. Marx
believes that commodities have a fetish-like character, but this fetish-like character itself is not a belief but it is a
special characteristic of the social structure. The first sentence of you last paragraph was originally
The fetish-like character of commodities, however, is the belief that the products of society are natural forces,
and are capable of behaving in humanistic ways, or of transforming physical matter.
Message [308] referenced by [326], [411], [443], and [1034]. Next Message by Babyceta is [404].
[326] Hans: This is what dialectics looks like. In [308], Babyceta teaches us dialectical
thinking. He says that there is not only a difference between the fetish-like character of the
commodity and commodity-fetishism, but that they are actually opposites of each other. In
his words:
Fetish-like is a natural force based on social construction, and fetishism is
a social force based on natural construction.
Marx would probably have used the formulation
The fetish-like character of the commodity is the naturalization of society,
and commodity fetishism is the socialization of nature
“Naturalization of society” means that social relations take the form of (quasi-)natural
predicates of objects, and “socialization of nature” means that nature is thought to have
social powers. People live in a world in which society is naturalized, and they are confused
about it, they think that nature is socialized. It is a common occurrence that something
is mistaken to be its exact opposite. And the discovery of such dialectical inversions is,
according to Hegel and Marx, not just a cute-sounding aphorism but true scientific insight.
The world is full of contradictions—Hegel said everything contains its opposite in itself.
Becoming aware of these contradictions gives us a deeper understanding of the world.
Message [326] referenced by [329], [727], [1034], [2012fa:227], [2012fa:326.1], [2012fa:330], and [2012fa:1014].
Next Message by Hans is [329].
148 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 278 is 121 in 1995WI, 98 in 1995ut, 131 in 1996sp, 133 in 1996ut, 181 in
2002fa, 185 in 2003fa, 212 in 2004fa, 208 in 2005fa, 228 in 2007SP, 233 in 2007fa, 238
in 2008fa, 251 in 2009fa, and 247 in 2011fa:
Question 278 Which evidence prompts Marx to say, at the beginning of the Commodity
Fetishism section, that the commodity is “intricate” or “mysterious”?
[193] School: The reason why Marx was prompted to say that the commodity is “intricate”
or “mysterious” was because with any given commodity it can have many complexly
arranged elements and can be judged differently based on use-value, exchange value, or
many other types of values based on analytical thinking. Although there are many ways to
define value to a thing, or object, Marx defines the value of a thing or object by the labor put
into the creation of it.
Just like Goethe [2008SP:278] states “Marx would not agree with Le Trosne when he
writes that the value of a thing consists in its exchange-proportions with other things. Marx
sees exchange value as the exterior expression of the labor used to produce the thing. Le
Trosne only sees the exterior value as exchange-value; he does not see the interior value
which is the labor content.”
I agree with the above statement, for example if we look at colleges around the state of
Utah there are many places to obtain a degree. Whether you go to Salt Lake Community
College or whether you go to Utah State University you can retain the same knowledge and
degree, i.e. you can put forth the same amount of labor to get the same end results. In this
case that would be to attain higher education.
Hans: The labor you are mentioning in conjunction with the commodity of a college education is the labor necessary
to consume this commodity. Marx, by contrast, looks at the labor necessary to produce commodities.
Message [193] referenced by [198]. Next Message by School is [262].
[198] Hans: What does the mystery of the commodity mean empirically? Several
times in Capital, Marx claims that empirical evidence can be misleading—or, to be more
specific and blunt, that our lived experience in capitalism lies about it what the capitalist
social system really is like.
One of these discrepancies where things seem different than they really are is mentioned
by Marx right at the beginning of the section about the fetish-like character of the commodity.
Marx says that the commodity seems trivial, but its scientific analysis shows that it is
intricate and mysterious. Let me again be more specific and blunt: we think commodities
are things which we use and control, but in reality commodities have an inner life and they
control us.
So what is Marx’s evidence on which he bases this claim? Marx tells us what this evidence
is, it is the scientific analysis of the commodity. His words in 163:3/o are: “its (the
commodity’s) analysis brings out that it is quite intricate...”
It is nothing new in science that the results of one scientific step become the raw material
for further investigation. What is the evidence for it that matter consists of atomic nuclei
with clouds of electrons around them? The entire science of chemistry is this evidence.
The periodic table was originally the empirical discovery that the chemical properties of
elements recur periodically if you sort them by weight. That was entirely unexpected—what

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 149
does weight have to do with chemical properties? It demanded further scientific exploration.
This new investigation then led to things which chemistry itself could not have predicted:
nuclear power or the spectral analysis of light coming from stars showing that the universe
is expanding.
Now you might say: science is only useful if it explains things which we can experience.
Which part of our experiences does Marx throw light on with his scientific discovery that
the commodity is mysterious, and with his explorations of the reasons why it is mysterious?
What is the analog of nuclear power and spectral analysis in our case?
Here the answer is twofold. The Annotations give a long list of economic phenomena
where the economy acts as if it had a life of its own, almost like a natural force:
Many economic phenomena in capitalism have an outwardly “magical” character. The
power of money to purchase everything, or the power of capital to grow quasi on its own
accord, sudden financial crises and breakdowns of economic growth, inflation, unemployment,
stock market booms and busts, salaries which have nothing to do with the skills or
experience of the recipient, the tendency of wealth to concentrate rather than dissipate—
up to the mother of all economic dilemmas of the present day: why is it more important
to increases corporate profits than preserve the livability of our planet? These are the big
and dangerous magical phenomena where the economy seems to have a separate “life” and
seems quite unconcerned about individual well-being. Although the economy is the product
of the economic agents, it acts as a force independent of them. On an individual level, modern
consumerism, i.e., people’s over-attachment to things, the social status conveyed by the
clothes one wears or the car one drives, or the fact that scientists (a minority in the natural
sciences but a majority in the social sciences) and the majority of newspaper reporters distort
the facts to suit corporate interests—this also is evidence of economic forces interfering with
our lives to a degree one should not expect in a society which has as much wealth as ours.
Before investigating each of those in detail, Marx tries to uncover the root cause where
this magical character comes from. This, he claims, is best done if we look at this mysterious
character in its nascent state, where it is barely visible that the thing is mysterious at all, and
that is the commodity. This brings us to the second part of the answer: this analysis has
implications for how this natural-force like behavior of the economy might be overcome.
School [193] looks at the use-value and the value of commodities in turn. This is good,
but he makes mistakes in both.
Regarding use-values School reminds us that commodities are often mechanically or electronically
or chemically intricate little apparatuses. Marx by contrast says in the very next
sentence in 163:3/o that as use-values commodities are not mysterious. Use-values can
therefore not have been Marx’s reason for calling the commodity mysterious (and question
278 asks specifically for Marx’s reasons).
Regarding value, School makes the mistake of thinking that valuation of commodities
by labor is one of many possible valuations chosen by Marx—presumably because Marx
considers this a socially just valuation. This is a basic misunderstanding of the whole book.
It is not the purpose of Marx’s Capital to develop how commodities should be valued. Laborbased
value is how, if Marx’s theory is right, really existing capitalism in fact determines
150 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
prices. This seems deceptively fair, but my [94] tried to show why this is not a good thing at
all—just because of the one-dimensionality of it, without even speaking of the exploitation
of the workers based on the fact that they produce all value.
Message [198] referenced by [199], [203], and [323]. Next Message by Hans is [199].
[203] Kaush: Intricate and mysterious. In his quest to unravel and understand the
mysteries of the commodity, Marx rules out as the culprit the use-value, the content of the
value, and the production process. Though the commodity seems at the outset, simple,
obvious and trivial, the scientific analysis seems to beg otherwise. What seems a simple
object had turned out to be something complicated. When Marx uncovered contradictions in
the simple surface properties of the commodity which led him to probe deeper, he discovered
a new world of intricate metaphysical hairsplitting and theological niceties. It is intricate
because the commodity has many undeveloped determinations which can be manifested in
various forms, from the simple exchangeability of two commodities to the establishment of
gold or money (the god of commodities) as a general equivalent of the exchange value in the
relation to the rest of commodities.
Hans: Good summary of the Annotations, but have you read [198] which specifically explained and answered
question 278?
Next Message by Kaush is [297].
[205] Sly: A deeper look at the commodity. For my free discussion post I’ve decided
to inject my opinions and critiques as to why Marx believes that the commodity is “intricate”.
It is already stated clearly in the text [1.4.a.] that the commodity is intricate because
“it has many determinations, it has not only use-value but also value, which manifests itself
in various forms—from the simple exchangeability of two commodities to the power
of money to buy everything.” [p.g. 179]. The commodity itself has evolved into something
much more complex, and convoluted because every person in the economy has a different
use/need/opinion/want for a commodity. It is implied in [1.4] that people purchase certain
commodities for “social status conveyed by the clothes one wears or the car one drives” [p.g.
181], but I also believe that individuals are guided towards those decisions by other forces
such as advertisements, and predetermined thoughts that a commodity is better/longer lasting
if its a particular brand. Take for example someone electing to purchase a Toyota manufactured
car instead of a Ford manufactured car because they believe that Toyota produces the
superior product, whether it be due to biases or a simple recommendation. This is why I
agree with Marx that commodities are “intricate”, because there are so many driving forces
incorporated into the purchasing decision of a commodity that it can’t be determined as a
simple piece of the pie.
Next Message by Sly is [417].
[218] She: (graded A+) What is so mysterious about Commodities? Marx says that
commodities are mysterious due to the underlying social relations which they embody. He
says that use-values and the determinants of value, quality and quantity of labor, are not
mysterious; it is the “fact that the commodity reflects the social characteristics of men’s own
labor as objective characteristics of the products of labor themselves,” [164:3/o].
I think what Marx is saying here is that the mystery really lies in the motivations that
the prospect of exchange brings about. There is a social relationship between producers of
different things that is embodied and represented by the commodities they produce. Marx

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 151
says that, “. . . as soon as men start to work for each other in any way, their labor also assumes
a social form,” [164:1]. Producers are working for each other in the sense that say a baker
produces bread for a carpenter who in turn produces a table for him. In this relationship,
they are essentially working for each other. They exchange commodities, with different usevalues,
rather than exchanging concrete labor for a wage. Marx says later on that the social
characteristics of private labor only appear within exchange [165:2/o].
Marx says there is a social relation, “. . . of the producers to the sum total of labor as a
social relation between objects, a relation which exists apart from and outside the producers,”
[164:3/o]. In this sentence he has explained that there are properties of commodities which
are outside the control of the producers; they are thus mysterious to them.
Next Message by She is [296].
[388] Trap: Marx wants to understand capitalism and what motivates it, and in order to
do this he looks at the base of heart of capitalism, the commodity. He says that members
of a capitalist society have a commodity fetishism which is a false interpretation of the social
relations. He then says commodities have a fetish-like character, which is the porperty
possessed in the social relations. He begins his exploration by discovering what is not mysterious
about the commodity. The most obvious is its use-value, which refers to any use of
the commodity. He then looks a the exchange-value, which at first seems contradictory, but
is not mysterious. The mystery has to do with the commodity itself, when he simply looks
at the commodity and tries to explain it, it creates contradictions, so it can’t be something
“obvious and trivial.” For example, looking at the use-value and exchange-value themselves
lead to immediate contradiction.
But the most mysterious part of the commodity is why prices of the commodity are difficult
to predict? This is not from our lack of knowledge about the commodity, we often
believe that we control the commodity and it is a part of our capitalistic society, however the
commodity has intrinsic power, that in fact controls us. An excellent example of how important
commodities are, is the power of money. Marx doesn’t talk in this chapter much about
money and capital, but I think it is important for understanding the “magical” character of
commodities. They are mysterious because of the invisible social relations. Money has the
power to buy every other commodity, it is accepted for everything, which Marx considers
extremely mysterious, however he doesn’t start with this because in order to understand that
power of money, it is necessary to understand the power of any commodity that stands on its
own.
Hans: The mysterious part is not the commodity itself, it is the discrepancy between form and content of the value
determinations.
Next Message by Trap is [686].
[392] Orville: graded B Fetishistic Clocks. The commodity is “mysterious” because it
seems to function as a living, breathing being. On the surface, there is little mystery behind
what a clock, for instance, is. The majority are pieces of plastic with a battery that turns the
hour and minute and second hand. The mystery comes in when you observe what people
do as they are living around that clock. People allow the clock to determine what time
they will meet, eat, sleep, wake-up, leave, congregate, and the list goes on. The clock falls
under the fetishistic view of the commodity owner or observer. The clock begins to have a
certain degree of power over people as if it contains some kind of knowledge that humans do
152 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
not. This fetishistic view is not unique to clocks; the economy, computers, social networks,
foods, money, rare gems, precious stones, phones, credit cards, among thousands of others
are perceived in the same manner. This is where the “mysterious” characters come from, not
the commodity but actually social relations.
Hans: This is better than saying fetishism is obsession with use-values, but it is still not right, because you still tie
the fetishism to the use-value of the clock or computer. You are making the same mistake as Ryoung [2008SP:255].
Strangely, your in-class answer was quite different and completely correct.
Next Message by Orville is [520].
[397] School: Why is this Mysterious? The reason why Marx says that a commodity
is “intricate” or “mysterious” is because a commodity is determined by its value. So how
is value defined? This is defined by three things. 1st, substance such as abstract human
labor, brain, muscle, and body. 2nd, quantity, such as how much labor was put forth to
make the commodity. 3rd, form, this is the social relation that creates feelings by having
the commodity. Marx said that if you take a closer look at them all individually (substance,
quality and form) and can understand them individually. But when you put them together in
one scenario they don’t make sense that is why they are “mysterious”.
Hans: The form of value is not “the social relation that creates feelings by having the commodity” but it is those
surface interactions which give producers the information so that they can distinguish which is the cheapest production
method etc.
Marx says that the value determinations “considered for themselves” are not mysterious. By this he does not
mean “considered one by one” or “considered individually,” as you write, but he means that their content, the social
resources which they are before someone put the sticker “value determination” on them, are not mysterious. The
mystery lies in the way the social resources are regulated in a commodity society.
Next Message by School is [639].
[410] Kraken: graded A Marx feels that commodities are “mysterious” because the social
relations encapsulated in the commodities are not visible to or controlled by the commodity
owners. The commodity is “intricate” because it has different determinations; use-value and
value (Annotations). Although the commodity appears to be “obvious and trivial” on the
surface, a deeper examination reveals that it is more complex. Marx feels that money and
capital have the most mysterious properties but maintains that the mystery begins to manifest
itself in the commodity and chooses to study the origin of the mystery in this stage when it
is easier to analyze.
Next Message by Kraken is [502].
[436] Kaush: In an attempt to undo and appreciate the interior workings of the commodity,
Marx sidesteps as the culprit the use-value, the content of the value, and the production process.
Though, at the outset, the commodity seems simple, obvious and trivial; the scientific
analysis seems to belie that. What seemed a simple object had turned out to be something
complicated. When Marx uncovered contradictions in the simple surface properties of the
commodity which led him to dig deeper, he discovered a new world of intricate fine details
and theological subtleties. It is intricate because the commodity has many undeveloped
characters which can be manifested in various forms, from the simple exchangeability of two
commodities to the establishment of gold or money (the god of commodities) as a general
equivalent of the exchange value in the relation to the rest of commodities.
Next Message by Kaush is [439].
[474] Guh: The reason that Marx states a commodity as complicated and mysterious
and simply because it is just that. Furthermore, Marx says a commodity is complicated and

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 153
mysterious, but this does not refer to a lack of knowledge on the consumers behalf, but the
unpredictability of its price as Scott says in [2008fa:557]. As Hans says in [2008fa:311],
“I say in the annotations because this simple answer leads to contradictions. Marx himself
does not give a one-sentence answer but his formulates indicate that this apparent simplicity
is only a first impression, the commodity is not as simple as it might first seem” In addition
Hans also said that often one will assume this is a result of lack of knowledge and that Marx
maintains this is not the cause. Marx however, does keep his claim that to have perfect
knowledge would make the price of a commodity predictable and this is not the case.
Next Message by Guh is [626].
[479] Cosmopolita: The evidence that prompts Marx to say that the commodity is “intricate”
and mysterious is because of the social relations encapsulated in the commodities
which are not visible or controlled by the commodity owners. And fetishism of the commodity
is related to the “theoretical errors” in which the logic expectation or answer does
not follow, and a deeper explanation is necessary for the behavior of people towards certain
commodities.
Hans: I liked your in-class answer better than the resubmission which basically copied a sentence from the Annotations.
In class you stressed that the commodity has received value in production, and that this value has social
effects long after production.
Next Message by Cosmopolita is [480].
[483] IrvingHowe: Marx believes that the commodity is “intricate” or “mysterious” because
at first glance, the concepts of use-value and exchange value are in direct contradiction.
Actually, Marx sees many contradictions in commodities, from the sort of paradox of
water which is essential to life, has an endless use value and yet its exchange value is nearly
nothing to the seemingly arbitrary way in which values are assigned to certain commodities.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [484].
Exam Question 287 is 184 in 2002fa, 193 in 2003fa, 220 in 2004fa, 236 in 2007SP, 241
in 2007fa, 248 in 2008SP, 246 in 2008fa, and 270 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 287 Why does Marx explore the mysterious character of the commodity,
which is bland and abstract, instead of picking up one of the many striking outwardly mysterious
phenomena of capitalism?
[192] Scholar: Marx’s goal in exploring the mysterious character of the commodity is
to reveal the social relationships of capitalism, which are concealed by externally equal and
fair market exchange.
During the market exchange, people feel that their destiny or life is determined by the
market, or depends on whether their commodities can be traded in the market, which results
in the fetish of commodity. In fact, the producers’ life depends on whether his individual
labor can be transformed into social labor, that is, whether it can be accepted by the other
people during market exchange.
The capitalist social relationship, especially the relationship between the capitalist and
the worker, are all from the exchange of commodity based on the capitalist property rights.
So, it is the commodity, instead of other surprising phenomena, that is the essential element
to find the mystery of capitalist society.
154 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Scholar is [226].
[209] Cosmopolita: Marx does this because he tries to imply subtly that there is more to
it. It is not about production of the commodity itself. After use-value, exchange-value and
“value” of the commodity have been discussed, Marx throws his last-ditch of the concept
commodity accepting a more “intricate” significance of commodity, to make our minds think
and develop a deeper idea than just social values of a commodity and the “utility” received
from them. Marx acceptance of his explanation being less than satisfactory, seems to flourish
ideas and concepts not fully explained yet, but “begging the question” of concepts, which is
the essence of his book.
Hans: I think you are saying Marx is making up a lot of stuff in order to get people’s brains going.
Message [209] referenced by [236]. Next Message by Cosmopolita is [479].
[301] KA: Mysterious Character of a Commodity. Marx provides an interesting concept
in exploring the mysterious character of the commodity. The concept of a piece of wood
spinning itself into a table magically is the mysterious character of a commodity. A table is
not a commodity, but a product of a commodity, wood.
Marx explores the mysterious character of the commodity to illustrate that individuals
cannot look at a finished product as being an original commodity. Marx uses the example
of wood being transformed into a table to explore this mysterious character. The production
of this table originated from the commodity which gave it use-value. The table is not the
commodity, but rather a use-value of the wood. The mysterious character that individuals
place on the table is that they transform (in their mind) that the table is a commodity rather
than the product of a commodity. Marx elaborates further that if the table “steps forth as
a commodity” it transforms into ”something that has extrasensory features attached to its
sensuous existence.” The table transforms on its own from a piece of wood by “turning itself
on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far spleenier than if it
suddenly were to begin dancing.”
Message [301] referenced by [323]. Next Message by KA is [302].
[323] Hans: It is night. Do you know what your commodities are doing right now?
KA [301] is wrong because KA stays entirely on the use-value side of things. That which
Marx considers mysterious has nothing to do with the use-values of the commodity.
I answered question 287 earlier in the Semester as part of my longer [198]. Here are the
two relevant paragraphs. First I give some examples of “outwardly” mysterious or magical
phenomena in capitalism:
The power of money to purchase everything, or the power of capital to
grow quasi on its own accord, sudden financial crises and breakdowns of
economic growth, inflation, unemployment, stock market booms and busts,
salaries which have nothing to do with the skills or experience of the recipient,
the tendency of wealth to concentrate rather than dissipate ...
The next paragraph explains why Marx does not begin with those:
Before investigating each of those in detail, Marx tries to uncover the root
cause where this magical character comes from. This, he claims, is best

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 155
done if we look at this mysterious character in its nascent state, where it is
barely visible that the thing is mysterious at all, and that is the commodity.
This is all you need to say in the exam. I chose the subject line because we think commodities
are simple things which we have under control. We don’t. Perhaps your car is
being abducted by a car thief right now—because of its social powers, its ability to be turned
into money.
Could one say the car was not abducted but it eloped? Perhaps a car wants to be sold, and
it uses the car thief to get its way? This would be an explanation of car theft in terms of the
self-activity of the commodity. It is probably not the right way to look at car theft, but here is
a parallel where it makes sense. Cigarette vending machines used to be designed such that it
is easy to steal cigarettes. The purpose was to turn underage teenagers into nicotine addicts.
Cigarettes want to be sold, and they are using shoplifting teenagers as vehicles to get their
way.
Message [323] referenced by [2012fa:327]. Next Message by Hans is [326].
Question 290 is 175 in 2001fa, 190 in 2002fa, 196 in 2003fa, 223 in 2004fa, 218 in
2005fa, 238 in 2007SP, 243 in 2007fa, 248 in 2008fa, 263 in 2011fa, and 275 in 2012fa:
Question 290 What is an “essential” property of something? What can be said in support
of Marx’s claim that labor is “essentially” expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles,
sense organs, etc.?
[191] IrvingHowe: essential properties of labor. To say that there is an essential element
to anything is to recognize that certain parts or inputs are indispensable.
When Marx claims that labor is “essentially” the expenditure of features such as brain,
muscles, nerves, sensory organs and the like—one can read into that statement that there are
a couple of (correct) assumptions at work. First, that every vocation requires some mix of
the use of all of these features, which is true. Second, that these features are not exclusively
for the use of labor, also true.
In as much as one could call these features ‘resources’ that allow one to maximize the
life experience, using these resources for the purpose of labor as opposed to other possible
(probably more rewarding) applications represents something of a choice. One cannot
be consumed by both labor and leisure because of the natural constraints placed over
man/woman by these features.
Therefore, labor is in its essence an expenditure of human features or resources (brain,
muscles, nerves etc). The invaluable features comprised in labor cannot be simultaneously
used on alternative activities of interest to the laborer. This is an inescapable characteristic
of every kind of labor.
Hans: Production is arguably the noblest application of human resources one can think of. Production uses natural
forces to make the world a better place for us. That this is even possible, that we as parts of nature an actively affect
nature is somewhat of a miracle. Shame on capitalism that it does not make this miraculous activity at the same
time our most rewarding activity.
Message [191] referenced by [215] and [216]. Next Message by IrvingHowe is [481].
[206] Guh: Essential Property. According to Hans’s remark to [2005fa:736], the essential
property of something “are those properties which make the things what they are.”
156 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Therefore when Marx is talking about the “essentially” expenditure of human brain, nerves,
and muscles, Marx is talking about the human labor of these features in the body. Moreover,
he means that with these elements of the body we can produce labor, and without them we
would not be able to function in a way where we could perform tasks such as labor. Furthermore,
if we were to remove any of these nerves, muscles or more importantly the brain, we
as human would cease to be able to produce any form of labor. Thus Marx is saying that an
essential part of something cannot be taken away for that something to remain intact.
Message [206] referenced by [214], [215], and [216]. Next Message by Guh is [473].
[207] Long: Essential. An essential (As Submitted:) Essential Essentials
property of something is just the way it property of something is just the ways that
is. With the phrase “‘essentially’ the expenditure
of human brains, nerves, muscles, it is. When Marx refers to “essentially” the
sense, organs, etc.,” Marx is saying that ev- expenditure of human brains, nerves, muserything
of the human body has to be there cles, sense, organs, etc. Marx is saying that
for humans to be able to function. He is also everything of the human body has to be
relating to human labor therefore it will not
function if any of the following are miss-
there for human is able to function. He is
ing. Just like in a production assembly line, also relating to human labor therefore it will
not function if any of the following are miss-
if one of the many components or persons ing. Just like in a production assembly line,
performing the task is missing; then the po- if one of any components or person performtential
outcome is not there. It is essential
that all things must be there and remain in
ing the task is missing; then the potential
such group. outcome is not there. it is an essential to
all things must be there to and to remain in
such group.
Message [207] referenced by [215]. Next Message by Long is [208].
[213] Zohan: Essential Property. To say that something is an essential property indicates
that is a necessary part in order for something to function. You can’t take away an essential
property if you want it to work.
Marx uses this idea to point out how labor depends on the essential properties of the
human body in order for labor to exist. The body needs essential parts for it to function and
perform tasks. On the other hand, labor doesn’t spontaneously occur. In order for labor to
exist, essential properties must be in line. Human effort is needed to produce labor. If all
the bodies essential properties like the brain, nerves, muscles, ect., are in order then it can
function properly and produce labor. If any of these essential properties are taken away, then
the body could not function and labor would not occur. This idea shows that labor depends
on the essential properties of the human body to exist.
Message [213] referenced by [215] and [216]. Next Message by Zohan is [249].
[214] Utefan: Essential Property. Something that is essential is defined as anything basic
that has to be present for that something to exist. Marx says that, whatever the useful kinds
of labor or productive activities, it is a physiological fact that they are functions of the human
organism. Guh [206] and other class members echo the illustration of movement such as an
assembly line; however, at the beginning of his paragraph he is talking in reference to the
mystical characteristics of commodities. It, as Marx states, does not arise from its use values

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 157
and as little does it stem from the determinants of value. Sensory organs or muscles are
essentially used to produce and have to be used in order to fulfill any production. However,
as Marx states, that does not define the mystical state of the commodity or the value. If
one continues down the paragraph, value is determined by the quantity of labor. Essentially,
then, quantity of labor determines value and is essential.
Hans: I had to correct two malformed sentences.
Message [214] referenced by [216]. Next Message by Utefan is [221].
[216] Hans: Amendment. Things are not as black and white as I said, for didactic
reasons, in [215]. Zohan [213] contains the sentence “labor doesn’t spontaneously occur”
which was missing in [191] and [206]. Labor channels the course of nature in a direction
in which it otherwise would not go. In order to do this, we need to use the qualities which
make us humans, our attentiveness, goal-directedness, self-reflection etc. This is hard work.
Therefore it is not an accident that production is strenuous for us humans, it is an essential
property of production.
I discovered Utefan [214] only after submitting [215]. Utefan is an altogether different
story than the one described in [215]. Utefan tries to write what I want to hear. After seeing
his grades for [90] and [131] he emailed me: “I wanted to know exactly what you are looking
for in order to get an A. Are you looking for a certain length in paragraphs or more detail?”
Only afterwards he read my detailed responses to [90] at the bottom of his submission and
to [131] in [137]. My responses show that each of his answers had missed some essential
elements for the understanding of Marx. Utefan apparently decided it is not the length of
paragraphs I am after but evidence that he is reading the Annotations. In [215] he went to
the other extreme. Instead of relying on his intelligence to answer the questions and not
paying much attention to Marx or the class discussion, [215] regurgitates the Annotations
and class discussion in bits and pieces but it does not make sense. I am looking forward to
the negation of the negation.
Message [216] referenced by [217] and [221]. Next Message by Hans is [219].
[221] Utefan: In response to [216], here is my negation to the negation. I read over what
the class was stating and tried to understand more in depth what the question was asking and
how I could best answer. My goal was to extend the thoughts that had already been stated
and help further the class. In so doing I fell short of the desired expectations of Hans and did
not receive the grade desired; however, as I have submitted assignments I hope I will learn
more of how to best answer in the future. Now, reading to the rest of the class a personal
email I wrote directly to Hans is inappropriate. Attacking how I do my homework is also
inappropriate, we will see how this pans out.
Hans: If you are asking for advice how to get an A in this class, then others in class have the right to know your
question and my reaction to it.
Next Message by Utefan is [381].
Question 291 is 197 in 2003fa, 224 in 2004fa, 219 in 2005fa, 239 in 2007SP, 251 in
2008SP, 249 in 2008fa, 263 in 2009fa, and 264 in 2011fa:
Question 291 Do you know production processes in which humans participate without having
to spend any effort?
158 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[194] Intaglio: The Future of Work, Effort Free? When I first read this question I
initially thought a yes answer would relate to how little effort people using machines have
to do compared with previous societies that used manual labor instead. But using these
machines, factories, and technology still requires some effort, even if it is as small as coming
to work just to turn on and off the machines. Even the act of gathering up other animals to
do the desired production is still effort. So there is no production processes humans are
involved in that require no effort.
This lead me to try and imagine a future utopia where technology is so developed that
there is no workers and no need for effort: All goods are produced and delivered to everyone
by smart machines and artificially intelligent robots! These robots are also capable of
knowing what new machines humans need and go about building new technologies without
human input (effort of thinking creatively and telling the robots what to do).
Could such production be considered exempt from human effort? After all, humans
would no longer be making an effort to produce what they receive, they only consume.
The answer is still no. Even a technologically advanced society, with work-free production,
is built upon a mass of previous human efforts. All technology is the manifestation of previously
exerted human labor. Without first putting effort into basic technology, [e.g. tools,
machines, robots, and finally utopian self-perpetuating artificial intelligence] we can never
get to a labor free world.
As production went on in a work-free utopia, the most we could say is that the amount of
effort involved per product is shrinking: (all previous effort leading up to the implementation
of self perpetuating utopia) divided by (/) (all goods ever produced). This would continually
decrease the amount of (previous) efforts involved per production of new goods, but the
amount of effort will never reach zero... if that makes any sense.
The answer is no. Effort is involved in all human participating production processes, and
hidden in all possible future utopias devoid of work.
Hans: Machine operators are not needed to turn the machines on and off. A timer could do that. Machine operators
are needed so someone is there if something goes wrong and to take over tasks that are not mechanized.
With utopias you must be careful what you wish for. Robots smart enough to not only produce and develop new
methods of production will be smart enough to dominate humans. What if they treat lower life forms (which, from
their perspective, would include us) the same way we do?
Message [194] referenced by [201]. Next Message by Intaglio is [232].
[201] Giant: Humans Cause Too Much Work. In response to Intaglio’s [194] “The
Future of Work, Effort Free?”
I agree with Intaglio up to a certain point that the production process in general will never
reach zero but will just decrease as technology increases. I do think there is a way to break
the level of human production participation level down further, but first I want to address
my opinion that humans cause more work than is necessary for certain productions. I do
think growing food (not farming) can be produced naturally without any human production
involved. Of course having humans participate in the production does make it more efficient.
Along the same lines, decomposition is something that humans benefit from by having more
fertile soil and yet it does not require human participation to function.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 159
A deeper level of division that Intaglio could have dived into is that depending on a
human’s place in society, impacts the level of production process they participate in with
the amount of effort they put in. A lower class worker is going to put in a lot more effort
into the production process (say fixing/manufacturing the machinery of the future) than the
upper class business man who is only having to push a button to get the machine to work.
Hans: Interesting that even in the most extreme utopian thinking, you are taking the continuation of class society
as a given.
Next Message by Giant is [366].
[217] GoUtes: Production Process. There is not any production process that humans
participate in, that do not require at least some type of effort. In any situation where human
participation is warranted, some sort of effort is always needed, whether it be physical labor,
using intellect, having authority or power over others, in all occasions effort in needed by
humans in the production process. If no effort were needed, than nothing would be accomplished.
According to Marx effort is an essential part of the human-nature “metabolism.”
Hans: You are right, Marx thinks, and a case can be made for it, that nothing can be “accomplished,” as you say,
without effort. I tried to make such a case in [216], which was sent to the class 49 minutes before your answer.
Next Message by GoUtes is [255].
[220] Max: Invigorating and fulfilling = effortless. Herbert Marcuse is a German
philosopher who wrote Eros and Civilization in 1955. The book draws on Karl Marx and
Sigmund Freud to lay out a non-repressive society. He argues that the historical repressive
qualities of labor in capitalism suppress our libido to the extent that all of society has been
built upon restrained instincts (in so many words...). Marcuse believes that a socialist society
that frees the libido, or eros, can exist without the suppression of poor laborers. In other
words, work would be a joyful experience, one that involved the collaboration of community.
Many people tried doing this on communes in the sixties and seventies; they tried turning
work and farming into a celebration, rather than a chore. In this way, it does not take “effort”
to produce commodities, instead, labor would be invigorating and fulfilling—effortless.
Hans: Think of the labor of raising children. It can be very fulfilling, but it is certainly not effortless. The equation
“Invigorating and fulfilling = effortless” which I put into your subject line is in my view the questionable assumption
in the theory you are sketching out.
The real issue as I see it is not whether labor is effortless but whether it is alienated. I tried to bring up
childrearing as an example of non-alienated labor. Even childrearing can be turned into a chore and a struggle by
the capitalist system. It can be an incredibly painful uphill battle to try to protect your children, those whom you
love most, from the many negative social influences—which break their spirit and try to pull them under, turn them
into addicts, consumerists, racists, bigots. Many working class parents think they have to go with the flow and stunt
their children so that they fit better into the limited options society has ready for them. As Adorno said, you cannot
have a healthy life in a sick society.
Next Message by Max is [322].
Question 296 is 152 in 1998WI, 170 in 2000fa, 201 in 2003fa, 256 in 2008SP, and 269 in
2011fa:
Question 296 Since use-value is not mysterious, the commodity’s mysterious character
must come from value.
a. Is a commodity mysterious because it takes labor, i.e., the expenditure of human brain,
nerves, muscles, etc., to produce it?
b. Is a commodity mysterious because the question how much time it takes to produce it is
relevant for society at large?
160 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
c. Is a commodity mysterious because the labors performed in a commodity-producing society
are part of an overall social labor process?
d. Is there another aspect of the value of the commodity which was overlooked here that
might be mysterious?
[393] She: graded A+ Karl Marx believes that the commodity is mysterious because, to
quote the Annotations, “. . . social relations encapsulated in the commodities are not visible
to or controlled by the commodity owners (Ehrbar, 170). In order to deduce what in a
commodity results in the seemingly contradictory surface relations we can observe, Marx
disassembles the commodity and analyzes its components individually to determine which
are indeed mysterious.
Marx begins with the use-value and concludes that, “...there is nothing mysterious about
it,” (163:4). It is completely rational and explainable for man to make things useful to him.
He next looks at the way man transforms things in nature into use-values and determines
there is nothing mysterious here either.
The determinations of value are not mysterious either; they are simple to understand,
but in a market society, they are regulated by,”. . . interactions of the commodities on the
surface of the economy,” (Ehrbar, 179). There is a mystery to the way that in a commodity
economy, society allocates labor, or socially-necessary labor-time, according to competition
on the market, rather than the actual labor-time used in production. This means, this is
out of the control of the producers of the commodities, it is therefore, mysterious to them.
When commodities are exchanged, it is a contact between them, rather than between the
producers. The will of the individual producer is thwarted by the properties inherent in
the commodity. Marx says, “. . . and finally the relationships between the producers, within
which the social characteristics of their labors are manifested, take on the form of a social
relation between the products of labor” (Marx, 164:3). So Marx believes that there are social
relations between the commodities themselves as they are the embodiment and manifestation
of the relationships between producers. Marx also says this, “. . . reflects the social relation
of the producers to the sum total of labor” (Marx, 165:1). Both of these points emphasize
Marx’s belief that the mystery in the products of labor only arises when the products become
commodity-forms.
Final Grading Note by Hans: You don’t leave anything out. You collect everything Marx says about a specific
item, even if it seems contradictory or incoherent, and then you juggle all those different aspects like balls which
you are not supposed to drop. While others go for one simple concept and cannot be bothered with the confusing
details, you keep all the details in mind but I cannot quite see the unifying concept.
Next Message by She is [614].
Question 298 is 131 in 1995WI, 108 in 1995ut, 141 in 1996sp, 149 in 1997WI, 154 in
1997sp, 147 in 1997ut, 246 in 2007SP, and 256 in 2008fa:
Question 298 Explain how value denotes a specific relation of production and not just the
general relationship between a producer and his product.
[285] Baseball: The value of a product is based on the labor used to create that product.
The time and labor used to produce a Lamborghini is much more than what it takes to
produce a Corolla. Even though the parts are extremely similar (tires, windows, rims, etc.),

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 161
Lamborghinis have a longer production time and waiting list which creates a socially generated
view that this car is much better and worth all the money which is paid for it. Much
like a quote I read in a business text “A product only fills the void that it itself has created.
Many consumers are paying for a name which gives off the impression of high social status,
when in fact substitute products are a third of the price and work/look just as well.”
Hans: If you think Marx’s labor theory of value holds because things with more hand labor are more prestigious,
this is a basic misinterpretation of the theory.
Next Message by Baseball is [406].
Question 303 is 134 in 1995WI, 111 in 1995ut, 144 in 1996sp, 146 in 1996ut, 159 in
1998WI, 166 in 1999SP, 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, and 277 in
2011fa:
Question 303 How does Marx’s use of the term “fetishism” compare with its modern dictionary
definition?
[188] Balrog: graded C+ I would dare say that one of the most common fetishes that exists
amongst people today would be shoe fetishes. In this sense the word fetish is indicating that
someone has an unusual desire for or attraction to shoes. Thus, the average person in today’s
society would define “commodity fetishism” as an extreme desire for material goods.
According to dictionary.com the definition for fetish is an object regarded with awe as
being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency. Commodities
in a way are a source of power to people and establish their social dominance or
inferiority. Someone with a worn down pair of converse will not be regarded as having an
equal social stature as someone with the newest pair of Air Jordan’s. By having a Rolex on
your wrist you tell the world that you are successful and can feel the higher social value that
accessory provides.
To go one step further into what I feel Marx was trying to say is that the power that
commodities possess is equivalent to a drug. If not careful upon coming into contact with
that power someone can become corrupted and acquire a strong appetite for more. Within
reason, whatever it now takes to acquire more of that power from commodities, whether it
hurts those around you or the environment will be done.
Message [188] referenced by [189], [211], and [227]. Next Message by Balrog is [252].
[189] Hans: Shabbiness Principle and Fantasy Answers. I agree with Balrog [188]
that in modern capitalism in the US, people use their possessions to “establish their social
dominance or inferiority.” “Establish” means here: demonstrate to those (usually strangers)
they interact with. Balrog’s example: “Someone with a worn down pair of converse will
not be regarded as having an equal social stature as someone with the newest pair of Air
Jordan’s.”
I can relate because I lived my entire life in opposition to this. I grew up in post-
World War II Germany where clothes were plain and modest with holes carefully but visibly
patched over. People wore sweaters with leather patches on the elbows, etc. My dream as a
teenager was to have raggedy clothes, long hair, but the posture or demeanor of a king. My
dream was to radiate so much life and energy that people respect you as a person regardless
162 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
of the clothes you are wearing. I fell far short (or should I say long?) but I still remember
this image. My uncle, a respected lawyer, judge, and law professor, privately followed the
“shabbiness principle” of deliberately wearing clothes with holes—to the consternation of
the family, although he said he needed these clothes because he was working in the garden.
In the US, I once terribly embarrassed my little son. I visited his classroom in order to
talk about my job as University Professor. The classroom had a broken window. I entered
the classroom dressed in such a way that everybody thought I was the window repairman.
My ex used to say to my son: “do you want to become like your father? He dresses like
a bum.” In a sense I did; I considered it an act of solidarity with the bums to dress like
they and experience the cold sholder everybody gives to people dressed this way. This, not
gardening, was my excuse for the shabbiness principle. My son is grown up now and my
excuse has changed too: Now I am wearing jeans with holes because it is environmentally
unsustainable to throw out your jeans just because they have holes in their knees.
When Marx talked about commodity fetishism, he did not mean the signaling of social
status. In 1870, working people could barely afford shoes. Therefore as an interpretation of
Marx, [188] falls into the category of “pure phantasy.”
Balrog desribes his answer as “what I (Balrog) feel Marx was trying to say.” When I read
this I had the image in my mind of someone ‘reading’ the Annotations and a few of the past
answers to this question without really taking in what was said—because this material is so
dense that it takes a lot of time to follow the argument. The answer is then composed not
as an application of the arguments made in the readings, but from the general character of
the discussion, the words used, etc., i.e., from things one can pick up if one reads over a
text without taking the time and concentration necessary to get into it and understand what
is said.
This leads to answers about which my feedback notes say “this is pure phantasy” or “this
has nothing to do with Marx.” In this class I want you to read, not ‘read’. If the text is
too difficult to follow, come to the class sessions, where I usually try to give a bird’s eye
view placing the detailed readings in context. Some of the class sessions are available as
audios; this week’s sessions are now uploaded, and Friday’s audio is shorter but better than
Tuesday’s. There are no earlier audios this Semester, because I projected Marx’s text on the
screen, which cannot be followed in pure audio. But I can recommend the audios of the past
Semesters too. Here is the link to the audios:
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/2010fa/audio/index.html
Message [189] referenced by [211] and [244]. Next Message by Hans is [198].
[211] Robert: The modern fetish. I’ve been thinking about the posts about fetishism.
Balrog [188] described what maybe called modern fetishism, not what Marx was talking
about as Hans [189] pointed out. Nevertheless, not necessarily in an effort to understand
Marx but in an effort to understand modern capitalism, I think Balrog makes an interesting
observation about which I would like to comment.
I have had the opportunity to study a little psychology. I was driven to the study to better
understand the potential of human beings, what Maslow refers to as self-actualization and
Jung calls individuation. In the process of trying to understand these thing I studied a little

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 163
about how the human mind may function and the interrelation of psychological emotions,
neuropsychology, pathologies, development, and other aspects of human beings related to
psychology. I was impressed at the advances in the science (and art) of modern psychology.
I thought, as I learned, how wonderful it was that our society could train people to help
others psychologically. Indeed, a good many people who study psychology do try to help
other; however, sadly, many trained psychologies are employed by owners of production to
use the knowledge they have gained about the functioning of human psychology to create
an emotional, irrational desire in humans for the commodities of their employers. The point
that Balrog [188] makes that Air Jordan shoes are viewed as cooler than Converse is because
of the millions of dollars spent in advertising designed by psychologists (disgracefully) to
create in young people the illusion that these shoes will bring them closer to Jordanness.
The psychologist employed by modern capitalist actually feed and continue the pathology
endemic in western society (and quickly spreading to the rest of the world) that ownership of
certain commodities, which are imbued with artificial fetish qualities, will magically bring
about meaningfulness and “happiness” for its purchasers. What in fact happens is that the
consumer will not find any meaning and happiness in his consumption (he will wonder, for
example, why he is not suddenly as good looking and desirable as the product promised).
Psychologist should be required to take the Hippocratic oath as well and pledge to do no
harm. In my opinion, psychologist employed in the advertising and marketing business are
doing great harm.
We can tie this into Marx because the reason the psychologists are able to create desire for
products in the consumers begins with the fact that the consumers, who are also workers or
owners of capital, are alienated. Exploiting workers is not ultimately fulfilling to the human
psyche, nor is being exploited by being forced to create more value than one is compensated
for. What humans are looking for is meaningful lives; capitalism leads them to believe that
what they are looking for is capital accumulation or commodity consumption...neither will
provide meaning.
Message [211] referenced by [227] and [244]. Next Message by Robert is [259].
[227] Cougar: (graded B–) Fetishism. I would also like to comment on Balrog’s post
[188] concerning fetishism after today’s lecture. As already stated by Robert [211], the
analysis given by Balrog was not what Marx was trying to convey in his theory. To my
understanding, rather than being a “fixation” or “obsession,” the fetishism of commodities is
the revelation of social relationships among people in society within those commodities. An
example used in Wikipedia is that of an 100 dollar bill in a transaction. The materials and
labor necessary to create the bill are not nearly worth 100 dollars, yet both parties agree that
the bill represents the sufficient amount of value to be exchanged for the designated commodity(s).
The transaction represents a social relationship between both parties, that each
of their commodities is valued equally with the other and is therefore exchangeable. The
100 dollar bill has been socially agreed upon to be worth 100 dollars worth of commodity(s)
although it is clearly not worth that in terms of its inputs. This “mystical” ability, as Marx
considers it, of the bill to command such a value is described by fetishism, as if the value
were intrinsic of the bill itself. Hopefully I’m close to what Hans shared with us in lecture
and if not, I’d appreciate feedback in preparation for the exam.
164 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [227] referenced by [240] and [244]. Next Message by Cougar is [497].
[240] Hans: Beware of Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia. It is an incredible resource, but it
is not reliable in its pronouncements on Marxism. Wikepedia reflects a consensus view, and
there is no consensus about Marxism (other than that Marxism is all wrong). So you will get
uneven results if you consult Wikipedia about Marxism.
The example with the dollar bill in the Wikipedia article about Commodity Fetishism is
simply bad Marxism. The fetish-like character of money is unrelated with it that a modern
dollar bill costs less to produce than its face value. Even full-weighted gold coins, which
cost exactly as much to produce as their face value, have a fetish-like character—because
“this physical object, gold or silver in its crude state, becomes, as soon as it emerges from
the bowels of the earth, the immediate incarnation of all human labor” [187:1]. A thing has
social powers just because it is gold. This is what Marx found remarkable, not that gold has
in the historical development been replaced by paper money—which shows its social origins
much more clearly than crude gold.
Cougar [227] not only picks out the one thing that is clearly wrong in the Wikipedia
article, he also theorizes that paper money is able to buy things because everybody agrees
that it is worth something although it really isn’t. This is not Marx’s explanation of the
“riddle of money.” Marx explains money as a “form of value,” at the surface reflection of the
labor in the commodities which makes them exchangeable. Didn’t Cougar realize that the
long development in section 3 of chapter One, which took up two homework periods, was
Marx’s response to the simple-minded social contract theory of money?
Message [240] referenced by [499]. Next Message by Hans is [244].
[241] Fisher: Purchasing debt. I thought it was really interesting hearing the last discussion
in class how people give human like characteristics to commodities. Nowadays people
are worried about objects as if they were another person. Ipods and iphones, for example,
have almost become a status symbol or even way of life for people of all ages. With all
the new technological advances and easy communication channels, people have found it a
“need” to have their software with them at all times. Never in the history of the world have
people needed to have items with them at all times, that wasn’t to help procure food, water,
or shelter. The world is moving faster, and it’s likely that we all really do need these items.
Do we need them more than other people?
Hans: What does the subject line “purchasing debt” have to do with the text of your message?
Message [241] referenced by [244], [246], and [263]. Next Message by Fisher is [242].
[244] Hans: Once more about the self-activity of commodities. Fisher [241] says he
enjoyed “the last discussion in class how people give human like characteristics to commodities,”
and then Fisher goes on to describe how people are obsessed with their ipods—
although my [189], Robert’s [211], and Cougar’s [227] all said that such an obsession is not
what Marx means by commodity fetishism.
Two points about this.
(1) If I said in class that commodities seem to have their own agency as if they were
humans, then this does not imply that people give human-like characteristics to commodities.
You may think: we all know that commodities are objects—therefore if someone says they
have their own agency then this can only happen if people thought they had this agency and

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 165
treat them as if they were animated beings. Marx would say that this objection puts too much
blame on the individual and at the same time give the individual too much power.
Marx himself is not blaming individuals but he is blaming social relations. He says:
commodities have their own agency—not because people act as if they were animate beings,
not because people treat their ipod like pets, but because commodities are the carriers of
social relations.
Example (a): you meet a commodity which you would like to have. Say you are walking
in the park and a really cool bicycle is leaning against a tree. Although this bicylce is only
an object, you cannot just walk over to the tree and take it. This bicycle belongs to someone,
and the police would come after you. Therefore you leave the bicycle alone—not because
you give it human-like characteristics but because you don’t want to end up in prison.
Example (b): if you are serious that you want this bike you have to go to the store and
buy it. The price is not under your control, and it is not really under the store owner’s control
either. Again, this can be called “self-activity” of the commodity, but again it does not come
from you treating it as if it was alive.
(2) We live in a society which gives commodities powers that are not under the control of
the humans. Not because we have somehow the wrong attitudes but this is how our society
historically evolved. Now these social relations induce fetishistic attitudes in people. These
fetishistic attitudes have many expressions. People may think that commodities have their
social powers from nature instead from society, or they may think that nothing can really be
done about the social structure which allows commodities to trample people’s lives, or they
may think that possession of commodities transfers some of the commodities’ social powers
to their owners. All these are wrong responses, they are fetishistic responses.
A non-fetishistic response would be to follow Marx’s example. Marx concluded that it
cannot be good if things have power over people or, to say it more intuitively by leaving
out the objects, if people do not have insight into or control over their own social relations.
Therefore Marx tried to find the root cause for the perversity of our social structure, and he
tried to change it—because he was not only a scientist but also a political activist.
Next Message by Hans is [247].
[311] Rmc: Marx’s word choice. Just a thought on Marx’s word choice (or the translator’s).
While I was reading the section on the fetish-like character of commodities, I looked up
its definition to make sure I was understanding it in the right context. This is one entry my
Mac gave me:
“an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered
to be inhabited by a spirit.” The second one was: “a course of action to which one has
an excessive and irrational commitment.”
I think Marx chose a very appropriate term—in societies like ours, we seem to worship
objects and status; it seems that some of us come off as excessively materialistic.
Well-worded, Marx!
166 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: You submitted this as a free discussion contribution and I reclassified it as question 303. Please read the
answers to this question. “Commodity fetishism” for Marx did not mean the worship of objects and status or the
materialistic attitude of some individuals. In response to your “Well-worded, Marx!” Marx would have the right to
say “You need to improve your reading skills, Rmc!
Message [311] referenced by [322]. Next Message by Rmc is [442].
[322] Max: Marx’s word choice. In response to RMC [311], Marx does not define the
fetish like character of commodities as simple materialism. Instead, the fetish like character
refers to social interactions that treat commodities, their trade, and their value as natural or
“magical.” In reality, they only exist because of the way history has unfolded. The fact that
some people living in capitalistic societies obsess over material goods is merely a byproduct
of capitalistic forces. Marx wrote Capital a long time ago when wealth and materialism, as
it exists in modern developed nations, did not exist.
Next Message by Max is [384].
[387] Max: graded B Fetishism or fetishism? Marx calls “the fetishism,” something
“which sticks to the products of labor as soon as they are produced as commodities, and
which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.” The fetishism isn’t a
physical property of the commodity, nor is it a “natural character stemming from the material
nature of these things.” Instead, it is the “social” and “economic character” which is inherent
within the social process of a commodity economy. In other words, people fetishize and
obsess over the trade and market relationships of commodities, even though they only exist
as metaphysical elements of commodity societies, notably, capitalism.
In contrast, modern usage of “fetishism” usually refers to something that is obsessed
about. In some ways this definition is similar to Marx’s, although most of its modern usage
is applied to a material attachment to something physical. For instance, someone can have a
shoe fetish, meaning they obsess over shoes. On the other hand, Marx’s use of “fetishism” is
an obsession over something abstract that is treated as a physical property of commodities.
Hans: If you define Marx’s usage of fetishism as an obsession you are on the wrong track. Your in-class answer
was better.
Next Message by Max is [595].
[430] AM: Definition Showdown: Modern vs. Marx. Before comparing Marx’s use
of fetishism with that of modern society’s, let’s explicitly state how each defines fetishism.
To Marx, fetishism is defined (on page 165) as “There [in the religious realm] the products
of the human brain seem to be independent beings endowed with a life of their own, which
enter into each other and with the human race. So it is in the realm of commodities with the
products of people’s hands. This I call the fetishism which sticks to the products of labor
as soon as they are produced as commodities and which is therefore inseparable from the
production on commodities.” The modern definition of fetishism, as taken from the Merriam
Webster Dictionary, is “extravagant irrational devotion”. These two definitions are similar
in the objects (i.e. commodities) are given lives of their own. They are “endowed” with
human-like characteristics requiring “devotion” and respect. The modern definition suggests
fetishism occurs after production when one has possession of the object. But, Marx makes
it clear that he feels that fetishism is there at the moment of production. Once the object is
produced the fetishism follows the object regardless of its popularity or branding. Another
definition of fetishism according to Marx is provided in the Annotations which provides a
unique insight to where modern fetishism stems from. Please note that I see today’s society

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 167
to be comparable to “bourgeois political economy.” This definition of fetishism says that
the objects’ social relations, created by production, are mistaken to be a natural characteristic.
Hans presents this simply (in [136]) as nature that has been socialized. While modern
society’s and Marx’s definition of fetishism share some points, they should not be used interchangeably.
Marx sees fetishism through deep analysis of market values in capitalism
and the modern use of the word comes from an economy deeply rooted in one’s personal
satisfaction and greed.
Message [430] referenced by [1055]. Next Message by AM is [770].
[517] Milly: content A late penalty 1% Fetishism. According to Webster’s Online Dictionary,
fetishism is defined as an excessive devotion to one object. It then goes on to define
a fetish as an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular a man-made object
that has power over others. Essentially, fetishism is attributing some kind of inherent value
or powers to an object.
Marx’s definition is similar but focuses on the social connection. Marx does describe
commodities to have a mysterious character. Part of this stems from the production process
where the commodities transform from natural materials and seem to have an agenda of their
own. In the Annotations Marx sees fetishism as a false consciousness which sticks to the
commodities as soon as they are produced as commodities.
Hans: The mysterious character of the commodity does not come from the production process.
Next Message by Milly is [686].
Question 305 is 146 in 1996sp, 258 in 2007fa, and 263 in 2008fa:
Question 305 Mark Blaug writes in p. 268:2: “Commodity ‘fetishism’ refers to the tendency
to reify commodities, to treat what are in fact social relations between men as if they
were relations between things.” Right or wrong?
[212] Max: (graded A+) Marx’s Meaning of Commodity Fetishism. A lot has been discussed
on possible contemporary interpretations of what commodity fetishism is. However,
so far there hasn’t been much dialogue about what Marx meant when he uses the term. I was
hoping someone would discuss Commodity Fetishism and Hans would make the appropriate
corrections on their interpretation, but seeing as nobody yet has, I thought I would take it on.
Blaug means that markets have interactions which seem to be based on physical properties
of commodities. In other words, people may not understand the way their product will affect
the market, all they know is that they can buy X commodities with their Y commodity.
Producers buy and trade commodities without knowing the exact working of markets or
what the social or environmental effects of their operation will be, yet they continue to buy
and sell because they think the markets based on social relationships are constant and real.
Commodity fetishism is a fixation on commodities, like a horse with blinders; focused on
the road ahead and nothing else.
People make commodities to acquire other commodities, to acquire other commodities,
etc. We can see this very clearly in the example of the housing bubble: Lenders gave mortgages
to people even though they knew the people couldn’t afford the mortgage. However,
this was okay because they weren’t planning to collect on the mortgage, their plan was to sell
the mortgages instead. They weren’t making a profit off the repayment of the mortgage, but
168 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the selling of the mortgage to other banks. The social relationships within the market “reified”
the commodity; turned it from an abstract relationship into a physical commodity. The
thing is, many of the banks knew that the mortgages they were selling were no good; they
knew they could sell the commodity via social relations and make a profit off of nothing.
They took advantage of the system. In the same sense, I believe this goes on (though mysteriously,
most often without people knowing or trying to take advantage) regularly through
the trade of all commodities.
In conclusion, Blaug is right. Marx uses the example of religion because God is abstract,
though many people use their abstract beliefs of God to formulate community, religion, and
other relationships with each other. Similarly, people think of abstract social relationships
(the need for commodities, the buying of commodities, the loss of value within commodities,
the mysteriousness of commodities etc.) as axioms to base economic choices off of.
Message [212] referenced by [219]. Next Message by Max is [220].
[219] Hans: Blaug’s Error Exemplified. There is a big difference between Blaug and
Marx. Blaug says that the social relations are relations between people, and the problem is
hat people treat them as if they were relations between things. Marx says the social relations
are between things, and the problem is that individuals are trying to manipulate these socially
empowered things for their benefit. This does not work, instead it has the unintended side
effect of making the individuals the servants of anonymous social forces instead of their
masters.
Max’s [212] was incredibly perceptive because he found a situation in society where people
acted exactly as Blaug described. This situation is banks approving lyers’ loans and then
selling these loans on the market for mortgage-backed securities. Here banks were aware
of their social relations with the borrower: they knew the borrower had a high probability
of defaulting on the loan. But they thought by turning this relation into a thing, this social
reality would not matter and they would get rich. This is a rip-off, a pyramid scheme, which
may work for a while but inevitably has to blow up.
Marx says that capitalists turn to speculation only when ordinary capitalist exploitation
runs into obstacles. Here is what Marx means by this. An ordinary productive capitalist can
earn free money just as the speculator, but this source of free money is much more secure
and long-term than the speculator’s. If therefore ordinary capitalists turn into speculators en
masse, this is a sign that they are somewhat desperate because their ordinary source of free
money is no longer flowing.
Ordinary capitalist exploitation comes from people acting according to Marx’s definition
of the fetish-like character of commodities. Capitalists know they can sell products for
money, and this money gives them access to all other wealth. They are taking advantage
of social relations between things, between money and commodities. Of course if pressed
they may say that these social relations ultimately have to do with people, but when they
are buying and selling, they do not think of it as social relations between people but they
see profit opportunities in the social properties of things. This is a big difference. The
bank officers approving lyers’ loans and then selling them were fully aware of the social
relations represented by the lyers’s loans and sent boastful emails to their friends how they
made a killing from the greed and stupidity of the home buyers. Productive capitalists,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 169
doing meticulous research in order to find things which they can produce at lower costs
than their market price, do not send emails around how they screwed people. They are not
even necessarily aware of it that they are screwing the workers producing those goods—after
all the workers voluntarily enter employment contracts with them. Marx will explain this
paradoxical situation, that in capitalism, workers clamor for being exploited, as the book
goes on.
As we know from experience, ordinary capitalist exploitation is a much more stable flow
of free money than any pyramid scheme. But we all know that there is no free lunch—so
what is the downside? For the workers the downside is that they have to produce without
prospect of ever being able to get a fair share of the wealth they are producing. But for
the capitalists and society as a whole the downside is that they and we do not understand
the nature of the mechanism which dispenses free money to the capitalists. We as a society
are doing one thing but we think we are doing something completely different. What we
are really doing is so non-obvious that we have to read a big and complicated book, Marx’s
Capital, to understand it—and first we have to overcome the opposition of the 99% of all
economists who say that Capital is wrong.
This would be not such a big deal if these illusions about the nature of our social relations
would not go hand in hand with us not being the masters of these social relations. It was
just discovered that the same apparatus which is dispensing free money to the capitalists
is also driving the entire human race and countless other species over a cliff by causing
catastrophic climate change. We just can watch it as if it was a horror show on TV—and so
far, the horrors are for most of us on TV screens only. A thorough change in the nature of
our social relations would be necessary to stop this horror from unfolding and spreading to
everyone’s real life. But social changes are slow and difficult, and at the moment the climate
movement is far too weak to effect such profound changes.
Message [219] referenced by [499]. Next Message by Hans is [236].
[411] Babyceta: graded A– On the surface, Blaug’s statement about commodity fetishism
appears accurate. To reify an object means to turn an abstract concept into something concrete.
Here, Blaug means the invisible social relations between people, and supposes they
are expressed concretely by individuals who treat human social relationships as if they were
relationships between things. To Blaug, we become fetishistic about commodities because
we believe their ownership reifies human social interactions. I may purchase a pair of shoes
not because I benefit from their use-value, but because someone I am associated with owns
a pair just like them, and having a pair expresses a bond or some sort of camaraderie with
that individual. Blaug’s notions of commodity fetishism are more akin to Veblen’s notions
of pecuniary emulation or conspicuous consumption, and not to what Marx would consider
fetishism of commodities.
To Marx, social relationships are between things, and people believe they can manipulate
the physical nature or properties of these things for their personal benefit. That is the illusive
nature of capitalism: we accept unnatural, man-made occurrences to be natural outcomes,
and are therefore only fooling ourselves. I wrote in an earlier submission [308] that fetishism
of commodities is a social force based on natural construction (Hans replied that it would be
more accurate to say commodity fetishism is the socialization of nature), and I still stand by
170 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
that definition. But my understanding of what Marx is trying to say, however, has evolved
to include the belief that profit and greed are inevitable outcomes of human nature, and
therefore, they justify capitalism. The belief that the material make-up or physical properties
of commodities somehow transmit social characteristics is the fetishistic equivalent of the
proverbial pot of gold. We see this colorful rainbow and believe that the pot of gold transmits
its value to society, not because of the inherent value embedded deep inside of the gold, but
purely because the gold is shiny and beautiful.
Hans: To reify means to treat something as a material object which isn’t an material object. By definition you
cannot reify an object, only something which is not an object.
We haven’t explained capitalism yet in class, but Marx does not derive capitalist behavior from greed, and he
would say that the justification of capitalism by human nature is a modern form of commodity fetishism.
Next Message by Babyceta is [538].
[425] Bigwhite: It seems that fetishism is caused by social behavior and social relationships,
sometimes making a commodity seem more desirable or valuable than it may actually
be. It is true that people seem to let social relations reflect on their commodities, which to
Marx seems like somewhat of a mysterious phenomenon, that he can’t explain at first. This
seems to be most apparent with things such as gold and diamonds, people let social relations
influence the price of these commodities and makes them more expensive than if they were
just traded as a relation between things. If there wasn’t the influence of the social relation
then people would certainly say that water holds more value than diamonds. Its use value
far exceeds that of diamonds for the individual person, yet it seems less valuable because it
is so cheaply traded.
Next Message by Bigwhite is [547].
[429] PLG: graded B+ Fetishism in Marx’s terms refers to a consumer’s belief that commodities
carry power because of their physical makeup. This leads consumers to become
enslaved to commodities. The consumers do not make the connection that the power of
the commodity comes from the labor used to create it. Rather than being the master of
the commodity, the commodity becomes the master of the consumer because of this “false
consciousness” as it is described in Hans’ annotations.
Blaug’s description of fetishism is different from Marx in a few ways. He believes that
fetishism is treating social relations between men as if they were relations between things.
This belief in turn falsely reifies commodities. In contrast Marx does not have an issue with
reifying commodities. But there must be a consciousness of the labor theory of value to go
along with this reification. If there is not a notion of the labor congealed in the commodity
then consumers become controlled by the power of the commodity. This leads consumers to
utilize commodities for profits on the market rather than for use or exchange. They enter a
non-stop race of obtaining commodities to gain further power. The commodities gain control
over the consciousness of the consumer.
Hans: Your account of Blaug’s interpretation is much closer to Marx than what you think is Marx’s theory of
commodity fetishism. Your account of Marx’s theory is a creative adaptation of modern consumerism to elements
of Marx’s labor theory of value. You seem to have read Marx, but in some passages you didn’t pay enough attention,
perhaps because you thought you already knew what he was talking about.
Next Message by PLG is [551].
[499] Kohhep: The statement Blaug makes about commodity fetishism is correct. In
commodity fetishism people view man made relations as if they were natural events. The

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 171
idea that cotton parcels stained green (money) has value, or the ability to purchase anything
known to man if one has enough money, is an example. Money, in reality, has no worth.
Money simply represents the value (abstract labor) within a commodity.
Hans: See [219] and [240].
Next Message by Kohhep is [968].
Question 307 is 138 in 1995WI, 115 in 1995ut, 148 in 1996sp, 150 in 1996ut, 155 in
1997WI, 162 in 1997sp, 155 in 1997ut, 267 in 2008SP, 265 in 2008fa, and 294 in 2012fa:
Question 307 Make a thought experiment comparing market production, in which an artisan
produces something for sale, to community production, in which the same artisan knows
the people who will use the things he is producing, and these are the same people who
are producing the things the artisan is consuming. If you were this artisan, would you act
differently in the market situation than in the community situation? Would, over time, the
use-value of your product and the technology of your labor evolve differently in these two
situations?
[200] Frida: graded A Market v.s. community production. If I were a linen weaver in a
market economy the only reason I would weave linen is that I need it to to obtain use-values
for myself. I would not be thinking about the Linen as a use value for others. While I am
weaving my linen I am worried somewhat about the quality of the linen, if it is noticeably
inferior I will have a hard time selling or exchanging it. What is probably more important in
determining my actions is quantity. If I can make more linen that is reasonably exchangeable
I can obtain more use values. On the other hand, if I was on a personal basis with the people
I was exchanging linen with, I would be thinking about the linen’s use value as well as
exchange value as I was making it. I wouldn’t be able to help thinking about others using
my linen, and I would hope that they would make sure that their products were similarly
high quality.
These differences in attitude would lead to a more personal evolution of the technology
of labor in the community mode of production. If I am thinking about the use-value of my
linen and not just the exchange value I might use slightly less efficient means of production
if it will lead to a higher quality product. I hand-weave my linen partially because I know
everyone that will be using it, and also because I trade it for hand-tailored clothing that my
cousin Judy makes. In the community model, everyone knows my mode of production and
that will affect my choices regarding it.
Next Message by Frida is [369].
Question 308 is 242 in 2004fa, 266 in 2008fa, and 280 in 2009fa:
Question 308 One of Marx’s basic critiques of capitalism is that the surface appearances
are false, they hide what is going on underneath. But in the section about the fetish-like
character Marx seems to deny this critique since he says that the relations of their private
labors appear to the producers as what they are. Can this be reconciled?
[197] Oreo: graded A– Is Marx contradicting himself? In the previous sections of
chapter One, Marx is undoubtedly telling us that the external appearances of commodities
provide us with no insight to how much the commodity is worth. This is true for consumers
172 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
who are unaware of the amount of labor that went into a product. When Marx later states
that “private labors appear to the producers as what they are”, I don’t believe that he is in
any way contradicting himself. I think that he is simply saying that the producer of the
commodity knows the amount of human labor that went into the commodity, while the naive
consumer does not. If I were to go into a jewelry shop and see a necklace that I wanted to
purchase, I would have no idea how much the necklace costs based on its appearance alone.
However, the jewelry maker would know exactly what the necklace was worth, because he
was the one who produced it. He knows precisely how many labor hours went into it, and
therefore the exchange-value of the necklace would appear clearly to him, allowing him to
accurately price the necklace.
Message [197] referenced by [199], [335], and [555]. Next Message by Oreo is [300].
[199] Hans: Predicting prices is by far not the only mystery. Oreo’s answer [197] is
intelligent but I want to send out a correction right away so that the discussion does not get
on the wrong track.
For someone selling commodities, especially new commodities, the greatest mystery is
what prices they will fetch on the market and how many people will buy it. This is incredibly
difficult to predict. But this is not the mystery Marx is talking about. See message [198] I
just sent. To Marx, qualitative things are much more important than quantitative things, and
I think he had a point.
Given this too-narrow interpretation of the mystery, Oreo says that knowledge about the
labor content of commodities is available on the market—if only because the same people
who produce the commodities (or today the capitalists, who supervise production and have
intricate knowledge about it) also sell them. In addition, jewelry seems to me a commodity
where every expert with a microscope can probably determine quite well what the cost of
a given piece is, even if they haven’t produced it. Oreo is right, information about the
underlying economy is available on the market, otherwise the economy would be rudderless
and could not function. However, some of this information is terribly misleading. In section
2 of chapter One, after showing how well the relative form of value represents the underlying
production relations, Marx shows that the equivalent form does not do it well but reflects
everything in an upside-down manner (the three peculiarities of the equivalent form).
Question 308 was posed in the context of a very specific passage in Capital and can only
be answered by looking at this passage in detail.
Message [199] referenced by [335]. Next Message by Hans is [210].
[335] AlexDaily: graded B+ Marx makes a seemly contradiction about capitalism saying
that on the surface appearances are false and then saying that the relations of their private
labors appear to the producers as what they are. However, Marx can be reconciled because
he is talking about two different scales of capitalism. On the smaller scale, capitalism works
with Adam Smith’s invisible hand benefiting all. However, on a larger scale much is hidden
and does not benefit everyone.
Hans: This is a tricky question to answer in the exam because the class discussion had only one intelligent but
wrong guess [197] and my correction [199] which tried to give a better explanation and motivation of the question
but did not answer it. You are right to say that Marx is talking on two different levels. It is not the bigger/smaller
scale of capitalism, but the surface is by definition the market, and those who see things as they are are the producers.
Next Message by AlexDaily is [336].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 173
Question 317 What is the “secret” that gives the commodities their fetish-like character?
[354] Wolf: For the in-class answer, I said that the fetish-like character of commodities
is based off of the equivalent form of an exchange and that individuals reflect the value of a
commodity they are trading for on the use-value of the equivalent which makes it seem as
if the equivalent’s use-value contains this mirrored value as its nature. I realized that this is
not the case.
The “secret” of commodities fetish-like characteristic comes from “the special social
character of labor which produces commodities, and the corresponding peculiar social relation
of the commodity producers.” (Annotations pg. 189 from Marx’s draft of 165:1 in
Capital) This means that the fetish-like characteristic comes from the production process as
opposed to the exchange as I thought earlier.
First, let me make it clear that the fetish-like characteristic of commodities is something
(that I will make clear momentarily) inherent within commodities that makes commodities’
social relationships seem as if they were natural, coming from the commodities themselves
(this applies to the social relationship of commodities as well). Within the production process
of commodity-exchanging societies, a dual character of labor creates this characteristic.
The dual character of labor is the difference between the two opposed aspects of concrete
labor and abstract labor. In order for a commodity to be exchangeable, the labor process
used to make the commodity has to be different than that used in the commodity that is
being exchanged for (a use-value is not exchanged for the same use-value). This implies a
social division of labor. On the other hand, the labor congealed in the commodity has to be
qualitatively the same as that in the commodity being exchanged for, otherwise exchange
could not occur. Therefore, each concrete labor is different, but at the same time equal to
every other concrete labor when abstracted as abstract labor. However, it is only abstracted
in the exchange. Producers’ concrete labor is planned and reflected on this abstraction in
order for them to produce for exchange on the market. This entails that the labor must be a
different concrete labor producing a socially necessary use-value that is qualitatively different
(without this distinction and separation, exchange is not possible) while simultaneously
being abstract labor equal to other congealed abstract labors. Once the market is widespread,
the producer cannot afford to pay attention to this distinction, but rather must focus on and
act with the market for her/his very survival. This creates competition and atomization. Because
the producer is at the whim of the market, this creates the illusion that the market is not
something that s/he contributes to, rather, something to be struggled against for survival (interestingly,
their very participation in the market is causing the market to act against them).
Because the producer is at the whim of the market, it follows that the market appears objective
and natural, something beyond them. This is the expression of the fetish-like character
of commodities.
Next Message by Wolf is [638].
[382] Long: The secret that gives the commodities their fetish-like character is the fact
that they act as a mysterious thing. It is the way that a laborer changes something into useful
things which make them extrasensory. Marx said “take the form of wood, for instance, is
altered if a table is made out of it. Nevertheless the table continuse to be wood, an ordinary,
sensuous thing. But as soon as it emerges as a commodity, it changes into a thing which
174 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
transcends sensuousness.” So the wood is useless but when it become a table it turns into
something very useful and still it is just a piece of wood. But it takes human labour to
transform it into a table which in turns make it a fetishism that attaches it to the product
as it is being produced as a commodity. Marx called it “inseparable from the prodution of
commodities.”
Hans: You are the victim of a terribly misleading translation of 163:3/o in the Penguin/Vintage edition. The
translation “as soon as it emerges as a commodity” sounds as if the table, despite still being simple wood, obtains
mystical properties as soon as it emerges from the production process as a finished product. I.e. that the fetish-like
character of the commodity consists in people falling in love with the desirable use-values of their commodities.
This is exactly the opposite of what Marx wanted to convey.
Next Message by Long is [413].
[407] Baseball: The “secret” that gives commodities their fetish like character lies within
the labor which produces them. The component which gives commodities value is the abstract
human labor needed to produce those commodities. Marx says that the elements
which give commodities their fetish-like character are the “expressions of the inner nature
of value.” By definition, value is not derived from the worth of a commodity but from the
abstract human labor used to produce the commodity. Now in the real world, consumers
are attracted to products because of their use-value; in other words, the way in which the
product will benefit the consumer. Use-values do not magically become attached to commodities
when they are placed on the store shelf. The reality is use-values are activated by
the labor which is used to produce them. Therefore labor is the underlying secret which
gives commodities their fetish like character.
Hans: One leitmotif in the entire class discussion was the fact that the fetish-like character of commodities, which
Marx discusses, is exactly not the attraction or obsession of consumers with the use-values of the commodities.
Next Message by Baseball is [540].
[433] JSmits: graded A The “secret” that gives commodities their fetish-like character
are underlying social issues. In the production process where humans are interacting with
nature there are no illusions but once these goods hit the market this introduces irrealism.
At this point this is where the relations of the consumer and the good should be directed
toward realism but the lack of control in this stage of production is where you lose control
of realism. Marx calls the commodity “magical” because of the social power that it has over
us. We think that we control the commodities but they control us.
Hans’s Critical Realist Arguments in Marx’s Capital, Section 3.7, “In more modern terms,
the market participants live in a virtual reality, which gives them the illusion to be able to act
in their interest, but which channels them towards a predetermined outcome.” This just tells
me that we really don’t have any choice in what we do because our course has already been
set. It shows the power that commodities have over us.
Hans: To derive from an accurate description of the workings of our society that nothing can be done about it is,
according to Marx, also a form of fetishism.
Next Message by JSmits is [588].
[453] DMorris: The secret that Marx describes as giving commodities their fetish-like
character is the fact that their character was initially created by society. For example, gold
is valued almost universally, and has been used to trade with for thousands of years. However,
other than its use for trading, gold has very little use-value. Additionally, gold is not
significantly more labor-intensive than other metals. Despite all of this, however, gold has
maintained a fantastic value for years. Marx comments on how common this is; how some

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 175
commodities are worth much more than their labor and natural worth. He states that despite
the fact that commodities are man-made, commodities seem to posses properties that are
independent of human activity. He explains that this fetish-like character denies all rational
explanation.
Hans: What makes you think that gold is “not significantly more labor-intensive than other metals” and that it has
“very little use-value”?
I am baffled by your response—not only because I thought it was common knowledge that the part of the earth
crust accessible to mining contains much less gold than other metals (such as iron, copper, aluminum), and that the
use-value of a noncorrosive metal which is at the same time an excellent conductor is very high, but also because
you throw out of the window everything I thought this class would teach you, namely: What makes you think that
gold differs from other commodities by having higher use-value and/or higher value? According to Marx’s theory,
under the gold standard, an exchange of a commodity against a gold coin is an equal exchange in that the gold coin
contains as much (direct and indirect) labor as the ordinary commodity. What distinguishes gold is not that it has
more value, but that it has a different form of value than other commodities.
Next Message by DMorris is [677].
[476] Jo: The secret is the double character of labor. In essence, there is a social relationship
between commodities, a mysterious value that is inherent in the production of the
commodity, yet independent from its use-value, and completely outside of the control of the
producers of the commodity, yet somehow mysteriously accounted for during the production
process. It is out of the producer’s control because it results from a social relation between
commodities after the commodities have been produced.
As Hans explains, “Labor must fit into the division of labor as concrete labor, and all
labor must be equal as abstract labor.” The definition of abstract labor can be illustrated
within capitalism. By comparing a table bought from Wal-Mart and a table custom-made
by a local craftsman, it is first clear that the cost of the Wal-Mart table would be much
lower than the price of the custom-made table. The custom-made table takes much longer
to build, since it is not constructed on an assembly line in a factory, like the Wal-Mart table.
Much more abstract labor would be equated to the value of the custom-made table, which in
capitalism would translate to a higher price. The way that the market arrives at this price is
mysterious, as it is a reflection of the concrete labor involved in production, which (referring
still to concrete labor) has no way of directly influencing the value that the market arrives at
after production.
Next Message by Jo is [575].
[486] Ferox: graded A The ‘secret’ which gives commodities a fetish-like character is the
cyclical societal belief structure surrounding commodities. This arises out of the belief that
commodities have real social powers, e.g. influence over social relations, ability to affect
economic forces, etc. Even though this fetish like character arose out of wishful thinking on
the behalf of humans, this attribute is only an emergent characteristic of social activity—and
failure to acknowledge this belief destroys the fetish-like character of commodities.
Hans: Marx would call this idealism. You cannot change society by changing the belief-systems of individuals. It
is good reasoning, therefore it gets an A, but it is not Marx’s theory.
Next Message by Ferox is [559].
[490] Intaglio: secret of fetish-like character. My original answer was that the secret
is that the actual source of value is not a physical aspect of the commodity. This is related
but it is the end result of the secret, not the actual secret. The secret that gives commodities
their fetish-like character is that producers don’t base the value of the commodity on the
176 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
common denominator of equalized abstract labor. Instead they judge the value by how well
it will perform on the market. Producers are always changing the price of their product to
take advantage of certain situations and make more profit. This means they have to treat the
congealed labor (unchanging) as a physical property of the product. The secret lies in the
social relations between the producers themselves that disregard all labor as equal.
Hans: In your last sentence I added “between the producers themselves.”
Next Message by Intaglio is [491].
Question 318 is 157 in 1996sp, 163 in 1997WI, 170 in 1997sp, 172 in 1998WI, 179 in
1999SP, 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, 296 in 2011fa, and 309 in
2012fa:
Question 318 Explain Marx’s metaphor that “value does not have it written on its forehead
what it is.” Later in the commodity fetishism section, Marx uses the same metaphor “written
on the forehead” again in a slightly different context. Compare what he says that second
time with what he says here.
[229] Trap: Value is in the Labor. As I understand it, when Marx says “Value, therefore
does not have it written on its forehead what it is,” through this statement he is showing
that the value of commodities is not immediately obvious, he is explaining that value comes
from labor. In the next sentence Marx proves that we don’t understand that labor is the true
value by saying that, “value transforms every product of labor into a social hieroglyphic.” I
believe he is explaining that the producers of the products that are being traded, are done so
on the basis of “my product is better than yours” without looking at the labor, which gives
the item its value to begin with. In the annotations Hans states, “They use scientific tools to
decipher these hieroglyphics, and they eventually succeed.”
The second time Marx uses the metaphor he says, “These forms, which have it written
on their foreheads that they belong to the social formation in which the production process
has the mastery over men...” The meaning of the metaphor doesn’t change all that much
between the times he uses it, but there is a little distinction. I believe that in this one he
is more blatantly talking about the bourgeois economists, and their failure to ask why the
“production process” has so much control over the labor that goes into commodities. He is
upset that people are not seeing that the value comes from labor, and that they have little
control over it.
In his first reference, he is speaking more about hieroglyphs, and how people have found
scientific ways to decipher them, and that they just need to recognize that value is in the
labor. In the second one, he is speaking in a more theoretical sense, about the mistakes of
the bourgeois economists to ask the correct questions about the production process.
Hans: In the second quote, Marx does not criticize the bourgeois economists for “not seeing that the value comes
from labor.” On the contrary, Marx writes in 173:1/oo, just before the passage you quote: “Political economy has
indeed ... analyzed value and its magnitude, and has uncovered the content concealed within these forms.” The
content meaning that value comes from labor and the magnitude of value from socially necessary labor-time. Not
seeing that value comes from labor is not his grievance with bourgeois political economy, therefore what is?
In the first instance, value is the thing with the forehead, in the second, it is forms. In the first instance Marx
names something that is not written on the forehead, in the second he names something that is written on the
forehead. Marx is using the same memorable metaphor in two different situations—this is not an accident. By

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 177
using the same metaphor Marx indicates that the two places are related. Question 318 wanted you to sort out for the
reader how these two places hang together. The vague formulation “the meaning of the metaphor doesn’t change
all that much between the times he uses it” is not an acceptable answer. The difference you are naming (that the
second talks about bourgeois economists and the first does not) is outside the metaphor itself, i.e., in neither case is
Marx speaking about the forehead of the bourgeois economists.
Message [229] referenced by [2012fa:296]. Next Message by Trap is [386].
Exam Question 320 is 173 in 1998WI, 180 in 1999SP, 202 in 2001fa, 216 in 2002fa, 224 in
2003fa, 254 in 2004fa, 249 in 2005fa, 269 in 2007SP, 292 in 2009fa, and 298 in 2011fa:
Exam Question 320 If someone understands that value comes from society and not from
nature, how can that person still have a fetishistic view of social relations under capitalism?
[245] Semaj: (graded C–) Value comes from society, not from nature. Despite understanding
where true value comes from, I believe that people will continue to have a fetishistic
view of social relations based on physical properties of commodity and what value the social
system believes the commodity takes. Like Marx says towards the end of paragraph,“The
disadvantages of capitalism are believed to be anchored in human nature, instead of people
recognizing that they are brought about by a very special social form of organizing production.”
It’s human nature to be ignorant to the facts of the actual social relations in a capitalist
mindset. I feel like even though we understand what kind of production and labor has gone
into a commodity, we will still look for the physical appearances and what others say before
we are fully convinced on it’s actual use-value. To truly understand what the social relations
are, you would have learn how to determine alternate facts of an actual commodity and use
them as your guide to value, instead of following into the highly favored fetishistic outlook
on commodities.
Hans: Marx’s Capital is not about some “true” value which commodities should have but according to the labor
theory of value, actually existing capitalism commodity prices are indeed regulated by labor content. Compare
[92], [122], and the links from there.
Question 321 is 217 in 2002fa, 225 in 2003fa, 255 in 2004fa, 250 in 2005fa, 270 in
2007SP, 275 in 2007fa, 281 in 2008SP, 299 in 2011fa, and 312 in 2012fa:
Question 321 Marx criticizes in 166:2/o that even after the discovery of labor as the the
substance of value, this was generally considered an “immutable fact.” What else should
people have thought and done?
[670] RexManning: This is from earlier in the book, but I still wanted to add my two
cents. It is from question 321, which asks: Marx criticizes in 166:2/o that even after the
discovery of labor as the substance of value, this was generally considered an “immutable
fact.” What else should people have though and done?
The natural sciences consist of many different laws, and theories, that we as humans tend
to accept without questioning or even understanding. The social sciences, that rule human
behavior and interaction are often lumped in the same realm of immutable facts that we
blindly accept. Even after the discovery that value is based on labor, the fetishistic view did
not change, because of the blind acceptance of these social “laws.” Instead of continuing
to accept these immutable social facts, people should have considered the labor value of
commodities. Marx then says that even after such a discovery has been made, a society
178 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
“can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by decree, the successive phases of its natural
development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.” The understanding of labor
as the measure of value should have spread, and not been disregarded for a relationship of
capitalism and human psychology.
Next Message by RexManning is [801].
Question 323 is 160 in 1996sp, 173 in 1997sp, 165 in 1997ut, 194 in 2000fa, 205 in
2001fa, 219 in 2002fa, 227 in 2003fa, 257 in 2004fa, 252 in 2005fa, 272 in 2007SP, 277
in 2007fa, 283 in 2008SP, 281 in 2008fa, 302 in 2011fa, and 315 in 2012fa:
Question 323 Commodity producers do not exchange their products because they consider
the labor in these products to be equal and therefore believe the fruits of the labor should
be distributed on an equal basis. Marx claims that, on the contrary, the market interactions
induce them to unknowingly equalize their labors. Describe the process by which they
equalize their labors, and the goals which they pursue in this process.
[1209] Hans: Grades force you to flatten your thinking. Marx says that all labor processes
in capitalism are thoroughly homogenized and alienated by the fact that the products
are produced for the market. Since human labor in the abstract is the ingredient that creates
value, labor becomes indeed abstract drudgery.
When reviewing your contributions over the entire Semester for the final grades, I noticed
a similarly detrimental influence of the market on your homework answers. The market
affects the homework answers because you need to get a good grade so that your laborpower
is marketable. This causes some of you to stop thinking on your own and instead
sifting through the archives or the Annotations in search for the “right” answer.
For instance, [243] basically says (I am caricaturing to make my point):
Initially I thought output would be a better way to measure labor than time,
because different workers may have quite different outputs in the same
time, but then I read that it must be time because Marx measures abstract
labor, therefore my answer is: time.
The author discards his own thinking because it does not lead him to the “right” answer—
although his thinking is valid! Marx himself said (again I am paraphrasing):
I am measuring abstract labor, therefore it must be time, but this leads me
to the paradox of the lazy worker. Therefore I realize that abstract labor
has a social dimension. This means I cannot measure labor by actual time
spent but must use the socially average time necessary to produce the same
output.
Marx did not have any qualms to run into contradictions (I call them impasses), because
if this happens, he digs himself out of the contradiction again by a negation of the negation
which preserves what is good in both contradictory aspects. For instance, one might say his
concept of socially necessary labor-time is a way to measure time by output, i.e., it combines
the advantages of both.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 179
But you don’t have the luxury of being part of a dialogue which develops the answer like
Marx did. You cannot be the one speaking up for the impasse, because this is the wrong
answer. For the sake of your grade you have to try to jump immediately to the negation of
the negation. This means you are forced to leave out the mediating steps, i.e., you are no
longer allowed to think things through but you must simply memorize what the right answer
is.
I am exaggerating. Some of you can act like Marx and do their own thinking, because they
are so smart that they know they can produce valid ideas which will get good grades even
if they are not saying everything that can be said about the subject. But others, who are not
exceptionally smart, get beaten down every time they try to think independently—until they
give up and just memorize what they are supposed to say. To add insult to injury, they think
they get beaten down because they are not as smart as the others. It is extremely difficult
for them to realize that the system is deliberately preventing them from developing their full
potential—for instance, by being miserly with money for schools, as I argue in [2005fa:116],
[2003fa:681], and [2002fa:12] because it needs cannon fodder for the assembly lines. This
creates a stratification along with the homogenization; some children are robust and smart
enough to get through school unharmed, they will take the management position, but the
majority is beaten down because the system needs lots of people who are convinced they are
stupid and therefore willing to work hard for a low wage.
First Message by Hans is [3].
Question 325 is 177 in 1998WI, 196 in 2000fa, 221 in 2002fa, 229 in 2003fa, 259 in
2004fa, 254 in 2005fa, 274 in 2007SP, 279 in 2007fa, 285 in 2008SP, 283 in 2008fa, 297
in 2009fa, 304 in 2011fa, and 304 in Answer:
Question 325 Isn’t there an inconsistency in Marx’s text? At the beginning of paragraph
167:1/o, the fixity of commodity prices is stressed, while towards the end of the same paragraph
167:1/o, Marx emphasizes that they fluctuate continually.
[225] Atticus: graded A+ Fixed Volatility. Although there appears to be an inconsistency
in Marx’s explanation on the nature of prices, there are actually distinctive social relations
that are, at the same time, exclusive from and related to each other. The fixity of prices, as
does the volatility of prices, stems from the social relations involved in the production process.
Owners of capital continuously compete with another and try to make their production
processes more efficient to remain profitable in the market. This in turn homogenizes the
labor processes in production between identical commodities. The labor-time required to
produce commodities becomes homogenous, inadvertently, in all industries to remain relevant
in a capitalist society. Although this phenomenon is purely a social relation controlled
by humans, it asserts itself as a natural force in capitalism like the law of gravity is immutable
in physics [167:1/o]. Value is relatively fixed in a commodity producing society
due to the social relations in the production process. However, this mostly depends on the
general ignorance and conformity of the majority of the laborers.
The other social relation that Marx discusses seems like, on the surface, a contradiction to
what was just previously discussed. However, a deeper look into Marx’s take on capitalism
180 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
clarifies this apparent contradiction is like explaining the differences between microeconomics
and macroeconomics. Labor processes continuously change among producers to get
ahead of their competition. The productivity in tailoring coats may increase by tenfold by an
individual producer. The real price of the coats produced by this specific tailor drops. This
change in the process of labor by this particular tailor to produce a coat is a phenomenon
that is inherent in among all commodity producers in a capitalist society. This constant modification
in labor processes make prices and exchange proportions volatile on an individual
level among producers.
A commodity producer whose labor productivity increases significantly may experience
a substantial drop in the price per unit relative to other commodity producers. Prices and
exchange proportions at this point seem volatile. The other commodity producers manufacturing
identical commodities will either improve their productivity resulting in staying in the
game, gaining an edge over their competitors or failing. A sort of equilibrium occurs in that
particular commodity’s industry which leads to fixity in pricing. Think of a graph with multiple,
non-linear data points and a line of regression showing the relationship of the multiple
data points. The vertical axis represents prices. The horizontal axis represents time. The
data points are the values of the commodities produced individual firms whose labor process
creates varying levels of productivity (remember that value is based on labor-time). The line
of regression represents the fixity of pricing of a particular commodity in a given industry.
Hans: You are right to approach this as a dialectical contradiction. Dialectics is not easy, and since this is a class
about Marxism, any respectable attempt to think dialectically can expect a good grade.
Message [225] referenced by [400]. Next Message by Atticus is [371].
[400] ANK: “The fixity of prices, as well as the volatility of prices, stems from the social
relations involved in the production process” [225]. When Marx starts out by saying that
commodity prices are fixed, he is referring to the value of the commodity. Because the
value of commodities is determined by the labor required to produce them, the price of the
commodity should be fixed because every commodity is of equal value regardless of who
produced it. Then Marx switches to say that prices fluctuate continually. This fluctuation is
not due to the value, but the exchange value. For example, in the summer, 20 yard of linen
may be exchanged for 1 coat, whereas in the winter 50 yards of linen may be exchanged
for 1 coat. This example demonstrates that exchange-values change or prices change as the
use-value of a commodity such as a coat increases during cold winter months. Prices of
a given commodity should remain fixed between all the producers of that commodity. As
the demand for the given commodity changes, such as an increase in demand for a coat
in the winter, the price of the commodity may fluctuate equally for every producer of that
commodity. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in Marx’s statements because the value and
exchange value relate to different aspects of the price determination of a given commodity.
Hans: Marx would say that prices do not depend on the use-value of a product. If fewer coats are needed in
summer then fewer coats are produced. Otherwise not bad.
Next Message by ANK is [571].
[452] Kobe: Marx says “A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it
the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon
the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own
labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between
the products of their labour.” This passage is the basis of how Marx first emphasizes that the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 181
price of a commodity is fixed and then later in the paragraph he says the commodity price
fluctuates. The social relation Marx talks of plays a role in the price of the commodity; this
is true because society influences the prices of a particular commodity. Another contributing
factor in commodity pricing going from fixed to later in its existence fluctuating is the need
for that commodity, a type of technology that can produce the technology and human beings
being able to produce the commodity at a greater rate. All of these factors would cause a
change in commodity pricing. Just as we see today with an item such as an IPod, when
it is first introduced the price is fixed at a higher level and through its existence the price
then fluctuates with the supply and demand and production of the commodity. All this being
said, I don’t believe there is an inconsistency in his writing, the reader must read through the
paragraph to understand what he is telling the reader.
Hans: The passage in 167:1/o where Marx stresses the fixity of commodity prices reads: “As soon as these proportions
have attained a certain customary fixity, they seem to spring from the nature of the products.” Marx is clearly
not talking about the high introductory price of a new commodity, but about a commodity which has been around
for a long time and whose price is generally known. Think of loaf of bread rather than ipods.
Next Message by Kobe is [627].
Question 327 is 179 in 1998WI, 198 in 2000fa, 209 in 2001fa, 224 in 2002fa, 232 in
2003fa, 262 in 2004fa, 257 in 2005fa, 277 in 2007SP, 282 in 2007fa, 285 in 2008fa, 299
in 2009fa, and 306 in 2011fa:
Question 327 Where else should one start science if not with data? How did Marx himself
come to his findings?
[231] ANK: Science begins with questions and observations. Science does not begin
with data, it begins with a question or observation. As with physics, the gravitational constant
was not known when determining the laws of projectile motion. When Isaac Newton
observed gravity, he had no data to work with but rather he made an observation and began
a quest to understand natural laws.
Likewise, Marx observed flaws in the thinking of bourgeois economics and began to
assemble ideas that better explain how things work or should work. Only after years of
study and critique are the initial observations accepted as facts and science. As data and
previous science come together, laws of nature or economics are developed.
During Marx’s time, he knew of the failures and contradictions in capitalism and had
developed his own ideas and socialist models to be a replacement and improvement of capitalist
theories. The process of converting his observations and theories to science lacked the
generations of critique and testing at that time.
Science is built upon data and years of experimentation and it all begins with questions
and observations.
Hans: Just FYI, Marx deliberately refrained from developing socialist models. He said he did not want to write
recipes for the kitchens of the future.
Message [231] referenced by [235], [257], and [260]. Next Message by ANK is [251].
[235] Rico: Science Begins with Data. I agree with ANK’s argument in [231], that
science begins with the observation of a phenomena. However, I disagree with the argument
that science begins with a question. One must make an observation before a question can be
formulated. In the case of Sir Isaac Newton, he observed the apple falling from the tree, then
182 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
he formulated his question. So I agree that science begins with observations, but not with
the argument that it also begins with questions. Questions are simply the ensuing byproduct
of an observation.
After further examining question 327 and ANK’s response [231], I discovered that the
process of making observations is simply the process of collecting data. By making observations,
one carefully processes the observed actions of something in order to gain information.
These facts and statistics are collected together, which constitute the collection of data.
By making observations, one is simply collecting data. Therefore I agree with Marx, that
one should start science with collecting data.
Message [235] referenced by [257] and [260]. Next Message by Rico is [477].
[257] Hans: Prior science, the overlooked ingredient in every scientific process. ANK
[231] and Rico [235] agree that science starts with data (in Newton’s case the apple falling
from a tree). And this seems the only possiblity: science is about this world, therefore you
have to start with data from this world. Marx, by contrast, repeatedly thunders about it how
misleading data are. For instance, an important empirical fact about capitalism is that it is a
monetized economy. But Marx says it is wrong to begin the analysis of capitalism with the
analysis of money. In paragraph 168:1/o, which is the context to question 327, he says that
money
conceals the social character of private labor ... behind quasi-physical properties
of things, instead of revealing these relations plainly.
And in the first sentence of the same paragraph Marx says that beginning with money is
too late because you are beginning
‘after the feast’ with the completed results of the development process.
Despite Rico [235], Marx does not say that “one should start science with collecting
data.” Marx himself did not collect data besides his lived experience as participant in and
organizer/fighter against capitalism. Most of the time he was sitting in the British Museum
and reading stuff. When ANK says “Marx observed flaws in the thinking of bourgeois
economics” then this is a different kind of observation than seeing an apple fall from a tree.
I would even say it is not an observation at all but this is the missing ingredient, prior science.
It is essential in all scientific activity, but people often do not notice this. Newton could get
his inspiration from the apple only because he was mulling the problematics in his head
already. Prior science is the reason why you need a University education if you want to be a
scientist instead of just a pair of binoculars (for observing—just kidding).
This is the answer I am expecting from question 327. Of course you need data, but you
also need prior science. This answer is a little simple-minded, it leaves out a lot of detail
about Marx’s method, but it is something valid about all science which people are often not
aware of. Prior science is as essential for science as produced means of production are for
production.
Message [257] referenced by [260]. Next Message by Hans is [258].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 183
[260] Robert: Marx the Bee. Hans’s [257] in response to ANK [231] and Rico [235]
reminds me of something Sir Francis Bacon once wrote on the subject. He described a spectrum
of the relationship between data gathering and theory making in a scientific method.
He first describes an ant who gathers data and amasses it. In the end the ant has a mass
of data. This process Bacon compares to a purely empirical method.
Then he describes a spider who spins a web out of nothing. This process he describes a
purely deductive method, creating a theory out of nothing.
Finally, Bacon describes the bee who creates a framework of beeswax and gathers nectar
at the same time. The need for framework is influenced by the nectar gathered and vice-aversa.
He concludes that a bee is an analogy for how we out to view data gather: we need a
framework or theory for the empirical data we gather. The theoretical framework should be
informed and adjusted as the empirical data and the data we search should be informed by
the theories as they evolve..this method he called pragmatism.
Marx seems to be a bee. He carefully observes capitalism and creates a complex theoretical
framework and looks for empirical evidence, adjusts his theory and looks for evidence
and so forth until he is confident his theory and the empirical facts match up.
Hans: Interesting and instructive story. But nothing about pre-existing science in there.
Next Message by Robert is [373].
Question 330 is 157 in 1995WI, 134 in 1995ut, 167 in 1996sp, 227 in 2002fa, 235 in
2003fa, 260 in 2005fa, 280 in 2007SP, 285 in 2007fa, 290 in 2008SP, 302 in 2009fa, and
309 in 2011fa:
Question 330 Why does Marx call Ricardo’s exchange between primitive fisherman and
primitive hunter a “Robinson Crusoe story”?
[252] Balrog: graded B Marx claimed that the time spent making a commodity or in this
case acquiring it is what gives that commodity its value. Robinson Crusoe while alone on
his island learnt very quickly that he had to apportion his time strategically. He even kept
track of the material and labor necessary to create commodities that provided utility to him.
The tasks with which Crusoe filled his day were those that would better his current situation.
When a primitive fisherman and a primitive hunter exchange their goods they are only
looking to improve their current situation and are not preoccupied with the utility that the
other will receive. They will place a value on their product using the three determinations of
value and make an exchange that would provide them with the highest utility possible.
Message [252] referenced by [256]. Next Message by Balrog is [459].
[256] JJ: Fishing vs. Hunting. Marx relates the exchange of the fisherman and the hunter,
as described by Ricardo, to that of the Robinson Crusoe analogies that are all too common
with political economists. Marx gives this relation because Ricardo has portrayed the hunter
and fishermen as two individuals that are living separately and looking out for their own
good in the exchange. Almost as if they were two Crusoes that lived in isolated islands
and only came out to exchange their fish for bear skin rugs on Saturdays. Ricardo implies
that fisherman and hunter are making this exchange on a proportion equal to the amount of
184 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
labor put into them. According to Marx’s summary of the Crusoe story, a “Crusoe figure”
would have some pen and paper saved from the ship and like a “good Englishman” would
quickly take log of all of his doing including the amounts of labor that he put toward certain
functions of his daily life.
Marx dispels us from Ricardo’s understanding of this “exchange” and show us that it is
not even an exchange. He shows us that the hunter and fisherman will not even consider
the labor they put into their “commodity”. Commodity is a poor choice because they may
not even see the fish or bearskin as their personal property. Rather, they would be part of a
social group or tribe that supported one another. If my neighbor needed a fish and I am the
fisherman then I will give him one. If I need a bear skin coat then I will go to the hunter and
he will give me one. Marx shows that in this social structure that the fisherman and hunter
might see these things as common property and freely give them to one another. They only
hold this “exchange” because on of them needed the thing that the other had.
Hans: Were you too polite not to mention [252] or did you not read [252]?
JJ: Honestly, I was not able to read [252] before submitting. I had thought that I was the only student in this
semester to attempt this question at the time that I submitted. (I often work from the download of the 2010fa
archive and not from the live emails.) Now that I have read it, I believe that I might have made some comment that
it was a mistake to try and interlace utility theory into this type of social/tribal exchange. I also think that [252]
fails to make a strong comparison of Marx’s refutations of Ricardo’s explanations.
Next Message by JJ is [512].
[344] Goldtone: graded A With a lot of help from Ivan [2009fa:220], I was able to better
answer this question. An exchange between a primitive fisherman and hunter is like the
“Robinson Crusoe story” because Ricardo portrayed them (like Crusoe) as individuals producing
their own commodities to be exchanged for their own good and not for the good of a
social group. Marx talks about social groups needing the same simple exchanges to benefit
their group.
In this light, the fisherman and hunter do not necessarily have to exchange fish and meat
for their own good alone (like Ricardo says), but also to help out their fellow members of a
close-knit community. If the fisherman is sick of fish and wants to try meat, then he can ask
the hunter. The hunter would like to help out his community by giving the fisherman some
meat if he asks. This will benefit the hunter too, if his good grace in giving away his meat
is repeated by others to help him out when he gets sick of meat. The whole community will
benefit from exchanges like this going on inside of it because the members will not have to
rely on themselves alone for everything they need, but will have help from others in their
community.
Hans: You are describing a gift society. It may also be the case that fisher and hunter do not consider their catch as
their private property at all. They have access to things produced by others in the tribe, and in turn they share their
product with everybody. Perhaps they have the right to say who gets what, but they don’t have the right to take it
all for themselves or to give it only to those who give something back.
Next Message by Goldtone is [552].
Question 335 is 180 in 1997WI, 187 in 1997sp, 232 in 2002fa, 240 in 2003fa, 290 in
2007fa, 295 in 2008SP, and 307 in 2009fa:
Question 335 Explain Marx’s statement in 170:1 that labor in medieval society did not take
a social form different from its natural form.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 185
[226] Scholar: If it is very clear that someone in a society appropriates others’ labor
without any compensation, then Marx calls this the natural form of a social form. If this
exploitive social relationship is covered up by something else, so that the participant can not
be aware of it, this social form is no longer a natural form. In medieval society, the landlords
exploit the peasants. This is known by both of them, so there is no mystery about the social
relationship. This relationship kept its natural form. In capitalist society, the fact is that the
capitalist appropriates the surplus labor from the worker. But it is carried out by the form of
a market exchange, so the unequal relationship behind the commodity is covered up by the
equal exchange relationship. So, the social form is different from its natural form.
Message [226] referenced by [236]. Next Message by Scholar is [237].
[236] Hans: ”Natural form” is not the same as ”obvious form.” Scholar’s [226] is
an intelligent guess. It correctly reflects Marx’s general thinking, but it misinterprets the
particular passage of Capital referred to by question 335. Here is Marx’s entire sentence:
“The natural form of labor, its particularity—and not, as in a society based
on commodity production, its generality—is here its immediate social form.”
What does this mean? Let’s go back to our lazy worker. If a handicraft worker working
for the market is lazy and takes longer than the normal time for his work, then this is his own
business. Nobody comes knocking at his door saying: “hey, you are not working hard and
efficiently enough.” But when he sells his products, then he will get less money per labor
hour performed than his competitors because he has fewer products to sell per labor hour
performed.
All this is obvious and it seems fair, therefore we usually don’t think much about it.
Marx thought more about it, and his explanation is: the lazy handicraft worker gets less
compensation per hour worked because society does not reward the particularity of his labor.
Instead, the worker first has to find a buyer for his products on the market before he can reap
a reward for his labor. What counts in this sale is not the labor time he himself spent on
the product but the average labor-time going into these products. Marx says that society
rewards the generality of his labor—that what his labor has in common with the labor of the
others—and not its particularity. If his particular labor falls short of the general norm, then
the reward falls short by the same amount.
Does Marx’s explanation bring true insights, or is he just trying to make everything more
complicated than it is so that he can sell his book, as Cosmopolita seems to imply in [209]?
One application of this thinking might be: assume the handicraft worker is not lazy but
has a handicap which does not allow him to work as quickly as the others. He should get as
much pay for his hour of work as able-bodied people, but he falls under the same penalty as
the lazy worker. His labor has a particularity which society should recognize but doesn’t.
Now what happened in the Middle Ages? Bonded peasants had to work a set number of
hours on the landlord’s farm. If a peasant had an injury or so, then he would be excused or
other peasants would do the work for him. But if a peasant does bad or inefficient work he
would probably get a lashing. This is an example of a society in which the particularity of
labor counts, not the generality. The labor of the peasant did not even have a general form,
i.e., there was no market for milk or potatoes—because everybody grew their own milk and
186 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
potatoes. The “generalization,” i.e., the fitting of the particular labor into the social context,
was done by direct coercion (the lashing and worse).
BTW, I am not a medievalist. Can someone inform us what really happened to peasants
who refused to work and/or peasants that were sick in the Middle Ages?
Message [236] referenced by [237] and [248]. Next Message by Hans is [240].
[237] Scholar: Agreed. Yes, I agree with Hans [236], and my explanation was really
far from the context. It is a difference between individual labor and social labor, and this
difference emerged during the production of commodity. In medieval time, the most labor
is supplied for autarky, so labor was only the individual labor and there was no social form
of labor, which need acceptance by the other people than producers themselves.
Next Message by Scholar is [487].
[441] Deadfamous: graded B+ I suspect that Marx is talking about different class distinctions
that were around in the medieval era. Different classes performed different types of
labor. So the labor that you did each and every day would be exactly related to the social
class you were in. For example if you were a serf your labor would be different from say,
a craftsman, nobleman or lord. Looking specifically at the exploitation of serfs, in order to
feed his family and pay the rent for his field, he has to grow a lot of food. The serf in all
reality is producing not to sell but to support and feed his family. So naturally you are born
into a certain class that determines different types of labor. This way you can see how labor’s
social form and natural form ends up being the same exact thing. The tithe (what you call
rent) was usuall paid in kind, not as money.
Not sure if we need to notate but in case we do here is my source: (from [2009fa:242]
Koolboarder and Hans)
Hans: Yes, since you practically copied the earlier submission, you better give the source. Even better would be to
reformulate it in your own words, so that I know if you understood it. You should at least have edited the sentence
“what you call rent.”
Next Message by Deadfamous is [677].
[450] TINDOZ: graded A Medieval society was based on the caste system. When you
were born, your lifestyle was more or less set out for you simply by who you were born
to. If you were born to a noble family, your life, labor, social relations all took on aspects
that were consigned to nobility. If you were a peasant-serf-king-etc, your life, labor, social
relations were consistent with your class status. This is how society determined your labor,
by determining who you were. Furthermore, there wasn’t movement among the classes. One
wasn’t born a serf and grow up to be a member of the artisan class. Therefore the labor that
one was involved in (say a serf) was no different in its social form than it was in its natural
form because the social aspect of their lives determined the natural aspect. So, if your class
dictated that your labor was that of a dung shoveler, then that was that. Another aspect of
the social relations existing in the classes of the caste system is that classes differed in social
status (a hierarchy) and therefore their labor was not considered equal because the people
were not considered equal. Hans said in [2007fa:143], “In the middle ages, society regulated
the individuals, while in capitalism it regulates the individuals’ labors.” So your labor was
dictated to you by how society classed you as an individual.
Next Message by TINDOZ is [464].
Question 338 is 197 in 1999SP and 310 in 2009fa:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 187
Question 338 Which social forms do the three determinations of value take in Marx’s example
of a socialist society?
[223] Deadfamous: graded B+ According to the Annotations on page 207, they are: 3
Determinations of Value
(a) the equality of all human labor insofar as it is expenditure of human labor-power,
(b) the social significance of labor-time, and
(g) the existence of interactions between the producers through which their labors are
integrated into the social labor process.
Greg [2009fa:241] gives clear answers, but I have added to his answer in parenthesis
(parenthesis are my further elaborations
Marx’s socialist society is different than capitalism under a labor theory of value in that
(a) the conscious approach would not assume that all labor is homogeneous, but would
presumably take into account different circumstances and situations (so socialist assume
equality of human labor, capitalist do not go so far as to make this assumption, they rather
go by the requirement for commodities to be produced in a certain time)
(b) labor-time is used for a dual purpose as Marx said, “Its apportionment in accordance
with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of
work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves
as a measure of the portion of the common labor born by each individual, and of his share in
the part of the total product destined for individual consumption,” (We only know what our
daily wages are in capitalism, we don’t have to account each day for your labor input and
what should be your share)
(c) producers would have to plan together in this conscious approach, not only labor and
its products but distributions of the goods needed and wanted by the community.
Hans: Regarding to your parenthetical addition to (a): Marx says that in capitalism labor is equalized too, but not
consciously as in socialism, but as a side-effect of competition.
Regarding point (b), people in socialism will get wages for their work, similar to capitalism. The difference
to capitalism is that wages are the only source of income, there is no property income. Firms are not allowed to
keep their profits if they make them, and they are not forced to shut down if they make no profits. The medical
sector would probably only charge nominal fees, etc. Prices will probably be determined by labor content. The
economy’s most important decision is the investment decision. This is decided democratically instead of behind
closed corporate boardrooms.
Considering wages a cost of production is a too tight coupling between efficiency and distributional considerations.
There will be efficiency in production, i.e., labor time will play a role in production, but if a firm does not
increase the efficiency of the production process and instead pays the workers less, this should not result in higher
profits for them as it does in capitalism. The two roles of labor time, for measuring efficiency in production and for
measuring how much the workers should receive, must be separated.
Message [223] referenced by [2011fa:697]. Next Message by Deadfamous is [437].
[341] Cmellen: graded C+ There are three determining social forms of value in Marx’s
socialist society. First, it is understood by reading Marx that the substance of value is in the
abstract of human labor, being the expenditure of human labor-power. Human labor power
is the potential and/or ability of the human to do the specified labor.
188 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Second is the quantity of value. This is in the form of the “socially necessary labor-time”
to produce the item. The labor-time is what measures the magnitude of value; the time and
duration of expending the labor.
Finally, third, being the exchange value. Exchange value is a social relation on the exterior
shell of an economy. This takes place in an interaction between laborers with their
produced commodities being able to fetch other commodities. (Das Kapital 1.4, Fetish-Like
Character and its Secret)
Hans: You are describing the three determinations of value and their social forms in capitalism, not socialism.
Next Message by Cmellen is [342].
[414] Tyler: The social forms that Marx’s determinations of value are:
1) Substance
2) Form
3) Quantity
Substance according to the annotations examines “the equality of all human labor insofar
as it is expenditure of human labor-power.” Hans points out that this refers directly to the
expenditure of brains, nerves, muscles, etc. Form “the existence of interactions between the
producers through which their labors are integrated into the social labor process.” This looks
at the social relations people have on the surface to coordinate production and consumption.
Quantity is “the social significance of labor time.” This determination is the one which
everyone must pay some attention to in order to compete.
Hans: There is one paragraph in chapter One where Marx discusses a socialist society. You seem to think the
entire book is about socialism.
Next Message by Tyler is [667].
Question 339 is 164 in 1995WI, 141 in 1995ut, 174 in 1996sp, 183 in 1997WI, 182 in
1997ut, 235 in 2002fa, 244 in 2003fa, 274 in 2004fa, 269 in 2005fa, 289 in 2007SP, 299
in 2008SP, 297 in 2008fa, 311 in 2009fa, 318 in 2011fa, and 332 in 2012fa:
Question 339 In what ways can Christianity and the commodity relation be considered
similar?
[228] Kraken: (graded A–) Christianity and Capitalism. If I understand Marx correctly
(and chances are I don’t), he’s saying: The similarity between capitalism and Christianity is
the abstraction of the human being. With capitalism, Marx abstracts the labor of individuals
into something he calls “homogenous human labor”. I believe he is trying to apply the same
sort of abstraction process to Christianity. I think he is viewing Christians as an abstract
group of people who have given up their individuality and joined together in some sort of
herd-like mentality in order to gain salvation. Other comparisons can be drawn. Some may
say that Christians see Christianity as a type of fetish with magical powers that they believe
can make them better and happier. Capitalists (most of us) see commodities as having a
similar type of power. We believe that if we can purchase items such as boats, large homes,
expensive automobiles, impressive titles, and designer clothes that we will be better and
happier people (at least better and happier than you).
Hans: Marx criticizes Christianity for the belief that humans cannot be good unless they purify themselves, unless
they abstract from some natural aspects of human existence—just as a commodity has to shed its colorful earthly

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 189
existence in order to become pure money. This criticism of Christianity is deeper and more abstract than Marx’s
jocular remark in 143:2 about the sheep-like nature of Christians.
Message [228] referenced by [251] and [259]. Next Message by Kraken is [409].
[251] ANK: Comparing Christianity and Capitalism. In response to Kraken [228], I
think Marx is saying something different about the comparison between Christianity and
Capitalism. Marx is saying that the focus of Christianity is on teaching individuals that they
are sinners and that they must work towards living a pure life. The goal of Christianity
is to urge individuals to reach their full potential. Capitalism does the same thing with
commodities and tries to get the highest price for each commodity. In this sense, each
commodity is working to reach its full potential just as Christians are taught. Marx disagrees
with this thought and believes that use-value is more important than the dollar value of the
commodity. While I agree with Kraken that Christians believe that they can find greater
happiness through Christianity, I do not think that Marx was comparing that to the happiness
that individuals can find through boats, houses, clothes, etc. The happiness Christians find
through Christianity is from the improvement of their lives and living at or close to their full
potential and Marx compares this to commodities being sold at their highest potential price.
Message [251] referenced by [259]. Next Message by ANK is [398].
[254] Intaglio: commoduligion. Viewing the universe in a religious sense is similar to
viewing the value of commodities as surface relations. Both are abstractions from reality.
Religion takes nature and mystifies it through personification, leaving people worshiping the
metaphors (taking the form of deities) instead of actual nature. Likewise, producers (mistakenly)
abstract the value of their commodities by viewing them by the surface relations,
i.e. how well they will perform on the market instead of the underlying abstract human labor.
Yet both abstractions turn the gears of the machine; Religion gets people to improve
themselves and viewing commodities like Bourgeois economists succeeds in the exchange
of goods, but both are an inaccurate representation of the true nature of the situation.
Without these religious and commodity fetishes, people would no longer see a need for
churches and capitalism.
Hans: Interesting. You see the communality between religion and capitalism in them both being forms of alienation.
Next Message by Intaglio is [490].
[259] Robert: (graded A) Soul and CAL. I am still a little unclear about what Kraken
[228] and ANK [251] are saying about comparing Christianity and capitalism so, as in an
attempt to try to understand I will try to state it in my own words.
Christianity, as I understand it, believes that each human being has a soul. Some mysterious
part of the human being that is not readily apparent on the surface but which really
represents an very real (in the Christian view) and important part of that human.
A commodity in the capitalist system also has an element that is real but not readily
apparent on the surface (mysterious) and that represent a very important attribute of that
commodity, i.e., value, and that element is congealed abstract labor.
In other words the congealed abstract labor would be the Christian soul of a commodity
if Christians considered that things had souls.
190 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Marx uses the word “value-soul” in exactly this meaning in 143:1. And in 176:3/o, the sentence “now listen
how the economist makes himself the mouthpiece of the commodities” is in a more literal translation “now listen
how the economist speaks out of the commodity soul.”
This wording simply comes from the insight that humans cannot be reduced to their bodies. That what they
are in excess of their bodies is called their “mind” or “soul.” This is not yet specific to religion, but some religions
claim that the soul of a human existed before his or her body was born or will continue to exist after the body has
died. At least this is my understanding. Am I missing something?
Next Message by Robert is [260].
Question 342 is 277 in 2004fa, 272 in 2005fa, 292 in 2007SP, 297 in 2007fa, 302 in
2008SP, 300 in 2008fa, and 314 in 2009fa:
Question 342 Can labor be measured in other ways than in time?
[224] Milly: graded A– Labor measured in time. The time spent producing a product or
service is the easiest way to measure labor, but it doesn’t always seem to work that way. For
example, to compare a famous talk show host to a construction worker based off of the hours
spent to do their job would be an inaccurate comparison of equal production. One spends an
hour a day making thousands of dollars while the other spends countless hours a day only to
make a fraction of that amount. You can easily see another problem in those who work on
commission. Many can spend days working and not make any money until a sale is made,
but that does not mean they didn’t labor during that time. Doesn’t that need to be measured
too?
We know that because we all have different jobs and abilities, labor isn’t homogenous
unless broken down into abstract labor. Abstract labor is the labor that is exactly average
in its value-adding abilities. Like many other students in the past, you can easily start to
measure labor in other ways such as wage, production and effort. However despite the
examples above, I agree with Teresa in [2008fa:365] that measuring labor by time is the
best way. No matter how experienced an employee is or how much they produce, measuring
labor by time is the only true way to measure labor.
I did also read [2008fa:387] and was interested about Marx reducing abstract labor to
social necessary labor time. However I found that his answer may have been plagiarized, so
I will need to research that further for myself.
Hans: Marx would say measuring labor by income is problematic because in his theory, a capitalist’s income does
not come from his own labor but the labor of the working class. Celebrities (such as talk show hosts, athletes, film
stars) are hired by capitalists to motivate people to attend their movie screenings, watch their TV shows, fill their
sports arenas, buy their DVDs—and for this they get a part of the profits.
A pronouncement such as “measuring labor by time is the only true way to measure labor” needs justification.
Marx did not reduce abstract labor to social necessary labor time, but socially necessay labor time is how to
measure the quantity of abstract labor.
Message [224] referenced by [238] and [242]. Next Message by Milly is [515].
[230] Husani: Labor Time. I believe that we could measure labor by the quality of each
unit of labor or by the quantity produced by each unit of labor. While thinking of how one
would use these to measure labor I realized that it would be much more difficult to do this
effectively without time as our key measure.
Quality would be a good measure of labor but it is much harder to relate these measures
with other commodities. If we start with linen and try to exchange it with a coat we hit a

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 191
road block. When we measure labor with time we find that each commodity has abstract
human labor congealed in it, which allows us a base to judge their value. With Quality we
lose this base. We can say the linen and the coat are of good quality but that doesn’t allow
us to see what this quality is because linen and coats are very different commodities.
We could also look at quantity produced by a laborer and this leads us to the same road
block. By comparing the quantity of a commodity produced we still do not have a common
substance to help bridge the gap. If a laborer weaved 20 feet of linen and a tailor made
three coats in the same time span we have little to go on with the measure of time. We can’t
realistically judge the value of either commodity based on quantity produced.
Time as a measure of labor is the easiest and most basic way to find value between
different commodities.
Hans: Your writing style is pleasant but not precise enough. Regarding your first paragraph, how do you define
a “unit” of labor before knowing how to measure labor? What is the “quality” of labor? Do you mean how clean
people keep their workplaces? Or do you mean the quality of the product? How can one measure labor by “quality”
with “time as your key measure”? If you mean measuring labor by time with a premium for quality, this is similar
to what Marx calls “socially necessary labor-time.” It is not a measurement by quality but a time measurement after
converting difference in quality into quantitative time differences.
Message [230] referenced by [238] and [291]. Next Message by Husani is [246].
[238] Rmc: graded B– Measuring labor. Milly [224] and Husani [230] both discuss
other ways to measure labor than time. Milly compares the labor-time required for different
jobs (talk-show host, construction worker), noting two things: labor-time spent to complete
the job and labor-time spent at the different jobs to earn the same wages. Husani discussed
measuring labor in terms of quality and quantity and how it is difficult to compare the quality
of different commodities.
I agree with this and would like to add that labor is always considered when setting a
price. Today, a hand-made commodity is often viewed as more valuable than if it were made
by a machine (consider a hand-embroidered gown or hand-carved piece of furniture). This
is because labor-power is expended differently by hand- personally and usually much more
attentively and carefully- than by a machine. Machines can mass-produce a commodity,
thus robbing each of individuality, while a number of the same hand-made commodities are
almost never exactly the same.
I would also like to mention that labor can be measured in more abstract ways. Depending
on the stressfulness of a task on a human, whether physically, emotionally, or mentally, there
are always related effects that can be observed, even though they cannot be removed from
time measurement. I’m speaking in terms of endurance. It can be argued that emotional
labor-time (a nurse caring for many patients) is much different than unemotional labor-time
(pharmacist filling many prescriptions). Workers in the healthcare industry typically burn
out much sooner than workers in other industries; it is said that the emotional wear is much
more taxing. Other abstract measurements of labor include sweat and blood; these are used
as often as metaphors, but are not invalid. How many drops of blood were spilled during
the industrial revolution? How much sweat did it take to build the railroad? The last measurement
I’ll mention here is the number of money-units spent in response to these effects
(whether they are measured over a given amount of time or per occurrence).
192 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Different types of effort related to different types of jobs test workers’ endurance and how
long they can expend labor-power (over the course of their lives, maybe) before they can’t
go anymore. Measurements like these vary worker to worker (even industry to industry) and
product to product also.
It is not possible to eliminate time from the argument, since these are typically used with
a phrase like “long-term” or “short-term,” but they are measurements that can be understood.
Hans: I like your distinction between emotional and unemotional labor-time; Marx calls these considerations
“intensity of labor.” But if the labor process is too unemotional, it may get boring which is also a real constraint.
Your reasoning why labor content affects prices is an unacceptable misunderstanding of Marx’s theory which
automatically depresses your grade. Look at [2007SP:586] how competition leads to prices proportional to labor
input.
Message [238] referenced by [242]. Next Message by Rmc is [311].
[242] Fisher: Knowledge vs. time in labor. Milly [224] and Rmc [238] both touched on
how labor is measured. I wanted to add yet another angle to it. The value of a commodity,
according to Marx is the time spent used to make that commodity. I think there is more value
that can be added to labor and that is education or knowledge of that labor at hand. Many
people spend years mastering their craft and soon learn little bits of information accumulated
only with time on the job. That makes their experience and knowledge worth something.
Some engineers for example, get paid hundreds of dollars per hour and exert zero energy
in doing so. Their education and the scarcity of qualified individuals in that field, or
competition, engineers can charge a higher premium for their services. That sems to disagree
with the Marxism approach of time spent on the commodity in giving it a value. If
one hired an average engineer to build something, it would utimately cost the public less in
buying the final product as it would if you were to choose a more expensive engineer. I think
time of labor does add one element to the value of the commodity, but the knowledge of the
manufacturers can be as big a part of that value, if not bigger.
Hans: Marx does exactly what you say he doesn’t do: not only the actual time spent but also a share of the training
time necessary to do the present job contributes to the labor time represented by the product.
Next Message by Fisher is [431].
[243] Tyler: Measurements of labor. Initially I thought there would be many other
ways to measure labor aside from using time. For example, in [2009fa:564] it is noted that
productivity might be an additional method of measuring labor. The argument presented is
that although two employees may work the same eight hour shift, one employee may have
been much more productive by producing twice as much output than the co-worker.
However, this argument is based entirely on the type of labor being examined, abstract or
concrete. Hans [2009fa:322] points out that “[Marx] measures abstract labor, not concrete
labor.” Since Marx is specifically talking about abstract labor, time can be the only logical
method of measuring labor.
Hans: You may be surprised to hear that Marx is measuring output by “productivity” as you say exactly because
he is measuring abstract labor. The quantitative dimension of abstract labor is socially necessary labor time. In
your example, the worker who produces twice as much product as the other also performs twice the abstract labor
as the other.
Message [243] referenced by [1209]. Next Message by Tyler is [412].
[248] Ryan: Labor as a unit and not time. I think there are a few ways to measure labor
besides as a measurement of time. First I think that we all need to take one step back and

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 193
really think about labor. Many of us assume that labor is a function of work over time, and
that we get paid for our labor, which is incorrect.
I feel that there is not only an additional way to measure labor but there is a better way
to measure labor. That is not from the worker’s point of view but from the consumer’s point
of view. I agree with Marx when he says, “... why is labor expressed in value, and why the
measure of by its duration is expressed in the magnitude of the value of the product.” Marx
clearly states that the longer the time it makes to make an object should have no impact on
the value of the item. Meaning that item “X” should not change in value based on the time
it takes to make but on the value of the unit itself. This in turn means that time should taken
out of the equation of labor and labor should be measured by the units of output.
Example: Two lawyers are asked to file a Patent “X”: Lawyer 1 can complete the job in
3 hours, Lawyer 2 will take 6 hours to complete. We will assume that the consumer will pay
the same amount to each lawyer, Value “Y.” We will also assume that the quality of work
done will be the same.
If we measure labor for the view point of the consumer then we will see the labor value
is 1, 1 job requested 1 job completed. Time does not need to be factored in any way because
the consumer’s needs are meet and the value of the labor was constant (“Y”).
I feel that if we used a unit measurement of labor it would also fall in line with what Hans
[236] was saying about the Lazy worker. Lawyer 2 takes twice as long to complete the work
that it would take Lawyer 1 to complete. Seeing as the value was the same for each party we
know that Lawyer 2 must charge half the hourly rate than Lawyer 1. No matter the time that
is spent to complete the task at hand the time required should have no impact on the value
of the unit being done.
This of course only makes sense as all of us buy items for the value that we feel that item
has, not because of the amount of time it takes to make that item. Like Hans said if Lawyer
2 is lazy and takes twice as long “that is his business”, if Layer 2 wants to account time to
figure out his productivity, or his wages and chooses to have time be a factor that is fine. But
the Labor should be based on unit output, 1 job requested, 1 job completed.
Hans: You misunderstand Marx. You think Marx wants value to be based on labor, and you are objectiong that
it would be better if value was based on the consumer’s subjective valuation of the object. But Marx says that in
capitalist economies value is based on labor, not that value should be based on labor. Marx thinks that this is the
long- to medium run outcome of competition. If you disagree with Marx you must show that value in capitalism is
in fact not based on labor.
Message [248] referenced by [250]. Next Message by Ryan is [456].
[249] Zohan: Time is a constant measurement. As I first began to consider ways to
measure labor, I had a few ideas come to mind aside from time: Quality of product and
the Volume of Production. At first glance, both seem to correspond directly with value and
labor. However, after reviewing the reading and Marx’s arguments, I would have to say that
time is in fact the best way to measure labor. While the quality of a product and the amount
of products produced will generally have an impact on what the item itself is worth, both
forms of measurement are based on a consumer’s personal bias. For instance I may find a
red t-shirt to be worth more than you, but this doesn’t mean that the labor that produced the
red t-shirt is worth more than what was used to produce a black t-shirt. With products value
194 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
changing on nearly a daily basis, it makes no sense to change your measurement of labor
along with it. Thus, time becomes the most reliable and consistent way to measure your
labor.
Hans: You are right. If red t-shirts are in higher demand than black t-shirts, then industry will respond to this by
producing more red t-shirts and/or fewer black t-shirts. The value of the t-shirts is not affected by this.
Next Message by Zohan is [466].
[250] Jon: How is labor best measured? While reading Marx I do understand the point
of measuring labor in units of time. Most of us see this as the best way to measure labor
since we have worked for wage by the hour up to this point. I have been thinking of it a little
deeper and I believe that the best way to truly measure the labor we use in the production
process is the same way that we give value to the product itself. The demand or use value
of a product is the determining factor in the value of a product and I believe that the labor
that goes into production should be measured in the same way. There is a lot of different
things that a person could do with a unit of time and not all labor is equal so why should it
be measured the same. The real reason that I have decided to continue my education is to
increase the value of my labor. The more you know or the better your skills are the more
valuable the labor is. The time of a teller at a bank is much less valuable than the CEO of the
same bank and the pay check shows it. Society has put value on labor based on the value of
the product, it has become apparent through the wage inequality that has grown. I really do
see the usefulness of measuring labor in units of time but labor has become more complex
and it needs to be measured more in the value of its product more than just the amount of
time it took.
Hans: The comments I made about [248] also apply to you.
Next Message by Jon is [420].
[255] GoUtes: labor time. Since a lot of our group is commenting on the issue of how
labor is best measured, I would like to voice my interpretation as well. I do think that labor
is best measured in time, however, there are other ways to measure labor. One would be
the quality of labor, another would be the effort involved, and another measure would be
labor actually accomplishing. One can participate in “labor” without really doing anything.
Say if you are a construction worker, you may go through the motions, go to work, hammer
some nails, paint some walls and accomplish some things, but what if your full effort was
not there? Or if you do your job half way? Labor is still taking place, yet is it really quality
labor?
Hans: The others have said similar things. You should only chime in this late in the discussion if you have
something new to say, and if you explain how your contribution differs from the rest. Marx’s concept of socially
necessary labor-time meets your first and third criterion (but not the effort criterion).
Next Message by GoUtes is [470].
[284] Baseball: I agree with GoUtes when they say that “one can participate in labor without
really doing anything.” In order for labor to be productive and achieve a goal, progress
towards the final product must exist. If labor is to be accepted as useful then progress with a
product or service must be taking place within the confines of labor. If the same construction
worker which GoUtes used in the example went to work and performed the same routine every
work day but the work which that worker accomplished had no amplification to the final
product, that labor would not be considered quality.
Next Message by Baseball is [285].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 195
[287] Hans: New grading policy for not building on each other’s submissions. Question
342 is not in installment 1, therefore it is not assigned right now. Only the questions in Installment
1 will be on the exam, and those questions are assigned during the extra-credit
period which goes until 6 pm Monday.
There was a lot of overlap in the answers to question 342. There was even more overlap
if you also consider question 96, which is similar to 342. (And I recommend my [75] and
[91] to those who are interested in 342.)
In the future, i.e., after the exam, you will be graded as follows if there is too much
overlap: if you say things which are right but only 25% of your submission say something
new or say it better than before, then you will get an A but your grade will only have the
weight of 25% of a normal submission. This is better than what I did in the past. According
to the syllabus, you should get a D for it, because numerically, a D (1.0) is 25% of an A (4.0).
But this is so Drakonian that I did not apply it, I ducked people a little bit but not very much.
With the new grading policy, if you have a submission with less than 100% weight then you
need more than five submissions for the minimum requirement in homework submissions.
This is more work, but it only affects your grade if you don’t do this extra work. The
new solution also gives more information. You know how much your submission would
be valued had it not been an overlap, and which fraction of your submission I think was
overlapping.
Message [287] referenced by [358] and [540]. Next Message by Hans is [291].
Question 347 is 242 in 2002fa, 251 in 2003fa, 282 in 2004fa, 276 in 2005fa, 296 in
2007SP, 301 in 2007fa, 319 in 2009fa, 326 in 2011fa, and 341 in 2012fa:
Question 347 What is Marx’s difference between bourgeois economists and vulgar economists?
[215] Hans: Prettifying imitators. Marx witnessed the descent of the mainstream economics
of his time from what he called “bourgeois” or “classical” economics to what he
called “vulgar” economics.
The former had original thinking, and although Marx did not agree with all of it, see my
[2007SP:316], he had great respect for it and learned a lot from it. The latter, the part of
economics which Marx called “vulgar” economics, did not really look at the economy itself
but just took the existing economics as gospel and polished it up. Marx only had disdain
for Say (of Say’s law fame) for trying to make Ricardo more systematic and pretty but also
much shallower. This has a more recent analogy in Economics: many economists feel that
Hicks’s IS/LM model tries to make Keynes’s theory more systematic and accessible, but it
also removes its depth.
This evening a slide from original thought to prettifying imitators is happening before
our eyes with the answers to question 290. IrvingHowe [191] and Guh [206] bring original
thinking to the table. Zohan [213] is a smoothed-over and more eloquent paraphrase of [206],
a little bit like Say was to Ricardo, and Long [207] tried this too but he didn’t understand
Guh as well as Zohan did.
I couldn’t resist remarking on this, that’s why I am answering a question which will be
assigned starting tomorrow. A more in-depth answer to 347 is in [2005fa:507].
196 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [215] referenced by [216] and [918]. Next Message by Hans is [216].
[374] Robert: graded A Understanding vs. Explanation. To Marx the bourgeois economists
whom he also referred to as classical economist, are “all the economist who, since the time
of W. Petty, have investigated the real inner structures of bourgeois relations of production”
(Annotations, p. 214, referring to a quote by Marx in the afterword to the second edition of
Kapital). Marx respected these economists for their original thinking; however, he did take
issue with them on several issues. For example, as Hans in [2007SP:316] explains, Marx
thought that the classical economist did not adequately distinguish between abstract human
labor and useful human labor, although they did implicitly (without really thinking about it)
by switching from the qualitative to quantitative aspects of labor.
The vulgar economist in Marx’s view were those “who only flounder around with the
apparent structure of those relations [identified by the bourgeois economist], ceaseless ruminate
on the materials long since provided by scientific political economy, in order to lend
plausibility to the crudest phenomena for bourgeois daily food” (Annotations, p. 214, referring
to a quote by Marx in the afterword to the second edition of Kapital). He goes on, in
his disdain, to say that the vulgar economist try to systematize complex economic concepts
in a much simplified manner. Marx, obviously, had little regard for the vulgar economist because
of their lack of original thought and their attempts to simplify what are very complex
relationships in the political economy.
Marx, with his careful, scientific analysis of the political economy unearthed many complexities.
When he ran into an apparent impasse in an explanation he considered the matter
more closely. He respected the bourgeois economist because he felt they too followed similar
rigorous scientific methods even though he did not always agree with their conclusions.
On the other hand, he did not like those economists who stayed on the surface of any explanation
and did not dig when the inconsistencies appeared. When one understands that
the real contributions of Marx came from his unwillingness to accept surface signals, one
can understand why he would view those who dealt only with these surface signals to be
unhelpful.
Furthermore, this question reminds me of something that Dr. E. K. Hunt tried to teach me.
Citing the book, The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction, by Martin Hollis, Dr.
Hunt taught that the approach to social science in general and economics in particular can be
divided into four quadrants with explanation and understanding on one axis and holism and
individualism on the other. Marx (and the bourgeois economists) sought an understanding
of the economic system, not just an explanation of the system such as that sought by the
vulgar economist. (Not relevant to this question but relevant to my [373], Marx was also
more concerned about a holist view rather than an individualistic one.)
Next Message by Robert is [389].
[448] Proletarian: graded A Marx felt that bourgeois economists were real scientists with
the honest goal of understanding and explaining capitalism. To Marx, bourgeois economists
were real scientists with original thoughts. While Marx disagrees with them in their views
and their understanding of economics, he respected them and he learned from them.
Vulgar economists, on the other hand, are those economists that polish and perpetuate the
findings of the bourgeois economists. Vulgar economists accept the findings of bourgeois

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 197
economists as gospel and truth. Vulgar economists are responsible for the continued widespread
acceptance of bourgeois economic thought by the mainstream.
Next Message by Proletarian is [493].
[504] Spiral: Bourgeois economists i.e. classical economists used the labor theory of
value while assuming it was a natural end product. Marx criticized them for failing to ask
why labor is expressed as value which he believed was a historical construct concealed from
individuals by the money commodity. It was clear value has a societal element therefore the
labor theory of value was indeed a historical construct. After this critique vulgar economists
began to grab the mainstream by abandoning the labor theory of value replacing it with
marginal value. Marx disliked these neo-classical economists who still viewed the system
as a natural phenomena which they could describe with simpler, more mechanical versions
of earlier classical economist tools.
Hans: Marx’s vulgar economists such as Say are still classical economists. Marx would probably have called the
emergent marginalist school vulgar too, but he was not aware of them. During his lifetime they were only a tiny
minority in the economics profession.
Next Message by Spiral is [946].
Question 349 is 254 in 2003fa, 285 in 2004fa, 279 in 2005fa, 299 in 2007SP, 321 in
2009fa, 328 in 2011fa, and 299 in Answer:
Question 349 How does Marx know what commodities would say if they could speak?
[253] Hit: Speaking Commodities. Marx claims that if commodities could speak they
would say “our use-value may interest humans, but it does not belong to us as objects. What
does belong to us as objects, however, is our value. Our own interactions as commodity
objects prove it. We relate to each other only as exchange-values.” Marx know this because a
commodity is a physical matter, such as food, petroleum, copper or any other good for which
there is demand and is produced by human labor. Commodities are made of substances that
come out of the earth. The price of a commodity is universal; the price can fluctuate daily in
some cases based on global supply and demand. The use of commodities interests humans
as we use many commodities in our daily lives.
Hans: Wrong definition of “commodity.” Look at [2007SP:271] how this question should be answered.
Message [253] referenced by [488]. Next Message by Hit is [488].
[500] LuBr: If commodities could talk they would say that their use-values are what
interests humans but is not what belongs to them. Their value however does belong to
them as objects. Commodities are clearly confused, and Marx points out this confusion is
understandable given the disorienting nature of the fetish-like character of the social relations
within a commodity producing society, that even confuses most humans [2005fa:523]. The
use-value contained within a commodity are the physical properties of the commodity that
provide a range of uses for people. So in reality the commodities should associate their usevalues
as that which belongs to them. However, what is disorienting for them is that their
physical properties should be the bases of their relations with other commodities. However,
it turns out to be their value, or the social relations, which make commodities exchangeable
on the market (or the amount of socially necessary congealed abstract labor embodied within
the commodity), which determines their relations with other commodities. This is why
commodities are fooled into thinking that their value is what truly belongs to them.
Next Message by LuBr is [568].
198 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 350 is 191 in 1997WI, 245 in 2002fa, 280 in 2005fa, 308 in 2008fa, 329 in
2011fa, and 344 in 2012fa:
Question 350 How is it a manifestation of fetishism to speak of “rich” people and “valuable”
things?
[233] Hal: graded A– The Subtleties of Commodity Fetishism. In past responses, students
such as Soki in [2008fa:374] seem to assume that the question above is asking about
idolizing rich people and valuable things. However, it is not only a manifestation of fetishism
to speak of “rich” people and “valuable” things in positive terms. In fact, one need not feel
any emotion at all regarding “rich” people and “valuable” things for the manifestation to be
apparent. It becomes apparent at an earlier, more basic level when one begins regarding a
person or thing’s relative status in society as an inherent “attribute” of that person or thing.
To quote Hans from [2005fa:584], “Whether a person is talented or not is a characteristic of
that person; but whether a person is rich or not is a characteristic of the place that person has
in society, not of that person herself.”
The change in point of view is so subtle that I should give some examples. Suppose a
stranger in a dark parking lot suddenly opens his jacket to show you what he claims is a
collection of “valuable” watches. Now, Soki and many other students would say that the
manifestation of fetishism first becomes apparent when you believe the stranger that the
watches are valuable. However it first becomes apparent when you believe the stranger that
any watches (or anything, or any person) can be inherently valuable or worthless. Therefore,
if you tell the stranger that his watches are actually cheap, you are still falling victim to
commodity fetishism.
At an even more subtle level, suppose you try a watch on and you love it. You love its
function and design. If you then deem it “valuable”, fetishism still becomes apparent, even
though the watch carries use-value. If you later buy a cell phone and use it to keep track of
time, the watch loses its use-value, yet you have already deemed it “valuable.” If we speak
of “rich” people and “valuable” things, we can easily fall into the trap of believing that the
value is inherent and fixed. If Bill Gates loses all of his money, he will not be a “rich” man
that happens to be down on his luck, and he will not even be a “poor” man. He will simply
be a man without access to society’s wealth.
Recall Hans’ analogy of a talented person. Talent is a characteristic of that person, but
the manifestations of talent (i.e. excelling in sports or academia) are not characteristics of
that person. I believe this is what Hans meant when, in [2008fa:440], he wrote, “Marx’s
own thought process was much more theoretical and almost pedantic, sticking to some basic
logical principles.”
Hans: The word “cheap” at the end of your second paragraph is in italics because you originally had “useless” and
I want to say something about this.
If you were to say the watches are not likely to function well (because you recognize them as unauthorized
replica), then this is not commodity fetishism. You are talking about physical properties of the watches themselves.
If you say the watches are cheap, this is commodity fetishism. Cheap or valuable is their position in the market,
it is not a property of the watches as objects. That is why Marx says it is strictly speaking wrong to say a watch
“is” cheap or valuable.
Saying a watch is useless is a grey area (that’s why I replaced it by something which is more definite). If you
mean by this “they only look like Rolexes but they aren’t Rolexes and don’t function like Rolexes, i.e., in terms of

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 199
keeping time they are useless” then you are saying something about the watches themselves; this is not commodity
fetishism. If you mean it in the sense “they are useless because I have a cell phone” then you are blaming the
watch for it that you have a cell phone, which is not fair. You are treating a relationship between you and the watch
(your not needing a watch because of your cell phone) as if it was a property of the watch. Strictly speaking this is
imprecise. But we commit the same imprecision every time when we call a thing a use-value. Calling the thing a
use-value is lauding the thing for a relationship between the thing and our needs. Marx allows us to do this. It is a
little imprecise but it has nothing to do with commodity fetishism, because the relationship which we are projecting
on the commodity is not a market relationship.
It’s a little inconsistent that Marx allows us to say commodities are use-values (i.e., to pretend that the relationship
between their physical characteristics and our needs are their property) but does not allow us to say
commodities are valuable (i.e., to pretend that their social position within the market is their property). Your third
paragraph goes back and forth between these two situations. It does not help that you are using “valuable” in the
sense of “having use-value,” which is a no-no in this class and diminished your grade.
The last sentence of the third paragraph was originally: “He will simply be a man that has no money.” I changed
it to make it clearer that “having no money” is a position in society.
Message [233] referenced by [239] and [367]. Next Message by Hal is [469].
[239] Proletarian: graded C Rich People, Valuable Things, and the Manifestation of
Fetishism. There have been many responses to this question in years past, and even a
response this year by Hal [233]. Many of these responses seem to try to answer this question
by giving examples instead of simply addressing the philosophical reasons why speaking of
rich people and valuable things is a manifestation of fetishism. Many of the responses briefly
address the philosophical reasons or allude to them, but none that I have read (though I have
yet to read all the responses from all available years) seem to fully address those reasons.
I believe the reason for such confusion on this topic comes from a misunderstanding, even
if it is just a slight misunderstanding in some cases, of the meaning of fetishism. From my
reading of the responses given by many of those who have attempted to answer this question,
it appears that many of those respondents are confusing the way Marx uses fetishism with
modern usages of the word. Many respondents to this question include in their response
some kind of reference to feelings of lust, desire, want, or worship of commodities. Those
that make the mistake of referencing worship of commodities come closest to the way Marx
is using the term fetishism, but they are still a bit off.
When Marx uses the term fetishism, he does not mean, in any way, something related
to our modern usage of the word fetish, which implies pleasure, etc. Instead, Marx uses
the word fetishism in the classical sense, the anthropological sense, which is the belief that
objects (in this case commodities) have some sort of supernatural powers or some power
over others (the latter part of the definition is where our modern usage as well as sexual
fetishism stems from). This is why those who have responded to this question and have invoked
worship of commodities in their answers come close to understanding the meaning of
fetishism, but miss it just barely. Now that I’ve cleared up what Marx means by “fetishism”
I can demonstrate why speaking of rich people and valuable things are a manifestation of
fetishism.
Marx asserts that people in the Bourgeois economic mindset view commodities in a magical
or mysterious way. Those in the Bourgeois economic camp view value as some natural
property of a commodity instead of something instilled into a commodity by human labor
(even if they recognize labor as the source of value). Because of this view of commodities,
200 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
those with the Bourgeois economic mindset have a distorted view of value and wealth. Because
of this mindset, the value of one person’s labor can be distorted to be more valuable
than the labor of others (hence a rich person) and the value of a commodity can be distorted
to be more valuable than another, even if they contain the same about of congealed human
labor.
In the Marxian mindset these distortions are not possible. All commodities are equally
valuable as long as the labor power that went into the manufacture of the commodities is
equal (1 coat that takes 20 hours of labor to produce has the same value as 20 yards of linen
if those 20 yards of linen take 20 hours to produce). However, in the Bourgeois mindset, even
if two commodities both contain 20 hours of congealed labor, they can be valued differently.
The same distortion applies to wealth. In the Marxian mindset, all laborers should have
roughly the same “wealth” assuming they work the same amount of time, though inefficient
or lazy workers may have less wealth and very efficient workers may have more (plus
there are certain exceptions for those with very unique skills). Because the given value of
the labor of a person can vary drastically from one person to another in the Bourgeois economic
mindset, some people in that mindset have drastically more buying power than others
because their labor is valued more than others.
Because the concepts of a rich person or a valuable commodity can only come out of the
fetishism of the Bourgeois economic mindset, speaking of these conditions is inherently a
manifestation of that fetishism.
Hans: You write:
Those in the Bourgeois economic camp view value as some natural property of a commodity
instead of something instilled into a commodity by human labor (even if they recognize labor
as the source of value).
How can one recognize that labor is the source of value and at the same time view value as some natural property
of a commodity? These seem direct opposites to me. Please explain.
You think Marx’s Capital is developing “Marxian mindset” in which the distortions of the “Bourgeois mindset”
are not possible. Please read [92] and [122].
Next Message by Proletarian is [447].
[367] Giant: graded C+ It is a manifestation of fetishism to speak of “rich” people and
“valuable” things because it makes them seem more like a law of nature and not formed out
of a social institution as it would be if it was fetish like. By it being fetishism it brings commodities
with use-values to become “rich” and get “value” out of the natural commodities
through labor.
There is not a set amount of money one needs to acquire to be considered “rich” or
specific commodities that are considered “valuable” while others are not. This is because
the idea behind “rich” and “valuable” is a social concept. The social concept of both is
something most of society strive but since few achieve these goals they are admired by
others in society. Because it is not set however it is up to society to establish what is rich
and valuable. This concept can vary depending on location and social group. To speak of
“rich” or “valuable” things is to try and conceptualize a manifestation of fetishism which
can only be done through social agreement, and since neither of these ideas have specific
requirements the best way to socially accept them is through manifestation of fetishism.
Hans: Please re-read the first paragraph of [233]. The admiration for the rich is exactly not the issue here.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 201
Next Message by Giant is [556].
[390] Frida: graded A When we speak of “rich” people and “valuable” things, we act
as if these were natural properties inherent in the people and things. These are not natural
properties at all, they are social relations. This confusion is a manifestation of fetishism.
Hans: Right.
Message [390] referenced by [417], [443], and [463]. Next Message by Frida is [532].
[417] Sly: Rich people don’t always have valuable things. Fetishism is a social relation
that is based upon natural construction. The reason why fetishism manifests itself when
speaking of “rich” people and “valuable” things is that most individuals aren’t naturally
constructed to be wealthy or haven’t reached that point yet. Those who are “rich” have more
money and have easier access to “valuable” things, than a poor or less endowed person. If
I see a women that has Marc Jacobs handbag I immediately attach the label of “rich” to
that particular person even though she may not be rich. The reason that I attach that label
of “rich” is because a March Jacobs handbag can be anywhere from $1500–$3000 - that is
what I consider “valuable”, and I just couldn’t fathom using that kind of money on such an
item. What I may not be aware of is that woman could have used her entire life savings on
that handbag, but I only see the handbag that is naturally constructed that way and the social
relation of “rich” is immediately applied because she has such a “valuable” item.
Hans: Look at [390] how to answer this question.
Next Message by Sly is [419].
[443] Rmc: graded B– Fetishism, as claimed by Babyceta [308], is “the belief that inanimate
objects [possess] certain social determinations endowed by physical nature that enable
them to transmit these properties to individuals.”.
Money is the most valuable thing, typically, in a society, because it is the measure of
buying power (linked to the society). If an individual is rich, in a monetary sense s/he has a
lot of money and is able to buy many things, or expensive things, or valuable things. (The
more valuable a commodity is to a society, the more money it typically costs; sometimes it
is so in reverse- if a commodity costs a lot of money, it is assumed it is more valuable.)
One example of the way fetishism is expressed is by social reactions regarding “status
symbols”—it is very common for “rich” people to own “valuable” things such as certain
cars, houses that look a certain way (or are a certain size), or they wear clothing of certain
fashions. People with a lot of buying power are able to purchase such socially valuable
commodities whereas others who have less money cannot buy them.
If society regards these commodities with a great amount of value, it follows that “rich”
people who have purchased these “valuable” commodities have as much social value themselves
as the commodity.
Hans: This time you have a different theory of exchange-value than in the resubmission of your other exam question
[442]. In that earlier message you wrote that exchange-value is determined by use-value, and in the present
message you write that the price is determined by how “valuable a commodity is to society.” These are different
explanations of the same thing (price is a form of exchange-value) which are incompatible with each other, and
neither explanation is compatible with the labor theory of value.
Here is a hint how to study for this class: you should read the discussion in the pdf archives (or for the exam
in Installment 1 or 2)—especially when you go back to the past discussion while writing your resubmission. You
quoted [308] in its original version how it was emailed, instead of the edited version in the archive. Not only is it
202 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
almost impossible to stay on top of such a complex discussion if you read it one email at a time, but you are also
missing a lot of feedback comments about these contributions which are never propagated by email.
And after you have downloaded the pdf archive from
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/2010fa.pdf
Look at Frida’s resubmission [390] to see what a correct answer to this question looks like.
Next Message by Rmc is [711].
[446] Smartergirl: To speak of rich people and valuable things is a manifestation of
Fetishism because it is placing a value on a social attribute instead of a natural attribute. We
see this all the time in modern day society with lots of commodities but let’s use handbags
for example. A gucci bag or a Dooney and Burk can cost upwards of $1000.00. It is only
commanding this price because of the status that society has put on these brands. We do not
pay more because the leather is particularly better, the buckles are gold or the inside is lined
with mink. We simply pay for the name and the social status that having one of these bags
provides. It is the same situation if we buy a thrift store bag. A person is subject to fetishism
if they feel that bag is less than socially acceptable. Fetishism gives a commodity a value
that is not based on its physical properties but the social interpretation of that item despite
the commodities lack of a physical characteristic that would warrant the increase in value.
Hans: Nice text but completely wrong. If you think that value, a social relation, depends (for things other than
gucci handbags) on the physical properties of the things then Marx would say this is fetishism.
Next Message by Smartergirl is [900].
[454] Husani: Fetishism is the idea that value is some mystical power, intrinsic to the
commodity. We look at a commodity and instead of seeing the matter and labor comprised
inside it, we see the commodity as an object that is useful. We believe this value is created
through nature when in reality it is produced by mankind.
When we speak of “rich” people or “valuable” things we aren’t looking at the individual
person or object, but the crystallized substance they are made of. “Rich” people are the
same as everyone else and were created in the same way, but we seem them as having value
because of what they are. They are valuable by themselves but we feel a need to give them
value through some mystical dimension that we cannot see. A rich person is still a person,
just like everyone else. The only difference is that they have more money than the rest of
us. This can be seen with commodities as well. We rarely see a diamond as having value
because of how it is made (through years rock and dirt crushing on carbon substances) or
by the labor necessary to extract it from the ground. We see it as valuable because it is a
DIAMOND. We believe a diamond is valuable because of its internal properties.
Next Message by Husani is [550].
[462] Somramthom: graded A Fetishly fetishisms. A manifestation of fetishism is regarding
a person or thing to be of higher worth because of the person’s or thing’s social
status. Thus, when we speak of “rich” people or “valuable” things, we are really explaining
the social relations of the “rich” person or the “valuable” thing. We see this manifestation as
an inherent trait or characteristic of the person or thing, though it is not.
Next Message by Somramthom is [467].
[463] RexManning: graded A– An example of fetishism can be seen in the “value” that
humans place much desired objects, such as, diamonds and gold. These objects are a manifestation
of fetishism because of their socially placed value. In normal commodity exchange,
an object is not more valuable because it is shiny or because the producer simply says that it

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 203
is more valuable. Although value does have a social relation, it is still in relation to labor. In
the case of the shiny, or highly regarded commodity, they are only able to capture a higher
price because of the social stigma associated with them, such is the case with diamonds
and gold. These objects are considered valuable, not because of the properties which they
possess, but because of the social value that society places on them. People can be viewed
the same way. When a person is said to be talented, smart, or outgoing, these are properties/qualities
which that person possesses. If a person is said to be rich, then that person
is placed high in society. Like the diamonds and gold, which are considered valuable by
society, so is a rich person regarded.
Hans: Leave the prestige part out of the answer. Frida [390] said it best. Regarding price versus value of gold, the
issue is difficult; see my [2007SP:685].
Next Message by RexManning is [465].
[478] Rico: As I initially answered the question, I took the approach of explaining that
when speaking of “rich” people and “valuable” things, one is showing a manifestation of
fetishism because they are creating a process of socializing nature. In other words, people
speak of “rich” people and “valuable” things as a mechanism of measuring a person’s societal
position. Hans mentioned this “societal position” in [2008fa:440], where he explains
that “. . . whether a person is rich or not is a characteristic of the place occupied by that
person in society, not of the person herself. Therefore calling the person herself rich treats a
social position as if it was an attribute of the person. That is why this common usage of language
can be considered an manifestation of fetishism.” In his passage, Hans explains that it
is not possible to judge the character of a person by their material possessions, because material
possessions are not characteristics of the person. One’s possessions are therefore used
to place him or her in a societal position. Using the rhetoric of “rich” people and “valuable”
things is a manifestation of fetishism.
I would also like to stress how society seeks to change how use-value is derived. When
speaking of “rich” people and “valuable” things, Marx explains the social change on how
society attributes the use-value of a commodity. Picard explains that society attributes usevalue
as a man-made product in [2005fa:522], where he states that the use of the term “rich”
people is a “manifestation of fetishism because this term says that use-value is “an attribute
of man,” meaning it is because of man that a thing has a use-value [. . .]” Then Picard explains
why attributing use-value to man-made products is wrong because “use-value belongs
to the commodity itself.” Use-value does not derive from man himself.
It is a manifestation to speak of “rich” people and “valuable” things because of the way
society seeks to change nature. They use measurements of material possessions to create
hierarchies, where they place individuals in societal positions based solely on the possessions
owned. They also believe that they can actually create use-value themselves.
Next Message by Rico is [738].
[513] JJ: Manifestations of Fetishism, Rich and Poor. Fetishism is a false interpretation
of socially related qualities as being something inherent to the nature of that thing. We
manifest this fetishism when we speak of “rich” people. In so doing we have labeled these
people as “rich” and would, in turn, label others as “poor”. Yet, this socially constructed
definition of “rich” tends to imply that, somehow, their richness was rooted somehow in
their natural being. However, the real natural qualities of a “rich” person are just the same
204 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
as all other people that walk, talk, sleep, eat, and drink. If all people had the same amount
of money then we could no longer label this person as “rich” and that person as “poor”.
This is because the labels would no longer hold in the social context and could no longer
be mistaken as natural to their character. We would be forced to look at the true qualities
of a man or woman. i.e. this man is honest, and this woman is athletic. Hans gave us such
a striking example of fetishism in a story from his youth. He explains how he was learning
to differentiate between a man and a woman at an early age, and how his teacher quickly
corrected his socially related understanding that if an individual has long hair that they must
be a woman. This is a simple example of fetishism to assume that one’s hair length is related
to the sex of that individual. Of course we know that a woman can have short hair and a man
long, but society relates long hair to womanhood and therefore the young mind could see
long hair as a natural trait of being a woman. It is only through this understanding that we
can see that speaking of “rich” people is similarly a manifestation of fetishism, and mistakes
their wealth as something that is a natural part of who they are.
The same manifestation of fetishism appears when we speak of a thing being “valuable”.
This once again makes the same false interpretation of a socially related quality being somehow
a natural quality of the thing. Labeling one commodity as “valuable” and another as
“cheap” ignores the real character of the commodity’s value, which is the amount of human
labor that went into producing it. This instead adjusts the value of a commodity by means of
the social relationship and pretends that this social relationship is part of its natural qualities.
The two commodities might be exchanged at a rate of many of X for a few of Y, but this
does not make X a cheap commodity or Y a valuable commodity. The real exchange ratio
here should show that many of X and few of Y represented labor equivalents and therefore
held equal value when considering their natural qualities. Rather it is fetishism that tries to
add this socially constructed adjustment to value.
Unfortunately, fetishism is hard enigma to combat and continues to make its false interpretations
and adjustments to the natural and true qualities of all things. This is something
that we should be aware of as we attempt to catch the false interpretations that fetishism
bestows to things as natural and inherent. Armed with a new lens to see the world through,
we can attempt to avoid creating fetishes of our own when we interact with the things and
people in our lives.
Next Message by JJ is [639].
[544] Kiko: Fetishism ties directly with the idea of “rich people” and valuable things. The
idea of fetishism is one that gives life to an object that has none. The object transcends its
own basic makeup to give itself life, meaning and value. Also it is individuals that help these
ideas take form in that ordinary metals and plastics can be transformed into say a Mercedes
or an iPhone that reflects value and shows status. It is the mysterious nature of the thing that
can will people to give life where there is none. When you hear people talk of lust for an
object or I want to be “rich”. It is this mysterious nature that Marx is trying to find. With the
social nature of things and people the object is further enhanced and the kinds of labor used
to produce the good.
Hans: Things do have life in capitalism. According to Marx this is not due to the attitude of people towards their
toys but this is a characteristic of capitalist relations of production.
Next Message by Kiko is [549].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 205
Question 354 is 172 in 1995WI, 149 in 1995ut, 194 in 1997WI, 201 in 1997sp, 193 in
1997ut, 202 in 1998WI, 312 in 2008fa, 326 in 2009fa, and 333 in 2011fa:
Question 354 Why a separate chapter about the exchange process? Has the exchange not
already been discussed in chapter One?
[356] AlexDaily: graded A Why a separate chapter about the exchange process? In
Chapter One, Marx briefly goes over the exchange of commodities. However, the main purpose
of the chapter is explaining the commodity and to establish that value comes from labor
and not use value. Chapter Two builds on Chapter One as does each chapter in Karl Marx’s
book Capital. In the first chapter, it explains in great detail the products of labor and in Chapter
Two builds upon that thought by going deeply into the social relations of the commodity.
Furthermore, Chapter Two explains how certain features of a commodity have social associations
which are created by individual incentives. This allows social relations to be created.
As Hans puts it in [2009fa:432] “because social relations can only exist if individuals act on
them.” Therefore, Chapter Two is necessary to explain the social bond between commodities
in the exchange process and also to relate the relationship of the commodity of the proprietor
in the exchange process. In the end, Marx giving the exchange process a separate chapter
shows the importance of the role humans play in driving the exchange process.
Message [356] referenced by [358]. Next Message by AlexDaily is [525].
[358] Hans: If we were to stop exchanging, THAT would stop the capitalist system in
its tracks. But we would also starve ... AlexDaily gave a good answer in [356]. Please
read also my [2009fa:1106].
AlexDaily’s last sentence is: “Marx giving the exchange process a separate chapter shows
the importance of the role humans play in driving the exchange process.” It is a relief, after
reading about the power of commodities and the lack of human control over the capitalist
system, that commodities cannot even go to market if not some human carries them.
Marx would say humans are driving not only the exchange process but the entire capitalist
economy in the sense that our labor and our motivations are the engine, but we are not in
the driver’s seat, we are not in control. Of course, if we would all stop exchanging, then
commodities would lose their power instantly. But we cannot stop exchanging, we would
starve if we did.
This does not mean we are entirely powerless. We cannot stop going to the grocery store,
but there are other decisions which we can make if we think the capitalist growth engine is
spinning out of control and we need to reduce carbon emissions. We can decide no longer
to fly airplanes, we can decide to have at most one child per couple, and we can decide
to save more and spend less. You notice that I am not talking about changing lightbulbs.
We need to change lightbulbs too (and LEDs are becoming more and more affordable, so
that I would recommend to jump over CFLs and go directly to LEDs). But we need bigger
decisions—and we can do bigger things than changing lightbulbs.
If you object that saving more and spending less brings the economy down, then my answer
is: an economy which destroys the livability of our planet has to be brought down. We
need to transition to a steady-state economy. This is a big change. A steady-state economy is
as different from our present growth economy as a helicopter is different from a fixed-wing
206 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
aircraft. As the saying goes, a failed growth economy is not the same thing as a steady-state
economy. But as long as the growth economy is humming along those in power will never
change over to a steady-state economy.
Since the exam is over now, we have a new grading policy as announced in [287]: anyone
who is going to submit additional answers to 345 this Semester is expected to build on [356].
You don’t have to build on this answer here, because it goes too far afield. The focus is on
reading and understanding Marx, not any particular implication of his theories for today.
Next Message by Hans is [364].
Question 358 is 173 in 1995WI, 150 in 1995ut, 183 in 1996sp, 196 in 1997WI, 203 in
1997sp, 295 in 2004fa, 318 in 2008SP, 316 in 2008fa, 337 in 2011fa, and 352 in 2012fa:
Question 358 Explain in your own words Marx’s phrase that the commodity owners’ will
“resides” in the objects which are his property.
Is this a good thing or not? Where does it have its limits in our society? Are there things for
which it is desirable that people’s wills reside in them?
[389] Robert: graded A+ Means to an end. In [2008fa:555] Hans explains how Marx
(after setting Hegel’s theories straight) attempts to straighten up those of Hegel’s contemporary,
Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer theorized, “People can do what they want but cannot
want what they want;” therefore, they are driven by will. He generalized this concept to include
all animate and inanimate objects: the universal will. Marx adapted a part of Schopenhauer’s
idea that inanimate objects can have wills (he did not accept the entire concept of
the universal will). The inanimate objects Marx focused on are commodities. He concluded
the wills of the commodities, which they exercise in their own activity, are the wills of their
owners residing within the commodities.
Wills, according to Marx are finite. If a commodity’s owner surrenders his will (knowingly
or unknowingly) to his commodities he loses that will and he becomes a slave to the
commodity who has his will residing in it.
Both good and bad derive from the fact that people invest their commodities with their
wills. The good is that things receive the necessary care and attention and aren’t wasted.
In [2008SP:269] Hans gives an example of how under Soviet Union style socialism some
projects would be abandoned as administrations changed and the things associated with
those projects would just be wasted.
The bad, however, in my view is worse than any benefit of the good. Capitalism creates
a situation in which those whose wills reside in commodities are the private owners of those
commodities. One human being’s access to another’s property is through giving up his own
private property. This private ownership creates a “split will” as described in the Annotations
p. 225: one has control of his privately owned property; however, “the laws of private property
take precedence over any human needs.” If you need bread and have no private property
of your own, you cannot just take the bread you need, as we know from Victor Hugo’s story
of Jean Valjean, because the law of private property prevents such a transaction.
Even in “legal” transactions, the will of the commodities involved, i.e., to realize their
values, leave the owners of those commodities standing on the sidelines. They are not two

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 207
human beings coming together to help each other. The human beings are merely a means
to an end, the vehicles by which the commodities accomplish their wills. From an ethical
standpoint, such exchanges force its human participant to violate the Second Maxim of
Kant’s Categorical Imperative, i.e., to treat other human beings as an end, in and of themselves,
and not as a means to an end. It cannot be psychologically healthy, whether done
with thought or mindlessly out of habit, to daily treat other human beings as mere means to
an end by exercise of the will we have given up to our commodities.
Message [389] referenced by [519]. Next Message by Robert is [519].
[395] TINDOZ: The will of Toys and Cars. I hope I’m not looking at this too simply
(especially after reading Robert’s remarks) but I have little kids at home so I’m used to
reducing most conversations into simple forms. As I read in the annotations about the will
of a commodity’s owner residing in the commodity, I couldn’t help but think of the (albeit
fictitious) movie Toy Story 2. For those who haven’t seen it, I’ll sum up the story to preface
my point about how ‘will’ can reside in an object and therefore express the ‘will’ idea in my
own words. In the film, all the toys are personified objects that can move and interact, but
only when people aren’t looking at them. Early on in the film the main toy, Woody, winds
up at a garage sale by mistake. When a prospective buyer asks to buy the toy (intending to
add it to a rare collection) he is told that the toy isn’t for sale. Upset at not being able to
buy the toy, he steals it when the “owner” (or the owner’s mother) isn’t looking - against the
will of both the toy and the owner. All this happens as Woody is playing as if he is totally
inanimate and as the other toys look on from the second story window. Though seeming to
not have any will during the “transaction” (or theft), Woody and his onlooking toy friends
are upset that he was stolen. From this point and for a considerable portion of the film,
Woody attempts to get back to his true owner, Andy, whom his will is intertwined with.
A reoccurring statement expressing how Woody’s will is intertwined with Andy’s is stated
throughout the 3 Toy Story films when Woody often tells the other toys that they are there
for Andy when he has need of them.
This fictitious story shows (in admittedly personified, over the top fashion) how the will
of an owner can reside in a commodity—to be there when they have need of them. To
take the discussion out of fiction land, I have noticed that it can sometimes seem as if an
object wants what its owner would want. An example from my own life is that I have
owned a 1986 4Runner since 1997. Last April it was almost stolen. It’s a long story, but
what prevented the thieves from taking it was that the battery mysteriously died somewhere
between evening and somewhere around 2 AM. Explaining this mystery would make this a
very long discussion, but I’ll just say that it was almost as if the car ‘willed’ to not be parted
from me. Another story, five years ago I had a ’98 Acura Integra stolen and driven down
foothill, crashed up a bunch and left in the parking lot across from the stadium. Whenever I
would drive this car, we (the car and I) almost seemed to have a will to go fast and I got it
to over 120 mph on more than one occasion. It’s almost as if that car had such a strong will
to go fast that it would allow someone to take it for a joy ride while my 4Runner seemed to
have the will to stay with me. Perhaps it’s all coincidence, but if Marx says that commodities
have their owners’ will residing in them, I can easily believe that just by thinking of my cars.
Is it a good thing?—In the case of my 4Runner, yes, it’s a good thing because I’m still
driving it as its will (a residual of my will) could be said to have prevented the theft. However
208 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
in the case of any sort of commodity that can inflict pain, violence, death, etc. it could be
disastrous. If a person’s will to kill people resides in a firearm, that could be a bad thing.
Noting that will residing in the object and using the object are two different things, for you
could “use” the gun to kill someone by shooting it or by bludgeoning them with it, either
way, it’s the ‘will’ of the owner that resides in the firearm that could harm society.
Where does this idea of will have its limits in society? I liked Robert’s mentioning of Jean
Valjean’s theft of bread. The annotations say that private property is a social relationship as
the “private” aspect of the property has to be respected by society if it is to be private at
all. So at this point, is it then the individual’s will that makes it his private property, or is
it society’s? And if it is society’s, would society rather a man die from starvation or would
society rather abdicate someones “private” bread to the man so he doesn’t die, or would
society rather the law be upheld no matter what? This dilemma is where I believe will has
its limits—at the point when society has two conflicting interests for a commodity and one
of those conflicts with the “private” aspect of an individual’s property.
Are there things for which it is desirable that people’s wills reside in them? Then annotations
spoke of toothbrushes and I think that is an excellent example of this. I also think
someone’s broken-in pair of shoes would be another. I think that in case of the shoes, as they
mold to conform to their owner’s feet, it is desirable that the will of the owner should at that
point reside in the shoe itself.
Message [395] referenced by [408]. Next Message by TINDOZ is [438].
[408] Hans: Sign of a declining empire. Sign of a declining empire: This is what I
thought reading the author of [395] promoting theories which could come out of a fantasy
movie script but have nothing to do with reality—with the justification “Perhaps it’s all
coincidence, but if Marx says that commodities have their owners’ will residing in them, I
can easily believe that just by thinking of my cars.”
I witnessed a similar turn to superstition shortly before the Chrysler Lynch Road Assembly
plant was shut down in 1979. The air was thick with rumors about the future, say better
the lack of a future, for the plant. And what was the favorite conversation subject on the final
assembly line? Some book about past lives and soul migration which what the vogue at the
time.
Marx witnessed a similar situation, and he remarked about it in footnote 25 to 163:3/o
(the paragraph about the table which, as a commodity, starts to dance). I left the footnote
out of the class edition of the Annotations, because it’s a confusing tangent in an already
difficult text, therefore the above link leads to the more complete edition in akmc.pdf. The
footnote says:
One remembers that China and the tables started to dance when all the rest
of the world seemed to stand still—in order to encourage the others.
Spiritistic table-shifting had become fashionable during the reactionary aftermath of the
1848 revolution in Germany. Marx saw the irony: while social progress was frozen, tables
began to move. “China” is a pun. It refers at the same time to the porcelain dishes on the
moving tables and to the Taiping-revolution in China, which, Marx hoped, would encourage
others to follow suit.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 209
Just this year, 2010, a strong working class movement has been gaining momentum in
China. Marx would certainly endorse again today that we should take China as example.
Message [408] referenced by [877]. Next Message by Hans is [501].
Question 359 is 175 in 1995WI, 151 in 1995ut, 184 in 1996sp, 186 in 1996ut, 205 in
1998WI, 211 in 1999SP, 222 in 2000fa, and 235 in 2001fa:
Question 359 Is there anything wrong with private property?
[403] Lindsey: Private property is more important than my life? Hans says on p.225 of
the annotations, “they [commodity owners] must subordinate their wills to a legal framework
which forces them to put the respect of private property above everything else, even above
their own lives.”
I see that it is true that we have a very strong legal framework. If someone takes your
private property without you agreeing to it (say your car), you would call the police, they
would try to find the person, and he would be tried in court and likely serve some time in jail
or pay a large fine or some other punishment. This encourages people to respect the social
rules private property.
However, I do not see how respect of private property is put above human lives. The guy
who stole your car will not get the death sentence, and I do not think that you can legally
shoot a trespasser on your land if they pose no threat to you—you would be punished for
homicide.
Perhaps I am reading this sentence incorrectly, but it caught my eye and I do not understand
how it is true of the capitalist society we live in.
Next Message by Lindsey is [405].
[405] Lindsey: reading further. I think by reading further I have clarified my own
confusion. Further on in the text there is an example that helped me to better understand
the argument that private property is valued over one’s life—if you do not have money to
buy food, you will starve. I agree that this is a major flaw of capitalism. We have created
institutions to try to solve this problem, but they do not solve it well.
I am still reading this section and will probably clarify this even more—I’ll make sure to
read further before I post next time.
Next Message by Lindsey is [597].
Question 368 is 226 in 2000fa, 239 in 2001fa, 340 in 2009fa, and 347 in 2011fa:
Question 368 Are commodities selfish?
[825] IrvingHowe: Are commodities selfish? No. At least not inherently. Division of
labor was not invented by Adam Smith. Division of labor always and everywhere results in
commodity production. That is, in fact, the purpose of dividing labor in a society/economy.
It is known to have existed in the earliest records we have in work and the ancient Babylonians
actually produced quite a few records showing the division of labor.
So, why begin to answer a question of commodities with a statement on the division of
labor?
210 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Because, to me, one must first understand the division of labor in order to understand
why commodities are not selfish. Babylonia was far from an advanced capitalistic society
and yet the Babylonians division of work can tells us that there is something that works and
is therefore something of a natural phenomenon once exchange begins. Because of natural
talents, physical traits and the amount of time involved, even the smallest of tribes will find
it necessary to divide tasks among workmen just to survive.
A commodity, being defined as a good having use-value that is produced for exchange, is
a feature of even hunter/gatherer societies where selfishness certainly exists but cannot exist
in amounts greater than the level of co-operation. Any tribe with a prevailing selfishness
among its population would invariably perish in this setting and yet even in this primitive
setting, we can see commodity production and observe trade.
Therefore, while a commodity can certainly symbolize selfishness (take a private jet or
platinum as an example) it is not a permanent trait of every commodity.
Message [825] referenced by [829]. Next Message by IrvingHowe is [1008].
[829] Hans: Division of Labor IS Possible Without Commodity Production. This
question will not be on the exam, and IrvingHowe’s [825] will not get a grade. Only those
questions which were previously discussed and need further clarification are eligible for the
extra credit. I just instructed my computer only to let those questions through which are in
Installment 2.
Let yourself not be confused by IrvingHowe’s confident assertion that “division of labor
always and everywhere results in commodity production.” It does not. The ancient Incas and
modern Cuba are societies with division of labor but no or very little commodity production.
See [339].
IrvingHowe did not answer the question whether commodities are selfish, but whether
commodity production induces selfishness in people. Question 368 comes from the beginning
of chapter 2, where Marx depicts commodities as beings with their own will. If you are
curious about an answer in this context, go to [2009fa:442] and the links from there.
Next Message by Hans is [831].
Question 371 is 321 in 2007SP, 329 in 2008fa, and 371 in Answer:
Question 371 Is is a good characterization of the exchange process to say: The commodity
owner throws his commodity on the market and tries to get as much use-value as he can for
it?
[379] Kleenex: One-sided characterization of the exchange process. No, this is not
an accurate characterization of the Marxian viewpoint. Marx writes that the commodity
has a will of its own, and at the instinctive level, wants to realize its value. Marx uses a
sexual analogy here of the commodity giving its body and soul for another commodity. It
is willing to exchange itself with any other commodity that has the same value, so here,
use-value becomes irrelevant. Saying that the commodity owner throws his commodity
onto the market to try to get as much use-value as he can for it, therefore, is inaccurate.
The commodity owner tries to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, when he puts his
commodity on the market. He seeks to realize the value of his commodity (in the social

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 211
dimension), but also desires to have his use-value maximized in the new commodity he has
obtained from the exchange. This presents us with contradictory objectives. (Later, Marx
discusses the private dimension of exchange in which the commodity owner seeks the reward
for the labor he expended in the production of this commodity). The hypothetical statement
in this question condenses and incorrectly simplifies his two goals into one and only depicts
one side of the story of an exchange transaction from a Marxian perspective.
Message [379] referenced by [383]. Next Message by Kleenex is [602].
[383] Hans: Marx replies to a consumer who only cares about use-value. Consumer: I
have done the readings, Mr. Marx, and I know that you would not characterize the exchange
process this way. Kleenex says this too in [379]. Fine. But I don’t care about value. I am
a consumer interested in use-values. If I have a commodity to exchange, my goal is to get
those commodities which give me the highest possible use-value.
Marx: even if you are only interested in use-value, the contradiction described in chapter
Two still applies. This contradiction makes direct barter impossible, because direct barter
tries to achieve two conflicting goals in one transaction. Chapter Two also explains how this
contradiction leads to the development of money. The implications of this for your situation
will then be described in section 2 of chapter Three: instead of making one or a series of
direct barters, you have to satisfy the conflicting goals sequentially. You first have to sell
your commodity, which takes care of realizing the value of the commodity you bring to the
market, and then you can use this money to buy that commodity bundle which gives you
highest utility. The error in the formulation of Question 371 is that it collapses these two
separate acts into one. This is impossible.
Let me give you a different example of two separate acts which cannot be collapsed into
one. In order to make bread, you have to proceed in two stages as well. First you mix the
ingredients to make dough—you may even have to knead the dough and/or let it sit for a
while. This is the first stage. Then you have to bake the dough. This is the second stage.
You cannot make bread without going through these two stages. In the same way you cannot
make an exchange without going through two stages: first realize in money the value of the
commodity you bring to the market, and then spend this money to buy the use-values you
desire. Direct barter is only feasible in very primitive situations, not in a modern economy
with millions of use-values to choose from.
Mainstream economics tells you how to do this second stage: if the money received from
selling your commodity is M, you have to maximize your utility function subject to the
budget constraint that the total price of the commodity bundle you are buying must be less
than or equal to M. Mainstream economics only talks about use-value, not value. But they
are making the assumption that money exists and every commodity has a price. In this way
they smuggle in the value concept through the back door. They won’t let value in through
the front door because they don’t want the workers to know that their labor is the only source
of value.
Message [383] referenced by [Answer:8]. Next Message by Hans is [408].
[830] Kaimani: On The Fly Commodities... Yes sellers are trying to get as much use
value out of their commodities because they know that if they can fill the needs of others then
they can create a excess and by doing so obtain commodities that have use-value that they are
212 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
in search of. Marx says that the commodity doesn’t have immediate use value to the owner
that is why the owner is selling the commodity or exchanging it in order to find a commodity
that produces use-value for the owner. Marx explains that the owner uses his commodity as
a carrier of exchange which turns into a form of exchange. For example a shirt produced by
a tailor doesn’t serve the immediate needs of the tailor and thereby is sold/exchanged on the
market so that by doing this the tailor can in the future find commodities that have use-value
to him.
Message [830] referenced by [831]. Next Message by Kaimani is [832].
[831] Hans: First you have to sell your commodity. Every sentence in Kaimani [830]
speaks about use-value only, except the one sentence
Marx explains that the owner uses his commodity as a carrier of exchange
which turns into a form of exchange.
This is an important sentence. Before the owner can get the use-values he desires he must
use his own commodity as a carrier of exchange-value and turn it into a form in which this
exchange-value can do its thing. This form is the money form. I.e., the owner must sell his
commodity. The price at which he can sell it is, according to Marx, not a reflection of the
use-value of the commodity but of the exchange-value.
Marx would say the characterization in question 371 is not a good characterization because
this first act, in which the exchange-value of the commodity is in the foreground, not
the use-value, is left out.
Message [831] referenced by [920]. Next Message by Hans is [833].
[857] Wolf: Yes, however I feel that this statement is too vulgar. This may be how the
commodity owner views the market or how she interacts with the surface expressions, but
it doesn’t characterize very important aspects of the exchange process. For one, as I read
[2008fa:616], I realized that this question left out the two-fold nature of commodity production
and exchange entirely. Also, certain factors such as whether or not the commodity
owner produces a socially-recognized value, if the magnitude of her commodity correctly
reflects the socially-average labor time, the totality of exchanges eventually creating a general
equivalent, etc. are very important characterizations of the exchange process which are
left unsaid by the statement, “the commodity owner throws his commodity on the market
and tries to get as much use-value as he can for it”.
Next Message by Wolf is [1062].
[865] PLG: graded A This is not a good characterization of the exchange process. The
scenario posed in the question collapses two characteristics of the exchange process into one.
In my in-class submission I did not clearly make the distinction between the two dimensions
of market exchange. I have explained it better in the following paragraphs.
A commodity carries only exchange value on the market. Generally the value is realized
by the amount of money the commodity can be exchanged for. Once this first exchange
takes place the owner can then try to make an exchange for a use value. These steps cannot
be skipped. Even in direct exchange it is the congealed labor that is being traded, not the use
values.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 213
Marx describes this two-dimensional exchange as having a social dimension and a private
dimension. The private dimension is the commodity owner’s desire for a use-value. The
commodity owner is driven by this desire to make an exchange. The social dimension is the
realization of the commodity’s value on the market. The value is determined by the abstract
labor within the commodity. The commodity is driven to be exchanged for something of
equal value. The commodity and the commodity owner are in conflict with their respective
goals on the market.
Therefore the exchange process is twofold. The question does not make this distinction.
If the commodity owner simply throws a commodity onto the market and sees what he can
get for it, a step is removed from the exchange process. This is not how the exchange process
works.
Next Message by PLG is [866].
[875] Oreo: graded A No, it is not a good characterization of the exchange process to
say that the commodity owner throws his commodity on the market and tries to get as much
use-value as he can from it. Since the commodity owner has thrown his comodity on the
market, he is not receiving that commodity’s use-value. The use-value will be obtained by
the purchaser of the commodity. The phrase “get as much use-value as he can” is misleading.
As stated by Hans in [2008fa:616], the purchaser has two contradictory goals: 1) Realizing
the exchange-value of the commodity that he has thrown on the market, and 2) Selecting the
use-value of his or her choice. The seller of the product wants to get as much exchange-value
from the product at possible, in order to purchase other commodities from which he recieves
greater or equal use-value from than he did from the commodity that he threw on the market.
Next Message by Oreo is [876].
[912] JJ: No, this is not a good characterization of the exchange process. This type
of characterization makes the mistake of trying to lump together the two distinct parts of
the exchange process. Namely the sale and the purchase are the two separate acts that the
question mistakenly characterizes as one single act.
Rather than seeking use values directly, the owner must first seek to realize the value of
his commodities. He realizes this value through the sale of his good for a sum of money
(exchange value). This is the first and distinct part of the exchange process that the question
fails to highlight. It is only after the sale of his commodity and after he receives the money
from this sale that he can then put this money to use and attempt to acquire the many usevalues
that he is seeking. This is the second part of this exchange process, the purchase. The
question implies that the sale and purchase are one transaction and all happen at once as if
all exchange processes were direct barter situations.
This is impossible. It is important to recognize the unique parts of the whole exchange
process to satisfy the contradiction of use-values and exchange-values, and to develop and
further the discussion on capitalism. Therefore, the characterization offered in question 371
is a poor one. It focuses on the use-values too much, and fails to highlight the different parts
of the exchange process.
Next Message by JJ is [913].
[920] Kaimani: The commodity owner throws his commodity on the market to try and
receive as much use-value as he can because he knows by this he can attract more customers,
214 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
who in turn will buy more products from him. But in order to do this Hans explains in [831]
“the price at which he can sell it is, according to Marx, not a reflection of use-value of the
commodity but of the exchange-value.”
Hans goes on to say that Marx would “disagree because this first act, in which the exchange
value of the commodity is in the foreground and not the use-value, is left out.”
Hans: Your first sentence is your in-class answer. Attracting more customers so that they will buy more products
from you is a different motivation than “trying to receive as much use-value as one can,” it should rather be called
“trying to receive as much sales as one can.” It is the motivation of a capitalist doing M-C-M to get his M back with
as much surplus-value as possible. This question here is in the context of chapter Three, i.e., we are talking about
C-M-C.
In your second quote from [831] the words “this first act, in which” were left out, which left the sentence
malformed. I inserted them for the archive copy, but this hurt your grade.
First Message by Kaimani is [575].
[957] Husani: I think it is a bad characterization in the sense of throwing it on the market,
but the aspect of getting the most use-value out of his commodity is accurate. The commodity
wants to be exchanged for something of equal value to itself while the owner wants to
get the most use-value he can. Marx says “his commodity possesses no immediate use-value
. . . It has use-values for others . . . He wants to relinquish it, in exchange for commodities
whose use-values are of service to him.” I think the owner puts more thought into the exchange
than just throwing it at the market and he tries to get the most use-value he can out
of his commodity. He will use his prior knowledge of his exchanges to try and get the most
use-value he can in exchange for his commodity.
Hans: You cannot throw something on the market to get use-value — whether or not it is a thoughtful throwing
on the market. If you want to get exactly the use-value you want, you have to try to negotiate with the few sellers
who have exactly this use-value, and if you don’t have money but a commodity you would have to convince them
to accept your commodity. The above story is a bad characterization because it thinks the first act, the sale of the
commodity, is about use-value. The first act is about value.
Next Message by Husani is [958].
[959] Frida: graded A Flattening the contradition. No. As was stated in the class
discussion this oversimplifies the situation and blurs the two stages of the exchange process.
First the commodity owner must realize the value of her commodity, try to get as much
money (or value, in a direct barter) as she can for it. She then must find a use value to suit
her needs for her price. These two goals contradict each other, the oversimplification does
not address this issue.
Next Message by Frida is [960].
[978] Kobe: In my in class submission I wrote that it is true that commodity owners
put their commodities onto the market to get as much use value as they can, this is untrue
characterization according to Marx. He would say that the characterization described in the
question is not an accurate characterization because the exchange value of the commodity is
in the foreground not the use value. The owner uses his commodity as a carrier of exchange
which in turn turns into a form of exchange. This being said, before an owner can get the
use value he desires he must use his own commodity as a carrier of exchange value to be
exchanged for a commodity that gives the owner his desired use value. In this example
the commodity has a will of its own, at the instinctive level, wants to realize its value. As
the owner puts his commodity onto the market he is seeking to realize the value of his

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 215
commodity in the social dimension, while also wanting to realize the highest use value of
the new commodity in which he gets during the exchange.
Next Message by Kobe is [979].
[993] GoUtes: I do not think that this example accurately captures the essence of the
exchange process. It is true that the owner of the commodity wants to maximize their profit,
but, at owner of the commodity would want to study the market and see when selling would
bring the greatest profit. The commodity owner would wait and study out the market and
patterns and then strategically place their produce when profit potential is at its highest.
Hans: Use-value is not the same as profit, and according to Marx’s theory profits are not made on the market but
in production.
Next Message by GoUtes is [994].
[1080] Trap: Marx would say this is an incorrect representation of the exchange process, it
is not that simple or 1-dimensional, in fact it is a 2-dimensional process. When a commodity
owner goes to the market to sell his product he wants two things from the exchange. Firstly,
he would like to exchange his commodity for another one with equal or more value than his
own, and secondly as stated in the question he would like to select a commodity with the
most appropriate use-value. The exchange will not be the greatest benefit of the producer if
he fails to exchange his commodity for another with greater or equal use value, therefore he
is not simply trying to get the most use value in the marketplace.
Next Message by Trap is [1081].
Multiple Choice Question 377 is 349 in 2009fa:
Multiple Choice Question 377 All except one of the following inversions come from Marx,
and one from Trotsky. Which one comes from Trotsky? (The Trotsky quote is something Marx
would agree with, but Marx would never have formulated it in this way.)
(a) “All commodities are non-use-values for their owners, and use-values for their nonowners.”
179:1.
(b) The commodity forms “have it written on their foreheads that they belong to a social
formation in which the production process has the mastery over men, and man does not yet
master the production process.” 173:1/oo.
(c) “The difficulty lies not in comprehending that money is a commodity, but in discovering
how, why and through what a commodity is money.” 186:1.
(d) “You may not be interested in the dialectic, but the dialectic is interested in you.” (Trotsky)
(e) “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” (German Ideology)
(f) “The laws of the commodity nature come to fruition in the natural instinct of the commodity
owners.” 180:3–181:1.
(g) While capitalism uses co-operative labor processes to increase profits, history uses capitalism
to introduce co-operative labor processes. 453:2/o.
(h) Earlier we investigated how surplus-value arises from capital; now we have to see how
capital arises from surplus-value. 725:1.
[329] Hans: Marx loves inversions. To follow up on [326], here is a collection of
inversions. The one from Trotsky is (d). (If you read this in the archives, I added the
references right into the question. If you get this multiple choice question on the exam, these
216 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
references will of course not be there.) You can simply tell the Trotsky quote by its style.
Marx 103:2 says it in much more bombastic ways: Capitalist crisis will “drum dialectics
even into the heads of” (then Marx gives a biting characterization of the fools in charge of
the newly emerging German empire during his time).
You may wonder why (f) is in there. It is not an inversion but a play on the word “nature.”
I am not sure myself if it belongs or not.
Next Message by Hans is [334].
Exam Question 381 is 180 in 1995WI, 191 in 1996sp, 204 in 1997WI, 211 in 1997sp, 203
in 1997ut, 221 in 1999SP, 231 in 2000fa, 279 in 2003fa, 313 in 2004fa, 328 in 2007SP,
338 in 2008SP, 352 in 2009fa, 363 in 2011fa, 377 in 2012fa, and 191 in Answer:
Exam Question 381 Which “deed” is Marx referring to in the following passage: “In their
dilemma our commodity-owners think like Faust: ‘In the beginning was the deed.’ They have
therefore already acted before thinking.”
[808] PLG: graded A In [2009fa:931] Hans says that the answer to this questions is a one
liner:
“The deed is the selection of a specific commodity as general equivalent.”
This one-liner should suffice, but here is my more in depth interpretation of the answer.
In reference to Goethe’s drama Faust, society creates a social relationship to commodities
by “the deed”. Society, rather than individuals give commodities social form by giving them
a general equivalent. Society acts before it thinks, whereas humans think, then act. Therefore
society is responsible for this deed that has given commodities a social form.
Hans: The “deed” is exactly the same thing as the “joint work” of all commodities in question 268. See [184],
especially the last paragraph. The “deed” is not giving commodities a general equivalent. The social “deed” is
only the selection of a commodity which the individual commodity producers will from now on use as general
equivalent. This is an act in which all members of society have to act in unison. Imagine each member of society
filling out a ballot which says:
I want the general equivalent to be (check one): gold, silver, copper, beef, seashells, millstones.
This vote would be the “deed.”
Message [808] referenced by [848] and [2012fa:504]. Next Message by PLG is [865].
Question 391 is 185 in 1995WI, 163 in 1995ut, 197 in 1996sp, 199 in 1996ut, 218 in
1997sp, 210 in 1997ut, and 229 in 1999SP:
Question 391 Why does a general equivalent become necessary as the number and differentiation
of commodities increases?
[1043] Kleenex: A general equivalent becomes necessary because the Simple form of
value is insufficient in the exchange process of a wide variety of commodities. In the exchange
of linen for a Bible, for example, the expression of the linen’s value in terms of
the Bible’s use-value, only one specific exchange relation is created. We don’t know how
linen compares to copper, or milk, or any other commodity. We don’t know it’s “qualitative
equality” nor do we know its “quantitative proportionality” with other commodities, as
Marx writes in the text. If we’re supposing that the linen becomes the General equivalent,
then this means that the linen now has an exchange relation with all sorts of commodities, in

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 217
fact, every commodity that exists. Every commodity out there expresses its value in linen,
the General equivalent of our argument. This means that it is directly exchangeable for anything
else, and that it contains many many expressions of value, found in each social and
exchange relation with all the different commodities. Having a General equivalent makes
the exchange process smoother and steers us away from a pure bartering system.
Next Message by Kleenex is [1044].
[1061] KA: Society assists in the development of a variety of commodities, with each
variety increasing in availability. As production of commodities increases along with the
variety, so does the complexity to derive both the “commodity representing use-value and
the money commodity representing the value.” Marx states that an external representation
must exist that generates an independent form of value. Without this independent form
of value, General Equivalent, the exchange process between all commodities will become
inefficient. As society produces more commodities of different use-values, the complexity
to trade will increase as well if a General Equivalent does not exist as a means of exchange.
The establishment of a General Equivalent enables commodities of different use-values to
be traded in the exchange place with little or no friction between parties. Society derives
the General Equivalent, not the individual, therefore making the process of exchange more
fluid.
Next Message by KA is [1067].
[1083] Kraken: graded A In a primitive society where the numbers of commodities are
few, the probability of finding someone to engage in direct exchange with is relatively good.
With a limited number of commodities, chances are fairly good that there will be several
people who have the commodity that you want and at least a few of them will also want
the commodity which you have to exchange. When the wants of people coincide in such a
way that each person wants what the other person has at the same time, direct exchange is
possible. As the number and differentiation of commodities increases, the variety of wants
also increases. As the variety of wants increases, the probability of finding someone who
has what you want and wants what you have at the same time decrease drastically and may
even go to zero. An example might be: if you’re a potato farmer and you want a new wrist
watch, you may never find someone who wants to directly exchange their wrist watch for
your potatoes. However, you can exchange your potatoes with someone who doesn’t have
a wrist watch but is willing to give you money/general equivalent. You can then exchange
your money with someone who has a wrist watch who doesn’t need your potatoes.
Next Message by Kraken is [1084].
[1103] Lindsey: A general equivalent becomes necessary as the number and differentiation
of commodities increases because it is no longer easy for people to find someone who
can trade with them and give them the commodity they want for the one they have and wish
to get rid of. If someone wishes to sell a green ipod shuffle and wants to buy a certain kind
of shoe, it would be hard to find someone who both wants to buy the ipod shuffle and has
a pair of size 8, brown puma shoes that he wants to sell. Because of this problem, society
chooses one specific commodity (sometimes more than one) to act as the general equivalent.
This means that the commodity is accepted as money and can be exchanged for any other
commodity in the correct quantity. The general equivalent makes exchange more convenient
and useful because people do not have to make a 2-way trade, instead they can sell their
218 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
good to one person in exchange for the general equivalent and then buy the good they want
from another person using the general equivalent.
Next Message by Lindsey is [1104].
[1122] Fisher: General equivalent. The general equivalent is the 3rd commodity in a
“polar relationship” with 2 other commodities. Eventually innovation is encouraged because
of one being excluded. As more commodities are exchanged and become general equivalents
which excludes them and forces them to innovate and become better so that they can enter
the market as a valued commodity. The valued commodities become “money”, according to
Marx and can then be compared to other commodities that have value and quality. General
equivalents show that others are trying to enter the market and that future capitalists will
flow into the market.
Hans: The General equivalent allows commodity owners the express the values of their commodities, not the usevalues.
Innovation is not driven by the existence of a general equivalent, but by the need of the commodity producer
to produce something for which there is a market.
Next Message by Fisher is [1123].
Exam Question 401 is 191 in 1995WI, 202 in 1996sp, 217 in 1997WI, 216 in 1997ut, 226
in 1998WI, 236 in 1999SP, 280 in 2002fa, 294 in 2003fa, 331 in 2004fa, 346 in 2007SP,
356 in 2008SP, 371 in 2009fa, 383 in 2011fa, and 397 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 401 Marx writes: “The exchange process gives the commodity which it
has designated as money not its value, but its specific form of value.” Which form of value
does Marx mean here? Why does Marx call this form the specific form of value of the money
commodity? (Assume we are under the gold standard.)
[847] RexManning: graded A– Marx states that gold, silver and money are commodities,
and like every commodity, must have a use value. Commodities are only able to express their
value by something that has value itself. We could use gold, silver or money as the “thing”
to which a commodity is being weighed (not literally). In this exchange of one commodity
for another commodity (gold, silver, or money), one of the commodities in the exchange
must be selected as the general equivalent. What will be accepted as the general equivalent
will be either gold, silver or money, as they also have use value and can be used again on
the market for exchange in a broader sense than the other commodity, as deemed by society.
Being assigned a general equivalent, the commodity is given a specific form of value, which
is associated with that commodity’s use value. This form of value is called the specific form
of value, because it is only associated with the use value of that commodity (the general
equivalent).
Message [847] referenced by [848]. Next Message by RexManning is [998].
[848] Hans: And who are YOU, Mr. Money? This question assumes the gold standard,
i.e., gold is money, therefore the trio “gold, silver, and money” in RexManning [847] has
shrunk to two, gold and silver. Let’s also assume, to simplify matters, that there is no
bimetallism or similar, i.e., silver is just an ordinary commodity. We can send it home
too, and are left with just one commodity, gold. This is the commodity which society has
designated as money. If this is the case, then there is no need to select gold as general
equivalent; if gold is money this means it is always and everywhere general equivalent.
Indeed, this is part of the answer: general equivalent is the form of value which gold gets
from the exchange process (while it gets its value from the process of mining gold).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 219
Now let’s look at this form of value in more detail. RexManning writes (I paraphrase):
“Gold will be accepted as the general equivalent as it also has use value and can be used
again on the market for exchange in a broader sense than the other commodities.” No, that
is not the right explanation. Gold is accepted as general equivalent not because its use-value
is so special.
Let me tell you why gold is accepted as general equivalent. First of all, a general equivalent
is necessary, commodity exchange cries out for a general equivalent, and various commodities
take this form according to the circumstances. Until at some point society says:
“Basta, we need only one general equivalent (that’s where the word ‘specific’ comes in),
one commodity which is always and everywhere general equivalent, and that commodity is,
drum roll, GOLD.” Applause, because we have just witnessed the famous Deed, see [808],
of selecting one commodity to be always the general equivalent. This selection is not done
in the production process, but this is the joint work of all the participants in the exchange
process.
Next Message by Hans is [858].
Question 403 is 169 in 1995ut, 238 in 1999SP, 348 in 2007SP, and 358 in 2008SP:
Question 403 How, why, and through what is a commodity already money, as Marx says in
186:1?
[370] KA: Commodity form of money. The formation of a commodity becoming money,
or as Marx states “crystallized into the money-form,” is when all commodities establish
their value in this particular commodity as money. While each commodity may express
their exchange value in terms of this commodity, it is not considered money unless this
commodity is considered as such. For example, I may express the exchange of commodity
X in terms of commodity Z, and you express your commodity Y in terms of commodity Z
as well, but unless there is a universal acceptance that commodity Z is a form of money and
not just another commodity, it is will not be considered money.
Gold and Silver took on the concept of money, because individuals valued goods in terms
of this commodity as money. These commodities became money through a “social agreement”
that all other commodities will express their values in it.
Hans: You are describing the process how the money commodity becomes money, and you are saying correct
things about the transition from the General form of money to the Money form. But this was not the question here,
see [376].
Message [370] referenced by [376]. Next Message by KA is [375].
[376] Hans: Clarification. The Marx quote “How, why, and through what is a commodity
already money?” does not refer to the process how a money commodity is selected and
becomes money, as KA reads it in [370]. Instead, Marx claims that in some respects every
ordinary commodity is already money. Question 403 wants you to explain “how, why, and
through what” every ordinary commodity has money-like features.
Message [376] referenced by [370]. Next Message by Hans is [383].
[893] Robert: graded A A commodity is already money because it contains congealed
abstract labor, which gives the commodity its value. The value is not given to it by money;
money is passive and simply reflects the value that is already in the commodity. As Hans
220 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
says in [518], it is not money that drives the economy; it is the value in the commodities
themselves that are the engine.
As I mentioned in my in class exam, this situation is similar to a human looking outside
herself to find god (value); only to discover that in reality, god (value) is already within her.
We may believe that congealed abstract labor is just a concept. In fact, it is a real attribute,
which gives commodities value...just as it gives money value.
The “why” a commodity is already money is because it has value because of the congealed
abstract labor within it.
They “how” a commodity is already money is because others recognize that the commodity
has value embedded in it.
The “through what” a commodity is already money is the exchange process.
The commodity contains congealed abstract labor (why), which others recognize as value
(how) and they are willing to trade commodities that they believe contain equal value (through
what) for that commodity. Thus a commodity has many of the same features of money, it
contains value itself and it reflects the value of other commodities and it can be exchanged
directly for other commodities. In these ways a commodity is already money.
Next Message by Robert is [894].
[898] Kat: A commodity is already money because it is able to be exchanged for money in
the market. The ‘how’ a commodity is money lies in the fact that commodities are produced
for sale or exchange. Money facilitates one form of exchange.
The ‘why’ a commodity is already money is because money has been selected as the
general equivalent. Money, then, is the social expression of value in an exchange.
‘Through what’ a commodity is money is the relationship between exchange value and
the power of money. Exchange value gives money its increased power the same way an
actual exchange gives commodities exchange value.
Hans: When Marx writes this, money does not yet exist. Marx is talking about the development of money out of
the commodity.
Next Message by Kat is [899].
[906] Intaglio: A commodity is already money because it can be exchanged on the market
for other commodities. Commodities can only be exchanged because they have value, which
comes from the congealed labor within them.
Hans: This is not completely false but much more can be said about it. You already know Marxism, and by
selecting the more philosophical questions and not going into the details of the structure of capitalist society as
Marx lays is out in Capital you missed your chance of learning something new.
Next Message by Intaglio is [907].
[921] Lana: A commodity is money because of its value. To the seller, it has an exchange
value (i.e. he knows what a buyer is willing to pay for it). To the buyer, the commodity has
use-value (i.e. she knows what consumption void it will fill). Through this value relation,
the commodity holds the power to motivate both buyer and seller into action. If looking at
a direct barter, there is no money involved in the equivalents’ transaction. This is how the
money commodity becomes money.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 221
According to Fowkes, commodities do not become money, they simply are money. He
states that “since a commodity does not need an (external) means to become money, but
it has inner money traits.” Commodities are money because of what they represent; trade.
In Hans’ Annotations, the process that this question refers to can be answered in terms of
the universal equivalent form and the natural form of a commodity become identified and
then “crystallized into the money form.” Marx recognizes the relationship of commodities
being expressed as money via other commodities, but “it seems, on the contrary, that all
other commodities universally express their values in a particular commodity because it is
money.” The process disappears and the commodities find their own form of value “in the
body of a commodity existing outside and alongside them,” taking on mysterious fetish-like
characteristics.
Next Message by Lana is [922].
[927] Ryan: When Marx is talking about how a commodity is really already money,
Marx is talking in regards to C-M-C. This Marx says in not the transition in which three
commodities are traded but is the three commodities changing to a different form. Each one
having a needed purpose through out the process. If you have an item that has no use value
to you and you wish to complete the C-M to allow you to buy an item that does have use,
you must change the form of your item to money. The reason why the commodity is already
money is because the item has the value of money and the exchange just allows the form of
the item to change. Which is to say that you just replace the item for money and never truly
change the value that you had in your hands to begin with. In the second part of the C-M-C
the M-C must be occur to complete the final form change. In which money now changes to
a commodity that has use value.
In conclusion the three part exchange is talking an item that has no use value and changing
it to an item that does have use value by using two form changes to complete. The reason
how and why the commodity is already money is because each exchange is the just the
realization of that money as it goes through out the C-M-C process.
Hans: Marx’s aphorism was written in chapter 2, long before he discussed C-M-C. So he did not mean what you
are saying. But what you are saying does make sense.
Next Message by Ryan is [928].
[982] JSmits: graded A In [2008SP:216] Hans has the example that people think that
god is something that is outside them when in reality they are the gods. People think that
if they have god in their lives that will make them a good person but god is an expression
of the good already in them. It is the same way with a commodity in that a naïve observer
would think that money is what gives value to the commodities but in reality money is the
expression of value already inside of the commodity.
So how, why and through what a commodity is already money is because the trade relationships
that develop from money are already found in the relationships of commodities.
Next Message by JSmits is [1119].
Question 412 is 234 in 1997sp, 226 in 1997ut, 236 in 1998WI, 291 in 2002fa, 305 in
2003fa, 336 in 2005fa, 367 in 2008fa, 382 in 2009fa, 398 in 2011fa, and 413 in 2012fa:
Question 412 Why this detour over gold, why not measure value directly by labor-time?
222 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[502] Kraken: graded A– Gold not a detour—it’s a necessity. The practice of measuring
value in “gold” is something most of us are very familiar with because we’ve grown
up in a society that practices capitalism. We understand that when we go to the checkout
counter to pay for our purchases, we will need to hand over money in order to get the items
we want. The cashier will not accept a certificate stating we have worked “X” number of
hours in exchange for the products we want. Exchanging labor-time for commodities may
work under some form of socialism, communism, etc. but it is incompatible with capitalism.
Under capitalism, production of commodities is a private enterprise where value is measured
in gold/money. It is not measured in socially necessary labor time.
Hans: You are right, if you wanted to regulate the transfer of commodities between members of society strictly
by labor content, you cannot maintain private decisionmaking regarding production and investment, but there must
be some other arrangement so that the producers know what to produce—it could be socialism, communism, but it
could also be a system as in World War II where government inspectors went into the private firms, looked around
if there was unused capacity, and ordered the firms what to produce. In a capitalist system, the differences between
value and prices are necessary signals to the producers to adjust their production. I tried to say the same thing in
[511].
Message [502] referenced by [518]. Next Message by Kraken is [541].
[518] Hans: Inner measure and surface measure. Kraken [502] says “Under capitalism,
value is measured in money. It is not measured in socially necessary labor time.” This is not
an either/or. One might say, the inner measure of value is labor time, and the surface measure
is money. Marx says this in 188:3:
Money as a measure of value is the necessary form of appearance of the
immanent measure of value of the commodities, namely labor-time.
Message [518] referenced by [893] and [2012fa:1340]. Next Message by Hans is [521].
[923] Long: We cannot measure the value of a commodity by labor time because it is not
in a way a form of a payment. The labor time is measured and has to be measured as a wage
or by using the gold standard. For instance, when I work 40 hours a week at XYZ company.
They don’t give me a voucher or certificate to go to the store and buy my needs. I cannot
give the cashier a pieve of paper that says I worked for 3 hours and so therefore my labor
time is worth say 5 gallons of milk. What would the store do with my 3 hours of labor time,
it’s not a commodity to them. However, if I get paid in a form of a wage say like money or
gold and then go to the store to buy 3 gallons of milk for a certain amount of money, then
it is more feasible for the store. They can use my money to purchase other goods that they
need.
Next Message by Long is [924].
[930] Bigwhite: Because you need gold aka money to be able to put every commodity on
the same scale, to be able to establish a worth for all commodities. Labor cannot be sufficiently
measured and varies. Gold stays constant and is the easiest way to keep everything
in line and is the easiest thing to use to help keep the markets flowing smoothly.
Hans: This is not an explanation. Why is it easiest?
Next Message by Bigwhite is [941].
[981] Baseball: Earlier in Capital, Marx explains why we cannot use labor time as the
universal measure of value. The reason he gives is because consumers cannot see how much
labor time was used to produce a certain commodity. This would complicate the exchange
process in markets because the values of products will vary tremendously and prices (if

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 223
valued by labor time) would be high. It would be too difficult to represent a commodities
value via labor time because, as stated before, consumers will not know the amount of labor
time which was expended to produce such a commodity. Marx then restates that in his time
gold represented money which was a simpler way to value a commodity. The abstract way
to value a commodity is through the use values or its labor time. It is much easier to price a
commodity by money (gold) because everyone uses this as a general equivalent for exchange
in the market.
Hans: Basic misunderstanding of Marx’s theory. Prices would not be higher if valued according to labor-time.
Marx says that in capitalism, the prices which you see are based on labor-time.
Next Message by Baseball is [1066].
Exam Question 414 is 235 in 1997sp, 237 in 1998WI, 247 in 1999SP, 270 in 2001fa, 307
in 2003fa, 344 in 2004fa, 338 in 2005fa, 359 in 2007SP, 369 in 2008fa, 400 in 2011fa,
and 415 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 414 What is the price of a commodity? Say how it is defined, and say as
much as you can about it without going into Marx’s theory how its magnitude is determined.
[815] Kat: Price is just one type of exchange-value. Exchange-value is the ability of a
commodity to be exchanged for another commodity. So price represents the exchange of
a commodity for money. As we have discussed in the past, the price is the most definitive
expression of value because it has been designated as the market equivalent. So the price
represents not only what one commodity can be exchanged for money, but also its relation,
through money, to all other commodities.
Hans: Very good answer.
Message [815] referenced by [2012fa:596]. Next Message by Kat is [821].
[824] Somramthom: graded B The great equalizer. Imagine a mathematician, a doctor
and a lawyer walk into a bar. They spot a man passed out on the floor. They ask the
barkeep what happened to the man. “Guy drank so much he passed out,” replies the barkeep.
The mathematician immediately asks how much the man drunk, measures his height and
estimates his weight and says, “All I see here is a man who can’t hold his booze.” The doctor
examines the man, and declares, “I see a man who is depressed, undervalued at his job and
a potential liver transplant recipient.” The lawyer sees the man clutching his keys and says,
“I see a profitable law-suit.” The barkeep quietly responds with, “I see a loyal customer and
a way to pay off my new TV.”
This example may have several holes in it (and it may be boring to read) but the point
of the story is each person saw different things in the same man. This is a problem in
exchanging commodities. The use-value of a commodity is dependent upon the use-value of
the commodity for which it will be exchanged for. This use-value will vary from consumer
to consumer. What is needed is a standard; Money.
Price is a specific type of exchange value, only it is an outward expression of a commodity’s
value in terms of money (gold, tender, etc.) instead the use-value of another commodity.
The power in this exchange allows for greater exchange options i.e. you are no longer limited
to expressions of value for specific commodities but can exchange for any commodity
since all commodities are now measured on the same standard.
224 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Your fable shows how different use-values can be. A Marxist would say it it not possible to equalize these
use-values by just slapping a price sign on them. They are still as different as before. Price signs only make sense if
the commodities are really in some way homogeneous. I.e., prices represent the labor content, not the use-values.
Next Message by Somramthom is [977].
Question 420 is 343 in 2005fa, 364 in 2007SP, 370 in 2007fa, and 390 in 2009fa:
Question 420 Why do the commodity owners write the price on their price signs and not
the labor-content of the commodity they are producing?
[487] Scholar: Firstly, the commodity owners don’t know the labor theory of value,
and they only do exchange according to the social custom; Secondy, commodity value is
determined not by the individual labor time used to produce the commodity, but by the social
estimate of labor time, called socially necessary labor time by Marx. Thirdly, money is not
only a commodity, but also the general equivalent accepted by all commodity owners as the
exchange intermediary, and they think the value of money can be used as the measurement
of the value of all other kinds of commodities. So, as the monetary representation of the
commodity value, price is an objective sign that can reflect the social value of the commodity.
Message [487] referenced by [501]. Next Message by Scholar is [581].
[501] Hans: Status of Marx’s theory in this question. I had to chuckle when reading
Scholar’s answer in [487] “because they don’t know the labor theory of value.” This is a
much more pleasant feeling than my exasperation last year when I had to read [2009fa:1078].
If I wanted to be pedantic, I should formulate question 420 as follows:
“If Marx’s labor theory of value is correct, then one might be tempted to
think that commodity owners should write the labor content of their commodities
on their price signs instead of a price. Why isn’t it socially customary
to do this (please give an answer assuming the labor theory of value
is indeed correct).”
The above question text is an abbreviation of these two long sentences. And what Scholar
writes under “secondly” and “thirdly” is a correct answer to this pedantic version of question
420. But it is too abstract. Imagine what would happen if people did write the labor content
on their price signs.
Message [501] referenced by [511] and [565]. Next Message by Hans is [507].
[1020] Alex: graded A– Commodity owners chose to not write the labor-content of the
commodity in its price tag but chose to write the price instead for various reasons. The
main reason for this is profit. Capitalists will always receive profits even if they sold their
commodities for the same price of the labor content, however, if they charged more than it
cost them to produce the commodities, then their profit margins would be higher. Another
reason for this choice is that the laborer would realize that he/she is being paid less than
he/she should be paid, because his/her labor is worth more an hour than what the capitalists
is offering. Having said this, there would be an objection coming from the laborers where
they would disagree with the discrepancy in their remuneration. Lastly, the labor content in
some commodities might be different for different manufacturers. If one capitalist’s labor
content for a commodity was much easier to manufacture than for another capitalist for the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 225
same commodity, then he would have to charge the same price as the capitalist with the
harder labor content because he then would be losing profit.
Hans: You are describing it as a choice; you are saying the sellers could do it but prefer not to for various reasons.
Marx’s answer is different. He would say they don’t even have the option; the market system would not function if
they did.
Next Message by Alex is [1023].
[1037] Guh: Pricing Wars. The reason why the owners of commodity write the price
instead of the labor content is very simple. First off Jimmie in [2005fa:1682] explained it
very simply and said something along the lines that there really is no reason for the owner
of the commodity to write the labor content down. After all the commodity owner is just
selling the item in exchange for something else of equivalent, and the price is illustrating
the terms of the exchange between the two individuals. This is one hundred percent true
and I agree completely with his explanation. Moreover, it is also obvious that the individual
purchasing the commodity is not worried about the labor content of the commodities being
sold, rather the buyer wants to know the price of the commodity.
Next Message by Guh is [1088].
[1078] Goldtone: graded A+ Commodity owners write the price on their price signs instead
of labor-content, because in capitalism, money and price are understood better and
are therefore more practical. Also, and more importantly, price allows commodities to fluctuate
according to supply and demand. For example, if there is more demand, then prices
can rise and more should be produced. This flexibility of price would not be possible if
labor-content was used, and the producers would not be able to change price (labor-content
here) according to supply and demand. The consequence of this could be overproduction
and underproduction of certain commodities.
Message [1078] referenced by [1145]. Next Message by Goldtone is [1079].
[1127] RexManning: graded B– Commodity owners write the price on their price signs
instead of the labor content of the commodity because price shows the value of the commodity
in relation to money, and money in turn can express the value of not only that commodity,
but its value compared to all other commodities. This value as presented by the price of the
commodity is due to the social relations of a general equivalent, such as gold. In a capitalist
society, the price shows the value of the commodity through the general equivalent, even
though the purchasers of the commodity do not trade for actual gold. Gold does not even
need to be present, but something that represents gold and has a society placed value that
allows it to be exchanged for commodities, for example, money. The value comes from
society, where it has an exchange relationship with gold. The price tags tell the potential
purchasers what the commodity is worth, as deemed by society. Because of the societal
placed value of money, price is expressed in money, and not labor content because money,
in a capitalist society is “directly exchangeable” for all commodities.
Hans: According to Marx’s theory, a commodity’s worth “as deemed by society” is its labor content. Assuming
this is true, why use money prices instead of directly using labor content? Or is the use of money proof that Marx’s
theory is wrong?
Next Message by RexManning is [1129].
[1136] Cougar: graded B– In our economy, price is the value of a commodity in terms of
the general equivalent: money. Money is the general equivalent because it can be exchanged
for any other commodity. In addition to fulfilling the role of general measure of value,
money is also a means of circulation, transferring wealth among producers and consumers.
226 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Although labor-content is a common factor of all produced commodities, it is contingent
upon the commodity or use-value it is being exchanged for. Because money fulfills both
the role of value and role of circulation it becomes a universal means of trade in the economy,
where all things can be exchanged for varying amounts of money. In this way money
becomes the valuation of labor-content and all things can be measured and exchanged for
money. Producers are, therefore, motivated to list the value of their products in terms of
money rather than hours of labor.
Hans: A means of circulation does not transfer wealth. A commodity sold has the same value as the money for
which it is sold.
You seem to be saying (and this is clearer in your in-class answer) the value of a commodity in the market is
its monetary value, not its labor content. This is not the same as Marx, who says that market values are indeed
governed by labor content. Assuming Marx is right, would that not require that commodities be priced by labor
content rather than money?
Final Grading Note by Hans: You are an engaging personality, you interact well with others, here in the class
discussion and also personally. It seems that the foundation from which you can be so outgoing is the certainly that
the society we have is basically ok. Marx wants you to consider alternatives, but you try not to see these alternatives
but to subsume what Marx says into the status quo. I hope this class has shaken this foundation a little bit. People
of your social skills can make a big difference in building a better society.
Next Message by Cougar is [1137].
[1145] Cougar: graded A I finally see the light! Whether our society has consciously
decided upon or not, money is accepted as the general equivalent. It is how we understand
value and how we choose to acquire the things we need and the things we want. As children
we grow up in the Capitalist society and, as products of such upbringing understand that
money can be used to acquire anything in the economy. Producers are inclined to value their
products in terms we as a society can relate with. Goldtone [1078] makes a valid point that
in addition to money literally being the general equivalent, it allows fluctuation in the market
which may work in or against the capitalist’s favor. Increased demand calls for an increase
in production and higher prices while falling demand may call for limited production and
sales or clearances. Production can follow trends that dictate equilibrium rather than over or
under-production. Labor content cannot fluctuate with trends like money can, but is bound
to each commodity in consideration.
Next Message by Cougar is [1149].
Question 430 is 417 in 2011fa and 435 in 2012fa:
Question 430 Why is it not a defect but a sign that the price form is “admirably” adapted to
commodity production, as the Moore-Aveling translation says, that prices can deviate from
values due to demand and supply?
[511] Hans: Impossibility of labor prices. In [501] I wrote: “Imagine what would happen
if people did write the labor content on their price signs.” Please look at [1998WI:227]
as a help to your imagination. The reason why people don’t write the labor content on
their prices is that prices must necessarily differ from labor content, in order to motivate the
producers to adjust their production to demand.
Message [511] referenced by [502], [2012fa:1189], and [2012fa:1340]. Next Message by Hans is [514].
Exam Question 431 is 322 in 2003fa, 360 in 2004fa, 353 in 2005fa, 375 in 2007SP, 386
in 2008fa, 418 in 2011fa, and 436 in 2012fa:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 227
Exam Question 431 Which two aspects of the function of money as a measure of value first
look like flaws but on a closer look turn out to be necessary?
[817] Husani: The first flaw is that commodities are judged by money as their measure
of value but prices can deviate from these values. This can happen if the demand for the
commodity increases and the supply of it can’t match it, increasing the price.
The second flaw is that gold will devalue over time with new technologies that make it
easier and more efficient to mine it from the ground.
Hans: Yes these are the two flaws. Would be nice to also explain why they are necessary, but in the exam the above
answer gets full points.
Message [817] referenced by [2012fa:1108]. Next Message by Husani is [818].
Multiple Choice Question 438 Which argument does Marx apply at the end of chapter
Three, section One, to make the transition from measure of value to means of circulation.
Check one point:
• (a) The price sign indicates that the commodity can be bought with a certain amount
of money. I.e., it gives the money owner the right to receive the commodity if the
stipulated price is paid. But the price does not give the commodity owner the right
to receive the amount of money listed on the price sign. In order to take advantage
of the value of the commodity, the commodity owner must therefore first sell the
commodity for money.
• (b) The price form gives the commodity an imagined parallel existence: now it
exists not only as material commodity but also as the imagined amount of money
listed on the price sign. This imagined parallel existence cannot be actualized without
giving up the commodity’s material existence. Therefore Marx looks now how
the commodity can be turned into actual money. I.e., Marx goes from a imagined
simultaneous double existence to an actual temporal succession.
• (c) If it is possible to exchange the commodity for money then it also becomes
necessary, because after money has become available as general equivalent, other
commodities will no longer be accepted as equivalents. In the next step of his analysis,
Marx looks therefore how this possibility and necessity becomes a reality.
• (d) Gold can only become measure of value because gold is exchanged on the market
for other commodities.
• (e) All of the above.
[859] Hans: Read them carefully: they all come from Marx. The correct answer is (e).
This refers to a passage in Marx which people usually don’t read very carefully. A faithful
reader of Capital is probably familiar with the aphorism in 198:1: “In the notional measure
of values lurks therefore hard cash,” but if you press them about it what Marx meant by this
few will be able to give a good answer. This aphorism was Marx’s summary of the points
(a) through (d) he made at the end of section 1 of chapter Three. Purpose of the question is
really only to get you to read these points carefully, because Marx makes all of them (i.e.,
here I did not try to trick you).
Next Message by Hans is [871].
228 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 439 is 367 in 2004fa, 394 in 2008fa, and 426 in 2011fa:
Question 439 Describe the relationship between the function of money as measure of value
and as means of circulation in Marx’s theory and in modern mainstream monetary theories.
[481] IrvingHowe: Marxist and contemporary monetary theory. Today, we are four
decades into a totally free floating currency. That is to say that we no longer have a commodity
backing our money in the United States. The value of dollars today is a function of
demand and market confidence in the Treasury, f(D,C).
First, because treasury notes are a debt issued by the United States Treasury, a potential
consumer must first have confidence that the government can make good on that debt. After
meeting that threshold, the value of money is set entirely by the sum of demand for dollars
relative to the supply.
The above could be described as a contemporary (and pretty mainstream) theory of the
value of money.
Marx on the other hand believed that money is “a measure of the of value is the necessary
form of appearance of the measure of value which is immanent in commodities, namely,
labor-time.”
Marx goes on to say that the value of commodities is inherent in them already and money
is essentially an expression of equality of one commodity to the other ie: corn, iron, wheat...
to gold (coins).
Message [481] referenced by [514] and [2011fa:503]. Next Message by IrvingHowe is [482].
[514] Hans: Relation to Marx’s Theory of Money. IrvingHowe [481] brings a modern
formula for the value of money
f(D,C)
where D is demand and C is market confidence in the Treasury. Money demand is the
amount of cash the public wants to hold, for transactions and as precautionary reserves.
This refers to Marx’s role of money as means of circulation in section 2 of chapter Three,
and maybe also money as “hoard” in section 3.
Sovereign states cannot go bankrupt, they will simply print more money. Therefore C is
not the confidence in government paying back the debt at all, but confidence in government
paying back the debt in a currency that is not devalued. In Marx this is section 1, money as
measure of value.
Next Message by Hans is [518].
Question 442 is 448 in 2012fa:
Question 442 If physics yields such good examples for dialectics, why are modern physicists
not using dialectics?
[559] Ferox: graded A The Scientific Dialectic. Modern physics deals with phenomena
that classical Newtonian physics cannot explain. The example given by Marx is an example
of classical mechanics—inertia versus gravity in celestial bodies. Modern physics is
concerned with conditions well beyond the experience of humans, such as the interactions

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 229
between sub atomic particles (quantum phenomena) or the formation of the universe (relativistic
phenomena). Since Marxist materialist dialectics are concerned with the real world
interactions on the human scale—the tangible human experience and not the idealized (such
as Hegel)—there is little incentive for modern physicists to adopt this method of inquiry.
This is not to say that dialectics are not used in science. Peer reviewed science uses
the dialectic (and often the debate) process of argument in determining empirical truths.
When two opposing observations regarding a phenomena are observed, all hypotheses are
considered valid truths. Hypotheses are tested, data is gathered and analyzed, the results are
published for a dialogue within the scientific community. The process of peer review tests
empirically derived, often contradictory results, in order to tease out the underlying truth.
The resulting synthesis gives humans a greater understanding of the interactions around
them.
Hans: You are only looking at the dialectic as a method of inquiry. Marx thinks that not only our thinking about
the world but the world itself is dialectical.
On the other hand, I agree with you that modern science flees into the extreme small or large scales and overlooks
the richness of possible interactions on the intermediate scale. These intermediate phenomena are dialectical,
but modern science, because of its blindness toward dialectids, does not prepare us for this. This is a form of reductionism.
Similar thought are expressed in the book Growth and Development: Ecosystems Phenomenology by
Robert E Ulanowicz, Springer 1986. Look on p. 1 of that book.
Message [559] referenced by [2012fa:829]. Next Message by Ferox is [646].
Question 443 is 363 in 2005fa, 385 in 2007SP, 397 in 2008fa, 412 in 2009fa, 431 in
2011fa, 449 in 2012fa, and 363 in Answer:
Question 443 What does Marx mean when he says in 198:3/o: one must look at the circulation
of commodities from its form side?
[522] Somramthom: graded A– Commodities and molecules. The form side of circulation
of commodities is a way of viewing the exchange process. One forgets the material
transfer of the physical commodity and instead focuses on the form of the commodity originally
produced as it changes from a form of value, to a form of use-value the producer
doesn’t want or need, to another form of value, to yet another form of use-value the producer
does want or need, etc.
Thinking about this question made me think of physical phase changes of matter. When
water is boiled, the molecular composition does not change. It is H2O throughout the phase
change. The change that takes place is a change in the matter’s form; from liquid to gas. the
form side of circulation views the exchange process similarly. The commodity itself doesn’t
change, rather the form the commodity takes changes, as described above.
Message [522] referenced by [524], [528], [529], and [540]. Next Message by Somramthom is [523].
[523] Somramthom: Shelf-life of commodities and the form side. When viewing the
exchange process in the form side, does a commodity’s value or use-value ever dissipate
entirely? It would seem that it would diminish with each exchange and form change. But
since the material exchange is not considered, one could argue that the value or use-value is
renewed with each exchange cycle, being detached from the physicality of decay.
Next Message by Somramthom is [759].
230 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[524] Alex: graded A– Form side analysis recapitulation. In order to understand what
Marx meant with the “circulation of commodities from the form side,” we must understand
that this concept explains the social relations of the economy, which keeps this social metabolism
in gear. Social metabolism is the term that Marx uses to describe the goods migrating
from producers to consumers, where they are taken out of circulation and consumed, as Hans
explained in [2005fa:996]. To look at transactions involving the circulation of money from
the form side, it is a matter of going further than the social metabolism or simple exchange,
and looking from the producer’s approach in a sense that is deeper than a simple exchange
of a commodity for money. As seen from the form side, when the producer sells his or her
commodity for money, he/she still has that same commodity but with a different form. Hans
states that the commodities go from being in their use-value form (in which the consumer
does not wish to consume) to being in their value form which the seller does want. The
money commodity goes through a transformation that Marx calls a form change in 198:3/o.
The value of the commodity is preserved, though the exchange of the commodity is physical.
A good analysis of this is from DarkKnight [2005fa:1397] when he says the value of
the commodity remains with the producer throughout the exchanges that takes place, it only
changes its form. I also liked Somramthom’s water molecule analogy in [522], which seems
very relevant to this case.
Message [524] referenced by [529] and [540]. Next Message by Alex is [600].
[528] Hans: Butterfly Commodities. Somramthom [522] describes the metamorphosis
of the commodity as follows:
it changes from a form of value, to a form of use-value the producer doesn’t
want or need, to another form of value, to yet another form of use-value the
producer does want or need, etc.
This chain is too long on both ends:
(a) The first form is not a value form but a use-value form. Remember question 166,
which emphasized that the commodity does not come into this world in the form of value?
My answer [316] may be useful here.
(b) There is no etc. at the end. Once the commodity is in the form of a use-value which
the producer needs, then Marx says in 198:3/o that it “falls out of the sphere of exchange.”
I.e., now the producer consumes it, and at this stage of its life the commodity is a simple usevalue
and nothing else. (Although some commodities re-emerge later again as commodities
in a garage sale or in the market for used cars or houses.)
The metamorphosis of the commodity therefore consists of exactly 3 phases:
(1) form of use-value the producer doesn’t want or need
(2) form of value, namely, money
(3) again a form of use-value, but this time a use-value the producer does want or need.
Marx himself does not compare it with the phase transitions of a water but with the three
stages of the metamorphosis of a butterfly:
(1) caterpillar

(2) chrysalis
U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 231
(3) (adult) butterfly
Message [528] referenced by [540] and [2012fa:831]. Next Message by Hans is [529].
[529] Hans: For someone who is not a capitalist, money is only a transitional phase.
While Somramthom [522] made the metamorphosis of the commodity too long, Alex [524]
made it too short. Alex distinguishes only two forms:
(1) use-value form (of a use-value which the consumer does not wish to consume)
(2) their value form which the seller does want (namely the money received from the sale
of the original use-value).
Alex emphasizes correctly that the money which the seller gets for his commodity should
be considered just another form of the original commodity. For a capitalist, this money form
is the backflow of his capital with profit, therefore it is indeed what the seller does want.
For ordinary wage laborers, who cannot sell anything they have produced but must sell their
labor-power, the wage money they receive is only an intermediate phase: most if not all of
this money will be spent for use-values they need. Marx would say that this act of spending
the money is again merely a form change of still the original commodity which was sold (for
most of us: our labor-power). Therefore
(1) We first sell our labor-power and show up for work. The reason for us selling it is not
exactly that we do not wish to consume the use-value of our labor-power ourselves. I bet
most of us would love to work under our own command or in a worker-management situation
together with their co-workers. But we do not have access to the means or production. The
means of production which we need in order to benefit from our labor-power are the private
property of the capitalists. That is why we have to sell our labor-power to the capitalists.
(2) The wage or salary we receive is the “value form” of the commodity labor-power we
have sold.
(3) The groceries etc we buy for this money is then the third form of our labor-power, it is
the use-value which we desire, instead of the original use-value of our labor-power (which
we had to sell because we are barred from taking advantage of it directly).
Message [529] referenced by [540]. Next Message by Hans is [530].
[540] Baseball: Marx describes the process of selling and buying (exchange) as a metamorphosis
or form change. When a commodity is exchanged from one user to the other it
enters the process of social metabolism, and Marx states that only the “form side” of the
process is important. The first form is the stage a product is in when it is not needed or being
used, it is a use-value but its use-value is not being expended. By Marx implementing the
thought of metamorphosis, when a commodity is sold for money it transforms into its value
form. The last form is the end process from the use-value not being expended to where it
will best be used, or rather it transforms to a use-value form where it will be implemented.
As Marx clearly states “it falls out of the sphere of exchange into that of consumption,” the
commodity which has transformed into a use-value form is no longer up for barter, it is now
simply a use-value.
Hans: Your formulation “the process of selling and buying (exchange)” suggests that selling and buying and exchange
are the same thing. You repeat this suggestion when you write at the end that the commodity in the hands
232 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
of its final consumer “is no longer up for barter” (my emphasis). Barter is not the same as buying and selling, and
looking at the process of buying and selling from its form side exactly means not to mistake if for a barter. Marx
emphasizes this in 199:1.
The content, i.e., the social metabolism itself, is more important than the form. The form is only the specific
manner in which capitalism achieves the content. Marx looks only at the form not because it is more important but
because he wants to understand capitalism.
I changed “it is a use-value but its value is not being expended” into “it is a use-value but its use-value is not
being expended” (because this is what you say two sentences later), and I changed “it transforms into a form-value”
into “it transforms into its value form.” If I misread what you wanted to say, please let me know.
Those things which were correct in your answer were already said in [522] and [524], [528], and [529]. If you
come so late in the discussion it is inexcusable that you don’t reference any of the former contributions. Your grade
for this question is governed by the grading policy which announced in [287].
Next Message by Baseball is [557].
[560] Bigwhite: Women of the Old School. If you look at the circulation of commodities
from the form side then there seems to be no real need for the word or commodity that is
money. It seems that one never really has money, like in the form that is not a commodity
they simply use this money in other exchanges for goods that they seek use value in. Like
in the story of the linen weaver which she takes her goods to the market and then exchanges
it for 2 euro, which she then in turn uses to buy a bible in which she will use at home with
her family. So this money is nothing more than a commodity in which she saw the use value
in. Her linen only served the purpose of getting the money she wanted so it could be used
to buy the bible. So in real terms it was a sale of her commodity linen then the purchase of
another commodity the bible with the money. But looking at it from the form side it was
simply two exchanges of three goods.
Message [560] referenced by [561], [563], and [569]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [569].
[561] SMIKEC: I agree with Bigwhite [560], money is really worth nothing unless you
buy something with it. In essence you could take a commodity such as shoes. As long as
someone has a need for your shoes, it’s no different than money. There’s the saying that
there is always a buyer for your goods, it’s just finding them. Hopefully one finds their
buyer before their value of e.g. shoes goes down because they have to have a fire sale in
order to eat or put a roof over their head, therefore diminishing their value for not having
perfect timing of their “trade” or sale.
Message [561] referenced by [563]. Next Message by SMIKEC is [684].
[563] Hans: Money in C-M-C. Bigwhite [560] says:
“If you look at the circulation of commodities from the form side then ... it
seems that one never really has money.”
Right, in C-M-C one has money only for a little while, then it is paid out again. Money
is only an intermediary between the good one sells and the good one buys.
Instead of saying one never really has money, Marx says the money is still the commodity
which one has produced, only in a different form. As soon as the commodity is produced, it
is invisibly already money (because it has value, i.e., labor)—and the sale simply makes this
invisible aspect visible. When SMIKEC [561] writes “shoes are no different than money”
this also means: shoes are already value. Money makes the value of the shoes visible but
money does not give the shoes value.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 233
But this is only true as long as money is busy in circulation. When money is taken out
of circulation and saved, then, Marx says, money act “as money” rather than as as a short
interlude between sale and purchase. This is the content of section 3 of chapter Three,
assigned Tuesday until Thursday.
Later in his submission Bigwhite writes: “So in real terms it was a sale of her commodity
linen then the purchase of another commodity the bible with the money. But looking at it
form a form side it was simply two exchanges of three goods.” No, this is the mistake Kaush
and I were discussing in [554] and [555] just before Bigwhite made his submission. Marx
wants you not to look at it as an exchange. The best way to think about it (according to
Marx) is to say that you still have the same commodity, but in a different form. The linen is
the caterpillar, the money the chrysalis, and the coat is the adult butterfly.
Next Message by Hans is [565].
[569] Bigwhite: Clarity. After I read Hans’ comment on my submission [560] I now
realize that my answer was wrong. I should have stated that the exchange from linen to
money to bible is not simply two exchanges of three goods but rather a transformation from
linen to money to bible which is all really one commodity going through a transformation
according to the form side. Showing the different forms and ways a commodity can be seen
and used.
Next Message by Bigwhite is [678].
[602] Kleenex: CMC and capitalism. I was thinking about C-M-C and how it cannot
be considered simply as an exchange of a commodity with money, or vice versa, but that
the commodities actually change form. The commodity takes its own monetary shape when
put up against money in a sale. Also when a transaction is about to occur, exchange value
faces use-value. Though I have not included here by any means the entire explanation of the
C-M-C process, it is very interesting to me to see a simple act done on a daily basis by many
broken down in such minute detail. Has capitalism altered the way we view this process?
Would it be true that in a capitalist society, money is treated as a commodity, or maybe even
as a more “valuable” commodity than other commodities (linen, whiskey), as it can be used
to purchase those other commodities? Of course, from a Marxian perspective, it all boils
down to human labor in the abstract, but we don’t seem to think much about the true value
of a commodity in present-day society. I’m having a hard time understanding how capitalism
has distorted the purity of the exchange and sale process, if at all. Any input? Thanks.
Next Message by Kleenex is [937].
[903] Proletarian: graded A+ When Marx says that one must look at the circulation of
commodities from the form side he means that to truly understand the nature of circulation,
and what happens to value during circulation, examining from the form side is the only way
to truly see the underlying processes instead of just surface relations. By looking at the form
side we see more than simply trading money for a commodity, but instead see the value in a
commodity transform.
Say the producer of commodity A exchanges his commodity for money. If you look only
at surface interactions you only see the exchange. However, by looking at things from the
form side one sees that the commodity transforms into money, or rather, that the commodity
A form of the value contained in the commodity transforms into the money form. After the
transaction the producer of commodity A still holds the same value as he did prior to the
234 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
transaction, just in a different form. Then, when the producer of commodity A exchanges
that money for commodity B (which has a use value that the producer of commodity A
needs) the value again changes form and morphs into commodity B. The producer always
held the same value, but just in different forms (first commodity form A, then money, the
commodity form B).
Two excellent metaphors were given during the email discussions and were contained
in Installment Two. One of the metaphors was of the butterfly, the other of water. In the
butterfly metaphor, one sees that the caterpillar changes form from caterpillar to chrysalis
to butterfly. The same creature takes on different forms just as the value in the commodity
takes on several forms. In the water metaphor, the same chemical takes a solid, liquid, or
gaseous form, but in all three forms it is still the same molecule. The same water molecule
takes on different forms just as the value in the commodity takes on several forms.
Next Message by Proletarian is [904].
[931] LuBr: When one looks at the circulation of a commodity from the form side, C-M-
C, versus as an exchange of one commodity for another, one can see an important distinction.
Looking from the form side one can see that the same original commodity changes forms
three times in a process that can be compared to a metamorphosis of a butterfly. The form
of the commodity changes form in three stages:
1) form of use-value that the owner of the commodity doesn’t want
2) money as form of value
3) form of use-value that the owner does want
It is important to look at the circulation of commodities from the form side because one
is able to see that the original value of the commodity remains intact and with the owner,
but the form of the use-value is all that has changed. Thus, from the form side we can see
that the circulation process does not create any new value, a misconception that can happen
if one looks at the circulation of commodities from the point of view of exchange.
Next Message by LuBr is [932].
[968] Kohhep: The form side of an exchange, as described by Marx, is essentially the
transformation, or metamorphosis, of a commodity during exchange. C-M-C is the formula
that Marx describes where a commodity goes from 1) a commodity without use value for the
producer of the commodity, where it is exchanged, or metamorphosized to 2) money, which
represents the surface value of the labor value within the commodity. Finally, the money is
exchanged, or better yet, transformed to 3) commodity with use value for the producer of
the original commodity. This cycle is continuous and sweats money from every pore. This
is a three step process in which the labor value within the commodity can manifest itself as
money for the producer of the commodity.
Next Message by Kohhep is [973].
Question 444 is 330 in 2003fa, 370 in 2004fa, 364 in 2005fa, 386 in 2007SP, 397 in
2008SP, 398 in 2008fa, 413 in 2009fa, and 453 in 2012fa:
Question 444 The empirical appearance of the processes of sale and purchase encourages
a naive mistake, which makes it difficult to understand the metamorphosis of the commodity.
Which mistake?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 235
[554] Kaush: The mistake. The mistake is that we may consider the process of selling and
buying of commodities as exchanges instead of metamorphoses during which commodities
undergo form changes. In a barter between two commodities there is an exchange; whereas,
in a sale or a purchase, the commodity that is sold or purchased changes its form from a
commodity form to a “money” form.
Message [554] referenced by [555], [562], [563], and [568]. Next Message by Kaush is [703].
[555] Hans: Why is this a mistake? Kaush has a reputation for neat and compact answers.
His [297] condenses the answer to such a degree that this condensation itself brings
new insights—more in my response [316]. His [527] gives an original and refreshingly brief
one-sentence characterization of Marx’s theory of money—which itself does not quite answer
the question asked but which can be amended (I supply this amendment in my comment
in the archives).
Kaush’s [554] is entirely correct but I think only a minority of participants in this class
will fully grasp what it means. If considered as practical acts, selling and buying are exchanges
of things, why is it so wrong to conceptualize them as exchanges? Marx’s own
formulation is even more opaque than Kaush’s; Marx says in 199:1:
We do not see that gold, as a mere commodity, is not money, and that the
other commodities, through their prices, relate themselves to gold as their
own monetary shape.
Kaush unpacks this obscure formulation in part, he lays out clearly how Marx wants us
to look at sale and purchase and how Marx does not want us to look at it, but it is not clear
from Kaush’s formulation why the method not favored by Marx is wrong.
Note that I am not amending [554] here, I am not telling you what else needs to be said
in addition to [554] to make it a complete answer—given an audience which probably isn’t
terribly sure what it means to look at an act of circulation “from the form side.” This message
here only tries to clarify the question, in the expectation that others will give a more complete
answer now that the question is better defined.
I tried a similar intervention in [151]. Nobody followed up on it before the first exam.
Also my [197] indicated in its very last paragraph that the question was not yet correctly
answered, and again nobody followed up on it before the first exam. A number of graduate
students are enrolled in this class. Three of them have made outstanding contributions to the
discussion: Babyceta, LuBr, and Robert. Maybe some of the others would like to make sure
that our discussion won’t have such loose ends lying around in the future?
Message [555] referenced by [562], [563], and [565]. Next Message by Hans is [563].
[562] TINDOZ: Why a mistake? Question 444 asks which mistake is encouraged
through the sale and purchase process that makes it difficult to understand the metamorphosis
of the commodity. As Kaush said [554] (and Hans affirmed [555]) it is to look at the
process as an exchange instead of a metamorphosis. To look at it in a similar form as how
you would look at bartering and ignoring the ‘money form’ - this is my sum up of Kaush’s
already concise answer.
Hans replied and clarified the question asking why is this a mistake, so I’ll take a crack
at that aspect of the question. From the readings I think Hans sets the stage for the ‘why’ in
236 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the annotations near the top of page 281. He says, “People’s thought processes and decision
criteria are different when they make a sale or purchase than when they barter two commodities
against each other”. The reason why it is a “naive mistake” to look at the process
as an exchange instead of as the metamorphosis of the commodity into its money form is
because converting a commodity into money is clearly not the same thing as exchanging one
commodity for another in direct exchange - nor do we go about it psychologically the same
way as Hans infers in the above quote.
If you have ever heard the expression, the answer’s in the question, and then notice that
this question has the word “naive” in it, the answer to “why” becomes apparent. A definition
for naive is more or less looking at something with too much simplicity. Looking at the
process of sale and purchase as merely exchange is much too simple of a way to look at it as
it eliminates the form change into money - in other words, it skips past that whole extremely
important step. Leaving out this money form is a mistake because it vastly neglects to
recognize what is actually going on, ie, a commodity is changing form into money not
simply exchanging itself. Making this mistake also ignores the psychology of what is behind
the motivation for the transaction process which is an important aspect in that the “thought
processes and decision making criteria” are different when dealing with the money form
of a commodity than they are in bartering. To sum it up, looking at the process simply as
“exchanging” only looks at the beginning and the end: you have commodity A, then you no
longer have it but now you have commodity B. In the barter world, looking at the process as
an exchange is fine, but in the sale/purchase world leaving out the important middle step of
metamorphosis into a commodity’s money form is a mistake as you are overlooking what is
really going on and referring to it the same way you would to the bartering process.
Message [562] referenced by [565] and [568]. Next Message by TINDOZ is [651].
[568] LuBr: The Naive Mistake. I would agree with Hans that Question 444 has not yet
been answered correctly and completely, I would also agree with Hans that as Masters students
we should feel an added responsibility for tying up loose ends in our class discussions.
I hope that my understanding of “circulation from the form side” in a commodity producing
society serves to answer the question.
The naive mistake is that we interpret the process of sale and purchase as an exchange between
different commodities. In this respect, I would agree with Kaush [554] and TINDOZ
[562]. However, they fail to discuss the market from the form side appropriately to answer
this question, and thus fail to understand how the process of sale and purchase is not only
not an exchange but is what allows the contradictory aspect of the simple barter to seek a
resolution of sorts.
When one does not look the market from the form side, the process of C-M and then M-C
looks like two sets of exchanges between two commodities, an easy mistake to make. Or
as Marx would say, a naive mistake. Naive because it can be interpreted on a very surface
level as a physical exchange, that is the “physical” exchange of commodity x for the money
commodity and the money commodity then for the commodity y. However, when looked at
from the form side, it is not a simple act of exchange but rather a form change of commodity
x. From the form side, the seller of the commodity x does not exchange her commodity, the
value of her commodity morphs to the commodity gold which becomes the material form

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 237
of value of commodity x, only to change shape again in the form of commodity y, which
is the realization of the value of commodity x. From the form side we are able to see that
C-M-C has no concern for the use-value of commodity y, it only tracks the metamorphosis
of commodity x from C-M-C only to end up with the same commodity (the reincarnation of
commodity x’s value) but with a more desired use-value (commodity y).
With the process of sale and purchase made possible by money separating the barter, it
becomes possible to mitigate the contradictions that arise between the individual and social
dynamics of direct exchange that we read about in section 2.2c. Now, instead of the
individual striving to make his commodity the General Equivalent of all commodities with
use-values of his particular interest, money now plays the role as the General Equivalent.
And instead of dealing with the social problem of the individual getting credit in the form
of any use-value according to his commodity’s value (which would mean that society would
have to accept any use-value without discrimination if the values were equivalent), money
now acts as the intermediate form change which reincarnates itself into another use-value of
identical value.
In this way, sale and purchase is a form which allows the contradictory elements of the
barter to coexist, however, as Marx says, the contradiction is still there and does not eliminate
the possibility of crisis.
Hans: Just one quibble: Instead of saying commodity y is the realization of the value of commodity x, I would say
that already the money is the realization of the value of commodity x, and commodity y is then the realization of
the use-value of this money.
Message [568] referenced by [574]. Next Message by LuBr is [604].
[574] Cmellen: graded A The Mistake. LuBr [568] beat me to it. I had to wait 24 hours
before posting again. However, I agree that the mistake is to interpret the process of sale
and purchase as an exchange. It is not an exchange but a metamorphosis of commodity. It
started out as a commodity with no use-value (to the seller); it morphed into money, and then
became a commodity of use-value (to the buyer). As Hans said before, “the money does
not count as a separate commodity, but is a different form of the commodity sold.” Marx
suggests the buying or selling process does not exchange, but evokes a “metamorphosis” of
the commodity. That is where the mistake is made, it should not be thought of as exchange
or barter.
Hans: Good and concise formulation of the main argument.
Message [574] referenced by [1085]. Next Message by Cmellen is [575].
[1085] Jon: The empirical appearance of the sale of one item and purchasing another is
a simple exchange of one commodity for another. This however is a great mistake. In the
annotations page 281 Hans stresses that there is a very different character between sale and
purchase and a barter between 2 commodities. As Cmellen says in e-mail [574] “It is not an
exchange but a metamorphsis. It starts as a commodity with no use value (to the seller); it
morphed into money, and then became a comodity of use-value (to the buyer).” I agree with
Cmellen that what is missed is the “M” part of the C-M-C that is the mistake. The form
change from commodity to money is a very important change that must not be forgotten in
the purchase and sale of commodities.
Next Message by Jon is [1110].
238 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 447 is 291 in 2001fa, 365 in 2005fa, 387 in 2007SP, 414 in 2009fa, and 458 in
2012fa:
Question 447 Why is the commodity not bruised, and why is the commodity owner “bruised,”
if the commodity’s salto mortale fails?
[525] AlexDaily: graded A When a laborer produces a product and does not get full
return for his labor, then his labor is “bruised”. Sunflower gives an example in [2009fa:611]
of how this process takes place. “In a capitalist society, producers try to manipulate the
social relations in the market created by commodity production in order to maximize the
value in their own commodities by trying to get more value from the market than the actual
homogeneous labor expended in production produced.” “Bruising” happens when no one
purchases the commodity, because the commodity owner is not getting fair payment for
his labor. However, the use-value still exists in the commodity so the actual commodity is
not “bruised”, simply the commodities’ owner is “bruised.” For example, if a commodity
is produced and not ever sold, it holds the same use-value as the same commodity that is
produced and sold. The commodity owner, on the other hand, produced two commodities
but only received compensation for one.
Message [525] referenced by [526], [567], [954], and [2012fa:827]. Next Message by AlexDaily is [537].
[526] Hans: You may get bruised even if you are not trying to outwit the market.
By quoting a specific passage from Sunflower, AlexDaily [525] seems to say that market
participants get “bruised” because they or others try to outwit the market. No disagreement
here, but I don’t think this is the main reason commodity sellers sometimes get bruised.
Even those who are not trying to be extra smart may get bruised if they are caught up in a
discrepancy between demand and supply.
I am writing here “caught up” because it need not be their fault at all. Whenever there
is a discrepancy between demand and supply, individual commodity producers gain (if they
happen to sell something in excess demand) or lose (if they happen to sell something in
excess supply). Some sellers are better than others to judge what the public wants, but the
relevant question here is not whether someone deserves it when they get extra income or
when they get bruised. A social concern, adjustment of supply to demand, has become an
individual interest, and the relevant question (as I see it) is how well it works. Actually, this
one works pretty well. Capitalism is flexible and effective in adjusting supply to demand.
Other social concerns, such as full employment, are less well met through their translation
into individual interests, and still others, such as sustainability and global warming, resist
translation into individual interests but require social solutions.
Message [526] referenced by [546], [550], [954], [996], and [2012fa:803]. Next Message by Hans is [528].
[942] Balrog: graded A Why Does He Get Bruised? When an owner tries to sell a
commodity and is unsuccessful the commodity is not bruised. It is happy because it still
maintains its use-value. The owner on the other hand is bruised because he produced a
commodity for which he did not receive a fair payment. He placed a congealed amount of
his labor into the commodity with hopes that it would be purchased and transformed into
an equal amount of gold. With that gold he could purchase a commodity with a use-value
he needs. When markets fluctuate and competition is tense producers will often come out
bruised.
Hans: At the moment when he placed the labor into the commodity the labor was not yet congealed.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 239
Next Message by Balrog is [943].
[954] TINDOZ: When a commodity is created by a laborer (its owner) and is taken to
market for sale by its owner, two things can happen: it can get sold, or it doesn’t. Therefore,
what happens with that commodity (and as Hans points out in [526]) has a lot to do with the
ratio of supply and demand for that commodity. When the commodity is brought to market,
it is supplied. This now leaves the question of whether there is demand for the commodity
(i.e. will it be sold) or will it not be sold and go home with the (bruised) owner who created
something whose demand wasn’t such to get it to sell. As AlexDaily said in [525], the
laborer produced a product but “does not get full return for his labor”. In the scenario where
a commodity is supplied but the demand isn’t there for it to be sold, the commodities owner
is bruised (he put labor into something and got no return) and not the commodity itself (as
its use-value is still intact).
For example, if a watch maker makes two watches, takes them to market, and the market
demand results in only one of those watches selling, then the owner is “bruised” as the other
watch’s salto mortale fails. The other watch still has the same use-value as the watch that
sold and therefore the watch (or the commodity) itself does not get bruised. The bruising
comes because the owner unfortunately misjudged the demand for watches and supplied
more than the demand and therefore got bruised.
Next Message by TINDOZ is [956].
[965] SMIKEC: The commodity is not bruised because it is already made. The owner
is bruised because she has the commodity and isn’t getting “X” dollars worth of labor that
she put into it. I think this is a typical supply and demand situation of where you’re caught
holding the commodity. If its on the demand side you will be rewarded, while if it is on the
supply side with an over abundance of that commodity, that’s when you will see the most
bruising. This de-values the amount of labor that the worker put forth for the capitalist. In
a surplus setting the commodity holder will take the hit, causing the bruising, mostly based
on being in the wrong place at the wrong time holding the commodity of lesser demand than
intended.
Next Message by SMIKEC is [1028].
[966] Atticus: graded B+ Only the commodity owner is “bruised” because the commodity’s
value and use-value remains intact while the owner gets “bruised” because his time and
effort have been wasted. He will not get to purchase what he may need and he still owns a
commodity that has no use-value for himself. The commodity still has value which is congealed
in the form of abstract labor. Its value is expended by consumption. Its form of value
changes into the money form in circulation.
Hans: The value is not intact, only the use-value is intact. Value is not just physical labor, but it is a social relation.
If the commodity is produced in excess of what is needed, then the labor in the commodity does not count as
socially necessary labor.
Next Message by Atticus is [969].
[977] Somramthom: graded B– Bruised Owners. When a commodity is produced, its
value is derived from the amount of labor that was expended in its production. Since this
value is inherent, it will continue on with the commodity and the commodity itself will not be
bruised. The commodity owner, however, is bruised since he either produced or exchanged
for the commodity and won’t be able to exchange it for something of equal value. The
commodity from his view point may be worthless but only the use-value is affected. This
240 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
lack of use-value doesn’t negate the commodity’s inherent value. It limits what the owner
can do with the commodity. Therefore, the commodity owner is bruised, and the commodity
itself is not.
Hans: The value is diminished. What remains intact is only the use-value.
Next Message by Somramthom is [992].
[996] Rico: Supply and demand have become a driving force in mainstream economics
today. People believe that by obeying the supply and demand of a given commodity
market, they can be sufficiently informed to make decisions that will not be economically
detrimental to themselves. This is not the case however. Although supply and demand help
demonstrate equilibriums in the marketplace, certain discrepancies can arise. Hans explains
in [2010fa:526] the possible implications that follow discrepancies between supply and demand.
“Whenever there is a discrepancy between demand and supply, individual commodity
producers gain (if they happen to sell something in excess demand) or lose (if they happen
to sell something in excess supply).” This quote explains why the commodity owner gets
bruised when the supply and demand fail to function properly. Both sellers and buyers
can be positively impacted or negatively impacted by excess demand or excess supply in
a commodity market. DarkKnight explains why the commodity itself is not bruised when
discrepancies arise between supply and demand in [2005fa:962]. “The commodity, on the
other hand, still retains all of its use-value and exchange value. . .hence the commodity itself
is not bruised, it remains whole regardless of what is received in exchange.” This is well
stated. The commodity’s use-value is not contingent upon the market value. The commodity
retains its use-value and is therefore not bruised.
Hans: But note that the value is not preserved but lost.
Next Message by Rico is [1005].
Question 448 is 460 in 2012fa:
Question 448 Usually, Marx says that the strength of the proletariat comes from its numbers;
but in 200:4/o, Marx says that is is unluckily for the weaver that there are many
weavers in the world. How can he come to such conflicting pronouncements?
[541] Kraken: graded A– Your weaving is killing me! Marx makes two statements
which are absolutely true, even though they seem to contradict each other. First, the strength
of the proletariat does lie in its numbers. Individuals have little chance in rising up and
changing the prevailing economic system by themselves.
Secondly, and equally true is Marx’s statement: “Unluckily for the weaver, people of her
kind are in plentiful supply.” The reason the weaver is unlucky to be surrounded by fellow
weavers is that in the system they are bound to labor under requires them to engage in a
never ending battle against one another. The more weavers there are in the world, the more
likely their standard of living will decrease and they will be forced to make subsistence-level
wages, if they can remain profitable at all. Each weaver will attempt to gain market share and
steal profits away from their fellow weavers. They will try to find cheaper and more efficient
ways to bring their goods to the market. Many will employ technology and automation in
the production process. As productivity goes up, they begin to flood the market with cheaply
made goods which drives prices down for all the weavers.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 241
Most wage earners are so busy in the day-to-day battle to make ends meet that they have
precious little time to come together and organize themselves for the purpose of changing the
system which keeps them bound to the daily struggle. It’s ironic that even though workers
may despise the economic system which they labor under, it’s their continued labor that
gives the system life and ensures its continuation.
Message [541] referenced by [545], [546], [551], [2012fa:820], and [2012fa:842]. Next Message by Kraken is
[566].
[545] Hans: Why aren’t the workers rich and powerful? Kraken [541] is absolutely
right: “Individuals have little chance in rising up and changing the prevailing economic system
by themselves.” You cannot change society by writing essays on facebook. If you want
to change society, you have to organize, work together with and get to know real individuals,
get to know the strengths and weaknesses of specific people in your workplace or neighborhood,
build skills and networks, become an organization which the public recognizes and
learns to trust.
But this is not the only thing Marx meant. According to Marx, the only strength of the
working class is their numbers, but numbers are a considerable factor because the large
majority of modern capitalist societies are workers. If this majority effectively organizes
then they will have a lot of power.
The other thing, of course, to be considered in conjuction with this is: according to Marx,
only labor creates value. Machines do not create value. Profits are a transfer of value from its
original producers, the workers, to the capitalists. Even the capital whose ownership gives
the capitalists so much wealth and power is the product of the workers. Kraken alludes to
this in his last sentence: “It is their continued labor that gives the system life and ensures its
continuation.”
If the workers are so numerous and if they produce all value, why aren’t they rich and
powerful? Several reasons.
One aspect here is the linen weaver aspect of the question: because capitalism is based
on competition. If workers succeed in gaining higher wages then their employer may lose
in competition with other employers whose workers are still on the low wage. And workers
may try to secure their jobs by being loyal to the capitalist.
Another aspect of capitalism keeping workers wages down is also the fact that the owners
of the means of production can and periodically do introduce technical innovations which
replace workers. We will discuss this in chapter 25, and Kraken alludes to this too.
A third aspect is the opaqueness of capitalist social relations. It is not apparent to the
workers that they produce all wealth, that their pay is much lower than the value they produce
for the capitalist. Part of this was discussed in the section about the fetish-like character of
the commodity, and more will be said in chapter 19.
If Marx’s theory is right, then the working class is a huge sleeping giant. They could be
rich and powerful if only they get their act together and flex their collective muscle. And the
capitalists are terribly afraid that at some time this will happen, and they do everything they
can to prolong the working class’s snooze.
Message [545] referenced by [547]. Next Message by Hans is [553].
242 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[546] Utefan: The Proletariat Can’t Have their Cake and Eat it Too. Both statements
made by Marx are absolutely true. Kraken [541] dove in extensively on the latter part of
the question referring to the weavers being unlucky having many other weavers in the same
field. The more weavers make competition more extensive for each individual and thus
leaves less sales. Hans [526] also comments that the socially accepted labor time can hurt
each individual. If the market cannot stomach the whole quantity of linen made at its normal
price then too great a portion of social labor time has been expended in the form of weaving,
and the effect is the same as if each weaver had used more time on his or her particular
product.
Now for the former part of the question; strength does lie in the number of the proletariat,
the working wage class, because individuals, as Kraken also stated, have a hard time beginning
any sort of revolution by themselves. Modern day examples also suggest the same.
Workers can unionize and also demand as a group better pay or benefits—teachers strikes
and writers strikes are the most common I could think of that illustrate this. Also groups
can share in the monopoly that is their job, socially they get stronger. Anywhere from professional
sport players unions to the umpires who keep the rules flowing have groups that
require basic membership. These examples show the former part of the question as a strength
and can get many things accomplished.
Now the conflict comes from them both arguments, both hold some validity but as a
saying illustrates that the proletariat “can’t have their cake and eat it too.” One is not without
the other and that is where the conflict arises.
Message [546] referenced by [548]. Next Message by Utefan is [548].
[547] Bigwhite: Ahh the 80’s. Hans [545] brings to light an important dynamic of the
capitalist system hat sometimes seems to be overlooked, workers power in the economy. It
seems since the 80’s that workers steadily lose how much clout they have in the economy.
Unions have been banned, wages have been lowered, etc. A lot of this is due to Ronald
Reagan and Margaret Thatcher; former prime minister of England. They both had the view
of supply side economics—a classical approach that had been secondary to Keynes’s views
up until that time. They made it apparent that unions and workers were going to be taken
down a peg. Which is what happened. Many people lost their jobs, benefits, and wages.
This did seem to spark some economic growth but was the beginning of workers losing their
power in the economy. They no longer could be protected by the union or helped in wage
and labor arguments. So it is hard to say that the workers should band together and have an
uprising when there are so any obstacles standing in their way.
Message [547] referenced by [553]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [560].
[548] Utefan: Your weaving is killing me! My [546] came after Hans’s answer [548] to
what Kraken had said and almost echoed his thoughts, and since he said them first I would
like to add a little more to the end of the conflicting part of the question.
Hans makes us aware that capitalists try to keep wage workers down in most of their
actions. They produce all the wealth that they are so little compensated for. Now the wage
worker can unionize and become stronger and demand better pay and benefits. Often this
is the case and until there is a resolution consumers and the like miss out. However, due to
climates of the economy and other factors, some workers don’t have all they need to demand

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 243
resolution, which is power. I alluded to the saying that one can’t have their cake and eat it
too. The reason being is that in most cases there will always be someone else who without
employment is happy to take low wages to have a job, thus putting the original workers out
of employment. My own company did the same thing with me and it resulted in a second
deduction of pay and my hours went up as well. I have now double the amount of loss when
adding the pay deduction and the hours at work together. I have no power and thus have
to bite the bullet and accept my plight. This is that conflict. It will rage on forever in the
capitalist society, only few titles have the luxury of being able to get results—sports athletes
come to mind because of the highly specialized craft they pursue—and one result is because
of the high numbers of multiple people doing the same job, someone else can simply take
my place. They go hand in hand.
Message [548] referenced by [548] and [553]. Next Message by Utefan is [577].
[551] PLG: Plan before you weave. Marx says in 200:4/o: “Moreover, although our
weaver’s labor may be a recognized branch of the social division of labor, yet that fact is by
no means sufficient to guarantee the utility of her 20 yards of linen.”
Question 448 can be answered by differentiating what Marx means when discussing the
strength of the proletariat, and the number of weavers in the world. The strength of the
proletariat increases with its size because it expands the capabilities of the market based on
the division of labor. However, without the division of labor size can be detrimental.
Marx uses the example of the weaver to make this point. If there are more weavers than
needed, the exchange-value of their product decreases. They lose purchasing power on the
market due to a surplus. An increased labor size increases the power of the proletariat only
if it is organized and planned. If too many laborers are assigned to the same task then the
efficiency of the market will decrease.
Kraken [541] says about the weavers, “many will employ new technology and automation
in the production process.” One point that Kraken fails to make is that without the division
of labor productivity will not go up. The division of labor is what sparks innovation, thus
new technologies will not have been created. Instead labor will remain repetitive. In this
case it is not an increase in productivity that will drive down prices, but a repetition of the
same task which leads to a surplus. Marx is not contradicting himself. He is saying that the
strength of the proletariat increases with its size, but only if it is organized and planned.
Message [551] referenced by [2012fa:820] and [2012fa:842]. Next Message by PLG is [599].
[553] Hans: Capitalists have their cake and eat it too. Capitalists have their wealth and
can pass it on to their heirs, and in addition, this wealth increases. It almost seems to them
that it increases automatically, but according to Marx’s theory it increases due to the labor
of the workers.
Now Utefan says in [547] and repeats in [548] that workers can’t have their cake and
eat it too. I don’t think Utefan means with this that the workers can’t be capitalists. He
simply means workers can’t have a job and enjoy high wages at the same time, because of
competition. But having a job cannot be compared to having a cake in the refrigerator. If
you have a job you must show up at work every day and work. Therefore a decent wage
should be a natural outcome of every job.
244 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The capitalists really have quite a system: not only do they benefit from the labor of
others, but workers count themselves happy when they have found a capitalist to exploit
them. Marx’s Capital tries to unravel in detail how all this works. Next week we will finally
read not about commodities and money but about capital. Here the book is no longer so
abstract and more obviously relevant to our lives. Stay tuned.
Next Message by Hans is [555].
Question 451 is 367 in 2005fa and 389 in 2007SP:
Question 451 Marx says that the independence of the individuals from each other is supplemented
by a system of all-round material dependence. Explain what this means.
[532] Frida: graded A Capitalist Communities. Marx’s text is full of the exploration of
contradictions, and here is another prime example. Division of labor leads simultaneously to
the independence and dependence of the commodity producers. The commodity producers
are independent of one another as private producers. I can decide to dedicate my time how
I see fit; I can make linen, bibles, or whiskey if I so choose. But a person cannot live on
whiskey alone, so if I dedicate all my time to making that commodity, I am dependent on
the market for all of my other needs. On one level I am dependent on the farmer, the linen
weaver, the book binder, etc., but on a deeper level I am dependent on the social structure
itself, the relations that supervene on the individuals. Without them I wouldn’t survive.
This is in contrast with, say, the independent frontier farmer. He and his family will have
to spend their time making their own food, clothing, etc. They are not dependent on the
market for survival. They are also not free to spend their time book binding.
Message [532] referenced by [556]. Next Message by Frida is [596].
[550] Husani: The overall material dependence Marx speaks of here is the fact that we
as producers don’t produce what we need. We produce commodities for the simple fact that
we can take them to market and sell them to someone else. We do not have a use-value for
the commodities we produce so we sell them to someone who does, in exchange for some
amount of money.
We have independence in what we produce from everyone else involved in the market.
We choose to produce what we are best at and what will get us the most money in return for
our hard worked labor. The market gives us independence on what we produce but at the
same time we are dependent on the market for the commodities we buy to fulfill our needs.
We depend on the market to get the commodities we can’t produce because we are too busy
producing our specialized goods.
The market supplements this material dependence because the market is a place where we
can get specialized products produced by people that are highly skilled in producing them.
We are much better at producing one good well and taking that good to the market in order
to sell it and buy other well produced goods than attempting to produce all the commodities
we need poorly.
In short, we are given freedom by the market to produce what we are most skilled at
producing. This also gives us the freedom to the products of our labor to the market to sell
and, in turn, buy specialized products from other individuals. Although we are independent

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 245
of the market we rely on it to get the products we need and to give us a place to sell our
products.
Hans: In your last sentence you say: “we rely on the market to give us a place to sell our products.” This is the
hitch. What if the market has no room for our products? As I said in [526], this may not be our fault. Yet we have
no recourse. Marx stresses that, although we depend on the market, the market is independent of us.
Message [550] referenced by [557]. Next Message by Husani is [575].
[556] Giant: Capitalist Communities. I agree with Frida’s examples in [532] of how
division of labor leads to simultaneous independence and dependence of labor because a
producer can only produce so much with their given time restriction. However I think stating
that the farmer has independence because they produce their own food and clothing fails to
observe that even though the farmer does produce most of their own materials they can not
produce all of them. A farmer sewing their own clothes generally has not produced their own
needle or thread, but is depending on others to produce that and bought this from them. A
farmer needs parts for his farming equipment that he may not have, thus depending on others
for the parts. So while the farmer is more independent than other producers, the farmer is
still dependent on other producers.
Message [556] referenced by [567]. Next Message by Giant is [643].
[557] Baseball: Husani made very good points but one point I Marx states that the usevalue
seen in commodities is what attracts consumers so barter. Each producer involved in
the marketplace in society has a specific skill set. As Husani said in [550] “We choose to
produce what we are best at and what will get us the most money in return for our hard
worked labor.” This is supported in Marx 165:2/o “commodities are the products of private
labors which are conducted independently of each other.” But money is not the only
incentive which attracts consumers to buy or barter. The use-values seen by consumers in
other commodities is what Marx says attracts them to exchange. Therefore producers generate
products for the possibility of exchanging for other products, made by other producers,
which use-values they will be able to employ. I understand that in today’s society not many
people exchange commodities for commodities but for money. But in Marx’s eyes the main
attraction to exchange for commodities is its use-value.
Next Message by Baseball is [666].
Question 455 is 264 in 1999SP, 295 in 2001fa, and 392 in 2007SP:
Question 455 Metamorphosis is only a different word for form change. In C−M−C describe
the form of a commodity before its first metamorphosis, after its first metamorphosis,
and after the second metamorphosis.
[1090] Tyler: Aux states, “the process of C-M-C is made possible by the separation of
the world of commodities into ordinary commodities and money” [2007SP:865]. The first
form of the commodity is the commodity itself. In this stage the commodity has its value
derived from the social relation which allows it to be traded for money, its exchange value.
Here the commodity experiences its first metamorphosis as it is exchanged for money or
the general equivalent. This money as general equivalent is used to fetch a new commodity
which satisfies a particular use-value desired by the commodity owner. Following the second
metamorphosis the “commodity has arrived at a place where it can serve as use-value, it falls
out of the sphere of exchange into that of consumption” [2007SP:865].
Next Message by Tyler is [1091].
246 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 457 is 255 in 1998WI, 265 in 1999SP, 321 in 2002fa, 336 in 2003fa, 376 in
2004fa, and 422 in 2009fa:
Question 457 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.?
[542] Robert: graded A+ Why barter is illegal in the U.S. This question implies that
there exists more than one reason reciprocity agreements are illegal in the U.S and that at
some of these reasons appear on the surface and other reasons are deeper.
Let’s first look at what reasons may be considered the surface reasons. Reciprocal dealing
possibly constitutes a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act because it is a restraint of
trade analogous to unlawful tying. It could be a violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act
because it is an unlawful monopolization and attempted monopolization. Furthermore, under
section 7 of the Clayton Act it could be unlawful as an attempt to decrease competition.
Therefore, on the surface of things it appears as though laws making it illegal to engage in
reciprocal dealing in the U.S. protect trade from restraints, monopolies, and decreases in
competition.
However, if we take a Marxian closer look, we uncover a few less noble reasons that the
U.S. government, as a tool of capitalism, may find reciprocal trading not desirable. One of
the reasons may be that it is difficult to track and tax transactions that are C-C; whereas, C-
M-C transactions “leave a money trail.” The government knows the value of the commodities
sold and the U.S. system taxes sales and profits from sales. The measurement of how much
tax the government levies is also evident in the quantity of money exchanged. It is more
difficult to ascertain how much tax to levy when commodities are directly exchanged (even
if the transaction were reported to or discovered by the government) since the values are not
as readily apparent.
Furthermore, the government is the entity that prints and regulates money in the U.S.
economy. It can exert certain influence and control on the economy with its monetary policy,
i.e., changing the supply of money and the interest rate. In an exchange system that requires
money for every transaction, such policies have effect; in a C-C or reciprocity economy
money supply and cost has no effect.
In a C-C transaction, both commodities drop out of circulation and the circulation process
dies down. However, in transaction where commodities are sold for money Marx points
out in 208:1 that even “when the money finally drops out of the series of metamorphoses
undergone by a commodity, this does not mean that it vanishes.” The money “sticks to the
hands of some third person” who is now ready to use it to purchase some other commodity.
In this way “circulation sweats money from every pore” and there is always money to fuel
the acquisition and accumulation of more commodities. Since capitalism is based on the
accumulation of commodities, money circulation facilitates that accumulation. Since the
U.S. government exists to support and expand capitalism it prefers that money be used in
circulation so that the third persons to whose hands the money sticks can be used repeatedly
to acquire more commodities.
Finally, and most sadly in my view, money in circulation creates isolation for each consumer/producer.
She does not meet nor control to whom her products are ultimately sold,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 247
nor is she restrained in from whom and what she can buy. Goshen in [2004fa:244] calls
this isolation “increased privacy” and uses the example that someone may sell bibles to buy
brandy...a transaction that may not work as well in a direct exchange. In my view, this
isolation of people from each other deprives them of the rich experience of interaction. A
cashier or waitress becomes someone who just takes money and delivers commodities; they
are merely a means through which our economic transactions occur.
The U.S. government may prefer an isolated citizenry. It is beneficial to the continuation
of the capitalistic system that consumers feel isolated. Isolated individuals are psychologically
more needy and more susceptible to ideas that accumulation of commodities will lead
to fulfillment. Additionally, isolated individuals are more passive and do not seek to discover
that they are in fact the creators of the value accumulating in the hands of the owners of the
means of production; therefore, they are easier to govern and exploit.
Next Message by Robert is [582].
Question 458 is 266 in 1999SP, 283 in 2000fa, and 394 in 2007SP:
Question 458 How does the result of the circulation of commodities differ from the result of
the direct exchange of commodities?
[565] Hans: C-M-C versus C-C (and attention graduate students). Marx mentions
several differences between C-M-C and the direct barter C-C, i.e., between the transaction
in which the linen weaver exchanges linen for a bible, and the pair of transactions in which
the linen weaver first sells her linen and then buys the bible for the money received for the
linen.
(a) The linen weaver gets bible for linen, but the seller of the bible does not get linen for
his bible. He buys something different with his money, in Marx’s example it is brandy.
(b) The buyer of the linen must have money, and at the end, the bible seller has the money,
ready to do the second half of his transaction. I.e., different transactions are interlinked. This
is not so with a direct barter. Nobody needs money to initiate barter, and barter doesn’t leave
anybody with money at the end to do a second barter.
(c) Sale and purchase do not have to take place at the same location or at the same time.
I am telling you all this because this is an important issue, but it is not the same issue as
Marx’s warning addressed in question 444. Tindoz [562] falsely assumes that Marx warns
against considering C-M-C as C-C. In 199:1, Marx clearly says that one should not consider
C-M as an exchange of commodity with money, and M-C as an exchange of money with
commodity. Viewed as a practical act, it is an exchange between commodity and money,
but Marx says in its essence it is quite different than an exchange between two ordinary
commodities, and it should not be confused with it.
Why is this so? What is it that makes it so different? Here is a hint: in a sense exchanging
commodities with money is simpler than exchanging two ordinary commodities. But I am
still looking for an answer which explains this really well. Question 444 therefore still needs
an answer. I extended the time for question 444: it is assigned in the present homework
period as well. I also discovered another loose end. As per [501], question 420 is not
248 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
yet properly answered either. Therefore I also re-assigned question 420 for the present
homework period until Thursday.
To echo something which I said in [555], eight participants are enrolled to get graduate
credit for this class. Three of them have made outstanding contributions. The others should
consider themselves as janitors: make sure that all questions which were begun this Semester
have been properly answered, and if there is a gap, submit their own answers either to close
the gap or somehow to push the discussion forward so that the gap can be closed.
Message [565] referenced by [915], [970], and [991]. Next Message by Hans is [589].
[879] Babyceta: graded A Direct barter, or C-C, differs greatly from C-M-C, where one
first becomes a seller and then a buyer. First, the direct barter of commodities is essentially
more difficult since I must first locate someone who not only has a commodity whose usevale
I need, but also has a need for the use-value of the product I am trading. Marx says
that direct barter only works in the most primitive of societies and is basically impossible
today because, in Hans’s words, “it collapses the two independent and even contradictory
goals of the exchanger into one.” The first goal is to realize the value of the commodity I
possess, value being the stored abstract labor mysteriously buried in my commodity (the
price at which I sell my commodity merely a surface reflection of that value). The second
goal is taking the value of the commodity I sold, now in the form of money but still the same
value and essentially the same commodity nonetheless, and selecting a different commodity
which contains the use-value I need. Direct barter cannot be easily accomplished today
because there are literally millions of use-values and matching up with someone for a C-C
exchange would be similar to finding a needle in the proverbial haystack. The insanity of
trying to accomplish these two separate goals at the same time is the contradiction Marx is
referring to in Chapter Two.
Next Message by Babyceta is [881].
[901] Utefan: C–M–C uses a commonality in money so that the consumer can exchange
the first commodity and then buy a new one. The money acts as a mediator so that no
outside obstacles get in the way of going from one commodity and reaching the next; this
commonality is set by the social structure and is mutually agreed upon.
However for C–C many different aspects have to be taken into account such as use-values.
There is no common mediator and it is therefore much more difficult to accomplish. C–C
also doesn’t benefit from prices that the mediator money can take advantage of. As Hans
describes C–M is asymmetric and C–C is symmetric.
Next Message by Utefan is [902].
[908] DMorris: C-M-C differs from C-C because it has a middle stage, changing the
normal C-C barrier into a 3-person transaction. Now, instead of directly acquiring the commodity
he desires, the individual must first trade his commodity for money. This is C-M, and
it is as known as the selling. The individual trades a commodity for its equivalent price in
money. This is the M-C phase, and it is known as buying. In this way, a market has been established,
eliminating the bartering system. By having a mediating commodity (money), the
direct exchange value of two commodities is masked, and no longer has to be determined.
Next Message by DMorris is [909].
[915] Ferox: graded A The C-M-C for of exchange, selling then buying, differs from the
C-C form of exchange, direct commodity barter, in that C-M-C goes through the exchange

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 249
of money as an intermediate. Money—the form of value designated by society as the general
equivalent and therefore the commodity by which all other commodities can relate a respective
value towards—allows the seller to exchange her commodity for a universal value form
which can be exchanged for other commodities. In barter, two commodity producers must
agree upon the magnitude of each commodity to be exchanged for the other. With money,
the magnitude of value can be determined by price and not by the use or exchange values
considered in direct barter.
Hans: There was a technical error. I meant to ask how the result of C-M-C differs from the direct barter, see [565].
But since the exam version of the question did not say “result,” your answer is acceptable.
Next Message by Ferox is [916].
[934] ANK: C-M-C differs from C-C in a few ways:
1. C-M-C does not happen simultaneously. The sale of the commodity takes place and
the seller receives money from the exchange. Next, the individual purchases a commodity,
different from the commodity that would have been used in a C-C barter, with use-value
to them with the money from the purchase. C-C occurs simultaneously and money is not
exchanged.
2. In a C-M-C exchange, the seller works to get the most value for their commodity.
With the money from that exchange, the individual purchases a commodity with use-value
that they need. In C-C, there is no possible way to get the most value for your commodity
and also get the commodity with use-value that you need. This is a contradiction.
3. Because C-C happens simultaneously, both parties must be present for the barter. In
C-M-C, the purchaser and seller do not need to be present at the same location because the
exchange involves money.
Next Message by ANK is [936].
[948] She: graded A C-M-C differs markedly from a direct barter, or C-C exchange.
According to the Annotations, Marx says that a sale or purchase is different because it has
a different character than the direct barter exchange. Marx stresses that there is a difference
in thought processes and decision criteria (281:3). Further in the Annotations, we read that,
“In C-M-C, the sale is exclusively devoted to the realization of the value of the commodity
sold, without interference of the use-value which one intends to purchase afterwards, and
the purchase is not burdened with the use-value which is sold to get the money,” (282:2).
Marx also argues that C-C does not “recreate the conditions for the renewal of the process,”
(287:1). Marx explains in great detail why and how society gradually becomes dependent
and in constant need of a general equivalent. He then breaks down the C-M-C process into
its separate steps to explain why it is different from C-C. In C-M-C, each step only requires
one commodity. The commodity is only being used to realize its own value in money. Marx
describes this as an asymmetric relation; whereas C-C is considered a symmetric relationship
between two commodities. The commodities in C-M-C interact through an intermediary,
which prevents them from actually interacting with each other. In direct barter, there is no
such intermediary.
Next Message by She is [949].
[970] Deadfamous: graded A In [565] Hans points out some key difference of C-M-C
and C-C, he stays away from talking about the consequences of the differences. This about
sums up all the important differences right here I would say.
250 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
In C-M-C
1 The linen weaver gets koran for linen, but the seller of the koran does not get linen for
his koran. He buys something different with his money most likely.
2 The buyer of the linen must have money, and at the end, the bible seller has the money,
ready to do the second half of his transaction. I.e., different transactions are interlinked.
Bartering doesn’t leave anybody with money at the end to do a second barter as apposed to
C-M-C which does.
3 Sale and purchase do not have to take place at the same location or at the same time, as
opposed to C-C
Next Message by Deadfamous is [971].
[990] School: c–m–c is when you have a farm and you are selling potatoes as a farmer
you will take those commodities that have been produced and sell them for money, in turn to
buy other commodities. c–c is considered direct bartering, where you remove money from
the equation. The tricky thing about c–c is that the situation of crises is impossible because
you remove money from the equation. Money has many different abilities to exchange itself
for other commodities, but money itself also has value which can create a problem through
money hoarding. By not completing the cycle of c–m–c this can create a crisis.
Next Message by School is [1009].
[991] Zohan: Should I Sell or Barter? There are many ways in which C-M-C differs
from the direct barter of commodities C-C.
First, in the direct barter of commodities no money is needed. But, in this system of
exchange if a person wants a certain commodity they must first find a producer of that
commodity who finds use value in what they have. For example if I produce cheese, but
want a chicken, I must find someone with a chicken that finds enough use value in my
cheese to trade me for a chicken. This type of system would be very difficult in today’s
capitalist society. Whereas, in a C-M-C system I could first sell my cheese to someone for
money and then use that money to buy a chicken.
Second, in a C-C system once the trade has taken place, the commodities fall out of
circulation. Each party uses the commodity and doesn’t plan to resell it. On the other hand,
in a C-M-C system money remains in circulation. I sell my cheese and receive money for it.
I use the money that I receive to purchase a chicken, and the seller of the chicken uses the
money they receive to purchase something else and so on and so on.
Finally, in the discussions Hans [565] points out that the “sale and the purchase do not
have to take place at the same location or at the same time.” On the other hand, in the C-C
system the trade must take place at the same place and time.
Next Message by Zohan is [1093].
[1001] Spiral: C-C and C-M-C both result in equivalent exchanges of commodities but
in the C-M-C this exchange is mediated by money. It appears ironic that a person would
choose the longer C-M-C route for the same equivalent result. C-M-C opens up the door
to transform buyers and sellers into debtors and creditors. Practical differences emerge to
support this transformation such as the actual sale happening at a separate time and place
from the exchange of the commodity unlike simple direct barter. The money commodity is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 251
imbued with mystical qualities under capitalism, i.e. becomes fetish-like, obscuring social
relations between people and the labor-power used to create the commodity. Thinking of
one’s commodity in terms of the value it has in exchange for another commodity has a
social connection between two persons. Multiple other connections are made when a person
switches gear by thinking of the value of their commodity in relation to numerous other
commodities which can be purchased through the circulation of commodities C-M-C.
Next Message by Spiral is [1002].
[1206] Kiko: C-M-C: You must first put your commodity on the market for sale, then
you must actually have a “fair” price that has a willing taker and also the commodity must
have a use value in relative terms to the price and for the taker. You must then exchange the
commodity for money which in turn you take your $ to the market to find something that has
use value for yourself and then again settle on a fair price and take your commodity home.
C-C: is just as stated you directly barter your commodity against another commodity
for something you feel has the same value as your own commodity. In this case there is
no market just the consensus between two sellers about what their commodities are worth
in direct relation. Furthermore there is no monetary exchange in this transaction just the
agreement to exchange this and that.
Hans: Even when it is a direct barter Marx always assumes the exchange proportions are given by the market, they
are not decided by the traders.
First Message by Kiko is [544].
Question 460 is 339 in 2003fa, 379 in 2004fa, 396 in 2007SP, and 478 in 2012fa:
Question 460 Formulate Say’s Law. How is it proved? Which arguments does Marx bring
to show that the proof is invalid?
[537] AlexDaily: graded A Say’s Law. Say’s law is an economic theory named after the
French economist Jean Baptiste Say. The law states that there is never a deficit of demand.
Therefore, the way to increase purchasing power is to increase production. Furthermore,
demand is created by supply and products are paid for by products. According to Marx the so
called proof of Say’s law is “because every sale is a purchase and every purchase a sale. The
circulation of commodities necessarily implies equilibrium between sales and purchases”.
Marx, however, thinks of this as silly dogma. Marx then goes on to show the proof is
invalid by saying “No one can sell unless someone else purchases. But no one is forwith
bound to purchase, because he has just sold”. This makes Say’s law invalid because of the
factor of personal choice. There is nothing forcing anyone to purchase instantly because
as the annotation states “even after many years the same money will still be able to make
purchases.”
Message [537] referenced by [538], [539], and [2012fa:819]. Next Message by AlexDaily is [558].
[538] Babyceta: graded A+ Pouring Salt onto Say’s Wounds. Say’s Law asserts that
demand in the marketplace is predicated upon supply, or that supply creates its own demand.
Simply stated, this means that markets will always gravitate toward equilibrium, Say (and
others) believe, since people inherently produce, not for the sake of production, but for the
sake of consumption. Therefore, gluts or crises were not possible in the long-run because
the market will always self-correct. If goods are available, and since we are all mindless
consumers attempting to maximize our utility, we will continue to consume whatever is
252 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
supplied, regardless of money supply, inflation or economic shock. Supply is therefore
inextricably linked to demand since, when goods are exchanged in the market, one cannot
occur without the other. Essentially, people will only produce to exchange for the production
of others. And since this is true for the individual, it must be true for the economy as a
whole; aggregate supply must equal aggregate demand. Say’s Law has even been adopted
by would-be presidential candidates. Most of us have heard of Ronald Reagan’s “supplyside”
economics. In 1980, this platform secured him a landslide victory over Jimmy Carter.
Although Say’s Law has been widely embraced as gospel by most neo-classical and mainstream
economists, it has also, however, had its share of critics. Keynes, in General Theory
(1937), disputes Say based upon his observation of business cycles and the effects of The
Great Depression (at the time, it was widely believed that over-production was the primary
cause of the Depression). For Say’s Law to hold, Keynes observed, the demand for labor
should also be derived from supply. But clearly, with unemployment over 20%, this was
not the case. Additionally, Keynes believed that the breakdown in Say’s Law came about
because of the disequilibrium between planned savings and planned investment. Savings
was a function of current investment, while investment was a function of a number of things,
including the “animal spirits” of investors (Anderson, 2001).
I believe AlexDaily [537] was accurate when he/she stated that the proof of Say’s Law,
for Marx, was the observation that “every sale is a purchase, and every purchase is a sale, the
circulation of commodities necessarily implies an equilibrium between sales and purchases”
(C-M is also M-C). But I also believe that Marx’s ridicule of Say has deeper inplications.
Marx goes on to assert that this “tautology” is “foolish” because not “every seller brings his
own buyer to the market with him.” To Marx, these are two separate acts, “of polar and opposite
character,” and sellers do not necessarily bring their products to the market because their
goal is to immediately obtain other commodities. I agree with Josh’s supplement to Deni
[2007SP:600] where he writes that sellers take their commodities to the market because the
commodity they wish to sell holds the incorrect use-value for their purposes. Therefore,
the “seller will bring his/her commodities to the market regardless of his/her desire to obtain
some other commodity.” Anyone who has ever been to a garage sale understands this
implicitly.
I illustrate Keynes’ objection with Say’s Law not to add “fluff” to my response, but to
show how it differs from Marx’s. I believe this is important to understanding Marx, and his
use of dialectal reasoning, which Hans elaborates extensively on [2007SP:860]. Most refutations
to Say are based on simple reasoning; if our society doubled its supply (production)
of salt, for example, there would not necessarily be a doubling in the demand for salt; there
would most likely be a surplus or glut of salt (how much salt do we really need?). Marx,
I believe, doesn’t object to Say based on overproduction, or unemployment, or investment
equaling savings, or any such nonsense. Well, at least not initially. He states at the end of the
passage that the possibility of crises does exist, but their actuality does not yet exist “from
the standpoint of the simple circulation of commodities.”
Marx takes two pages to invalidate Say to establish a progression of dialectical reasoning
because, as Hegel says and Hans reminds us periodically, everything that exists has its opposite
in itself. If, as Marx says, sale and purchase are indeed “separate acts, of polar and

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 253
opposite character,” and we know from the previous section that this is true (“from hands in
which they are non-use-values to hands in which they are use-values, it is a process of social
metabolism”) and commodities indeed incur a “metamorphosis,” then to group sale and
purchase as Siamese twins invalidates the whole idea of separation (or dialectics). I contend
that the most important and relevant passage in the section is 208:2/o: ”There is an antithesis,
immanent in the commodity, between use-value and value, between private labour which
must manifest itself as directly social labour, and a particular concrete kind of labour which
counts as merely abstract universal labour, between the conversion of things into persons
and the conversion of persons into things; the antithetical phases of the metamorphosis of
the commodity are developed forms of motion of this immanent contradiction.” Marx invalidates
Say’s Law to emphasize that his critique of capitalism to this point has been a careful
dialectical dissection: exchange-value and use-value, and the dual nature of commodities;
of socially necessary labor and congealed abstract labor, and how value is determined; of
fetishism of commodities and the fetish-like character of commodities, or of the personification
of things and the reification of persons; and finally of the circulation of commodities,
and the genesis of money. In the introduction, I stated that Say (and others) proclaim that
people produce for the sake of consumption, and in the simple exchange societies Marx’s
proof would tend to validate this claim. But in a complex capitalist system, I believe Marx
would say that people may produce to consume, but since workers do not control the social
relations of commodity production, the capitalist produces for the sake of production, profit
and exploitation. And that is the difference.
Message [538] referenced by [539] and [2012fa:819]. Next Message by Babyceta is [539].
[539] Babyceta: Beating Me to the Punch. I believe my answer [538] to Q:460 actually
overflows into Q:461. I apologize for this. However, AlexDaily’s submission [537] to Q:460
popped up as I was halfway through my answer, so I felt compelled to elaborate. I am curious
if anyone else dreads getting another students submission, in the middle of writing theirs,
which totally “beats them to the punch” and renders their response unnecessary? I hope I’m
not the only one.
Next Message by Babyceta is [583].
Exam Question 462 is 376 in 2005fa, 398 in 2007SP, 411 in 2008SP, 412 in 2008fa, 427
in 2009fa, 459 in 2011fa, and 480 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 462 How does Marx define a crisis?
[521] Hans: Humans as Stewarts of the Earth. The present readings give a glimpse into
Marx’s theory of crisis. This is an exam question, i.e., I find this important enough that I
want everyone in class to learn Marx’s definition of crisis. Right now I will not speak about
Marx’s definition but about modern counterparts of Marx’s crisis theory.
Marx was really an optimist; he thought every crisis is a healing process. Today we are no
longer so sure. On the one hand, the is the theoretical framework of the Resilience Alliance
http://www.resalliance.org/
can be considered a modern crisis theory. And James Lovelock has written about crisis
too, please see [2007SP:611]. Here is Lovelock’s crisis theory. In a disease, i.e., when a host
is attacked by disease organism, Lovelock says, there are four possible outcomes:
254 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
(1) destruction of the invading disease organisms;
(2) chronic infection;
(3) destruction of the host;
(4) symbiosis – a lasting relationship of mutual benefit to the host and the invader.
Outcome (4) is often overlooked, but modern molecular biology knows that many features
of our bodies such as the bacterial fauna of our intestines which helps us digest, was
originally invading hostile organisms which were reined in into a symbiotic relationship. In
his 2006 book Revenge of Gaia Lovelock argued against humans trying to be stewards of the
earth. Similar to Frida [166] Lovelock said that it would be much better if humans learned
to live within the boundaries of the earth without damaging it. But his arguments had a
different shade than Frida’s, they were a little more hard-nosed. He said: even if human
succeed in managing the earth and consciously controlling those many mechanisms which
right now are being done automatically, this will be incredibly expensive, and we would be
much better off not to tamper with the system at all and get all the ecosystem services for
free.
In his later book Vanishing Gaia Lovelock’s thinking has evolved. Here he says catastrophe
will come. Humans will try geoengineering and probably miserably fail at first, but the
pristine planet which we are presently watching disappear beneath our feet will never come
back. Climate catastrophe is our expulsion from the paradise. We will inherit a damaged
planet, and we will try to manage and fix it as best as possible. Over many generations humans
will learn to do this. In the future humans will become intelligent stewards of the earth
and will learn to do things better than the pristine planet did by itself; we may be able to recover
better from big meteorites, and we will be better able to deal with the gradual heating
of the sun. In this way the planet with human stewards will remain livable for a longer time
than a planet without humans. Here he is talking in timespans of billions of years, so this is
to be taken with a grain of salt.
In terms of his crisis patterns, he is saying that the planet is going through (2), then almost
(1), and then in the very long run (4) in turn:
(2) a low-level chronic disease of the planet due to human activity from overhunting to
agriculture has been going on for a long time now.
(1) In the coming climate crisis the invading organism (humans) will almost go extinct—
while the majority of other species will in fact go extinct.
(4) but over the very long run there will be symbiosis.
As boundary conditions he assumes: life itself is so resilient that it will never disappear
due to human activity, and humans in turn are too smart they will never be entirely extinguished
either (at least not until the sun becomes too hot in a few billion years).
Message [521] referenced by [591]. Next Message by Hans is [526].
Term Paper 468 is 802 in 2004fa, 403 in 2007SP, and 417 in 2008fa:
Term Paper 468 Essay about Chapter Three, Section 2.b: The Flow of Money

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 255
[575] Atticus, Cmellen, Husani, Jo, and Kaimani: graded A Marx explains the flow of
money as Commodity–Money–Commodity (C-M-C). In this process, the original commodity
is not the same as the ending commodity. The seller does not have a use-value for the
commodity he owns, he therefore sells it in exchange for money. To complete the cycle, he
should then in turn buy a commodity with the money that has a use-value for him. Gaining
use-value is the purpose of the C-M-C flow cycle.
Money, in this circumstance, lends way to the transaction as a unit of exchange (instead
of a commodity for a commodity). When a transaction is made, there is always two steps
taking place simultaneously; money (M) is simultaneously commodity for money (C-M) for
the seller, and money for commodity (M-C) for the buyer. This demonstrates that the flow
of money is a one-sided progression, while the progression of the commodity is two-sided.
This is due to the fact that any particular piece of money does not transition through these
two explained stages (as every given commodity does). Money portrays the function of
circulation only for the reason that value of commodities has taken on an independent shape
in the form of money.
There must be two complete metamorphosis stages to the circulation process. First, metamorphosis
of a commodity is evident “not only as money movement, but also that of commodity
itself” (Das Kapital pg 112). If the seller at this point holds the money and does not
use it to obtain a commodity with use-value to him, it will remain in the first metamorphic
stage. The second metamorphosis, however, is only seen as the movement of money.To
complete the flow cycle, the “commodity must return to the same point in the shape of a
commodity” (Das Kapital pg 112). Once the cycle of selling the commodity (with no usevalue
to the current owner) enables the possessor to buy another commodity (with use-value)
is complete, the money again leaves the hands of its possessor; hence, C-M-C. However, the
C-M-C cycle is affected directly and indirectly by the actual flow or “Velocity” at which the
money hits the market. Hans, stated “the velocity of money does not depend on the quantity
of money in circulation. The causality goes in the other direction, the quantity of money in
circulation depends on the velocity.” (Hans’ note in [2008fa:657])
Velocity of Money
How rapidly these metamorphoses occur in a society is the velocity of money. If commodities
become infrequently transformed into money; or as Marx would put it, the dissolution
of commodities “into the mere equivalent form of the commodity” makes this happen
infrequently, then the velocity of money is low. (Das Kapital pg 207.) The “mere equivalent
form” or aliquot substance that makes the exchange between money and commodities possible
is the value congealed in all commodities by labor. When the velocity of money in a
capitalistic society is low- people begin to hold on to their money and fewer transactions are
made. Then, the overall circulation of commodities is becomes low. This can cause great
disruptions in the lives of an affected population. Some of the various causes of these disruptions
are: crises, economic bubbles, expectations, high price levels relative to the supply
of money, etc.
Money, the representation of value, is circulated by the removal of commodities from the
exchange processes. This removal of commodities from the circulation by buyers for their
256 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
use-values is called consumption. (Das Kapital pg 211.) A steadily growing velocity of
money is necessary for a capitalistic economy with a growing population to sustain itself.
Without a radical and revolutionizing change in the cultural mindset, social relations and
modes of subsistence a baker cannot buy fuel to heat his home unless the coat tailor purchases
his bread; a tailor cannot buy bread unless the weaver purchases his coat; a weaver
cannot purchase a coat unless the seamstress purchases linen; and so on. This is a simplified
version of a seemingly, complex web of transactions.
This constant circulation of commodities would not be possible without some form of
money. Trade could still exist but, there would be many more limitations and the massive
circulation of money and goods; characteristic of capitalism would be non-existent. There
would be fewer social divisions of labor and they would be far less complex. People would
be, to a greater degree than in a capitalistic society, more self-sufficient. However, disparities
in the distribution of wealth among members of a society exist in many other forms of
economies.
Money Supply
The amount of money this circulation requires is “determined beforehand by the sum
of the prices of all these commodities” (Das Kapital pg 213). However, this determined
quantity of money can vary, due to either a change in demand, a new source of gold or other
valuable metal is discovered; a change in customs in how money is exchanged or a number of
other things. A change in the money supply while circulation remains relatively unchanged
only determines the imaginary nominal prices of commodities, not their real value. Increases
in the money supply while productivity remains unchanged only leads to inflation.
Changes in the socially determined amount of necessary labor time in private production
lead to changes in the value of commodities. Subsequently, this is unconsciously realized on
the surface in the exchange-values of commodities. Decreasing real value of commodities
translates into increasing subversion of the commodity producing community. Increased
output, or demand, leads to a greater demand of money. The velocity of this circulation
increases regardless of money supply and creates immense pressure on the environment
which is is ultimately unsustainable.
Firms compete with one another by increasing productivity but only end up homogenizing
labor processes and prices. This constant competition among firms with one another
leads to an increased number of social divisions in labor. This makes the people increasingly
dependent on a variety of producers to meet their basic subsistence needs because they
are only skilled at a specialized task and become incapable of taking care of themselves.
Subordination of the people by an elite minority becomes inevitable.
Quantity of Money and Price
Marx rejects the Capitalist “illusion” that the quantity of money affects prices. He explains
that there are two other factors that have direct effects on the movements of the price
of commodities. These two effects are: first, changes in the quantities of commodities in
the market and second, changes in the velocity of circulation of money. Marx states this law
as follows, “given the sum of the values of commodities, and the average rapidity of their

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 257
metamorphoses, the quantity of money or of the material of money in circulation depends
on its own value.” (Das Kapital pg 219)
Marx gives a few examples to show us how these factors affect each other. The first
example, shows that assuming that prices remain constant, the circulating medium may increase
as a result of an increase in the quantity of commodities or a decrease in the velocity
of circulation of money, or both. In the inverse of this equation, also keeping prices constant,
a decrease in the circulating medium would result from a decrease in the quantity of
commodities or an increase in the velocity of circulation of money.
Assuming that the number of commodities in circulation remains constant; if prices of
commodities increase, the quantity of circulating medium will also remain constant as long
as the number of commodities decreases in direct proportion to the increase of the prices OR
if the velocity of monetary circulation increases at the same rate as the prices rise.
The idea that quantity of money effects prices is based on the Capitalist notion that commodities
enter the exchange process without a price. Or, that they don’t have value until one
is assigned to them by the market. It also relies on the assumption that money enters the
exchange process without a value. Both concepts are rejected by Marx.
Conclusion
The flow of money is a passive reflection of the active metamorphosis of commodity
to commodity. Commodities are continually converted to use-values; while money is continually
used in the exchange process. In contrast, to the Capitalist view that quantity of
currency will change prices of commodities, Marx maintains that the opposite is true. That
the quantity of currency in circulation is determined by the sum of the value of commodities
in circulation, and by the average velocity of the circulation of money. (Das Kapital pg.
219.)
Cmellen: Cmellen response to feedback [620]
I made an error in writing the first paragraph of my group, Priceless’ term paper. I should have written about
the Flow of Money:
Marx explains The flow of money is a “constant removal from its starting-point” (Das Kapital p111). Commodities
move in a circular motion, from one owner’s hands to another, yet money is not included in this circular
movement. Its ceaseless undertaking to move further away from its original source.
Also, it was never my intention to lead the reader to think that “C-M-C is not a circle.” For, in fact, to complete
the cycle, the “commodity must return to the same point in the shape of a commodity” (Das Kapital pg 112). Once
the CYCLE of selling the commodity (with no use-value to the current owner) enables the possessor to buy another
commodity (with use-value) is complete, the money again leaves the hands of its possessor; hence, C-M-C Circle.
Thank you for your input Hans.
Message [575] referenced by [589] and [620]. Next Message by Atticus is [629], Next Message by Cmellen is
[580], Next Message by Husani is [576], Next Message by Jo is [705], and Next Message by Kaimani is [625].
[620] Hans: Termpaper Discussion. The first sentence of term paper [575] says: “Marx
explains the flow of money as Commodity–Money–Commodity (C-M-C).” No he doesn’t
and it isn’t. A careless reader might get this impression because the first sentence of subsection
2b in 210:1 indeed talks about C-M-C. But for Marx this C-M-C is only the jumping-off
point for his discussion of the flow of money. Marx enters the discussion of the flow of
money with the observation that C-M-C is a circle but money keeps getting dislodged and
258 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
does not go in a circle—that’s why section 2b is not called “circuit of money” but “flow of
money.”
There is another little quirk. The term paper says that C-M-C is not a circle—because
the forms of the first and second C have, as Marx says in 207:1, “opposite” determinations:
the beginning C is a non-use-value for its owner, and the C at the end is a use-value for its
owner. Despite this, Marx says very clearly in both places, 207:1 and 210:1, that C-M-C is
a circle.
Marx does not contradict himself here. The entire movement being a circle does not
exclude but even requires that whatever goes through this circle has opposite determinations
at the beginning and at the end: for instance a train going in a circle at the beginning is
driving out of the station while at the end it is driving into the station.
I made this mistake myself. The Annotations, not in the version we are using for this
class, but in a more recent version which can be downloaded from the class home page,
contained the sentence: “It is not quite a circuit, because the form of the first C is not exactly
equal to the form of the second C.” I have changed this now, so the next version will no
longer have this mistake.
So I have to thank the term paper group with the wonderful name “Priceless” that their
term paper caused me to discover this error. I am acting here like a capitalist. I am benefiting
from our co-operation without paying you for your share in it (except this thank you). In
chapter Thirteen, 447:1, Marx calls this the “social productive powers of labor.” A team of
workers co-operating can accomplish things which none of them could have done individually.
Who gets the benefits of this co-operation? The capitalist. See my [2005fa:1402]. The
worker, by contrast, is harmed by it. Marx writes in 798:4/o:
We saw in Part IV, when analyzing the production of relative surplus-value,
that within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productive
powers of labor are put into effect at the expense of the individual
worker; that all means for the development of production undergo a dialectical
inversion so that they become means of domination and exploitation
of the producers; they distort the worker into a fragment of a man, they
degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, they destroy the
actual content of his labor by turning it into a torment; they alienate from
him the intellectual potentialities of the labor process in the same proportion
as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they deform
the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labor process
to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his lifetime
into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of
the juggernaut of capital.
If you write a term paper, please read the text carefully. I cannot expect you to “get” all
the implications of Marx’s text, but if you write something which could have been corrected
by just looking at the same paragraph more closely, this counts against you.
Message [620] referenced by [575]. Next Message by Hans is [623].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 259
Multiple Choice Question 469 The discovery of new gold mines making gold more abundant
and easier accessible than before triggers two of the following causal mechanisms,
according to Marx’s theory. One other of the causal mechanisms listed below is an indirect
effect due to the combination of the two basic mechanisms, and the other three mechanisms
have the causality reversed. Check the two basic effects.
• (a) the amount of money circulating increases because the value of money decreases.
• (b) the amount of money circulating increases because prices rise.
• (c) prices rise because the value of money decreases.
• (d) prices rise because the amount of money circulating increases.
• (e) the value of money decreases because the amount of money circulating increases.
• (f) the value of money decreases because prices rise.
[997] Hans: Marx did not believe in the quantity theory of money. This was one of the
questions on yesterday’s exam.
The causal sequence as Marx sees it is that first (c) happens, and because of (c), then (b)
happens. In other words, new discoveries of gold cause the value of gold to fall, therefore
prices rise, and the higher prices require more money in circulation.
(a) has therefore the causality in the right order but it is an indirect effect: more money
in circulation does not come directly from a lower value of gold, but it comes from higer
prices, and the higher prices come from a lower value of gold.
(d) is the quantity theory of money, which says that the value of money depends on its
quantity. Marx was not a quantity theorist. According to Marx, the quantity theory has the
causality reversed. Prices rise because the value of money decreases. These higher prices
then have the consequence that the amount of money circulating increases.
(e) is a demand and supply theory, value decreasing because supply increases. Marx
keeps saying that demand and supply do not determine value.
(f) is a theory in which values are determined by prices, i.e., value is determined in circulation.
Marx keeps emphasizing that value is determined in production.
Next Message by Hans is [1076].
Term Paper 470 is 903 in 2000fa, 903 in 2001fa, and 418 in 2008fa:
Term Paper 470 Essay about Chapter Three, Section 2.c: Coins and Symbols of Value
[585] Fisher and KA: In section (c) “Coin. The Symbol of Value” in Chapter 3, Marx
illustrates how coins become a circulation medium of money. The physical nature of coins
of being a gold or silver composition reveals the “money-names” of this commodity only
through circulation. Without the means of circulation, gold and silver is merely a commodity
that can be exchanged for another commodity of equal value. The circulation nature of
money enables gold and silver to act as this medium of exchange. In 221:1/o Marx mentions
that when these gold or silver coins are worn on uniforms, this illustrates the different state
of value these coins have; the value of its decorative form. However, when these coins are
removed from the uniform they are held in a different context in the world market, as money.
260 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx goes further to illustrate the physical differences between coins and bullions as
being one in the same if its function is of a transaction base. Coins and bullions act as
a medium of exchange with the only difference being in their production state. A coin is
passed through the production state of minting to transform into circulation tool. As coins
move throughout circulation they become worn down with the nominal and real content
being of different states. The circulation of coins decreases the weight of the coin and
therefore its value, since its value is dependent on its weight. While the real nature of this
commodity transformed into a common medium of exchange is physically diminished, its
symbolic value maintains. The symbolic value is inherent in the commodity being a coin or
circulation tool.
It is further discussed that even though the circulation of this coin disjoints the real and
nominal content, it is the symbolic nature of the coin that maintains the value. The replacing
of the coin with some other metallic form could also serve as a medium of exchange so long
as the symbolic nature maintains while the physical nature diminishes. The example Marx
uses is by incorporating smaller quantities of silver and gold into the minting of the coin
and substituting copper for silver and silver for gold. The symbolic nature maintains of the
coin in regions of more frequent circulation. The circulation of this modified coin must still
maintain some portion of gold and silver in order to render the capitalization of the lower
valued metal from taking over the physical and symbolic nature of the coin.
The physical nature of the modified coin is not of the same physical strength of a pure gold
coin, and therefore deteriorates more rapidly as it passes through circulation. The physical
weight of this modified coin no longer determines the value of the coin, as the value is
independent of its physical property; the symbolic nature is the determinant of its value. At
this point, the property of gold in a coin is independent in its valuation. The valuation is
strictly symbolic with the medium of exchange. The transformation of gold to coins and
then finally to paper money (notes) is the life cycle of the circulation of money, with the
common denominator being its symbolic nature.
Marx begins this next section by pointing out that the state creates paper money with
different symbols to represent different values of gold that would be circulating otherwise.
The examples that Marx uses, “£1, £5, etc.” are printed and represent a gold value that would
be used in the place of the paper money in making market exchanges or transactions. Marx
also mentions that there is indeed a law that states that paper money should not be made or
put into circulation above the amount of gold or silver that would be used if had not been
replaced by the symbols. If the paper money did not represent a real value of gold then the
money would cease to have exchange value or circulate as a medium of exchange.
Once a country keeps enough gold on hand to support the paper money in circulation, the
gold will undergo changes of its constituent parts. This will not change the amount or, as
Marx put it, “the continuity of its circulation”. If more paper money is in circulation than
there is gold to back it, then “there is a danger of falling into disrepute”. The only way to
keep paper money in circulation is to have enough gold on hand to back it. Too much paper
money would then cause the value of gold to go down. Marx gives an example of how one
paper symbol representing 1/4 ounce of gold would change and possibly represent 1/8 ounce
of gold instead.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 261
Money, according to Marx, is a representation of the symbol of value for gold or silver.
Only if paper represents gold, does money have a value. Paper money and coins are just a
circulating medium and nothing else. Coins and paper money can only act as a medium for
exchange if they are circulating, and there is gold to support them.
The action of the state or country in which a currency exists, must be “within that inner
sphere of circulation which is coterminous with the territories of the community”, which
implies that the people surrounding the economic region accept the paper money or coins as
a symbol of exchange. If people do not accept paper money or coins as a representation of
gold or silver, then people would ultimately trade commodity for commodity or use gold as
the standard.
Hans: You had consistently (4 times) written “median” of circulation (should have been “medium”). I changed it
into “means” because this is a simpler word for the same thing.
In addition to [623], I’d like to point out another misreading. Your third sentence says
The physical nature of coins of being a gold or silver composition reveals the “money-names”
of this commodity only through circulation. Without the means of circulation, gold and silver
is merely a commodity that can be exchanged for another commodity of equal value.
The original in 221:1/o says:
An amount of gold, whose weight is referred to by the prices or money-names of the commodities,
must confront these commodities, within circulation, as coins or pieces of gold of
the same denomination.
Marx describes here how the function of gold as measure of value and means of circulation leads to the minting
of gold coins. “Measure of value” means that all prices are denominated in gold. The amount of gold which is
indicated in these prices is therefore necessary to circulate the commodity. Therefore gold must be available in
pieces which make it easy to count out exactly as much gold as indicated by the prices. Marx calls the prices
“money names” because they are not denominated in ounces of gold but in a different denomination.
There is also a misreading in your last paragraph. “Coterminous” means that the neighboring countries do not
accept your national currency as money.
Message [585] referenced by [589], [611], and [623]. Next Message by Fisher is [837] and Next Message by KA
is [1060].
[611] Robert: Coins: Blinding Symbols of Value. Notwithstanding Hans admonition to
not “send fluff just to help your peers” I think that Fisher and KA [585] did a great job on
their analysis of what Marx wrote in Section 2.c of Chapter 3.
Nevertheless, I was thinking over the weekend why it would be so important to Marx to
go into this careful explanation about the minting of coins or the creation of paper money. At
the same time I was thinking about Babyceta’s [583] thoughts regarding our fetish for money.
I wonder if there is not some “intent” in the powers that be, i.e., the capitalist who use the
power of the state as their tool, to emboss coins and paper money with symbols of power.
The features of Caesars, Kings, Presidents and other powerful historic people or symbols of
liberty (like Lady Liberty), Justice (blind justice holding the scales) and Freedom (the Eagle)
or great monuments, buildings and other seats of power typically adorn our money.
The symbolic implication of holding or getting money then is one of getting or holding
power. We may seek to turn our labor (via commodity production) into money because we
believe having money not only allows us to acquire use-values we need but we may believe
it give us the power of the symbols it bears.
262 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans [610] points out that Marx taught us that money is blinding. It blinds us to the
fetish character of commodities. Capitalist make profits by selling commodities (including
the commodity of labor-power). To the extent money blinds us as to the real nature of
commodities, the social arrangements of exploited labor imbued in each commodity, then
capitalist can proceed with their exploitation unhampered by social outcry or indignation.
If money can be made even more dazzling by becoming symbols not only of value but of
power then all the better for the continued deception.
Hans: This is not a discussion of Fisher and KA’s termpaper but these are your own musings about Section 2.c of
Chapter 3 in connection with the fetish-like character of money.
Next Message by Robert is [675].
[623] Hans: Bizarre Example of Misreading. In 221:1/o, Marx writes:
In the different national uniforms worn at home by gold and silver as coins,
but taken off again when they circulate on the world market, the separation
between the internal or national spheres of commodity circulation and its
universal sphere, the world market, manifests itself.
In order to understand Marx’s uniform metaphor, you need some facts of life at Marx’s
time. Then, just as now, world wide commodity circulation was separated into two spheres,
domestic and international trade. At Marx’s time, within every nation on the gold standard
(such as England), gold coins served as means of circulation based on their face values. This
is what Marx calls the “national uniforms” of gold. But in order to pay for international
transactions, gold coins had to be melted down and shipped as gold bullion, which had no
face values but were measured by their weights. This melting-down is depicted in Marx’s
metaphor as the gold coins “taking off” their national uniforms and travelling naked. The
separation of the two spheres of circulation finds therefore its echo in the double role of gold
coins—on the one hand in domestic circulation as minted coins, on the other internationally
as the ingredients of gold bullion. This is what Marx says in the above sentence.
Term paper [585] gives the following paraphrase of Marx’s above sentence, which is
completely wrong—and which shows again how difficult it is to read a text in such a way
that you hear what the author is trying to tell you:
When these gold or silver coins are worn on uniforms, this illustrates the
different state of value these coins have; the value of its decorative form.
However, when these coins are removed from the uniform they are held in
a different context in the world market, as money.
Forget this last paragraph again if you have read this far.
Message [623] referenced by [585]. Next Message by Hans is [631].
Question 471 is 400 in 2004fa, 379 in 2005fa, 408 in 2007SP, 419 in 2008fa, 472 in
2011fa, and 493 in 2012fa:
Question 471 Marx defines money as the commodity which at the same time functions as
measure of value and means of circulation. How does he justify this definition of money? Is
there a commodity today which has these two functions? Is there money today?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 263
[564] Cmellen: graded A Money is defined as value, only as the realization of socially
necessary labor. It measures value as commodities exchange with each other in measurement
to the extent of labor they contain.
Money is a channel or go-between from commodity to commodity. Marx describes the
cycle of C-M-C. In this, a commodity is exchanged for commodity, with the instrument of
exchange being money, but the cycle is not complete until the money is again traded for
commodity (only this time it has use value for the individual, unlike the commodity they
had originally and sold).
Money can take any form of any given commodity as a universal medium of exchange;
one customary commodity used (as universal medium of exchange) throughout history has
been precious metals. Precious metals are themselves the product of socially necessary
labor, as it takes skill and labor for mining.
In perspective of current times, it is difficult to think of one universally accepted commodity
used as a means of circulation as well as a measure of value. However if you think
outside of the box, you can still consider credit and debit cards as the new “form of money”.
They are used as a means to transfer “money” from one person to another in exchange for a
commodity. Although it is temporarily intangible, it still facilitates the exchange of tangible
commodity for tangible commodity. This has evolved to intangible form of commodity for
efficiency and security of transporting it on your person. It has been demonstrated through
history that it is difficult to carry money with you if it is in the form of cattle, gold, seeds,
etc. This change in form is as a result of problems like: you can easily drop it if you carry
too many; it can be too heavy to carry large quantities, or you could have it stolen from you.
Hans: Credit and debit cards are not themselves money but they are, as you say yourself (but with quote signs
around ‘money’) “a means to transfer money from one person to another in exchange for a commodity.” This is
exactly Marx’s definition of one of the functions of money as means of payment: In 233:2/o Marx says that it is not
money itself, but the promise to pay money which causes the commodities to change hands. But this money still
has to be paid afterwards.
Message [564] referenced by [573] and [2012fa:851]. Next Message by Cmellen is [574].
[573] Cougar: graded A– There’s money, and then there’s money... Avatar’s parallel in
[2005fa:992], concerning cigarettes in the prison system, was most beneficial in formulating
my response. For those unfamiliar with Avatar’s post, cigarettes take on the form of money
in the prison system subculture (key word). Due to the limited spectrum of commodities
within prison walls, cigarettes serve as a universal measure of value for other use values as
represented in the exchange of, let’s say, 9 cigarettes for a dirty magazine as Avatar uses. The
exchange value of the magazine is expressed in the use value of the quantity of cigarettes,
acting as money. As cigarettes circulate throughout the prison, such as in the transaction
just mentioned, those who have no interest in smoking may acquire cigarettes solely for
the purchase of other use values. This circumstance satisfies Marx’s claim in 358:1/o that,
“...Thus the slave of commerce has become its master...” Cigarettes have now evolved into a
form irrelevant of their use value and only meant to satisfy the exchange of prison wealth as
measure of value and means of exchange. Cigarettes therefore become money.
Unfortunately the question in that term did not address Marx’s justification for the duality
of “money.” Before I attempt this justification, I wish to extend gratitude for Avatar’s insight.
264 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
I had hoped Cmellen’s current response [564] would have insight in this area but unfortunately
I saw no response to this portion of the question. In [2008fa:963], Hans explains how
gold served as money in Marx’s time and culture. Gold served as both a measure of value
for commodities produced and exchanged and as a mode of circulation in transactions, usually
in the form of certificates that represented a certain amount of tangible gold. Although
not from Marx’s own mouth, I feel this example given by Hans adequately supports Marx’s
definition. In addition to Hans input, I would like to add an unrelated source from Marx’s
text 227:2 in support.
“But as soon as the series of metamorphoses is interrupted, as soon as sales
are not supplemented by subsequent purchases, money is immobilized. In
other words, it is transformed, as Boisguillebert says, from ‘meuble’ into
‘immeuble’, from coin into money.”
The term “metamorphoses” brings me back to the prison setting proposed by Avatar. It
is clear cigarettes undergo a similar metamorphic process: primarily an inexpensive carcinogenic
release, cigarettes evolve into a measure of exchange value of the things found
in prison and eventually a means for obtaining these things. To take Avatar’s example in
a new direction, let’s say one inmate decides to stash or “hoard” his acquired cigarettes.
Rather than quickly tossing his cigarettes back into the prison-market, his decision to hoard
re-emphasizes the duality of money. Where the continual circulation of money seems to
perpetuate its uncontrollable fetishism, the immobilization of money reaffirms its ability, in
addition to circulation, to measure value and potentially acquire other use values. Like the
picture of a busy city bridge taken with an exposed lens overnight, the “measure of value”
criterion of money becomes blurred in circulation until it comes to a halt. In this case the
inmate begins to establish wealth, the embodiment of the natural capitalist, with the power
to both measure use values and acquire them. As stated by Hans in [2007SP:682], this is
my interpretation of how hoarding acts as one of three examples Marx uses to justify the
definition of money.
Now concerning money in its Marxian form today, U.S. dollars have certainly become a
universal means of circulation in America and nations abroad. Although dollars do not represent
actual gold stock as they once did, they are supported by factors including the stability
of U.S. treasury bonds, fiscal and monetary policy as filtered through the Fed and Congress
respectively (Cmellen deserves credit for this observation), and the might of the U.S. military.
Factors like those just mentioned provide U.S. currency with the “authority” to measure
value of commodities both foreign and domestic, satisfying the role of money as a measure
of value. This value as represented by actual U.S. notes and coins also serves to facilitate
the exchange of commodities in the market fulfilling the second role of money: circulation.
Cmellen’s comment concerning the metamorphosis of precious metal(s) into paper money
used today serves here as an appropriate conclusion: Over time money has evolved into a
form completely void of use value and into a “...servant, of commodities.” In summation
of Hans annotations, rather than degrade to mere use values as other commodities, money
provides its holder(s) with wealth where wealth is king in capitalism.
Hans: Originally you had “The use value of the magazine is expressed in the value of the quantity of cigarettes,
acting as money.” In this archive copy here I switched ‘use value’ and ‘value’ around, because this is how Marx and

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 265
also Avatar say it, and in addition I replaced ‘value’ by ‘exchange value’ because the items circulating in prison are
not produced in prison. One can argue that the cigarette values of prison items are indeed established in circulation
and not in production, therefore it does not make sense to distinguish between exchange value and value. Also in
your passage “cigarettes evolve into a measure of use values found in prison” I replaced ‘use value’ by ‘exchange
values’. You still have ‘use value’ and ‘exchange value’ too intermingled in your thinking; they have to be kept
apart.
Next Message by Cougar is [592].
Question 472 is 272 in 1997sp, 272 in 1998WI, 282 in 1999SP, 299 in 2000fa, 318 in
2001fa, 345 in 2002fa, 360 in 2003fa, 401 in 2004fa, 420 in 2008fa, 473 in 2011fa, and
494 in 2012fa:
Question 472 When does gold function as money as distinct from its function as measure of
value or means of circulation?
[572] Sly: It may look complicated at first. In order to understand when gold functions
as money, we must first understand when money functions as money. In the Annotations,
Marx gives the criteria for a commodity to be money as follows – if it is not notional (as
measure of value) and not capable of representation (as in means of circulation) then it’s
money. (Pg 310) By reading the text it is simple to derive that in order for gold to function
as money it must simultaneously embody a measure of value and a means of circulation.
This is the point in which it is hard to define gold as money – because as stated in the
Annotations: “often it only functions as measure of value or means of circulation.” This
statement is made in reference to gold. (Pg 309) Marx offers the definition that gold becomes
a measure of value because it provides the world of commodities with the material in which
their values can be expressed, i.e., the Gold Standard – this standard is given to gold by other
commodities’ relative form of value. Since gold is now a commodity that simultaneously
embodies a measure of value and a means of circulation, it has now become money. Gold
loses its function as money when it doesn’t embody the two criteria, and separates itself – for
example, when gold become jewelry. It is now easy to see that in order for gold to function
as money it must, as the Annotations stated: “appear in person as gold” and gold becomes a
measure of value when it appears as jewelry, or any other commodity constructed from gold.
Hans: Money functions as measure of value because all other commodities designate their prices in money. For
this money must have a stable value itself. Under the gold standard the value of money was determined by the
production cost of gold, nowadays the value of the dollar is determined by trust in a non-inflationary monetary
theory plus the military might of the US. It has nothing to do with jewelry.
Message [572] referenced by [2011fa:1042]. Next Message by Sly is [612].
Question 473 is 402 in 2004fa, 410 in 2007SP, 413 in 2007fa, 419 in 2008SP, 421 in
2008fa, 437 in 2009fa, 475 in 2011fa, and 496 in 2012fa:
Question 473 Explain the individual motivation for hoarding money. Do these hoards have
a function for the economy as a whole or only for the individual?
[578] Kraken: graded A– Hoarding—OK gimme a case! Individuals hoard money
because money is so extremely useful in allowing us to satisfy our wants. With a large sum
of money, a person can quickly obtain most, if not all of their earthly needs and desires.
The motivation to hoard money is rooted in the idea that with enough money a person could
spend their entire lifetime using that money to meet their needs and wants, and never have to
266 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
feel the pain of going without necessities or the “good things in life.” Our current recession
has caused many of us to change our spending habits. We are less likely to spend money we
don’t have. We are spending less and hoarding more. Marx believed that hoarding had the
societal benefit of allowing the money stock room to fluctuate. Hoarding does however have
a negative impact on our poor suffering retailers and reflects badly in our GDP numbers,
but I believe GDP is a fairy-tale number anyway and doesn’t accurately reflect the health of
our economy. Consumer spending makes up such a large portion of GDP that recent history
should teach us that a rising GDP simply means we have returned to our unsustainable
lifestyles and are continuing to live beyond our means.
Message [578] referenced by [582], [583], and [610]. Next Message by Kraken is [677].
[582] Robert: (graded A) Ascetic Compulsion to Save. I have been thinking about this
question for a couple of days. As it turns out one of the disadvantages of being a slow thinker
is that Kraken [578] beat me to it. Nevertheless, maybe I still have something I can add to
our thinking about this question.
I think Kraken points out one of the reasons an individual hoards money: “because money
is so extremely useful in allowing us to satisfy our wants.” Money is useful to us because
we can buy anything we want with money. Hans in [2009fa:634] helps us understand that
this attribute of money is its qualitative aspect. However, since it is so qualitatively useful
an individual soon realizes that it can be quickly and easily all used up. Therefore, Hans
tells us, that it “is build into concept of money itself” that an individual is going to want to
amass more and more money (a quantity of money to go along with its qualitative aspect).
To amass more and more money, with the motivation of amassing wealth, the miser must
consume little.
The impact on the economy as a whole of such hording is to reduce liquidity in the market
place, which, in Marx’s time of a gold standard currency, could limit the fluidity of exchange
because there would be insufficient money available to allow C-M or M-C transactions.
Now, none of that took too much thinking, I’ll admit. However, what I was thinking
about is Hans’s statement in [2009fa:634] that “ideas do not generate social relations but
they arise afterwards, they are a reflection of social relations.” Marx is difficult for many of
us to understand because we are used to looking at surface data and finding an explanation
for that data. We are not accustomed to trying to understand why something is really the
way it is. With Marx’s approach in mind, I tried to look at what social relation exists that
would create the idea in an individual that he should save his money.
Whenever I try to think about underlying social relations in our capitalistic society I find
my thinking is influenced by Max Weber’s book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism. Weber explains the religious source for the idea of the “ascetic compulsion to
save.” Protestantism has a complex tension in that it “not only saw in the striving for wealth
as a goal the ultimate in what is reprehensible; it also regarded wealth achieved as the fruit
of labor in a calling as a blessing from God” (p. 116). In order to show the world that she is
blessed of God, an individual could amass wealth by being very frugal in her consumption
and hording money.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 267
We know that we will soon read that wealth can be amassed more quickly by using
money as capital, i.e., buying commodities (including labor-power as a commodity) and
selling them for more money than they cost to buy. Weber has more to say about Protestant
influence on this process: how God’s blessings can be increased by becoming a capitalist.
Message [582] referenced by [583]. Next Message by Robert is [591].
[583] Babyceta: A riddle: what do “hoarding” and “money trees” have in common?
After reading several responses to question 473 (the individual motivation for hoarding
money), mainly Robert’s [582] and Kraken’s [578], I cannot help but to wonder whether
or not we’re overlooking something about the nature of hoarding. This notion of hoarding
takes me back to the whole fetish-like character of commodities issue, and I mention the
nature of hoarding as an intentional pun because fetish-like character, you will recall, means
treating products of society as if they were natural forces (while fetishism is more about the
socialization of nature, ie. we like gold because it is shiny and beautiful). If money is itself
a commodity, then there would be the potential to assign fetish-like characteristics.
I’ll give you an example. Have you ever heard the saying “money doesn’t grow on trees?”
That implies the nature (there I go again with the puns!) of money supply is indeed finite and
therefore must be conserved or hoarded. Sometimes as a society we treat money as a natural
force, believing it possesses the ability to move mountains or even people. Money can get
things done when nothing else can (bribery, anyone?). I should also say that if Hegel is
correct and everything contains its opposite in itself, then money too may have a dual nature
(okay, I’ll stop). We may also become fetishistic about money because, honestly, nothing
looks prettier in my wallet than crisp new $100 bills!
I agree with Kraken about money “satisfying wants.” And I’m not quite sure about “The
Protestant Ethic,” but Robert makes an interesting point. I do believe we haven’t yet uncovered
just how deep the roots of money have entrenched themselves into our society. We may
never fully understand.
Message [583] referenced by [610] and [611]. Next Message by Babyceta is [624].
[610] Hans: Money Fetish only Tip of Iceberg. Babyceta [583] is wondering whether
our discussion isn’t overlooking the connection between money and the fetish-like character
of commodities. Of course, there is a deep connection. If Marx says that commodities have
a fetish-like character in that act in our society as if they were alive, then money is of course
the most alive commodity of them all. But in 139:1 and 187:1, Marx warns us that money
is “blinding.” In money, the fetish-like character of the commodity has become so brightly
visible that it detracts our gaze from the fetish-like character of the other commodities, which
may be not so clearly visible yet even more insidious.
Instead of using the theory of the fetish-like character of commodities to understand
money better, I think a better approach is to use our intuition about money to better understand
the fetish-like character of commodities. Our relationship with commodities is not
much different than our relationship with money.
Commodities are use-values and values, and we fall in love with both. If we fall in love
with their values, we become misers or capitalists, and if we fall in love with their use-values,
we become spendthrifts or consumerists. Both miser and spendthrift are contradictory: one
lives poorly in order to become rich, the other lives opulently and in this way empoverishes
268 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
himself. Kraken [578] talks about this contradiction without being aware of it when he says
things like: “individuals hoard money because money is so extremely useful.” Yeah right, if
something is extremely useful then the obvious thing to do with it is not to use it but hide it
under your mattress.
Only the capitalist manages to get both—at the expense of the workers. I.e., he manages
to externalize the contradiction and put himself on the receiving pole.
Here is another insidious aspect of commodities, not money: commodities must be sold.
Most of us are sellers of a commodity, i.e., labor-power. We need jobs. Therefore we agree
if government does not make the necessary renewable energy investments—because this
would be a “drain on the economy” which is “weak” right now anyway. Of course, it would
not tank the economy, it would only decrease capitalist profits a little. We cannot have that!
We rather have our children and grandchildren live in stress and misery on a dramatically
changed planet.
We need a deeper understanding of the fetish-like character of the commodity. People’s
fascination with money is only the tip of the iceberg which is about to ram our civilization.
Message [610] referenced by [611]. Next Message by Hans is [620].
[1042] AM: The individual motivation for hoarding money is rooted in the individual’s
belief that a certain sum of money can be used over their lifetime to purchase necessary
commodities. Hoarding occurs when the individual sells a commodity for the sole purpose
to keep (i.e. hoard) the money received in exchange for the commodity. The money, if
not used to buy another commodity, is in essence taken out of circulation. For this reason
I see hoarding as a function only for the individual. However, I get lost in determining
if hoarding has any function in the economy as a whole. I suppose if the individual uses
the money hoarded at a later date to purchase a commodity his hoarding has changed to a
function for the whole economy. This indicates that the individual’s hoarding is dependent
on the confidence he has in the economy at a given time. The money supply in circulation is
growing and falling due to the individuals’ own perception of how business is doing.
Hans: If you “get lost,” why not look up what Marx said about these things?
Next Message by AM is [1047].
[1094] Kaush: There are as many reasons for hoarding as there are hoarders. An individual
may seek to hoard to save for a future event such as buying a house, a car, starting a
family, etc., or hang on tightly to money in times of recession. Others do so because every
time they attain a level of wealth, they feel the urge to break into the next level of wealth.
Yet others’ hoarding is a function of fascination, prestige and social power. It elevates the
individual to join those residing in the upper strata. There comes a time when hoarders start
to spend and by so doing, they stimulate the economy for the good of society.
Next Message by Kaush is [1095].
[1116] Milly: graded A Hoarding Money. When individuals hoard they are taking money
out of circulation by deciding not to buy after selling. Individuals hoard money for many
different reasons. For some it is about wealth, luxury, greed or power and for others they feel
the need to save for emergencies or buy something large in the future. Marx says that there
are times when circulation must be interrupted for economic reasons but for the most part it
is due to the individual’s fascination with money. Hoarding can be hurtful to the economy

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 269
as a whole when those who are wealthy hoard and only continue to focus on accumulating
more.
Message [1116] referenced by [2012fa:866]. Next Message by Milly is [1117].
[1128] Smartergirl: The individual’s motivation for hoarding money is for three reasons.
Primarily to purchase more valuable commodities. Secondly hoarding can be a means of
safety while the individual is producing his own commodity he may have a lapse in time
between sales and need to rely on his money to sustain him through this time. The more
hoarding the longer they can sustain themselves during production. Lastly the mere appearance
of wealth is a desire and hoarding can result in an appearance of wealth.
The function of hoarding can benefit both the economy as a whole as well as the individual.
It functions for the individual by providing safety, allowing them to buy commodities
with a higher value and sustaining themselves during the time between selling their own
commodity. For the economy as a whole it is a double edged sword. I agree that it is a
double edged sword however my reasoning differs a bit. Initially I said that hoarding moves
commodities and keeps companies in business. This is not the correct reason that it helps
the economy as a whole. It helps the economy by interupting the constant changing and
evolving commodities and helps to balance the economy as a whole by interrupting the flow
of increased value by investors.
Hans: I was puzzled why you say that interrupting the flow of investments helps the economy, until I read your
in-class answer where you say that hoarding “can harm the economy by increasing surplus-value.” Marx does not
think hoarding creates surplus-value, and Marx does not think an increase in surplus-value harms the economy. On
the contrary, Marx considers the capitalist economy as a huge mechanism designed to increase existing values by
adding surplus-value and to concentrate more and more value in fewer and fewer hands.
Next Message by Smartergirl is [1148].
Exam Question 474 is 422 in 2008fa, 438 in 2009fa, 476 in 2011fa, and 497 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 474 Give an example of a transaction between P and Q in which P sells to
Q but Q does not purchase from P.
[580] Cmellen: Sales without Purchase. I’m going to try to take a stab at examples of a
transaction between P and Q in which P sells to Q but Q does not purchase from P. In past
discussions they have relied on the only 2 examples that were given by Hans.
Money hoarding is quite common in a capitalist economy, so there are lots of examples
to choose from. One would be when the railroads were being built. “In the case of a long
working period (such as the construction of a railway, etc.) there are purchases without
sales” [Insert published with Marx-Lexikon Zur Politischen Ökonomie vol. 6, July 1972].
Another example would be to accumulate funds (selling commodities and not buying other
commodities) for the purchase of a large costly item, such as a factory machine.
[hans - are these correct examples?]
Message [580] referenced by [605]. Next Message by Cmellen is [587].
[605] ANK: What about food stamps or WIC? In previous semesters, Hans has given
examples such as the United States purchasing oil from Saudi Arabia with newly printed
money to demonstrate a transaction between P and Q in which P sells to Q but Q does not
purchase from P. Marx uses the example of a merchant selling to a gold digger in exchange
for gold as a function of money. To the merchant it was a sale, but to the gold digger it was
270 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
not a purchase because the gold was found in the ground by the gold digger in exchange for
a commodity with use-value.
As I thought about these examples, I thought of a few present day examples that may
fit this scenario. These examples are food stamps and WIC (Women, Infant, Children) certificates.
For individuals and families who fit a certain poverty criteria, the United States
government issues food stamps and WIC certificates for use at grocery stores. At the time
of transaction, the grocery store sells food items in exchange for food stamps and WIC certificates
which are later exchanged for money with the government. To the individual facing
poverty, it is not a purchase because the food stamps and WIC certificate were given to them
just for satisfying certain poverty criteria. The groceries are exchanged and the individuals
and families facing poverty gain commodities with use-value without purchasing them.
I disagree with the railroad example in [580] because although it may have taken a long
time for the railroad supplies to be paid for, they eventually were and the transaction took
place with the expectation of a future payment. The railroad example is simply a deferred
payment whereas in the examples above the grocery stores and Saudi Arabia are satisfied at
the time of exchange and view the sale as complete and paid for.
Message [605] referenced by [608] and [656]. Next Message by ANK is [673].
[608] IrvingHowe: Thoughts about food stamps or WIC. ANK [605] uses food stamps
and WIC as an example of a transaction that is not truly a purchase because the purchase of
the food is not really made by the holder of the voucher.
This example is wrong for two reasons. First, those vouchers have very real exchange
values for whomever holds them and the act of exchanging something that has an exchange
value for something that has use-value is invariably a purchase, regardless of whether or not
our exchange value holder looks like currency or not.
Second, the purchase does in fact take place in any event. The government purchases the
goods on behalf of the recipient of the vouchers who also acts as an intermediary in what is
an exchange between the government and the grocery store. I am reminded of when I would
go to a hardware store for my old company and purchase things on the line of credit they
had with the store. Just because the actual purchaser was not present when I took possession
of the goods and no currency was exchanged does not change the nature of the transaction
which is as plain as any other.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [647].
[656] Cmellen: WIC vs Railroad. ANK [605] disagreed with my railroad example of
a transaction between P and Q in which P sells to Q but Q does not purchase from P. I
thought more about it and I agree that the railroad example is, as ANK put it, a deferment
of payment. But I get confused then; I thought thats basically what hoarding is for, means
of payment later? They werent buying the railroad materials on credit and paying or it later.
The rich wealthy men that hoard money financed the railroad.
I found Kuruma to explain it in a way that I THINK I understand. “The issue of money
hoard; (i.e., C-M that is not complemented by M-C). is the resulting split between sale and
purchase that takes on content-determination via the circulation process. “In the case of a
long working period (such as the construction of a railway) there are purchases without sales

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 271
and demand without supply”; this causes the problem of the split between sale and purchase
(hoarding). Because the long working period itself stems from the material aspects of the
production process.” [Samezo Kuruma, July 1972;]
However, I believe ANK’s example of WIC to be a much simpler way to understand it.
WIC and Food stamps (in my view) are definitely a sell without a purchase.
Message [656] referenced by [657]. Next Message by Cmellen is [1011].
[657] IrvingHowe: RE: WIC vs Railroad. Cmellon [656] states that the WIC program
is a commodity exchange without purchase.
While it is indeed a perfect case of disconnected incentives that indeed represent a majority
of what the public sector does, it is not as ANK and Cmellon say an exchange without
payment.
The disconnected of incentives occurs because the end user is not in fact the purchaser.
The purchaser still exists and payment still occurs though. The government is the purchaser
and this example is little more than an expanded version of a child’s mom sending them
to the store with a check written on her account for the purchase of candy intended for the
child.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [699].
Question 486 is 433 in 2008fa and 449 in 2009fa:
Question 486 Explain how the function of money as means of payment contains an unmediated
contradiction. What does the word “unmediated” mean here?
[581] Scholar: Market exchange is virtually the exchange between the different human
individual labors, which are converted into the exchange between money and commodity
after money emerged. When money functions as means of circulation during the exchange,
there must be enough amount of money which is equivalent to the value of the commodity
exchanged so that purchase and sale of the commodity are taking place simultaneously.
If the money functions as means of payment during the market exchange, it means that
purchase and sale of the commodity are not simultaneous, which implies that though the
owner of the commodity sells the amount of the commodity, these commodities have not yet
found their genuine buyer who needs and affords them in fact. So, because of the means of
payment of money, the balance of supply and demand of the commodity have been broken
completely, and when you sell your commodity, it doesn’t mean that your individual labor
has been accepted by others in society. If the buyer still has no money to pay when it
is time to liquidate, the seller of the commodity would face trouble: he would find that
his commodity has not been sold out, while, he has likely produced more amount of the
commodity for misleading by an account sale, which maybe make him bankrupt.
The contradiction between individual labor and social labor which exists in the production
of commodity has been intensified when the money functions as means of payment, which
are shown as imbalance between supply and demand of the commodity.
If the money functions as means of circulation, the amount of money indicates the certain
purchasing power for the commodity, so by the medium of the money, the supply of
commodity would match the demand to a certain extent, though there is not perfect match
272 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
between them. But when the money functions as means of payment, there are no more
medium to comfort the contradiction during market exchange, and the contradiction would
be crazy.
Next Message by Scholar is [628].
[910] Giant: graded B– The word, “unmediated” in this sentence is being used as a contradiction
because money does not have any use value other than what a society puts on it.
So if a farmer exchanges an apple for three dollars he is not really getting anything of use
value unless the society he is living in says that dollars are able to be exchanged for use-value
goods.
This is also a contradiction because money can be used as a means of exchange goods as
well as being a good itself, when for example people exchange different currencies, money
is the means of payment as well as a good.
Hans: “Means of payment” is a very specific function of money in the “modified sale” when money changes hands
after the goods have changed hands. For a correct answer see [2008fa:717].
Next Message by Giant is [914].
[1025] Jo: Unmediated means that there is no alternative available should the flow of
money be interrupted. Both buyer and seller are dependent on each other for money. They
need money to sustain themselves in a capitalist economy. So if the flow of money stops, a
crisis ensues.
Marx explains that as long as payments balance each other, money is just used as a measure
of value however “if actual payments have to be made, money does not come onto the
scene as a means of circulation, as a merely transient and intermediary form of the social
metabolism, but as the individual incarnation of social labor, the independent existence of
exchange-value, the absolute commodity” (Annotations, p. 328) There is no regulation on
the exchange of money that keeps balance of payments equal, so it is easy for hoarding and
other disruptions in the flow of money to occur, which could potentially result in crisis.
Hans: You do not seem aware that Marx is talking about a very specific transaction, what he calls the “modified
sale.”
Next Message by Jo is [1026].
Question 488 is 283 in 1998WI, 294 in 1999SP, 312 in 2000fa, 360 in 2002fa, 375 in
2003fa, 417 in 2004fa, 426 in 2007fa, and 433 in 2008SP:
Question 488 Why is means of payment, and not means of purchase, the predominant function
of international money?
[571] ANK: Thank you Paypal. Means of payment is the predominant function of international
money, rather than the means of purchase. The reason that money is not used as a
means of purchase in international trade is the difficult logistics of an “in person” exchange
of money and commodity at the same time. Means of payment is used in international trade
because without traveling overseas, the buyer can either send the money first, or the seller
can ship the commodity first when making the exchange. Because of the risk of the seller
just keeping the money and never sending the commodity, most of the time the commodity
is sent first and then the buyer will send the payment. When eBay first started, my friend
bought a $2000 video camera he planned to use for his highlight film business. He won
the auction and sent his payment overseas. He waited and waited for his new video camera

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 273
and never received it. The seller took my friend’s money and never shipped a video camera.
This seller may have never had a video camera and this could have been a scam from the
beginning. Now, third party companies such as paypal secure a payment from the buyer and
wait for confirmation from the buyer that the commodity has been received from the seller
before transferring the money to the seller. Third party companies like paypal allow means
of payment to be the predominant function of money in international trade by reducing the
risk involved in the exchange of commodity and money when it is not logistically possible
to make an exchange in person.
Next Message by ANK is [605].
Exam Question 490 is 296 in 1999SP, 419 in 2004fa, 396 in 2005fa, 425 in 2007SP, 437
in 2008fa, 453 in 2009fa, 496 in 2011fa, and 518 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 490 Bring two examples of situations where money functions as money and
not merely as measure of value or means of circulation.
[587] Cmellen: Money functions as money. I would like to openly discuss exam question
490: Examples of situations where money functions as MONEY and not merely as measure
of value or means of circulation. Looking back thru past discussions, I see that this question
is easily answered by section 3.3a-c.
(a) Hoarding: Once the cycle of metamorphoses has been interrupted, the coins in circulation
become [transform] into money. (Das Kapital 227:2). This is due to the fact that
the coin is held for a period of time instead of immediately leaving the hands for another
use-value commodity. At this point the coin seems tangible.
(b) Means of Payment: Money can also take the form of actual money even while still
in circulation. this is when money is advanced as “capital” or investment assets. In these
situations, the role of creditor and debtor are brought into play as a result of the circulation
of commodities. Along with these roles is attached the social and economic characterization
associated with debtor and creditor. Marx describes this to be a more rigid and less pleasant
relationship.
(c) World Money: Locally, money is the general comparable for abstract human labor; it
assumes to be the same in international trading. However, in international trade, money takes
on the general equivalent prior to the labors themselves have been equalized (Das Kapital
p329). This all-purpose equivalent causes the bonding of domestic labors into one universal
abstract human labor.
Message [587] referenced by [590], [592], [828], and [2012fa:1091]. Next Message by Cmellen is [656].
[590] Lana: Discussion on money and power. I would have to agree with Cmellen [587]
in that the roots of money in our society go much deeper than we originally see. The part of
Cmellen’s [587] discussion that struck out to me was the sentence, “Sometimes as a society
we treat money as a natural force, believing it possesses the ability to move mountains or
even people. Money can get things done when nothing else can (bribery, anyone?).”
With that, I believe that money is our form of communication. Above a means of trading,
valuation, and labor, it is how our society speaks to each other. The language of the Almighty
Dollar, so to speak. Regardless of what currency, money will nearly always speak “louder
274 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
than words,” excuse me for the pun. Money has been used to alter the course of history via
political influence, foreign aid, etc.
Money definitely experiences fetish-like characteristics—power.
Message [590] referenced by [606]. Next Message by Lana is [613].
[592] Cougar: Money is Magic! I would also like to comment on Cmellen’s post [587],
expounding on Lana’s observation of the “mysticism” of money in the market. Since my teen
years, I have kept myself aware of the economic climate on a regular basis. Before studying
economics in college, i was fascinated by the power money commanded. One day interest
rates were up, the next down, and the next day up again. The stock market was spiraling out
of control making people filthy rich, then it was a disaster and suddenly people were losing
their inheritance. Even in history courses, I thought it absurd that the Great Depression
claimed the welfare of millions of this country. How can money just do this? Of course
with age comes study and understanding, but to refer back to Lana’s comment, I still cannot
shake the feeling the money commands a powerful influence, or as Marx calls it, a fetishism.
Who is guiding the flow of money and for what cause? In the financial meltdown now recent
history, only a few cautious words over national news networks brought thousands to the
market shedding their share holdings like a truck load on anthrax-contaminated letters. For
these reasons, I can’t help but think that the role of money played most frequently is that of
a valuing stick. Where I’d like to veer from the paved path is that I feel money measures
more in our society than commodities but a benchmark for the entire economic system.
People seem to portray their fetishes onto money to the point that their well-being depends
on the flow and health of the dollar. Businesses seem to hold on to any and every economic
forecast by any pundit, in the know or not. In this sense I believe money is also an excellent
indicator of fetish-like character, how people dictate their interactions by the circulation. I
guess now i’m getting to the point where both roles of money, now including circulation, are
frequently employed. I guess my overall point is geared towards the “mysticism” of money
and hopefully Lana was getting at a similar point. I’m not here to preach against material
wealth nor do I feel Marx was trying to indoctrinate people, but I do feel that money can
hypnotize those who do not understand the financial system.
Message [592] referenced by [606]. Next Message by Cougar is [699].
[606] Oreo: Money controls us. I agree with Lana [590] that money is our form of
communication. I especially like the line about power being a fetish-like characteristic of
money. It has the power to influence individuals’ emotions, determine their decisions, and
even divide them into classes. It seems like society views money as so much more than
a tool of exchange. As Cougar [592] mentions in his discussion, people believe that their
well-being depends on the dollar. Before taking this class, I never really thought about the
effect that money has on our lives. It is so natural for us to place money the pedestal that
it’s on and subconsciously accept the fact that it has control over us. When I do think about
it, it seems absurd that we practically worship something so inanimate as paper bills. We
go to great lengths to acquire them, such as giving away our leisure time by devoting our
lives to labor for someone else, despite our enjoyment and fulfillment from it. These bills
can make people do things that they wouldn’t normally do, such as act immorally or risk
their lives. However, as ridiculous as it seems that these bills have such colossal control
over us, it is completely true. Without money, we wouldn’t eat. We wouldn’t have shelter

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 275
to provide for our family, or any of the comforts that come with a house. We wouldn’t be
viewed as competent in our society and therefore pitied and looked down on. We wouldn’t
have the security that money gives us. Because of these things, we would starve or freeze
to death without the necessities to keep us warm. Therefore, money is necessary for our
very survival. The saying “money can’t buy happiness” seems foolish to me. I would be
much happier having money than starving on the streets. The acquisition of these bills is
mandatory in our society. Our lives depend on money, therefore causing it to be extremely
powerful.
Next Message by Oreo is [650].
[821] Kat: There are a couple instances that I’ve seen reference to in many places in past
discussions where money acts only as money.
The first is world money. Where countries trade with one another not for goods, but
strictly for the trade of currency.
Another example is the act of hoarding. When an individual begins to hoard money, it is
no longer in circulation. This effectively strips it of its primary function representing value
over long periods of time.
Finally, another example is an exchange taking place, but with delayed payment. Settling
a debt in this way makes using money an independent act. By separating the exchange
of a commodity and the payment of money, money at that later date is not just means of
circulation but money.
Hans: At the very end, you had “money at that later date is not just money.” I corrected it, hoping that you meant
“not just means of circulation.”
Message [821] referenced by [828]. Next Message by Kat is [898].
[828] Hans: Money as money. Kat’s answer [821] is correct. The three classic examples
where money serves as money coincide with the three subsections in Capital, chapter Three,
section 3: hoard, means of payment, and world money.
This is enough if you are asked this question on the exam, but let’s look into it how
one can tell whether money is used as money. Ask yourself: is the money used as means
of circulation, or is the money used in order to transfer wealth (either from one person to
another, or for the same person from one time point to another)? In the latter case, money is
used as money.
Hoarding is clearly money according to this criterion. How about means of payment,
i.e., making a deferred payment to conclude a purchase, for instance when you paying your
credit card bill? At this point, money is no longer means of purchase. The good you are
purchasing has already been transferred into your ownership. Your promise to pay was the
means of purchase. But now you have to make good on your promise by transferring wealth
to the seller. This is the reasoning why money as means of payment functions as money.
If you pay taxes or a traffic ticket, you are also transferring wealth. In this case your
liability was not generated by a purchase, but you have a liability, and when you pay this
liability your money functions as money.
This function of means of payment is not the same as an investment. Cmellen [587] got
this wrong. The function of money as a means of payment grows out of simple circulation.
276 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
If you lend money to someone or take your money to the bank, then the money also
functions as money. If you buy securities, I would consider this a function of money as a
means of purchase and not money as money, since you have to have the money on your
brokerage account before you can place the order. If a capitalist buys means of production
then money functions as means of purchase (i.e., not as money) if it is a cash purchase, or
means of payment (i.e., money) in the more usual case that it is a deferred payment. In other
words, money that performs M-C-M does not automatically function as money because of
this.
How about world money? Neither Kat nor Cmellen got it completely right why money in
its function as world money functions as money. Marx had in mind bilateral trade arrangements
under the gold standard: usually imports and exports between two countries cancelled
each other out, i.e., imports were paid with the receipts from the exports. I.e., usually no
money entered circulation at all. Only when there is an imbalance at the end, then money
has to be shipped in the form of gold bars from one country to the other. This money on
the gold ships functioned as money. It was a minute fraction of the overall trade, but understanding
the international gold movements from the gold mines to the country treasuries is
an important part of understanding the gold standard.
Next Message by Hans is [829].
Question 493 is 423 in 2004fa, 438 in 2008SP, and 456 in 2009fa:
Question 493 In 247:4/o, Marx makes three statements about money engaged in M−C−
M: (1) this money converts itself into capital, (2) this money becomes capital, and (3) according
to its determination, this money already is capital. What is the difference between
these three statements? Why does Marx not say that this money is capital?
[594] Goldtone: graded A A Necessary 3 Step Process. At first look, Marx appears to
be making an unnecessary three step process for what could be a more efficient one step
process. That is “(1) this money converts itself into capital, (2) this money becomes capital,
and (3) according to its determination, this money already is capital”, could be more simply
stated as “money is capital”.
The problem with this simplification is that it is incorrect (money is not capital), and
Marx is not trying to make things overly complex, but instead is trying to summarize the
transition from money to capital.
The distinction between money and capital is found in its “different forms of circulation”
as Marx describes in 247:4/o. This leads Marx to explore the link between circulation and
capital more closely, which is point 3 in the annotations on page 338.
C-M-C was the initial form of circulation discussed and gutted in chapter 2 and 3. This is
not the link between circulation and capital. The link is found in a new form of circulation
depicted by M-C-M, or “buying in order to sell” as Marx says in 247:4/o.
M-C-M is the conversion of money into capital that we see in point (1) in question 493.
(2) is the fact that “money itself becomes capital if it goes through this form of circulation”.
The last step in the process, (3), is more of a realization that the development of money
into capital is an ontological transition whose development is only observed by a scientist /

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 277
researcher, but does not need this observation because the truth is that it happens frequently
in real life.
The reasoning of (3) is similar to one who knows that even though a tree that falls in the
forest is not observed by someone does not mean that the tree did not fall, and the truth is
that trees fall all of the time without someone watching. The tree falling is comparable to
the development of money into capital.
Hans: Good guess, but I think better guesses are in my [640].
Next Message by Goldtone is [873].
[617] Cosmopolita: Marx’s three statements about money engaged in M-C-M. (1)
this money converts itself into capital. Money as capital distinguishes itself first by its different
form of circulation. Money is used as measure of value, as a way of circulation of
commodities weights.
(2) this money becomes capital, because in this step the measure of value is set between
commodities and there is now a pattern for next commodities to buy. I.e. if you can get 20
linens of silk with one coin, or 1 coat with one coin. i.e II. If you can get a 2003 honda civic
for $6000 or a 1997 mercedes benz for the same amount. the measure of value can differ in
many different ways depending on social values and in the activities and motivations of the
person performing these circulation acts.
(3) according to its determination, this money already is capital ... the difference between
all these statements is the phase of the whole process. if is either M - C, or C - M to get they
money back, to hoard capital.
Hans: It often happens that class participants who can barely hold themselves above water in terms of understanding
the basic lines of Marx’s argument try to answer the most difficult and subtle questions. They simply don’t see
the subtleties.
Message [617] referenced by [654]. Next Message by Cosmopolita is [652].
[640] Hans: The Birth of Capital. Here is an educated guess what Marx might have
meant with this formulation. Let’s start from the end.
(4) At the beginning of chapter Four, Marx does not say yet that money is capital because
capital cannot exist without wage-labor, i.e., without labor-power as a commodity. Does this
mean usury capital and merchant capital was not really capital? Yes, in 266:2 Marx calls
them “antediluvian forms,” meaning “forms before the deluge.” The deluge in this metaphor
is presumably the process of “original accumulation” which pried the workers from the land
and set them free as wage-laborers. In 247:1 Marx says that the “modern life-history of
capital” begins in the 16th century—which is the time the enclosure movement in England
took off at home and the New World was plundered overseas.
(3) It already is capital “according to its determination.” Here I would think the word
“determination” is taken in the meaning of “purpose,” namely the purpose of the person
doing M-C-M. M-C-M only makes sense if the second M is bigger than the first, i.e., if it is
M-C-M’. And the development in chapters 5 and the beginning pages of chapter Six show
that the only way to do M-C-M’ which is consistent with the laws of commodity production
is to buy labor-power. I.e., any individual who is looking for ways to do M-C-M’ is looking,
without knowing it, for the commodity labor-power.
278 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
(2) Becoming, according to Hegel, is the unity of being and non-being. The process M-
C-M is on the one hand capital, but without labor-power backing it up it is not yet capital
but only the embryo of capital. An embryo is a human in the state of becoming, it is both a
human and not a human at the same time—which leads to endless debates about abortion.
Marx uses the concept of “becoming” also in chapter Three where he describes in detail how
gold becomes money.
(1) Marx uses the same word “convert” (verwandelt) in 227:2, where he says that money,
when it falls out of circulation, is converted from money as means of circulation into money
as money. What he says here in chapter Four is the negation of the negation: if money
re-enters circulation in the form M-C-M then it goes through a second form change, it is
converted into capital.
Message [640] referenced by [594]. Next Message by Hans is [644].
Question 494 is 439 in 2008SP and 524 in 2012fa:
Question 494 At the beginning of 248:2 Marx says that M−C−M in which the second M
is intended to be equal to the first is “absurd” and “devoid of content.” Nevertheless, later
in the same paragraph he says that the quantitative differences should be disregarded, and
proceeds to investigate M−C−M. Why does he insist on investigating a possibility which
he just called “absurd” and “devoid of content”?
[599] PLG: graded A M-M-M ??????? Gaining an understanding of the form M-C-
M requires an understanding of the intentions of the merchant. If the merchant intends to
exchange M for an equal M, then as Marx notes, his intentions are absurd. However, this
is never the intention of a merchant engaged in an M-C-M circulation. The intention is to
obtain a larger M. The point that Marx makes at the end of the same paragraph 248:2 is that
regardless of the quantity of the final M, money is the end goal. In the case of C-M-C a car
buyer may end up with a lemon as the final C. Nevertheless, the relationship in this trade
is still based on obtaining a new commodity. Marx aims to get the reader to understand the
qualitative relationship to money, which is a defining factor of capitalism.
Spawnblade [2008SP:444] discusses stocks as a way to grow money. He discusses the
risk obtained in trading stocks and that one may choose to break even if their situation
becomes too risky. “For this reason a person may deem it necessary to cut their losses by
selling at an equal or lesser value than that which they first bought it. It was not their intent,
but it was something they had to consider when making a risky purchase.” However, Marx
calls M-C-M absurd if the original intention is to break even. In Spawnblade’s example the
stockholder’s intention is not to break even, it is to make a profit. Resorting to breaking
even under risky circumstances is much different from intending to break even. Spawnblade
confuses these situations. “I believe it is for this reason that Marx decides to investigate this
‘absurd’ possibility, and not for the reason that it ‘never happens’.”
Marx would probably think that M-C-M is absurd any way you look at it because of its
capitalistic character. Yet in the context of the discussion he would not think that Spawnblade’s
example of the stock holder reducing losses is absurd. Rather the stockholder serves
as a good example of having a qualitative connection to money.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 279
The M-C-M form makes me think of currency trading. Many people today try to profit
from exchanging foreign currencies for home currency. They buy a foreign currency, and
then try to sell it when its value appreciates. This would likely fascinate Marx if he were
around today. This exchange would contain no qualitative value whatsoever. I wonder
if Marx would view this exchange as M-M-M, or still as M-C-M considering capitalism
commoditizes money? What do others in the class think?
Hans: Your lemon example is splendid: it shows that not only M-C-M’ but also C-M-C can sometimes be unsuccessful.
Regarding M-M-M, Marx calls it M-M’ and says it is the most fetishized form of the circulation of capital, in
which the mediating element has completely dropped out of sight.
Message [599] referenced by [649] and [2012fa:872]. Next Message by PLG is [659].
[614] She: graded A That’s absurd! Let’s talk about it! It is important to understand
that Marx is doing here what he always does, analyzing the phenomena by breaking it down
into its microcosms. He says it is “evident” that the process would be absurd for anyone to
go through the trouble of exchanging money for some arbitrary commodity only to exchange
it for the same amount of money again. He is not trying to prove anything here, just stating
the obvious surface phenomenon that it is “evident.” Marx is trying to explain what makes
this type of exchange so special and why it is unique.
Marx says that the M-C-M exchange involves money being on a “different path of simple
circulation,” [248:2]. Marx believes that the possibility of the second M being greater quantitatively
is the motive for the agents participating, but it is not what makes this exchange
special. He believes what makes this exchange so special and important to understanding
capital and thus capitalism is the way money is used. Money is used in the M-C-M exchange
to get money again in the future-money is not, “. . . spent, it is merely advanced,” [249:2].
Marx recognizes that this advancement does not always create a surplus value, but that it
is the only way to create a surplus value. Surplus values convert to capital which creates
and fosters capitalism. Marx believes that buying in order to sell, or M-C-M creates an
endless movement because you do not consume the final product as in C-M-C. It is therefore
the prospects and motivations of the economic agents which Marx believes warrant an
investigation, regardless of if the two values of M are quantitatively different.
Hans: I would be curious to hear your reactions after reading my [649].
Message [614] referenced by [649]. Next Message by She is [615].
[649] Hans: Actions Matter, Intentions Don’t. PLG [599] and She [614] say Marx ignores
the quantitative aspect because the intentions of the agents were to make more money.
Marx himself argues a little differently. He says: whether the second M is bigger or smaller
than the first, it is the same “characteristic and original path” [248:2] which begins with
money and ends with money. Here are some clarifications which Marx does not bring but
which I think are in his spirit. If most people would lose money, i.e., if society did not make
labor-power a commodity and in this way provide the possibility to go through a profitable
M-C-M’, then M-C-M’ would not be the social pastime which it is and the book Capital
would not have to be written. But it is possible and lots of people do it. Those who lose
money quickly drop out but obviously the aggregate gains outpace the aggregate losses.
That’s why Marx is trying to understand how they all do it. Whether one individual capitalist
is successful or not is irrelevant here as long as we know that on average it can be
done.
280 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Intentions don’t play much of a role in this argument. I think Marx is aware of two things:
(1) Intentions are not exogenous, but they are created by the social structure. People
would not try so hard to become filthy rich if they didn’t see by example that it was possible
to become filthy rich in this society.
(2) Social relations are not established by the intentions of the individuals, but by their
actions. Intentions alone don’t make things happen. In chapter Seven, 298:2/oo Marx says:
“the way to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Despite these reservations, chapter Four pays more attention to intentions than the rest of
the book. I think Marx does this for two reasons:
(a) if we know the intentions of the commodity traders we can better predict what they
do, and what they do does matter, social relations are established by the actions of the individuals.
(b) Regarding capitalism, there is a rare coincidence between intentions of the individual
capitalists and the social driving forces: society is geared for making money, and the
capitalists are motivated to make money.
Message [649] referenced by [614] and [2012fa:872]. Next Message by Hans is [654].
Exam Question 496 is 197 in 1995WI, 176 in 1995ut, 210 in 1996sp, 227 in 1997WI, 280
in 1997ut, 299 in 1999SP, 317 in 2000fa, 336 in 2001fa, 380 in 2003fa, 425 in 2004fa,
432 in 2007SP, 443 in 2008fa, 459 in 2009fa, 506 in 2011fa, and 528 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 496 Give examples for “advancing” and “expending” money.
[600] Alex: MCM/CMC Exam question. Advancing money and expending money is
defined in Marxian terms as M-C-M and C-M-C respectively, where M-C-M is purchasing
commodities for the purpose of making money (advancing in personal wealth, the way I
see it) and C-M-C is spending (expending) the money to purchase a commodity for its consumption
(for the commodity to be used up by the purchaser, such as food, or meals at a
restaurant). What came to my mind when I figured out this definition of advancing money
was the example of people who purchase items in foreign countries and sell them in their
own countries for a profit in a short period of time (or vice-versa). For example, back in my
home country, when people came to the United States, they would purchase various amounts
of perfume bottles (not necessarily expensive brands) and would sell them back home upon
their return, for twice or even sometimes three times their value. What I noticed, however,
was that these perfumes remained with the seller for a short period of time before their value
went down. Does time have anything to do with value lost in the M-C-M/advancing money
example?
Message [600] referenced by [603] and [604]. Next Message by Alex is [655].
[836] Baseball: When speaking of advancing and expending money Marx puts it into the
terms of M-C-M (Money-Commodity-Money)and C-M-C (Commodity-Money-Commodity).
In the case of M-C-M the buyer purchases a commodity in order to make profit it in the
end. By making a purchase, the buyer transforms his money into the form of a commodity
(the commodity’s inner value is labor-power but on the surface it is money), thus throwing

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 281
money into circulation. The money in this case is not spent but simply “advanced.” In order
to recover and get the form of money back, the buyer must sell the commodity and this
transaction “advances” his wealth. C-M-C is a little different in the fact that the commodity
(C) lies at the end of the chain and means that the money has been spent and “expended” into
circulation. The money is no longer with the seller but instead he has a commodity which
best fits his use value void. The seller realizes the value of his commodity which converts it
to money and at the end of the cycle he has successfully converted that transmuted money
into a commodity which serves as a use value which better fits his needs.
Hans: This is not exactly a collection of examples but it is a good explanation.
Next Message by Baseball is [862].
Question 497 is 211 in 1996sp, 211 in 1996ut, 288 in 1998WI, 300 in 1999SP, 337 in
2001fa, 366 in 2002fa, 381 in 2003fa, 426 in 2004fa, 401 in 2005fa, 433 in 2007SP, 436
in 2007fa, 442 in 2008SP, 460 in 2009fa, 530 in 2012fa, and 497 in Answer:
Question 497 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?
[596] Frida: (graded A–) C-M-C or M-C-M. If someone buys a car and then trades it in
for a new car, then this is C-M-C. Say our linen weaver wants to buy a car. She first sells
her linen, uses that money to buy a car, then later sells the car and buys a new one. We have
C(linen)-M-C(older car)-M-C(newer car). The important value in these transactions is (for
our linen weaver) the use values. She engages in these exchanges because she needs a car.
Indeed, cars depreciate over time so if the goal was to increase the quantity of money our
linen weaver would have bought something other than a car. There might be some confusion
because the term “trade” is used as a label for the process, but in any actual situation in
which someone is trading in their car for a new one, this is separated into the C-M and the
M-C portions. First the dealership will tell you what they will give you for your car, and this
counts towards the price of the new one.
The situation where someone (let’s say our linen weaver) buys a house and then later sells
it for a profit is best described as M-C-M. To fully describe this situation (assuming that she
originally had no plans to later sell the house), I think there is also a C-M-C transaction at
the beginning. We have C(linen)-M-C(house)-M’. The first transaction (the C-M-C) looks
similar to our car transaction, it is essentially an exchange of use-values. It is only later that
the exchange of money for a house becomes part of a M-C-M type transaction. The M-C-M’
transaction does lead to an increase in the quantity of money for the linen weaver, which is
the essential characteristic of the M-C-M transaction.
The situation where a farmer sells his wheat and uses that money to buy next year’s wheat
is C-M-C. We have C(wheat)-M-C(seeds). It is an exchange of use-values for the farmer.
He doesn’t need wheat, but he needs the materials to grow wheat.
Hans: If he doesn’t need more wheat than he already has for his own needs, then he also does not need the material
to grow wheat for his own needs. He is doing M-C-M, not C-M-C.
282 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [596] referenced by [597]. Next Message by Frida is [639].
[597] Lindsey: Money to Money, Commodity to Commodity. Marx defines 2 forms
of circulation in chapter 4: C-M-C (the immediate form of circulation of commodities) and
M-C-M (the form of circulation of capital).
C-M-C is the conversion of a commodity into money and then that money into a different
commodity. In this process, the person is selling one commodity in order to buy (spend the
money received on) another. Examples of this include part 1 and 3 of question 497. In part
1, the person buys a car (C) and then trades it in (quick conversion in and out of M) for a new
car (C). In part 3, a farmer grows wheat (C), then sells the harvest (M) and buys materials
(C) to raise the next year’s wheat.
M-C-M is the conversion of money into a commodity and then back into money. In this
process, the person is buying a commodity in order to sell it (ultimately with the intention
of getting more money—a profit—though this is not always the end result). Here the money
is advanced (M to M); the person always intends to get it back. An example of this is part 2
of question 497 where a person buys (with M) a home (C) and then sells it for profit (M).
Hans: You are saying the same thing as [596], with the same mistake, only packaged differently. I tried to compile
a comprehensive answer which combines the best insights from the archives in [Answer:1].
Next Message by Lindsey is [742].
Question 499 In 208:1, Marx says that the circulation process C−M−C “sweats money
from every pore.” Would he say the same thing about M−C−M, or would he characterize
the flow of money generated by M−C−M in a different way?
[588] JSmits: graded A C-M-C vs. M-C-M. In 208:1, Marx says that the circulation
process C-M-C “sweats money from every pore”. Marx would characterize the flow of
money generated by M-C-M in a different way than he would with C-M-C. The flow of
money generated by M-C-M as Hans says, “Like a yo-yo, the money keeps returning to the
same person again and again.” This money is not spent, it is just advanced. In M-C-M the
first step, M-C, is the purchase part of the process, where the money will be changed into a
commodity. During the second step, C-M is the sale, where the commodity is changed into
money. These two processes turn into one fluent step where money is exchanged for money.
If I was to buy 100 pounds of linen for $20, and resold the 100 pounds of linen for $25, all
I have really done is a money for money exchange which was $20 for $25. Marx infers the
purpose of M-C-M by comparing the first point with the end point. Therefore its purpose is
exchange-value.
In the form C-M-C the process is much different. The money “sweats out”, it is not a
circular pattern it is a “flow”, as Marx says. Looking at the purpose of C-M-C you can tell it
begins with a commodity and ends with a commodity so its purpose is use-value.
With all this said, Marx would say the flow of money generated by M-C-M is different
because when he spends money on a commodity, he intends to get that money back again.
Where in C-M-C the circulation process completely comes to an end when the money that
comes in from the purchase of a commodity is abstracted by the purchase of another commodity.
Next Message by JSmits is [677].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 283
[595] Max: graded A– Working out. Marx says that circulation of commodities through
the process C-M-C “sweats money from every pore.” The “sweat” represents a byproduct of
the exchange—money in the hands of any particular trader (independent of the value representing
labor). Essentially this means that the people involved in the change of commodities
are doing society a service by keeping the exchange of money flowing, so that at any time
somebody will have money suitable for further exchange.
In contrast, M-C-M doesn’t provide the same type of social service that C-M-C does. On
its face value, it may seem that the capitalist (the initiator of said M-C-M process) is doing
society a favor by purchasing a commodity, thus pumping money into the economy. However,
because he proceeds to sell his acquired commodity for a larger sum than purchased
for, he is in fact diminishing the money flow in a given society. Thus, less money is available
for C-M-C processes and commodity flow diminishes. (Correct me if I am wrong, but this
seems to imply a hindrance to innovation and development.)
In summary, C-M-C “sweats money from every pore” because they are working out,
sweating money into the economy, and living a healthy lifestyle. In contrast, M-C-M sits
around on the couch, never sweats money, and lives a dull sedentary life watching daytime
TV.
Hans: M-C-M’ only then depletes the money stock if you are assuming the capitalists are not spending their profits
or all of their profits. If capitalists invest part of their profits and consume the rest of it, then there is no such problem.
The thing is, as a capitalist you can watch daytime TV and still become rich at the same time.
Next Message by Max is [676].
Question 500 is 435 in 2007SP and 444 in 2008SP:
Question 500 Why does Marx place so much emphasis on the “reflux” of money implied in
the form M−C−M?
[601] Long: Money Flows Back to Begin (As Submitted:) w9 The “reflux” of
the Circuit Again. The “reflux” of money money implied in the form of M-C-M in
implied in the form of M-C-M, which Marx which Marx put more emphasis on is the
puts so much emphasis on, is the fact that fact that money is the starting point and the
money is the starting point and the end- ending point. It is different then the C-Ming
point. It is different than the C-M-C C part where money is the beginning and
part where the commodity is the beginning
and the end point. The circulation of com-
the end product. It is the circulation of
modities results in a twofold movement of the a commodities in a twofold of the same
the same money which transfers the money money that in which it is transfer from one
from one hand to another. With the exchange
of one commodity, the twofold displacement
is making the money flow back hand to another. With the exchanged of
to its original place. This backflow plays one commodity, the twofold displacement
an important role due to the fact that money is making money flow back to its original
is back in the orignal place where it came place. It is in a form in which plays an
from. However, Marx does not care how important role due to that fact that money
much money is being made after the commodity
is sold but only argues that money is back in its place of the orignal of where
284 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
is back to the original owner from where it
came. it came from. However, Marx does not
care how much money is being made after
the commodity is sold but only argues that
money is back the the original state of where
it came from.
Hans: Your writing style is unacceptable. Here is your original submission and my tentative translation side by
side.
Next Message by Long is [603].
[612] Sly: The ideal situation. The reason that Marx places so much emphasis on the
“reflux” of money is because the phenomenon of reflux is really the secret behind capitalism.
In the Annotations it’s stated that: “The agent who (initially) engaged in M-C-M never really
gives up the money (originally used); like a yo-yo, the money keeps returning to the same
person again and again.“(Annotations, pg. 346) To put it simply the capitalist makes and
initial investment, and lets the do money multiplying automatically – with the initial money
spent eventually returning back to capitalist, thus money is never really spent. In the Annotations,
there is an aphorism given that “capitalist get what they spend, and workers spend
what they get.” (Annotations, pg. 346), furthermore the Annotations also state that: “the very
manner in which money is expended relies on its reflux. Without this reflux, the operation
fails, or the process is interrupted and incomplete, since its complementary final phase, the
sale, is missing.” (Annotations, pg. 347) Given this information we can derive that M-C-M is
the resale of commodities, consequently the ‘manner’ in which a capitalist expends is purely
for reflux, instead of use-value because the use-value is trivial to the capitalist. Capitalists
are after money for money’s sake, and workers are after commodities – hence the aphorism.
After taking this all into account, the secret is clear, and easily definable. One of the main
building blocks of capitalism is reflux, and reflux is more or less the return of money to the
capitalists in a quantity that differs from the amount that was initially invested – if we as
individuals understand this we are able to see how capitalists are able to accumulate wealth,
whilst investing little of any labor time. Without reflux, M-C-M (re-sale) isn’t possible, and
capitalism isn’t possible because without reflux the only returns attainable through money
would be in the form of use values – and not money for money’s sake, and the only means
of manipulating the amount of universal value an one has (i.e. gold or money), would occur
through the exchange of labor – thus eliminating the separation of workers and capitalists.
So reflux enables capitalists to be exactly that – and put forth far less effort and time.
Message [612] referenced by [987]. Next Message by Sly is [669].
[860] AlexDaily: graded A Reflux is what makes it possible for the capitalist to remain,
because M-C-M is a continuous process and doesn’t simply end at the second M. Marx says
it this way “the phenomenon of reflux itself takes place as soon as the purchase commodity
is resold i.e., as soon as the cycle M-C-M has been traversed in its entirety. This is therefore,
a palpable difference between the circulation of money as capital, and its circulation as mere
money.” This cycle of money circulating as mere money adds no value to society but simply
takes the value the laborer created and gives it to the capitalist to sell. You have to understand
this to understand why it is important to have C-M rather than M-C. That is why Marx places
so much emphasis on reflux of money implied in the form M-C-M.
Next Message by AlexDaily is [861].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 285
[962] Rmc: graded B+ According to Marx, the “reflux” of money in the form M-C-M is
money’s return to its original holder after he has traded it. The cycle begins with someone
who has money ready to spend. This person spends the money on a commodity with the
intention of selling the commodity for money. To illustrate this pattern, someone could
spend £100 on a product—say a rocking chair—and then sell it for £110. Once he has sold
the rocking chair for £110, he has basically just exchanged £100 for £110 and earned a profit.
It is relevant to note that the buyer will trade money for a commodity and then resell it
for a profit; as Marx says in 248:2, it would be easier for the miser to keep his £100 without
exposing it to the “dangers of circulation”—there is always a chance he will not be able to
resell the commodity for a profit, the same amount he spent on it, or at all.
Marx explains that the money “refluxed” in this form is advanced, as opposed to spent on
a product that is consumed (C-M-C). In this case, the money has been spent and the original
holder cannot continue the M-C-M process. When the original money holder can resell a
commodity for a profit, extra money has come back to him and he can now continue M-C-M;
he essentially trades £100 for £110, then the £110 for maybe £130, and the £130 for £150,
and so on.
Hans: The “law of reflux” are the macroeconomic conditions for it that the capitalist can do M-C-M’.
Next Message by Rmc is [963].
[987] Sly: To better understand the reflux of money in the form M - C - M, I believe that
you must dumb it down to simpler terms.
Essentially I look at it as M (Money) → C (Capital) → M (Money). How this makes
sense to me is first the capitalist takes M (money), and invests it into means of production
and labor-power for the production of things in order to receive profit. Out come C (Capital),
and when C (Capital) is purchased by a consumer they use M (money) to purchase the thing
that is produced. This is also known as the resale of commodities, and what happens is the
M (money) that is returned to the capitalist is also larger than the amount of M (Money) that
was invested.
I had answered this question previously in a closer observation in [2010fa:612], and found
that - “Capitalists are after money for money’s sake, and workers are after commodities”
and “without reflux the only returns attainable through money would be in the form of use
values – and not money for money’s sake, and the only means of manipulating the amount of
universal value an one has (i.e. gold or money), would occur through the exchange of labor
–thus eliminating the separation of workers and capitalists.” - I would also like to add that
laborers can’t employ the power of reflux to their own advantage because they don’t have
access to the means of production - and thus can’t employ their own labor-power or for a
matter of fact the labor-power of others.
Reflux is the secret to capitalism and its what allow capitalist to be capitalist.
Next Message by Sly is [1004].
Multiple Choice Question 501 is 464 in 2009fa:
Multiple Choice Question 501 When comparing C−M−C with M−C−M, Marx stresses
the following points. One of the following is not what Marx says; check it. Extra credit if
you point out where it is wrong and how it should be corrected.
286 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
• (a) C−M−C is mediated by money, M−C−M is mediated by the commodity.
• (b) The sale C−M has a different character when it is part of C−M−C than when
it is part of M−C−M.
• (c) C−M− C is a circular movement for the commodity, but not for the money,
while in M−C−M, money returns to its beginning point (reflux).
• (d) C−M−C does not repeat itself, it must always be re-started from the outside,
while M−C−M automatically leads to its repetition.
[858] Hans: In case you were wondering what the right answer is. Some of my
multiple-choice questions are mean, but this is probably me meanest one I have have come
up with (so far): if you do a close reading of the passage in chapter Four where Marx
compares M-C-M with C-M-C, you will see that Marx makes exactly the four points given in
this question—until you realize that his distinction between advancing and spending money
is M-C while the question says C-M. I.e., the right answer is (b). Happy Thanksgiving to the
many class participants who took the exam today on time! If you have an idea for an even
meaner multiple choice question, let me know.
Next Message by Hans is [859].
Question 507 is 422 in 2004fa, 398 in 2005fa, 430 in 2007SP, 431 in 2007fa, and 470 in
2009fa:
Question 507 Is it right to say that M−C−M is incomplete because it ends with money,
and the money is nothing by itself but must be spent?
[586] AlexDaily: graded A M-C-M is incomplete. M-C-M is incomplete, however not for
the reason that it ends with money which is “nothing by itself but must be spent.” Hans explains
in [2005fa:1044] why it is incomplete: “because the M’ has exactly the same form as
the original M. The same reasons which drive M to go through M-C-M’ will therefore drive
M’ to through M’-C’-M”.” For example, the capitalist turns his money into commodities
and then turns those commodities into money. However, this does not end the cycle because
the capitalist is by no means finished. He will simply start the cycle once again, therefore,
making it a continuous process and also making the statement M-C-M incomplete.
Next Message by AlexDaily is [619].
[1098] Max: graded A Ending the Process. M-C-M is incomplete because it ends with
the same thing that it starts with: money. The whole point of capitalizing off the original
amount M, is to amass more wealth. Why would anybody stop the cycle if their goal is to
amass more and more money? M and M’ are, according to Hegel’s definition of a quantitative
argument, essentially the same thing because there is no way to distinguish between
the two. Capitalists will keep this endless cycle going because of the curse of money; they
always want more. In this way M-C-M is incomplete. A more accurate way to right MCM
would be M-C-M’-C-M”-C-M(n), where n is infinite unless there is a market crash or some
other disruption in the economy that would make it advantageous for the capitalist not to
invest. In contrast, C-M-C is a complete transaction because the second commodity “falls
out of circulation.” It becomes a use value for someone and the process is complete.
Next Message by Max is [1101].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 287
[1113] Hal: graded A The Insatiable Capitalist. The M-C-M process is incomplete,
but not because money must be spent for use-values. At the very beginning, the capitalist
may have use-values as an end goal, but that goal quickly becomes overshadowed when
he/she sees that money can be used to make more money. Then the capitalist’s desire for
money becomes insatiable, and M-C-M is doomed to remain incomplete. The capitalist
seeks money itself, so it is constantly reinvested to ensure maximum gains. No money falls
out of circulation and the M-C-M process is endlessly repeated.
Next Message by Hal is [1114].
[1133] IrvingHowe: Upon further investigation, I now realize that M-C-M is in fact
incomplete. To see why it is incomplete really takes only a bit of critical thinking. If one
starts with M, we know that one really has nothing more than a commodity representative
of a certain amount of labor. It has no use value and therefore must be spent in order to
realize its own worth. So, in spending it, we now have purchased a good for which the
value presumably either meets or exceeds the amount of labor represented in our money. In
moving again to M, we know that we have now sold this commodity that was purchased
earlier for an amount greater than we paid and thus greater than the original amount of M.
M-C-M’
So it will continue as we have now moved into a cycle that repeats itself if only for the
purpose of achieving greater amounts of M.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [1134].
[1157] Orville: content B+ late penalty 1% No, that is not correct. Many people in this
world do exactly that M-C-M and keep the money for long periods of time. Hoarders get
and keep money money without using its value for long periods of time. Marx uses hoarders
in several examples when describing money out of circulation.
Hans: This is right but it is only half of the answer.
Next Message by Orville is [1158].
[1194] Tunda: M-C-M’ is insatiable and Marx explains that there is a slight difference in
both M-C-M and M-C-M’. They are both the same quality which is money. Because it ends
in money the money always returns back so it is safe to say that it is complete.
Next Message by Tunda is [1195].
[1198] Cosmopolita: M-C-M is not necessarily wrong because it ends with M. Money
not being a commodity, does give access to all use values. Qualitatively is universal. Not
everybody necessarily needs to consume the commodity available in the present. The person
might choose to hoard money instead and use this “money” for other purposes for later on
in time. The ending of money opens a Pandora box in which the options are infinite due to
money’s quantitative boundedness, which goes in contradiction with its quality.
Hans: You are right, Marx would disagree with the statement that money is nothing by itself. But despite this
Marx would still say M-C-M is incomplete, because the profit motive is not a one-time thing but capitalists want an
ongoing stream of profits.
First Message by Cosmopolita is [209].
Question 516 is 310 in 1999SP, 391 in 2003fa, 457 in 2008SP, and 551 in 2012fa:
Question 516 Can a situation which gives you subjective satisfaction be a situation of “enslavement”?
Are there other examples for this than the capitalist?
288 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[593] Utefan: It’s just an illusion. Anything (As Submitted:) It’s just an illusion
that gives subjective satisfaction can, in the
worst case, become an enslavement of a person,
people, or organization. Without mod-
Anything that has a subjective satisfaction
eration one is susceptible to becoming over- can, in the worst case, become an enslaveenthused
with what one generally uses for ment of a person, people, or organization.
Without moderation one is susceptible to becoming
over enthused with what they generally
use for satisfaction. Under post 447 pri-
satisfaction. PrivateProperty [2008SP:447] vate property uses the example of the Matrix
uses the example of the Matrix to illustrate to illustrate the enslavement of the capitalist
system over the people - in the matrix people
were given experiences through a com-
the enslavement of the people by the capitalputer mapping of their lives, it wasn’t unist
system. In the Matrix people were given til they were unhooked from the computer
experiences through a computer mapping
of their lives. It wasn’t until they were un-
that they could see the truth. Two things I
hooked from the computer that they could would like to point out: first that after being
unhooked the world they lived in was hor-
see the truth. Two things I would like to rible and not at all what one would expect,
thus perpetuating to the capitalist that with-
point out: first that after being unhooked the out there system the civilized world would
world they lived in was horrible and not at collapse; second that in the matrix they were
given a choice of whether to remain in dark-
all what they expected, thus perpetuating to
the capitalist that without their system the
civilized world would collapse; second that
in the Matrix they were given the choice
whether to remain in darkness or withdraw
to reality.
The question of enslavement takes away
ness or withdraw to reality.
The question of enslavement takes away
the choice of one being able to choose what
the choice of one being able to choose what
one would rather do. As in the capitalist sys-
they would rather do. As is the capitalist
tem in which we live one has little choice
if one has already reached that point of en-
system of which we live one has little choice
slavement. An example could be any that
have been already used like sex, drugs, gam-
if they have already reached that point of
bling, many of which are common. I would
like to point out social standing or popular-
enslavement. An example could be any
ity. People have literally killed themselves that have been already used like sex, drugs,
trying to fit in and thus have become a slave gambling many of which that are common.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 289
to perceptions. Another example less commonly
thought of is food. Overweight people
would most likely agree that they can’t I would like to point out social standing
control their physical need to gorge themselves.
or popularity. People have literally killed
themselves trying to fit in and thus have become
a slave to perceptions. Another example
are less commonly thought of like food,
overweight people would most likely agree
that they can’t control their physical need to
gorge themselves.
All of these points are showing the illusion
of choice when there is none. Capitalist
society’s motto is that anyone can be a
All of these points are showing the illusion
of choice when there is none. Capital-
ist society’s motto is that anyone can be a capitalist (in essence rich) but as we can see
not everyone can be. The capitalist is enslaved
to accumulation and thus exploits the
capitalist (in essence be rich) but as we can worker who is also enslaved to the system.
see not everyone can be. The capitalist is
enslaved by accumulation and thus exploits
the worker who is also enslaved by the system.
Hans: I made so many editorial changes that I thought it would be interesting for you all to see the Utefan’s original
submission and my corrections side by side.
Next Message by Utefan is [642].
Question 517 is 448 in 2007SP, 458 in 2008SP, 461 in 2008fa, and 480 in 2009fa:
Question 517 Can one say that the capitalists are addicted to making money?
[607] IrvingHowe: Addiction to money. The question being: Can one say that the
capitalists are addicted to making money? The answer is a resounding yes.
Dr. Drew Pinsky, a prominent modern addiction specialist is known for saying that addiction
is defined by its consequences, not by frequency. There is I believe, a lot of evidence
to support this as a good working definition that most of us follow already. For instance, no
one accuses Italy or Germany with being overrun with addicts despite the fact that in many
parts of these countries alcohol consumption is a near daily part of life. This is because the
consequences many of us associate with high levels of alcohol intake just don’t appear in the
way that they do in the US.
That said, the modern capitalist has by and large painted themselves into a corner that
simply cannot be escaped. Even if you reject global warming as a fact, you cannot deny that
the capitalist is tying his/her own noose every day. As econ majors we all understand how
interdependent each section of the economy is and how negative shocks feed on themselves
to become much larger than the initial blow.
290 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
So the question is, what happens when the capitalist runs out of resources to exploit? I
do not even necessarily mean oil or energy resources. Iron ore to make steel, copper for
electrical production, cement for building construction– all of these things are necessary for
the capitalist and yet he knowingly pillages the finite supplies of these essential commodities
without regard to the economic sustainability of his business.
Profit is of course the driver for this unsustainable production. It can be said that profit is
both the motivation and the cause of death for the capitalist for even without environmental
cost accounting, capitalism as we know it simply cannot be sustained and many capitalist’s
know that to be the case. The capitalist can try to reason that business will lead the way to
a new method of production, a new material for use and continued prosperity but this view
is fatally flawed. It ignores that capitalism is already failing to find other materials for use,
even when the the price of gold, ore, cement and copper skyrocket. The capitalist who takes
this view also would do so by ignoring the fact that capitalism as its known today is not a
tried and true, time tested survivor but rather a blip in the economic history of the world that
looks wholly untested when put into historical context.
Despite this, the capitalists’ addiction keeps him going.
Hans: Iron and cement are not scarce, but there are many scarce minerals; lithium and rare earths were inthe news
lately.
Message [607] referenced by [654]. Next Message by IrvingHowe is [608].
[613] Lana: The vicious cycle. Are capitalists addicted to money? The answer is quite
obviously yes. As both an economics and environmental studies student, I find the fundamentals
of capitalism to be horribly inefficient and detrimental to the environment and
species of the world. Capitalists are so motivated by the prospect of squeezing another dollar
out of the resources (be it oil, child labor, forests, or themselves) that they do not care
that they are essentially setting themselves up for future collapse.
Capitalism is an unsustainable business that has the players enslaved. In the American
society today, much of what we equate as success has to do with the possessions we can
acquire. We believe that a bigger television, a second home on the beach, and that new
designer handbag will bring us happiness and boost our social stature. This may in fact be
true, but as a nation we work longer hours with less vacation time that most other developed
countries. We are constantly trying to keep up with the “Jones’” and it’s left us in a vicious
cycle of making lots of money but no time to actually enjoy it. We are enslaved by the idea
of money and what it can bring us.
Hans: Being addicted to money means being preoccupied with building up your net worth. This is not quite the
same as wanting to have a second home on the beach.
Next Message by Lana is [691].
[654] Hans: Individual Habits and Social Commandments. In past semesters I tried to
argue that the paradigm of addictions is not the right way to look at it. The need to accumulate
more and more money does not originate in capitalist greed but is deeply embedded in
the entire fabric of capitalist society. But the notion that capitalists are addicted is very appealing.
IrvingHowe [607] says “a resounding yes” and Lana [617] echoes “quite obviously
yes.” Also in earlier semesters, class participants were adamant that capitalists are addicted,
although I tried to argue against it.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 291
Why is my argument, which you can read for instance in [2007SP:601], not convincing
to you? Is it wrong? Lana supplies a hint how to solve this riddle. She switches, apparently
without giving it much thought, from the capitalists’ addiction to money to consumers’ addiction
to consumer goods.
There is a difference between Dagobert Duck sitting in his basement counting coins and
him sitting on the deck of his vacation home enjoying the sunset. It is not only a difference
but a contradiction. In 740:1/o, Marx brings the Faust quote “two souls, alas, do dwell within
his breast,” and in the same paragraph Marx hints at it that luxury consumption is a rebellion
of the capitalist as individual against his social function to oversee accumulation. See my
comments to [2008SP:712]. Apparently, the late Larry Miller was not rebellious enough in
this respect; one of the complaints of his family has been that he was so unavailable because
he was always busy making money.
The rich are not the only ones guilty here. When I was working on the line, I knew workers,
often in the skilled trades, who always worked, benefiting from good UAW overtime
premiums. This allowed them to provide for the family and avoid the “bitch at home” at the
same time.
Ok, here is the solution of the riddle. The social need to accumulate more and more
money is not only reflected in the greed of the capitalists, but also in the habits of many other
members of capitalist society which could be viewed as addictions. See also [Answer:512].
Regarding this last cross reference: I am in the process of compiling definite answers to
some of the questions. Download it as
or
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/halfpage/Answer.pdf
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/Answer.pdf
Hans.
Next Message by Hans is [662].
Question 525 is 562 in 2012fa:
Question 525 Why does Marx say that the surplus-value has the same age than the capital
from which it springs?
[598] Proletarian: graded A Surplus-Value, Capital, and the Holy Trinity. The reason
for Marx’s statement that surplus-value has the same age as the capital from which it sprung
can be drawn from Marx’s comparison of capital and surplus-value to a religious concept:
that God and his son, Christ, are one being.
In some Christian religions (most notably Catholicism and other orthodox religions), God
the Father and the God the Son are considered to be one being of the same substance. Even
though they may appear differentiated at first glance while reading scripture, such as in John
3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...”, practitioners of the
faith believe that the Father and the Son are one being. This was decided upon at the First
Council of Nicaea, and since that point, orthodox religions have maintained that God the
292 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three “persons” of the same “substance”
and are of the same age and form and in actuality one being.
Think of this seemingly strange conceptualization of the “Holy Trinity” using the clover
metaphor and it makes a bit more sense. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit are all leaves on a clover, but they are are together a clover (Godhead). They are all
components or sides of the same thing.
Marx asserts that surplus-value and the capital from which it sprung have a similar relationship.
At the end of an M-C-M’ cycle it is easy to say that £100 capital is different than
the £10 of surplus value, at least at first glance. After all, they seem distinct, and until the
£10 of surplus-value comes in, the £100 is not capital, and the £10 surplus value would not
be brought to the capitalist without the £100 capital.
However, at the end of the M-C-M’ string of transactions, when the capitalist receives his
£110, the distinction between the capital and the surplus value disappears and the capitalist
is left with £110. While conceptually surplus-value and capital can be discussed as separate,
they are in actuality indistinguishable, two parts of the same substance and of the same age
and form, and together they make up one “being”: M’.
The clover metaphor can be applied here, too (though it’s a two-leaf clover). The £100
capital and the £10 surplus-value are both leafs on the same clover, the clover being M’. As
M’, the surplus-value and capital are of the same substance and are indistinguishable.
Hans: “The same age” can be explained just by a simple father-son metaphor without the trinity metaphor: the
moment when it gives birth to surplus-value is the moment when the originally advanced sum of money becomes
capital. My son’s fifth birthday is the fifth anniversary of me being father. It is a little a stretch to call the length
of the father’s role as father his “age,” and this is what you should have explained. If this can be justified then it
follows that the age of the father is the same as the age of the son.
Next Message by Proletarian is [618].
Question 528 is 459 in 2007SP, 472 in 2008fa, and 544 in 2011fa:
Question 528 In what respects does M− C−M “contradict all the previously developed
laws bearing on the nature of commodities, value, money, and of circulation itself”?
[638] Wolf: Contradictions of M-C-M’. In regards to the nature of commodities: One
may obtain more desired use-values in circulation or in exchange but this does not affect
nor represent the value of commodities as both sides benefit (Capital 260-261). In M-C-M’,
additional value appears to be created out of thin air through mere inversion of simple commodity
circulation. This cannot be possible, because value is determined from the abstract
labor within commodities.
In regards to value: M-C-M’ appears to magically create additional value solely from
circulation. When you look at the totality of circulation, how can it be possible to increase
value from circulation alone if no new values are actually being created? If prices would increase
to result in surplus-value, prices would subsequently be raised throughout the totality
in order to represent values.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 293
In regards to money: If money represents value, how is it possible to increase money
without increasing value? Sure the seller can inflate prices but generally, buyers will gravitate
back towards the better represented value in price form. This is directly linked to the
above contradiction in regards to value.
In regards to circulation: Circulation cannot create additional value because it is not producing
or creating any use-value. On the other hand, how can a simple switch in form
from C-M-C and M-C-M result in M-C-M’? Additionally, if the exchanges between M-C
and C-M are contained in C-M-C and M-C-M (besides this making the general formula for
capital merely simple commodity circulation, resulting in deligitimizing the distinction of
M-C-M’), wouldn’t the producers tend to find other producers and exchange at better representations
of value (Capital 258-259)? Maybe in a particular instance can the capitalist
swindle and make M-C-M’ occur, but this doesn’t seem to be too possible, especially to a
point today with such extreme disparities in wealth distribution. It would have to be the
biggest swindle that happened by chance in history (even though capitalism is the biggest
swindle, I wouldn’t say it was by chance). Also, as stated throughout chapter five, circulation
cannot create surplus-value while simultaneously supposed to run on the exchange of equivalents
of value. This ties in to the above 3 contradictions with the nature of commodities,
value, and money.
From my limited understanding, is this where the purchasing of labor-power fits in, waged
labor, and expropriated surplus-value stems from, forced by primitive accumulation?
Hans: Exactly. This is the resolution in chapter Six of the puzzle how M-C-M’ is possible.
Next Message by Wolf is [685].
Question 529 is 306 in 1998WI, 340 in 2000fa, 402 in 2003fa, 451 in 2004fa, 463 in
2007fa, 470 in 2008SP, 545 in 2011fa, 569 in 2012fa, and 529 in Answer:
Question 529 Does Marx argue in 258:2/o that capitalist profits are middleman’s profits,
and if buyer and seller sold directly to each other, there would be no profit?
[627] Kobe: In this paragraph Marx is arguing that capitalists profits and middleman’s
profits don’t differ greatly. Instead, Marx talks of the capitalist who would switch from M-
C-M to a C-M-C. A C-M-C metabolism sells goods when they need to be sold otherwise
for example the good would sit in the warehouse and not be consumed. Switching from
the first option of M-C-M, which is static to the later of C-M-C would now make this an
emotional decision. By doing so the selling and purchasing time, starting with the selling
of a good to B which would lead to a purchase of goods from A. This example does not rid
capitalists from circulation, this example is one way a middleman can turn a profit. If buyer
and seller were to sell directly to each other, profits would still be made but would shrink the
transactions into a one-sided phase of ordinary circulation of commodities.
Hans: You didn’t get Marx’s joke. See [Answer:3].
Next Message by Kobe is [660].
Question 532 is 430 in 2005fa:
Question 532 How does the abstraction Marx makes in the first sentence of 260:2/o differ
from the ceteris paribus assumptions of modern economics?
294 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[624] Babyceta: graded A Birth weights, left-hand turns, and the difference between
abstraction and ceteris paribus. The ceteris paribus assumption in economics allows us
to observe outcomes between two variables by limiting or omitting the impact or influence of
other variables. It literally means “with other things the same” and it affords us a “snapshot”
(Hans, [2005fa:1064]) for a brief moment when other things can be rendered unimportant.
How realistic is this? Not very, but the “dismal science” is full of such suppositions. If we
are looking at the birth weight of infants, for example, we may consider the mother’s weight
and chose to hold constant her education level, her income, and even her marital status.
Certainly, these things matter, but economics is a “soft” science and we can do that with our
models. (Ever consider the assumption of full employment in neoclassical models?) Our
regression will give us the average birth weight as influenced by the mother’s weight, but
it would not provide insight into the social and physical forces that define a healthy child.
Hans says “this is like trying to understand how a car drives by turning the left wheel and
holding everything else constant.”
The abstraction Marx makes in the last sentence of 260:2/o is not an attempt to hold
all other variables constant. I believe that would be an absurd notion to Marx because his
critique of capitalism is not about isolating moments or “snapshots;” it is an archaeological
expedition to unearth the hidden forces present in the capitalist system. (Perhaps removing
our glasses any polishing them with his handkerchief might be a better analogy?) He does
this by building a framework or scaffolding that allows us to remain on the outside of the
building so that we can get an unobstructed view of its foundations (most of us are indeed
outsiders, but few realize this). Hans refers to these as “layers of forces” (the economy being
one force, and weather, perhaps, being another), and says that “the things that are abstracted
from are the extraneous forces which may interfere but do not contribute to the inner working
of the system under scrutiny.” [2005fa:1064] For example, a snowstorm may interfere with
the transportation of goods to the market, but it essentially has no bearing on the structure or
operation of markets themselves.
Marx, however, is not looking at birth weights. He is abstracting “all that happens in
exchange” (leaving aside the replacing of one use-value by another) so that we can get an
unobstructed view of the metamorphosis that occurs when commodities change form. Remember,
we are talking here about turning a quarter into five nickles. I think it is important
to understand what the “this” means in the statement “if we consider this in the abstract.”
Here, Marx is talking about exchange-value and that fact that exchange-value does not increase
in the exchange process. Marx says “the value of a commodity is expressed in its
price before it enters circulation, and it is therefore a pre-condition of circulation, not its
result.” [260:1] The fact that value is a pre-condition means it can easily be abstracted away
without affecting the manner in which we observe commodities change form.
Next Message by Babyceta is [879].
[628] Scholar: Marx’s abstraction means that there are no exceptions during the exchange,
that is to say, all the exchanges take place according to the law of exchange that identified
with by all the traders, such as the principle of equivalence and equity, exchange with free
will etc. Only if these principles are followed, the market exchange could go on wheels,
which has been proved by the market practice in a long history. So, Marx’s abstraction

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 295
is based on the economic facts, and in order to find the essential, it gets rid of some factors
that will destroy market exchange for violating the law of exchange, which happened
occasionally, but not the mainstream of development of the market economy.
Ceteris paribus assumptions of modern economics are not based on the facts or realities,
they are prone to subjective assumptions only for the convenience of constructing their
model. So, these assumptions are usually far from the practice of the economy, and so the
conclusion from these assumptions is just a castle in the air and is meaningless.
Next Message by Scholar is [672].
Question 537 is 309 in 1998WI, 343 in 2000fa, 362 in 2001fa, 408 in 2003fa, 458 in
2004fa, and 435 in 2005fa:
Question 537 How does Marx rebut the argument that exchange should be considered an
act of production because the same products in the hands of consumers are worth more than
in the hands of producers?
[629] Atticus: graded B Refutation of Newman. Marx refutes Newman’s theory that
“Commerce...adds value to products, for the same products in the hands of consumers are
worth more than in the hands of producers, and it may strictly be considered an act of
production” by stating that if this were the case, then the producer may as well directly
convert the commodities into money and skip the exchange process altogether (annotations
pp. 378-379). Buying and selling are not forms of production.
Hans makes the error in Newman’s theory clearer by stating that a “Marxist would answer:
you are trying to charge me twice for the same commodity” (ibid 378). If Newman’s
theory was correct then people would purchase commodities directly from the producer and
skip the middleman altogether. Large retail stores like Target or Walmart would not exist
unless they produced all of their own commodities.
Hans: I think your first paragraph draws on the following sentence in 261:1/o: “We might ... say that the buyer
performs what is ‘strictly’ an ‘act of production’ by converting stockings, for example, into money.” By this, Marx
does not mean skipping the middle man, but he mimics the seller’s argument from the buyer’s side. If the seller
argues that he benefits the buyer by converting the seller’s money into stockings, the buyer can argue that he benefits
the seller by converting the seller’s stockings into money. With the same justification with which the buyer asks for
more money for his stockings, the seller can ask for more stockings for his money. Sellers and buyers can come up
with all kinds of stories trying to convince the other party to agree to a deal more favorable to them. What counts
is not these stories, but what sets the long run price is the competition between the sellers. What matters for this
competition is the market price compared to the labor input. If a seller can fetch a good market price compared to
the labor input, he will produce more. In the long run, this will tend to make prices proportional to labor input. The
fact that the buyer gains use-value is not reflected in the long-run price of the commodity. This is what Marx means
when he says the buyer has to pay only for the value, not for the use-value.
Next Message by Atticus is [630].
Question 538 If you exchange risky assets with complementary profiles, so that both parties
have the same expected value but lower variance after the exchange, is this an example of
value created from exchange?
[618] Proletarian: graded A No Creation of Value From Exchanging Assets to Minimize
Variance. No, exchanging risky assets with complementary profiles so that both
296 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
parties have the same expected value but with lower variance is not an example of creation
of value from exchange.
For example, say that person A has two units of asset 1 and person B has two units of
asset 2. The expected value of asset 1 and asset 2 are both $100, meaning that before the
exchanging of any assets both person A and person B hold assets with a total expected value
of $200.
Now, say that the variability for the expected value of asset 1 is very high such that it
could end up with a value of $0-$200, though its expected value is still $100. On the other
hand, say that the variability of asset 2 is very low such that it could end up with a value of
$90-$110, though its expected value is still $100.
If person A should desire to exchange one unit of asset 1 for a unit of asset 2 to decrease
his variability (risk) in his bundle of assets so that his outcome could be between $90-$310
as opposed to $0-$400, he is doing so only to reduce his exposure to risk. The expected
value of his bundle would remain at $200.
Similarly, if person B should desire to exchange one unit of asset 2 for a unit of asset 1 to
increase his variability (risk) in his bundle so that his outcome could potentially be as high
as $310 as opposed to only $220 if he maintains his possession of both units of asset 2, he
does so only to increase his potential outcome (though he may also potentially have a worse
outcome by opening his bundle up to more variability).
Whether or not person A and person B decide to exchange their assets does not have
any effect on the total value of the assets they both started out with, no matter who ends up
holding them. The two units of asset 1 and two units of asset 2 all together have an expected
value of $400, and that expected value stays the same no matter who holds them.
Even if the expected values do not turn out to be the actual values and the actual values
end up being different than the expected values, whoever holds which assets does not affect
the final valuation of said assets. Say for example that the actual value of asset 1 turns out to
be $50 instead of the expected $100, and that the actual value of asset 2 turns out to be $110
instead of the expected $100. If that scenario plays out, then the total value of the assets will
be $320. The total value of all the assets will still be $320 no matter who holds which asset
in the end. By exchanging assets it is possible that either person A or person B could end up
in a better situation than he or she would have been without the exchange, but even then, his
or her improved outcome is not the result of the creation of value, but rather the result of the
fortuitous outcome of the exchange (which was equally unfortunate for the other person in
the exchange). Put simply, if from the exchange someone benefits while the other doesn’t,
it is not from the creation of value from the exchange but rather from the shifting of value
from one person to the other during the exchange.
Marx asserts that the creation of value cannot come from mere exchange. Value is only
created by the addition of labor, and as we will be demonstrated and discussed in chapters
six and seven, surplus-value can be created by capitalists performing M-C-M’ through the
purchase and use of the commodity of labor-power.
Hans: You are right, the expected values of the assets will not increase by the exchanges. But you ignore that the
standard deviations are affected. If you are risk averse, it is better not to put all your eggs into one basket.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 297
To make my point by a numerical example, I have to assume that the variability does not differ quite as much
as in your example. Assume each unit of asset 1 has standard deviation of 3, and asset 2 a standard deviation of
4. Also assume that both units of each asset always give the same outcome, say asset 1 is a share in corporation
A and asset 2 in corporation B. But assume assets 1 are probabilistically independent of assets 2. Then before the
exchange, A has a standard deviation of 6, and B a standard deviation of 8. After the exchange, each A and B has
a standard deviation of 5. (Extra credit if someone can do the math.) Also assume A and B are both risk averse.
This means they both gained in the exchange, although B gained more than A. How is this compatible with Marx’s
thesis that with respect to value, exchanges are a zero-sum game?
Next Message by Proletarian is [622].
Question 540 is 473 in 2007fa, 503 in 2009fa, and 556 in 2011fa:
Question 540 Ramsay asks: “who are the consumers?” This is a rhetorical question, obviously
he had an answer in mind. Which answer?
[625] Kaimani: Who is the Consumer? I think that the answer to this question, and
the one that Ramsay is looking for, is that he recognizes that there is a class of people who
only consume and do not produce. In reality, it is the seller who is the consumer, the seller
increases their prices to make profit. This exceeds the actual price or value of the commodity
and the consumer buys it because of their individual need or want but doesn’t necessarily
need to use it as a tool to create more surplus for the consumer or anyone else for that matter.
This profit allows the seller to go and seek out more commodities to sell in the market place.
The cycle goes back to the seller because it is up to the seller to create or find a commodity
that is wanted in the market place and the seller needs to be able to sell the commodity for
money and a profit so that the seller can go and purchase or consume other items that will
increase the sellers profit and living. The seller is the ultimate consumer, without the seller,
trade would cease to happen and needed commodities would remain idle and therefore, the
access to an array of needed commodities in the market place would be virtually impossible.
Message [625] referenced by [630]. Next Message by Kaimani is [796].
[630] Atticus: (graded A+) The consumers are everyone. Kaimani’s answer to this
question in [625] incorrect. He/she claims that the seller is the ultimate consumer. It has
already been noted that everyone in a capitalistic economy are both sellers and buyers. It
seems as though Kaimani may have misunderstood the readings by his/her statement that
the “seller increases their prices to make a profit”. The origins of profit, or surplus-value,
have not yet been explained. Marx’s statement 264:2 debunks [625]: “Those who most
consistently uphold the illusion that surplus-value has its origin in a nominal rise of prices,
or in the privilege which the seller has of selling too dear, assume therefore that there exists a
class of buyers who do not sell, i.e. a class of consumers who do not produce.” If a seller sells
her commodity at ten percent above cost then she, in turn, will purchase other commodities
at ten percent above their cost.
To answer Ramsay’s question: the consumers are everyone.
Next Message by Atticus is [716].
Question 546 is 313 in 1998WI, 398 in 2002fa, 413 in 2003fa, 463 in 2004fa, 440 in
2005fa, 472 in 2007SP, 478 in 2007fa, 509 in 2009fa, and 562 in 2011fa:
298 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 546 What is the difference between a shoemaker, who adds to the value of his
leather by turning the leather into shoes, and a capitalist, who adds to the value of his
money by investing it?
[619] AlexDaily: graded A The Shoemaker vs. the Capitalist. The Shoemaker differs
from the Capitalist in their relationship to the value of the commodity. The Shoemaker adds
to the value of the shoe by turning the leather into a shoe, or in simpler terms, by adding
his labor, whereas the Capitalist seeks an increase in the value without adding labor of his
own. The Capitalist, therefore, needs to find a different source of labor. The producer fills
this void because they need capital to start producing. Wherefore, the capitalist can invest
and receive as Ada puts it in [2009fa:660] “virtually free labor (an increase in value for
which he/she only pays for in time).” Furthermore, the Capitalist is looking for a return on
his investment. Therefore, the Capitalist needs to simply separate the producer from the
means of production. Hans explains in [2009fa:660] that “Today’s capitalists do not have
to separate the producers from the means of production. They benefit from the separation
which society has done for them in the past.” Because of this separation, the Capitalist can
pay the laborer less than he is worth and gain a return on his investment. Hans put it this way
in [2003fa:361] “In a capitalist society, money increases by itself not because the investors
are so smart, but because those who create all value, the workers, are cut off from the means
of production and therefore get wages that are far below the value they produce.”
Message [619] referenced by [633]. Next Message by AlexDaily is [653].
[633] Hal: The Capitalist’s Shoe Collection. I agree with AlexDaily [619], but I have
more to add.
Essentially, the shoemaker adds value to the world, while the capitalist does not. Instead,
the capitalist attempts to make citizens totally dependent on him to fulfill their needs, thereby
allowing him to extort money from producers. If the shoemaker adds 10 beautifully handcrafted
shoes to the world, the capitalist would figure out a way to extort one pair to add to
his collection. In a new turn of events, the producers would then read about the capitalist’s
beautiful shoe collection.
Next Message by Hal is [1006].
[1079] Goldtone: graded A A shoemaker is different from a capitalist in her ability to
add value to leather in order to produce shoes, because she uses her own labor to produce
this value. A capitalist on the other hand invests his money in order to get more money.
This process does not add value to anything, but rather is only trading money for more
money. The capitalist takes the value of the laborer through his monopoly of the means of
production. Hans notes this in [2003fa:361]:
In a capitalist society, money increases by itself not because the investors are so smart,
but because those who create all value, the workers, are cut off from the means of production
and therefore get wages that are far below the value they produce.
Next Message by Goldtone is [1087].
[1095] Kaush: The difference is that the shoemaker creates value by his/her own labor
and can increase value by adding new labor. There is more value to the shoes than the leather
because the shoes contain more quantity of labor. The shoemaker employs (C-M-C). The
investor invests money in a commodity to make money (M-C-M). Therefore the investor is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 299
not increasing the value of investment; instead, the investor is making use of the prevailing
social relations that produce value from workers’ unpaid labor.
First Message by Kaush is [182].
[1126] Smartergirl: The difference between the shoe maker and investor is substantial.
The shoe maker adds value to his leather by making shoes because he increases his own
labor to create the shoe. By increasing his labor the shoe has resulted in more value. The
capitalist does not add additional labor to produce his profits, instead he uses abstinence.
He abstains from using a portion of his profits and because he has used them productively
he is rewarded with more money and profits. His money has increased therefore increasing
value without having to labor for the value. My initial answer was on the right track but
a bit unclear and skewed. I said that because there was no commodity exchanged from the
investor that the value was distorted. The value is distorted but not solely because there is not
an exchange but because the labor has not increased. It is increased labor that creates value
in Marxs view. However the investor does not increase or use any labor but has manipulated
the system to create value without increasing labor.
Hans: Marx does not believe that abstinence creates value. Marx would say it is not possible to create value
without labor. Therefore if an investor gets value without labor, someone else in society must be working without
getting the value he or she has produced. Marx also emphasizes that this can happen without value being distorted,
i.e., it can happen in a situation in which every commodity is bought and sold exactly at their values.
Next Message by Smartergirl is [1128].
[1129] RexManning: graded A The difference between a shoe maker and a capitalist is
that a shoe maker adds their labor to the leather to create shoes. By using his labor to make
boots the shoe maker has created value with his labor. The boots now have more value than
the leather because of the added labor. The capitalist wants an increase in value without
actually adding his labor. Which is why he exploits the producer, so that they create the
value with their labor, while the capitalist underpays them and keeps them separated from
the means of production. The wages that the capitalist pays the laborer are far below the
value they produce, and so the capitalist can continue to increase his value without actually
having to input his labor. The capitalist is virtually doing nothing but keeping the producer
from the means of production in order to increase his value.
Next Message by RexManning is [1186].
[1196] Guh: The Shoemaker. There is a clear difference between a shoemaker and a
capitalist when it comes to their value and labor. A shoemaker who makes his own shoe is
creating value through his labor. He creates more value as he makes shoes with the leather,
and is doing this solely on his own. Now, as for a capitalist, who uses laborers to create
value for him, which he then invests. Furthermore, the capitalist will add value to his money
by investing it and getting a return on his investment. Therefore the difference in the two is
that with a capitalist his investment does not add value to his money, but the producer does.
Hans: Marx would say that the value is added not by the capitalist by investing but by the laborers by working for
a lower wage than the product of their labor.
First Message by Guh is [168].
Question 569 is 281 in 1996sp, 328 in 1998WI, 419 in 2002fa, 435 in 2003fa, 485 in
2004fa, 462 in 2005fa, 494 in 2007SP, 499 in 2007fa, 506 in 2008SP, 509 in 2008fa, 532
in 2009fa, and 611 in 2012fa:
300 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 569 Which two sets of conditions must be satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity?
[827] Kaush: Labor-power to be a commodity. The two sets of conditions that must be
satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity are:
1. The laborer must have full freedom to sell his/her labor-power, must be the sole free
owner and seller of his/her labor ability and sold for a finite period of time.
2. The laborer must have freedom from the means of production. Therefore the laborer
must sell his/her labor-power but not the products of his/her labor. In the case of selling
the product of their labor, there is no need to sell their labor-power since selling a finished
product is more profitable.
Hans: This is the right answer.
Message [827] referenced by [2012fa:1201]. Next Message by Kaush is [835].
Question 580 Describe the differences and similarities between the commodity labor-power
and the commodities discussed in chapter One.
[960] Frida: graded A Labor Power as a Commodity. Labor-Power is similar in that it
meets the prerequisites for being a commodity. It has value, labor went into producing it.
It has use-value, the details of this will be explained below. And, somewhat disturbingly,
it is produced for sale. By this I mean that capitalists are always making sure there will be
enough labor power on the market.
The main difference that sets labor power apart is that during the consumption of its use
value it creates value. This difference is crucial because it forms the foundation for the entire
capitalist system. Capitalists pay workers for the exchange value of their labor power, which
turns out to be much less than the value produced by their labor, which enters the equation
as a use-value
Hans: As I see it, it is not produced for sale, this is the main difference, but it still must be sold because it is not a
use-value in the hands of its owner because the owner is cut off from the means of production.
First Message by Frida is [82].
Question 589 is 269 in 1997WI and 481 in 2005fa:
Question 589 Marx says elsewhere that labor unions are necessary for workers to be able
to receive a wage which corresponds to the value of their labor-power and is not below it.
Can you bring arguments from chapter Six to support this?
[644] Hans: Utah Labor Law about Breaks. After reading School’s [641] I wondered
whether employers weren’t obligated to give bathroom breaks to their employees. This
differs from State to State, and Utah laws only regulate the breaks for minors but not for
adult workers. This is reminiscent of the legislation about the length of the working-day in
the mid-nineteenth century discussed by Marx in chapter Ten: initially, only the workingdays
of female workers and child workers was regulated, not that of adult male workers.
Right now a unionization drive at call centers is under way in Utah. It is done by the
IBEW, one of the best Unions. They are especially targeting two big ACS call centers, but
they would love to make it a state wide campaign at every call center. Here is their web site:

http://CallCenterUnion.org
U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 301
I’d like to thank Willie, the taller guy in the video, for looking up the Utah labor laws for
us. He is a U of U graduate.
Cmellen: I don’t think unions is the answer for all call centers. I worked in management at a predominant call
center internationally, and the centers that had unionized were not always happier employees. Is the grass greener?
Hans: I think you are right Cmellen. I hear that the Verizon call centers in town are unionized, but conditions there
are not much better than in the non-union shops, because the Union has given too many concessions. The Union
justifies these concessions by the fact that call centers can easily be moved. Marx says about this: even though
the workers are economically weaker than the capitalists and will lose many labor struggles, they should organize
anyway. The main result of this organization will be that the workers overcome their isolation and confront the
class enemy together. I.e., Union activity is the prelude to the working class assuming power.
Next Message by Hans is [649].
Question 591 is 271 in 1997WI, 346 in 1999SP, 382 in 2000fa, 439 in 2002fa, 455 in
2003fa, 506 in 2004fa, 483 in 2005fa, 531 in 2008fa, 554 in 2009fa, 609 in 2011fa, and
635 in 2012fa:
Question 591 Argue why the commodity the worker sells is labor-power, and not labor.
[621] Balrog: graded A Workers do have Power, i.e. Labor Power. Many of us, just as
most in a capitalistic society, come to the realization that in order to survive in this world
we must work for those who hold the means of production. (Unless we are somehow able
to break the mold and find a factory, machine or both in our possession). In fall 2003
Hans [2003fa:400] stated that “‘Labor’ is the miraculous activity by which humans affect
nature according to their designs.” The worker knows that what he is providing his capitalist
employer is his potential labor or labor-power. He would only be able to consider the work he
sells as labor if he were in control of the means of production. In this manner the capitalist
maintains control and continues to pay meager wages to his workers in exchange for the
labor-power necessary for his production.
Message [621] referenced by [622]. Next Message by Balrog is [664].
[622] Proletarian: Labor-power is a commodity, labor is not. I think that Balrog comes
close to the correct answer in his response [621], but I believe he missed one crucial point:
labor cannot be sold since it is not a commodity. The products of labor, commodities, can be
sold because they have value, which is measured by the amount of congealed human labor
in the commodity, but again, the labor is not what’s being sold, the product of labor, the
commodity, is what’s being sold.
Balrog writes “He would only be able to consider the work he sells as labor if he were
in control of the means of production.” This is not right, or at least not phrased correctly.
The worker would not consider himself selling labor or labor-power at all if he owned the
means of production. If the worker owned the means of production, he would consider the
labor that he expended on the production of the commodities differently. He would not see
that he was selling any labor at all, instead he would see that he was working to produce
commodities which contain his labor which he could then take to market.
302 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
It’s important to distinguish between the commodity of labor-power and the use of labor
in production of commodities. In the simple model that Marx spent so much time developing,
humans work to produce commodities with their labor, commodities which can be exchanged
for other commodities with different use-values. However, as Marx demonstrated
in his discussion on labor-power as a commodity, workers do not have access to means of
production, but they have needs that must be met. Even if they could somehow come to own
the means of production, they would still have to wait for the production and exchange of
their commodities before they could receive other commodities with use-values they need,
such as food, clothing, shelter, etc. Because the worker cannot wait the amount of time it
would take to procure the means of production, start producing commodities, and sell those
commodities (since the worker would need to consume commodities before he would be
able to exchange the commodities he produces), the worker turns to the capitalist and sells
the one commodity he does own: his potential for labor, or his labor-power.
The reason the worker sells labor-power and not labor is because he is selling the potential
for productive work. The capitalist that purchases the worker’s labor power is the
one who determines how to use this labor in the production of commodities. The worker is
simply selling his potential to perform the work the capitalist needs done, and the capitalist
is the one who sells the commodities that contain the congealed human labor of the worker.
Again, the worker who sells his labor-power does not consider that he is working to produce
commodities he can take to market, instead he sees that the time he spends working is the
commodity that he is exchanging (selling to the capitalist) for wages. The worker does not
care about what that labor-power is used for, all he cares about is receiving in exchange for
his commodity of labor-power another commodity that he can use, in this case his wages.
Next Message by Proletarian is [634].
[632] Kat: Labor vs labor power. There is an inherent difference between labor and
labor-power. The worker cannot sell his or her labor, but rather sells his or her labor power.
To understand the difference, it is necessary to consider how Marx understands labor. Labor
is the link between a commodity and its exchange value. Labor is the difference between
pieces of linen and a coat. Though, a worker cannot spontaneously create a coat out of linen.
They must enlist the help of necessary production tools. So labor comes from the partnership
of a worker’s labor-power and certain means of production.
Labor-power represents the capacity to perform labor that each worker possesses. This
may differ from worker to worker and is a reflection of subsistence. Wages will range depending
on what a worker requires to survive and complete their respective jobs. Thus,
labor-power and its worth is tied to what is considered fair and necessary.
So, in all, labor-power represents worth in the form of subsistence wages and the capacity
to perform labor. It alone cannot produce commodities, but a worker will sell this power to
the owners of the means of production in order to complete the necessary steps to production.
Hans: Two remarks about your example “Labor is the difference between pieces of linen and a coat.”
(1) In a commodity society, labor not only creates use-values (coats out of cloth and thread), but it also creates
value. Your previous sentence was “Labor is the link between a commodity and its exchange value.” It is this link
not because of the use-value it creates, but because of the value it creates.
(2) With his examples “20 yards of linen = 1 coat” Marx did not imply that the coats were made of linen. He
was thinking of woolen coats.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 303
Next Message by Kat is [679].
[835] Kaush: Labor-power, and not labor. In a capitalist system, where the value of
labor-power is determined by market forces and favorable to the capitalist, the capitalist is
after the laborer’s potential but not his labor. The capitalist is in the market to engage the
laborer’s future potential with the means of production owned by the capitalist. The laborer
can only sell labor-power, part of the production process that he owns.
If a laborer owned the means of production, he/she would be selling commodities but not
his or her labor-power.
Message [835] referenced by [841]. Next Message by Kaush is [938].
[841] Hans: How can you tell the worker is selling labor-power, not labor? Kaush
[835] writes: “the capitalist is after the laborer’s potential but not his labor.” This is half
wrong and half right. It is wrong because the capitalist DOES want the laborer to work for
him. This work adds value to the product. Strutting about and showing off your muscles
(your labor-power) does not create value, only the USE of this labor-power for the production
of something, i.e., labor, creates value. In this sense, the capitalist IS after the worker’s
labor.
But the statement is half right because the capitalist does not want to and does not have to
PURCHASE the labor from the laborer. The laborer cannot SELL his labor to the capitalist
because he cannot make use of his own labor-power to perform labor, because he is missing
an important ingredient of the labor process, the means of production. The separation from
the means of production prevents the worker from selling his labor to anybody and even
from using it himself. He has no other choice but to sell his labor-POWER which is much
cheaper than the labor itself. The consumption by the capitalist of the commodity laborpower
which he has bought is the production process in which the laborer performs labor
for the capitalist.
One can also argue that the labor which the laborer performs does not BELONG to the
laborer and therefore cannot be sold by the laborer. Since the laborer has already sold his
labor-power, all the labor which the laborer performs during the time for which this laborpower
is sold belongs to the capitalist. This can also be seen by the fact that the capitalist
gives the laborer orders what to do.
These are the best arguments I can come up with to show that the laborer is selling laborpower
and not labor. Can you think of any other arguments?
Message [841] referenced by [844] and [2012fa:909]. Next Message by Hans is [845].
[844] Ryan: RE: How can you tell the worker is selling labor-power, not labor? The
best argument that I can think of is asking a group of people to build you a home.
Let’s say you find ten men that have the skills to build you a home i.e. they can perform
the labor. You would never ask them to just show up to your piece of land and start building
without supplying them with the needed materials (wood, nails, roofing). Meaning that you
can’t be just purchasing skills.
You would of course supply them with all that is needed to perform the task and then ask
them to build you a home.
You would never pay them just because they have the skills to perform the labor.
304 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
You would pay them to build you a home, that is, you would pay for their labor-power.
Which we know is the means of production. To build on what Hans [841] said; Hans states
that labor can not be sold without the means of production. This is a great example because
no one would pay you just because you can do something, they pay you to do something.
Hans also states that labor does not have value even to the laborer. This can be seen by
thinking about the men that know how to build homes. They would never become rich just
because the know how to do it or can do it, they need someone to purchase that ability, which
is to purchase their labor-power.
If you were paid for your labor, you technically would not have to work. You would just
have to have the ability to perform the task. Clearly no one is going to pay you to do nothing
so you must be selling your Labor-power. Which is to say that you are not selling the ability
to build a home, but the ability plus the means of production to produce a useful good, to
actually build the home.
Message [844] referenced by [845]. Next Message by Ryan is [927].
[845] Hans: Building a House Together with your Friends. Ryan [844] brings an
excellent example, building a house, but sometimes he seems confused by the word “laborpower”.
He thinks labor-power is the labor of the workers empowered by the means of
production. I.e., he thinks labor-power is more than labor, but in Marx’s terminology laborpower
is less than labor. Marx uses the word “labor-power” for the ability to do the work,
which is necessary to do the work but which alone is not enough to do the work. And Marx
uses the word “labor” for the process itself, which can only take place if labor-power is
combined with the other means of production.
Let me try to re-tell Ryan’s example using these concepts:
Let’s say you find ten men that have the skills to build you a home i.e. they have the
required labor-power. If you just ask them to show up to your piece of land, this labor-power
will not be very useful to you. They can’t build anything without tools and the needed
materials (wood, nails, roofing). You have to supply all this and make sure they don’t run
out of supplies before the job is finished. But this impotence of mere labor-power without
means of production also works in your favor. If they were able to use their labor-power
themselves then you would have to pay them the full value which their labor creates. But
their own labor-power is useless for them. They will never become rich just because they
know how to build houses or can build houses. In order to turn their labor-power into actual
labor they need someone to supply them with materials and tools and a piece of land and
who knows how to find a buyer. Therefore you don’t have to pay them the full value created
by their labor but you can just pay them a normal wage that allows them to pay their bills.
In other words, if the market value of the house is $150,000 and the materials cost $50,000,
then you don’t have to pay them the full $100,000 which their labor adds to the materials
but only the $50,000 which they would get if they work overtime on their normal jobs.
Message [845] referenced by [2012fa:649]. Next Message by Hans is [846].
[1011] Cmellen: graded A The laborer does not have the means to production himself,
so he must instead sell his labor-power, which is only the potential for labor. The laborer
would only be able to consider the work he sells as labor if he were in control of the means of

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 305
production, unfortunately the laborer does not have the means to production (such as factory,
capital assets, etc).
Next Message by Cmellen is [1139].
[1044] Kleenex: The worker sells his labor-power to the capitalist. He does not sell his
labor because he does not own the means of production. He sells his ability to do work,
which is labor-power. The worker basically enters into an agreement with the capitalist to
give his labor-power for a set wage, usually lower than the true value of his work. The
laborer does this because he has no choice: he cannot realize the full value of his labor and
the commodity that comes out of it because he doesn’t own the factory, the production line,
the machines to produce it. The capitalist will hopefully pay him enough in wages so that
he can survive, but the capitalist has and will never pay the worker what his work is actually
worth. This is what fuels the M-C-M process. Therein lies the root of the existence of
relative surplus-value. It is a manifestation of the growing gap between the laborer and the
capitalist.
Next Message by Kleenex is [1093].
[1060] KA: In a capitalist society, laborers must work for those that hold the means to
production in order to survive (earn wages). In most cases, if not all, the worker does not
have the means of production needed to produce the commodities on their own. For this
reason, workers sell their labor-power to the capitalists in order to produce the commodity
and be able to earn a wage needed to survive. In turn, the capitalists pay the worker wages
that are due for the amount of time spent producing the commodity. The wages paid to the
worker are less than the prices charged to consume the commodity, therefore providing the
capitalists with a profit. The price of the labor-power must be lower than the price of the
commodity, in order to produce the commodity and employ the worker. The worker is not
in the position to charge a higher price for their labor; it is the capitalists who make this
determination.
Hans: You are saying the capitalists can decide what to pay in wages. Marx does not think so. Wages are determined
like the value of any other commodity by the labor-time it takes to reproduce the commodity labor-power.
Next Message by KA is [1061].
[1100] Fisher: labor power vs. labor. A capitalist will seek to hire a laborer to help
create a commodity. The value that his labor creates in the form of a commodity for the
capitalist, is sold by the laborer to the capitalist in the form of labor power. The exchange
is labor power from the laborer for money or means to stay alive from the capitalist. The
capitalist then receives his completed commodity ready for sale or exchange on the market.
The capitalist is looking for gains, only after the laborer is compensated for his labor power
which he sold the capitalist. Before he can do so, he has had to purchase resources to create
the commodity. One of these is labor power, he agrees to pay a predetermined price with
the laborer who is selling labor power. The laborer has labor power which has a value less
than the value of the commodity which it creates, but has the upper hand in negotiating with
capitalist for this reason.
Hans: As Marx sees the transaction, the laborer does not sell his product to the capitalist because the laborer never
owns the product. Marx also thinks the laborer does not have the upper hand in this transaction, on the contrary, the
playing field is tilted against the laborer.
Next Message by Fisher is [1122].
306 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[1104] Lindsey: The worker sells his labor-power to the capitalist, not his labor. We
know this because firstly, the sale of labor-power requires the worker to be present while the
capitalist consumes it. We can see that this is in fact the case in real life because a worker
must actually go to work (to the capitalist’s place) during certain hours in order to get paid
(or in other words to sell his labor-power). Secondly, if the worker sold his labor, he would
get paid for the amount of value which he created (the value of the commodities). We know
that this is not what he is paid because the capitalists obtain a surplus-value (or profit). The
fact that the worker sells his labor-power (and doesn’t know it) allows the capitalist to exploit
the worker. On the surface, it appears that the worker is selling his labor, so he thinks that
he is getting paid for all the labor he does and he does not object, but in reality, part of the
time he works is unpaid.
Next Message by Lindsey is [1115].
Question 592 When Marx wrote Capital, Social Security or any other tax-financed retirement
plans did not yet exist. But capitalism itself generated such plans. How do they fit into
Marx’s theory of the commodity labor-power and its value?
[933] ANK: Social Security. This last week I was watching the national news. One of
the top stories was a proposed idea to raise the retirement age from 66 to 69 because of the
upcoming social security funding crisis. Over 700 billion dollars has been paid out from
social security since its inception by FDR in 1935. With 70 billion baby boomers headed
towards retirement, the program will not be able to pay out to everyone and will run out of
funds in 27 years. Many ideas have been proposed to fix this problem, and this idea may
exploit workers more than any other. While watching this news story, I immediately thought
about what Marx would say to this proposal. Social programs arise because of the problems
with capitalism and the exploitation of workers. Making workers work three extra years
to be able to retire and receive social security furthers the exploitation of workers and is a
continued example of the failures of capitalism.
Message [933] referenced by [945] and [955]. Next Message by ANK is [934].
[937] Kleenex: more on Social Security. Also, on social security, following ANK’s
thought, productivity would only decrease if the worker had to wait an additional three years
until retirement. In general, as in a longer work day, motivation fades and intensity of labor
wanes. In my workplace, there are some employees who are quite “old,” and just riding out
their time until they reach their retirement. For civilian government work, that means thirty
years of service. Once you hit the thirty-year mark, you would be entitled to 30% of your
pay, but would not be able to receive these benefits until a certain age. Anyway, though these
employees are very knowledgeable and experienced, it appears that they lack innovation and
flexibility, which are vital in an ever-changing work environment. The mere fact that they
are old in age is not the problem. The problem is that as new computer systems and new,
efficient practices become introduced, their desire to adapt and be productive is lessened, in
my experience. I believe that Marx would say that decreasing the eligibility age for Social
Security would be a good thing, and the above example would support the argument.
To comment on ANK’s submission though, is the Social Security problem attributed to a
“failure of capitalism,” or more of a failure of the Social Security system itself? I do not quite

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 307
see the connection between the social security issue and exploitation of workers. Simply, the
Social Security program is out of balance. More money is going out than coming in.
Message [937] referenced by [945], [955], and [1064]. Next Message by Kleenex is [1019].
[945] Smartergirl: Social Security. It is interesting to me that they are considering
increasing the retirement age by 3 years, see [933]. It definitely exploits the worker and how
truly productive does the capitalist think that the worker will be in their seventies? Don’t
misunderstand I’m not saying that a worker in their seventies is not productive but there is a
significant difference in a 70 year old that is working because of a passion or desire to stay
busy versus a person having to work to collect a retirement or for survival. Some people
enjoy working for the satisfaction, so to avoid confusion I’m not speaking of them but of the
people that have to work to retire. Kleenex [937] brings up a great point about the workers’
ability to be flexible and learn new skills in a changing industry, as well as the lessened
motivation. I agree and see the changes in myself. As a young 20 year old in the work force
I was out to make a name for myself and conquer corporate America or start a company of
my own. I was on a quest for money. In my thirties I take flexibility in schedule, benefits
and stability over a higher pay. Who knows what I will want in my 40’s, 50’s etc. I know
one thing and that’s that I wont want to get up to go to work at 69. By the time I’m there
they may raise it to 75.
My point is don’t buy into this ridiculous idea that raising the age of retirement by 3
years will benefit social security benefits. There are articles everywhere discussing how this
generation may be the first to have their parents outlive them. With the increase in heart
disease due to obesity, poor nutrition and lack of exercise, which I believe people would
do more of if not for the leaps in technology and desire to be one of the fastest moving
economies, we don’t need to worry about the majority reaching 69.
If heart disease the number 1 killer in America doesn’t weed some of the working class
out, cancer which is also rapidly developing and evolving will. It is horribly sad but a reality
that the capitalist medical and insurance companies are aware of. Create ridiculous plans
that make it undesirable to get preventable care and by the time people get to a doctor it’s
a terminal disease. Marx would have seen this. He would know that insurance companies
being privately owned and allowed to make a profit off health care is the worst form of
Capitalism also referred to as usury.
If a person can work, survive every pitfall that may come their way (there are many in
this country) and live to see 66 then by all means pay them their dang retirement!
Message [945] referenced by [955] and [1064]. Next Message by Smartergirl is [1093].
[955] Hans: Capitalists trying to own our entire lives. ANK [933] is asking “what
would Marx say to this proposal” (to raise the retirement age)? Here is my attempt to answer
this. If the workers live longer and are able to work longer, then of course the capitalists think
they, and not the workers, own this extra time. Robert writes in [894]:
Since the capitalist controls the means of production and the laborer has
no way to convert his labor-power into value to sustain himself or herself
without such means of production, the non-surface, real relationship between
the worker and capitalist, can be described as follows:
308 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The capitalist allows the laborer access to the capitalist’s mean of production
under two conditions: 1) that the laborer cedes control over all of his
labor-power to the capitalist; and 2) the capitalist will pay the laborer a
wage which will allow the laborer to survive and to reproduce his or her
labor-power.
“The labor cedes control over all of his labor-power” means: all your life! Only if you are
too old to work do you deserve time for yourself (as the capitalist sees it). When Kleenex
[937] and Smartergirl [945] argue that after 66 the worker is indeed too old to work, then they
have already ceded too much ground because they have accepted this claim of the capitalist
that any productive time of the workers belongs to them. A Marxist response to the raising
of the retirement age would be to say: we are not your slaves. If modern technology allows
us to live longer, then the capitalists have no right to steal this time from us too.
Next Message by Hans is [997].
Question 601 is 642 in 2012fa:
Question 601 Is is true that that the labor process changes nature? It certainly changes
natural things into other natural things, but it only uses the forces of nature to do this.
Which arguments can be given to support Marx’s claim that it changes nature itself?
[652] Cosmopolita: Labor changes nature itself. Labor is first a process between a man
and nature. A human being uses its hands and thoughts to create final products. I.e., in the
production process to create a table or chair, wood is needed, time and “labor.” Labor is
required as well as tools to create the final product.
A human tends to change his own nature, and natural state to choose and decide what to
do with his time. Human beings differ from animals in this matter. Humans decide by choice,
don’t go to work because they have to. They could decide not to and create the necessary
commodities for their own satisfaction. Therefore labor power is an exclusively human
characteristic. Humans decide to sell their labor power to get the “medium of exchange” to
buy their necessary and preferable commodities that suits best their needs. Don’t create all
the commodities themselves for a big market, but instead sell their “labor power” by choice
to get a value on a “medium of exchange” commodity.
Also, buyers of labor power consume the “commodity” of “labor power” by setting the
seller of labor power to work. Workers are hired then to produce commodities (i.e. chair,
table) which contain value.
A human being then changes therefore his original nature, by subordinating the play of
its powers to his command to satisfy his specific needs. In this case, we can differentiate
two types of human beings. One that values the “commodity of labor power” and one that
values more the “commodity with exchange value”
Therefore, humans being part of nature themselves are changed, (using their brains,
breath, hands, body, time, etc.) for them, then change the nature into commodities with
‘value’ itself, selling their labor power to the buyers of this commodity.
Hans: (1) Humans cannot produce their necessities as solitary beings; production is necessarily a social process.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 309
(2) Acording to Marx, the class division between workers and capitalists does not come from some liking
labor-power better and some liking money better.
(3) You are describing how human beings are changed, not how (or whether) nature itself is changed.
Message [652] referenced by [2012fa:930]. Next Message by Cosmopolita is [712].
Question 603 is 618 in 2011fa and 644 in 2012fa:
Question 603 What distinguishes human labor from the labor of an animal or a machine?
[641] School: Our purpose makes us different. On a natural level humans and animals
share instinctive forms of labor. This is where we take our surroundings which is nature and
effect the change of nature. For example when a groundhog burrows its nest into the ground,
the animal is taking nature and changing nature into a home. Also, another great example
would be the bald eagle. This bird takes surrounding tree limbs, grass, and other forms of
nature to create the nest where the eagle will perch. Both the groundhog and the eagle took
nature and with their labor created a home which satisfies the most basic instinctive need
to exist. Humans also share these basic instinctive needs. Which leads us to the question
what makes our labor different than the labor of animals? The answer to this would be that
humans realize their “purpose” in the natural realm. If we were to write an equation for this
it would be, Production + Human Action = Purpose. Production is governed by purpose
and that is the reason why our actions are a reflection of our purpose. At times humans will
willfully ignore the most basic needs for their purpose. The most prevalent example of this
that I can relate to would be at my current job. I work at a call center, and it is my purpose
to answer phones. There are times when I will ignore the need to simply go the bathroom
because I have to wait for my break time. I will ignore my basic needs for my purpose. This
is the reason why humans differ from animals.
Message [641] referenced by [642] and [644]. Next Message by School is [989].
[642] Utefan: brain conception. School [641] writes about the commonality between
humans and animals. He/she uses the making of a home out of natural building blocks to
show what makes us similar. In the last paragraph School proclaims that humans realize
their purpose in the natural realm and that is what distinguishes us from animals. Now the
difference is in that animals fulfill a purpose while humans realize theirs—though many
hate spiders and prefer their destruction, they perform many functions like keeping the bug
population under control and fulfill a purpose.
Marx plainly says that the difference is that we conceive what we do prior to fulfilling
our labour. It exists ideally before ever being molded into fruition. Once again it is our brain
intellect and knowledge that separates us. Animals fulfill many purposes but never come to
fully realize them. They toil and breed and eat without a major purpose other than to survive
while humans grow in population, stature, knowledge, and advancement.
Further, one’s enjoyment and the amount said person is attracted to the nature of the
work determines whether his attention is forced or not. That person allows for growth and
production that can’t be matched on the animal level. Animals proceed in life to overcome
obstacles but never come to their own realization or part as it were to the grand scheme of
things. Humans on the other hand proceed to realize not just fulfill purpose.
310 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: It is true that humans are the most advanced living beings on planet earth. But this does not mean that the
planet was created for them. You will experience in your lifetime how the planet is trying to get rid of humans,
trying to fight them off like a disease organism.
Next Message by Utefan is [901].
Question 605 is 620 in 2011fa and 646 in 2012fa:
Question 605 What distinguishes human labor from play?
[650] Oreo: graded A– Labor vs. Play. I think that purpose distinguishes human labor
from play. When we work, we are working towards a purpose—which is to produce a
product or service. When we play, we are doing so without a purpose. We aren’t meaning to
do anything more than to entertain our own wills. As mentioned in the text, we are primarily
fulfilling a purpose during production—meaning the effects of our activities (the product)
matter more than our will to produce them. The opposite is true in the Hegelian paradigm,
where human will comes first, as it does during play. While I believe that I understand
the difference between these two, I wondered if it is possible to simultaneously play and
perform labor. If an individual freely pursues his will and chooses to purposelessly weave
baskets because it’s what he loves to do, without intending to earn money, then hasn’t he also
performed human labor? Marx states that the 3 moments of the labor process are purposeful
activity, the object on which the work is performed and the instruments of that work. The
basket weaver’s activity only encompasses 2 of these 3 characteristics, excluding purposeful
activity. Therefore, the free willed basket weaver is not performing human labor since he is
not primarily intending to produce these products for sale, he is simply playing.
Hans: I think there is an entire spectrum between work and play. After you learn something really well then it
becomes more like play. It has nothing to do with selling the product. It is possible to do serious work even if the
final purpose is not a sale.
Message [650] referenced by [2011fa:618] and [2012fa:928]. Next Message by Oreo is [875].
Question 607 Is it correct to say that nature is the ultimate producer, and man only manipulates
nature for his own benefit? Compare this with the parallel statement: the worker is
the ultimate producer, and the capitalist only manipulates the worker to take advantage of
him.
[651] TINDOZ: Who is the puppet? Is it correct to say that nature is the ultimate producer,
and man only manipulates nature for his own benefit? After reading the annotations
in this chapter I reluctantly answer this question with a no; nature is not the ultimate producer
and man is. The reading speaks of the object of labor and the instrument of labor
as being two things that interact with each other whereas the laborer is at the other end of
this object, instrument, producer relationship. So, as for my thoughts today, I think that
nature is most often the object of labor (though as the reading says it is also the instrument
as the “original tool shed”) and that man is the producer. I make this claim because of the
second half of the 607 question which asks for a comparison between the aforementioned
question and the worker/capitalist (who is the master and who is the puppet) relationship.
When originally scanning the chapter and questions before reading, I thought I’d say that
the worker is the ultimate producer and that the capitalist is a lazy good-for-nothing won’t
get his hands dirty task master who doesn’t do anything grunt-work enough to entitle him to
the term “producer”. I initially took this stand because I’ve had bosses that take credit for

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 311
everything that I did when they did nothing. However, after reading, I see that it’s not so cut
and dry (good guy/bad guy) and that the capitalist is actually the producer and the worker is
in fact the instrument of labor (and though I can reconcile that that was probably true with
my work history - that I was an instrument to my ‘producer’ boss, it doesn’t make me like
my old boss any more).
So, when transferring my reluctant realization from the worker/capitalist relationship of
who is actually producing and what instruments they use on their object of labor, it seems to
me that in that respect man is the producer and nature is the object of labor (though it also
provides the instruments in some cases). Nature is the object because man (the producer)
uses tools (like how the capitalist uses the worker) on the nature (for example a back hoe
being used as a tool on the object of labor, ie the ground). This is my thought today, but
I might sway with my other opinion tomorrow that nature is the ultimate producer. Why,
because nature is in fact the only one actually “producing” something and it uses itself as it’s
own instrument of labor (much like the example in the text of the fruit pickers’ arms actually
being the instrument). Nature uses the perfect combination of moisture, sun, pressure, etc
to create sandstone in Central Utah and other combinations to create Granite in the Wasatch
Range. By this way of looking at it, nature is the ultimate producer and Man just comes
along and manipulates nature (sandstone, granite) for his own benefit. I’m so conflicted here
because both answers seem right to me at some level, but I’m going to go with my first
answer because I think it better coincides with the worker/capitalist relationship.
Hans: What makes you think that both parallel questions should get the same answer? I think your original
intuitions are correct that humans are producers in their relation with nature, but capitalists aren’t in their relations
with their workers.
Message [651] referenced by [666]. Next Message by TINDOZ is [710].
[666] Baseball: Re: Who is the puppet? Before reading Marx’s earlier writings about the
relationship between nature and human labor-power, I believed that nature was the “ultimate
producer.” The thought that nature provides an abundance of raw materials which are, after
being manipulated by humans and machines, transformed into useful products which can
be sold on the market was all I knew of. But in the earlier readings, Marx states that the
raw materials provided by nature have no use-values as they are. I did not understand this
at first because materials such as wood water are useful in their natural states. But I was
wrong. Marx then says that it is the human labor power which extracts the use-values out
of the raw materials, making them products which can be sold on the market. So, before
when I believed that wood and water had use values in their natural state, I didn’t take into
consideration the labor used to chop the wood, or shape it into a chair or a door or even just
a 2 by 4. This is all labor power which takes a raw material and creates a product with a use
value. With the water, it needs to be cleaned and purified, which is labor power. So although
nature provides us with materials which we create products from, it is not the “ultimate
producer.” It takes human labor power to extract the use-values out of those materials and
create the products we use in everyday life.
Hans: Your original intuition was better than the “insights” you gained from your misunderstanings of Marx and
of the word “ultimate.”
(1) Marx said that natural resources don’t have value because they don’t contain human labor. He does say that
they have use-value. Think of the air we breathe, of sunlight, or of water. Most water occurring in nature is clean.
It is the humans who pollute it.
312 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
(2) Humans purifying the water are not the “ultimate” producers of this water. The antithesis of “ultimate” is
“subsidiary.” Cleaning is a subsidiary process.
Therefore nature is clearly the ultimate producer of natural resources. What about human-made consumption
goods such as a cell phone. Is nature also the ultimate producer of it? Here the issue is not so clear-cut, see [651]
and my note to it.
Next Message by Baseball is [751].
Question 621 is 665 in 2012fa:
Question 621 What is the difference between the purchase of a service and the purchase of
labor-power?
[643] Giant: graded B– Variance of purchases. Labor power is when human labor is
used to create something that can be exchanged for money. When purchasing a service it is
more focused on the use-value of the service.
Even though both labor power and service can be purchased, the end results are different.
With labor power the laborer sells their labor power to someone and loses control of their
service because it is being sold to someone else. Similar to a farmer selling an apple then
claiming that the apple is still his. This type of purchase is focused more on financial surplus
so it can be invested elsewhere.
Purchase of a service is focused on a more equal exchange, as Marx phrased it,“value for
value”. For example if cheese was made and it costs the maker $2.00, then they would sell
it for $2.00 because that was the labor cost of the cheese.
Hans: Your second paragraph puzzles me. Cheese is not a service. $2 is not a labor cost (labor costs are measured
in hours of labor). The “cost” of the products to the capitalist are usually less than their values (because the capitalist
don’t pay the workers an equivalent of the value they create). Can you explain?
Next Message by Giant is [687].
Question 627 is 415 in 2001fa, 449 in 2002fa, 465 in 2003fa, 516 in 2004fa, 490 in
2005fa, 644 in 2011fa, 673 in 2012fa, and 627 in Answer:
Question 627 Why is the day taken as unit of labor-power, instead of hour or week?
[667] Tyler: Daily measurement. A day is taken as the unit for labor-power because
for “labor-power, the smallest unit of measurement is the day” (Annotations pg. 470). Marx
shows that the day is the ideal unit of measurement because it is divided into two distinct
parts. First, the necessary labor, is the time required for the worker to “produce an equivalent
of his or her daily wage” (Annotations pg. 469). The second part, surplus labor, is the extra
time worked where the capitalist makes his or her profit. Therefore, the day is the best
option as the unit of measurement for labor-power. Pisciphiliac also notes that the week
would not work since its not possible for workers to work such a shift and the hour would
be too difficult to monitor [2005fa:1139].
Message [667] referenced by [693]. Next Message by Tyler is [694].
[669] Sly: Breaking it down is the key to understanding. In order to understand why a
day is taken as the (measurement) unit of labor-power, rather than an hour or a week, we must
first understand the definition of working-day. In the Annotations Marx defines a workingday
by first dividing it into two parts: Necessary Labor and Surplus Labor. Marx defines
necessary labor time as: “the length of time needed by the worker every day to produce an

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 313
equivalent to his or her daily wage.” (Annotations, pg. 469) and then Marx defines surplus
labor as: “the additional time during which the worker produces value appropriated without
equivalent by the capitalist.” (Annotations, pg. 496)
The necessary labor can simply be viewed as portion that is mandated by economic law,
Marx defines this economic law as the: “productivity of the kind of labor performed”, and
this the half of the working-day in which the laborer “reproduce(s) the value he received
when he (or she) sold it.” [340:1].
The best definition of surplus is given by Tres in [2002fa:226]: he stated that: “The
surplus part is where the profits are derived and its variable.” – and I would add that this is
the portion that allows capitalist to be exactly that, and this is where profits are made since
the wages have already been accounted for in necessary labor.
Marx states that the wage is the: “reimbursement for the costs of reproducing the laborpower”
and that “For labor-power, the smallest unit of measurement is the day.” (Annotations,
pg. 470) This gives day a value, and this value is the daily wage – Marx states that
the daily wage is determined by: “the value of the ‘average daily means of subsistence’ of
the laborer.” (Annotations, pg. 471) The reason why this all makes sense is because Marx
had previous made light that: “The reproduction costs of labor-power can be computed as
the daily costs for food, rent, clothing utilities, transportation, etc.” (Annotations, pg. 470) –
those are an individual’s means of “daily subsistence”.
The reason that the measurements of labor-power are done in days is that the other possible
measurements of an hour or a week would be complicated if not impossible. First a
off as stated in many of the archive its makes no sense to work weeklong shifts, the laborers
would never go home and the capitalists would have to pay even more money. Secondly, if
labor-power were measured by the hour – tracking wages would become difficult, as Tres
pointed out in [2002fa:226]: “Workers would be clocking in and out every hour.” – I would
also add that this measurement would cost the capitalist more money because of the additional
methods employed to keep track of such a situation. In many of the examples give a
working day can range anywhere from 8, 10, 12, or 14 hours – this value is determined by
an agreement between the laborer and the capitalist, but this is essentially a consolidation of
multiple hours. Simply put a day is the easiest, and most sensible form of measurement for
labor-power.
Hans: This is a careful analysis, but I think I have a better answer in [Answer:4].
Message [669] referenced by [986] and [1004]. Next Message by Sly is [733].
[693] Zohan: A few thoughts on Tyler’s answer. I believe that the annotations from
page 469, Marx’s explanation of how the working day can be divided into necessary labor
and surplus labor is helpful to understand why the day is taken as the unit of labor-power. I
agree with what Tyler [667] wrote here. But, that alone doesn’t give a sufficient explanation.
I think an important part to understanding the question is stated in the second paragraph
in the annotations on page 470. Tyler quoted “for labor-power, the smallest unit of measurement
is the day.” The next sentence, which was not included, states, “The reproduction costs
of labor-power can be computed as the daily costs for food, rent clothing, utilities, transportation,
etc.” Trying to measure each of this cost on an hourly level could be very difficult.
This sentence suggests that it is much more feasible to measure these cost on a daily level.
314 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Also workers do not work weekly shifts, so it would not be an efficient measurement to try
and measure unit of labor-power as a weekly unit. This notion further helps explain why the
day was taken as the unit of labor power instead of the hour or week.
Next Message by Zohan is [725].
[702] Hans: Difficult Question. This question has more substance than it seems. Laborpower
cannot be measured in hours because the worker is selling his entire capacity to work
to the capitalist, not just an hour here or there. Therefore wages must cover his total survival
needs. The day is the shortest period for which it makes sense to compute this.
I am compiling a list of final answers to some of the questions. You can download it from
or
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/halfpage/Answer.pdf
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/Answer.pdf
This pdf contains a more detailed answer in [Answer:4].
Message [702] referenced by [750] and [956]. Next Message by Hans is [728].
[894] Robert: graded A Hans provides a very complete answer to this question in [Answer:4].
I derive most of the following answer (as well as what I wrote in the in class exam)
from his answer.
Since the capitalist controls the means of production and the laborer has no way to convert
his labor-power into value to sustain himself or herself without such means of production,
the non-surface, real relationship between the worker and capitalist, can be described as
follows:
The capitalist allows the laborer access to the capitalist’s mean of production under two
conditions: 1) that the laborer cedes control over all of his labor-power to the capitalist; and
2) the capitalist will pay the laborer a wage which will allow the laborer to survive and to
reproduce his or her labor-power.
These two conditions give rise to subsidiary issues. The first is how much wage does the
laborer need to survive and the second, since we are dealing in a “free” society that does not
permit slavery, regards the limits of the capitalist’s consumption of the laborer’s labor-power.
Social forces answer the first question; a wage is a socially normal amount of compensation
that allows subsistence and reproduction of the laborer. Nevertheless, the question still
remains for what period of time does the wage allow the laborer to subside and reproduce?
The laborer has ceded control over all of his labor-power to the capitalist: all of his
power to work, every day, including weekends and holidays. The capitalist cannot require
the laborer to work all of the time for two physical reasons: the laborer will die if he cannot
rest and the capitalist may eventually run out of workers from whom to exploit value if the
laborer cannot reproduce himself or herself. There is also a moral reason: the capitalist
should allow the labor some time to enjoy the life of a human being.
One could compute the wage for a day, a week, a year, or a lifetime. If the period
were longer than a day then weekends, holidays, etc. would have to all be agreed and the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 315
computation becomes more complex. It is also not practical to compute the subsistence of a
human being for less than a day. A day is a natural cycle of eating and sleeping that repeats
consistently. One hour during a day has different subsistence requirements (lunch hour, for
example) that another hour (9-10 in the morning, for example).
Furthermore, a laborer goes to work in daily increments. He arrives at work sometime
during the day and departs for home at some time during the day. It is unusual that a worker
would report to work and remain there for a week or a month at a time.
All of these factors argue that a day is the shortest, most logical, timeframe for the computation
of a unit of labor-power.
Message [894] referenced by [955]. Next Message by Robert is [1014].
[899] Kat: Labor-power is measured in units of days because it is possible to know definitively
the value of daily labor. The worker must work long enough in a day to reproduce his
wages. He/she must work long enough to survive; the unit wages of a day is a representation
of what is necessary for him to survive that given day.
It is possible to extend the unit of labor-power and measure it longer terms, but the day is
the shortest possible and easiest to comprehend. Labor-power cannot, though, be measured
in hours because it is a derived quantity [Answer:4]. It is figured using the daily unit of
labor-power.
Next Message by Kat is [1092].
[907] Intaglio: The day is taken as a unit of labor power because it is the most logical for
both the capitalist and worker. An hour’s wage is far too small to meet the worker’s means
of subsistence. The worker will have to work several hours per day to meet their survival
needs, so it is redundant to pay by the hour. Instead, paying by the smallest block of labor
that keeps the worker alive is the most natural. A week is far too long because a definite
break in labor takes place once the worker necessarily returns home to regain strength, eat,
and sleep before the next day’s work.
Next Message by Intaglio is [1062].
[928] Ryan: The day is taken as a measure of labor-power for four reasons:
First, because labor power is sold by a quantity that must be measured as a value to sustain
life. Using any value other then a day would not make sense as you would never work just
to live for an hour.
Second, Labor-power is measured by the amount of the labor one can do in a day. Laborpower,
which is sold to the capitalist is a measure of the amount that one needs to also live
in the form of a wage. Labor-power must be sold for a finite time, and must be a function of
a daily wage.
Third, Labor-value is a function of labor-power and is used to calculate the contributions
in a period of time. Using an hour would be too small and using a week would not work
as most people do not work everyday in a week. Also Marx likes to compare the work of
different laborers and their values, he likes to compare them in a way to say that the value of
one workers labor could be worth 2 or 3 days worth of the others.
316 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Fourth, Labor-power to be a commodity must be able to be sold freely. You can not
measure it longer than 24 hours as that would be slavery, and it must be free to sell every
day, or it would not be labor-power.
In conclusion, we use the day because 24 hours is the max time that could be used, and
labor-power is the work that can be done in a day. Labor-power is the work that can be sold
in a day. And using anything smaller then a day would not factor the basic needs to live of
the seller of the labor-power.
Next Message by Ryan is [975].
[956] TINDOZ: The day is taken as the unit of labor power because it is the smallest unit
of measure in which a laborer can earn an hourly wage that’s necessary-labor-time/surpluslabor-time
ratio exceeds the amount of money needed to keep the worker alive for the whole
day. As Hans said [702] this question is about labor-power and as such it “cannot be measured
in hours because the worker is selling his entire capacity to work to the capitalist, not
just an hour here or there”. As the worker is selling his entire capacity to work, measuring
his labor by the hour doesn’t make sense. Furthermore we also know the value of daily
labor-power to be the daily wage which is “the value of the ‘average daily means of subsistence’
of the laborer.” (Annotations pg 471). So because we know the value of daily labor
power, we can subdivide it into an hourly wage and we can then use that hourly wage when
figureing the necessary-labor-time/surplus-labor-time ratio. The day is the shortest measure
we can do this in. If we were to attempt this with the week, the precision of the measure of
labor-power would not be as accurate as by doing it by the day.
Next Message by TINDOZ is [1052].
[976] JSmits: graded A The day is taken as unit of labor-power instead of hour or week
because it is the most accurate and easiest way of measuring labor-power. Measuring an
hour of work is not realistic because as Hans says in [2005fa:1216], “the thing we are trying
to measure is labor-power, not labor.” Measuring a week of labor-power is possible and so is
a year or lifetime but in hours you can’t compute this because we know the daily value of the
labor-power and not the hourly-value. This makes the day the shortest possible measuring
unit for labor-power.
Next Message by JSmits is [982].
[986] Sly: In my paper submission, I failed to mention the division of the day as Marx
defines it. And seeing as how I have previously answered this question ([2010fa:669]) I
should have included that information, but I digress.
A day is divided into two portions the necessary labor time, and the surplus labor. Necessary
labor time as Marx defines it is: “the length of time needed by the worker every
day to produce an equivalent to his or her daily wage.” (Annotations, pg. 469) and then
Marx defines surplus labor as: “the additional time during which the worker produces value
appropriated without equivalent by the capitalist.” (Annotations, pg. 496).
The necessary labor time in its simplest form can be viewed as the half of the day where
the laborer reproduces his or her compensation (wage) - this particular portion of the day is
mandated by economic law, and the surplus of labor can simply be view defined as put Tres
stated in [2002fa:226]: “The surplus part is where the profits are derived and it is variable.”
- In my previous submission I added this is the portion in which capitalist are capitalist. I

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 317
stand by that point, but I also realize now that every day, hour, minute, or second contains
surplus of labor. This is the portion of the day where capitalists make the purest profit.
I cited in [2010fa:669] that the wage as Marx defines it is the: “reimbursement for the
costs of reproducing the labor-power” and that “For labor-power, the smallest unit of measurement
is the day.” (Annotations, pg. 470) By taking these definitions into account, the
value of a day is established, and that is by daily wage. Marx states that the daily wage
is determined by: “the value of the ‘average daily means of subsistence’ of the laborer.”
The average daily means of subsistence being - the cost of living in the form of food, rent,
clothing utilities, transportation, etc.
With all of this information taken into account let’s examine why labor time is not measured
in a week: If labor time were to be measured in a week, it is physically impossible for
a laborer to work for an entire week with rest, food, etc., and capitalists want the most profit
- if a week long shift did exist the capitalist would have to pay the laborer while the laborer
isn’t working. So not only is it physically impossible, it is also financially impossible. If a
laborer were to be paid by the hour, they consequently would have to clock in an out every
hour - thus detracting from their time spent working. Furthermore the capitalist would have
to invest more profit into a tracking method such a case, which also decrease profit.
Finally we have come the the measurement in terms of a day. With the previous points I
have made you may think that a day is 24 hours and you already stated that a person can’t
possibly work such a long period without food, rest, etc. Well a working day and an actual
day are much different. A day in terms of labor-power is defined in a worker’s contract,
agreement...what have you. It can range anywhere from 8, 10, 12, and even 14 hours. There
are minimal and maximal bounds in a working day, and the maximal bounds are set forth in
the agreement between the capitalist and the worker. This makes the day the most logical
choice, it is physically possible to work between 8 and 14 hours, and a capitalist gets the
most for his money.
Hans: Weeks or months are possible as you say in your in-class answer, but days are the shortest possible time. If
workers work week-long shifts (such as on fishing boats) then the week is the shortest possible time.
Next Message by Sly is [987].
[995] Rico: Although this question appears to be simple, it contains a dense substance that
is difficult to grasp. I think it is important to understand what labor-power is before diving
into any reasons why it can’t be measured on an hourly basis. In [2003fa:398], Rostenbach
provides us with many helpful insights, which I will use to help explain my answer. Rostenbach
states that “the value of labor-power, like that of any other commodity, is determined by
the labor-time necessary for its production.” The labor-time necessary for production is too
complex to be measured in small increments broken down by hours. If we were to attempt
to do such a thing, it would become too confusing and cumbersome. Deriving the laborer’s
daily wage is another important concept in explaining why the day is taken as unit of laborpower.
The day is used as unit of labor-power because the laborer delivers labor-power in
daily increments and not in hourly increments. From this, Rostenback states that “the laborer’s
daily wage is determined by the value of the average daily means of subsistence.”
This is important because the laborer can derive his daily labor by the daily wage he earns.
The minimum unit of labor-power is measured by days.
Next Message by Rico is [996].
318 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 635 is 452 in 2002fa, 468 in 2003fa, 519 in 2004fa, 493 in 2005fa, 535 in
2007SP, 542 in 2008SP, 572 in 2009fa, 653 in 2011fa, 682 in 2012fa, and 653 in Answer:
Question 635 Explain Marx’s sentence: “The working-day is determinable but in and for
itself indeterminate.”
[659] PLG: graded A Is this question determinable? The following paragraph must be
closely analyzed in order to answer Question 635
“Although one of its parts is determined by the working time required for the reproduction
of the labor power of the laborer himself, its total length varies with the duration of the
surplus-labor. The working day is, therefore, determinable, but in and for itself indeterminate.”
Marx Pg. 472, Annotations
First off, Marx uses the word “determined” in the first sentence. Marx makes it clear that
the necessary-labor time in the working day can be determined, but that the surplus-labor in
the working day is variable.
Is this what he is referring to when he states in the next sentence, “ The working day is,
therefore, determinable..”?
I suspect that Marx is in fact making a reference to the necessary-labor time in the last
sentence when he uses the word determinable. Marx is thus breaking up the definition of the
working-day. He is giving two different meanings to “working-day” in a similar way to how
he gives different meanings to the word “value”. Marx is stating that there is a “workingday”
and a “working-day in and for itself”. The former is referencing the necessary-labor
time, and the latter is referencing the working-day in a capitalist society.
This perspective differs from the interpretation Hans provides on page 473. Hans believes
that Marx is referring to extra-economic forces and their ability to determine a working
day. This is a highly plausible interpretation, but I’m suspicious about Marx’ use of the
words determinable and determined in such close proximity to each other, while referring to
different things.
Nono [2009fa:696] also refers to legalities in making a work day determinable. However,
Nono believes that extra-economic forces do not determine a work-day, rather they leave the
work-day “in and for itself indeterminate.” I would side with Hans’ perspective that extraeconomic
forces do determine a work-day in a capitalist society.
When Marx says “in and for itself”, he is personifying the working day. I interpret this as
Marx making a reference to capitalism and the social identity that the working day has taken
on because of capitalism. We would not have a “working-day” if all we had to fulfill was
the necessary-labor time. Some occupations would potentially take 8 hours a day, or some
would only take a few hours a day, but there would be no common “working-day”. This
personified working day is what Marx refers to as indeterminate. If the surplus labor was
removed, a true working day could be derived. Such a working day would exist in a Marxian
society. Thus he is stating that the necessary-labor is determinable, but the working-day as
it relates to capitalism is indeterminate.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 319
Hans: That’s a long and thoughtful submission, and I didn’t have time during the Semester to do justice to it. If
you are reading this in the archives and find it interesting enough to respond to it, I would be happy to give you
credit for it.
Next Message by PLG is [776].
[668] RexManning: graded A– weight 50% so, is it? or isn’t it?? Looking at the work
day in Marx line examples of A—-B+B—C, we can see that there are two separate parts
that make up the total work day. For argument’s sake, I will assume that the laborer in this
example needs to work 5 hours as part of the necessary work day, the amount to produce
his daily labor-power. This amount is fixed, which leaves B—-C to vary in length (hours
worked). If we add A—-B+B–C, we get A——C, or the total work day. What eludes us,
is how A—–C is determinable, when what exists in the middle is able to vary. Since Marx
seems to leave us guessing as to what he means, after he goes through all of the trouble
explaining why the work day is indeterminate, and then says that it is determinable, it only
seems fair to throw out some possibilities and see where they take us. Could Marx be
referring to the determinable part of the work day as the fixed portion of A—B? and the
indeterminable portion as A—-C because the varying hours that can exist between B—C?
Since he refers to the work day as A—B+B—C, I do not think that he means to separate
the two lines into determinable and indeterminable. I can only think of one other option;
and what I think he means is that the work day is indeterminable due to the variance from
B—C, but due to economic laws that must fix the work day to a non-varying and easily
identifiable number, in order for this to be advantageous in a capitalist society, it is therefore,
also determinable.
Hans: You must distinguish between “determinate” and “determinable.” “Determinate” means: it is determined
by the laws of economics. “Determinable” means: it can be determined. Marx says the length of the working
day is indeterminate (negation) but it can be determined, i.e., the indeterminacy can be overcome (negation of the
negation).
Next Message by RexManning is [670].
Question 640 is 396 in 2000fa, 421 in 2001fa, 455 in 2002fa, 471 in 2003fa, 523 in
2004fa, 497 in 2005fa, 539 in 2007SP, 538 in 2007fa, 660 in 2011fa, and 689 in 2012fa:
Question 640 How long is the working-day from the point of view of the capitalist?
[653] AlexDaily: graded A The length of the working-day. The length of the workingday,
from the point of view of the capitalist, is getting the most time out of their labor force
as possible with having their labor force at full capacity. The capitalist feels the labor is a
commodity he has purchased. Therefore, in Marx’s words, the capitalist “seeks to get the
greatest possible benefit out of the use-value of his commodity.” Monkeys states it this way
in [2002fa:333.4]: “however long it takes to, with a fixed amount of expended capital, extract
the greatest possible ‘quantity of labor’ from the workers.” The capitalist does this to
make the largest profit possible. Felix explains how this allows the capitalist to make a profit
in [2000fa:146]: “the capitalist’s goal is to acquire as much surplus labor as possible, or in
other words he would like the working day to have as many surplus-hours as possible. The
more surplus hours that the capitalist can buy, the more money she will make.” Therefore,
the determining factors for what composes a work day in the eyes of the capitalist are physiological
limits; a person can only work so many hours a day at full capacity, and the social/
cultural limits. Although the social/cultural limits are easy discarded by the capitalist, in
320 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[2000fa:153] Hans explains why “the capitalist knows that he must respect the physiological
limits of the working day, but whenever the worker takes a break or uses his time for his
family or his social needs, the capitalist always watches him with jealousy and suspicion.
He considers the time he gives the worker for this as a concession, and if there is competitive
pressure on the business he is quick to say that he can no longer afford these concessions.”
Next Message by AlexDaily is [860].
[1091] Tyler: Jakeman gave a good definition of the length of the working day by saying,
“the working day for the capitalist is as long as he can possibly make it while enabling
the worker to be able to work the next day” [2007SP:752]. This definition reinforces the
notion that there is no minimum bound for the working day because the capitalist has no
minimum amount of profit. However, the maximum length of the working day is 24 hours,
but the capitalist must take certain physiological and social factors into consideration. The
physiological bound for the work day implies that the worker must be allowed time to rest
in order to remain productive. The social factor refers to the need of the worker to have
personal time to reflect and interact so as to maintain their sanity.
Next Message by Tyler is [1140].
[1114] Hal: graded A Just enough energy for tomorrow. The capitalist wishes to maximize
the length of the working day subject to one constraint: He must keep the day short
enough so that he can continually retain and renew his supply of exploited workers. In other
words, he must provide enough time for the worker to eat, sleep, and procreate. Other than
that constraint, the capitalist wishes to maximize the length of the working day because that
maximizes surplus value.
Next Message by Hal is [1155].
[1158] Orville: content A+ late penalty 1% From the point of view of the capitalist, the
minimum working day could never be less than what Marx calls the necessary labor time.
In fact, for the capitalist to make a profit, the working day must always be longer than the
necessary labor time. The maximum length of a working day musn’t be so long that the
laborers can revolt against the capitalist, and the capitalist musn’t work the laborers longer
than they physically can. That is, they must be able to work the next day.
Hans: Good point with the revolt. The capitalists must be careful (and are careful) not to act in such a way that
they spark a revolt. But see also [1135].
Next Message by Orville is [1160].
[1195] Tunda: In the point of view of the Capitalist the working day is defined by the way
the capitalist pays for his labor. He pays on a daily wage to the laborer and the capitalist
wants to create surplus-value so the working day is determined by days instead of hours. I
would imagine that the capitalist would want his workers to work for the maximum amount
of hours in the day that they are allowed to work.
First Message by Tunda is [505].
Question 641 is 422 in 2001fa, 456 in 2002fa, 472 in 2003fa, 524 in 2004fa, 498 in
2005fa, 540 in 2007SP, and 578 in 2009fa:
Question 641 Isn’t it the motive of the worker, like that of the capitalist, to get as much
money as possible?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 321
[655] Alex: graded A Capitalist vs Worker–getting rich (or die trying). The motive of
the worker is indeed to gain as much money as possible, just like the capitalist. However,
this dream for the worker is not as easy to make a reality as it is for the capitalist. The way
the worker goes about striving to make more money, or as much money as a capitalist, is by
working overtime and as many hours as he/she possibly can for the capitalist. The capitalist
on the other hand, is doing very little in order to get rich. In fact, what the capitalist does
is hire these workers who are able to work for the price that he/she offers. By doing so,
these workers are exploited and work as much as they can to ultimately make the capitalist
rich, with the idea that they are making themselves rich instead. These workers do not have
bargaining power, and it is very unlikely that they ever will, with the competitive market for
jobs (especially nowadays) that they find themselves in. Workers are forced to take whatever
wage the capitalist is offering in order to make enough money to survive. Most of the times,
these subsistence wages are higher than their current wages, or even minimum wages, if it’s
what they are receiving. The worker is encouraged to make more money in order to receive
more than the bare minimum, and thus works more hours because he/she (often) cannot
receive a raise from the capitalist. This is in turn beneficial for the capitalist instead because
he/she is making more money from the worker who is being employed at a very minimal
cost. In the end, the worker will work itself to death (or until he/she wears out) trying to
have as much or more money than his capitalist boss, while the boss sits back in the chair
and watches this phenomenon happen a repeated number of times.
Message [655] referenced by [673]. Next Message by Alex is [746].
[673] ANK: Overtime hours or higher wages. Like the capitalist, it is the motive of the
worker to get as much money as possible. Capitalists respond to the workers’ plea for more
money, not by raising wages, but by offering overtime hours. As Alex points out in [655],
as workers use overtime to make as much money as possible, the capitalist is the greatest
beneficiary. Capitalists have no limit to the amount of money they want to earn, because it is
possible for them to continue to make more and more money as their workers increase their
hours without raising wages.
The primary goal of the worker is to earn enough money to provide for their family. The
secondary goal for workers is to gain as much money as possible even after providing for
their family, because they believe they still haven’t earned enough and that it is possible that
they could earn more. Because the worker lives in the capitalist society, they are hesitant
to leave the possibility of making more money on the table. As workers neglect family
relationships and other physiological and moral needs to work long hours, they sacrifice
good health for their employer. Marx states that, “Capital therefore takes no account of
the health and the length of life of the worker, unless society forces it to do so.” (Capital,
380:1–381:0) Society’s reaction to workers working too many hours is overtime wages.
Overtime wages prevent the capitalist from working employees overtime without some form
of compensation for the neglect of family relationships and personal health and require the
capitalist to evaluate whether paying overtime wages to employees working overtime hours
is profitable.
Next Message by ANK is [677].
[684] SMIKEC: The motive of the worker would be to make the most money as possible.
They strive to do this in order to have a fulfilling life for their family and in some instances
322 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
are pressured with trying to “keep up with the Jones’.” However, the worker is content with
working for the capitalist, sometimes looking around the corner for the next best thing, but
not to the point of wanting to start his own business. As stated in 10.1.d, the worker would
not want to be a part of the marketplace due to the lack of equality and a fair and level playing
field. This is why workers stay with-in the boundaries of the capitalist due to the amount of
potential competition from firm to firm. This keeps the capitalist having to pay a fair price
to the worker in order to keep them happy. Weighing the level of happiness changes from
worker to worker. This is why capitalist try to sweeten the pot with benefits. The capitalist
has to walk a fine line in this situation being pulled from one side of not “over paying” and
the other side of the fence, being worker retention.
Message [684] referenced by [687]. Next Message by SMIKEC is [700].
Question 644 is 398 in 2000fa, 458 in 2002fa, 474 in 2003fa, 527 in 2004fa, 501 in
2005fa, 543 in 2007SP, 553 in 2008fa, 664 in 2011fa, and 693 in 2012fa:
Question 644 Why did the worker in this whole argument never say to the capitalist “you
are exploiting me”?
[665] Frida: graded A+ Not people, but masks. There is a double reason that the worker
never said “you are exploiting me”. The main structural part is a basic understanding that the
capitalist has the right to do with his purchased commodity as he sees fit, within the bounds
of commodity exchange. Also, this is an argument against the “character mask” of capital;
it is not an argument against a person.
The worker (supposedly) entered the market as a free agent, as an owner of the commodity
labor-power. When she sold her labor-power on the market, she was implicitly agreeing
to the basic laws of commodity exchange. If the capitalist wants to extract surplus-labor out
of the worker while using the labor power that he purchased, that is his right. (If we don’t
bring anything but the laws of commodity exchange). The worker then chooses, wisely, to
argue within the bounds of commodity exchange, within which she can say nothing about
exploitation.
Another important point is that the capitalist doesn’t function as an individual while exploiting
the worker and buying labor-power on the market. He fuctions as the character mask
of capitalist. The capitalist, properly understood, isn’t a person, it is a relation in society.
When arguing against a mask, or a social role, one should not use points that would normally
appeal to the emotions or morality of a person. “You are exploiting me” would only
be a functional point when arguing against a human being. This imagery of the capitalist
not being a person, but a social relation, so saying that the capitalist isn’t human has bad
overtones. It helps to say that the worker is another social mask/relation. This argument
between worker and capitalist is an argument between masks.
Message [665] referenced by [2012fa:946]. Next Message by Frida is [688].
[679] Kat: Exploited Worker. If the worker is upset being at the mercy of the capitalist,
why did the worker never speak up and say “you are exploiting me”? Perhaps the biggest
reason is, whether they like it or not, they must sell their labor to these capitalists in order
to survive. Even if they spoke up to the capitalist, they would be forced to sell their labor

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 323
to someone else who owns the means of production. So, if the worker feels his/her job is at
risk, they will not speak their grievances.
This is not the only reason a worker will not stand up to the capitalist, though. The
capitalist will likely have insulated themselves from the threat of a worker doing so. They
do this by targeting undereducated workers that may not appreciate their labor’s worth. They
may also target illegal workers who will work cheaply because they do not have the same
liberties as other workers and they are threatened by deportation.
To a certain extent, exploitation requires one party who is willing to be exploited. The
worker can save themselves from being exploited by banding together with other disgruntled
workers. Unions give workers the power of voice in numbers.
Hans: You are right, someone can be exploited only if they let themselves be exploited. And I also agree with
you that the achilles heel of the working class is that people don’t work together. They have to be forced to work
together by the capitalists, they won’t do it voluntarily. They also don’t want to do anything about the environment
because this would require helping each other out.
Next Message by Kat is [761].
[881] Babyceta: graded A The worker never says to the capitalist “you are exploiting
me” for two reasons. First, the worker enters into the transaction of selling her labor-power
voluntarily (although Marx would disagree with this). There is debate concerning the “voluntary”
aspect of selling her labor-power because (1) she cannot obtain what she needs to
subsist otherwise, and (2) she lacks the means of production necessary to use (consume) her
own labor-power. Even though the capitalist realizes that consuming labor-power is the only
means to increase the value of a commodity and the individual selling her labor-power may
not be aware of this, he is nonetheless free to use this commodity (labor-power) in any way
he chooses. He may conceal this sinister motive by extracting surplus labor value, mainly
by paying a wage that reflects only the necessary labor time, but he is merely operating in a
flawed system and can therefore hide behind this “mask” capitalism has created.
This “mask” leads us to the second reason workers do not confront capitalist exploitation:
there is no one to confront. Capitalism is a social process and not an individual. To say
“you are exploiting me” to capitalism would be the equivalent of saying to racism “you are
unfairly discriminating against me.”
Next Message by Babyceta is [1034].
[909] DMorris: Simply put, the reason the laborer does not demand to stop being exploited
is that he does not know that he is being exploited. He believes that he is making
a competitive daily or hourly wage, and doesn’t understand that he recoups his necessary
labor (the labor that pays his wage) long before he is done working for the day.
Additionally, he willingly works overtime, believing that his employer is giving him a
chance to make more money as a benefit. In reality, overtime means the worker is still working
at a wage less than the product of his labor. Now, however, he is voluntarily sacrificing
his mental and physical health to do so. When there is a productivity increase due to some
technological advance, the laborer thinks that he reaps the rewards of that, but he is still being
exploited by his employer as his employer is getting the benefits of more labor without
paying the full increased value of that labor. The only true winner in the system is the capitalist.
However, the laborer never sees this. This inequality of information is part of Marx’s
324 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
reason for writing Capital. He wants laborers to understand they are being exploited in order
for them to stand up and demand their fair share of the profits of their labor.
Hans: Higher productivity due to technical advances creates more value only in the short run for the early adopters.
Workers usually don’t get any of this.
First Message by DMorris is [445].
[916] Ferox: graded A Workers do not realize the exploitative process of capitalism primarily
due to the belief that a worker is selling her labour, and not her labour power. If she
realized that distinction and its ramifications, she would understand that her labour power is
worth much more than the wage she is paid. The discrepancy in the worth of labour power
and the wage paid is the surplus value generated by the expenditure of labour power for the
capitalist. Additionally, due to a lack of control over the means of production, which are
monopolized by the capitalist, the worker has no means of realizing the full value of her
labour power for herself through production.
Next Message by Ferox is [1062].
[924] Long: In a way the worker would never want to say to the capitalist that “you are
exploiting me.” Mainly because when a worker is out looking for a job, they often agree
and bind themself to the contract of labor time for a wage. The workers know that they
are willling to give up their time per day or per week for a wage which it is relatively low.
The worker can reasonably argue with the capitalist that their labor time might be worth
more wage, but as capitalist they are not willing to give a higher wage because that would
not be maximizing their profit. Another reason would be that the capitalist would just go
find someone else to hire for the same wage or even lower. In the end the capitalist always
benefits because they have the power to sell the commodity whereas the workers only have
one ability, to sell their power of labor as time input for a wage.
Next Message by Long is [1077].
[949] She: graded A– The worker does not have the power to call out the capitalist in the
capitalist system. In this system, the individual laborer, no matter how frustrated and abused
they may feel, is powerless to initiate change; this is deliberate and intentional. The worker
is caught in a system in which they have become absolutely dependent and by default, enslaved
to the capitalist because they do not have access to the means of production. Since
they do not, they are trapped in a situation where they are forced to sell their labor power for
the means of subsistence. Workers have the power of numbers and are physically capable of
gaining concessions in class-action alone. Unions are great examples of this power. Unions
often use their collective bargaining power to stage labor strikes and force benefits and concessions.
But, however, a strike is only possible if the workers have savings to live on while
they are not selling their labor-power. Thus, to facilitate a strike, a capitalist owner must pay
the laborers more than a subsistence wage to allow for savings. Thus, the capitalist is in a
position of unchecked power in which they rule the workers. A single worker cannot step
up by themselves as they are too easily replaceable.
Hans: Workers have more power than you say.
Next Message by She is [950].
[980] Baseball: The worker has and will never say to the capitalist “you are exploiting
me” because they are capitalists and because they simply realize that in order for a company
to make profit they must receive more than they expend. This means the company’s sales
must outweigh its COGS (Cost of Goods Sold)/labor. By exploiting the worker, companies

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 325
are paying their workers less for the same job they have been performing. As a result the
cost of labor is not higher than their sales, thus a positive profit. If the worker did so happen
to mention that they are exploited companies would give them two options. Either stay and
deal with it or go find a new job. Generally all businesses are exploiting their workers in
one way or another. In capitalism the main objective is to make profit and by doing so some
form of manipulation is present. Lastly, without exploitation in the workplace, business
would either break even (make no profit but no loss), or go bankrupt.
Hans: The answer to the question is implicit in your description of business practices. You are describing the
surface transactions, all of which seem ordinary market transactions without apparent exploitation. In capitalism,
exploitation hides under a seemingly equitable surface. Exploitation is not a surface category, this is why the
capitalist says to the worker: you don’t have the right to speak about it. They deny exploitation in the same way
they deny global warming.
Next Message by Baseball is [981].
[989] School: Fear!!! A capitalist based society is reliant on fear of the worker. Capitalists
would work their workers to the maximum extent to get the surplus labor. The workers must
use their labor power to provide labor value to make ends meet. Capitalist pay the workers
just enough to stay with them, but not enough for the worker to have access to production or
market power. By crippling the worker to not have those production or market powers fear
sets in. So out of fear of losing their jobs, they were unable to stand up for themselves.
Next Message by School is [990].
[1002] Spiral: Workers believe they’re being paid time-wages reflecting the value of the
labour-power they sold to the capitalist over days or weeks. Without understanding that
the capitalist profits off the worker’s labour-power beyond the reproduction of an equivalent
amount of value the worker is unable to see the full extent of the exploitation. As a
mathematical rule the rate-of-profit (surplus-value/constant+ variable capital) will always be
less-than the rate-of-exploitation (surplus-value/variable capital). This fixed proportion will
allow the capitalist to point to his small profits as a form of proof he isn’t exploiting workers
because surely if he was his profits would be greater. Capitalists rob workers of their claim
to the products of their labour but capitalism normalizes this theft to the point workers don’t
even think to ask if they too have a right to the product.
Next Message by Spiral is [1092].
Question 652 is 507 in 2005fa and 549 in 2007fa:
Question 652 What are the main differences distinguishing capitalism from earlier forms
of exploitation?
[658] Husani: The main difference Marx speaks of is the difference between slavery and
capitalism. In slavery a person is forced to work while in capitalism a worker agrees to
work for a capitalist. In slavery a worker is forced to work by an owner for a majority of
their day. This maximizes the surplus value received by the owner and in most cases limits
the longevity of the slave. The owner works them to death in many cases and the slave has
no recourse because if they don’t work to their full potential they won’t receive the basic
necessities they need to survive, clothing, shelter, food, etc.
In capitalism the worker agrees to work for the capitalist in order to receive these basic
necessities but isn’t forced to do so. The worker agrees to a certain wage but the hours he
will work are yet to be determined. The capitalist, like the slave owner, wants to maximize
326 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the amount of surplus value they receive from the worker but because it is an agreement
between the two parties they can’t work them to death. Marx says “the laborer, free or not
free, must add to the working time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working
time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production
[344:2/o].” This means the worker must work in order to survive but must also put in extra
work to create profits for his employer.
She: I don’t know if Marx would say that the workers “agree” to work for the capitalists. Marx describes a situation
in which the workers are forced, or coerced by biologic need, to work for the capitalist. The workers may think
they are in some sort of agreement with the capitalists, but they are truly enslaved, and this thought is nothing
more than the product of an illusion. They are enslaved in such a powerful institution that they do not even realize
their condition. The perceptions and thoughts of a “free” worker are simply byproducts of the capitalist conditions
that encapsulate society. According to Marx, the worker will be a slave until he/she has access to the means of
production. Any worker in a capitalist society, according to Marx’s logic, who believes himself free has not seen
the “true science” of the workings of capitalism.
Next Message by Husani is [663].
Term Paper 666 is 510 in 1997WI, 510 in 1997sp, 910 in 1997ut, 910 in 1998WI, 910 in
1999SP, 910 in 2001fa, and 810 in 2005fa:
Term Paper 666 Essay about Chapter Ten (Choose any Part of the Chapter not Covered in
Class)
[639] Frida, JJ, and School: The Working Day: An analysis of the effects of capititalsim
on the working day in modern times. In our analysis of the effects of capitalism
on the working day, we will attempt to not only look at Marx’s analysis, but to add our own
analysis of these effects to the modern working day. Marx brings many examples of the
struggles of workers, the historical processes, and labor laws that went into play in determining
the working day in his time. We will attempt to further his analysis of the roots of the
exploitation of workers and extraction of surplus labor by providing modern day examples
of this exploitation. We will look at modern day laws that are designed to limit the working
day, and at how laws that attempt to classify wages by hour, salary, or commission will
also effect the working day. Lastly, we will highlight some of our personal experiences of
capitalist exploitation. We will attempt to show this not only in our analysis of the length
and make-up of the working day, but also through a study of big company policy, current
wage structures, and laws designed to “help” workers. Overall, we will show how capitalistic
exploitation is alive and thriving today and achieving its primary goal, to skim off of the
surplus labor of the workforce.
“Capital, in turn has one single-minded life impulse, the drive to create value and surplusvalue,
to make its constant portion, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible
amount of surplus-labor. Capital is dead labor, that vampire-like, only lives by sucking
living labor, and lives the more labor it sucks.” (341:3/o)
Although men and women today are not forced to work to their physiological limits as
in industrial England, modern capitalism is still able to complete its primary agenda. Even
today as the laws and cultural limits to the working day have changed in favor of the worker,
we will show that capitalism is still very effective in bypassing any road blocks to its goal
of maximizing its extraction of surplus labor. Even when capital faces natural or market
forces that cut into their profit rate, they can and will cut wages to create more surplus labor

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 327
in the working day. In so doing, they have adjusted their rate of exploitation in order to
maintain their profit rate. Although the times, context, and conditions have changed for this
exploitation, we will show that exploitation is as relevant today as it was in Marx’s time.
Capitalism, by its very nature, leads to a hunger for surplus-value and therefore surpluslabor.
This “hunger for surplus-labor” (353:1) leads to the extension of the working-day
for a few reasons. The means of production only exist to absorb labor and surplus labor
(367:1/o). Any time that the means of production are not used is time that could be spent
extracting surplus-labor, which is time wasted. Even when viewed without the means of
production, time not spent in the production of surplus-value is wasted time to the capitalist.
In addition to prolongation of the working-day, capitalism leads inevitably to exploitation of
workers. Capitalists will always try to get more value out of the labor of their workers, while
paying them less.
The main focus of chapter ten is the extension of the working-day. For capital, any time
not being used to produce surplus-value is wasted time. In certain branches of production,
the owners of the machines are very concerned about wasted fuel, ink, paper, etc. Wasted
human life does not concern them, since the humans are not owned by the capitalists. If a
laborer dies or is injured, he is easily replaced, it does not represent any loss to the capitalist.
“Moreover, 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)
Once again, this loss of life is of no concern to the capitalist.
Yet, if child labor laws or other restrictions are put in effect, the capitalist claims to be
concerned that she will lose too much of her reserve labor force. This reveals a contradiction.
If they can afford to kill off their workers, then we must assume that they can afford to
lose their six-year-old workers. This leads us to wonder why the capitalists really cannot do
without the labor of children. The real reason that the capitalists cannot stand to lose child
labor is that it is cheaper than adult labor. If you have work that a child can do just as well as
an adult, so that the products of the labor will have just as much value, the inevitable logic
is that you should hire the child laborer. You can pay her less and thereby suck even more
surplus labor from her. This same logic leads to the hiring of many groups that are discriminated
against; children, women, and immigrants are three of the most common examples of
groups that suffer from this type of exploitation. In some instances the capitalist prefers to
replace their workers with workers from these groups. (788:4) Marx identifies these groups
later in Das Kapital as part of the “stagnant surplus population” that fills the ranks of the
capitalist’s industrial reserve army. (797:2)
The most rampant example of the exploitation of workers occurring in the U.S. today
is the exploitation of illegal immigrants. The employers take advantage of the fact that the
laborers are in the country illegally and are afraid of getting deported. If there is little chance
of your workers reporting you to the government, why not break labor laws? In factories
where illegal immigrants are employed, minors have been found working 102 hours a week
(Preston). This is occurring among generally bad working conditions.
Another way that the capitalist attempts to get more value out of a laborer than he paid for
is a simple reduction of wages. The shortening of the working-day to 10 hours in nineteenth
328 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
century London resulted in a reduction of wages of at least 25% (396:1/o). This is always
something that the Capitalist claims is inevitable, that they are forced to reduce wages because
of the horrible impositions of the government. This is false; we have seen proof that
the profit margins can survive normal working days and normal wages. The true reason for
this reduction of wages is the desire to maintain the level of surplus labor received despite
government regulations to limit the working day.
Forcing workers to work for no wages is the ideal situation for the Capitalist. By increasing
the portion of unpaid labor he is getting additional surplus-labor for free. There are two
species of this unpaid labor. These are: organizing the break schedule such that the worker
cannot leave during breaks, and pure unpaid labor. After the 10 hours act, the manufacturers
were paying 10 hours wages for “15 hours lordship over labor-power” (403:1/o) There
were also instances of children having to sleep at the factories in which they work (369:3/o).
Not being able to leave your place of employment is tantamount to slavery. There are also
instances of pure unpaid labor, both in the nineteenth century and in the modern day. Journeyman
bakers in the nineteenth century were forced to work overtime without being paid
(361:1). Despite modern labor laws, this exact type of labor exploitation continues to this
day. Wal-mart has been sued in four states for unpaid overtime; the employees claim that
they were pressured to work overtime and then the overtime was deleted from their records
(Ehrenreich 183).
These issues reveal the power struggle between the capitalist and the laborer. The laborer
is relatively powerless against employers because he is dependent of them for survival. This
is especially true in times of high unemployment. Workers will put up with bad working
conditions and long hours if they feel as though their only alternative is unemployment and
falling (even deeper) into poverty. Yet, even in abundant times of lower unemployment, the
individual worker is kept at a disadvantage in this power struggle by capital’s maintenance
of the “industrial reserve army” (784:1/o) of the unemployed. It is this unbalanced power
struggle that leads to the need for intervention on behalf of workers by institutions and
groups such as unions and government. Only when government intercedes on behalf of
workers or when workers bind themselves together to gain collective bargaining power, can
the balance of power adjust. Even then, we will see that capitalism has alternative methods
to sidestep government and collective bargaining power.
Das Kapital “The Working Day” discusses the cruelty and disgusting nature of legal
human slavery, where capitalism is the product of the most devious and degrading part of
labor. Which raises the question, has government been able to improve the living standards
of all? Or do capitalistS find methods of tainting the good intentions of law makers? “It is
the boundless excesses of the werewolf’s hunger for surplus labor, not this hunger itself that
triggered the legal regulation.” (353:2/o) In order to protect the workers there must be some
form of regulation to keep the capitalist from creating exorbitant surplus labor through the
worker’s efforts.
Child labor in London around the late Nineteenth Century was very prevalent and useful
to capitalists to create surplus labor. Children often worked 15-18 hour days with work
available occasionally at night with the same amount of pay. Today we have modern laws to
regulate such offenses; one law in particular is called the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 329
This regulates the hours a child can work, and how hazardous to the health of the child the
working conditions will be. If a person be under the age of fourteen this person should not
be allowed to work. If you take a close look there still are jobs available for children under
the age of fourteen even though the law mandates they shouldn’t work. Paper routes, mowing
lawns, farm jobs etc. This is a way that capitalism creates surplus labor with working
government laws still in place. (www.dol.gov)
Early nineteenth century journeymen bakers were often overworked, putting in long
hours. “The unpaid labor of the men was made the source whereby the competition was
carried on.” (361:1) In the mid eighteen hundreds journeymen bakers organized meetings to
ban Sunday and night work, but due to the tremendous amount of competition for bakers it
was necessary for bakers to ignore laws that were passed to improve living standards. With
fear of losing their livelihood, baker’s worked Sundays and nights. Loss of employment is
very real today, especially with the current economic issues at hand. There exists today an
unemployment insurance benefit to eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault
of their own, and meet other eligibility requirements of state law. If an employer terminates
a person’s job for any other reason besides poor job performance then the person will qualify
for this Unemployment Insurance. (www.dol.gov)
Wallpaper factories in London in the early eighteen hundreds would pay overtime for
any amount of hours worked over ten hours. We currently have jobs where capitalism creates
an immense amount of surplus labor, while enticing workers with overtime pay. There
are different types of jobs today with different types of compensation associated with them.
Three of these are: hourly, salary, and commission. Initially these were established to fairly
compensate those working, but with ill intentions through a capitalist society became misconstrued
and twisted to benefit the capitalist. Hourly workers work excessive amount of
hours to eventually receive overtime pay. Salary based workers are given a guaranteed yearly
amount paid to them. Under this contract, they will not receive any overtime pay, but will
be required to give the time necessary to complete the job. Lastly there is commission based
pay were it is in the best interest of the worker to work as much as possible to not miss or
lose a potential sale. All three types of jobs have compensation plans established to extend
the working day and create surplus labor. (www.dol.gov)
These same issues have arisen in the personal experience and lives of our group members
as well. Specifically, I want to highlight an example from my work experience that
shows, despite the modern laws and wage structures, that companies (the capitalists) have
found ways to avert minimum wage laws, and have found a new treasure trove of surpluslabor
in the company benefits and perks that have thus far not been relatively discussed as
a part of wages. The perks and benefits packages that a company offers are an integral but
non-monetary part of the wage, and are therefore a source of increasing or decreasing the
necessary labor time and hence decreasing or increasing relatively the surplus labor time
in the working day. Elimination of benefits obviously having the effect of decreasing the
real wage, decreasing the necessary labor time, and increasing the amount of surplus labor
available to the capitalist. This is all accomplished within the confines of modern labor laws
that regulate the working day and minimum hourly wage.
330 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Capitalistic exploitation is alive and kicking in today’s markets. Despite the fact that we
don’t have an 18 hour working day, and we seem to have a number of modern laws that will
keep us from the deplorable conditions of industrial England, we have shown that capitalism
has been crafty enough to still find a way and a means to absorb the greatest amount of
surplus labor that it can, and effectively extend the working day of the laborer in 2010.
“..capital usually knows how to transfer these (expenses of laws) from its own shoulders to
those of the working class and the petty bourgeoisie.”
We have shown this in modern examples, in some futile modern labor protection laws,
and through our personal experiences of the capitalistic free market bid process.
WORKS CITED:
Preston, Julia. “After Iowa Raid, Immigrants Fuel Labor Inquiries.” New York Times 27
July 2008, Print.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed. New York, NY: Holt Paperbacks, 2008. 183.
Print.
www.dol.gov (2010). Retrieved on October 22, 2010 from: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.g
www.dol.gov (2010). Retrieved on October 22, 2010 from: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/
flsa.htm
www.dol.gov (2010). Retrieved on October 22, 2010 from: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wa
Next Message by Frida is [665], Next Message by JJ is [682], and Next Message by School is [641].
Term Paper 667 is 810 in 2002fa, 810 in 2003fa, 810 in 2004fa, 568 in 2007SP, 572 in
2008SP, 576 in 2008fa, 604 in 2009fa, 687 in 2011fa, and 716 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 667 Children and the Struggle around the Working Day
[677] ANK, DMorris, Deadfamous, JSmits, and Kraken: Children and the Working
Day. One of the principles upon which all capitalist markets operate on is the fact that all
firms are profit maximizing. Profit maximization, combined with competition, establishes
an environment in which capitalist firms must employ any means necessary to increase profits.
This means that in capitalist markets, firms want to employ labor at as inexpensive a
cost as possible. While in most modern industrialized nations this merely means that firms
put themselves in opposition to labor reform movements, in many modern under-developed
nations this unfortunate combination results in the exploitation of workers. Children are
unfortunately some of the easiest workers to manipulate and exploit. They generally have
no legal representation, and the fact that that they are required to work generally means
that their parents cannot make a living wage on their own, leaving them at the mercy of the
capitalist firm. During the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800’s, as capitalists began to
realize that labor was a major expense in the production of cheap factory-made products,
child labor became more prominent. Bertrand Russell, 1950 Nobel Prize winner for his human
rights literature, wrote concerning the Industrial Revolution; “children worked from 12
to 16 hours a day; they often began working at the age of six or seven. Children had to be
beaten to keep them from falling asleep while at work; in spite of this, many failed to keep

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 331
awake and were mutilated or killed. Parents had to submit to the infliction of these atrocities
upon their children, because they themselves were in a desperate plight.”(1)
For centuries, capitalists have been extending the working-day to its natural maximum
limit, and then beyond this limit to a natural day of 12 hours. Then followed the birth of
machinism and modern industry in the last third of the 18th century and this broke every
moral boundary there was. All bounds of morals and nature, age and sex, day and night,
were broken down. As machinery dispenses with muscular power, it becomes a means of
employing laborers of little muscular strength, whose development is not yet complete, and
whose limbs are suppler for the job. The labor of children was therefore the first thing that
capitalists who used machinery sought after. This changed the layout of the working place
because they were no longer looking for labor and laborers, they were finding a means to
increase the number of wage-laborers by enrolling every member of a working man’s family
with no distinction of age or sex.(2)
The capitalist market does not self-regulate in terms of who is hired and at what wages
they are hired at. In circumstances where the capitalist firm is given a choice between two
workers who can produce the same number of products an hour, that firm will, according to
the previously established tenet of profit maximization, choose the least expensive worker.
Assuming both workers are applying for this position out of their own personal choice, this
provides no moral dilemma. Even when assuming that these workers are selling their labor
in order to pay bills or feed their families, society can assuage its moral fears by reminding
itself that while the system is certainly broken, these workers are offering their labor of their
own volition. However, once children enter into the arrangement, and society sees that they
are being forced into labor, their perspectives change, and society demands change in the
system.
Capital exploitation, which is based on commodity exchange, places no limits on the
working day or on surplus labor. A force outside of the capitalist and laborer was necessary
to regulate working conditions, and after years of petitioning, governments slowly started
extending labor protections, despite the cries and protests of the factory owners that restricting
labor would lead to a downfall of the entire market. The poor treatment of children in
England brought about the Factory Act of 1833 which regulated the working day for children.
The provisions of the act were:(3)
1. Children (ages 14–18) must not work more than 12 hours a day with an hour lunch
break.
2. Children (ages 9–13) must not work more than 8 hours with an hour lunch break.
3. Children (ages 9–13) must have two hours of education per day.
4. Outlawed the employment of children under 9 in the textile industry.
5. Children under 18 must not work at night.
During the Industrial Revolution, the working class was forced to take a political stand
against the capitalist factory owners on a variety of issues. Child labor was the first major
issue that the working class stood up for. This political action, or extra-economic force, was
required to set maximum working limits for children first, and eventually for all laborers.
332 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx discusses the factors that determine the maximum limits of the working day in chapter
10 by saying, “. . . the working-day has a maximum bound. It cannot be prolonged beyond
a certain point. This maximum bound is determined in two different ways. First, by the
physiological bounds of labor-power. Within the 24 hours of the natural day a man can
expend only a definite quantity of his vital force. Just as a horse can only work, from day to
day, 8 hours. During part of the day this force must rest, sleep; during another part the man
has to satisfy other physiological needs, to feed, wash, and clothe himself. Besides these
purely physiological limits, the extension of the working-day encounters moral ones. The
laborer needs time to satisfy his intellectual and social wants, the extent and number which
are conditioned by the general state of social advancement.”(4)
The exploitation of children in the labor-force violates the physiological and moral bounds
of the working day. By requiring children to work long hours in poor conditions, the capitalist
is violating the physiological bound. The moral bound is broken by keeping children
from school and the social needs of a being a child. These bounds as defined by Marx are
addressed in the Factory Act of 1833 and its amendments. Because the goal of a capitalist is
to maximize profits, capitalists have found ways around legislation to mistreat and employ
children beyond the legal limits. Marx discusses the profit maximizing behavior of capitalism
by saying that, “Capital therefore takes no account of the health and the length of life of
the worker, unless society forces it to do so.”(5) Marx believed that under capitalism workers
were forced to work excessively long hours in order to meet the capitalist’s insatiable need
for greater profits. Marx noted that as laborers worked longer days, their health would begin
to fail and their lives were subsequently shortened. Just as tragic as a life shortened by overwork
is the degradation of the quality of life due to excessive work. As the working class
pressured society for a maximum length of a work day, workers were acting in society’s
best interest and their own according to Marx. Hans states that “the state found itself in the
contradictory situation of giving in to the demands of the working class in order to heed the
long-term interests of capital.”(6)
There is a direct negative impact to society when child labor is employed. Children are
unable to attend school, which decreases the literacy rate and overall level of education
in society. By being forced to do manual labor for a paltry sum, children develop health
problems much younger than they would had they not been forced to work. Society realized
that preventing child labor was in its best interest. Hans points out the contradictory nature
of this statement, but many things that are in society’s best interests tend to be contradictory:
in order to get the most value out of the soil, the farmer must leave a plot fallow for a season.
Even the capitalist must occasionally invest some of his profits into more infrastructure in
order to increase production in the long term. In the factory act of 1833, England realized
that the best way to secure its future was to prevent capitalists from stripping the youth of
their chances to learn, study, and develop into healthy working adults.
Today in the United States, child labor is heavily regulated and looked down upon. In
response to legislation in the United States against child labor, capitalists have moved production
of commodities to countries without legislation or under-developed countries such
as China, India and Bangladesh, where children work to supplement parental income. The
International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that 250 million children (between the age

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 333
of 5 and 14) work in under-developed countries and that 120 million of those work full time
hours.(7) In the United States, the more common problem concerning children and the struggle
around the working day is the forced separation of parents and children as parents work
long hours and multiple jobs to provide for their families. This situation violates the bounds
of the working day as set forth by Marx even though the children are not laborers. The moral
bound is violated because the child is deprived of the nurturing and moral needs that only a
parent can provide as well as the physical care-taking or physiological bound that children
do not receive from a parent who works multiple jobs and longs hours. These bounds are
not broken as a result of the child working, but because the parent overworks.
Parents overworking, and having less time to spend with their children, takes a similar
toll on society as does child labor. In many homes in the US, both parents work outside
of the home, being forced to neglect parental responsibilities in order to meet the financial
requirements placed on them by the capitalist market. One of the big issues with children
and manufacturing was their physical deterioration. There was an enormous mortality rate
during the first few years of their lives for children whose parents where operators. The high
death rates were principally due to the employment of the mothers away from their homes
and to the neglect and maltreatment of her children because of her absence. Other causes
were malnourishment and unsuitable food. This estrangement that families experience from
working all the time creates an unhealthy environment for a mother and her children. The
chronic separation of parent and child not only saddens a parent, it also has a negative effect
upon children. Children are left at daycare centers where they receive inferior care; and
nationwide, children come home to an empty house, leaving them without supervision. Lack
of proper parenting as a result of financial necessity leads to gang activity, drug abuse, and a
substandard education.
If left unchecked, capitalism’s insatiable need to maximize profits by employing child
labor and working men and women beyond their natural limits will result in the decimation
of the very workforce upon which they rely. Ironically, in order for capitalism to survive,
measures are required to protect it from its own avarice by insuring that men, women and
children are treated fairly and not required to labor under a system that unjustly enriches the
lives of some while destroying the lives of others.
References:
1. Bertrand Russell, THE IMPACT of SCIENCE on SOCIETY, p.31.
2. Capital,Volume 1 1887, 304:3-305:1
3. 1833 Factory Act, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/lesson13.htm
4. Capital, 341:2
5. Capital, 380:1-381:0
6. Annotations, Chapter 10.2, pg 486
7. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/237384/toolkitfr/pdf/facts.pdf
Hans: Very good. I like your comparison with today where small children do not have to work but are deprived of
their parents because the working-time for the parents is too long.
334 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by ANK is [740], Next Message by DMorris is [908], Next Message by Deadfamous is [724], Next
Message by JSmits is [715], and Next Message by Kraken is [719].
Question 669 is 483 in 2002fa, 522 in 2005fa, 571 in 2007SP, 606 in 2009fa, 689 in
2011fa, and 718 in 2012fa:
Question 669 Explain how an excessive lengthening of the work day decreases the rate of
surplus-value.
[660] Kobe: Lengthening of the work day. The extension and lengthening of the workday
caused by capitalist production will eventually lead to the destruction of the labor-power
which sustains capital. Extension of the workday cripples human labor-power as well as
causing an early ending of this labor-power itself. This is caused by a lack of physical conditions
such as sleep and nutrition as well as what may be morally accepted. This not only
holds true for human labor but as well as machinery, land, etc. Capitalist production therefore
gets the most out of a laborer in a certain period of time but shortens the laborer’s life
time of work. As this happens the rate of reproduction of labor power will steadily increase,
resulting in the long term of creating greater expenses. By shortening the laborer’s working
lifetime it may lead to a short term increase in production but over the length of the laborer’s
working time, also the long term, it is a financially costly mistake. This example must also
take into account that human laborers as well as machinery may decline in production at
different times, in which the capitalist has no exact way of knowing when the production
will slow. Due to this disproportionality the overuse of labor-power decreases the rate of
surplus-value.
Message [660] referenced by [661]. Next Message by Kobe is [722].
[661] Jon: Do longer days really mean more surplus? When first looking at this question
one would think that if the capitalist receives the surplus labor then the best thing to
do would be to extend the work day to absorb more labor. Upon a deeper look into this it
becomes clear that this is not the case. From time to time it would be very possible to work
what we call overtime to get the surplus labor during peak days of business or harvest. The
problem however comes up when the extended hours becomes a regular thing. Footnote 73
on page 376:1/o of Capital says that “over-hours ... certainly tend prematurely to exhaust
the working power of the men.” In the end the capitalist extends the worker’s production
time within a period of time but at the expense of shortening his life, therefore decreasing
the overall surplus of labor or value in the long run.
Hans: In substance you are covering only a subset of what Kobe [660] covered, but you are setting up your
argument differently and you are formulating it much better.
Message [661] referenced by [663]. Next Message by Jon is [699].
[663] Husani: I agree with Jon in [661] that the lifespan and overall productivity of the
individual worker would diminish significantly over a long period if required to be overworked
on a regular basis. But while reading this a thought came to mind. The passage
I found interesting was what Marx says about what the slave owner does if he uses his
slave/capital to its maximum. Marx says that “the slave-owner buys his laborer as he buys
his horse. If he loses his slave, he loses his capital that can only be restored by new outlay in
the slave-mart.” Although we aren’t necessarily talking about slave labor we can reference
this to the capitalist who agrees to employ free workers. If we look at the Midwestern

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 335
United States over the past 50 years we realize that farmers are leaving these rural areas to
find jobs in urban areas. If a capitalist were allowed to work his capital to its full extent and
diminish its lifespan to gain its surplus value in a shorter span, then the worker could utilize
the newcomers to the area. Many things would have to fall in place for this to be achieved
but I found it to be an interesting idea.
Message [663] referenced by [683]. Next Message by Husani is [681].
[672] Scholar: An excessive lengthening of the workday decreases the rate of surplusvalue
because the value of labor power, which is also the variable costs that capitalists have to
pay out, include not only necessity of workers themselves, but also the costs of reproduction
of the labor force.
There is a limitation of the human biology, if workers be forced to work excessively,
the labor force of them will be exhausted much sooner, and so it will need their offspring
growing sooner to replace them. That means more costs would be needed to afford the
sustaining of the supply of labor force, because the same production need more generations
to participate. If so, the variable costs of the capitalist will rise much more than the surplus
value that produced during the excessive lengthening time of workers, so the rate surplusvalue
will decrease.
Hans: I like your formulation “the same production need more generations to participate.” US Americans avoid
talking about death directly, and this is a good way to phrase the issue.
Next Message by Scholar is [717].
[683] Hans: Workplace Health and Retirement Costs. All answers are correct as far as
Marx goes, but you are not fully aware of the differences between Marx’s time and today.
At Marx’s time, factories were murderous. Life expectancy of factory workers was 35 years.
People worked until they died. Increasing their lifetime was in the long-term interest of the
capitalist class, because it decreased the reproduction cost of the laborer. Today most people
work until retirement. Unhealthy work conditions do therefore not create a labor shortage,
and increasing their lifetimes beyond retirement age is not in the interest of the capitalists.
See [2008fa:1072]. (Perhaps it’s not an accident that today’s work conditions are just healthy
enough that people can survive until 65 but not longer.)
Also at Marx’s time, mechanization of agriculture and the elimination of small farms
was in full swing. This created a big influx of labor-seeking farmers into the cities. This is
why the capitalists could set up their factories as slaughterhouses without creating a labor
shortage. Although the exodus from the farms is still continuing, so few farms are left that
in relation to the labor market it is a trickle. This is my response to [663].
Message [683] referenced by [1041]. Next Message by Hans is [690].
[1023] Alex: graded A An excessive increment of the work day returns unfavorable for
the capitalists for many reasons. The first reason is that lengthening the work day would
cause the worker to work at a slower pace since he/she becomes more tired after the normal
hours worked, and thus making him/her less efficient in production. In the long-term, if
this was regularly implemented, the workers would become more worn out and will die
faster. Increasing the work time would also cause the capitalists to pay more wages to the
worker (extra hours, even if it’s at the same rate), while the worker is less productive. All
these events cause the surplus-value to decrease for the capitalists. If the capitalist wants a
surplus-value increase then the smart option would be to increase the labor of the worker
336 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
throughout the day, that way the laborer would be working harder for the same amount of
pay.
Hans: Doesn’t your argument that the worker gets tired apply to more intense labor too?
Message [1023] referenced by [1149] and [2012fa:1007]. Next Message by Alex is [1053].
[1041] AM: The excessive lengthening of the work day decreases the rate of surplus-value
because at a certain point in the work day the laborer is no longer productive. If the work
day is increased excessively the laborer loses his ability to work (i.e. succumbing to lack
of sleep and hunger). The capitalist cannot provide the means for the laborers to replenish
their reserves. It makes sense then, as Hans writes in [683] it is in the long term interest of
the capitalist to keep the work day length reasonable. In doing so the capitalist can keep the
same laborers for a greater overall length of time; as the cost of replacing the laborer would
be higher. Besides, the laborer has no obligation to work himself to death to satisfy any one
else’s needs; though I am sure that the capitalist would love it if this were true. Most laborers
(as I do) probably fantasize about how they will use what energy they have left after work
(i.e. hobbies, sports, etc. . . ).
Message [1041] referenced by [1149]. Next Message by AM is [1042].
[1117] Milly: graded A Lengthening the work day means decrease in surplus-value.
Marx discusses that workers need rest to regain health and strength away from work each
day. The answer to this question can be found in Capital on page 376:1/o “Capitalist production,
which is essentially the production of surplus-value, produces thus, with the extension
of the working-day, not only the stunting of human labor-power by robbing it of its normal
and physical conditions of development and function. It produces also the premature
exhaustion and destruction of this labor-power itself. It extends the laborer’s time of production
during a given period by shortening his overall life-time.” Because of human limitations
surplus-value would decrease with excessive lengthening of the work day.
First Message by Milly is [143].
[1125] Guh: Labor Surplus. In the reading Marx talks about how in capitalism, the
individuals doing the work/labor have a production that is owned by the capitalist. By this,
the individuals doing the work, (the workers) are now treated as if they are machines that
produce profits for the capitalist. Furthermore, the workers now have a correlation with
machines, in the example from Zone [2005fa:1144] “The human machine requires food and
rest instead of oil and grease for maintenance. Unlike machines the worker deteriorates at a
different level than machines. Marx states in Value, Price, and Profit, ‘Man on the contrary
decays in a greater ratio than would visible from the mere numerical addition of work.’”
Therefore, by using this example, and what Marx states, the workers are treated unfairly and
thus do not have the time to rest between work days and results in a worker’s surplus labor
decreases, which is not in the best interest for the capitalist. Another great example of this is
from Pele [2007SP:763] “Basically, by extending the worker’s work day, they are not only
less efficient, but the long term use (exploitation) of the worker is shortened. Having an
individual work 120 hour work weeks for a decade to die at 30 will result in less labor power
and capital production than a worker who is exploited for 60 years on a 40 hour work week.
Thus the lengthening of the work-day costs the capitalist a large amount of surplus value, by
making the worker less efficient, and wearing out the human machine in production.”
Next Message by Guh is [1196].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 337
[1137] Cougar: graded C To begin, surplus value is the value created by laborers after the
socially necessary labor time has been fulfilled in producing a commodity. This additional
labor or added value is not accounted for when laborers are compensated. In a shorter work
day, a laborer will be less fatigued at its conclusion. He or she is then theoretically able
to work more efficiently during the next day, producing more in less time. Therefore, it
is possible to achieve greater output in a shorter overall workday. On the contrary, longer
work days cause increased fatigue of laborers resulting in diminished productivity. For this
reason more time may be required to produce the desired outcome of the capitalist, possibly
affecting the socially necessary labor time of that commodity. In the case that the socially
necessary labor time is increased for a commodity due to fatigue and diminished productivity
of longer work days, the capitalist is actually losing surplus value. If workers are able
to work more efficiently and undercut the socially necessary labor time, the capitalist is
then able to take advantage of surplus labor value above and beyond socially acceptable
requirements. It is in the best interest of the capitalist to promote more efficient labor through
shorter work days and therefore increase his surplus labor value, which results in increased
profits only.
Hans: What Marx calls necessary labor in chapter Ten is not the same as his concept of socially necessary labor
in chapter One. You explain profit by production at a rate that is faster than the socially necessary labor-time.
Marx has a different explanation of profits, which at first may seem unintuitive. On the one hand, producing more
products more efficiently does not produce more value. Secondly, even if every single producer uses exactly the
socially necessary labor time, Marx says that there is still profit.
Next Message by Cougar is [1145].
[1149] Cougar: graded B Let me omit what is wrong and focus on what is right. As
has been touched on by many intelligent responses to this question, workers cannot work
indefinitely: They require rest and rejuvenation. Of course it makes sense to shorten the
work day. Not only will workers be thrilled to have more hours of the day to themselves, but
they will have more energy reserved for the next day’s efforts. After reading Alex [1023]
and AM’s [1041] responses this semester, I finally understand that the long term effects are
just as pertinent as the short. Re-hiring and training new labor is expensive and less efficient
as new labor must learn and develop on a curve. It is in the capitalist’s interest to keep the
laborers he already has strong and healthy if he is concerned with his long-term success. In
addition, longer days costs the capitalist more in wages but after a certain time, the labor
falls in productivity due to fatigue: more money spent for less output! Again, the capitalist
needs efficient and loyal labor that he can depend on for the future rather than spending
funds on hiring and training. By pushing his laborers to work harder in shorter days, he
receives more productive labor in lest time which means less wages and higher profits. If I
understand correctly, it is this formula that leads the capitalist to surplus labor.
Hans: You still don’t understand right. The formula for surplus-labor is paying a wage which is far less than the
value created by the workers.
First Message by Cougar is [1].
Question 677 is 506 in 2002fa, 524 in 2003fa, 577 in 2004fa, 529 in 2005fa, 578 in
2007SP, 573 in 2007fa, 581 in 2008SP, 585 in 2008fa, 614 in 2009fa, 697 in 2011fa, and
726 in 2012fa:
Question 677 According to Marx, the only way to increase profits is to shorten the portion
of the day during which the workers produce an equivalent of their wage, and to extend
338 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
that portion of the day when they create unreimbursed new value for the capitalist. Are the
capitalists aware of it that all their cost cutting measures, if successful, go at the expense of
their workers?
[694] Tyler: Cost cutting for laborers. In considering a response to this question I read
the response of Steveeggett [2008fa:994] which clarifies the issue. Similar to Steveeggett,
I too originally thought capitalists must know that all their cost cutting measures occur at
the expense of their workers, but realize many capitalists are unaware of the effects of their
cost cutting measures. Hans [2009fa:729] discusses one scenario where new technology,
such as a machine, will have its value determined ultimately by the worker. Capitalists in
this example may erroneously believe that they are not impacting their employees through
the purchase of new machinery, but it is always the worker who in the end must operate
the machinery. The laborer will always absorb the effects of the capitalists’ cost cutting
techniques.
Next Message by Tyler is [917].
Question 679 is 580 in 2007SP, 575 in 2007fa, 587 in 2008fa, 616 in 2009fa, 699 in
2011fa, and 728 in 2012fa:
Question 679 Turgot wrote: “In every kind of labor, it must happen, and it does in fact happen,
that the wage of the worker is limited to what he needs to secure his own subsistence.”
Why is this so? Is this still valid today?
[691] Lana: The unfortunate laughability of minimum wage. The capitalist does not
wish to pay the worker any more than what is absolutely necessary and what is mandated
by law. The capitalist may try to portray himself with humane characteristics but really, he
is completely motivated by accumulation and has no urge to pay the worker any more than
the bare minimum for his survival. His motivation is profit for his interests (personal gain,
investors, etc), not the betterment of his employees.
This is where I feel minimum wage comes into play. The minimum wage is the lowest
wage that an employer is permitted to pay by law or union contract. Some have argued that it
decreases poverty while the opposition claims that it increases unemployment. Regardless,
the minimum wage is going against Turgot’s model. It does not sustain life for the normal
person. I am from the Big Island of Hawaii and I can say first hand, that the minimum
wage of $7.25 an hour is a cruel joke. The cost of living in the state is one of the highest in
the country, with a gallon of milk reaching $9, a studio apartment being rented for around
$1000 a month plus exorbinant utilities, and $5 a gallon of gasoline. One cannot subsist on
the minimum wage in Hawaii.
So how do people do it? I know families who rent out a three-bedroom home and fit
fifteen family members in it. They work two to three jobs and do not have the extra funds or
free time to take care of their mental and physical health. Enrollment in unemployment and
welfare programs are some of the highest in the country, credit card debt is accumulated to
simply buy groceries, and there is extensive “brain drain” in the communities.
The concept that the capitalist is paying the worker enough to subsist is not valid.
Hans: Eloquent and moving, but how does Marx explain this outrage? Why are wages so low if the workers are
the creators of all value and there is so much wealth in society?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 339
Message [691] referenced by [704] and [2012fa:1003]. Next Message by Lana is [921].
[704] GoUtes: Response to Lana. I agree that as Lana [691] stated, the Capitalist wants
to pay the least amount possible to the laborer, he is interested in what he can do to get the
most amount of work out of a laborer for the least possible cost. So I do agree with the
idea that the capitalist will do what they can to keep wages as low as possible. Answering
the question whether the concept is valid today, I think that most people have a different
view on the amount of money they need to live and the amount of money they need to live
comfortably. These are two different issues.
Next Message by GoUtes is [726].
Exam Question 683 is 203 in 1995WI, 210 in 1995ut, 232 in 1996sp, 232 in 1996ut, 285 in
1997WI, 350 in 1997sp, 349 in 1997ut, 359 in 1998WI, 360 in 1999SP, 472 in 2001fa, 511
in 2002fa, 529 in 2003fa, 582 in 2004fa, 535 in 2005fa, 584 in 2007SP, 591 in 2008fa,
703 in 2011fa, 732 in 2012fa, and 683 in Answer:
Exam Question 683 What is relative surplus-value? Which mechanisms, that were so far
taken as given, affect the magnitude of relative surplus-value?
[687] Giant: (graded B) Is surplus value worth it? Relative surplus-value according
to Marx does not have to do with the lengthening of workers’ hours to increase capitalist
surplus value. The surplus-value comes from increasing the productivity level of workers
by shortening the amount of work time to create a product (the overall workday hours stay
the same). If a worker normally makes one chair an hour, they could now (with the help of
machinery) make two chairs an hour. In my example the surplus-value impact would vary
depending on whether one company has machines to help lower their costs of production, or
if the entire chair industry used machinery power to produce chairs (lowering the cost of the
product overall—not giving any one company an advantage to create surplus profits).
The other condition for surplus-value would depend on whether there was enough demand
for the product to create surplus profits. If there is not enough demand when just one
company has machines they could lose money by having to invest in machines and not be
able to sell enough of the product to cover the cost. If the entire industry has machines, then
when demand is down, companies will leave the chair market either to shut down or go into
some other industry. This will make prices higher until there is enough profit incentive to
make companies stay in the chair market.
Hans: Please look at [Answer:4] and [684].
Message [687] referenced by [Answer:5] and [698]. Next Message by Giant is [695].
[712] Cosmopolita: Relative surplus value is a kind of surplus value which is an increase
in the gap between capitalist and laborer. Specifically, in the lengthening of the working day,
which is absolute surplus value. There is a corresponding alteration in the respective length
of the two components of the working day. We can assume a given working day with a given
length and division AC, but the whole line is represented by A——–B—-C, where AB are
10 hours necessary labor, and BC 2 hours of surplus labor. A capitalist will wonder how to
increase profits without the prolongation of the line AC; which could be done by prolonging
C to the right but we cannot increase the hours of the day, then the capitalist will push back
point B more to the left, to create more surplus labor. But also here there is a limitation.
But then this prolongation would be accompanied by an equal shortening of necessary labor,
340 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
because Surplus Value can only increase if necessary labor becomes shorter. But to produce
the same output we need productive workers so the overall equation works.
Mechanisms that were taken as given were the constant working day hours and the
amount of labor input, which affected relative surplus value. But then productivity concept
came in effect to come up with following conclusions. As said in [2008fa:790]: Marx
defines it, productivity as the volume of use values produced per total labor input. Using
the word productivity for low wages is a commonly used euphemism; Marx would call this
“exploitation”. Also as Hans said in [2008fa:790], the workday is extended, then higher
profits can go along with higher daily wages for workers, which benefits the capitalists and
the labor power.
Hans: Please work on your writing style.
Next Message by Cosmopolita is [739].
Multiple Choice Question 684 is 583 in 2004fa:
Multiple Choice Question 684 Only one of the answers below is fully correct, all other
answers are either wrong or imprecise or not specific to relative surplus-value. Mark the
one which is correct. In a nutshell, relative surplus-value can be characterized as
• (a) Increase in surplus-value because production increases but the number of workers
and wages stay the same.
• (b) Increase in surplus-value because production stays the same but wages decrease.
• (c) Increase in surplus-value because higher technology lowers the value of the
worker’s consumption goods, so that the portion of the day the worker works for
himself or herself is shortened.
• (d) Increase in surplus-value because machines take over part of the labor.
• (e) A widening of the gap between workers and capitalists.
[698] Hans: Relative Surplus-Value. The right answer is (c). Here are comments about
the other answers:
(a) If more is produced with the same labor input, then the total value produced remains
the same. At the beginning, the innovating capitalist may be able to charge higher prices
for the more efficiently produced goods. This is called “extra surplus-value.” But over time
prices will fall. Therefore this alone is not the explanation of relative surplus-value. On the
exam this answer will get a C.
(b) This answer is almost correct. But it depends on the reason why wages fall whether
this is relative surplus-value or not. This answer will get a B.
(c) This is the right answer. The lowering of the values of the consumption goods may be
masked by the effect that prices stay the same despite lower values, but the labor content of
one dollar decreases. This answer will get an A.
(d) In Marx’s theory, machines do not create value or profits. This answer gets a D.
(e) This is an effect of relative surplus-value, but relative surplus-value is not the only
factor widening this gap. This answer gets a C+

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 341
I am sending this because answer [687] to Question 683 says something similar to (a),
i.e., it is wrong.
Next Message by Hans is [701].
Question 686 is 235 in 1996ut, 361 in 1998WI, 362 in 1999SP, 585 in 2004fa, 538 in
2005fa, and 623 in 2009fa:
Question 686 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.
[685] Wolf: I take this statement to mean that in order to better understand the subject
at hand one must look at the deeper structures that express the surface appearance. This is
done all the time in science (e.g. chemistry). It’s too easy to accept reality at face-value and
it does disservice to one’s critical thinking.
Within the context of the current readings, “general and necessary tendencies of capital”
describes lowering the value of labor-power in order to increase surplus-value while the
working day remains constant (a result of chapter 10). However, it appears confusing that
a capitalist would lower the price of their products in order to lessen the value of laborpower
(the value of labor-power is “...formed by the value of the commodities which have
to be supplied every day to the bearer of labor-power, to the human so that he can renew his
life-process” in Capital pg. 276:3/o) because they should not expect every other capitalist to
simultaneously do this same process in order to collectively gain additional surplus-value.
Nevertheless, this is what ultimately must happen in order for the capitalist to remain a
capitalist.
The “form of appearance” on the other hand is the intention of the capitalist to gain
additional surplus-value. When the capitalist potentiates the labor-process with increased
productivity (increased productivity decreases the value of the products. There is limited
value and this is spread out amongst the entirety of the products. As it increases, the value is
spread thinner and thinner, lessening the overall value of the products), s/he does so to gain
extra surplus-value. If you step back and look at all the capitalists attempting to achieve extra
surplus-value, the totality of this process is the lessening of the value of labor-power because
the reproduction of labor-power is now cheaper (due to the decreased value of necessities).
Marx summed this up as, “He does individually what capital itself does as a whole when
producing relative surplus-value” (Capital pg. 435:1/o). Thus it may appear that the capitalist
is just trying to get ahead of the game, but s/he is actually a part of a larger process that must
lower the value of labor-power generally to increase the relative surplus-value.
Next Message by Wolf is [856].
Question 688 is 237 in 1996sp, 289 in 1997WI, 354 in 1997sp, 515 in 2002fa, 535 in
2003fa, 588 in 2004fa, 541 in 2005fa, 584 in 2007fa, 592 in 2008SP, 596 in 2008fa, 625
in 2009fa, 708 in 2011fa, and 737 in 2012fa:
Question 688 Why can we gain a scientific understanding of “the sphere of competition”
only after having grasped the inner nature of capital?
342 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[708] Orville: graded A Double or Nothing. Marx says that we first have to understand
capital before we can understand “the sphere of competition.” This is simply because you
have to have competition in order for capitalism to work at all. Hans says on page 510
“the competitive motivation of the capitalist is not really his own motivation, but this is how
he experiences his subjugation to the laws of capital.” This is saying that capitalists don’t
make the rules, they are following them the only way that they can: by being competitive.
Competition drives growth which is the basic doctrine of capitalism. While on the surface, it
may seem that only competition is making the people act in the way that they do, capitalism
forces people to become greedy and self-centered in order to be capitalists. It is integral to
understand that the sphere of competition is a mask and a driver for the capitalist system. It
is so important that not only is capitalism completely dependent on competition but, as JRH
says in [2002fa:245], “...competition is based on capitalism.”
Next Message by Orville is [730].
[710] TINDOZ: pre-requisite. The reason that we can only understand “the sphere of
competition” after grasping the inner nature of capital is because the inner nature of capital
is more or less a pre-requisite (to use a term students are all to familiar with) to fully
understanding what the ins and outs of competition are and understanding what drives this
competition. The question posed uses the term “scientific understanding” which means that
we are not just talking about a surface understanding. In order to have a scientific understanding
of anything, one must certainly have a strong understanding of all pre-requisites.
I’m struggling to find an analogy, but I can’t imagine anyone trying to write a book about
a specific drug’s reaction to the body without first having an understanding of the human
body, pharmaceuticals, and chemistry. I particularly liked the conceptual similarities that
Marx drew between understanding competition (with needing the pre-requisite of an understanding
of the inner nature of capital) and understanding the planets (with the pre-requisites
being an understanding of their movements). Marx points out that the movements of the
planets aren’t perceivable by our senses, this is also true when trying to understand competition.
Just because you live in a society where capitalism abounds and where firms are
engaging in competition with one another does not mean you will understand it. Merely
being near competition can no more endow you with a scientific understanding of it than can
looking up at the night sky and thinking that you can properly perceive all that is going on
just by what your naked eyes see. Indeed, attempting to formulate a “scientific understanding”
of the planets without a knowledge of their motions brought many (in past centuries) to
think that the earth was the center of the universe and was also flat - the same mistakes can
be made when trying to formulate a scientific understanding of the sphere of competition
without understanding the inner nature of capital.
Next Message by TINDOZ is [739].
Question 690 is 205 in 1995WI, 238 in 1996sp, 237 in 1996ut, 290 in 1997WI, 355 in
1997sp, 354 in 1997ut, 363 in 1998WI, 364 in 1999SP, 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, 710 in 2011fa, 739 in 2012fa, and 690 in Answer:
Question 690 Do the workers after introduction of new machinery produce more value per
hour?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 343
[681] Husani: After the introduction of machinery or a technology that helps to increase
efficiency, the worker will produce the same value. I will first create a situation similar
to what Marx brought up in the chapter. We have a factory that employs individuals who
produce twelve shirts in a working day which happens to be twelve hours. One shirt per hour
happens to be the socially necessary time to produce a shirt. Let’s assume that the worker is
paid $1 per day and the means of production cost $1 as well. This means that on the open
market one shirt will cost $2 because that is the total value that has gone into its production.
Now let’s assume that the owner of the factory discovers a new technology that allows his
workers to produce shirts in half the time. The workers can now make 24 shirts instead of
12 with one day of labor so half of one hours wage will go into the production of each shirt,
$.50, but the means of production remains at $1 per shirt so the value of the shirt will actually
decrease to $1.50 from $2. But if the factory owner can somehow keep this technology a
secret, he will be able to utilize the market price to obtain surplus value from the sale of
his shirts. Every other producer of shirts still sells them for $2, but because he is producing
twice as many shirts as before he must increase demand for his shirts. What this means is
that he will sell them for a lower price. He will find a point between $1.50 and $2 so people
will buy from him and not his competitors but he will still gain more surplus value from this
because the actual value of his shirts is now $1.50.
With an increase in efficiency that allows the worker to produce more shirts in one hour,
the overall value of his work will remain the same. We remember that each shirt requires
$1 of the means of production, no matter how many shirts he makes in one hour; they still
each require this amount. The only change is in relation to how his labor is spread about
the different shirts. The more he produces, the more the money is spread out to different
products. In this example, one shirt holds $1 of labor before the technology is applied and it
holds $.50 after. But in the entire hour, two shirts hold $1 of labor. This would continue for
every increase in efficiency. The value of his labor will always be $1 in an hour, no matter
how many shirts he produces.
Hans: Your calculation assumes that the value created by labor is the same as the wage cost. This is a mistake
which should no longer happen at this stage of the class. It is a centerpiece of Marx’s theory that workers produce
more value than they get reimbursed as wages. This is why capitalists can sell their products at a price which is
higher than their cost and get a profit.
Message [681] referenced by [692] and [695]. Next Message by Husani is [720].
[692] Guh: Value Per Hour. In the readings, Marx talks about how the creation and
introduction of a new machine, and how it does not create more value per hour. Moreover,
according Casio [2004fa:557.15] “There will be initial gains in the early stages of adapting
the technology due to the rise in productivity but those gains will be competed away once
the new technology becomes standard.” Hans also clarifies this in [2001fa:320] “Value is
a social relation which ties people’s labor processes together, therefore only people can
produce value, machines can’t.” So thus even in the beginning stages and use of the machine,
the surplus value that is created from the machine, will have been derived from the labour of
the worker, and not the machine itself.
Hans: Very good. I tried to explain everything in detail in [Answer:6]. My only quibble: you should have said
something about Husani’s previous answer [681]. This answer made a basic mistake which should have been
corrected immediately.
Next Message by Guh is [699].
344 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[695] Giant: I agree with Husani’s assessment in [681] that the workers’ value does not
increase (in your example). I do believe that there is another possibility for this situation.
Since a company hires as few workers as possible to complete the product, work can only be
spread out so far in a company and not all that work can be done by machines. If a machine
can replace one or two workers, then the workers that are left do have increased value since
they can do what the machines can’t (like fix machines that are broken).
Hans: Yes, speedup is another implication of new technology, see [701]. But you referred to Husani without
catching an important error he committed.
Next Message by Giant is [763].
[700] SMIKEC: Given the social relation of value, a worker could not produce more per
hour just because of a new piece of equipment. The new piece of machinery would not
change the worker’s schedule of labor (hours worked), therefore value could not change.
Then you ask why would the capitalist even buy new equipment for her company? The
capitalist has to be leading edge to see any gains from it, be the first one on the street
who has the new equipment in the market. For this short time until everyone else has the
technology, she has a leading edge advantage in regards to technology and efficiencies. This
upside potential is generally short lived, because competing companies catch on quick that
in order to sustain against the leading technology based capitalist, they need the same tools
to have a level playing field, hence where the new equipment comes into play.
Next Message by SMIKEC is [713].
[703] Kaush: Workers and machinery. No, workers do not produce more value per hour
after the introduction of new machinery. What happens when a new method of production is
introduced, the total value of production stays the same while the value per unit decreases.
This outcome contradicts the capitalist’s intention of producing more surplus-value, where
he instead ends up creating more products and wealth.
Hans: You are repeating one of the things already said in the discussion, but the previous discussion touched on
several other aspects, which you simply ignored. I tried to summarize it all in [Answer:6].
Next Message by Kaush is [731].
[832] Kaimani: Machinery doesn’t equal more value. No, the workers don’t produce
more value after the introduction of new machinery. Productivity has increased but manual
labor stays the same and in some causes even drops because the machines are able to do most
of the load to produce the commodity. With that being said Marx states the value produced
in the production doesn’t increase.
Commodities are valued and measured by the social value that it creates. Machinery
allows the capitalist to expand his market on a broader scale and thereby create more surplusvalue
or wealth. Entering the bigger market the capitialist must double the demand and the
production to meet the needs of the new market and to offset the cost of production for one
working day.
By demand of the market the capitalist will become an “innovator” and lower the “price”
of the commodity in order to “squeeze” out the remaining profit from the commmodity. The
reason for this is that the capitalist wants to make as much gain as he can and keep whatever
excess that he can. This helps wilth the increased output of the product.
Message [832] referenced by [834]. Next Message by Kaimani is [854].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 345
[834] Hans: A sheep trying on wolf’s clothes: quickly found out. Reading Kaimani’s
[832] I almost feel I am cheating because Marxism has such a simple explanation. Marx
simply declares categorically that only labor creates value. Labor using machines does not
create any more value per hour than labor not using machines. So the answer is simply “no.”
Kaimani’s first paragraph stays in Marx’s paradigm. But then it seems as if buyer’s remorse
set in. Kaimani does not quite know if he can trust the Marxists. Maybe he should
better slip in the adjective “social”? Can’t hurt, can it, after all Marx keeps stressing that
value is a social relation. Kaimani writes:
Commodities are valued and measured by the social value that it creates.
This is an awkward sentence. Maybe he meant
Labor is valued and measured by the social value that it creates.
But this is no longer Marx. In Marx’s theory, labor is not valued by something outside
labor, something called “social value,” but labor itself is the measuring stick.
Next, Karmani eases us from the concept of “social value” to “wealth”. And the word
“surplus” sounds like abundance. Therefore he writes:
Machinary allows the capitalist to expand his market on a more broader
scale and thereby create more surplus-value or wealth.
Aha, the capitalist creates surplus-value with his machines. Now we can sleep well again,
no fear that the angry proletarians will come after the capitalists. And the word “surplusvalue”
makes sure that Marx is satisfied as well.
A Marxist would say here: wealth is use-value, and more use-value does not always mean
more value. This is one of the deep contradictions of the value concept.
I’ll stop here. The lesson is that Marxian and neoclassical theories are very different.
Trying to reformulate Marx until your neoclassical inner voice is satisfied is not a good idea.
Tell that neoclassical voice to shut up, otherwise you will jeoparize your exam grade.
Message [834] referenced by [919]. Next Message by Hans is [841].
[856] Wolf: Workers do not create more value per hour with new machinery unless it takes
more intense labor to produce with the new machinery. If the same amount of expended labor
is used to make the products, then no additional value is being created because machines do
not and cannot create value. If there is increased productivity, the value would be spread
thinner among the products resulting in extra surplus-value immediately and cheaper laborpower
generally as this productivity change happens throughout the entirety of the market
over time.
Hans: Your resubmission had: “unless it takes more labor to create the products than before,” I replaced this with
your in-class formulation mentioning intense labor. Of course, I understand why you changed it. You can have
more intense labor and still less labor if the intense labor is for a shorter duration. Still I wanted to make the point
that machinery can get higher value out of the worker due to higher intensity, but not due to a more efficiently
produced output.
Next Message by Wolf is [857].
346 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[866] PLG: graded A Initially the introduction of new machinery will bring a firm extra
surplus-value in production. The laborer will produce more value per hour initially while
the economy is in disequilibrium, and the company has a relative advantage over other companies.
However, this will become relative surplus-value once other companies adopt the
new technology. Output will increase, but the workers are not creating more value per hour.
Value is determined socially. Thus it is a qualitative factor in which the value can only increase
if a worker is producing more, relative to other workers. Machines never create value.
Value is always labor derived.
As Hans states in [2007fa:402] “value is a society wide cost category. I.e., things have
high value if their cost to society is high, and things have low value if it is low.” If everyone
adopts the same technology then there is no increase in labor value per hour. Thus the value
of production is separate from total output. An increase in output does not mean an increase
in labor value per hour.
Hans: You haven’t explained how it becomes relative surplus-value (but on the other hand the question has also
not asked you to explain this).
Next Message by PLG is [867].
[876] Oreo: graded A– Workers, after the introduction of new machinery, do not produce
more value per hour. New machinery will speed up the process of production and cause
commodities to be produced with less human labor time. They will therefore contain a
smaller about of congealed human labor than they did prior to the new machinery. So instead
of making 5 products an hour at $100 each, laborers are now able to produce 10 products in
an hour. However, the product’s decreased labor time may cause the product to now only be
worth $50. Therefore, each labor hour still produces $500 of value. The value per hour has
not changed. In summary, while the commodity’s value has gone down, the value per hour
will not increase or decrease, it will remain the same.
Hans: A full answer to this question must also discuss extra surplus-value.
Next Message by Oreo is [951].
[904] Proletarian: graded A No, workers do not produce more value per hour after the
introduction of machinery. While they may produce more commodities per hour, the value
of each of the commodities is lower, though the overall value produced is unchanged.
By definition, machines do not create value. Value comes only from congealed human
labor. So, say it takes one hour for a worker to make one shirt. That shirt contains one hour
of congealed human labor and one unit of value. If a machine is introduced that allows the
worker to make two shirts per hour, then each shirt has 1/2 hour congealed labor therein and
hence has only half the value as it would have prior to the introduction of machinery into the
production process.
The capitalist may be able to extract some benefit from the improved efficiency afforded
them by the machine. Since they are able to produce shirts more efficiently than their competitors
because they have a machine that their competitors don’t, the capitalist with the
machine can produce shirts with less labor than socially necessary. However, the technology
of the machinery (or some other technology that will allow production at the rate of the first
capitalist) will make its way to the other shirt makers, and the socially required labor time
required for the manufacture of a shirt will equal the amount of labor required to manufacture
a shirt using the machinery. Therefore, while the capitalist may have a short-term gain

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 347
from the machine, it is only temporary. The reason that the gain is temporary is because the
machine does not produce value, only human labor produces value.
Next Message by Proletarian is [1074].
[913] JJ: No. Value is a social relation and is determined by the amount of sociallynecessary
labor that goes into a commodity. Assuming that machine production is more
efficient and more productive per worker does not change the amount of value that a worker
can produce per hour. Rather, it will change the number of good X that is produced per
hour. The price of good X, that can now be produced with less labor time, will drop. This
price shows up as a reflection of the value, or labor time that went into producing that good.
This drop in price will show us that although the worker may produce quantitatively more
goods per hour with a machine, he ultimately will not produce any more value per hour with
a machine.
This concept can easily be confusing. Initially, after the introduction of new machinery,
the workers that operate these machines do produce more value per hour, but this is only true
in the short run. Only temporarily, before other capitalists have purchased similar machinery,
and before market forces have adjusted the price to the influx of this new commodity that is
now produced with less labor time, can the machine operators produce more value per hour.
Because value is socially determined, the machine operators are temporarily producing more
value per hour than the rest of society. The rest of society is still producing good X the old
fashioned way and therefore the socially necessary labor time in this good has not changed
much yet on average.
Value, however, is a social relation and cannot be changed by inanimate machines. This
social value of the good shows up in its price. If a good can be produced more efficiently,
then this implies that it is produced with less labor time. Competition among the different
factories will cause new machinery to also be introduced across the market and this good
produced will be produced with less labor time even at the overall social level. In turn, the
smaller amount of socially necessary labor will show up as the lower price of that commodity.
This will then adjust the amount of value per hour produced by a machine operator back
down to the value per hour that he produced before introduction of the machinery. Therefore,
the answer to question 690 is: No, workers ultimately do not produce any more value
per hour with a machine.
Next Message by JJ is [1173].
[919] Kaimani: The simple answer to this question is No. As Hans described in the email
forum in response to Kaimani [834] Hans tells Kaimani to keep away from the neoclassical
and that Marx is very different from Kaimani’s explanation.
Hans: Your in-class answer still gave an explanation based on demand and supply (machines increase suppply
therefore the price drops). This is still not the same as Marx’s explanation, sorry.
Next Message by Kaimani is [920].
[932] LuBr: At the start, when new machinery or technology is introduced in a factory,
the workers are producing more value per hour, because of the new machines, than any of
the other workers in the other factories, the workers that do not have the new machinery.
This is due to an increase in labor productivity. But, after all of the other factories take on
the new technology, eventually all workers would produce the same value per hour as the
original factory.
348 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Given value is a social relation, created by the labor-power of laborers, the introduction
of new machines does not create more value. The new machines are simply transferring past
congealed labor-power to the production process creating more value. Labor is still the only
source of value.
Next Message by LuBr is [951].
[958] Husani: With the introduction of new machinery the worker will produce the same
value has he did before. He will produce more commodities but the total value of the commodities
produced will equal the value before the introduction of the new machinery. Let’s
say that a worker can produce 10 shirts in an hour and the value of these 10 shirts is $100.
Each shirt is worth $10. If the new machinery allows the worker to produce 20 shirts in an
hour then the total value of these 20 shirts remains $100. This reduces the individual value to
$5 per shirt. Marx says “Even though the productivity of labor has doubled, the day’s labor
creates no more value than before.” The value remains the same as before because the labor
used in their production remains the same which is where the commodity gets its value. We
are simply dispersing the value between more commodities than we were before.
Next Message by Husani is [1187].
[973] Kohhep: Yes, but only for the capitalists. The best analogy I know is the analogy
that Hans made during lecture that machinery is like a gun during a bank robbery. The gun,
or machine, does not create value, but strips it from another source. The robber is simply the
capitalist, the gun the machine, and the laborer the bank. Machinery is able to simply strip
away the value that is otherwise entitled to the laborer, but instead is immediately routed to
the capitalist.
Next Message by Kohhep is [1074].
[979] Kobe: The simple answer to this question is no. Marx declares categorically that
only labor creates value. With this being said labor completed using machines would not
increase the value per hour.“Value is a social relation which ties people’s labor processes
together, therefore only people can produce value, machines can’t” In the introductory stages
of machinery there will be an increase in surplus value, which is created by the machine, but
this is derived from the laborer himself not the machine.
Next Message by Kobe is [1022].
[1026] Jo: Workers do not produce more value per hour with the introduction of new
machinery. Productivity increases, however the same amount of labor is being performed,
so value does not increase. More pieces are produced, but each piece has less value than
before the machinery was introduced. Value is a product of labor, not technology.
Hans: Your in-class answer was more complete because you also talked about the first adopters of the machine.
Next Message by Jo is [1027].
[1081] Trap: Throughout Capital Marx is extremely adamant about the fact that machines
do not create more value per hour when first introduced. What does produce more value per
hour is the workers who use the machines. When the capitalist first introduces a machine
into their production, it increases the efficiency and productivity of the workers. It is possible
for the workers using a new machine to create more value for the capitalist, but only if other
capitalists aren’t using the machine as well. The workers create extra surplus value, which
creates more value for the capitalist until their competitors have the same advancements as
well, because the original capitalist loses his competitive edge. Once the other capitalists

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 349
have access to the new machinery it ceases to be extra surplus-value and becomes relative
surplus value. Therefore, only workers produce value, not machines.
Hans: It is not the productivity which allows them to create more value, but the fact that, as long as they are
the early adopters, their labor is qualitatively different than the labor of the other workers with the older type of
machines.
Next Message by Trap is [1170].
Question 698 is 547 in 2005fa, 606 in 2008fa, 635 in 2009fa, and 747 in 2012fa:
Question 698 Relative surplus-value requires the value of labor-power to fall. Does this
mean that in today’s world with sticky wages and union contracts, relative surplus-value is
impossible?
[705] Jo: Sticky wages and relative surplus-value. No, relative surplus-value is not
impossible in today’s world. Wages can still fall, and do for various reasons. However,
wages do not have to fall for the value of labor power to fall. Workers can be made more
productive through the implementation of technology. This means that a worker will produce
more in a work day than before. The worker will work the same number of hours and
receive the same wage, yet produce more articles. As Hans mentioned in his notes at the
end of [2009fa:748], “the labor content of one dollar’s worth of goods is over time slowly
declining. Even if 8 hours produce as much value as before, the dollar amount representing
this value increases.” This means that productivity is increasing, yet the value of the dollar
is being held relatively constant, and so the labor content of that dollar is declining. Since
the worker’s wage is not increasing to compensate for the change in labor content, they are
essentially receiving a lower wage.
Hans also says in his notes to [2008fa:828] that “Workers get lower wages, but since the
labor content of their means of consumption is lower too, their standard of living remains
unchanged.” How is this possible? The workers are essentially receiving lower wages, yet
their standard of living does not change. This is possible because the labor content of one
dollar’s worth of goods has also declined. The worker will save money by having access
to cheaper goods (or “those commodities that contribute towards the necessary means of
subsistence” Annotations, p. 517), so even though his wage is lower, he will still be able to
afford the same standard of living. The capitalist, on the other hand, will be able to enjoy
the relative surplus-value owing to the increased productivity of the worker.
Message [705] referenced by [2012fa:997]. Next Message by Jo is [1025].
Question 699 is 212 in 1995WI, 243 in 1996ut, 297 in 1997WI, 368 in 1998WI, 369 in
1999SP, 457 in 2000fa, 484 in 2001fa, 597 in 2004fa, 550 in 2005fa, and 719 in 2011fa:
Question 699 Does the continual striving by the capitalists to lower the value of their products
contradict the basic tenet of the labor theory of value that they are only interested in
value, not use-value?
[711] Rmc: graded C Capitalists and value vs. use-value. Capitalists must be interested
in use-value while choosing a product to exchange on the market because use-value to a
buyer is exchange-value to the seller. If the producers choose to sell a commodity that has
no use-value to any customers, or to too few, they risk not making a profit or even losing
350 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
money. They are secondarily interested in value when it comes to producing the product
because of its relationship to the product’s (exchange-value’s) price.
By reducing the labor-time spent on a product, which lowers the labor-time value attached
to it, more products can be made for the same amount of money as before, allowing the
capitalist to make a greater profit. This is because customers are more likely to exchange for
a lower price, attracting greater demand, and allowing the seller to sell more of his products.
While the value of a product may be the capitalists’ main concern for generating profit,
they must always be aware of the commodity’s use-value. When a commodity loses its status
as a use-value, it loses its exchange-value as well, and no profit is generated.
Hans: You equate more product with more profit, even if the increase in output is not accompanied by an increase
in labor-value. Since in Marx’s theory labor-values determine prices, you fail to explain where this higher profit
should come from.
Message [711] referenced by [728]. Next Message by Rmc is [758].
[728] Hans: Use-value—exchange-value chicken and egg problem. Rmc argues in
[711] that the capitalists must be interested in use-value, since they cannot sell anything if it
does not have use-value for the buyers. Rmc goes as far as saying that capitalists are only
“secondarily interested in value.”
Marx by contrast declares categorically in 254:1 that “use-values must never be treated
as the immediate aim of the capitalist.” He is not alone saying this, other economists of his
time said this too.
In order to decide which point of view is right, I propose to look at the use-values that are
produced in capitalism. They are usable but they have the capitalist profit motive stamped
all over them. From excessive and deceptive packaging to planned obsolescence to lack
of modularity and standardization (which makes them irrepairable so that they have to be
dumped and replaced when something goes wrong). Don’t get me started. The failure of the
US to join the rest of the world on the metric system is another one. It is clear that use-values
are designed for the capitalist, not for the consumer.
This is especially galling because it is an entirely unnecessary waste of our natural resources.
One should expect regulation to require minimum quality and longevity standards.
This is nothing new; military suppliers have had to meet such regulation for a long time.
Not a peep from our esteemed legislators, although everybody knows that we are reaching
or have already overshot the limits of our planet’s natural resources.
Next Message by Hans is [734].
Question 700 is 370 in 1999SP, 544 in 2003fa, 551 in 2005fa, and 596 in 2007fa:
Question 700 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.
[696] Long: One of the avenues Marx describes is that with the new method of production
the capitalist is now producing his commodity under their social value. This is in turn acting
as a law of competition since it forces the competitor to adopt new or different methods of
production. Not only that, it also reduces the workers’ hours of labor. Marx gave an example
of working 12 hours and producing 120 but an increase in productivity would increace it to

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 351
1200 articles. Marx also describes that not only we owe debt of gratitude to such productivity
because the necessary labor is shortened, but now we must work more in the future for more
hours instead which in term he/she is working for nothing.
Hans: You say that the innovation “reduces the workers’ hours of labor.” This is not true. Often the hours are even
lengthened because the capitalist does not want the expensive machine stand idle.
Message [696] referenced by [701]. Next Message by Long is [743].
[701] Hans: Speedups. Besides relative surplus-value, Long [696] says correctly that extra
surplus-value is another way how productivity increases profits. There is a third important
way, which is an issue for almost everyone who has a job these days: speedup. Machines
make the work easier, more regular, and machines can be used to control and supervise the
worker.
This speedup will not be implemented right at the beginning when the new technology is
introduced. Whenever there is new technology, the capitalists have to go easy because they
want to lure the workers into learning this new technology. At the beginning they also don’t
have enough experience to know how fast they can drive the workers etc. But in times of
economic recession, such as the last two years, when workers are afraid to lose their jobs,
these stops are pulled out and speedups are implemented mercilessly.
It is the workers’ right not to be completely exhausted after work. People are so busy and
tired with their lives that they can no longer attend to their families. One of the reasons Marx
wrote the long chapter Ten about the working day was his hope that, after the shortening of
the workday, workers would have more time and energy to organize to bring the capitalist
system down. This didn’t happen. Right now the stakes are even higher. We should be out
on the barricades to protest against our government’s suicidal neglect of global warming.
But we are too overworked and exhausted, we can be glad if we get enough sleep as it is.
Message [701] referenced by [695]. Next Message by Hans is [702].
[709] Ryan: When Marx talks about the (As Submitted:) Q700 When Marx
increase of productivity and mentions that talks about the increase of produtivity and
menstions that there are other factors to consider
when calculating the total Surplus-
there are other factors to consider when calvalue besides the cheaping of “workers
culating the total surplus-value besides the
cheapening of “workers means of subsistence”
he is referring to:
Surplus Labor: This is the additional free
labor that the worker does once the new pro-
means of subsistince” he is refering to:
Surplus Labor: This is the additional free
labor that the worker does once the new productive
messaures are in place. For example
ductive measures are in place. For example
a worker is paid 50 dollars a day and ex-
a wprk is paid 50 dollars a day and expected
pected to make 5 dolls. 10 dollars a doll. to make 5 dolls. 10 dollars a doll. Now
Now with the new machine a worker can
make ten dolls. They are still paid 50 dol-
with the new machine a worker can make
lars a day and expected to make ten dolls. ten dolls. They are still paid 50 dollars a
352 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Now 5 dollars a doll. This additional labor day and expected to make ten dolls. Now 5
is not being paid for as there has been no
change to wages. dollars a doll. This additional labor is not
being paid for as there has been no change
to wages.
Profit from additional items made: Same
worker that was making 5 dolls now makes
Profit from additional items made: Same
worker that was making 5 dolls now makes 10 dolls. Dolls sell for 20 dollars. 5X20 0
minus 50 dollars in wages 10X20 0 minus
10 dolls. Dolls sell for 20 dollars. 5×20=100 50 dollars for wages
minus 50 dollars in wages = 50 dollars
profit. Now 10×20=200 minus 50 dollars
for wages = 150 in profit.
Hans: Your second paragraph talks about speedup—assuming work with the new machine is more strenuous than
before. If it isn’t, then Marx would argue the work performed is the same.
Your third paragraph talks about extra surplus-value. But this will be competed away.
Both of these things were mentioned earlier and discussed better.
Form and writing style of your answer are unacceptable.
Next Message by Ryan is [844].
Term Paper 701 is 638 in 2009fa and 721 in 2011fa:
Term Paper 701 Essay about the General Connection between Exploitation and Surplus-
Value.
[735] Robert: graded A+ In this essay, I present the connection between the Marxian
concepts of surplus-value and exploitation. I first examine Marx’s definition of surplus-value
and describe his analysis of the source of surplus-value in a capitalist economy. I proceed
to explore the definition of exploitation and what Marx means by the term. Then, I bring
together the two concepts and present the connection between them. Additionally, I explore
Marx’s derivatives of surplus-value, i.e., absolute surplus-value, relative surplus-value, and
extra surplus value.
Marx defines surplus-value first in reference to his exploration of M-C-M’. He states, in
250:4/oo that M’=M +ΔM and that ΔM, the “increment or excess over the original value I
call—surplus-value.”
Marx then goes into a detailed analysis to discover the source of surplus-value. He first
examines circulation to determine if surplus-value originates there. He looks at the exchange
of equivalents and concludes, “the value of a commodity is expressed in its price before it
enters into circulation, and is therefore a precondition of circulation, not its result” [260:1].
Then Marx examines the exchange of non-equivalents and ends his search with the words,
“One does not throw any light on the origin of surplus-value if one says that the owner of
the commodities sells them at more than their value, under the designation of producer, and
pays too much for them, under the designation of consumer” [264:1b]. He finally looks at
transactions between classes of individuals and individuals themselves and concludes that

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 353
although such transactions may redistribute value, such redistribution is a zero sum game
(Annotations, p. 385).
Marx concludes his search for the source of surplus-value in circulation by stating, “However
much we twist and turn, the final conclusion remains the same. If equivalents are exchanged,
no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, we still have no
surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities creates no value” [266:1]. Circulation,
by itself, is not the source of surplus-value.
Marx then looks at production to see if that is the source of surplus-value. He examines
a boot and decides, “ It has not valorized itself, it has not annexed surplus-value during
the making of the boots. It is therefore impossible that, outside the sphere of circulation, a
producer of commodities can, without coming into contact with other commodity-owners,
valorize value” [268:1] and thereby create surplus-value.
Therefore, in typical Marxian fashion, when it seems there is no explanation as to the
source of surplus-value, Marx digs deeper. He states in 268:2 that surplus-value “must have
its origin both in circulation and not in circulation.” He then goes on to explain this “double
result” [268:3] is only possible because, as I describe below, in capitalism labor-power is a
commodity. The capitalist only pays for the necessary labor (the value of labor-power) and
realizes for himself the value of the surplus labor.
To understand surplus-value as defined by Marx we must explore this related concept
of necessary labor. Marx [324:1/o] defines necessary labor: “That portion of the working
day [during which the laborer produces the value of his labor-power] takes place, I call
‘necessary’ labor-time, and the labor expended during that time I call ‘necessary’ labor.”
This concept of necessary labor is different from Marx’s concept of the socially necessary
labor to produce a commodity, which refers to the most socially common methods utilizing
the socially average amount of labor time to produce such a commodity.
Labor power is the capacity to work or potential labor. The laborer in a capitalist society
must sell his labor-power as a commodity. Like any other commodity, the value of
labor-power is equal to the labor-time necessary to produce it. In reference to human brains,
nerves, and muscles the amount of labor-time necessary to produce labor power is its maintenance
of the human individual and her replacement, when the individual wears out. The
laborer must be able to sustain herself and to reproduce her own replacements (i.e., have
and raise children to be future laborers). This effort is the value of the commodity laborpower
that she sells to the owners of the means of production for a wage. The wage, which
equals only the necessary labor, as defined above, only pays for a portion of the labor-time
expended by the laborer. In a few hours time of expenditure of labor-power each day, the
worker creates enough value to allow sustenance of herself and her replacements; this labor
is necessary labor (Hunt, 1992, pp. 268-270).
However, the worker has the capacity to work more hours and the workday in capitalism
always extends beyond these few hours of necessary labor-time. The labor-power expended
during the time difference between the actual length of the working day and the necessary
labor-time is surplus labor. In capitalism, the owner of the means of production owns the
commodity that results from production. Imbedded in that commodity is value equal to a
354 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
full days labor expended in its production. That imbedded value exceeds what the owner has
paid for it by an amount exactly equal to the surplus labor, for which he has not and will not
pay the laborer. Therefore, surplus-value equals the value created by surplus labor.
To understand the connection between surplus-value and exploitation it is helpful to look
at Marx’s concept of rate of surplus-value. To develop this concept, Marx [320:2] explains
surplus-value in terms of capital. He describes that capital, which he labeled C, has two
parts: constant capital and variable capital. Constant capital, which Marx symbolizes with
c, is “the sum of money laid out upon the means of production” and variable capital, v, is the
amount “expended upon labor-power.” At the beginning of production C=c+v and at the end
of production C’=c+v+s, where s is the surplus-value. Marx uses these symbols to define
the rate of surplus-value, s/v, which equals the surplus-value divided by wages paid, or, in
the terms defined above, the value of surplus labor divided by value of necessary labor.
The connection between surplus-value and exploitation is made by Marx when he states:
“The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of
labor by capital, or of the laborer by the capitalist” [326:2]. For every hour the laborer works
for himself (i.e., earning a wage to subsist and reproduce) he works s/v hours producing
profits for the capitalist.
More generally, Marx defined exploitation as the transfer of a product from those who
produce that product by the expenditure of their labor power to other social classes because
of their control of the means of production.
Ernest Mandel (1990) writes: “Marx’s theory of surplus-value is basically a deduction
(or residual) theory of the ruling classes’ income . . . [which income] can always be reduced
in the final analysis to the product of unpaid labour: that is the heart of Marx’s theory of
exploitation.” By only paying the laborer for her necessary labor the capitalist, who owns
the means of production, exploits the worker for her surplus labor, which, because he claims
ownership of the products, produces surplus value for him.
The word exploitation invokes emotional responses that affect our understanding of what
the word means. Jonathan Wolff’s (1999) article “Marx and Exploitation” carefully and rationally
develops a definition of the word and analyzes whether there is something morally
wrong with exploitation from Kantian, Rawlsian, and Aristotelian views of ethics. He concludes,
given Marx’s understanding of the development of capitalism, “then fairness demands
that those who find themselves holding private property [i.e., means of production]
have no right to benefit from it. Consequently, contracts of employment in which surplus
labour is required or at least expected violate norms of fairness, and this is enough to make
the contracts exploitative. The fact that, in Marx’s view, the labour is alienated and involves
great suffering compounds the case, to make exploitation under capitalism particularly
deep.” (my parenthetical comment, p. 119).
Therefore, we can conclude that surplus-value equals the amount of value that owners
of the means of production expropriate from laborers employed by them and that such expropriation
violates the norms of fairness. Such expropriation is exploitive, and therefore,
ethically wrong. The fact that such exploitation causes alienation and suffering intensifies
the wrong. In this way, surplus-value and exploitation are generally connected.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 355
It is interesting to note here that a capitalistic society promotes the idea that the laborer is
not selling labor-power but is selling labor. The laborer believes he is selling a day’s labor
when he is paid his wage. He does not realize that he is being exploited, that he is not
receiving compensation for the value he creates. He believes the capitalist concept that since
he has been paid for his labor by the capitalist the capitalist owns the product the laborer
produced.
Similarly, the individual capitalist may not realize, because of his socialization in capitalism,
that he, in fact, is exploiting his laborers. Furthermore, in a capitalist society the
capitalist believes that he deserves a return on his capital and that he is compensating the
laborer fairly. He believes his capital is the source of his profits. The fact that the laborer
does not even know he is being exploited and the capitalist believes a self-serving cover-up
explanation of his exploitation of the laborer seems to render the exploitation in capitalism
all the more insidious.
Having made the connection between surplus-value and exploitation, Marx introduced
three new terms to illustrate the extent of exploitation propagated by the capitalist: absolute
surplus-value, relative surplus-value and extra surplus-value.
Absolute surplus-value involves attempts by capitalist to lengthen the working day so that
more surplus labor-time is rendered and thereby more surplus-value created. Chapter 10 of
Capital relates much of the history and several instances of the struggle by capitalists to
require workers to work longer hours. There is a point of diminishing returns when the days
are so long that the workers wear out and are unable to replace themselves, either in the next
day’s work or by creating new laborers.
Relative surplus-value involves decreasing the portion of the day required for necessary
labor-time, which, as defined above, is the labor-time necessary to reproduce the worker’s
wages. By a method Hans refers to as the backdoor effect [2008fa:943], capitalist can effectively
decease necessary labor-time by improving productivity and thereby making the
commodities required for sustenance and replacement less costly. Labor-power is a commodity
in capitalism and its value is measured, as described above, by its sustenance and
replacement cost. If such costs decrease, the value of labor-power decreases therefore necessary
labor-time drops. By increasing efficiency capitalist have effectively lowered necessary
labor time and, if the workday remains unchanged, thereby increased surplus labor time and
surplus-value.
Extra surplus-value occurs when, because of innovation, laborers are able to provide
qualitatively different labor, which produces a product whose individual value is below the
market value of that product. Extra surplus-value exist only temporarily, as others employ
the innovation then the extra surplus-value of the early adopter of the innovation becomes
the general relative surplus-value, described above.
Capitalist, motivated by a societal necessity of accumulation of more capital, try to maximize
their profits, which derive directly from surplus-value, the value created by labor-time
expended each day in addition to necessary labor-time. They attempt to do so by increasing
356 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
either absolute or relative surplus-value or by gaining the brief advantage of extra surplusvalue.
Surplus-value results directly from exploitation of labor by capitalists who expropriate
the products of the labors’ surplus-labor because the capitalist controls the means of
production. Therefore, capitalism incentivizes the class that owns the means of production
to maximize their exploitation of laborers.
Works Cited (in addition to Ehrbar, H. (2010). Annotations to Karl Marx’s ‘Capital.’
Class Edition.)
Hunt, E. (1992). History of economic thought: A critical perspective. NY: HarperCollins.
Mandel, E. (1990). Marx’s theory of surplus value. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/19xx/marx/ch07.htm
Wolf, J. (1999). Marx and exploitation. The Journal of Ethics. 3:2 pp.105-120. Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Message [735] referenced by [755] and [2011fa:1132]. Next Message by Robert is [747].
Term Paper 702 is 608 in 2007SP, 722 in 2011fa, and 752 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 702 Essay about Chapter Eleven: Rate and Mass of Surplus Value
[739] Cosmopolita and TINDOZ: Chapter 11 in Marx’s Capital examines the trade offs
between several factors that capitalists attempt to manipulate in order to meet their goals of
obtaining the highest rate of surplus value from their employees. We will concentrate on this
aspect of the chapter, seeking to better understand what tools the capitalist uses to influence
the rate and the mass of the surplus value. This examination takes place through a close look
at the relationships between the following factors: surplus, value of average labor power, the
number of laborers, and the total labor hours needed to meet desired goals. To begin this
examination, Marx begins the chapter by setting up the mathematical relationship between
all the factors involved and uses an example to explore this relationship. For us to properly
examine this chapter, we will first need to do just as Marx did and define the mathematical
relationships and we will also use Marx’s example.
We will start by looking at the rate of surplus value which is understood as a1/a2 (or
s/v). The example that Marx gives as a rate of surplus value is that if (in the example) the
“necessary labor” amounts to 6 hours of labor a day, and that that is further expressed in
gold as 3 shillings, then if a laborer works for only 6 hours in one day, his ratio 6/6, or 3
shillings/3 shillings or 100%. This ratio can be tinkered with by (in his example Marx fixes
the necessary labor at 6 hours) increasing the amount of hours worked in order to create a
different percentage of surplus. For example if the worker worked for 12 hours (so 6 above
the necessary labor amount) the gold ratio would be 6/3 being further expressed as the rate
of surplus value being 200%.
Hans: What is this “gold ratio”? Marx does not use this. He uses the rate of surplus-value, which would be 0 in a
six-hour work day, and 100% in a 12 hour work day.
The equation for the mass of surplus value (S) can be expressed as: S = P×(a1/a2)×n.
So the mass of surplus value equals P (value of labor-power) times a1/a2 (the rate of surplus
value we just discussed) times n (which represents the number of workers employed by the
capitalist). In this equation, P is a fixed value as the value of labor-power does not change

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 357
from day to day. This labor power value is figured by the socially necessary labor time to
create the commodity in question.
Hans: Wrong definition of value of labor-power.
Therefore, as this equation relies on 3 separate parts to give a specific surplus value (P,
(a1/a2), and n); and one of those values (P) is constant, any manipulating of the function
must be done on the other two variables. Manipulating these variable can be done by either
modifying the number of workers, or modifying the number of hours worked. This surplus
value equation shows that the only way that a capitalist can modify the surplus value result is
by changing the values that they have control over (namely number of workers and the length
of the day those laborers work). Therefore if the number of workers drops, we can conclude
then that a decrease in this variable may be compensated for by a lengthening of the work
day for those laborers who remain. Furthermore, if a capitalist wishes to increase the mass
of surplus value, then they can either lengthen the work day or employ more workers.
With this equation there are limits that are set that prohibit the movement of these variables
to certain degrees. For example the absolute limit for a worker to work is 24 hours per
day. We say absolute limit because that is the number of hours in a day and it is impossible to
increase this beyond 24. However, if a capitalist exploits his labor to working them 24 hours
a day, they would be working them to death for no person could keep up with that schedule.
If the health and well-being of the worker are taken into account (especially noting that if
they are healthy, they are better producers) then this limits the number of hours the laborer
can work even further (possibly somewhere between 8 hours and 18 hours). So let’s say that
a capitalist has a number of workers who are working 18 hour days and are producing a surplus
mass of X. Then the workers get fed up with working themselves to death for the benefit
of the capitalist (because their necessary labor hours are 6) and unionize and get their work
day dropped down to 12 hours a day. If this happened, the only way that the capitalist could
retain the surplus of X would be to increase the number of workers he had at a proportional
rate to compensate for the dropping of daily hours worked by his workforce. This limitation
(of the working hours) is one that vexes capitalists as they are always trying to get the most
surplus value that they can by employing the fewest people they can.
Hans: Your first sentence does not summarize well what Marx does. The capitalist is interested in surplus-value
itself, not the rate of surplus-value. The rate of surplus-value is only one factor in the formula which tells you the
amount, the “mass,” of surplus-value. Other factors are length of the workday and number of workers
Otherwise, this term paper suffers because you seem to be unclear about some of the basic concepts of Marx:
necessary labor, value of labor-power, and rate of surplus-value..
Message [739] referenced by [747], [755], and [772]. Next Message by Cosmopolita is [807] and Next Message
by TINDOZ is [954].
[747] Robert: graded A Socially Necessary Labor Time and Necessary Labor. I think
Cosmopolita and TINDOZ [739] did a good job on their essay about Chapter Eleven: Rate
and Mass of Surplus Value. There is one point, that I think Marx himself is not too clear
about, that I think perhaps they could have clarified a bit more for us.
The second paragraph of the essay refers to “necessary labor amounts” in reference to
examples provided by Marx, without a definition of what Marx meant by the term. I think the
labeling is accurate and reflects Marx’s meaning of necessary labor in this context. The next
paragraph of the essay states: “This labor power value is figured by the socially necessary
358 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
labor time to create the commodity in question.” Again, if I understand correctly, I think
the sentence correctly states the concept and Marx’s view of it. However, the use of phrase
“necessary labor” in two adjacent paragraphs, in both instances referring to value and time,
with two different meanings may be worth clarifying.
I am suggesting an explanation something like: Marx uses “necessary labor” in reference
to two related but different concepts. In Chapter 1, he introduces the concept of socially
necessary labor time with the paradox of the lazy worker and ultimately identifies the “substance
of value is equal human labor, expenditure of the same human power” that “has the
character of the average labor-power of society...for producing a commodity” (129:2). This
concept, from Chapter 1 is the concept referenced in the third paragraph of the essay. In
Chapter 10 Marx introduces the subject of “necessary labor” by which he means the portion
of the day that a laborer must work to create value equal to value of the commodity he has
sold, i.e., his labor-power.
The concepts are related: the worker is expected to be able to produce the product in
the time allotted by the Chapter 1 definition of necessary labor. Working at this Chapter 1
rate the worker will produce a value per unit of time (say hours), that value divided into the
socially determined cost of maintaining and reproducing the laborer equals the necessary
labor portion (in hours) of the work day.
In fairness to Cosmopolita and TINDOZ the essay refers to the Chapter 1 use of “necessary
labor” with the adjective “socially,” and did not apply the adjective to their reference
of the Chapter 10 use of “necessary labor” (although, interestingly, it is also socially determined).
Again, I don’t believe there are any errors in their references, I found I was a little
confused and had to pause and realize that “necessary labor” in Marx’s world has these two
different, although related, meanings.
Next Message by Robert is [893].
[772] Husani: Feedback for Term Paper. I think that what Cosmopolita and TINDOZ
[739] said about their assessment of chapter 11 is correct. They left out the second part of
the chapter and I believe this part has some significance.
Marx refers to three laws which were touched on by Cosmopolita and TINCOZ but I
will go more in depth on them. The first of these laws says that the mass of surplus value
produced is equal to the amount of variable capital advanced multiplied by the rate of surplus
value. This is a very simple equation which means that the total surplus value (S) produced
can be found by multiplying the total amount of labor power purchased at its going rate (V)
by the rate of surplus value (a1/a2 or s/v). This law can also be stated as the mass of surplus
value is equal to the product of the number of labor simultaneously exploited by the same
capitalist and the degree of exploitation of each individual labor power.
The second law states that the absolute limit of the working day must be below 24 hours.
Cosmopolita and TINDOZ say that if the worker labors for the capitalist all 24 hours of each
day then he will die. This is true and to add to it, the worker must be given some time for the
maintenance of the worker or in other words the worker needs time off to satisfy his needs
of eating, sleeping, etc.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 359
The third law says that if the rate of surplus value and the amount of necessary labor-time
are given or constant then the greater the variable capital advanced, the greater the mass of
value produced and of the surplus-value. What this third law means is that if the rate of
surplus value is constant and the amount of necessary-labor time is also constant, then an
increase in the variable capital advanced will increase the mass of surplus-value and value
will increase as well. Let’s assume that the rate of surplus value is 100% and the amount of
necessary labor time is 6 hours at $5. If a capitalist employs 10 workers then he will generate
$50 in surplus value (100% x $5 x 10). If the capitalist doubles the capital he advances to
workers he must employ five more workers and will double his surplus value to $100.
One last interesting point I found in this chapter is towards the end and is in relation
to how the capitalist system began. Marx says “Capital developed within the production
process until it acquired command over labor, i.e. over self-activating labor-power, in other
words the worker himself (424).” I believe this means that capital developed as the production
of many commodities grew. As cities grew and fewer people produced all of their
necessities, capital arose to fill the gaps. As this system grew the capitalists slowly began to
provide for their workers and in return these workers do more work than is required. This
relationship creates a cohesive bond between the worker and the capitalist which keeps the
Capitalist system intact and working today. This is a short synopsis of how the system we
currently use came to be.
Next Message by Husani is [817].
Term Paper 703 is 913 in 1999SP, 913 in 2000fa, 913 in 2001fa, 813 in 2002fa, 813 in
2003fa, 813 in 2005fa, 620 in 2007SP, 611 in 2008fa, and 753 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 703 Essay about Chapter Thirteen: Co-operation
[699] Cougar, Guh, IrvingHowe, Jon, and Orville: Throughout Capital, Marx has
systematically analyzed capitalism by breaking the system down in every case to its lowest
common denominator. In Chapter 13 of Capital, Marx has sought to explain the element of
production that allows a given number of workers to turn raw materials into finished goods.
This element, co-operation, is defined by Marx in 443:10 as “when numerous workers work
together side by side in accordance with a plan, whether in the same process or in different
by connected processes, this form of labour is called co-operation.” Framed with Marx’s
definition of co-operation, this paper is our attempt to understand both the nature of cooperation
and its implications. In describing the nature of co-operation Marx 447:1/o0 notes
in a way that is almost euphoric: “When the worker co-operates in a planned way with others,
he strips off the fetters of his individuality, and develops the capabilities of his species.” Of
course, there is hardly a wasted sentence in Capital but this sentence impresses upon the
reader just how important and far reaching the power of co-operation can be.
Hans: I agree that there is hardly a wasted sentence in Capital and my Annotations try to show this, but the
consensus view even among Marxists seems to be that Marx is rather repetitious in Capital.
On the implications of co-operation, more specifically large-scale co-operation, Marx issues
what at first glance appears to be merely a fairly obvious insight saying “As the number
of workers increases, so too does their resistance to the domination of capital, and, necessarily,
the pressure put on by capital to overcome this resistance.” However, given the
historical lens that we have the pleasure of viewing Capital through, this statement becomes
360 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
eerily prophetic in its implicit assurance that struggle is the inevitable by-product of the
co-operation of men for the purpose of capitalistic production.
Hans: The capitalist system has the “feature” that the capitalists unwittingly organize their own grave diggers, the
workers. This is by no means a trivial contradiction for the capitalists. The capitalists themselves did not think of
it when Ford built the River Rouge plant in Detroit. This vertically integrated auto plant gave the workers so much
power that future auto plants were deliberately spread out to make it more difficult for the workers to organize.
(Also your discussion at the end of the term paper is not placing enough emphasis on this contradiction. “Start
seeing contradictions” is one of Marx’s bumper stickers, see [2007SP:387].)
This paper is an attempt to understand co-operation and will explain what we see as three
concepts from the chapter central to understanding Marx’s commentary on the subject in
a more holistic manner. We see these concepts as being economies of scale, the need for
supervisors and what Marx called “the animal spirits.”
Economies of Scale-
The first sentence of chapter 13 says: “Capitalist production only really begins, as we
have already seen, when each individual capital simultaneously employs a comparatively
large number of workers, and when, as a result, the labor process is carried on an extensive
scale, and yields relatively large quantities of products.” From this perspective on capitalist
production it is clear that capital is not found on a small family farm where everyone puts
in the work to help the family unit. Equally important is that a capitalist is not made when
a person hires a few workers to help out but, only when one capitalist has command of a
large number of workers who are working in a common place and time in order to produce
a commodity under the command direction or supervision of that capitalist.
At first sight the differences are purely quantitative. Take for example the work that one
man can do in 12 days working 12 hours for X amount of dollars per day. At the end of the
12 days he will have worked for 144 hours total and made 12X amount of dollars. On the
other hand if 12 men were to work 12 hours but for only 1 day collectively they will have
worked 144 hours and made a total of 12X dollars. In both cases the capitalist who buys the
labor of the men has gotten the same amount of work done and has paid the same amount for
that work to be done. The question then arises then, what is the importance in the number
of workers who work for a capitalist?
Economies of scale show the importance in the number of workers and the capital used
to supply the workers with the necessities of production. Marx uses the example of weavers
to illustrate this. If one capitalist were to employ 20 weavers then he must have a workshop
sufficiently large enough for all of them to work. However, if the 20 weavers were split up
into 10 pairs under 10 different capitalists then they would need more room and 10 separate
workshops. The ten capitalists would need to build 10 smaller workshops and then still pay
the weavers their wage. In this circumstance we see that the capitalist who runs the shop of
20 weavers has the larger surplus of labor because of the money he saves making one larger
workshop but still receives the surplus labor of 20 weavers.
Marx also shares an example in agriculture of the need for the capitalist to use an economy
of scale to complete his purposes. Now that there is no need for the capitalist to build a
workshop for his workers considering they are working in a field, there is no capital lost in
that. If the capitalist has a 100 acre farm and 1 man can harvest 1 acre per day it would take

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 361
the worker 100 days to harvest the whole field. However, if the capitalist has 20 workers
who work at the same rate they can collectively harvest the whole field in only 5 days. The
capitalist with the 20 workers once again has the larger advantage over that of only 1 or even
5 workers, due to the matter of time efficiency. In the harvest there is a time limit to when
the field can be harvested. If there is, for instance, only a 5 day window and the goods are
not harvested within that window, they will spoil. In the case of the capitalist employing
only one laborer, he would have the misfortune of losing 95 acres of harvest.
Hans: You are re-telling here Marx’s examples but you are not paying enough attention to the points which Marx
tries to make with these examples. These points are (a) the labor process is super-additive, i.e., 20 workers can do
something which 1 or 5 workers cannot do (for instance harvest a 100 acre farm in the harvest window). Scale not
only gives economies but allows new things to happen which could not happen otherwise. On the other hand, (b)
wages are only additive, not super-additive. I.e., the capitalist reaps the benefits of the co-operation without having
the pay the workers for it. He has assembled a powerful organism, but he has to pay the workers only individually,
as if they were working alone. So the capitalist is getting something for free. Of course, this power of co-operation
can also turn against the capitalist. Alone, the workers are powerless against the capitalist, but if they organize, they
have much more power than they usually think.
Animal Spirits-
Throughout Capital, Marx has taken a scientific approach to understanding economics,
capitalism, and people themselves. As we’ve seen, human interaction with commodities
and their properties have been one of the focuses of Capital. But the bigger picture here is
much more than people and property. It is about people’s interactions with other people. In
Chapter 13: Co-operation, Marx discusses the idea of “animal spirits” when explaining why
he believes groups of people are so much more productive per capita than a single worker
toiling in solitude.
Throughout the world of team sports, endless amounts of coaches seek to explain teamwork
through anecdotes illustrating the power of co-operation. I was reminded while reading
chapter 13, of one such story about the strength of horses. I had a coach once who would
tell of an experiment that had been done where scientists has made a horse pull on a device
which would measure the amount of pulling force the horse was able to exert. They measured
three individual horses in this manner and noted each animal’s strength. They then put
the horses on the same team to pull together. Alas, the horses together produced a greater
force than the individual strengths put together. This coach called it synergy and Marx calls
it “animal spirits.”
Marx gives his own examples in 443:3/o0. This is his first mention in the chapter about
these “animal spirits.” He says that man is “at all events a social animal.” This is in contrast
to Aristotle’s theory that “man is by nature a political animal.” (Politics) Aristotle’s political
animal theory would have one believe that man is naturally drawn to cities, government, and
that man is not self-sufficient. Marx observes that humans who work together tend to act
like animals in that they compete and work harder to become the most powerful. I believe
this to be true and it can be seen anywhere we look. We can observe this in this report that
a group of us students have written. By putting our ideas together and each trying our best,
we will probably each spend less time per capita and come out with a better paper than the
average student in our group would come up with themselves. Marx explained that even in
362 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
small groups, the difference in labor productivity between individual laborers is overcome
in a relatively short period of time.
By showing the animal-like characteristics of humans, Marx is able to let the reader step
back and view humankind from the outside and side-step any bias he or she may have.
Animal spirits seem to be the idea of competition. Marx realizes that this is a fact that we
should be aware of and use it to the people’s advantage as the capitalists have been using it
to theirs.
Hans in class lecture seems to contradict Marx’s insinuations that man is an inherently
competitive being and that that competitive nature will naturally result in higher production.
Hans spoke of seeing workers inside a Soviet factory that appeared to be moving in slow motion
and of an excess amount of workers running simple grocery store checkout operations.
Much of this can certainly be attributed to unique public policy. Hans theorized that it was
as a result of full employment statutes that meant even if workers were fired they would have
jobs somewhere else soon after. This would seem to contradict Marx’s assertions that this is
a natural feature of man. Rather, it would seem that “animal spirits” are actually the product
of cultural settings and legal environment. Removing unemployment as the capitalists’ tool
of punishment, it would seem there is little incentive in factories to work hard or to compete
against the other “social animals.”
On the Need for Supervisors
In chapter 13 of Capital, Co-operation, we read how a capitalist must use managers or
supervisors, once the capital production extends. Marx refers briefly to the previous chapter,
in order to explain the role of a small amount of capital and how it is necessary in order for
the workers employed in production to create a surplus value that will allow the employer
to remove himself from manual labor instead of becoming a small master. Quantitative
differences alone will lead him to become a capitalist. Marx says in 448:10: “We now see
that a certain minimum amount is a material condition for conversion of numerous isolated
and independent processes into one combined social process.”
Hans: You didn’t quite get Marx’s point here. Marx says that initially, a capitalist had to hire a large number of
workers because only the addition of many workers gives him enough surplus-value that he can be a capitalist and
not a worker himself. I.e., the minimum requirement comes from the relations of production. But now he has to hire
many workers because the technology requires many workers. I.e., the social features of capitalism are now built
into the technology. This is not the only example, and it is indeed one of the more innocuous examples. Capitalism
invades other social spheres as well. It is like a tree which you can no longer get rid of because it has become part
of the building you live in. (This is especially a problem when the tree is sick and moribund—as is the case with
capitalism in the view of today’s Marxists.)
In addition, we also read how the labor of capital is a result of the worker, not the worker
working for himself, but the worker working for a capitalist. Marx explains, “That a capitalist
should command in the field of production is now as indispensable as that a general
should command on the field of battle” (p. 448)
Therefore, when looking at the purpose of capitalist production, we read that it is the
self-valorization of capital. Thus, the greatest possible production of surplus value requires
the greatest amount of exploitation of labour-power by the capitalist. For instance, when the
number of workers increases, it results in their resistance to the capitalists’ control, which

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 363
then increases pressure that are put on by the capitalist, to squash this resistance. This is the
role of the capitalist, who use exploitation as a social labour process. We see an example
of this exampled by J. Vanderlint who states, “The function of exploitation of social labour
process, is consequently condition by the unavoidable antagonism between the exploiter and
the raw material of his exploitation.” (p. 449). Furthermore, Marx explains “how the cooperation
of wage labourers is entirely brought about by the capital that employs them” (see
page 449). He goes on to say how there becomes association between the act of capital
that brings the workers together, and how the connection that is created is derived form the
capitalist plan to subject their activity to his purpose.
As the capitalist starts to execute his plan as the master, we read that, “An industrial army
of workers under the command of a capitalist requires, like a real army, officers (managers)
and N.C.O.s (see page 450). In this, Marx explains how in the beginning, the capitalist is
released from doing labor, but, this happens only when the capital itself has reached the
minimum amount when the actual capitalist production begins. Once this actually happens,
the capitalist can now hand over his role as supervisor or manager of the individual workers,
to a direct worker who will take his position as a “special kind of wage-laborer” according to
Marx (see page 450). This individual who takes the role of the supervisor, Marx says “is now
in command during the labor process in the name of capital”. Therefore, when the individual
worker takes position as the supervisor, the supervision now becomes the worker’s exclusive
function.
Message [699] referenced by [755] and [1107]. Next Message by Cougar is [732], Next Message by Guh is [840],
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [825], Next Message by Jon is [718], and Next Message by Orville is [708].
Term Paper 704 is 914 in 1999SP, 814 in 2002fa, 814 in 2003fa, 814 in 2005fa, 623 in
2007SP, 612 in 2008fa, and 754 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 704 Essay about Chapter Fourteen: Division of Labor and Manufacture
[686] Balrog, Long, Milly, She, and Trap: Section 1:
Karl Marx begins his discussion on the division of labor and manufacture by asserting
manufacture is the classical form of co-operation based on the division of labor (455:1).
Earlier in Capital, Marx defines co-operation as, “. . . when numerous workers work together
side by side in accordance with a plan, whether in the same process, or in different but
connected processes,” (443:1). Marx contends that manufacture is not natural, but rather it
originates or develops in a capitalist society in one of two ways.
The first form of manufacture depicted by Marx is one in which in one workshop or factory,
under the control of a single capitalist, workers skilled in various trades come together
to produce a single kind of use-value (455:1). Marx uses the example of a carriage to illustrate
what happens in the manufacturing setting. To produce a carriage, you will need various
craftsmen, such as upholsterers, fringe-makers, painters, wheelwrights, etc. The tragedy, as
Marx sees it, in this setting is that these craftsmen were all, at one point in time, experts in
their field and are now solely concentrated and the tasks of the trade specifically needed for
carriage manufacturing. For example, the upholsterer is not allowed to practice upholstering
items other than carriages and thus loses the skill to do so. This leads the craftsmen to
become what Marx terms, “partial workers” (456:1).
364 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The second form of manufacture is similar to the first in that it is a conglomeration of
craftsmen under a single capitalist, but different because the craftsmen are all skilled in the
same craft. In this production scenario, the craftmen’s tasks are divided up so that none are
allowed to practice their trade in full, but rather they are each responsible for a microcosm of
production. Their operations are broken down into “. . . disconnected, isolated ones.” Each
man is now performing “. . . one, and only one, of the constituent partial operations” (456:2).
Manufacture can therefore arise, Marx asserts, from the, “combination of various independent
trades, which lost that independence and become specialized. . . [and] are reduced
to. . . partial operations in the production of one particular commodity,” (457:1). Manufacture
can also arise, “. . . from the co-operation of craftsmen in one particular handicraft. . . [split]
up. . . into various detailed operations. . . developing their mutual independence to the point
where each becomes the exclusive function of a particular worker,” (457:1). Marx closes
his analysis with the proclamation that regardless of the starting point manufacture manifests
from, “. . . its final form is always the same—a productive mechanism whose organs are
human beings.”
Marx goes on to say, even though the handicraft is decomposed in this form of cooperation,
it still retains the character of a handicraft and is dependent on the worker and
that many advantages can come from co-operation, just not in this form (457:2).
Section 2
In this section Marx discusses “the specialized worker and his tools,” he is explaining
the benefits and ultimately the problems that come with the division of labor. The skilled
laborer is transformed into a more efficient worker through specialization and “converts his
body into the automatic, one-sided implement of that operation” (458). The partial labor
of the commodity leads to increased labor productivity, which means that more is produced
in less time than an individual could produce by himself. Because of specialization, the
laborers’ work becomes monotonous, and “the concentration of his attention. . . teach him
by experience how to attain the desired effect with the minimum exertion” (458). Marx then
goes on to say that manufacture is not conducive to the earlier ways of life, where the skilled
craftsmen would pass their knowledge down to family members or apprentices.
A craftsman who produces the product from beginning to end moves around his workspace,
whether to get different tools or move to a new machine, this creates breaks throughout his
day, these breaks are taken away with manufacture. Marx says that the “constant labor 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” (460).
In this section Marx admits that the division of labor is more productive, in that it allows
workers to produce more in a given amount of time, because people perfect their task and
work as fast as possible. However, this makes laborers’ days monotonous and much less
rewarding than when they were a skilled craftsman and were able to take pride in their
product as a whole. Marx discusses the pros and cons of specialized labor in order to help
us look at “manufacture as a whole” (461)
Section 3:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 365
Marx describes that there are two fundamentally different forms of manufacturing. They
each play different roles but occasionally they are intertwined. Marx gives an example of
the watchmaker and argues that it can be illustrated as division of labor in manufacturing. A
watch is comprised of many different parts and it takes different skills from many craftsmen
create the watch. Marx asserts that one skilled craftsman can produce a watch, or by a
multitude of laborers, each specializing in a particular part of the manufacture; he calls this
process as the heterogeneous.
Secondly, the organic process is unique because it shows the step-by-step process of
the different phases of manufacturing. Many different specialized workers contribute to the
completion of the product. Marx describes this process as everyone is cooperatively working
together to shorten the production time of a given commodity, through the isolation of the
different stages of production. Some products do require more time to complete than others;
in this type of situation they should employ more workers. In some processes, it may take
many different workers to do one task and Marx gives the example of the glass bottle making.
It is so critical that it takes five different skilled workers to form the glass and if any one of
them is missing, it will essentially paralyze the process.
Marx compared the two forms of manufacture and concluded that each degree of labor
requires different level of training in which creates hierarchy of labor-power and different
level of wages. However, Marx also states that every process require a simple or little manipulation
that every laborer can do. But with labor manufacture, they are now being ossified
into exclusive skills of a particular laborer. These give a classification and separation of
skilled or unskilled labor, which demoralize the function of labor value. On the other hand
this process of manufacture diminishes the apprentices and increases the surplus value of the
product for the benefit of capitalism.
Section 4:
In section four Marx describes the relationship between the division of labor in society
and the division of labor in manufacture. The division of labor can be separated first into
categories of agriculture; manufacturing and merchants. From those categories it can be
further divided into different species and then divided again into specific sub-species which
are the division of tasks.
On one hand the division of labor in society stems from a natural division inside a family
or tribe that is physiologically based, for example an individual’s age, gender or skills. Then
on the other hand it arises from the exchange of products between individual tribes or communities.
These communities each have different products and ways of production within
their own unique environment. Because of these differences, when they come in contact
with each other they are compelled to exchange. This creates a conversion of products into
commodities.
The division of labor in manufacture is where numerous, detailed operations are being
performed collectively. These specific workers do not produce commodities but only part of
a whole product. Marx states that the division of labor in the workplace implies the undisputed
authority of the capitalist over men. The division of labor within society is different
where there is only one producer creating independent commodities and who acknowledges
366 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
no authority other than those in competition. In order to have a division of labor in manufacture
there must already be a certain degree of development in the division of labor in society.
The two have an inverse relationship with each other. The less authority that presides over
the division of labor in society, the more the division of labor develops in the workplace.
Section 5:
Division of labor is an undeniably proficient way to manufacture intricate commodities.
A capitalist seeking to maximize his profits will exploit this system and use it to squeeze
every penny out of his process of production. The consequences of going about production
in this manner are, in general one person makes a significant profit while the laborers degenerate
due to the simplicity and monotonous nature of their singular operation. Adam Smith
commented on this subject when he stated, “The man whose whole life is spent in performing
a few simple operations ... has no occasion to exert his understanding ... He generally
becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become” (Mandel
483).
Those once skilled craftsmen are compelled to sell their labor power to capitalist because
the level of competition exceeds their production capabilities. Their area of expertise is
refined and subdivided to the point that their artifice dwindles away. They become subject
to the control of the one purchasing their labor power and become part of a, “productive
mechanism whose parts are human beings” (Mandel 457).
Adam Smith made a call out to avoid this manufacture approach and avoid the division of
labor. His desire was that workers would not have their spirits taken from them and lose all
ambition due to their tedious tasks. By investing more energy into education the liveliness
and innovative side of a society may be preserved. D. Urquart on the subject exclaimed, “To
subdivide a man is to execute him, if he deserves the sentence, to assassinate him if he does
not... The subdivision of labor is the assassination of a people”(Mandel 484-485).
Although it would be attractive to exist in a society in which all were equal and had the
opportunity of nurturing their minds, in a capitalistic society this is near impossible. Our
innate human desire will collectively be to crave the finest of products at a bargain price. In
order to accomplish such a request, division of labor must exist and workers must perfect a
specified simple operation.
Message [686] referenced by [755]. Next Message by Balrog is [798], Next Message by Long is [696], Next
Message by Milly is [925], Next Message by She is [727], and Next Message by Trap is [744].
Term Paper 705 is 515 in 1997WI, 515 in 1997sp, 915 in 1997ut, 915 in 1999SP, 815 in
2002fa, 815 in 2004fa, 815 in 2005fa, 589 in 2007SP, 601 in 2007fa, 609 in 2008SP, 613
in 2008fa, 642 in 2009fa, 725 in 2011fa, and 755 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 705 Essay about Chapter Fifteen: Machinery and Large-Scale Industry
[862] Baseball, Kobe, and Rico: The utilization of machinery in large scale industry
is a used for producing surplus-value while increasing productivity. The main purpose
for machinery used in manufacturing is its ability to accomplish the same task as a single
human laborer at a faster rate. Incorporating new technology into the production process
jump started the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century. Machinery consists of multiple

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 367
parts/components and to help us understand, Marx analyzes the three essentially different
parts: the motor, mechanism, the transmitting mechanism, and lastly the tool or working
machine. First is the motor, which is the lone energy source of the machine. It can generate
its own power or receive a driving force from a natural energy force such as water
or wind. Next, the transmitting mechanism encompasses the moving parts of the machine
that regulate motion (wheels, pulleys, gears, ropes, straps, etc.). Using linear, circular and
other ranges of motion, the machine manipulates products and transforms it as the company
desires. The machine is able to replace a worker, who would work a particular job with a
single tool. With an apparatus the task can be accomplished at a faster rate and with many
of the same tools. Marx believed that this last element, over the entirety of the “machine”
is what sparked the industrial revolution of the 18th century. The industrial revolution was
just that, a revolution of industry. Machines were created and brought into factories to produce
commodities both higher in quantity and at a faster rate which would then be sold on
the market. Consequently, at the same time these mechanisms benefited the circulation of
capital in the market economy, they replaced workers who, at that time, had only a handful
of skills. The lightening of labor for the worker can turn in to an “instrument of torture,” in
the words of Marx. It does not free a worker from work but rather it removes the work itself.
“The machine, which is the starting-point of the industrial revolution, replaces the worker,
who handles a single tool, by a mechanism operating with a number of similar tools and set
in motion by a single motive power, whatever the form of that power (Capital p. 497).”
To understand the difference Marx discusses between machines and tools a distinction
between the two is in order. Marx critiques the definition of some people that for a tool, man
is the motive power, whereas the power behind a machine is a natural force independent
of man (an animal, wind, water, electricity). This would imply that a plough drawn by an
ox would be a machine, and a loom creating silk at incredible speed, powered by a single
worker, is a tool. On page 495 in Capital, Marx defines a machine thus, “The machine,
therefore, is a mechanism that, after being set in motion, performs with its tools the same
operation as the worker formerly did with similar tools. Whether the motive power is derived
from man, or in turn from a machine, makes no difference.”
Although machinery creates larger amounts of commodities at a faster rate, it creates no
newly added value. This is something which only labor power can do. The machine itself
does not “drive out” the tool once used by man, but rather the tool expands and multiplies.
Simply, large scale industry has taken the productivity to a new level by combining new
fast paced technology with the production process. The value of the machinery is therefore
yielded into the product and remains within that product until its value has depleted.
With the machine introduced into the setting of factories, the tools of the worker fade and
his skills are handed off to the machine. The division of labor is still present in the factory,
but it is geared more toward capitalist production. The job of the human worker is divided
into three groups created to assist the new mechanisms. The different divisions consist of
those workers who are employed on the machines and those who attend to the machines for
maintenance.
As Marx states there is a struggle between worker and machine. This struggle between
capitalist and wage-labourer starts as existing capital-relation itself and continues on through
the period of manufacture. The material foundation of the capitalist mode of production
causes the laborer to revolt against this means of production. The instrument of labour, in
368 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the form of a machine immediately becomes a competitor to the worker himself, this causes
the use-vaue of the worker’s labor power to disappear as well as its exchange value. You
can see this in some of today’s jobs as new technology is increasingly taking jobs of human
laborers. This raises productivity and lowers the demand for human labor, at this time this is
when humans revolt, no one likes their jobs being taken away. Not only do we see a decrease
in human labor demand but this also affects wages. Machinery is the most powerful tool in
lessening the chance of strikes among workers. With a decrease in human labor demand,
laborers know they could not have the same bargaining power when there is machinery that
can do the same jobs as they.
The compensation theory, with regard to the workers displaced by machinery, discusses
some important ideas. Workers, when driven out of the workshop by machinery are then
thrown into the labour market. This increase in labor supply increases the labor power at
the disposal of capitalist exploitation. It is a fact that machinery is not responsible for “setting
free” the worker from means of subsistence, it does cheapen and increase production in
the sector it is related to. Machinery may take some human laborer’s jobs in some sectors
but increase the labor in other sectors as the demand rises in other industries. As the use
of machinery extends in a given industry the immediate effect is to increase production in
the other industries that prodvide the laborers with means of production. The immediate
result of machinery is to augment surplus value. Due to machinery the increase in the productivity
of large scale industry, as being more intensive and extensive exloitation of labor
power in all facets of production permits a larger part of the working class to be employed
unproductively.
Respectful representatives of political economy agree that the introduction of new machinery
has a baneful effect on the workers in old handicrafts. As long as machinery production
expands in a certain branch of an industry at the expense of the human laborers, the
result is increadily certain. The first period, which machinery overtakes human labor is very
important, owing to the extraordinary profits that it helps produce. This increases a company’s
accumulation and attracts a larger share of the additional social capital this is being
created and seeking out new areas of investment. This is an area which is watched now by
the government due to the chance of monopolies that can be created.
With developments of the factory systems and the revolution of agriculture that comes
along with it, production in all other areas of industry expand, this causes it to alter in
character and impact domestic industries. The exploitation of cheap labor power is carried
out in a more abrupt manner in modern manufacture than in the factory proper. This is
caused by the substitution of machines for manpower, and as we know character of labor is
entirely absent in machine manufacturing.
The transition from Modern Manufacture and Domestic Industry to Large scale industry
is caused from the cheapening of labor pwer. This is caused through abuse of labor from both
women and children. This is done through robbery of all normal working conditions needed
for working and living and through them being overworkered and forced to work during
night hours. This finally comes up against certain insuperable natural obstacles. This is true
for the cheapening of commodities as well as capitalist exploitation in general which are
results of these foundations. One example given is the production of clothing appareal, we

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 369
see this on a massive scale through Amercican companies that own “sweat shops” overseas
that abuse employees in order to make a profit. As stated the revolution in the social mode
of production which is the necessary product of the revolution in the means of production is
accomplished though varying medlies of transitional forms. These forms vary depending on
the industries that the new machinery effect. One of the essential conditions for existence
of the factory system, when the length of the work day is fixed, is certainty in the result,
meaning the production in a given time of a given quantity of commodities.
As we have seen, large scale industy sweeps away by technical means the division of
labor characteristic of manufacture, under which each man is bound for life to a specialized
operation. At the same time the capitalist form of large scale industry reproduces this same
divison of labor in a huge way, we see this in the factory proper as workers are converted
into a living appendage of the machine in which he/she operates. In modern industry it
never views the existing form of a production process as the definitive one. The basis is
revolutionary allowing for adnvancement in technology and machinery, this is opposed to
earlier views as modes of production were conservative.
Next Message by Baseball is [980], Next Message by Kobe is [872], and Next Message by Rico is [995].
Term Paper 706 is 602 in 2007fa, 614 in 2008fa, 643 in 2009fa, and 757 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 706 Essay about Chapter Sixteen: Absolute and Relative Surplus Value
[926] Lana and Lindsey: Chapter 16 summary. In chapter 16 Marx defines absolute and
relative surplus-value and illustrates how surplus-value comes about in capitalist production.
He also gives us a historical background of capitalist exploitation and further develops the
idea of productive labor introduced earlier in Capital.
Marx first outlines how labor is a part of the production process. Productive capitalist
labor is collective labor. The labor is divided and each laborer performs a subordinate function
of the labor process. Capitalist production is both the production of commodities and
the production of surplus-value. The production process is a social relation in which the
productive worker produces surplus-value for the capitalist, thus “contributing to the selfvalorization
of capital”. In other words, the worker helps create value using the capitalist’s
original capital. This social relation benefits the capitalist but harms the worker.
Marx defines absolute surplus value as the work that the worker does to produce more
value in commodities than the value of his labor-power. The working day is divided into
necessary labor and surplus labor, previously defined as the labor necessary for the worker’s
subsistence and the extra unpaid labor the worker performs for the capitalist, respectively.
The division allows the capitalist to create relative surplus-value by increasing worker productivity,
thus making the amount of time to create a value equal to the worker’s wage shorter
and the surplus-labor time longer.
Next Marx gives a brief historical overview of the development of the capitalist exploiters
beginning from individual producers who are given more means of production by
early capitalists and are thus turned subordinate to the capitalists. Under a capitalist system
this exploitation becomes the norm and production becomes a universal method to create
surplus-value. The capitalist production process continues to create relative surplus-value
370 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
by converting industries one-by-one into this means of production and by revolutionizing
the methods of production and creating technology to increase the relative surplus-value.
In order to increase the surplus-value, the working day must be lengthened, maintaining
the same necessary labor-time while increasing surplus labor-time, or the worker must be
more productive (through technology or other innovations) so that more commodities are
created in the same working day and the necessary labor-time shrinks while the surplus
labor-time increases. If necessary labor time takes up the whole working day, capitalism
cannot exist. While workers subsist on the value of their labor power over the period of
necessary labor time, capitalists subsist on the surplus-value created by workers.
The less the worker’s necessary labor-time to produce their means of subsistence, the
greater the time they can work for others and thus be exploited by capitalists. Marx gives
natural endowments as an example of how one group’s necessary labor time can be inherently
less than another’s and thus the first group is more useful for the valorization of capital.
Social pressure coerces the worker who requires a small amount of necessary labor time to
use his free time to work for others.
Marx concludes his discussion with a criticism of the bourgeois economists’ interpretation
of the production process and the creation of surplus-value. Mill and other bourgeois
economists are mistaken by thinking that profit (or surplus value) is created by the longevity
of the products over the time it takes to make them and it is created whether or not commodities
are exchanged. Marx points out that this is impossible because commodities that
last a short amount of time (such as bread) would reap no profit because they take longer
to produce than they last, and we can plainly see that a bread maker is profitable despite
the lack of longevity of his commodity. Mill also calculates the rate of profit incorrectly
because he does not account for the initial capital investment. Mill believes that the worker
is compensated for surplus labor-time later on while Marx points out that surplus-labor is
never paid for and that it is how capitalists can make a profit without working.
Next Message by Lana is [944] and Next Message by Lindsey is [1103].
Question 709 is 823 in 2008fa:
Question 709 Why do machines not add new value to the product?
[706] Ferox: graded B Machines—Tools of Capitalist Domination. If machines truly
could create value, there would be less need for humans to remain working and life would be
much more relaxed while the machines did all the labour. Far from a glorious mechanized
utopia, we find ourselves becoming slaves to machines—the mere fact that work can be done
more efficiently and quicker with the aid of machines ramps up the expected productivity of
the worker. This is why despite advances in technology since Marx’s time, the working day
continues to be very long.
Considering the relationship between the worker and the machine, a machine cannot act
independently and with directed will. Even the most sophisticated computers in machines
can only act on given instructions, e.g. a welding robot will not one day begin to start brewing
beer on the assembly line, as it only has instructions for how to weld. The machine—
while the product of labor and therefore an object of value—is merely a tool for directing the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 371
volition and labour energies of a worker towards the production of values for the capitalist.
Machines shorten the necessary labor time needed to produce a product. However, since
the capitalist owns the machines, and the capitalist’s end goal is surplus value, the worker is
forced to spend his work day producing much more value for the capitalist. Thus, machines
in capitalism becomes implements of oppression, turning the workers into subjugates to the
machines.
Hans: You are discussing two issues at the same time: machines which are not robots versus machines which are
robots, and machines owned by capitalists versus machines controlled by the workers themselves.
On the other hand you are also answering two different question: the question whether machines create value
is not the same as the question whether machines shorten the workday of the laborer.
You correctly say that machines do not shorten the workday for the worker because they are owned by capitalists.
But the other thing you are saying, that machines do not create value because they are not robots, is incorrect.
Robots don’t create value either.
Next Message by Ferox is [769].
Question 710 is 731 in 2011fa and 761 in 2012fa:
Question 710 Both the fetish-like character of the commodity and the mystification of the
wage form are important pillars of capitalism. How are these two pillars related to each
other?
[727] She: graded A Pillars of Deception. The fetish-like character of commodities and
the mystification of wages are related to each other in the fact that in Marx’s beliefs, they are
both components of the powerful veil that keep the relations out of sight and out of mind.
Marx’s theory is heavily rooted in the idea that all participants in the capitalist system are
blind to what is truly going on. He believes there are surface relationships and phenomena
that appear at first as something they truly are not. He begins many of his passages and
important sections of Capital with phrases like, “on the surface appears” or “at first appears”
but always begins his intricate process of abstraction to show how the initial appearance is
wrong. Hans explains in [326] that Marx and Hegel believed the world is full of contradictions,
such as the surface appearances of commodities and wages. Marx believed that these
contradictions, as well as others, form the pillars of capitalism. They form the structure,
the housing; without these misconceptions and without the confusion, capitalism would not
work. Marx believes that these misleading surface interactions rooted in the mode of production
(capitalism) produce ideas and consciousness in the people living in the system. The
people accept the mode of production, and all of its surface relations, as given. This is what
Marx believes actually imprisons and enslaves the workers in the capitalist system.
Message [727] referenced by [2011fa:950] and [2012fa:1014]. Next Message by She is [806].
Question 711 is 77 in 1996ut, 83 in 1997WI, 363 in 1997sp, 361 in 1997ut, 525 in 2002fa,
545 in 2003fa, 599 in 2004fa, 552 in 2005fa, 625 in 2007SP, 605 in 2007fa, 613 in
2008SP, 617 in 2008fa, 648 in 2009fa, 730 in 2011fa, 760 in 2012fa, and 711 in Answer:
Question 711 Your employer gives you your paycheck. How do you know your pay is based
on your labor and not your labor-power (and why does it matter)?
[730] Orville: graded C+ I’m not Paying for That! To put it simply, you are paid for
your labor because you are paid for your work, not for the full cost of producing that labor.
372 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
To be paid for your labor-power, you would have to be paid for everything in your life which
it is necessary to produce that labor. That would include not only your cost to get to and
from the job-site but food, rent, education, all the costs of living and reproducing. Because
most wages are paid in on an hourly, yearly, or piece-meal basis, it is clear capitalists are not
paying workers for their labor power but their labor. To paraphrase [2008fa:833], this has
to be the case for our system of capitalism. The basis of capitalism requires this to happen
to make profits. The capitalists aren’t held accountable for their lack of compassion for the
working class. Their only limit is the point at which workers rebel or form unions or strike.
Even with these threats, the working class is massively underpaid for their labor. This just
goes to show how much power the capitalist class has. They pay workers for their labor
because it is cheaper than paying workers for labor-power and they know there is little threat
of a working class uprising.
Message [730] referenced by [765]. Next Message by Orville is [1065].
[731] Kaush: Labor and Labor-power. An employee may not know his or her pay
is based on labor or labor-power because an employee’s wage is measured and based on
a worker’s output or hours worked. Thus the form of payment and selling the labor by
the worker gives the impression the worker is selling his labor, not his labor power. This
method of paying for labor performed by a capitalist is socially acknowledged and robs off
the worker from being paid for labor-power that includes expense reimbursement for time
spent getting ready to work.
To know whether your pay is based on your labor or your labor-power matters because
the difference between the two forms of payments represents hidden exploitation. Since the
nature of exploitation is hidden, it enables capitalism to function.
Message [731] referenced by [765]. Next Message by Kaush is [827].
[765] Hans: Selling one’s Labor-Power is Not a Good Thing. Answers [730] and [731]
say that unfortunately we are only paid for our work, and that it would be better if we were
paid the full value of our labor-power because then we would get more money.
Marx says exactly the opposite: that we would be better off if we would get paid for
our work (in the sense of: getting an equivalent of the value our work produces), because
our labor produces many more dollars worth of goods than are necessary for a customary
working-class existence. Even though our pay is based on our labor, it is not the full reimbursement
of the value created by this labor, but it is just enough that our weekly pay allows
us to reproduce our labor-power.
There is so much discussion of this question in the archives that it becames difficult to
wade through it. That is why I tried to give a basic explanation in [Answer:7].
Next Message by Hans is [774].
Question 717 is 604 in 2004fa, 557 in 2005fa, 630 in 2007SP, 610 in 2007fa, 618 in
2008SP, 737 in 2011fa, and 767 in 2012fa:
Question 717 Marx says that labor cannot have value because it is the source which gives
everything its value. How can labor give something which it doesn’t have?
[718] Jon: Labor is to Value as Sun is to Shadow. Hans uses the analogy given by
a student to more helpfully understand how it is that Labor can give a commodity value

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 373
but labor itself has no value. The analogy is the following: 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 a shadow. The reason that the labor has no value is best explained in the
annotations on page 529 when it says: “In order to have a value, you not only need labor but
also some use-value in which this labor is materialized” This is also shown in Capital in the
first footnote of chapter 19 on page 675:2 in which Mr. Ricardo explains how the value of
labor is estimated by the quantity of labor or in other words labor-power which is required
to produce the wages the worker receives through his labor power, and not labor alone.
Next Message by Jon is [1082].
[738] Rico: Electricity and Light. After contemplating an argument, I thought of my
lamp, which is producing light as I study. The electricity needed to produce the chemical
reaction in my florescent bulb does not produce light itself, yet it simply is the source which
gives the bulb its ability to produce light. This is also the case with labor and value.
Marx says that labor cannot have value because its the source that gives everything its
value. Chris in [2007SP:1116] refers to an analogy from Marx, where he says, “. . . the
Sun cannot have a shadow, yet is the cause for everything else to have a shadow. This is
the same way that Labor is able to give something which it does not have.” This is fairly
straightforward, but one may still question, if labor cannot have value, then how can labor
give something which is does not have? The answer is that labor power is used and measured
to create value during production. Labor power creates marketplace value.
The sun (labor) does not produce the shadow, yet it is the object (labor power) that casts
the shadow (value).
Next Message by Rico is [809].
Question 719 is 633 in 2007SP, 613 in 2007fa, 621 in 2008SP, 625 in 2008fa, 656 in
2009fa, and 739 in 2011fa:
Question 719 If labor cannot have value, does this mean labor is not a commodity?
[715] JSmits: graded A Labor is not a commodity. After reading the annotations and
looking at previous responses it seems as though the question’s answer is very “flexible” as
to whether or not labor is a commodity. It can be argued both ways but I don’t think that
labor is a commodity because of Marx’s statement in 675:3. Labor cannot be traded as a
commodity because labor has no value and it can’t be traded on the markets according to
Marx.
In 675:3 Marx says, “If labor were to be sold as a commodity in the market, it would
have to exist before being sold.” Hans says that this statement has a deeper reason than just
labor can’t be traded on the markets. He is saying that once the laborer starts working for his
employer his labor no longer belongs to him. He is excluded from the production process.
So that labor never really existed because it never belonged to him. If he was independent,
had access to the means of production, he would be able to sell his product and not be a
laborer. But since he is not involved in the production process his labor can’t be sold as a
commodity.
Message [715] referenced by [723]. Next Message by JSmits is [749].
374 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[716] Atticus: graded A Labor is the Use-Value of Labor-Power. Labor is not a commodity.
It has no value. It can be compared with a use-value that one derives from a commodity.
How much use-value a person derives from his commodity is similar to how much
labor a capitalist derives from the commodity, labor-power, that she has purchased. Laborpower
has value like a commodity but its use-value, labor, cannot be measured in quantifiable
terms.
Hans: Use-values can be measured, the problem is only that different use-values cannot be measured on the same
scale.
Message [716] referenced by [752]. Next Message by Atticus is [869].
[717] Scholar: Yes, labor is not commodity, it’s only a process that labor power be used.
Labor power is a commodity, and after the labor power has been sold out in the labor market
by its owner laborer, like any other kinds of commodity, the labor power’s use value—
labor—then belongs to its buyer—the capitalist. Althouth the labor itself have no value, the
use of it—the labor process can create new value, which is embodied in the commodity that
is produced by the labor process, and this value whenever how much, never belongs to the
laborer himself, but belongs to the capitalist—owner and user of the labor power.
Message [717] referenced by [752]. Next Message by Scholar is [1013].
[722] Kobe: Labor is or is not a commodity. Labor is not a commodity. A commodity
must be able to have an independent existence in order to become a commodity rather than
labor. In order for a something to have value it must be expressed in the market place,
this would give the commodity or service the concept of value, not just labor. One reason
labor is not a commodity is because “labor” does not exist before being put on the market
place in order to be sold, this fact alone is the determinant in whether labor is referred to as
labor or a commodity. One circumstance that would allow the laborer to sell “labor” as a
commodity is if he/she had access to the means of production, this would give the laborer
the independent existence which would then place the laborer as a seller of his labor. Any
way you slice it labor does not have value or an independent existence which means labor is
not a commodity.
Next Message by Kobe is [723].
[723] Kobe: reply to Jsmits labor is not a commodity. After reading JSmits submission
[715] and Jsmits saying it is very “flexible” as to whether or not labor can be a commodity
I agree, somewhat. I did find the readings a little tricky in determining the exact reason as
to whether labor is a commodity. The term “flexible” leaves the door open to labor being a
commodity after Marx states that in order for labor to be a commodity it “must have to exist
before being sold.” Marx describes this as an independent existence. Knowing this I do not
believe it is “flexible” in determining if labor is a commodity. I do agree when JSmits says
he doesn’t think labor is a commodity and like the quote he used by Marx when he talks
about the laborer working for an employer and therefore the labor no longer belongs to him,
rather the employer.
Hans: To me this was a very helpful explanation how JSmits came to impression that it was “flexible” whether
labor is a commodity.
Next Message by Kobe is [745].
[737] Phayze: graded A+ History of an identity crisis: labor is not a commodity. Labor
is neither value nor a commodity. Labor has a two-fold character; to produce a use-value and
the value-quasi material of a commodity. The value-quasi material is the common property

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 375
or “substance” inherent within all commodities that give them value. Labor is therefore the
impetus of value. The need for use-values generates labor to create commodities that fulfill
a human need or want.
Commodities of equal value are exchanged on the market by means of “equal exchange”
through direct barter (C-C). As markets expand and trading grows there is an increase of
varying commodities which facilitates an acceleration in trade. To curb the complexities
of trade, societies implement money as a universal equivalent with a stable value that can
be traded to acquire all other commodities (C-M-C). The magical character of money to
purchase any commodity along with the mandates of the circulation process, creates a desire
to hoard. The temptation to sell a commodity for more than its labor value assists in the
development of a merchant class. Commodities are now purchased only to be sold for more
than their value (M-C-M). This denotes an unequal exchange, in which more money was
acquired in the aftermath of the exchange (M-C-M’). A profit is generated by the merchant
class, which is soon nulled by the regulation of market forces.
Unless a merchant holds a monopoly of a specific commodity, the transparency of economic
integration eliminates the merchant who sells the commodity for more than its value,
by replacing her with producers who sell similar commodities for their labor value. The
desire to profit from inequality hails the arrival of the capitalists, who seek to profit from
the sphere of production rather than the surface relations of exchange. The laborer sells her
“labor-power”, or capacity to do work, for a wage. The amount of money paid to the laborer
does not correspond with the amount of value created by her labor. If the capitalist were to
pay her for the amount of value she produced, he would not accrue any profit, which would
thus entail an equal exchange. But the conniving capitalist pursues an unequal exchange, and
seeks to rob her of the value she creates by means of exploitation. As Hans notes, “If workers
and capitalists think that the worker is selling labor and not labor-power, exploitation
becomes invisible—because all labor appears as paid labor.” The laborer is forced to accept
the unequal exchange of wage-labor because the capitalist owns the means of production, or
the land, infrastructure, and tools used to accrue wealth.
Labor is treated by the capitalist in a similar manner as if it were a commodity, but labor
is not itself a commodity. Hans notes that Marx’s realism implies that “that which gives
things value cannot itself have value”. This line of logic which applies to labor, is used in
the same sense as the cosmological argument, in which creationists claim that God created
man but God himself cannot and was not created...
First Message by Phayze is [508].
[752] Hans: Two elevator speeches why labor isn’t a commodity. Marx says emphatically
that labor is not a commodity, and he gives so many reasons to back it up that the
message itself gets a little blurred. So what is the best one-sentence explanation, the best
elevator speech, why labor is not a commodity?
Atticus [716] says labor is the use-value of something that is traded as a commodity
(namely of labor-power) but is not a commodity itself. This is a convincing answer to me
but let me play the devil’s advocate for a minute and ask Atticus: why does being a use-value
disqualify labor from being a commodity? Don’t we buy all commodities for the sake of their
use-values? Of course, Atticus could strike down my naive objection with the thunderbolt of
376 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
a direct Marx quote from 126:1, literally from the first page of Capital: “this usefulness does
not dangle in mid-air” but one needs the body of the commodity in order to take advantage
of its use-value. In the case of labor, the capitalist needs the person of the laborer in order to
take advantage of the use-value of his or her labor, i.e., the capitalist has to hire the laborer—
but this is the purchase of labor-power, not of labor itself. In Marx’s words “if labor were to
be sold as a commodity in the market, it would have to exist before being sold” [675:3], but
the labor has no existence without the laborer, and the laborer cannot extricate himself from
this connection by first using his labor to produce a commodity and then sell the commodity
without having to sell himself because he has no access to the means of production.
I find Scholar’s elevator speech in [717] is equallly convincing: Scholar simply says that
labor is a process. When reading this I thought: wow, this is such a simple explanation, why
doesn’t Marx say this—or does he? Indeed, Marx says something similar in 677:3/oo: He
says that labor is the function of labor-power, and that labor-power exists in the person of
the laborer. He does not explicitly say but it is clearly implied here that labor-power can be
sold as a commodity because it has this existence in the person (i.e., in order to purchase
labor-power you hire the laborer). In the same place, Marx also says that labor-power is as
different from its function, namely labor, as a machine is different from its operation. The
words “function” and “operation” refer to processes; and the problem with processes is that
you cannot just hand over a process from one person to the next, you need a thing. In this
sense, Scholar’s elevator makes the same point as Atticus’s.
Next Message by Hans is [755].
[842] Fisher: Labor cannot have value because it is the cause of value. I like the example
by a past student claiming that the sun makes shadows but cannot be a shadow itsself.
Labor creates a commodity and causes it to have a value for which it can be exchanged or
purchased. Therefore labor does not have a value but gives us a use value out of whatever it
creates. However, in some cases labor may be a commodity if it’s a specialized labor.
Next Message by Fisher is [1012].
Exam Question 720 is 226 in 1995ut, 250 in 1996sp, 248 in 1996ut, 301 in 1997WI, 367
in 1997sp, 491 in 2001fa, 530 in 2002fa, 551 in 2003fa, 607 in 2004fa, 560 in 2005fa,
634 in 2007SP, 614 in 2007fa, 626 in 2008fa, 740 in 2011fa, and 769 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 720 Why can the laborer not use her labor-power to produce commodities
and sell them, instead of selling her labor-power?
[864] Lindsey: Late Extra Credit: No Means. I didn’t get a chance to look over the
exam questions before Thursday and submit an extra credit, but I wanted to try to answer
one anyway: number 720.
The reason that laborers cannot use their labor power to produce commodities on their
own and sell them instead of selling their labor power is that they don’t have access to the
means of production. In order to make enough money for subsistence they have to sell their
labor power to a capitalist who has the means of production.
Nowadays some laborers actually do use their own labor power to produce and sell commodities
because they gain the means of production and start a “small business” where they
are the only worker. However, often once this type of small business becomes successful,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 377
the laborer suddenly has enough demand and means of production that they hire an employee.
This converts them to a small-scale capitalist. Laborers that can use their own labor
power and sell commodities are rare because they often cannot compete against the capitalists
who can sell their items cheaper because they are exploiting workers or because this
type of laborer is successful and then becomes a capitalist.
Hans: This is a good answer but sorry, the extra credit time is over. You can get extra credit grades by term paper
discussions and in other ways, see [755].
Message [864] referenced by [871]. Next Message by Lindsey is [926].
[871] Hans: Why workers usually cannot become capitalists. Lindsey [864] gives the
answer which I have been emphasizing in class: the workers cannot use their own laborpower
because they don’t have access to means of production. Of course, Lindsey is right,
people still are trying; working-class people start their own businesses all the time. Lots
of these businesses go bankrupt. But until very recently US bankruptcy courts were quite
lenient, allowing the entrepreneur to shed their debts with a chapter 7 bankruptcy and then
try again. I.e., the legal system is in favor of small capitalists. Still we do not see the
much-touted ownership society with everybody being a capitalist, but we see very skewed
in worsening income inequality.
I have come up with three structural features of the capitalist system which work against
new entrepreneurs:
(a) The equalization of the rate of profit. We haven’t talked about it much in this Semester,
but volume 3 of Capital caused a little sensation among Marxists. After saying in all of
volume 1 that prices are proportional to labor input, Marx suddenly says in volume 3 that
in capitalism, prices proportional to labor input cannot be the equilibrium prices, because
they lead to unequal rates of profit. The capitalists with a higher than average proportion
of constant capital can charge more than labor values, and those with a lower proportion
less than labor values. See [2009fa:678] and [2005fa:1298] about rates of profit. Think
of it as the capitalists redistributing among themselves the booty they appropriated from
the working class in proportion of how much capital each has invested. This redistribution
favors those who have been at it for a long time and works against the new entrepreneur.
New businesses almost always have lower than average constant capital, therefore they are
not able to recover on the market the full value which their business creates, but most of it
flows to the big heavily capitalized corporations.
(b) If Marx’s theory is right and profits come from the unpaid labor of the workers, then
this automatically puts a limit on the proportion of the people who can become capitalists:
for each capitalist you need many wage laborers.
(c) The secret of modern technology is not only machinery but also direct cooperation of
many people. But hiring others is very difficult for new entrepreneurs because of astronomical
health insurance costs. The mis-management of the health care system in the USA is
much more an obstacle for small entrepreneurs than for big corporations.
On the other hand, as I mentioned, there are also instituational features in favor of new
entrepreneurs. Bankruptcy laws were one of them, but they have been considerably tightened
recently. Besides, due to consumerism, everybody has a credit rating. This can be helpful
if you apply for a loan. Marx himself said that the workers of his time simply did not have
378 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
access to credit. This has changed since Marx’s times. And just recently, with the financial
sector taking a lot of the surplus-value away from the productive capitalists, this also means
that there are venture capitalists on the lookout for promising new businesses.
It is not surprising that one can discover features of the system which keep the system
intact. We know that capitalism has been around for quite a while now, therefore it must
have such mechanisms built in. But there is a big difference between saying “it must have
such mechanisms because otherwise it would no longer exist” and actually identifying these
mechanisms. If you see any other mechanisms which are either in favor of or against new
entrepreneurs, please speak up. I have the impression that being a good member of the LDS
church may also help in becoming a new capitalist. I am sure there are other things which
I am not thinking of, pro can con. Please speak up if you know of any. In chapter 23, i.e.,
in the readings assigned starting tomorrow over Thanksgiving break, Marx will will discuss
exactly the topic how the capitalist system reproduces itself.
Message [871] referenced by [2012fa:873]. Next Message by Hans is [877].
Question 722 is 465 in 2000fa, 493 in 2001fa, 532 in 2002fa, 553 in 2003fa, 609 in
2004fa, 562 in 2005fa, 636 in 2007SP, 616 in 2007fa, 628 in 2008fa, 659 in 2009fa, and
742 in 2011fa:
Question 722 Do Marx’s arguments that labor cannot have value also imply that services
(i.e., a haircut) cannot have value?
[720] Husani: In the production of commodities, Marx argues that labor cannot have
value but it creates value. A factory owner may borrow a laborer’s services for a time and
a price in order to gain her labor-power. The factory owner isn’t buying her labor but is
buying her labor-power. The difference between the two is that labor is contained in the
worker and always will be, while labor-power is the temporary manifestation of labor which
the individual can sell to the capitalist. If the worker were to sell her labor then the person
that bought it would then own the person and the person would be required to work whenever
the owner required. In our society this is not possible. The labor she puts into the product is
what creates its value.
The service sector of the economy is different than commodity production because it
doesn’t produce anything that can be held, haircuts and babysitters are two examples of this.
Although they cannot be held or touched like a car or a pair of sunglasses, their value comes
from the same place. This value comes from the labor put into the process of creating the
service. The haircutter or babysitter are not selling their labor but are selling their labor
power. Because they sell their labor-power and not their labor, value is created and they can
sell it for a price.
Message [720] referenced by [754]. Next Message by Husani is [748].
[733] Sly: Haircut are useless if you don’t grow hair. Like many of the questions asked
in the Annotations elaboration is needed in order to obtain complete understanding. As
stated in the Annotations: “We have seen many times that Marx does not deny the existence
of surface contradictions, but uses them as warning signs alerting us that hidden mechanisms
are at work.” (Annotations, pg. 532) Marx argues that labor cannot have value, and a service
– such as a haircut is clearly a manifestation of labor, and by being a manifestation of labor

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 379
– how can a haircut possibly have value you might ask? Well first and foremost place this
quote into context: “In order to represent his labor in commodities, the worker must, above
all, represent it in use-values, in things which aid the satisfaction of needs of one kind or
another.” [283:1] An individual doesn’t just get a haircut for no particular reason – they are
seeking shorter hair or any hair grooming service offered by the barber/stylist (this is the
satisfaction of a need), and thus the haircut has a use-value. As a result of the inherited usevalue
contained with in a haircut it transforms into a commodity, and like many of the parts
of Marxism that we have learned throughout the year, commodities have value. Greg gives
an excellent conclusion to this question in previous submissions, stating that: “The service
itself is not what you value but the result.” [2009fa:1040] Because obviously if you will feel
as though your haircut is an excellent one, it consequently will have more value to you.
Message [733] referenced by [754] and [2011fa:656]. Next Message by Sly is [986].
[754] ANK: Haircuts and Tips. Marx’s argument does not imply that services cannot
have value. Services, unlike labor, do have value. Labor and services are two different
things. Husani states in [720] that “labor cannot have value because labor creates value”.
Services such as haircuts are commodities, in which the labor and sale of the commodity
happen simultaneously. When getting a haircut you are paying for the finished product not
a one-sided cut. Haircuts are commodities that are consumed immediately, because you
cannot go get a haircut and then try to sell your haircut to someone else. In [733], Sly states
that “if you feel as though your haircut is an excellent one, it consequently will have more
value to you”. This is why when you are paying for your haircut, which is the finished
product, you may feel inclined to leave a large tip if you feel the haircut has more value to
you and your appearance. Likewise, if you are unhappy with your haircut, the commodity
has less value to you and you would be likely to not tip, but since the commodity was
consumed you would be responsible to still pay the bill.
Next Message by ANK is [933].
Question 733 is 639 in 2008fa and 755 in 2011fa:
Question 733 Marx says: if demand and supply coincide then they are unable to explain
prices. What would a mainstream economist say about this?
[724] Deadfamous: graded A– What’s more important than supply and demand?
From the reading in the annotations and the previous answers from Needles [2008fa:947]
and Heed [2008fa:859], it seems that while supply and demand are a big part of determining
prices (mainstream economists, classical and neoclassical), they are missing something,
they have simply assumed one of the most important parts about how a commodity arrived
at its price is when supply and demand coincide. They (mainstream economists) forget that
the price is largely attached to the labor power it takes to produce something, and then the
laws of supply and demand will have their influence.
Mainstream economics would say that its all about these two laws: supply, and demand.
If supply and demand are stabilized then this is what the price should be due to the producers
and consumers agreeing on the prices together.
Marx’s whole point is that the price comes from what it cost to produce. I am hesitant to
say what how important Marx says supply and demand are, only that before these come into
380 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
play that the labor put into the products would create a base price, then supply and demand
would be secondary.
Final Grading Note by Hans: These last two paragraphs are one of the few times where you seem to be writing
what you are thinking instead of reproducing something someone else wrote. You should have done more of that.
You seem to use a lot of energy to find what others have written about the questions you are answering. You also
spent many hours in class. If you pay attention in class and then write what you think in your answers, then you
may not always be right but you will learn from my feedback. I think this would have been a better strategy.
Next Message by Deadfamous is [970].
[725] Zohan: Supply and Demand Explain Price? Mainstream economics would disagree
with what Marx is arguing. Marx argues that price is not determined by supply and
demand, “but is determined by what gives the commodity its value in the first place” (Hans
comments on Heed [2008fa:859]). What gives this value is the amount of labor time put
into the production. If the demand or the supply of the commodity fluctuated, it would not
change the amount of labor time put into production of the commodity. Therefore, it would
not affect value, or the price of the commodity.
On the other hand, mainstream economics would suggest that the value of the commodity
is related to its price. They would argue that the simple supply and demand model could be
used to explain prices. In the supply and demand model, the point where the supply is equal
to the demand would be considered the natural price of the commodity. Any fluctuation
from this equilibrium would have a direct effect on the price. If the demand was to increase
and the supply remained constant, then the price would increase. On the other hand, if
the demand was to decrease, and again the supply remained constant, then the price would
decrease. According to mainstream economics, price is directly correlated to the demand
and supply of the commodity, which is in contrast to what Marx is arguing.
Hans: Marxists would ask: why should supply remain constant if demand decreases? Wouldn’t it be wiser for the
capitalists to restrict supply of commodities not in demand and use the labor they hire for producing something
different?
Message [725] referenced by [726]. Next Message by Zohan is [762].
[726] GoUtes: In response to Zohan. I agree with Zohan [725] in identifying the Marxist
view, that price of a commodity is not solely identified by supply and demand. A commodity
would take just as much effort to produce whether the demand matches the supply or not.
Mainstream economics generally will view the value of a commodity by the supply and
demand, but is there any less effort in the production of a commodity if the demand is not as
high? Of course not!
Next Message by GoUtes is [775].
Question 740 is 653 in 2007SP, 633 in 2007fa, 645 in 2008fa, 762 in 2011fa, and 791 in
2012fa:
Question 740 Would capitalism be possible if exploitation was not hidden but clearly visible
to everybody involved?
[713] SMIKEC: The exploitation of workers is happening on a day to day basis within
companies that we buy products from, and we probably aren’t even aware of it. Basically
anytime a worker is producing more than they are getting paid, they are being exploited.
As a laborer you would have to sit at home and do nothing in order to not be exploited.
Every business I am aware of is out to make money. Without exploitation there wouldn’t be

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 381
the capitalist, because you would constantly be at a break even with no profits. The public
doesn’t want to support exploitation, but inadvertently do, because they don’t see what goes
on behind the scenes in order to produce the commodity that they are buying. The public is
not willing to pay more for non-exploited goods. This is why companies like Old Navy are
still around, when exploitation of workers and even children is at its worst.
Message [713] referenced by [719], [721], and [2011fa:665]. Next Message by SMIKEC is [741].
[719] Kraken: How inadvertent is it? I thought that SMIKEC [713] made some interesting
observations in his post. I particularly enjoyed his comment: “As a laborer you
would have to sit at home and do nothing in order not to be exploited”. I think his statement
is funny; I also think it’s sadly true. He then makes a contradictory statement that verbalizes
the contradictory behavior that most of us display each day when he says: “The public
doesn’t want to support exploitation, but inadvertently do, because they don’t see what goes
on behind the scenes in order to produce the commodity that they are buying. The public is
not willing to pay more for non exploited goods”. I think his statement contains two truths
and a lie. I agree that generally speaking, the public doesn’t want to support exploitation.
I also agree that the public is not willing to pay more for non-exploited goods. The part
I disagree with is the notion that our behavior is inadvertent. Do we really not know that
someone is being exploited? How did you think you got those tennis shoes, clothing items,
house wares, fast-food, electronics and everything else that came from Wal-Mart so inexpensively?
I’m just using Wal-Mart as an example because they’re an easy target, but I’m
pretty sure we know by now that if we are to continue to enjoy “Everyday Low Prices”,
someone must continue to make “everyday low wages”. I believe we pretend to be blissfully
unaware of what’s going on behind the scenes so we can continue to feed our addiction to
consumerism. This helps us take advantage of some great deals (especially with Christmas
coming) and thousands of exploited workers, all without changing our lifestyles or feeling
guilty. Until we can acknowledge that we are an integral part of the exploitation problem,
make some uncomfortable changes, and stop blaming capitalists for all of society’s ills, there
is no hope for revolution.
Message [719] referenced by [721]. Next Message by Kraken is [1083].
[721] Frida: Definition of exploitation. One point that goes unmentioned in either
SMIKEC [713], or Kraken [719] is the fact that essentially all products are a result of exploitation.
Any commodity that was made by a wage worker using a means of production
owned by a capitalist involved exploitation. It is almost part of the definition of mass production.
Even if you make your own clothing, the fabric was the result of exploitation. It
does make a difference to what extent the workers involved in the production process, but
this is a difference of gross exploitation and what we consider to be normal exploitation. It
is not a difference between exploitation and exploitation-free.
Message [721] referenced by [741]. Next Message by Frida is [756].
Question 754 is 668 in 2007SP, 646 in 2007fa, 655 in 2008SP, 659 in 2008fa, 690 in
2009fa, 776 in 2011fa, and 805 in 2012fa:
Question 754 Why a separate chapter about the time wage? Wasn’t the time wage already
discussed in chapter Nineteen?
382 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[751] Baseball: Values such as time wages and piece wages are the main shapes (subsets)
of pay. In chapter nineteen Marx emphasizes his argument that labor can be traded as a commodity
which has a price. Workers are paid by the hour or by his output (commission), he is
not paid for his labor power but for the labor which he actually performed. The exchange between
capital and labor relates exactly to the purchase and sales of other commodities. The
company pays the worker for labor, which represents a commodity. Since chapter nineteen
explained the basic and current unit-measure of salary pay (hourly), the next couple chapters
will focus on the subset ways of payment: time wages and piece wages. The time wage is
a method of payment which extends the payments for labor. A normal method of payment
is for a worker to be paid by the hour, but for time wages a worker can be paid by the day,
week, month or even year. This system requires a generous amount of explanation due to
the many questions and controversy it will raise.
Hans: Since the commodity which the laborer sells to the capitalist is his labor-power and not his labor, the “normal”
(as you say) way to pay for this would be to pay him the reproduction cost of his labor-power. Quantitatively,
this is what the worker gets, but he gets it parcelled out hour by hour or piece by piece according to the work he is
performing.
Here is the division of labor between chapters 19 and 20/21: 19 establishes the connection between this
parcelled-out way of paying and what is really, though barely visibly, going on, and the implications of this discrepandy
between form and content. Chapters 20/21 look at the side effects of this parcelled-out way of paying
itself: that it lengthens and intensifies the workday, that it gives capitalists an opportunity to steal from their workers’
wages, etc.
To say it again, 19 looks at the relationship between surface and the invisible (or barely visible) relations
underneath, while 20/21 look at the surface itself.
Perhaps the following metaphor is useful: Since the surface is not a direct but an indirect representation of what
is really going on, i.e., since the rope tying the surface to the underlying relations is longer than it usually is and
has some slack, this rope can get knotted up. Chapters 20/21 investigate these knots, while chapter 19 makes sure
that this rope is still anchored in the basic transaction of selling labor-power (and not selling labor itself).
Next Message by Baseball is [836].
[839] Fisher: The reason that Marx talks about “Time wages” in two chapters so he can
bring together the price of labor and the “underlying relations of production”. The price of
labor is measured by the value of labor power and by the length of the work day. Time wages
relate to the daily, weekly etc. wages paid to laborers by capitalists.
Hans: Yes, chapter 19 talks about the relationship between time wages and the value of labor-power from which it
is derived, and chapter 20 talks about time wages in its own right.
Next Message by Fisher is [842].
Question 755 is 691 in 2009fa and 806 in 2012fa:
Question 755 What does one miss if one does not look at the form itself but only at that of
which it is the form?
[745] Kobe: Looking at form. There is a connection between form itself and that which
is the form. This may seem very confusing but when you look deeper into the connection
it become more clear. Take the price of labor for example, there is a connection here with
the price of labor as well as the underlying relations of production. This example illustrates
the worker’s wage or as some call price of labor, is the transformed form of the price of
labor power. With this being said we must take into account that surface forms have built in
tendencies to lengthen the workday as well as intensify labor. Marx states that these surface
forms do their best to be independent of the underlying mechanisms which help determine

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 383
them. Wage labor, this is a form of something, what I would call the value of labor power.
According to Marx mainstream economists only want to know what lies beneath these forms
but not at that which is the form. With the above statements taken into account you can miss
many underlying mechanisms if you look at that which is the form instead of looking at the
form itself.
Hans: What you are missing is not the underlying mechanisms but the mechanisms located on the surface itself.
The tendency to lengthen the workday is a good example for this. This tendency does not come from anything
people do in the production process, but this tendency comes from capitalists in their market interactions with the
workers, wanting a low price of labor, and workers wanting a high daily wage. Both can be “satisfied” by making
the day longer while keeping wages low. I put “satisfied” into scare quotes because the worker is the one who really
pays for this by losing his free time.
Next Message by Kobe is [843].
Exam Question 757 is 671 in 2007SP, 662 in 2008fa, 693 in 2009fa, 779 in 2011fa, and
808 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 757 Wages have two main forms: time wages and piece wages. Why does
Marx discuss time wages first?
[801] RexManning: graded A The chicken came before the egg. Wages, according to
Marx, have two main forms. These forms are time wages and piece wages. When discussing
labor-power, which is what the laborer is selling in return for payment, in the form of wages,
one must initially consider time above other factors. This is why Marx discusses time wages
before he addresses piece wages. Time is crucial, not only to the capitalist system as a
whole, but to the individual players in the system, both the laborer and the capitalist. When
a laborer sells his labor-power in return for wages, his/her labor-power can only be sold for
limited amounts of time. If there were not a limit to the time in which a laborer could sell
their labor-power then the relationship between the laborer and the capitalist would turn into
a relationship of slavery. This relationship of selling labor-power for specified periods of
time results in a daily value, or weekly value of labor-power, which is addressed as timewages.
Another reason why time wages are discussed before piece wages, is that time wages
are a direct measurement of the laborer’s wage-power, where piece wages are indirect. Even
a piece wage earner can only work for a specified period of time or else the system would
result in slavery.
Message [801] referenced by [2012fa:1063]. Next Message by RexManning is [847].
Question 758 is 672 in 2007SP, 663 in 2008fa, 694 in 2009fa, and 780 in 2011fa:
Question 758 At the beginning of the Time Wage Chapter one might expect an argument of
the sort: Wages are paid for labor, and labor is measured in time, therefore we will discuss
time-wages first. Instead of this argument, Marx in 683:2 brings a different transition from
labor-power to time wages. How does he argue, and what, if anything, is wrong with the
argument outlined here?
[807] Cosmopolita: Surface forms of wages, time wage and piece wage. At the beginning
of the Time Wage Chapter Marx reminds us of one of the first statements in the
beginning of Capital, that one of the central commodities traded on the market, labor, is not
really a commodity. This way remind us that on the “surface of the economy” the categories
384 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
“price of labor” and “value of labor” need to be examined, since Marx argues that labor, the
substance of all commodity-value, is itself not a commodity and cannot have a value.
Therefore price of labor is not determined by the value of labor, is derived in a roundabout
manner with the value of “Labor-power” and by the length of the workday.
As stated in 683.2 mechanisms that were taken as given, affect the magnitude of Relative
Surplus Value. These mechanisms were a constant working day assumed, meaning labor
wages being constant. But with the concept of Relative Surplus value, we can identify an
increase in the gap between capitalist and laborer; specifically in the lengthening of the
working day, which brings absolute surplus value. Therefore commodity of labor-power
can only be sold for periods of tine otherwise it would degenerate in slavery. Consequently
whatever form of wage directly or indirectly contain a measurement of time as in hours, days,
weeks, fortnights, etc. Thus, sale of labor power always takes place for specific periods of
time then value of labor can take different shapes.
In chapter 19, a connection between labor power and wage based on labor is derived. But
in Chapter 1, we know the essences behind the wage form do not fully define the shapes
which this form can assume. The surface forms of wages somehow criticize mainstream
economics, for not paying enough attention to surface forms.
From 683 2 the gap between capitalist and laborer with the lengthening of the workday is
again repeated with the surface forms of wages, time wages and piece wages, because both
forms have built in tendencies to extend the length of the workday, and even more the piece
wage has the tendency to intensify labor. What is wrong, is that from ordinary economic
treatises, which in their crude obsession with substance neglects all kind of difference of
forms, but in Chapter 20 the surfaces forms are recognized derived from wages based on
labor power.
Hans: You are reading the right passages in Capital and the Annotations. The next step is to make a crips summary
which only addresses the question asked and to leave out unrelated things.
Next Message by Cosmopolita is [1197].
Question 761 is 674 in 2007SP, 652 in 2007fa, 662 in 2008SP, 666 in 2008fa, 697 in
2009fa, 783 in 2011fa, and 812 in 2012fa:
Question 761 How can the price of labor be reduced even without changing the weekly
pay?
[742] Lindsey: I get paid more money, but I make less? In chapter 20, Marx outlines
how a worker’s weekly wage can increase while the price of his labor (calculated by wage
divided by hours worked) decreases. Today this is easiest to understand if we look only at
workers who earn salary wages.
There are 3 ways a worker can make more nominally, though the price of his labor has
actually remained the same or decreased. In each case, the number of hours worked rise,
causing the wage per hour to remain the same or decrease. They are working more surplus
hours.
In the first case, a person’s wage remains the same, but they work more, thus making less
per hour. In the second case, a person’s wage rises, but they work more and this cancels

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 385
out their increase in wage so that they make the same as they did before or even less than
they did before as calculated hourly. In the third case, the hours worked are added up for
a family. The head of the household cannot possibly work any more hours, but perhaps the
family requires more income, so the income made by the head of the family is augmented
by someone else in the family working too. The total number of hours worked by the family
members increases, and the total of the hourly wages received remains the same or decreases.
This argument made me think of an argument that was made in another economics class:
capitalists can skim the top of workers’ wages in other ways too. The example used in
my class was health benefits. Workers’ real wages have not increased much over the past
several decades. This is because they are told that they will be given health benefits from
their company, and they assume that this is extra—free of charge. What they don’t realize is
that their employers are taking the money that they would have given the workers in wages
and paying for employee health insurance. Essentially, they are saying “look how generous
we are, we care about your health and want you to have health insurance on us”, but they are
really just spending the workers’ money for them (and maybe even keeping a little more for
themselves). On the surface it looks like employers are giving workers more, but really they
are giving them the same or less—much like the 3 scenarios Marx outlines.
Hans: Capitalist to Marxist worker: if you give up your health coverage, I will give you more money, like the
University professor told you. Marxist worker: What, I am supposed to believe THAT?
Message [742] referenced by [758] and [833]. Next Message by Lindsey is [864].
[743] Long: More hours, less pay. By extending the hours of work per day or per week,
workers are losing because they have to put in more hours per day but still maintaining the
same daily wage. Another scenario is when you’re working on salary wage. You might have
to spend more time as it is necessary to get the job done which might require longer hours
of input labor. I remember when I was working at a firm with a hourly wage for two years
before I was promoted to a supervision job. My wage was $9/hour at the time before the
promotion. After the promotion, I have figured that I was making about $4.25/hour because
of the time I had to spend before and after everyone had gone home. I was there more
than just eight hours a day. Lastly, the third one is the fact that many families now need
two income earners to even keep up with the cost of daily living. In a way, each additional
member of the family now has to put in time labor because of the head household hours
is augmented like Hans had say in his notations. The last scenario fits my current status
provided that my wife now has to work whereas she never did before 2008 financial cricis.
Message [743] referenced by [758]. Next Message by Long is [923].
[746] Alex: graded A Hourly vs. Salary. In this scenario, the price the capitalist pays
for the labor isn’t seen by the capitalist as how many hours the laborer works, but instead
as how much work or labor that worker produced for him. Therefore, I think that in order
to decrease the price of labor without changing the pay would be to increase the labor of
the worker within a working day, while he/she is being paid the same amount. I think
the best example for this is the method the laborer is paid, such as salary vs. hourly pay.
A person who gets paid by the hour will stall in their responsibilities by taking longer to
perform a job, because the longer he/she takes to perform it, the more hours this worker gets
paid ultimately. A person with a salary will get paid a certain amount regardless of how
long it will take him/her to complete the job, so it is within his/her best interest to perform
386 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the job in a precise and quick manner. A capitalist that wants to minimize on labor costs
would increase the bulk load of other workers, for example, by laying off one employee and
distributing that person’s work responsibilities among the rest of the employees. This would
mean that the capitalist is getting more labor done for him for the same amount of money
paid to the worker in the long run.
Message [746] referenced by [748], [758], and [2011fa:699]. Next Message by Alex is [773].
[748] Husani: I believe Alex is correct in [746] in the fact that the capitalist will increase
the working day to get more product out of the worker. The assessment of how people are
paid by salary is also correct but I don’t believe it goes far enough. I think the workers must
also be duped into thinking that they need to work longer to receive the full amount of their
pay. The capitalist will pay them their means of subsistence or the amount they require to
live if they meet a set criterion, such as, a minimum number of hours worked or a minimum
number of products produced. Without this duping of the employees, they will work a lower
amount each day and the capitalist won’t get his surplus-value out of his workers.
Hans: Paying less than the value produced per hour has the effect of duping the worker, but the capitalist doers not
do it in order to dupe the worker. The capitalist simply makes sure that he gets a full day’s labor out of the worker
if he purchases his labor-power for a full day.
Message [748] referenced by [758]. Next Message by Husani is [772].
[758] Rmc: graded A+ Reduced price of labor. If the worker’s wage is measured by day,
the price of labor decreases as hours are added to the work day. Marx explains that if the
working day is a fixed number of hours (say, 10) and the wage ($1.44) is fixed by a (24-hour)
day, the longer a worker labors past the fixed number of hours reduces the price of his labor,
because he is not being paid for the extra hours worked. In other words, if the worker is paid
weekly for the total of $1.44 a day for 6 days, he’ll be given $8.64. If he has labored for
more than 60 work-hours and is not compensated, the price of his labor has been reduced.
If wages are being determined by piece, the capitalist and worker have agreed on a specific
number of items produced to count as socially necessary labor-time. Workers are still
assumed to earn half the value of their piece, or work half the day for themselves and the
other half for the capitalist. If, through experience and skill, the worker produces more products
than average during a 12-hour working day, but is still paid the same wage as if he had
only finished the normally expected quota, the price of his labor has been reduced because
he has produced more pieces than the agreed-upon number for socially necessary labor-time.
It seems he has benefited the capitalist more than himself.
Lindsey, Long, Alex, and Husani also discuss this question. Lindsey [742] mentions a
third scenario where wages are determined by a family’s labor-hours, not just an individual
worker’s. Long [743] brings up an important perspective also—there is a huge difference
between salary and hourly pay. In my own experience, I have realized that hourly pay can
more accurately compensate a worker putting in extra hours. This difference can be drastic!
I work in a warehouse that gets very busy during the Christmas season, and management
often encourages overtime. However, my own supervisor is paid salary, so even though
he puts in more hours than many of us, he is not paid overtime. (Let’s all pray he gets a
huge bonus.) On the other hand, as Alex [746] points out, if a worker is paid by the hour
it’s very tempting for them to “take their time” on the job so they are paid more by the
time it’s finished. Husani [748] says that workers must be “duped” into thinking they must

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 387
work longer than is socially necessary to have earned their salary, when in reality they must
work longer so the capitalist can retain the workers’ surplus-value. I think my warehouse
example illustrates this somewhat- in my experience, if there is work that needs to be done
and overtime is required to finish it, salaried employees work extra but are not paid for it.
Especially if there is no form of compensation, like a bonus, the worker has indeed produced
extensive surplus-value for the capitalist.
Next Message by Rmc is [768].
[771] Bigwhite: Wearing me out. Your labor price (hourly wage) can be reduced without
you taking a hit on your weekly paycheck.
1. you can be subject to working longer hours each day due to an increase in demand
which leads to you needing to produce more for your weekly earnings.
2. you could be subject to more intensive labor than you are accustomed to for your
certain job, this can lead to you becoming more tired and decrease you life span or period in
which the capitalist can rap the rewards of your labor power.
3. you could be making the same wage for 20 years and now it just doesn’t pay the bills
yet you are working more hours than you used to so your wife has to get a job to help make
ends meet so now you have two people laboring to help augment the wages of the primary
worker or head of household.
Another valid argument could be a raise in inflation while your wages stay sticky if the
price of all goods that you consume rise does that not take away from your wages? Meaning
that you are working the same yet everything around you is rising in price and a dollar today
isn’t equivalent to a dollar next year.
Hans: Inflation erodes your hourly and your weekly pay equally. The question was looking for way to reduce the
pay received for a given amount of labor while still maintaining the weekly pay at the same level.
Next Message by Bigwhite is [797].
[806] She: graded A+ Too Much is Not Enough. Marx’s formula for determining the
average price of labor is summarized in Hans’ Annotations on page 556. The average price
of labor is found by dividing the average daily value of labor power by the average number
of hours in the working days. Visually, we can imagine this as a ratio with the average daily
value of labor power being given the top position, or the numerator and the average number
of hours in the working day will be on the bottom or be designated as the denominator.
Common knowledge of fractions dictates that the value of the fraction will decrease when
there is a decrease in the value of the numerator or an increase in the value of the denominator.
So, holding the numerator constant, the price of labor to the capitalist can fall if the
denominator, or average number of hours, is increased.
The easiest way to imagine this scenario is thinking of a salary employee in modern day.
This analogy does not make sense if we think of wage work the way it now works in our
society. Many of us would demand, and rightfully so, additional pay for additional hours of
work. Sometimes I feel it is difficult to see what Marx is saying because a lot of it doesn’t
seem to fit the life we now live in our capitalist system. Many who read the chapters of
Capital concerning wages will fail to see the significance because they forget to consider the
388 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
state of labor at the time this book was written. Workers now have more power and often
times do not realize that their rights and powers have all been begat by the labor movement.
Capital was originally published in 1867. This was before the Pullman Strike (1894),
the Homestead Massacre (1892), and many other strikes that ended in violence and death.
The concessions that are taken for granted now are the products of sacrifice and battle in the
past. It seems absurd to us, nowadays, to think that our bosses would just tell us they are not
paying us more, but we have to work more, if we don’t like it, we can just starve. This is
exactly what happened to the steel workers and railway workers in the late 19th century. The
price of labor can be driven down if more product can be squeezed out without proportionate
compensation for the workers’ toil.
Next Message by She is [948].
Question 762 is 675 in 2007SP, 653 in 2007fa, 663 in 2008SP, 667 in 2008fa, 698 in
2009fa, 784 in 2011fa, and 813 in 2012fa:
Question 762 Is it true that the laborer is only interested in what he receives, i.e., the overall
daily wage income, and not interested in what he gives, i.e., the overall daily labor?
[762] Zohan: More than just a wage. For the most part I would say that this is a
false statement. Most people find a sense of joy when they contribute to, or accomplishing
something. Therefore, I don’t think that laborers are only interested in what they receive.
Many enjoy what they do, regardless of their wage. They are driven by something more.
Robbie [2009fa:776] quoted Hans stating, “Some jobs are so interesting and rewarding by
themselves, and wages are high enough for a comfortable living already, that the workers just
do the additional work out of enthusiasm and goodness of their hearts. But as the workers
notice that their selfless attitude is cynically taken advantage of by the capitalist, this is likely
to dampen their enthusiasm over time.”
As I read this I thought of my parents. My mother is a public school teacher. She earns a
salary of about $40,000 per year. She works several hours past her required time each week
that she doesn’t get paid for. She obviously did not choose this field because of the level of
income it would bring. She chose to be a teacher simply because she loves to do what she
does and finds more satisfaction in teaching young minds than the figures on her pay check.
She doesn’t mind working extra hours because of enjoyment she gets out of her work.
On the other hand, my father makes a significantly larger amount of money than my
mother, but he doesn’t find the same level of joy with his job. His job is stressful and
extremely time consuming. He also gets upset when he has to work more than his required
time. Although he does find some degree of satisfaction in his work, I believe he finds more
satisfaction in what the company gives him in wage, over what he gives them in labor. His
wage is higher than his job satisfaction and that what has kept him there for thirty years. I
am confident that if his wage was lower he would not work in the same field.
Message [762] referenced by [768]. Next Message by Zohan is [985].
[768] Rmc: I completely agree with Zohan [762], even if what he says seems optimistic,
especially to those who don’t like their jobs or whose good hearts have been taken advantage
of.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 389
After I get my BA, I’ll be going first to massage, then physical therapy school. This
has been a dream since some good friends of mine graduated from UCMT and became
massage therapists- through their experiences, I realized PT is the perfect way for me to
help people (I’ll be honest, I chose PT because that profession allows more freedoms than
massage therapists are allowed—diagnosis, for example). Anyway, one massage therapist
friend in particular noticed right away that as soon as he told people what he did for a living,
the first words out of their mouths would be something like “oh, I’ve had this pain in my
back for soooo long. . . .” or “oh dude, my knee has been Killing me. . . ” and while he was
willing to help them at first without any sort of payment—out of the goodness of his heart—
it started to get very wearing before long, especially since after a while it felt like he was
taken advantage of by people who weren’t willing to pay him for his help. In the end, that
turned out to be many of his clients, since some of his work was outcall.
I have noticed the same thing happens to me when I tell people I’ll be going to PT school,
and I haven’t even been educated in it yet! Nevertheless, part of the reason I chose this
path for myself was that I want to help people before I want the paycheck. I didn’t even
look at average income for physical therapists when I picked this career. Maybe this will
change over time, but right now my goal will be to help anybody who asks for it, as best
I can, without expecting any sort of compensation at all. This attitude has been met with
skepticism and doubt, but I absolutely mean it. With this particular profession and set of
skills, I’ll be in a position to really help people—and if altruism replaces payment for some
cases, that’s perfectly fine with me.
Message [768] referenced by [797]. Next Message by Rmc is [962].
[797] Bigwhite: Selfish. I have read others responses to this same question and have found
that the majority feel that the laborer is not just working for wages but is in fact working for
some sort of self satisfaction. Rmc [768] referenced a friend that does PT having to give
information away for free when he could be in fact being paid for it but didn’t mind because
it meant something to him to help others. While I find this a valid response I don’t feel
that the masses really feel this way, there is only a small portion of the population that does
any type of labor and doesn’t expect to be compensated for it. These are the extremely
charitable people that you read about that are working for the peace corp or are incredible
philanthropists. To me this seems to be the exception and not the norm. This is coming from
someone that has grown up in capitalism but I do feel people are in fact more worried about
their wages than how much they put into their labor. I feel that this is a just argument from
what we have learned in this class why would the laborer in a capitalistic system want to put
everything they have into a day’s work when they are just being exploited, I find there is no
incentive to want to work your hardest on a day to day basis under the capitalistic system.
Generally I believe that most people are self-interested and greedy only doing enough to
keep their job and satisfy their management while having more value instilled into their
leisure time.
Message [797] referenced by [800] and [802]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [820].
[800] Frida: graded A+ What is the relationship between capitalism and greed? I
agree with the main conclusion of Bigwhite in [797], which is that in capitalism most people
are more interested in what they get out of the system than what they put into it. Most wage
workers don’t care much about the quality of what they produce.
390 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
But this should lead us to wonder... Why are many people are like that? Are people inherently
greedy, or is there something about being a wage worker, or a worker in a capitalist
system that inherently leads to this? The examples that people have given in previous answer
seem to point to the latter option. People who have to opportunity to have a better job,
like physical therapist or teacher, do tend to care about how they benefit others. Bigwhite
seems to agree that capitalism does contribute to this, but also seems to imply that it is part
of human nature.
Many people are not so lucky. If everyone could get an emotionally rewarding job, everyone
would. The structure of this society forces many to work at low wage jobs just to
survive, there is no time/money for college or other training to get a better/more fulfilling
job. I work a minimum wage job, but I don’t rely on it to survive. I have been lucky enough
to have parents well off enough so that I can live at home and get partial support while I go
to school. If I were relying on my minimum wage job for my survival (or an even lower
wage job, or if it were supporting not just me but other members of my family), I wouldn’t
care at all about the quality of my work. I don’t see how someone who is being exploited to
that extent ever could.
This is another instance of the social roles created by capitalism. There is the role of the
exploiting capitalist, and the role of the worker. There are further subdivisions in the role
of worker that range between the barely surviving worker and the worker who is basically
happy with their job. In order for capitalism to function there have to be many many people
barely surviving. Since they occupy this role in the system, it is no wonder if they don’t take
joy in their work.
Message [800] referenced by [802]. Next Message by Frida is [804].
[802] Kat: Response on the selfish worker. In response to Bigwhite [797] and Frida
[800], I’d like to speak further about the motives of the worker. It has been called to question
whether whether a wage, happiness, or social concern is the main motive for working.
Everyone, for the most part, considers survival to be the highest priority. Wages, then, are
often time the biggest concern when seeking a job. Regardless of whether they are high or
low, the absolute necessity of money to survive remains. So, happiness and social concern
will take a backseat. Otherwise, perhaps more people would “work” as volunteers or not
work at all, if that made them happy. Frida [800] questions whether this is greed or a capitalistic
characteristic. I’d say it’s a bit of both. Greed has a negative connotation, but an
individual’s pursuit of survival and a comfortable life is really a form of relative greed.
That being said, it is also a characteristic of capitalism for individual’s to seek a higher
and more satisfactory form of survival. I would say this suggests workers will take an active
interest in what they are creating. Frida [800] mentions the necessary levels of social standing
within the working world, ranging from the capitalist to the lowest level wage workers.
Those on the lowest levels would prefer not to be there. So, they would be inclined to care
about the quality of their labor and their production because that will be the greatest determinant
in moving up the production ladder. Exploitation will not necessarily depress the
worker’s drive to better their situation.
Next Message by Kat is [815].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 391
Question 764 is 677 in 2007SP, 665 in 2008SP, 669 in 2008fa, 700 in 2009fa, 786 in
2011fa, 816 in 2012fa, and 764 in Answer:
Question 764 In a system of hourly wages without a set daily minimum of hours, Marx says
that “the connection between the paid and the unpaid labor is destroyed.” Explain what he
means by this.
[770] AM: Is my labor Paid or Unpaid? I find the issue of hourly wages and set daily
minimum of hours to be extremely relevant even years after the initial downturn in the economy.
Workers still face shortened work week hours because their employer simply does not
have enough incoming jobs to create enough revenue to have his employees work a normal
work week (say 40 hours). In addition with fewer jobs to complete there simply is not
enough work to keep workers on the clock. All the while the employees’ bills have not
changed, they still require the same amount each month to put food on the table, pay for
gas, and keep the lights on. Important in all this is to note whether or not the worker understands
how their wage is computed. More often than not the worker does not realise that
he produces more value than what he actually gets paid. The example that Hans provides in
reponse to JspendLove [2008fa:887] exemplifies how a part of a workers labor goes unpaid.
If a client is billed $45 per hour and the worker is paid $15 per hour, after 20 minutes the
worker has created a labor equivalent while the remaining 40 minutes goes unpaid. This is
a good example of an asymmetric information problem for the worker. Workers previously
were able to get paid for labor and unpaid for labor thereafter. Now the first step is missing
there is rarely any paid labor left to be completed once unpaid labor is completed. Using
Marxs’ connection between paid and unpaid labor I think about my own job and question
which parts of my labor are being paid and which parts remain unpaid. I am admittedly
unsure of this but may lead to an interesting discussion with my boss (we have a close, open
relationship which allows for honest discussions).
Hans: You might find [Answer:9] helpful.
Message [770] referenced by [776]. Next Message by AM is [967].
[776] PLG: graded A Healthcare inflation burdens you! Marx reveals a 1:1 ratio of paid
to unpaid labor in a 12-hour working day. “he works only half of every hour for himself, and
half for the capitalist” However, if the working day is variable relative to the daily value of
labor power, then the daily value of labor-power can be tampered with by the capitalist. A
capitalist has the option of increasing or decreasing the working day, while the labor-power
remains constant. Therefore if a worker is working less than the level of subsistence that
his hourly wage is based on than he is being exploited. In Marx’s example of abnormal
underemployment he shows how a laborer’s earnings are truncated the less hours worked.
The fewer hours he works, the further away he gets from subsistence. Therefore, the 1:1
paid to unpaid ratio is not constant as the hours worked decreases. Therefore the relationship
between unpaid and paid labor has been destroyed.
A capitalist could hire a few part time employees to each work part of the day. He would
maintain the same value produced, while paying less per laborer. None of which could reach
a level of subsistence.
392 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
AM [770] points out that living expenses remain the same, while part-time work is becoming
more prominent in relation to full time work. Part-time work also allows the capitalist
to avoid employee benefits, and further exploit workers. This is highly popular in today’s
society, especially with healthcare inflation and the burden it puts on firms. Firms are transferring
the burden of increasing healthcare costs to their employees rather than reducing the
company surplus. This is a contemporary example of the destruction of the relationship between
paid and unpaid labor. Capitalism is about firms, not about people or workers. As
companies get richer, people get poorer.
Hans: As long as there is any unpaid labor, Marx would say the worker is exploited. If the workday is so short
that the worker can no longer pay his bills, then Marx would use a stronger word than exploitation; in this case
the capitalist steals from the worker. Why steal? Because the capitalist buys the commodity labor-power from the
worker, and just because he cannot use it all he refuses to pay for it all. Imagine you calling Amazon and saying:
I haven’t been using the gadget very much which I bought from you. Please give me a partial refund. (Ignore that
Amazon is set up in such a way that you cannot really call them.)
Next Message by PLG is [803].
[985] Zohan: Why A Connection Breakdown? In a system without a set daily minimum
of hours, the capitalist is bound to pay only the wages for the number of hours that he
chooses to employ the worker. He can choose to employ the workers for a shorter period
of time, sending them home before they have a chance to work enough hours to maintain
their standard of living. Essentially, the capitalist can try to exploit their labor. As long as
the capitalist has allowed them to work enough hours to perform the necessary labor, the
capitalist is able to keep the surplus value. In the annotations on page 561, Marx explains
that when the hours are shortened, “the capitalist can harvest surplus labor without allowing
the worker to perform his or her necessary labor.” When this occurs the connection between
paid and unpaid labor is broken.
Next Message by Zohan is [991].
Question 766 is 679 in 2007SP, 657 in 2007fa, 702 in 2009fa, 790 in 2011fa, and 820 in
2012fa:
Question 766 In Chapter Twenty, Marx mentions two abuses connected with the wage
which he thought would be abolished with the legal limitation of the working-day but which
weren’t. Which are those?
[744] Trap: hourly wages keep capitalists profitable. In chapter 20 Marx discusses the
issues with time-wages. He specifically mentions two abuses that he was hoping would be
overcome with the legal limitation of the working day. The first abuse he sees is the problem
of hourly wages. He saw that capitalists were out to simply maximize profits, so the workers
were at the mercy of the capitalists. Hans gives the example in [2009fa:782] of a capitalist
only employing the worker when he needs him, for example during the Christmas season the
worker will supposedly get enough hours to support himself, but once the Christmas season
ends, his hours are cut once again to an unreasonably low level.
The second abuse Marx sees is the erosion of the separation between normal time and
overtime. In the annotations Hans says that “regular pay is depressed, so that the workers
are forced to work longer because they depend on overtime pay.” The capitalist keeps the
wages low, so that in order to support themselves the worker must work overtime hours,
therefore it “undermines the normalization of the working-day.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 393
Hans: You originally had written “the second abuse Marx sees is the separation of normal time and overtime.” I
changed it because the separation itself is a good thing: it allows people to work overtime if they like, without this
affecting their normal workday and their normal pay. The erosion of this separation is the abuse. Here is how this
separation is eroded: overtime pay is used as an excuse for lowering the normal pay and in this way the workers are
forced to work longer, i.e., in essence the normal workday has now become longer.
By the way, what you call “the problem of hourly wages,” Marx 686:1 calls “the elimination of the bond between
paid and unpaid labor.” Marx was a deep thinker, and you can learn a lot by paying attention to how exactly he
conceptualizes things.
Message [744] referenced by [2012fa:1030] and [2012fa:1202]. Next Message by Trap is [1035].
Question 767 is 680 in 2007SP, 658 in 2007fa, 668 in 2008SP, 672 in 2008fa, 703 in
2009fa, 791 in 2011fa, and 821 in 2012fa:
Question 767 How does Marx argue that longer hours are associated with a lower overall
daily wage?
[741] SMIKEC: Marx explains that wages are dependent on the amount of labor needed.
If someone isn’t getting paid as much this could indicate that there is a greater amount of
labor, which leads to a longer work day and hence a lower wage. Depending on the economy
and the situation the individual is in has a factor in that individual’s wage. If the worker is
facing tough times, he might be more willing to accept an agreement which he generally
wouldn’t. One of these terms could be a longer day for less pay. On the flip side of the
coin, if things are a little brighter for you, you would most likely be a little choosier and not
agree to certain terms such as a longer work day. The capitalist will do everything in his
power to get more out of you for nothing. I think this is where salaries come into play. Many
managers and supervisor positions are structured like this. If you were working a 40 hour
work week your pay would be great, but since they get 55 hours out of you a week, your
wage is quickly diluted.
Hans: Your argument is essentially correct, but keep [721] in mind: it applies not only for excessive exploitation
but also for normal exploitation.
Next Message by SMIKEC is [811].
[750] LuBr: Lengthened workday means lower daily wage. Marx argues that longer
hours in the workday are correlated with the erosion of the daily wage.
The laws of capitalist production determine the hourly price of labor to be the ratio of
[daily value of labor power/working day of a given number of hours]. So, one would think
that an increase in the working day would only serve to reduce the hourly price of labor. This
does not answer the question however, in that we are trying to understand why an increase
in the working day is linked to a reduction in the daily wage.
The daily wage, according to capitalist production, is determined by the basic humanistic
requirements of the worker to reproduce his labor-power, as Hans described to the class in
[702]. Hans explains that the “day is the shortest period for which it makes sense to compute
(his total survival needs).” This definition of the daily wage would mean that it would stay
constant. Furthermore, in answering our question, one would not think that an extension of
the working day would have anything to do with the daily wage.
So how is the longer workday linked to a lower overall daily wage? One must look at
the market forces that allow capitalists to take advantage of overly alienated (non-unionized)
394 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
and desperate laborers. Laborers who are unable to organize or too poor to go without daily
wages for the protest over a lengthened workday are those same laborers who are unable to
fight a reduction of their daily wages. In the end, capitalists striving to compete on the market
with low cost commodities see their ability to extract a higher surplus value by increasing
the workday. If they can get away with this, a reduction of the daily wage will certainly
follow.
Next Message by LuBr is [764].
[761] Kat: You just can’t win—Longer hours and lower wages. Marx argues that are
longer hours will also mean lower wages because of the balance of power between workers
and capitalists. That is, whoever had more bargaining power should be able to dictate hours
and wages. If the capitalist has the power, they are able and inclined to extend hours and
lower wages. Whereas, if the power shifts, the workers will be able and likewise inclined to
argue for better wages and shorter hours. This is another instance where Marx would insist
on the importance of workers banding together to gain power to better their situation.
Hans: Your argument is neat and simple but it is too abbreviated. It sounds as if wages were only determined
by the strangth of the competing parties capitalists and workers. The law of value plays a role in it too. I.e., the
workers not only have to contend with the market power of the capitalists but the market as a whole works against
them too.
Next Message by Kat is [802].
[833] Hans: Health Care and Wage Theft. Answering a different question, Lindsey
[742] remarks that the cost escalation in health care has been used by the companies not to
raise wages. This is true, but does this mean the workers are better off in a job without health
benefits? If you think there are anywhere in the USA really well paying jobs which have
no health benefits and which pay so well because they have no health benefits, look again.
Such jobs do not exist. All well-paying jobs have health benefits, only the poorly paying
jobs don’t. The tradeoff which you would expect does not exist. This is the same situation
as with the jobs with long hours whose pay is less than the job with normal hours, not only
per hour but even the takehome pay per day or week is less.
The US health industry is an example for another concept which Marx uses in chapter 20,
namely wage theft. The entire industry, not only the insurance companies but also the doctors’
salaries, the hospitals, etc., owe their exceptional growth to wage theft: the capitalists
and doctors have found a way to divert part of the wages which the workers have fought for
into their pockets.
What to do in such a situation? A Marxist would say: fight tooth and nail to protect
and keep your company health benefits. Make it hard for the companies to just throw out
their company specific health plans, until the companies themselves clamor for a universal
system as every other civilized country has except the USA. Only this can stop the insurance
companies and pharmaceutical companies and hospitals and doctors from drinking out of
the wage trough.
Next Message by Hans is [834].
[837] Fisher: free discussion health care. I was reading the response that Hans had for
Lindsey on the health care system and a job with benefits and wanted to add to that. Another
problem with the Health Care system is that too many people are not insured and eventually
need medical attention. Once they make their visit or visits to the hospital, there is a huge

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 395
bill that never gets paid. The hospitals and doctors make up for the “unpaid” bills by passing
it on to those who pay their bill. Or, in other words, if everyone would get insured and pay
their hospital bills then maybe health care prices would likely come down.
Message [837] referenced by [854]. Next Message by Fisher is [839].
[854] Kaimani: Can Everyone Afford Healthcare?? I was reading Fisher’s [837] response
to Hans and Lindseys discussion on health care system. He recognizes that we have
a lot of people who are “uninsured” and don’t have the means to afford their procedures or
appointments. To make up for that the hospital either writes it off or they “pass it on to those
who pay their bill” Fisher than goes on to say that “if everyone would get insured and pay
their hospital bills then maybe hospital bills would likely come down.”
My issue is the assumption that everyone can pay their hospital bills. The reason that so
many people are unisured is because insurance is so dang expensive. Especially if you are
trying to do it privately and not with a company. Most of those who are uninsured make less
than 40k a year and thats not take home. Cost of living and other life factors make it difficult
for someone to afford insurance. Especially if that someone has a medium to large family.
Also, a lot of people who are uninsured work at jobs that don’t carry insurance plans and if
they do they don’t cover hardly anything. And maybe the reason for companies who have
limited insurance options is because it hurts their surplus value????
I think that the problem is with rates at which doctors can charge per procedure. Also
i think another problem is insurance, health insurance makes it nearly impossible to afford
and if you can, it is eating a big whole in your pocket. To make health care more affordable
i think that we need to look at the exchange process of insurance to health provider and see
how we can make that more efficient. Maybe if we can fix that aspect then health care prices
will go down. I don’t see really any other way. It is a hard issue to tackle.
Message [854] referenced by [1063]. Next Message by Kaimani is [919].
[897] Giant: graded B– Longer hours are associated with lower overall daily wage according
to Marx by the workers being less productive. When the workers work longer hours
they can not work as hard so their hourly productivity declines because they are tired from
the long work hours.
Hans: In Marx’s theory, wages do not depend on productivity.
Another way wages are lowered is when workers are given a set wage. This set wage
does not take into account any extra hours that the worker is working. A person could be
working 40 hours a week, while another person works 50 but they both could be earning the
same set wage. If this was the case then the worker who is putting in more work hours is
getting paid less than the worker who is only working 40 hours.
Hans: This would explain why the daily wage is the same despite longer hours, but Marx says the daily wage is
lower in those industries where hours are longer.
Next Message by Giant is [910].
[994] GoUtes: Marx argues that longer hours are associated with lower overall daily wage
by pointing out that those that work longer hours need to work greater hours to satisfy their
personal cost of living. For example, an illegal immigrant working in construction will more
often than not work longer hours on a day to day basis, they have lower wages and must
work longer hours in order to cover their cost of living. Whereas with someone who has a
good paying sought after job like an accountant, they will work less hours per day because
396 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
they are getting paid more per hour, they don’t need to work as many hours to be able to
cover their cost of living.
Hans: According to Marx, accountants have higher wages than construction workers because they need an education.
Marx says that for comparable skill levels, longer hours mean lower daily wage than shorter hours. You
haven’t explained why.
Next Message by GoUtes is [1093].
Question 769 is 674 in 2008fa and 793 in 2011fa:
Question 769 In which of the examples in this chapter is there a tendency to increase (daily)
wages while lowering the (hourly) price of labor, a possibility Marx invoked in 684:1/o?
[769] Ferox: graded A– The Hidden Trap of Increasing Daily Wages. Marx uses the
first example of one worker producing the equivalent of 1.5 or 2 workers — an example
indicative of high wages but lower prices of labor. Because the worker is willing to work
longer shifts in order to gain a larger daily wage, she is inflating the labor supply in a market.
This leads to an increase in competition between potential workers due to the lowering of
the standard hourly price. Due to the currently high unemployment rate, potential workers
are more willing to work for a low wage that provides a meager subsistence than not work
at all (and be unable to meet basic needs.) By selling her labor power for less than others,
the worker is competitively underpricing herself, but undermining all workers by bringing
the standard wage down.
Once employed by the capitalist, the worker will strive to keep her employment - “being
a team player” - even if it means working longer hours. This will increase the daily wage
but lower the hourly wage of the worker. The worker will receive more at the end of the pay
period, but is working longer hours and at higher productivity to maintain that rate of pay —
all due to the depressed price of her hourly labor.
Hans: You are not saying anything about Marx’s other examples—does this mean in those other examples there is
no tendency to lower the price of labor?
Regarding the example you did bring, it seem obvious that you used [2008fa:864], and you should have referenced
it. That earlier message talks about one other example by Marx, and my note to that message about the third.
It is ok to build on previous answers, but please improve them instead of falling behind them.
Next Message by Ferox is [799].
Exam Question 770 is 683 in 2007SP, 661 in 2007fa, 671 in 2008SP, 675 in 2008fa, 706
in 2009fa, 789 in 2011fa, 819 in 2012fa, and 770 in Answer:
Exam Question 770 What is the difference between surplus labor time and overtime?
[749] JSmits: (graded A) The deception of surplus-labor time. The difference between
surplus labor time and overtime is that surplus labor time is thought to be part of the normal
working day where overtime is beyond the realm of the normal working day. Capitalists
recognize that overtime is beyond the normal work day and that is why they pay employees
more for it. Surplus labor time is something that does not exist so it is included in the normal
working day.
Surplus labor time is stated by Marx in 690:1/o0, “The category of surplus labor-time
does not exist at all for him, since it is included in the normal working day, which he thinks
he has paid for in the day’s wages”. Marx says that to the capitalist, surplus labor time does

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 397
not exist. Whatever a worker’s wage is, it is not the same value as whatever they are making.
That is where surplus labor time comes into play. It is the work that you do that you are not
paid for.
Employees think that all of their labor is paid for but it isn’t true. If it were true then there
wouldn’t be any surplus labor or profits for that matter and they wouldn’t be exploited by
the capitalists.
Overtime is different because they will pay you more than what you would make in a
normal work day. It seems like the capitalist would be losing money because they are paying
employees for instance, time and a half, for their work but in reality they are still benefiting
from it. It just benefits the capitalist and hurts the employee because it enables them to run
the machinery 24 hours a day and make bigger profits while ruining the employee’s health.
Capitalists will earn a little less because of the increased wages but they still profit. Overtime
is very deceptive because it seems as though capitalists are doing you a favor by paying you
more because you work longer—but they are just earning more profits while exploiting the
employers through surplus labor.
So surplus labor time is thought to be part of the normal work day, where over-time is
something that is extra, on top of the normal working day.
Message [749] referenced by [2011fa:744]. Next Message by JSmits is [757].
[766] Somramthom: graded A Capitalism is exploitation. In a capitalistic society, exploitation
must exist. There must be surplus value created by the laborers for the capitalists
to profit. But wages paid to the laborer must be high enough that the laborer can sustain
himself and live to work another day. These two ideas allow us to understand the difference
between surplus labor time and overtime wages.
Since there must always be surplus value, there must always be surplus labor time. The
term “surplus labor time” can be defined as the amount of time a laborer spends creating
surplus value. This is when the value created by the laborer exceeds his wage. All value
created after this point is reached is surplus value. Thus all the time spent creating value
after the wage is reached is surplus labor time.
Overtime wages are wages paid that are higher than the normal wage the laborer receives.
This higher wage is an incentive to work longer than is contractually obligated of the laborer.
When the laborer is paid overtime, he uses a greater portion of his labor time earning his
wage and a lesser portion creating surplus value for the capitalist profits. Surplus labor time
still exists and while overtime pay is greater than the original wage, it cannot be greater
than the total value created by the laborer. Otherwise, there would be no surplus value, no
exploitation and no capitalism.
Hans: A too high overtime rate would not eliminate capitalism, but it would eliminate overtime.
Message [766] referenced by [823]. Next Message by Somramthom is [767].
[773] Alex: Invisible vs. Visible labor. Surplus labor is the extra labor produced by
the worker once he/she has produced the necessary labor. According to Marx, this labor is
unpaid labor from the worker, and it is where all the profits are gained for the capitalists.
Overtime is the extra labor from the worker that is paid by the capitalist at a higher rate.
The difference between the two is that workers are always producing surplus labor when
employed by the capitalist regardless of the hours worked, and it is always integrated within
398 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
their jobs. Overtime is extra work from the employee, that even though it still has surplus
value, it is seen as working beyond the necessary and better compensated. Although I tried
to phrase these concepts in my own words, I have to applaud to Hans’ exemplary definition
because it made me truly wrap my head around the concept and understand it. Hans says
in [2007fa:493] “overtime labor is a surface category, while surplus labor is not,” where he
goes on to explain that the worker thinks he’s getting fully compensated for his labor, when
truly his labor is worth much more than what the capitalist is paying him, this is why it’s
invisible. Overtime is visible because of the premiums received by the worker, because of
the extra hours worked above the regular hours, and it is appreciated by both the worker and
the capitalist.
Next Message by Alex is [1015].
[775] GoUtes: Surplus labor and overtime. There is a great difference between surplus
labor and overtime. Surplus labor is defined as labor exerted; after the required amount of
expected labor is performed, to create a certain good or a set amount of goods. Whereas,
overtime is the amount of time exceeding the set goal established to create the good.
A laborer could have overtime, work longer hours and not put forth a full effort to produce
goods, yet still not reach the requirements to create a good. This would be one example of
an inept laborer who has “overtime”.
However, the laborer could work harder and go the extra mile while still accomplishing
their set goal within the allowed time frame, and exceed all expectations or limitations set.
This would be an example of surplus labor.
Hans: Wrong definition of surplus-labor. A worked-out example with numbers explaining surplus-labor is [Answer:7].
It is important that you understand this; it is at the core of Marx’s theory of capitalist profits.
Message [775] referenced by [796]. Next Message by GoUtes is [993].
[796] Kaimani: Surplus Labor Vs. Overtime. Go Utes [775] defines surplus labor as
“labor exerted; after the required amount of expected labor is performed, to create a certain
good or a set amount of goods.” Marx 690:1/o defines overtime as “the prolongation of the
working day beyond the limits corresponding to the usual price of labor.”
Marx argues in 690:1/o that surplus labor doesn’t exist for the worker since it already
included in the normal working day. Go Utes [775] tries to make the distinction that the
worker if they “go the extra mile” can achieve surplus labor. This is not true because as I
stated before Marx says that “surplus labor time doesn’t exist at all for the worker...... And
all though there is a definite quantity of unpaid labor and by that there is the normal source
of his profits” [690:1/o] The worker doesn’t get paid any more or any less for the amount of
work that he does during regular hours because those terms have been set and agreed by with
the employer however, with overtime the worker can increase their wages with the increased
production of their work. Although overtime is just a substitution for surplus labor and the
worker doesn’t realize this, the worker is benefiting from overtime with an increase in wages
for increased labor produced for the employer.
Hans: The Marx quote in your second paragraph is completely botched up. Marx says that surplus labor does
not exist for the capitalist. By this Marx means that the capitalist does not know, and nothing in his immediate
experience is telling him, that he is paying the worker only for part of the worker’s product. For the worker, surplus
labor exists—the worker has to work far too long every day for far too little pay. This is certainly part of the
worker’s experience.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 399
Next Message by Kaimani is [812].
[811] SMIKEC: extra credit. According to Marx, the capitalist exploits the worker
by having surplus labor. The capitalist defines a wage that is a portion of the total value
produced by that worker per day. Once you have value for a product you then minus the
wage and that will give you your surplus labor. As an example if a worker is paid $10 an
hour to pack boxes and produces $20 worth of value in that hour, then after 30 minutes of
work in that hour, the rest would be surplus which would equal 30 minutes. The latter 30
minutes would be surplus labor because it is unpaid, since his wage was paid with-in the
first 30 minutes. If you take that same example and put overtime into the mix you would
still have surplus labor. Lets state that overtime equals 1.5 times more the wage, so now
the box packer would be getting $15 an hour versus his $10 an hour before overtime. Even
with overtime at $15 an hour the capitalist is still seeing surplus labor because the worker is
producing $20 worth of value an hour, still creating $5 worth of surplus labor per hour.
Next Message by SMIKEC is [896].
[853] Kobe: In this question we are asked what’s the difference between surplus labor time
and overtime. This is a comparison between two things that can not be validly compared.
Surplus labor is the margin created from the worker’s wage and the value of the commodity,
it is not something that we can physically see. As compared to overtime, in which it is labor
in excess of the normal working day. Overtime is typically rewarded with higher pay as
opposed to surplus labor time. Laborers do have surplus labor time in every minute of work
as long as the wage is lower than the value produced by the laborer.
Next Message by Kobe is [862].
Question 771 Why did some London workshops pay, for the same labor, time wages to
Englishmen and piece wages to Frenchmen?
[812] Kaimani: Wages. In [692:4/o] (2) Marx states that piece wages and time wages
coexist in the same shop for the same labor ....Marx explains that some shops because of
the nature of the work or operation that had to be performed even though piece wages were
usually the common form of pay...time wages were handed out.[771:(3)] The shops did this
to maximize profitability and surplus labor time from their workers. with piece wages the
shops were able to hirer and work people for a set rate and didnt have to pay overtime. It is
almost like the salaried position at a corporate job. They have to put in just as many hours
as the time wage worker plus overtime and not get paid for the extra hours that they put in.
The time wage workers get paid hourly plus overtime if they work overtime. This works in
the favor of the company/shop because the piece wage worker/salaried worker is producing
more than the time worker is producing while they are both working the same amount of
hours. The shop/corporation is maximizing the use of surplus labor time in both cases. it is
compared to the salaried worker and the hourly worker. they both work the same 40 hours
a week but the salaried worker is finishing more work in less time and has more demands.
the hourly individual still works hard but is being compensated with less money and has to
work overtime to make as much money as the salaried employee. In the end they exert a lot
of effort to finish their work and they are compensated relatively the same amount over the
same period of time.
400 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The shop does this maximize surplus labor time and profitability for themselves this is
why they pay half of their workers piece wages and the other half time wages.
Message [812] referenced by [814]. Next Message by Kaimani is [830].
[814] Hans: This Question will Not be on the Exam. The extra credit period is for
designated exam questions, or general homework questions which were answered before
and where the answers were inconclusive so that clarification is needed. The expectation
is that your submissions help everybody to prepare for the exam. This is not the time to
increase the workload for everyone else because you need a grade. Since question 771 was
not answered before, it will not be on the exam, and message [812] will remain ungraded.
By contrast, if you submit answers to designated exam questions at the present time, they
will get grades even if the email says “ungraded exam question”.
Next Message by Hans is [816].
Question 775 is 680 in 2008fa, 711 in 2009fa, and 830 in 2012fa:
Question 775 Why is the form of piece wage just as irrational as that of time wages?
[757] JSmits: graded A Exploitation Reigns Supreme. The form of piece wage is just as
irrational as that of time wages because the capitalist still exploits the worker in both forms
of wages. A piece wage is just a slightly different form of the time wage; they contain a lot
of the same qualities.
Marx says in 692:1, “The piece-wage is nothing but a transmuted form of the time-wage
just as the time-wage is a transmuted form of the value or price of labor power.” Much of
the irrationality in both wages is because of the similarities between both. With piece wages
your wage is based on the number of pieces of product you make. The example that Marx
gives is that you make two pieces of commodity worth 12 cents but you are only paid 6
cents.
With time wages your wage for the day is not paid in full. For example, you work for 2
hours but 1 hour you work is for the capitalist and the other hour is for yourself. Now this
is where the irrationality lies. In both piece wage and time wage you are only getting paid
for half a day’s work. This isn’t the case all the time but the worker is never getting paid the
full value of the commodities he makes. The worker is still being exploited in both forms of
wage and that’s the irrationality.
Hans: The irrationality is not only the exploitation itself but the way how this exploitation is hidden: the worker
gets paid according to his labor (so it seems that all his labor is paid for), but he is not getting an equivalent of
the value produced by his labor. Instead he is getting a different amount based on the reproduction cost of his
labor-power and the length of the workday. The difference between the 6 cents which he gets for each hour and the
12 cents which he produces each hour, or the difference between the wage per piece and the value which his labor
has added to the piece, is what makes this form, in Marx’s terminology, an “irrational” form.
Next Message by JSmits is [972].
Question 776 is 677 in 2008SP, 681 in 2008fa, 712 in 2009fa, and 831 in 2012fa:
Question 776 Explain how piece wages can become a “most fertile source for wage theft
and capitalist cheating.”
[809] Rico: Wage Theft. There is no question that piece wages have contributed to
the “fruitful source of wage theft and capitalist cheating” (Annotations pg. 578). There

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 401
are many modern day examples of how capitalists use piece wages to corrupt a laborer’s
compensation. Mick gave a great present-day example of how capitalists use piece wages
to benefit themselves. In [2008SP:560], Mick gives the example of “quality control and the
subjective nature of quality assessment,” which creates avenues, whereby capitalists take
advantage of their laborer’s wages. Mick illustrates the manner in which capitalists go about
doing this. He explains that the capitalist is free to set the standard of quality that is expected
from each individual laborer, and at what pace it should be produced. By doing this, the
capitalist “simultaneously mitigates his employees’ financial entitlements and enhances his
personal bank account.”
There are more contemporary examples of how the capitalist uses piece wages as a means
to rob and cheat their laborer’s wages. Some capitalists claim that cutting wages is a necessity
during this economically challenging time. Yet they require the same level of production,
and advise that their employees should be grateful for the wage earning opportunity
(even though the compensation is decreased and the labor power required increased). The
capitalist designates the quantity and quality of production and the laborer complies, allowing
the capitalist to practice wage theft.
Next Message by Rico is [862].
[1082] Jon: On page 778 of the Annotations Hans says “The most striking characteristic
of piece wages is that quality control of the product is built in.” This is also reaffirmed in
Capital on page 694. Marx describes why the exploitation is most fertile when he says “This
is because they provide an exact measure of the intensity of labor.” In time labor the Laborer
is paid according to the time spent on production, a portion of the time is spent in free
labor for the capitalist but the laborer receives pay based on time. In piece wage however
the quality control is solely in the hands of the capitalist for every individual product the
capitalist takes his portion and the only pay the laborer gets is when the product has met
the qualifications set forth by the capitalist. The control is even more in the hands of the
capitalist when piece wage is the compensation which leads to the mst fertile source of wage
theft for the capitalist.
Hans: Marx makes a distinction between exploitation and wage theft.
Next Message by Jon is [1085].
[1084] Kraken: graded A The example that Marx gives regarding piece wages and capitalist
cheating is that of a factory employing both piece wage workers and time wage workers.
In this scenario the piece wage workers were working an extra 1/2 hour each day in an effort
to produce more a few more goods and make a little extra money. Due to the way the
production process was set up, the time wage workers were required to stay and worked the
extra 1/2 hour each day, even though they were not paid anything extra for their additional
labor. Considering the fact that factories employed hundreds of time wage workers who
were laboring for free, the benefit to the capitalist was significant. In this manner capitalists
were able to cheat the time wage workers out of wages which they should have been paid
for.
Under the piece wage system capitalists also have ample opportunity to cheat the piece
wage worker. Under this system the capitalist only pays the worker when the worker is
making a profit for the capitalist. The capitalist doesn’t have to pay the worker for any
“down time”, which would cut into the profits of the capitalist. The capitalist also has the
402 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
privilege of determining how much he is willing to pay the worker for each piece produced.
If the capitalist decides he is paying the worker too much for the goods he is producing, the
capitalist can then decide to lower the price he will pay for each piece or require the worker
to produce more pieces each day in order to get paid. The capitalist also sets the standard
for product quality. This gives the capitalist the opportunity to set the standard for product
quality so high that they can control how many pieces they have to pay for by rejecting the
pieces that don’t meet their quality standards.
First Message by Kraken is [7].
Question 777 is 689 in 2007SP, 682 in 2008fa, 713 in 2009fa, 802 in 2011fa, and 832 in
2012fa:
Question 777 Time wages and piece wages have opposite effects on the competition between
workers. Explain.
[763] Giant: graded A Is it better to work together or alone? Time wage groups workers
together. The capitalist looks at the bigger picture when estimating what workers’ labor
power is worth, then he offers the workers a hourly/daily/weekly/monthly wage based on
this assessment. This wage will be just enough to give the worker incentive to sell their
labor power yet leave the capitalist with some profit for producing the product. The amount
or speed of individual laborers will not cause the wage to differentiate between workers as
long as the overall production needs are met. This allows workers to work together as one,
creating more of a team environment. By all individual workers working together to reach
the capitalist demands more efficiently, they all reap the benefits by either getting higher
wages, or having to work less hours. There is competition but all workers benefit from the
competition.
Piece wage is designed for a more one-one-one basis. This form of production encourages
workers to work as efficiently as possible. The key here is to outdo other workers so you
reap the most benefit. The benefits here are given to only the individual worker and not the
group of workers. While the work is more efficient for the capitalist, it causes the laborer to
be more easily taken advantage of because they have to work harder than all other workers
to reap benefits, thus separating workers instead of creating a team environment for workers
like time wages does.
Message [763] referenced by [813]. Next Message by Giant is [897].
[813] Hans: Employee to Capitalist: You are Fired. How is your wage level determined?
The following passage from [763] probably captures what an average employee
may think about their wages, especially after taking a course or two in mainstream microeconomics.
The wage is set by the capitalist at that level at which it
will be just enough to give the worker incentive to sell their labor power yet
leave the capitalist with some profit for producing the product.
I.e., the wage is a little less than the value the worker adds to the product, but it cannot be
too much less because then the worker would go elsewhere.
Now let’s look how Marx think this wage is determined. Marx does not think the capitalist
has to give the workers incentives to sell their labor power. The capitalist system does this for

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 403
them: the workers have to survive, and since they have no access to the means of production,
selling their labor-power is the only way for them to survive. The capitalist system helps the
capitalists also in a different way: since unemployment is a systemic feature of capitalism
(chapter 25 will explain why), workers have no market power but must accept the bare
minimum. Ok, what is this bare minimum? Since workers are forced to work in order to
survive, the bare minimum is just enough so that they can survive, i.e., can pay their bills
and get a color TV for entertainment.
Marx also says that this bare minimum is much much less than the value which the
employee’s labor really creates. The average employee may not believe this, they may say:
“if my employer pays me more he will go out of business.” Of course they will, because
his competitors are still paying the low wages. But if all workers were to organize and
obtain higher wages, you would be surprised how high the wage level can get without the
capitalists going bankrupt. Just look around you; rich people in this society have access to a
lot of wealth. Do you think this wealth fell from the sky? All this is wealth created by the
workers for which the workers themselves did not receive an equivalent. This is how Marx
sees the capitalist system.
Message [813] referenced by [961]. Next Message by Hans is [814].
[861] AlexDaily: graded A Piece-wages entice competition. Marx explains “in piecewages,
although the price of the labor-time is measured by a definite quantity of product,
the daily or weekly wage will vary with the individual differences between the workers,
one of whom will supply, within a given period, the minimum of product only, another the
average, and a third more than the average. With regard to their actual income, then, there is
a variety among the individual workers, according to their different degrees of skill, strength,
energy, and staying power.” Whereas with time wages, all workers receive the same pay as
long as they worked the same amount of hours. Of course, when you are paid because of
your performance you will be more competitive with your other workers than if you are
simply paid by time. However, piece-wages can be misleading because as Ashley states in
[2008fa:897] “they are still being paid for the time of their expended labor power, as is the
case with time wages”.
Next Message by AlexDaily is [951].
[922] Lana: In a time wage system, workers are generally less competitive because of
the “team work” mentality. The capitalist presents the workers with a set wage based on
what their labor power is worth, and the workers decided whether or not to sell their labor
power to the capitalist. The worker will earn enough to support and maintain himself and
the capitalist will make a profit. The workers do not have incentive to work faster or harder
than their fellow employees, creating an environment where the workers are a single unit
efficiently accomplishing production goals. If and when these goals are met, the capitalist
may reward the workers as a whole with a higher wage or other benefits because he is making
a good profit. However, the capitalist does not like this arrangement as much because it gives
his workers the ability to unionize, plot, and demand higher pay, benefits, etc. The capitalist
has something to fear in a time wage system.
In a piece wage system, competition is fierce because the system is viewed from an individual
perspective. Workers do not feel like a team because the pay they receive depends
solely on the amount of effort they personally expend. They are trying to “outdo” each other
404 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
and receive the most pay for themselves. The capitalist prefers this system because it is
easier for him to take advantage of his workers, encouraging them to worker harder and for
longer hours. This system allows the capitalist to manipulate his workers into a competitive
environment and leaves him to not fear revolt from his employees.
Next Message by Lana is [926].
[943] Balrog: graded A Time Wages, Piece Wages and Competition. Under the time
wage system the workers in a group all receive the same wage. They do not compete against
each other but as a team to complete the task at hand. When they work well they all receive
the benefits and upon performing poorly they all suffer the consequences. In a piece wage
system workers are paid according to how many commodities or pieces of commodities they
produce. Their goal is to make as much as they can as fast as they can. This places them in
competition with their fellow workers and they no longer work as a team but against each
other in order to produce the most and receive the highest wage.
Hans: When the workers work against each other, then the capitalist has blown it. Capitalists are very careful to
set things up in such a way that the workers won’t work against each other.
Next Message by Balrog is [1029].
[961] SMIKEC: Time wages create a group effort or union between the workers. They
all work together to try and achieve the end goal which is meant to be in the best interests of
the laborers as a whole. The capitalist makes sure that he is paying the time wage laborers
just enough to ensure they sell their labor to him with enough margins left over to satisfy
his pocket. With this, metrics or set expectations of production are created. As long as the
production needs are met within the group, then the capitalist is happy. The team environment
that the time wage concept creates is a competition that benefits everyone in the group.
Greater efficiencies may equal higher wages which in turn is the effect of the group as a
whole.
Piece wage creates an environment where everyman is for themselves. If one worker
excels, the only person it benefits is the worker and the capitalist because of a greater surplus
labor, which in turn hinders the other laborers because they do not see any of the benefit from
the improved efficiencies. Utilizing this type of production creates the “over achievers” of
the group, which typically lead to greater efficiencies, and more money for the capitalist.
Hans: Regarding your sentence “The capitalist makes sure that he is paying the time wage laborers just enough to
ensure they sell their labor to him with enough margins left over to satisfy his pocket,” read [813].
Next Message by SMIKEC is [965].
[963] Rmc: graded B+ Time wages more accurately portray the value of labor than piece
wages because the worker is paid for how long he spends producing a commodity. If the
finished commodity is sold for about the same amount the capitalist paid the worker to
produce it (assume the price is increase a little to generate profit for the capitalist), the price
of the commodity nearly reflects the value of the worker’s labor.
With piece wages, usually the worker depends on selling the product to a customer to earn
any income. The success of his efforts depend completely on the willingness of the customer
to trade money for the product. This comes with much risk- does the product appeal to the
consumer? Is the product a use-value to him? Can he afford to buy it? Especially in an
economy such as ours currently, consumers are less willing to part with their money- it is
more likely they will spend their money on food than “luxury” or unnecessary items. If a

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 405
worker’s wage depends on getting the consumer to buy something they don’t need, want,
or can’t afford, they will be hard-put to make a sale. An example is the movie The Pursuit
of Happyness: the main character must sell a new, expensive machine that measures bone
density to doctors and hospitals. The pool of customers is limited to begin with, and no one
wants to buy his product; eventually, with no money, he and his son are left homeless and
hungry because he cannot raise enough to pay for his means of subsistence. This type of
commission job leaves much to chance and the worker is more at risk than is counterpart
who is paid a time-wage.
Hans: You are saying there is almost no exploitation with time wages, only with piece wages. According to Marx,
this is not true. Already with time wages the value produced per hour greatly exceeds the wage. Nowadays it is
roughly twice the wage.
Next Message by Rmc is [1063].
[969] Atticus: graded A+ In a firm where only time wages exist laborers only create an
average daily amount of value for the capitalists to pay the laborers a living wage and keep
surplus value for themselves. Laborers have little or no incentive to create more value than
what the capitalists expect from them. Laborers may in fact decrease the intensity of their
work once this expected daily value becomes apparent to them. There is little competition
between laborers under these conditions. Piece wages are derived from average labor time
and not the actual value that is created in each piece produced. Laborers have more incentives
to intensify their work under these conditions. They gain a greater desire to earn more
wages by producing more than expected and “outdo” their co-workers. This increased sense
of competition exists even in firms where the majority of laborers are paid time wages and a
minority of exemplary laborers are paid in piece wages. The capitalists begin to expect more
from laborers paid in time wages. These conditions have the effect of lowering wages and
increasing productivity. Capitalists gain more surplus value at the expense of the laborers
when piece wages are thrown into the production process.
Hans: Good description how the workers try to decrease the intensity of their labor.
Message [969] referenced by [2011fa:735]. Next Message by Atticus is [1068].
[992] Somramthom: graded A Piece wage induces competition. Time wage earners
are compensated based on the amount of time spent working. Piece wage earners are compensated
based on output. Because the output isn’t as important to time wagers as it is to
piece wagers, time wagers spread the labor throughout the day. There is no incentive to work
harder since everyone gets paid equally no matter how much labor they perform. This results
in little or no competition. Output matters much more to piece wagers. Competition is created
between workers since everyone works the same number of hours, but higher earnings
come to those with higher outputs. There is now an incentive to produce more since harder
workers get paid more.
Next Message by Somramthom is [1030].
Question 779 is 691 in 2007SP, 670 in 2007fa, 680 in 2008SP, and 834 in 2012fa:
Question 779 Which advantages does the form of piece-wages have for the capitalists?
What does it mean for the relation between the workers?
[767] Somramthom: graded A Why I don’t want a commission based job. When laborers
are paid according to piece wages, capitalists have more control over the number
406 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
of conditions in which laborers earn their wages along with the circumstances surrounding
these conditions. They benefit through more control on costs incurred, coercing higher
production, diminishing laborer unity, etc.
While working harder to produce more may allow the laborer to earn a greater take home
pay, the capitalist also gains more surplus. The ratio of time spent earning a wage versus
time spent producing surplus value for the capitalist is unchanged. However, it would seem
there are a few laborers who earn wages closer to their produced value, i.e. laborers who
produce more. Then it would also seem there is some benefit to the laborer, though it is
limited quantitatively to those “harder” workers. This is not so. The capitalist sets a wage
per piece produced. This wages remains the same whether a laborer produces 100 pieces in
a day or 10 pieces in a day. Thus the surplus labor per unit and the value per unit is the same.
Exploitation remains unchanged despite increased labor.
Piece wages shifts the power balance more towards the capitalist and away from the
laborer since the laborer’s power comes from numbers. Without that power in numbers,
laborers can’t demand better wages or shorter working days. These two changes would
decrease the amount of exploitation of the laborers by the capitalist and thus prove to be a
greater benefit to the laborers.
It seems to me that piece-wages are more focused on benefiting the individual worker,
while time wages benefits the group as a whole. Time wages allow for a greater average
benefit for each laborer than piece wages. Since Marx emphasizes the power of the group of
laborers, he would be in favor of time wages and against piece wages.
Next Message by Somramthom is [823].
[849] Balrog: graded A Piece wages, the capitalist’s choice. Piece wages are yet another
method that the capitalist can use to squeeze every penny out of his workers. The capitalist
motivates his workers by telling them that if they work harder, faster and produce more their
wages will increase. Marx 696:1/o says that this form of production gives workers a “sense
of liberty, independence and self-control”, where in reality the capitalist has received further
power to manipulate. Workers are more easily persuaded to work longer days to receive a
higher wage. In addition, the capitalist can set the piece wage at a rate where workers must
work longer days in order to meet the level of pay at which they barely survive. If workers
complain that their wages are low he can point out his most productive workers and create
more drive within the less productive.
Piece wages create a sense of competition among workers. They are now no longer
working as a team but are on a quest to produce and earn more than their fellow workers.
This further pleases the capitalist because it prevents employees from uniting together to
seek reasonable treatment.
Next Message by Balrog is [940].
[1101] Max: graded A The exploitative properties of piece wages. Piece wages are the
most advantageous form of wages for the capitalist. With piece wages, labor doesn’t have to
be supervised because if a laborer is not producing at the same speed and quality as another
laborer, they will get paid less and often times will be replaced. Further, competition between
laborers will intensify because nobody wants to get fired, so they all try to work harder than
the other person. Laborers will also speed themselves up because they think the more they

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 407
work, the more they get paid. This is true, but it also means that the capitalist is generating
more profits.
Hans: It is not true in the long run that workers will get more pay if they produce more. The capitalists are only
waiting for opportunities to increase the quota.
Next Message by Max is [1176].
[1134] IrvingHowe: When we take the perspective of capitalists as one party and workers
as another—each group an independent of the other yet pure in their composition, we can
analyze the situation rather easily. In taking this aggregate view, we will ignore what one
worker may gain in the piece rate system when compared to a wage compensation system
because the single worker who has gained under the piece rate system has necessarily offset
his own gains with the losses his overproduction has caused for another worker.
Piece rate is a great advantage for the capitalist in most industries and inevitably destructive
for the working class. For the capitalist, they only ever pay for actual units produced
that making their labor expenses a wholly variable cost. In this situation, there is no loss for
the capitalist when machinery goes down or a supply runs out. All burdens created by the
ups and downs in production that come through no fault of the worker are still shouldered
by the worker since his compensation ceases every time he must stop. This effect is again
considered when the workers has to decide if taking a break is really worth the loss in pay
that results from downtime and the possible loss of his job to workers producing more. For
healthy, experienced workers laboring at a normal working speed, there is likely to be only
a negligible difference in production levels between workers. Therefore, in order to gain
any additional compensation, the worker must produce more whether that means working
longer, not taking breaks or even working at dangerous speeds.
It is a fact of the piece rate system of compensation that creates competition and strife
among workers as each struggles for his own survival. Its effects are multiplied as workers
must constantly find ways to produce more and more, an act which in itself causes the loss
of jobs. The workers cannot see themselves as partners in a larger struggle if they are at war
with each other for their daily bread.
All of these factors, disunity among workers, employing fewer people as a result of competition
and totally variable labor costs are all advantages for the capitalist. The individual
worker may gain, but only at the expense of his fellow worker. When viewed on the aggregate
level, the piece-rate system has no benefit for the workers at all.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [1135].
Question 781 is 694 in 2007SP, 673 in 2007fa, and 682 in 2008SP:
Question 781 Why is piece wage the wage form most appropriate for capitalism?
[799] Ferox: graded A Piece Wage - a Perfect System for Capitalist Exploitation. The
piece wage is a perfect system for the capitalist for several reasons; it allows the capitalist
to diminish the price paid per good, has a built in mechanism for quality control, creates a
disunited working class, and masks the worker’s exploitation.
Since time is no longer factored into the wage, the worker will attempt to increase productivity
in a given period of time in order to increase the wage paid. This however lowers
the price per piece produced — reducing the price of the worker’s labor.
408 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Quality control is placed in the hands of the worker - who knows that regardless of the
labor invested in the product, the capitalist may refuse to pay for a substandard item. This
is in contrast to a time wage, where the worker is paid for the production time required.
The worker is now wholly invested in maximizing value for the capitalist at the expense of
herself.
The workers become disunited for two reasons. In a time wage scenario, all workers
are paid the same for the same type of work and must endure the same conditions in the
work environment. Thus it is in the collective interest of the workers to unite and fight for
better pay/conditions/etc. This is the basic idea behind the formation of a union. However,
in a piece wage situation, individual productivity differences of a worker translate to wage
differences. A strong difference in wages compared against equal labor time of the workers
causes dissatisfaction not towards the capitalist, but towards fellow workers and the self.
The piece wage system masks the exploitation of the worker by shifting the production
focus of the worker to producing for her benefit. While the capitalist will gain surplus
value regardless of a worker’s productivity, the worker focuses on maximizing personal
productivity in order to maximize her wage. When she is paid, she feels as though she has
been rewarded for increased productivity — masking the exploitative process in a feeling of
personal achievement.
Hans: You obviously used and improved on [2008SP:528]; you should have referenced it.
Message [799] referenced by [971]. Next Message by Ferox is [915].
[902] Utefan: Piece wage is most appropriate for capitalism because it is the easiest way
to exploit the worker. The value per hour remains the same, say $40, however the time to
complete the product is where exploitation takes place. Assume a product takes 2 hours to
complete. If I were to get paid $15 per hour then the value would be $40 per hour for the
capitalist and then my wage would be given according to the hours I worked and would not
be affected whether I finished the product or not. Now if I got paid $15 per product then the
capitalist receives $80 of value but only pays me $15 because it took 2 hours to complete
the product; also in order to make the same wage I would have to work double in this case.
It would be increasingly difficult if any product took more than 1 hour to complete.
Hans: If it takes 2 hours to finish the product then the capitalist cannot expect you to finish it in 1 hour. Therefore
the capitalist would have to pay $30 for two hours of time wages, and the piece wage would have to be $30 per
piece. This still gives him a surplus-value of $50 per piece. If the capitalist pays $15 per piece he pays only half
the value of your labor-power.
Next Message by Utefan is [1055].
[929] Bigwhite: It is the best and easiest way for the capitalist to exploit their workers.
Piece wages encourage workers to work even harder because they are being paid on how
many articles they finish not an hour to hour wage. So there is the incentive for the worker
to try and finish as much as they can in a work day. Someone who is paid a piece-wage is
usually working harder and longer than someone making a time-wage yet isn’t necessarily
being compensated more for the hard work. It also helps to create rivalries amongst workers,
someone will want to outwork everyone else to bring home the biggest paycheck. This helps
the capitalist stay in power because in this scenario the workers won’t band together and try
to unionize. Piece wage workers tend to work harder and longer to make the wage that is
sufficient to keep them alive and be able to come back to work and produce.
Next Message by Bigwhite is [930].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 409
[936] ANK: Piece wage is the most appropriate for capitalism because piece wages exploit
the worker more than time wages. The capitalist has a set wage for each commodity
produced regardless of whether the laborer produces 10 commodities a day or 1000 commodities
a day. If a worker is motivated and wants to earn a higher wage, they will produce
more surplus value for the capitalist. If a given commodity is worth $100 on the market and
the piece wage is $20, then the capitalist makes $80 in surplus value per commodity produced
by the worker. Capitalists make the same profit per commodity regardless of whether
the laborer works hard and is motivated for high wages or if the laborer is lazy and only
produces 10 commodities. Piece wages are the most appropriate for capitalists because they
exploit workers and require workers to work harder than if they worked on time wages, thus
benefiting the capitalists who reap the benefits of the surplus value.
Hans: Workers do not have the option to work slowly. They will get fired if they do.
First Message by ANK is [87].
[971] Deadfamous: graded A Most of my answer comes from Installment 2, Ferox’s
[799] in particular, some are in qoutes, some are revisions of his words
“Since time is no longer factored into the wage, the worker will attempt to increase productivity
in a given period of time in order to increase the wage paid. This however lowers
the price per piece produced — reducing the price of the worker’s labor.”
“Quality control is placed in the hands of the worker - who knows that regardless of the
labor invested in the product, the capitalist may refuse to pay for a substandard item. This
is in contrast to a time wage, where the worker is paid for the production time required.
The worker is now wholly invested in maximizing value for the capitalist at the expense of
herself.”
It seems to mask the exploitative process in a feelings of the ability to make more money.
The workers become disunited due to the fact that they may all not have to endure the same
work conditions, that as the producers become more valuable to the capitalist their conditions
may improve.
Next Message by Deadfamous is [974].
[1205] Kiko: The piece wage is the most advantageous to the capitalist. First it puts the
laborer in direct competition with his fellow laborer. If he is making more that his coworker
he reaps the rewards of harder work and longer hours and his friend suffers because his wage
is low due to the fact that his output is lower. The capitalist loves this because she is getting
commodities at a set price without any residual. For example the worker making $10/hr
sometimes makes five widgets and maybe towards the end of the shift they slow to only four
there is one more that they know to make but because they are already receiving the $10
there is no real incentive to make that fifth. Whereas a piece wage you will always receive
one widget for $2.50. The capitalist knows that the laborers are in direct competition for a
piece of the pie and as we all know there is only so much pie. The capitalist also has self
interest in that they want the most output for the least input. Whereas the hourly laborer can
take his time for he knows he is going to be paid the same wage wether he makes on item or
ten. (standards do apply)
Next Message by Kiko is [1206].
410 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 783 is 696 in 2007SP, 675 in 2007fa, 684 in 2008SP, 688 in 2008fa, 719 in
2009fa, 808 in 2011fa, and 838 in 2012fa:
Question 783 If the capitalists make higher profits due to technical innovation, should the
workers get part of this?
[740] ANK: Well it depends... When capitalists make higher profits due to technical
innovations, they must decide whether to share the profits with their workers or keep the
increased profit for themselves. My first instinct is to say that capitalists should absolutely
not share their increased profits because they made the investment in the technological innovation
and they deserve the higher profits for doing so. I am also inclined to say that the
capitalist should not share profits because these innovations are likely to make the job easier
for the workers, and that would please the workers and prevent an outcry for a share of the
profits. For example, consider assembly lines in the automobile industry. This technical
innovation made building cars easier for workers and increased profits for capitalists. When
assembly lines were introduced, I imagine workers were excited to use the new technology
to make their work easier instead of using this as an opportunity to fight for a share of the
increased profits.
But on the other hand, there is one case where I think the worker is entitled to a share
of the increased profits and that is when the worker is required to obtain new training and
education to operate and use the technical innovations. This training and education makes
the worker more valuable to the capitalist because they can now create higher profits with
the new innovations. Whether or not workers “should” get a share of the higher profits from
technical innovations depends on whether or not they are required to gain new training and
education to perform their job.
Hans: Look at my comments to [2007SP:931] and [2007fa:469].
Message [740] referenced by [774] and [798]. Next Message by ANK is [754].
[774] Hans: Why imagine things if you have Wikipedia. ANK says in [740]: “When
assembly lines were introduced, I imagine workers were excited to use the new technology
to make their work easier instead of using this as an opportunity to fight for a share of the
increased profits.” Assembly line work was boring and demeaning compared with the highly
skilled handicraft work which it replaced. The workers had no control over their labor, the
assembly line completely controlled them. They were not allowed to leave their station
which was often measured in inches. It was usually very noisy, and where the noise was not
overwhelming people were often not allowed to talk. BUT assembly line work paid very
well. Henry Ford in 1913/14 paid $5 a day, and a worker could buy a model T with four
months’ pay. Henry Ford deliberately let his workers have a part of the gains of productivity,
with the express goal to create a bigger market which led to economies of scale, i.e., even
higher productivity. Other capitalists considered Ford to be a class traitor. (All this info from
the Wikipedia entry about assembly lines.)
Message [774] referenced by [798]. Next Message by Hans is [777].
[798] Balrog: graded A ‘Nice People’ Share. Ank in [740] did a fine job of presenting
both sides of the argument. I too agree that it is the choice of the capitalist to decide whether
to share the profits with his workers or not. If the workers must receive further training or if
the level of expertise required increases they could potentially be eligible for a higher wage.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 411
With this submission I hope to share some thoughts, ideas and examples that came to mind
while reading your submission and Hans response.
Some employers are generous and take care of their workers. Hans in [774] mentioned
that assembly lines created a repetitive and demanding process for the workers but that Henry
Ford compensated his workers well. Recently the appalling movie Grown-Ups was released.
Despite being unoriginal and unfunny it made $270 million. Adam Sandler was the producer
and being a nice boss rewarded his four co-stars with $200,000 Maserati sports cars.
This is an example of a ‘nice boss’ (that all of us wish we had) but in a capitalistic society
the capitalist knows that the new machine he purchased with his money does not create
value. Even though he may produce more T-shirts in a day, the only value found in those
t-shirts stems from the value of the labor that each worker placed inside those t-shirts. The
Labor-power he purchased from his workers before the technical innovation is still the same
labor-power which holds the same value after the new technology is incorporated.
I recently watched a documentary about the cruel working conditions of factories in
Bangladesh. In one factory Disney was paying its workers on average 14 cents an hour
to sew their cute little Pooh Bear shirts. They would work 15 hour days 7 days a week and
were denied maternity benefits. When workers asked for better treatment Disney pulled their
work out of the factory and went elsewhere leaving that group of employees jobless.
The capitalist is the one with the power and does not need to share the profits. In fall 2009
Chris [2009fa:769] presented the idea that the technical innovation may be a flop and could
create losses. Should the worker then share the financial burden that the new technology
created? Most certainly not. In that case, the Capitalist does not need to share the profits
that he gained by supplying the money and taking the risk of incorporating new technology
into his production process.
Message [798] referenced by [816]. Next Message by Balrog is [849].
[816] Hans: How even the best arguments can be turned around. In a Groucho Marx
episode, the boss says to his protesting employees (who could have been coming straight
from an Econ 5080 session): “You are against wage-labor? So am I. You are fired.”
This is an example of turning the arguments of the critics of capitalism against them. Two
other examples of such a turning around can be seen in Balrog’s message [798].
(1) Balrog says: the capitalist does not need to share the gains of the new technology with
the worker because the capitalist knows that machines do not create value, only workers do.
Well, if the capitalist is so principled, then he would not only have to share his extra profits
but give all profits back to his laborers.
(2) Balrog refers to [2009fa:769] where Chris argues that workers suffer from the capitalists’
bad decisions in bad times much more than the capitalists themselves do. Therefore,
says Chris, they should also benefit from the extra profits the capitalists make in good times.
Balrog agrees with Chris that workers should not suffer from the capitalists’ bad decisions in
bad times. Therefore, Balrog continues, they also have no right to benefit from the capitalists’
profits in good times. Balrog exploits here a weakness in Chris’s argument, namely, that
Chris assumes, for his point to be valid, the continued existence of one of the bad features
412 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
of capitalism. On the other hand, one could criticize Balrog for basing his arguments not on
the actual facts but on how he thinks the facts should be.
There are two lessons to draw from Balrog’s intelligent debate maneuvers:
(a) capitalism is a well calibrated system whose parts fit together. If you criticize one part
of it, an observant adversary in a debate can probably find another part which then no longer
fits and try to use this against your critique. The retort is of course that the system cannot be
reformed but must be replaced altogether.
(b) if you are in a debate with someone who does not want to hear your arguments, don’t
think you can convince them by bringing better arguments. An intelligent person can always
find ways to deflect even the best argument. In such a situation I personally apply following
tactic: let your conversation partner politely know that his defenses are not convincing to
you even if they are convincing to him or her, but otherwise you should find a nice way
to end the conversation about this topic with that person. Do it in such a way that future
conversations will still be possible. You may have ten times the same kind of conversation,
but the eleventh time something may have happened and suddenly your conversation partner
may be open to listen to you. There are lots of people who are open to a good argument
right now, you should spend your time and energy with them and not with those who have
their emotions invested in not hearing you.
Next Message by Hans is [828].
[843] Kobe: This question is dictated by the capitalist running the company. If he/she
chooses to share the profits due to technical innovations it would have a direct effect on
laborers’ moral. How long would this last? Higher wages typically make people work
harder but not for increased periods of time. I do believe that if the capitalist invented or
financed the technological innovation that allows laborers to be more productive should be
allowed to determine if he/she wants to share the increased profits that come with increased
productivity. If the profit margin for the capitalist is higher than needed/wanted then this
would allow for the capitalist to compensate workers for the productivity gain. From a
laborer’s point of view, if he/she went through some sort of education in order to run the
machine then I would feel like the increased profit should be shared.
Message [843] referenced by [846]. Next Message by Kobe is [853].
[846] Hans: Privatization of Social Resources. No offense, but Kobe’s [843] is the
kind of thing which drives a Marxist up the wall. Kobe says that a capitalist can choose
to share the gains of technology with his workers, and that in some situations it is even
advantageous for the capitalist to be this generous. This calm consideration of enlightened
self-interest makes a Marxist’s blood boil. Kobe overlooks that technical progress is not
something which the capitalist has brought to the table. Technological progress is a social
force emerging from the cooperation of millions of people. Perhaps the greatest impetus to
technological progress is the experience of the work process itself, i.e., is the labor and toil
of all the workers. But the capitalist has creamed it off (because he lives in a society which
enables and encourages this creaming off) and now he is sitting there pondering what to do
with “his” wealth. He expects us to think he is really generous if he gives some crumbs back
to the workers (but only if they have really earned it and if it does not slow them down in
their toil). Workers of the world, unite!

Next Message by Hans is [848].
U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 413
Question 785 is 638 in 2004fa, 587 in 2005fa, 697 in 2007SP, 676 in 2007fa, and 720 in
2009fa:
Question 785 Marx writes: “the labor process, in the capitalist mode of production, appears
only as a means for the process of valorization.” Why does he use the word “appears”
here, and why did he put an “only” into this sentence? Shouldn’t he have said “the labor
process is means for the process of valorization”?
[935] Cougar: graded A Profits make the world go ’round. While researching this topic
in the annotations and archives, I came across Hans’ response in [2007fa:602] which shed
much needed light on Marx’s statement of interest. As Hans brings into focus, many of the
activities we citizens engage in are driven by motives other than those which the activity
was orginally intended for. The first example used was eating, meant to nourish and give
needed energy to the human body which has become more of an indulgent activity to satisfy
hunger and cravings. The second example used are families, perpetuated by love and sexual
appetites over a basal need to populate the earth. These driving forces that “appear” to
supercede the intended purposes of specific activities become the form, as Hans explains,
that those basal need manifest themselves.
Relating to the labor process in Marx’s statement, once the word “appears” is removed,
it becomes obvious that the “only” purpose of the labor process is indeed money-making
by the capitalist, which take on more acceptable forms like that of driving the economy or
supplying the consumer with needed commodities. Reading Marx’s statement in this way
also shows the deception laborers are kept under in the capitalist economy. To fortify the
idea that profiteering is truly the “only... means,” driving the labor process, Hans illustrates
how production halted during the Great Depression as soon as producers could no longer
turn a profit. All externalities rooted in the production process (jobs, incomes, needs, etc.)
were and are still dependent on one key ingredient as Hans finally shows, profits. In the
same semester, Fred [2007fa:582] identifies the social nature of Marx’s statement: although
the labor process has become a social necessity, filling a plethora of needs in the economy,
it is only the capitalist that benefits from the surplus.
Hans: Taking on these forms does not degrade the basic necessities, as you imply with your words “indulgent” and
“cravings.” I think on the contrary, it sublimates them. As if humankind got bored with just fulfilling the biological
necessities and made a celebration out of it.
Next Message by Cougar is [1136].
Exam Question 788 is 559 in 2002fa, 698 in 2007SP, 677 in 2007fa, 814 in 2011fa, and
844 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 788 How is the capitalist motivated to see to it that the social conditions
of reproduction are met?
[911] Cougar: (graded A) The NeverEnding Story... of Reproduction! As every capitalist
will discover at some point in time, the labor and means of production which they
utilize is finite and prone to failure. It is, therefore, wise to consider a “hedge” against
such unforeseen events, like even a factory losing millions in potential revenue due to faulty
equipment. The means of production may not be limitless but on the contrary, “The laws of
414 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
capital are not fulfilled with a one-time profit, they require the ceaseless making of profits...”
as described by Hans’ annotations, pg 594. To maintain this “ceaseless” cycle of profits,
the capitalist must ensure that the social conditions of reproduction are met in addition to
the production process itself. In other words, the means of production must be groomed,
maintained and replenished so that the production process may continue uninhibited, yielding
limitless profits. Why should the capitalist be concerned with the social conditions of
reproduction? Pele [2007SP:1113] in the spring of 2007 uses an excellent quote from Hans’
annotations that answers the matter in words we all can understand, “In capitalism, a capitalist
has strong motivation to see his investment projects through: if he does not succeed,
he may go bankrupt.” Pele’s response also reiterates the key ingredient that separates the
capitalist from the workers he employs: Capital. Without profits, or the means of achieving
profits (means of production) the capitalist is merely a worker himself. Not only is it in the
best interest of the capitalist to ensure the social conditions of reproduction are met, it is
necessary if he or she wishes to maintain his profits and position.
If I may add an original thought of my own, it would seem that laborers are also a finite
factor in commodity production. Must the capitalist incorporate, in his quest to maintain
the social conditions of reproduction, the perpetuation of his human labor power? Marx has
helped us see that laborers are in many cases exploited, providing capitalists with labor surplus,
but workers must still be efficient to ensure maximization of profits. It is my hypothesis
that the capitalist must devise incentives to disguise his exploits and maintain the efficiency
of his laborers. An example of this phenomenon is one used by Hans in class concerning
health benefits. Although not originally intended for the well-being of employees, the capitalist
uses its incorporation to ensure loyalty from existing laborers. Unless the means of
production AND the means of the means of production are satisfied in total, the capitalist
may find himself out of the game early.
Message [911] referenced by [918], [939], [2012fa:1179], and [2012fa:1251]. Next Message by Cougar is [935].
[918] Tyler: It’s all about the profits. A capitalist is motivated to see that the social
conditions of reproduction are met in order to ensure the continuance of his/her profits. Since
the capitalist must be concerned with the continued success of the business, he/she must also
be concerned with the reproduction process. There must of necessity be a way for the means
of production to be reproduced, and societal conditions makes sure this takes place. Hence,
the business owner is of course concerned that the social conditions of reproduction are met
so as to continue his/her profitable future.
Hans: You are summarizing what is wrong in [911] and leaving out what Cougar got right, namely, that the
capitalists maintain their own plants and look after their own investments and in this way, without intending to,
contribute to the reproduction of the system. My [215] applies to your answer. In general, you would get better
grades if you’d think things through a little more deeply. I have the impression you are not thinking much about it
because you don’t agree with what Marx says. It is a good exercise to think through theories which you don’t agree
with.
Message [918] referenced by [939]. Next Message by Tyler is [1072].
[939] Hans: What, me responsible for the sun rising again tomorrow? Cougar [911]
and Tyler [918] argue that it is of course in the interest of every capitalist to see to it that
the conditions of reproduction are met. One should think so, but what is the reality? Marx
told us in chapter 10 that between 1820 and 1850 the English capitalists just about killed the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 415
working class with excessively long hours. They did not come to their senses by themselves
but had to be forced by the organized resistance of the workers.
We don’t have to go back 200 years to find examples. Today the capitalists kill their
workers not by too long hours but by junk food. The capitalists in the USA have resisted
taxes so much that bridges collapse and our infrastructure is falling apart. They deprive a
large section of the working class of medical care. Fueled by speculation, they made a large
misinvestment in housing which nobody needs, and as a side effect undermined the entire
monetary and credit system.
The only way that they are concerned about the general conditions of reproduction is
in those cases where it happens to directly affect their bottom line. They want to remain
capitalists, therefore they maintain their own factories in working order. But this is not
always the case either. The US auto companies in the 1960s let their US plants decay and
pumped all money into investments in Europe, Japan, later Brazil and Mexico. The railroad
companies have let the US rail infrastructure, which was once the envy of the world, go
to the dogs. Since I am talking about transportation infrastructure: the auto companies
also systematically bought up and dismantled the trolley systems which many US cities had
(that’s why Trolley Square is a shopping center now).
The capitalists cannot afford doing what is good for everyone, not even what is good for
their own class, because of competition. Instead of enlightened concern for the continuance
of the system, they take it for granted that the system will continue, just as they take it for
granted that the sun will rise again tomorrow, and ride it as hard as they can. I think Marx
should have said in chapter 23 that the capitalist system can reproduce itself only if the
working class is strong enough to teach the capitalists the most rudimentary table manners.
Message [939] referenced by [2011fa:884] and [2011fa:919]. Next Message by Hans is [955].
Question 796 is 646 in 2004fa, 595 in 2005fa, 705 in 2007SP, 684 in 2007fa, 697 in
2008fa, 729 in 2009fa, and 822 in 2011fa:
Question 796 Does the capitalist, who started a business with his own capital, preserve this
capital while consuming surplus-value, or does he consume his original capital and replace
it with accumulated surplus-value?
[917] Tyler: Beginnings of business. A capitalist that starts his/her own business with
his/her own capital advances his money with the starting of the business, the money advanced
is thus spent. At this point, the business provides the owner the benefit of surplusvalue.
However, the owner does not necessarily replace his original capital with surplusvalue.
Steveeggett describes this: “If the capitalist hoarded his surplus-value and did not
use it for consumption in any way, in this manner he could in essence regain the equivalent
amount of what he spent.” [2008fa:996] From this explanation it is seen that whether the
original capital used in the start-up of the business is regained depends entirely on what the
owner decides to do with the surplus-value received.
Hans: You are misunderstanding Steveeggett’s answer. Steveeggett meant it rhetorically: it is not possible for the
capitalist not to eat. And as soon as he eats, he is eating up the capital which he advanced. He should not fool
himself that the workers, by supplying unpaid surplus-labor, did not over time become the rightful owners of his
capital, because he is eating away their surplus-value and not his own capital. You make it sound as if the capitalist
could decide not to eat.
416 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Tyler is [918].
Question 800 is 569 in 2002fa, 592 in 2003fa, 650 in 2004fa, 709 in 2007SP, 697 in
2008SP, 701 in 2008fa, 856 in 2012fa, and 800 in Answer:
Question 800 Sometimes a worker has to eat while working, like a machine which needs
fuel in order to keep going. Marx comments that “this, however, appears as an abuse.” Why
didn’t he write “this, however, is an abuse”?
[938] Kaush: Abuse and appearance of abuse. There are two types of different consumptions
according to Marx: productive consumption and individual consumption. Productive
consumption is what is needed to keep the production process going i.e. adding raw
materials, whereas individual consumption is what is consumed as a finished good. Marx
does not say the worker’s eating while producing is abuse because the worker is attending
to one of life’s basic needs (individual consumption). The appearance of abuse is that while
the worker is eating, he/she is refueling his/her diminished capacity to full strength (productive
consumption). The worker now is like a well-oiled machine ready to produce at a
higher level. This high level of production is to the benefit and exploitation of the capitalist
(abuse). The capitalist seems innocent and oblivious to the worker’s eating on the job but
tacitly having a major component of the production process fueled for more work.
Hans: Good try, but this is not the answer. When Marx wrote “abuse” (Missbrauch) he did not mean “exploitation.”
What I consider a correct answer is in [Answer:12].
Message [938] referenced by [2012fa:1239]. Next Message by Kaush is [1007].
Question 803 is 653 in 2004fa, 602 in 2005fa, 712 in 2007SP, 691 in 2007fa, 700 in
2008SP, and 704 in 2008fa:
Question 803 Explain the sentence in 717:3/o: The capitalist profits, not only by what he
receives from but also by what be gives to, the laborer.
[925] Milly: graded A Benefits all around. In this statement Marx implies that capitalists
profit from laborers not only from what they receive in labor-power but also from what they
give in wages. Hans reiterates Jerm’s answer in [2005fa:1510] by saying that there are three
ways capitalists benefit. (1) They directly benefit from the profits created by the labor-power
received. (2) They also benefit from the wages they give because the workers individual
consumption goes towards necessities such as food, rent, gas and work clothes that allows
them to show up fresh and ready to work the next day. The worker basically maintains the
most productive machine capitalists have. Lastly (3) this instinct workers have to take care
of their needs first and foremost is helpful to capitalists because it allows them to give the
laborer just enough to get by which makes them dependent and ensures that they will show
up the next day to work.
Hans: Very good answer. But I wouldn’t call it “benefits all around” (which usually means benefits for everyone).
The working class doesn’t benefit but the capitalists benefit from the actions of the working class in several different
ways. You express this well. The working class learns how to take care of their needs with modest means, and who
benefits? The capitalists, because they can continue to pay low wages and still have workers who are productive
today and in need of a job tomorrow.
Next Message by Milly is [988].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 417
Question 804 is 406 in 1999SP, 530 in 2001fa, 571 in 2002fa, 595 in 2003fa, 654 in
2004fa, 713 in 2007SP, and 705 in 2008fa:
Question 804 In chapter Twenty-Three, Marx argues that the workers’ individual consumption
benefits the capitalist because it is the reproduction of the capitalist’s most indispensable
means of production. Does the workers’ consumption also benefit the capitalist because
this creates a market for the goods the capitalists have to sell?
[940] Balrog: graded A Please Don’t Consume More Than is Necessary. Much of
chapter 23 has focused on the individual consumption of workers and how this benefits the
capitalist. The capitalist wants his workers to come into work each day healthy and full of
sufficient energy to fulfill the day’s tasks. Any consumption beyond this is not in his best
interest. In past classes and according to natural thought people have argued that workers’
consumption improves the market in which the capitalist sells. In certain cases this may be
true; but the real intention of the capitalist is stated on pg. 611 of the annotations where it
reads, “All the capitalist cares for, is to reduce the laborer’s individual consumption as far as
possible to what is strictly necessary...”
The capitalist reaps the most benefit when his workers in order to survive are forced
to work as much as he chooses at the meager wage that he chooses. In this vast world,
containing a variety of people seeking a diverse list of goods, he will readily find other
people willing to purchase the commodities he produces. Furthermore, take into account the
rich person with 7 flat screen televisions in his home that will make up for 7 workers who
can not afford one under the rule of their capitalist employer :).
Message [940] referenced by [941] and [944]. Next Message by Balrog is [942].
[941] Bigwhite: Fatties. I feel that Balrog is right in his answer [940] yet I feel it could
go the other way too. How could the capitalist not benefit from his workers consuming the
very goods they produced? Not only is he exploiting them through their labor but now is
exploiting them by buying his goods. Even though some companies offer discounts and
deals for the products to their employees it is never at a rate where the company doesn’t
profit. I feel that this is a win win situation for the capitalist. The only downside could
potentially be that the worker overconsumes and becomes obese and isn’t able to work at
their previous level. This may very well be the case of a lot of workers in the U.S. now.
Hans: Balrog’s (and Marx’s) reasoning are based on the fact that you cannot exploit somebody by selling them
something at competitive prices. Such a sale is an even exchange, neither party gains value.
Capitalists do not need the workers to be prosperous to buy their stuff. A less prosperous working-class requires
a re-arrangement of the output of the industries, but Marx thinks such a re-arrangement is always possible.
BTW, obesity is not a sign of overconsumption but a sign of poor quality food and lack of education.
Message [941] referenced by [944]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [1017].
[944] Lana: The capitalist needs us to consume. I going to agree with both Balrog
[940] and Bigwhite [941]. We’ve read that the capitalist will pay his workers what they need
to survive. His goal is to pay them as little as possible and get them to work as much as
possible. In that regard, the capitalist doesn’t want to essentially feed the worker’s appetite
for pricier living standards because then he must compensate him accordingly. That being
said, without consumer involvement, the capitalist is producing for no one. If workers aren’t
receiving the wages that allow them to afford more expensive items, they probably won’t be
buying them (or at least they financially shouldn’t be). In the U.S., retail sales of consumer
418 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
goods make up the biggest portion of the GDP every year. What this basically means is that
our capitalists are foreign corporations and they definitely depend upon us, the consumer, to
buy their products.
First Message by Lana is [13].
[950] She: Company Stores. Reading over the debates about how a capitalist profits if the
workers consume, it just reminds me of the stories about the Frick company stores. I think
to understand the capitalist motives, we need not look further than the actions of Henry Clay
Frick and Andrew Carnegie, true profit-maximizing capitalists. Everything they did was to
one end–their personal gain. Their laborers lived in company towns and could only shop at
the company store. The workers were intentionally never paid more than bare subsistance
and the goods at the company store were always overpriced. This combination, along with
poor and dangerous working conditions, prevented the laborers from growing too strong and
kept profits at the maximum level for the capitalists at the top.
Henry Ford paid his workers higher wages than other capitalists; his declared motive was
so his workers can afford to buy his cars. He realized it doesn’t do you any good to produce
something that was out of reach for the largest social class.
So either by force or enticement, the owners of production want you to buy their product.
They want the money they bought the labor-power with returned.
Next Message by She is [1038].
Question 806 is 408 in 1999SP, 503 in 2000fa, 532 in 2001fa, 573 in 2002fa, 597 in
2003fa, 605 in 2005fa, 715 in 2007SP, 703 in 2008SP, and 862 in 2012fa:
Question 806 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.
[946] Spiral: A double-edged sword. In response to this question I found a great one
line answer in the archives by Jeremy who says in [2008SP:641] “The capitalist has used
the [need] to perpetuate life as a means to gain wealth.” The laborer is satisfying some
need of his existence in order to stay alive by selling his labor-power to the capitalist in
return for wages. These wages are exchanged for the necessary commodities to keep the
laborer alive, at a given standard of living, after which he again returns to the capitalist to
repeat the whole process. The beneficial effect for the capitalist is the continued availability
of the laborer’s labor-power to create surplus-value i.e. a means to increase wealth. For the
laborer his wealth is no greater at the end of one cycle therefore his individual consumption is
deemed unproductive while the capitalist’s is productive. This analysis only becomes starker
when taking a long-term view of the process because the inequality between the relatively
stationary wealth of the laborer and the expanding wealth of the capitalist is potentially
infinite.
Governments today utilize the need to perpetuate life as a means to multiple ends. For
example, in Brazil food subsidies are tied to proof of immunization, school attendance, clinic
check ups, etc. Without fulfilling some other activity deemed a ‘vital state interest’ a parent
cannot maintain themselves and so like the laborer they continue this process each week
without gaining anything in wealth. A crucial difference in this case is that the child does

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 419
benefit in lieu of the capitalist. The form of benefit is an increase in knowledge/education,
health, quality of life, etc. and the state hopes healthier children with more resources put
into brain development and education will yield higher national GDP.
Next Message by Spiral is [1001].
Term Paper 811 is 926 in 2000fa, 926 in 2001fa, 826 in 2002fa, 826 in 2003fa, 826 in
2004fa, 826 in 2005fa, 724 in 2007SP, 700 in 2007fa, 708 in 2008SP, 744 in 2009fa, 838
in 2011fa, and 868 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 811 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Six: Secret of Original Accumulation
[1062] Ferox, Intaglio, and Wolf: graded A Marx begins this chapter explaining that
his work thus far (chapters 1-25) explained various developments of capital, namely: how
money is transformed into capital (through the buying of labor-power); how surplus-value
is made through capital (through the discrepancies between the value of created products
and the value of labor-power); and how more capital is made from surplus-value (through
investing in greater means of production and hiring additional laborers.)
This is, however, a cyclic relationship, a reflux called the self-valorization of capital. Capital’s
self-valorization could not have originated out of nowhere. Marx seeks to understand
where this never-beginning, never-ending complex originated. Building on Adam Smith’s
“previous accumulation”, he states that it must have been from a “primitive accumulation.”
This rephrasing is a pun on Adam Smith, as Marx is using a material historical analysis of
accumulation. In one sentence, Marx explains his logic for Part 8 of Capital. “The whole
movement [the above three processes], therefore, seems to turn around in a never-ending circle,
which we can only get out of by assuming a primitive accumulation. . . which precedes
capitalist accumulation; an accumulation which is not the result of the capitalist mode of
production but its point of departure”.
In a simple analogy, Marx compares how his contemporary political economists viewed
the development of capitalism to a biblical story. In the beginning, a sinless world was
turned sinful by the single act of Adam eating the apple leading to original sin. Bourgeois
political economists didn’t consider the evolution of non-capitalism (precisely feudalism) to
capitalism through primitive accumulation. Rather, they believed that there were naturally
the hard workers and those who were lazy intoxicated with vice:
“. . . long ago, [where] there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent,
intelligent and abolve all frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their
substance, and more ,in riotous living”, but rather through “. . . conquest,
enslavement, robbery, murder, in short, force, place the greatest part”.
This analogy was considered to be the accurate anecdote of the evolution of capitalism.
After this explanation, he contrarily describes primitive accumulation as, “. . . the poverty
of the great majority who, despite all their labour, have up to now nothing to sell but themselves,
and the wealth of the few that increases constantly, although they have long ceased
to work.” From the disparity of wealth generated by capital come the defenders of private
property and those who claim it came naturally through their hard work. This tends to be
420 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the idyllic political economists as explained in the above analogy. Contrary to the typical
bourgeois sugar-coating of history, Marx says it’s not accurate.
Next Marx discusses how primitive accumulation takes place. The above description
leaves the reader confused. How could murder, enslavement, etc. contribute to the creation
of self-valorizing capital? Marx says that two conditions must be met, through two broad
sets of commodity owners:
(1) “. . . the owners of money, means of production, means of subsistence, who are eager
to valorize the sum of values they have appropriated by buying the labour-power of others;
and,
(2) “. . . free workers, the sellers of their own labour-power. . . ” who are free from:
a) being the means of production. This would be anyone who is treated as a machine,
slave, serf, etc.; and
b) owning any means of production on their own.
This is essential for capitalism to take hold as workers would not willingly create their
own class as “proletarians” and deprive themselves of the means of production, subsistence,
etc. This process must be a forced separation of laborers from the means of survival (means
of production, subsistence, etc.) altogether, enforced through the rights of private property.
Marx says that there are two aspects to this:
1) where social means of subsistence and production are turned into capital (for example,
privatized); and
2) where immediate producers are turned into wage-laborers (through expropriating their
land and means of production).
“The immediate producer, the worker, could dispose of his own person only
after he ceased to be bound to the soil, and ceased to be the slave or serf of
another person”.
Marx then draws the correlation that early capitalism evolved from late feudalism. It had
to overcome two large obstacles: those being
(a) freeing the worker from serfdom and the soil; and
(b) freeing the worker from the “regime” of the guilds, apprenticeships, etc.
The two processes above are the pleasant sounding historical processes espoused by political
economists. However their perspective is from their bourgeois stance. Here Marx
poetically and bluntly declares in contrast that “. . . the history of their expropriation, is written
in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire”.
Marx next explains that the rise of the industrial capitalist took place as, “. . . the fruit
of a victorious struggle both against feudal power. . . and against the guilds” as well as the
“. . . enslavement of the worker”. Thus the new free men are deceived as this form change
(feudalism to capitalism) was merely a transformation of servitude — from a feudal master

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 421
to a capitalist master. This process began around the sixteenth century, which Marx develops
in the subsequent chapter, namely chapter 27.
Marx does not believe that this dramatic economic shift in form happens overnight, but a
slow, violent social process. These changes occur at “. . . those moments when great masses
of men are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled onto
the labour-market as free, unprotected and rightless proletarians”. This process also does
not happen simultaneously everywhere, and for this reason Marx decides in Chapter 26 to
analyze England’s transition from feudalism to capitalism. This process, he believes, is
indicative of primitive accumulation in its “classic form”.
As a side note, in Chapter 28 Marx raises an important point regarding the power of the
state in the process of primitive accumulation. Marx says “The rising bourgeoisie needs the
power of the state, and uses it to regulate wages, i.e. to force them into the limits suitable for
making a profit, to lengthen the working day, and to keep the worker himself at his normal
level of dependence. This is an essential aspect of so-called primitive accumulation.” (p.
899) Marx makes it clear that the State is an integral part of the creation of the working class
- that the rising bourgeoisie requires the power of the state in order to force a working class
into suitable limits for generating profit, to lengthen the working day, and to keep the worker
dependent. This is an essential aspect of so-called “primitive accumulation.”
Next Message by Ferox is [1143], Next Message by Intaglio is [1073], and Next Message by Wolf is [1163].
[1092] Bigwhite, Kat, and Spiral: The vicious circle of accumulation. Up to this point,
Marx has described in detail how capital and surplus value each have the potential to create
and be created by the other. This self-perpetuating “vicious circle” Marx refers to presents a
problem of which came first. The cycle essentially suggests that capitalists can accumulate
because they have accumulated already. This is a conundrum because it leaves no explicit
starting point of capitalistic accumulation. The explanation is found in the concept of a
primitive accumulation.
Back in this proto-capitalist epoch, the majority of producers were still tied to the means
of production. Over time, some saved and accumulated wealth, while others exchanged and
spent their wealth. Just as the consequences of Eve’s original sin were compounded over
time to a greater magnitude, the original inequality between these savers and free spenders
was extrapolated over generations increasing the inequality within society. Eventually society
internalized a new “sacred duty” in the form of protecting private property rights.
Continued enforcement of this new social norm began the separation of people into two new
classes.
From this, capitalists and free workers emerge. The coercive separation of producers from
the means of production creates free workers while siphoning away their share of the value
and surplus value reproduced in the production process. Free workers are neither part of, nor
owner of the means of production, reducing these people to a naked seller of labor-power.
The end of the feudal age brought about a dramatic shift of power to the proto-capitalists
who saved rather than spent. Given enough time, the potentially infinite accumulation of
capital would yield individuals with the necessary social power to purchase or appropriate
previously dominant institutional powers.
422 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Before becoming free workers, producers had been constrained by social norms and institutional
monopolies such as guilds, rules of apprenticeship, risk-averse political authorities,
and a general conservative reaction to substantial changes in the production process. General
preference for the status quo in feudal society supported an economic structure that provided
a safety net through the unity of the producer and his necessary means of production.
Marx criticizes “bourgeois historians” for describing this transition as the liberation of
free workers to sell his labor-power wherever it’s in demand, rather than a transition from
one form of exploitation to another. Instead, this labor mobility was hailed as a win-win
for the worker and society because the worker is deemed stronger because they are able to
decide whom to sell his labor-power to. This would then correspond to a more resilient
economic structure, able to adjust free workers to capitalist demands. This interpretation
omits the sacrifice of the worker becoming entirely dependent on the owners of production
to employ them and at the same time, exploit their labor. This version tends to go wholly
unreported by historians. This seems an apt example of the aphorism: history is written by
the winners i.e. capitalists.
Patronus refers to the superior entity in a social relationship varying by time and place,
ranging from a master-slave relation to a less exploitative advocate-client relation. Marx
argues the emerging industrial capitalists leveraged their growing wealth to buy greater freedom
from the dominant social powers in feudal society; namely, the aristocracy and guilds.
The power-relation between capitalists and their particular patronus equalized over time until
eventually industrial capitalists made a complete reversal of the relationship, surpassing
their patroni in power. These struggles were fought through blood, fire and attrition. Timepreference
of some patroni worked against them as they saved and accumulated at a lesser
rate than the capitalists leaking money. Money multiplies over time, though, via the application
of interest, which acts as a catalyst in this transformational process. The greed of some
men for short-term gain was exploited for long-term loss of power, and those strong enough
to resist such sin were forcefully removed. In this way, feudal society was redistributed into
a new economic structure, which reinforced capitalist-worker class divisions.
The process was slow and not necessarily successful at each attempt as it spread in small
towns. “Sporadic traces” of capitalist production were found at the fringes of fourteenth
and fifteenth century communities arising independently of other populations where it was
implemented. The emergence of multiple independent incidents of capitalist modes of production
implies Marx is making an historical and logical argument apart from any particular
human culture.
Marx constructs a social Darwinism framework, which sees the wage-laborer at the mercy
of market conditions. It would seem the free workers’ survival is reliant on his/her ability
to adapt skills and labor-power to the changing environment of supply and demand. Gone
are his feudal rights and social insurance, leaving nothing more than a fraternal, mutually
destructive competition for the sale of labor-power.
In conclusion, the chapter describes accumulation as a result of many years of oppression,
working in a constant cycle. Once a laborer is freed from exploitation, he goes into
the free market but will eventually be forced to become dependent and further exploited.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 423
The capitalist would not be able to accumulate vast wealth if they were not able to exploit
their workers. Laborers, on the other hand, are left nearly no choice but to comply and be
exploited in order to survive. No matter the culture or geographical setting, this takes place
and will always take place due to the natural human condition of being self-interested and
greedy. The only way to stop the cycle would for the laborer to stop selling his labor and
take everything into his own hands: labor, production, marketing, sales, and transportation.
Hans: The story according to which “some saved and accumulated wealth, while others exchanged and spent their
wealth” is not taken seriously by Marx. His own explanation is quite different. When reading your essay I was
wondering: which text were you summarizing? There is a lot of detail which is not in chapter 26 at all.
Message [1092] referenced by [1166]. First Message by Bigwhite is [16], First Message by Kat is [34], First
Message by Kiko is [544], and Next Message by Spiral is [1141].
Term Paper 813 is 933 in 2000fa, 933 in 2001fa, 833 in 2002fa, 833 in 2003fa, 833 in
2004fa, 833 in 2005fa, 730 in 2007SP, 702 in 2007fa, 710 in 2008SP, 714 in 2008fa, 746
in 2009fa, 840 in 2011fa, and 870 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 813 Essay about Chapter Thirty-Three: Modern Theory of Colonization
[951] AlexDaily, LuBr, and Oreo: graded A Modern Theory of Colonization. Chapter
33, “Modern Theory of Colonization,” begins with an overview of the two different types
of private property. The first kind is achieved by the producer’s own labor, associated with
original accumulation. This type of private property in Marx’s time was only relevant in
the colonies, given the extent of the capitalist mode of production in Western Europe. The
other type of private property is acquired through the employment of wage laborers. As will
become apparent in the proceeding summary of this chapter, the two types of private property
are mutually exclusive. The ability of the proletariat to gain access to frontier land would
represent a labor shortage for the capitalist and the inability of the capitalist to complement
his/her means of production with wage laborers to accumulate capital.
Chapter 33 is the final chapter of volume I, and it is critical view about the ideas of
the British Political Economist E.G. Wakefield and his book about colonization. Wakefield
writes about how to systematically organize the capitalist mode of production in the colonies,
and ponders the conditions necessary for this to happen. Marx stands on the opposite moral
and theoretical end of Wakefield’s prescriptions, however he does agree with Wakefield’s
analysis of what would be needed to plant the seeds of capitalism in the colonies. The two
men agree on the social conditions necessary for capital accumulation, which creates an
ironic takeaway from the chapter.
In Marx’s view, Wakefield is correct to point out that capitalism is not adopted within the
colonies as a means of production because immigrants are free to colonize the frontier and
gain access to the means of production for little or no cost. This is a grave problem for the
capitalists because it meant labor shortages on the wage labor market.
To remedy this labor shortage, Wakefield recommends that there must exist a colonial
office or governmental system that can enact a policy having the following two results: first,
it must erect a barrier to the free occupancy of land, this can be done through a reserve price
for land that is unaffordable to most if not all wage laborers, and second, restrict immigrants
movements upon arrival so that capitalists will always have a surplus of laborers within the
424 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
cities. As Wakefield put it, the “systematic colonization” is done via the “manufacture of
wage workers in the colonies.”
Marx includes a humorous anecdotal story about Mr. Peel the capitalist, who as Wakefield
“moans,” “took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence
and of production to the amount of £50,000.” Mr. Peel also “had the foresight to bring with
him, besides, 3,000 persons of the working-class, men, women, and children.” However,
once he arrived Mr. Peel was left with nothing but his means of production as all of his
servants disappeared! As Wakefield remarks, Mr. Peel “provided for everything except the
export of English modes of production to Swan River!” Marx pokes fun at Wakefield and
his inclusion of this story, but agrees with Wakefield on the following point. Wakefield
understands that what makes someone a capitalist is not his/her ownership over the means
of production alone. The conditions necessary to create wage laborers must also be present
to complement the means of production.
Wakefield understands that capital is nothing but a social relation among people, which is
mediated by things. It is through Wakefield’s analysis of the colonies and his understanding
about social relations governing capital accumulation that “the truth about capitalist relations
in the mother country” becomes apparent. As Wakefield explains about the colonies, “the
supply of labor is always, not only small, but uncertain” therefore the capitalist has nobody
to exploit and complement his/her means of production. It is this first type of distribution of
private property that Marx writes in this chapter’s first sentence, which prevents the capitalist
mode of production from gaining a foundation. As Wakefield says of the colonies, “the
capitalist regime constantly comes up against the obstacles presented by the producer, who
as owner of his own conditions of labor, employs that labourer to enrich himself instead of
the capitalist.”
The irony of it all is that even though Wakefield has admitted to the truth about the brutality
of capital accumulation by dispossession and its exploitative and criminal nature, he still
argues that capitalist interests should be exported and advanced within the colonies. Marx is
using Wakefield to exemplify a typical capitalist, who actively recognizes that the advancement
of capitalism depends upon the expropriation of labor though the annihilation of one
type of private property for another. Capitalism requires the process of expropriation of labor,
a process which keeps the majority of the population as proletariats or wage laborers.
If there is anything we should take from this chapter it is that capitalism is not eternal or
fixed in its nature, it is an exploitative process that requires premeditation on the part of the
capitalist class to recreate through exploitative means its survival and advancement.
First Message by AlexDaily is [335], Next Message by LuBr is [1000], and Next Message by Oreo is [1045].
[1006] Hal and PLG: Systematic Colonization. Throughout his book Capital, Karl
Marx claims that the producer is exploited by the capitalist. By seizing ownership of the
means of production, the capitalist forces the producer to provide unpaid labor along with
paid labor. Marx also claims that the exploitation of the producer by means of seizing the
means of production is a fundamental necessity to the capitalist mode of production. In
the last chapter of Capital, which is titled “The Modern Theory of Colonisation,” Marx
explains that the growth of the working class in America was not spontaneous or organic,
but a calculated move by the most rich and powerful capitalists. As Marx writes, “In the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 425
interest of the so-called national wealth, he seeks for artificial means to ensure the poverty
of the people.” This calculated move, which Marx calls “systematic colonisation,” provides
empirical evidence of the claims mentioned above.
In Europe, colonization was purported to be spontaneous and unregulated. As Marx put
it, it was claimed that “...the mass of mankind expropriated itself in honour of the ‘accumulation
of capital.’” However in America, the masses were not so eager to expropriate
themselves. America was still in its infancy and land was cheap. As the New World was just
that (new), much of the land was not yet claimed by individual citizens, so it was owned by
the government. The price of land was determined by the natural market forces of supply
and demand, and it happened to be low at that time in America’s history. Therefore, producers
did not have to sell their labor power for long before they had enough money to own
their own land and the means of providing for themselves and their families.
As E.G. Wakefield pointed out, the workers in the New World were less dependent upon
capitalists because the factors of production were readily available. Although a worker could
choose to work for a capital owner, he/she was not locked into wage labor. This caused a
decrease in the number of available workers at the capitalist’s disposal, and the few workers
that were available did not stay with the capitalist long. These factors allowed the worker to
negotiate for better wages, thereby decreasing the capitalist’s profits.
Due to the naturally low market prices for land in America, the transition between being a
wage laborer or a capitalist was fluid. One could transition between the two based on which
offered the most favorable risk/return ratio. In some cases, the capitalist’s worst nightmare
was realized: workers that he paid to import to America soon became his competitors. Wakefield
viewed this set of circumstances as dangerous. He knew that it is not until the factors of
production are owned and commoditized that capitalism can take form. Wakefield saw the
fragmentation of capital ownership as a detriment to society. It reduces the supply of wage
labor, and makes the production process completely inefficient. It removes the division of
labor, and decentralizes the production process.
Again, according to Wakefield, the main culprit for America’s inefficiency was the low
price of land. His solution was what Marx called “systematic colonization.” With systematic
colonization, the government would raise the price of public property, forcing laborers
to work for extended periods of time before ownership was possible. Ideally, the producer
would be forced to work long enough for the capitalist to (a) make a profit beyond subsistence,
and (b) import more laborers to replace them, thus assuring a steady supply of
wage labor. Wakefield believed that artificial price setting could be instituted at the onset of
colonization.
In chapter 33, Marx also points out the hypocrisy of artificial price setting, considering
the laws of supply and demand are seen as sacred to capitalists. One would think that a true
capitalist would not even give consideration to artificial price setting. Seemingly unaware
of this hypocrisy, Wakefield noted that when the price for public property is set, it must be
“sufficient”. It cannot be so low as to allow workers to readily purchase private property,
yet it must not be so high as to discourage people from entering the labor force to attempt to
purchase the property by saving money.
426 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx’s final claim is that the very need for systematic colonization is evidence that, in
order for the capitalist mode of production to exist, laborers must first be made dependent
on the capitalist for survival. Marx however notes that Wakefield’s prescription of systematic
colonization was unnecessary in the American colonies due to the civil war. The war
brought on a great amount of centralized capital in the form of railroads, mines, etc. (Marx,
940). Marx believed that the northern “aristocracy” would bring about an elaborate capitalist
institution. The north was sophisticated and capable of centralizing the means of production.
Chapter 33 is the last chapter in Marx’s Capital. Up to this point in the book, Marx has
dissected nearly every facet of the social connection between the laborer and capital. In
most situations, the laborer fares unfavorably. In order to put a final stake in the viability of
capitalism and its benefit to society, Marx concludes the book with a final revelation about
capitalism: “...the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist
private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of self-earned private
property; in other words, the expropriation of the labourer.” This final revelation wraps up
Marx’s Capital neatly. As Marx was also a sociologist, it seems fitting that his final remark
was used to reiterate the subjugation and dehumanization of the worker in a capitalist society.
A laborer in a capitalistic society is mere public property, and a factor of production no more
sentient than a machine.
Hans: Reading your term paper one thinks Wakefield’s policy was designed for the USA, and that Marx agrees
with Wakefield’s theories. This is not quite right. Please submit a revised version.
Next Message by Hal is [1016] and Next Message by PLG is [1058].
[1058] Hal and PLG: graded A– Systematic Colonization. Throughout his book Capital,
Karl Marx claims that the producer is exploited by the capitalist. By seizing ownership of the
means of production, the capitalist forces the producer to provide unpaid labor along with
paid labor. Marx also claims that the exploitation of the producer is a fundamental necessity
to the capitalist mode of production. In the last chapter of Capital, which is titled “The
Modern Theory of Colonization,” Marx takes a critical look at colonization. Marx discusses
ways in which colonization threatens capitalism. A distinction is drawn between systematic
colonization and unregulated colonization.
In chapter 33 Marx seems fascinated by the development of economic institutions in
the New World. He seems to support the idea of unregulated colonization as a vehicle to
momentarily break free from capitalism. Therefore, he utilizes E.G. Wakefield’s voice and
opinions to speak against unregulated colonization, and the threat it poses to capitalism. E.g.
Wakefield speaks out against unregulated colonization in chapter 33 in the following way.
The colonization of America created an equalization of capital as described by E.G.
Wakefield. He uses phrases such as “the Horror of horrors” to describe this phenomena.
In the New World the workers were less dependent upon capitalists because the factors of
production were readily available. Anyone could claim land. Although a worker could
choose to work for a capital owner, he/she was not locked into wage labor. This caused a
decrease in the number of available workers at the capitalist’s disposal, giving the common
laborer a great deal of power. These factors allowed the worker to negotiate for better wages,
thereby decreasing the capitalist’s profits. All men were on a level playing field in the New
World.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 427
Due to the naturally low market prices for land in America, the transition between being a
wage laborer or a capitalist was fluid. One could transition between the two based on which
offered the most favorable risk/return ratio. In some cases, the capitalist’s worst nightmare
was realized: workers that he imported to America soon became his competitors. Wakefield
viewed this set of circumstances as dangerous. He knew that it was not until the factors of
production are owned and commoditized that capitalism could take form. Wakefield saw the
fragmentation of capital ownership as a detriment to society. It reduced the supply of wage
labor, and made the production process completely inefficient. It removed the division of
labor, and decentralized the production process.
Wakefield’s solution to these issues was referred to as “systematic colonization.” With
systematic colonization, the government would “artificially” raise the price of public property,
forcing laborers to work for extended periods of time before ownership was possible.
Ideally, the producer would be forced to work long enough for the capitalist to (a) make
a profit beyond subsistence, and (b) import more laborers to replace them, thus assuring a
steady supply of wage labor. Wakefield believed that artificial price setting could effectively
be instituted at the onset of colonization.
In chapter 33, Marx counters Wakefield’s ideas by pointing out the hypocrisy of artificial
price setting. Considering the laws of supply and demand are seen as sacred to capitalists,
artificial price setting was paradoxical. One would think that a true capitalist would not even
give consideration to artificial price setting. Seemingly unaware of this hypocrisy, Wakefield
noted that when the price for public property is set, it must be “sufficient”. It cannot be so
low as to allow workers to readily purchase private property, yet it must not be so high as
to discourage people from entering the labor force to attempt to purchase the property by
saving money.
Marx’s final claim is that the very need for systematic colonization is evidence that, in
order for the capitalist mode of production to exist, laborers must first be made dependent on
the capitalist for survival. Marx notes that Wakefield’s prescription of systematic colonization
was unnecessary in the American colonies due to the Civil War. The war brought on a
great amount of centralized capital in the form of railroads, mines, etc. (Marx, 940). Marx
believed that the northern “aristocracy” would bring about an elaborate capitalist institution.
The north was sophisticated and capable of centralizing the means of production.
Chapter 33 is the last chapter in Marx’s Capital. Up to this point in the book, Marx has
dissected nearly every facet of the social connection between the laborer and capital. In
most situations, the laborer fares unfavorably. In order to put a final stake in the viability of
capitalism and its benefit to society, Marx concludes the book with a final revelation about
capitalism: “...the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist
private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of self-earned private
property; in other words, the expropriation of the labourer.” As Marx was also a sociologist,
it seems fitting that his final remark was used to reiterate the subjugation and dehumanization
of the worker in a capitalist society. A laborer in a capitalistic society is mere public property,
and a factor of production no more sentient than a machine.
Hans: Marx has said this all along that the original accumulation of capital means separating the working class
from the means of production. The experience of the colonies is evidence that he was right.
428 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [1058] referenced by [2011fa:931]. Next Message by Hal is [1086] and Next Message by PLG is [1132].
Term Paper 814 is 871 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 814 Essay about Marx’s Use of the Word “Abstinence” in Chapters Twenty-
Four and Thirty-Three
[1087] Goldtone, Max, and RexManning: graded A The Folly of Abstinence. In order
to understand how Marx uses the term “abstinence,” one first needs to have an understanding
of capital accumulation. In brief, capital accumulation is necessary for the reproduction of
capitalism. Capital is derived from the surplus-value of labor. This capital is reinvested into
the means of production so that the capitalist maintains levels of production which further
adds to his wealth. However, more wealth is amassed from the laborer than mere surplusvalue.
Part of the laborers’ wages are returned to the capitalist (or the capitalist class) in
purchasing necessary commodities to survive. Another key aspect of capital accumulation
is the continuation of class differences. With this the capitalists maintain their level of capital
(through exploiting the means of production) and the laborers stay in constant need of
employment (because wages are never high enough to end this reproductive cycle).
In other words, accumulation is the desire of the capitalist to control. Capitalists need
power, wealth, and capital in order to fill this desire. This power can be expressed in the
form of capital accumulation. When the accumulation of capital takes place, the capitalist
is robbing his/her laborers of a quality life, as surplus-value generates the capital, and is a
byproduct of the laborer. Therefore, the capitalist will want the laborer to work more, and
rob them of certain qualities that should exist in life. As Martin Luther put it, quoted in
739:2/o: “The love of power is an element in the desire to get rich...Whoever eats up, robs,
and steals the nourishment of another, that man commits as great a murder (as far as in him
lies) as he who starves a man or utterly undoes him. Such does a userer (capitalist), and sits
the while safe on his stool, when he ought rather to be hanging from the gallows.” Martin
Luther compares the power hungry capitalist to a murderer, where one robs of life and the
other of the quality of life.
With this knowledge we can continue our exploration of “abstinence.” Marx first uses the
term in 740:1/o when comparing the classical and modern economists. Classical economists
see “individual [capitalist] consumption as ‘abstinence’ from accumulating, [while] the modernised
capitalist is capable of looking upon accumulation as ‘abstinence’ from pleasure”.
In addition to understanding the substance of this dualism is the blueprint it lays for the absurdity
of using the term “abstinence” at all! We begin to see that in fact most of chapter 24
is meant to explain the mechanisms of capital accumulation. Capitalists invest in the means
of production to employ laborers and evolve more capital, which, aside from the amount
necessary for survival, will be reinvested to accumulate more capital.
This is where “abstinence” really comes into play. Marx only explains this term because
he wants to illustrate a faulty interpretation of capital accumulation made by the “vulgar
economists.” His claim is that the vulgar economists substitute “an economic category” with
a “sycophantic phrase.” This is not hard to believe if you agree with Hans’ annotations that
say “the economists, who previously had taken the side of the capitalists in the conflict between
capitalists and idle landowners, turn into apologists for capital” (Annotations 649).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 429
That being said, Marx introduces Nassau W. Senior, who is quoted saying proudly that “I
substitute, for the word capital, considered as an instrument of production, the word abstinence”
[743:1/oo]. Senior is also responsible for the “abstinence theory of interest” which
basically states that abstaining from spending, by earning interest is what generates wealth.
Senior is trying to glorify the efforts of the capitalist—instead of capital accumulation being
treated purely as power accumulation, Senior tries to argue that the capitalist is benefiting
the society by “abstaining” from his own pleasure by investing his money into the means of
production rather than spending it on him or herself.
However, Senior’s explanation fails even to make logical sense on a basic level. Marx first
refutes his theory by pointing out “every human action may be viewed, as ‘abstinence’ from
its opposite. Eating is abstinence from fasting, walking, abstinence from standing still...”
[743:1/oo], as if giving abstinence the ability to explain anything that one is not presently
doing. Accumulating is abstinence from spending, says Senior—but then how, asks Marx,
does the economy continue to reproduce itself?
After pointing out the absurdity in abstinence theory, Marx continues to refute it. While
Senior and other vulgar economists may think that abstaining from luxuries is a capitalists’
moral struggle necessarily done to promote growth in society, Marx explains there are in
fact societies which accumulation of capital does not exist yet still have “reproduction on
a progressively increasing scale.” He gives the example pointed out by Richard Jones (the
successor of Malthus) of the Hindu population which, though magnates collect some of
the surplus labor or the workers, most constitute wages for the laborers who also own their
means of production. Marx ends the section with a comical remark comparing the “capitalist
abstainer” to Don Quixote—struggling in vain to slay a dragon—when in fact everyone
knows there is no such thing as a dragon; just a windmill—an imagined theory.
Another historical example of an alternative social form of expanded reproduction outside
of capitalism is mentioned and explained by Marx in chapter 33. In this chapter Marx
mentions the word “abstinence” when discussing and comparing the old world English and
the new world American conflicting ways of life—back when America had only 13 colonies.
The free American colonies were running on an economic system with almost no use of
capital, and based off of individual producers working for themselves instead of for capital.
They were running a C-M-C society, and it was growing much faster than the old world’s
“abstinence” and M-C-M driven economy, which was built and sustained on “abstinence”,
exploitation, accumulation of wealth, and the dependence of workers on the capitalist for
work.
Marx asks the reader “where, among such curious characters, is the ‘field of abstinence’
for the capitalists?” [934:1/o], when referring to the new world colonies. The answer is that
there was no or very little “field of abstinence” at work, and the growth/employment was
indeed doing superb without it. The result of this lack of abstinence also made for a society
free of capitalist driven exploitation, because capitalist exploitation and “abstinence” go
hand in hand.
While Marx does talk about the capitalist abstaining from consuming in order to accumulate,
the capitalists’ real power come from his ability to extract labor out of his laborers.
430 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The way in which a capitalist is able to extract or “squeeze” labor out of others is directly
proportional to the amount of capital the capitalist is able to accumulate. If successful, the
capitalist will be able to consume more as his accumulation grows. It seems that the laborer
is the one who is actually abstaining, abstaining from the joys of life, and that the capitalist
is just using a play on words in order to appear less evil.
In summary, the idea behind the “abstinence theory” is that capitalists abstain from the
joys that consuming brings them in order to save/reinvest in the production process and
become more competitive. This “abstinence” from consumption and enjoyment is cause for
glorifying the capitalist—as if they are doing a great service to society—but by no means
should this process glorify the capitalist, as they are only in the business of accumulating
power and manipulating the laborer. Marx makes it clear that, unlike what Senior says,
profits don’t simply appear from the nothingness that “abstinence” is, and many societies,
like the old world America, did fine without it. Thus, “abstinence theory” is a theory that
Marx has proven to be false.
First Message by Goldtone is [22], Next Message by Max is [1098], and Next Message by RexManning is [1109].
[1093] GoUtes, Kleenex, Smartergirl, and Zohan: Marx’s use of the word “Abstinence”.
Chapter 24 begins with the discussion of the capitalist production process on an
expanded scale and the inversion of property laws but, in the last two sections of the chapter,
he discusses the Abstinence Theory and expands on its meaning and context. We present a
summary of Ch 24 and an explanation of what Marx means by the word “Abstinence”.
At the beginning of the chapter Marx discusses the capitalist production process on an
expanded scale. In the first section he puts forth conditions that the economy as a whole
must satisfy if extended production is to be possible.
For the individual capitalist accumulation is easy, however specific social conditions are
necessary. Marx points out three. First, is the decision by the capitalist to reinvest the
surplus value. If accumulation is to occur, the entire surplus value can’t be consumed by
the capitalist. Part of the surplus has to be applied back into production. Marx begins by
examining the conversion of surplus value into capital from the point of view of an individual
capitalist. In order for a capitalist to convert his surplus value into capital he has to do the
same thing with his surplus value as he did with his original capital and put that capital back
into his production process. To explain this Marx point out here that there is a difference
between capital value and surplus value, capital value returns to its original form which is
money, while on the other hand the original form of surplus value is not money, but the
surplus product. The difference applies to only the first transaction made by the surplus
value, after that both capital value and surplus value are sums of money and their conversion
back into capital takes place the same way.
Second, accumulations require the availability of products on the market. In order for
transactions to occur the overall social product must be right. Once a capitalist sells his
product he needs to find ingredients for his next production process. Whether these things
are available or not is not determined by the market, but the annual product of other capitalist.
The market only acts as a transfer of annual product from one hand to another.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 431
Third, there needs to be an availability of labor power on the market. Marx says that if the
exploitation of laborers that are already employed does not increase, then additional labor
power is required. To quote Hans’s Annotations, “To reconvert surplus value into capital,
capital simply has to put the additional means of production on line and hire the workers to
run them” (Annotation Page 624).
Next Marx discusses the inversion by which the property laws of commodity production
become laws of capitalist appropriation. To begin to explaining this Marx looks at the capitalist
re-investing his surplus value and questions were does the original capital come from.
He gives the example of an original capital of 10,000 pounds bringing a surplus value of
2,000 pounds and this new capital bringing in a surplus value of 400 pounds and so on and
so on. The annotations explain that capitalist can’t convert all the surplus value into capital
because they have to use some to live. Marx also points out the newly former capital and the
original capital continues to reproduce themselves and produce surplus value. The original
and the new capital continue to generate alongside each other.
This however, doesn’t explain the question of the origin of the original capital. Political
economists answer that the original capital was formed by the advance of 10,000 pounds
and implying that the owner became possessed of it, “by his own labor and that of his
forefathers,” [728:2]. Marx disagrees and would answer by stating that “There is not one
single atom of its value that does not owe its existence to unpaid labor.” Capitalist buying
labor power and not paying the full equivalent of the labor performed. As Marx looks
further into the situation he explains that the actual surplus value that is created by a worker
is converted back into capital, which in turn employs the same worker. Marx goes on to
explain that it is the working-class themselves that creates the surplus labor that will employ
additional labor in the following year. “Labor creates capital before capital employs labor.”
[728:4/o].
Next Marx looks at the inversion of the property laws. “The more the capitalist has accumulated,
the more he is able to accumulate.” As Marx enters the discussion of property laws
and how they are inverted in a capitalist system, Marx expounds upon “creating capital out of
capital.” He shows that this process follows the laws of commodity exchange, but the result
is different. To paint a fuller picture, the surplus-value derived from the additional capital is
“the result of the purchase of labor-power with part of the original capital.” This commodity
exchange process operates under the assumption that the commodity or money owner is in
control of his own capacities and has the right of free disposal of such. It is also assumed
that each transaction conforms to these commodity exchange laws. Marx comes to a seemingly
odd conclusion though: 729:2/o “it is evident that the laws of appropriation or laws
of private property, laws that are based on the production and circulation of commodities,
become by their own inner and inexorable dialectic changed into their very opposite.”
What we’ve previously seen as a common exchange, a purchase and sale of labor-power,
is now seen only as “mere form.” What’s left of the transaction is just the “mere semblance
of the exchange.” Marx sums it up well: “the capitalist first appropriates, without equivalent,
a portion of the materialized labor of others, and then exchanges a part of it for a greater
quantity of living labor.” This is an explanation of the capitalist M-C-M process. The word
“appropriates” means to assign or to take for oneself. The capitalist takes a portion of his
432 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
workers’ labor in materialized form and trades it for essentially more labor. The content
exchanged in the transaction seems to disappear from sight: all we now see is the form of
exchange.
Marx now moves more specifically and directly in the direction of the discussion on
property rights. Initially, we think that property rights should be based on a man’s labor.
However, Marx concludes that property rights belong to the capitalist. The laborer is not
able to acquire anything on his own, to include property rights. On the capitalist’s side, he is
able to appropriate the unpaid labor of others. Here, Marx separates labor from property.
He then goes on to discuss the three phases leading up to capital accumulation. First,
in a standard purchase, one party sells labor-power, the other party buys it. One gains a
use-value, the other leaves it. The value of the subject commodity includes the value of the
means of production that were consumed and the equivalent of the value of the labor-power
plus the surplus-value. This implies that there is value in having more useful, more efficient
labor, and that the lazy man’s labor is not worth as much as that of the productive man’s. So
far, we have still not violated any laws of commodity exchange. Again, the same example
can be applied: the worker leaves his use-value as he sells his labor-power to the capitalist
in exchange for a wage.
Marx writes that the product, the result of the production process never belongs to the
laborer: it belongs to the capitalist. In addition, surplus value created by the worker also
becomes the property of the capitalist: here, the cost is fully incurred by the laborer. To add,
the worker keeps his own labor-power: he can sell it to anyone who wants to buy.
In his second point on the advancement of capital accumulation, Marx writes that simple
reproduction allows the continual renewal of money into capital. The Annotations point out
that the capitalist gets to consume for free. The third step is accumulation. This is just an
extension, a magnification, of the second step of simple reproduction. The capitalist’s capital
is continuously advanced, again, at no cost to the capitalist.
Now a discussion on the re-allocation of surplus-value. It matters not whether worker A’s
surplus value was used to pay worker B. The surplus-value belongs to the capitalist anyway.
This situation doesn’t fall under the conventional laws of commodity exchange, which only
deals with individuals, and exchanges between individuals: this situation would be larger in
scope. Marx encourages the reader to look beyond the transaction between two individuals
and take in the big picture, as he calls a “snapshot,” seeing the clashing of the capitalist class
versus the working class. Setting this comparison and the comparison between different
transactions side-by-side is not advisable, as they fall under different sets of rules. Each act
of exchange is independent of the next one, and it certainly isn’t representative of the entire
clash between social classes.
Next, Marx makes a very important formulation: the laws of commodity exchange are
social relations. He says that no matter how many times simple reproduction or accumulation
occur, the capital retains its purity. The integrity of property rights is maintained as long
as the laws of commodity production are properly observed throughout the process. The
advantage that the capitalist has is that he has continually increasing access to the constantly
renewing unpaid labor of others.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 433
This is perhaps the capstone of section 24.1c: “to the extent that commodity production,
in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the
property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation.”
Marx then transitions into accumulated wealth, or converted surplus-value. Regardless of the
media through which capital regenerates, whether it is simple reproduction or accumulation,
all capital converts into this form of accumulated wealth, though again, all we see is its form,
or the mere semblance, in a transaction of exchange.
Marx then begins to expound on consumption of surplus-value and accumulation. “Given
the mass of surplus-value, then, the larger the one of these parts, the smaller is the other.
Caeteris paribus, the ratio of these parts determines the magnitude of accumulation.” The
capitalist is the one who decides how much will be accumulated or consumed; it is not an
economic need but an individual decision. The capitalist is presumed the one who will make
the decision on surplus-value. However, as Marx delves into the discussion in greater detail
he makes a point “that it is a decision made collectively by the capitalist class as a whole.”
Marx goes on to talk about the capitalist and how he does not consume; instead a capitalist
enriches himself by accumulating.
Later in this section Marx touches on accumulation as well as competition. Marx argues
that accumulation is necessary for individual capitalists because it is part of capitalism’s
historical mission, accumulation is driven by competition. The effects of competition are
felt by each individual capitalist. It compels the capitalist to constantly extend his own
capital, but in order to really extend his capital and preserve it, the capitalist must do so by
a progressive accumulation. However, in doing this the capitalist sacrifices his own human
needs and has a great internal conflict. By accumulating the capitalist forfeits his own, self
serving desires of consumption but at the same time is able to gain power. Marx states “To
accumulate, is to conquer the world of social wealth.”
Next Marx presents a quote from Martin Luther about the usurer or better known as the
capitalist. Luther compares the usurer to a criminal but far worse condemns the usurer. He
thinks that usurer’s are the scum of the earth. Luther says “Is there on this earth, no greater
enemy of man (after the devil) than a gripe-money, and usurer, for he wants to be God over
all men.”
Marx goes back to talking about accumulation to state that accumulation and power are
not human needs of the capitalist. He than transitions into the differences between classical
and modern day capitalists and introduces “abstinence”.
Marx points of that classical capitalists view individual consumption as a sin against
his function and as abstinence from accumulating, where as the modern capitalist is able
to look at accumulation as abstinence from pleasure. Therefore classical capitalists view
consumption as abstinence from accumulating, while modern capitalists view accumulation
as abstinence from pleasure. They have completely opposite points of view as it pertains to
accumulating. Once again it is a capitalist’s personal decision either to accumulate or not.
Marx discusses why capitalists are motivated to consume. They consume for two primary
reasons: one, for the purpose to make as much profit as possible and two, to have personal
fulfillment and to be able to enjoy consumption. Marx shows that each individual capitalist
434 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
needs to make a Faustian decision between accumulation and enjoyment. Which will have
greater reward for each capitalist depends on the individual. There is an important decision
that each capitalist needs to make, do they want to follow their passion for accumulation or
their desire for enjoyment.
To conclude the question of how Marx uses the term Abstinence there needs to be an
understanding that the economist were in conflict from their classical beliefs. Initially the
classical economists supported capitalists and their profits but as the laborer continually
gave more of their labor power to the capitalists, and the capitalist desire to accumulate
became larger, there was a discrepancy and resistance resulting in what is known as the
vulgar economy.
The Vulgar economists distracted from the capitalists ability to make profits without laboring
for them. Previously the terms labor and profit were used synonymously as in one
resulted in the other. However the Capitalist defied this synopsis by doing nothing but still
benefiting from the profit portion of the equation. To justify the capitalist’s profits and lavish
accumulation the term abstinence was used. Capitalists now can show that they have done
something to earn the profits. They abstained from using a portion of the profits and are
rewarded for using the capital in a productive way. This reward comes in the form of more
profits.
Abstinence takes great commitment by the capitalist to refrain from consuming their capital.
It is human nature to want to indulge and consume. The capitalist have to refrain.
However Marx sees that reproduction would have to progressively increase. It would also
have to be privately owned by the capitalist in order for the theory of abstinence to be valid.
On the other hand Marx suggests that this increasing reproduction would happen successfully
without capitalist intervention if a portion of their labor is given back in the form of
wages and luxuries while the land owner or company owner receives profits for their ability
to assist the laborer with a place of production or their housing needs.
Hans: The great commitment to refrain from consumption was meant ironically by Marx.
You should have left out those things from chapter 24 which have nothing to do with abstinence, and instead
included what Marx says about abstinence in chapter 33.
Next Message by GoUtes is [1159], Next Message by Kleenex is [1120], Next Message by Smartergirl is [1126],
and Next Message by Zohan is [1130].
[1182] Hans: Abstinence Theory: Why it’s wrong, how it came about, and what its
kernel of truth is. The “abstinence theory” says that the capitalists create value by abstaining
from consumption. Its modern version is no longer called “abstinence theory” but time
preference theory of the interest rate: economic agents prefer to consume now rather than
later, and in order to induce them to consume later, one has to pay them, and that price is the
interest rate.
Marx is a realist, and a theory that value is created by not doing something rubs him
completely the wrong way. In his mind this is ridiculous. Value is wealth, it cannot come
from nothing but must come from something. Therefore Marx castigates the abstinence
theory as one of the illogical fabrications of vulgar economists who are apologists of the
capitalist system.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 435
But it is not enough to come up with proofs in your system which show that a different
theory than yours is wrong. That other theory probably has proofs in its system which show
that your theory is wrong. Your theory is only then superior to the other theory if you can
also explain why the other theory comes to the results it does get right. This is the principle
of immanent critique which Marx had learned from Hegel, and which he assiduously applied
in his many footnotes about the theories of the economists of his time. Let’s look therefore
how the abstinence theory arose.
An important parameter of the capitalist system is the rate of accumulation, i.e., the portion
of the surplus-value which was not consumed by the capitalists but reinvested into business.
This parameter has special relevance because, if Marx’s theory is right, there is no
economic law prescribing what the rate of accumulation must be. The rate of accumulation
is a decision of the capitalists, not the individual capitalists but the capitalists as a class.
This is a huge advantage for the capitalist system, because it prevents the capitalists from
becoming dependent on the labor supply. School explains this well in [1069].
In order to understand why the rate of accumulation is what it is, Marx looks at the
history of the consumption habits of the capitalists. He discovers an interesting dialectical
inversion. The early capitalists were very frugal or even miserly. They used to meet in
the pub on Friday nights, and when one drank more than a pint of wine others frowned on
him. Capitalism was still an ascending social force, and the capitalists had to accumulate,
they had to put almost every penny they earned back into the business in order to survive as
capitalists. If they consumed, they were trangressing against their historical mission. Note,
it was up to the capitalists to decide on the rate of accumulation, and for the early capitalists,
accumulation was a duty, and consumption the violation of this duty.
The later capitalists reversed this. This was a rebellion of the capitalist the consumer
against the historical mission of capitalism. The later capitalists boldly declared that they had
the right to eat all of the surplus-value, and if they did not eat it all, then this was an especially
charitable act of them and they deserve getting paid for this. I.e., the abstinence theory
reflects the development of the capitalist class. Marx must have had some sympathy for
this because he was always in favor of human emancipation against unnecessary constraints.
Why did the capitalists reverse the earlier duty to accumulate into a right not to accumulate?
On the one hand, the rate of exploitation had become much bigger due to bigger capitals and
higher technology, therefore luxury consumption was no longer incompatible with capitalist
self-preservation. On the other, capitalists no longer only used their own capital but they
used credit, and in order to show that they were creditworthy, they had to demonstrate their
wealth by conspicuous consumption. In this way, even in this later phase consumption was
still subordinated to accumulation.
Marx talks about abstinence also in chapter 33. Wakefield complains that in the early
1800s the conditions in the USA were unfavorable for the capitalists because workers were
not dependent on jobs. They could move to the frontier and become independent producers.
For these workers, wealth did not come from abstinence, but wealth came from work. They
became wealthy because they could benefit from the fruits of their labor. This shows the truth
of the abstinence theory: the wealth of the capitalists does not come from the abstinence of
436 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the capitalists, but from the abstinence of the workers who are deprived of the fruits of their
labor.
Next Message by Hans is [1189].
Term Paper 815 is 842 in 2011fa and 872 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 815 Enumerate as many features of capitalism as you can find where the system
hides exploitation to the people living in the system. Then try to explain why the system
hides exploitation in so many different ways. There are several possible explanations, for
instance
(a) capitalism happens to have several features which hide exploitation just by accident.
(b) capitalism has systemic features (for instance the fetish-like character of the commodity,
i.e., the fact that individuals do not see nor control the true character of their own social
relations) which cause it to systematically hide exploitation.
(c) if capitalism would not hide exploitation so well, it could not exist. After the individuals
have achieved personal freedom to the extent they did in modern times, only a system of
exploitation can survive which hides exploitation.
(d) both exploiters and those exploited are interested in hiding exploitation to themselves
and others; therefore the agents in a capitalist system do things deliberately which hide
exploitation.
Are there other explanations?
[1055] AM, Somramthom, and Utefan: graded A Systemic Exploitation. Capitalism,
a system of commodities, could not function without the value associated with individual
commodities. Value is produced through production (i.e. the expenditure of labor power)
which allows the commodity to be exchanged for another commodity of equal value. Labor
power is provided by the laborer while the means of production (i.e. materials, machinery,
utilities, factory, etc.) are provided by the capitalist. Marx writes in 449:1/o, “The directing
motive, the end aim of the capitalist production is to extract the greatest possible about of
surplus value, and consequently to exploit labor power to the greatest possible extent.”
Marx refers to an important influence on the capitalist system, exploitation. Hans describes
exploitation as follows: “If the social control over these things (meaning the means
of production) is such that one part of the society if forced to work for another part of society,
this is called ‘exploitation.’” (Ehrbar, Annotations Fa2010 pg. 9). A capitalist uses
exploitation to alter the distribution of wealth; increasing own wealth by exploiting “those
involved in the production of this wealth and systematically channel [the wealth] into the
pocket of a small elite . . . ” [2007SP:285]
In the capitalist system exploitation manifests itself in the inability of laborers to recognize
their own exploitation and their failure to understand how or why they are being
exploited. Capitalism thrives on a circular reshuffling of laborers. The next “generation”
of laborers allow themselves to be exploited because they know not of the exploitation that
preceded them. This perpetuates the exploitative cycle. Marx 784:1/o refers to this as the
“disposable reserve army” that is always ready for exploitation. The accidental nature of
exploitation comes from the new “generation” of laborers who are blind to the implications

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 437
of their employment. The new inexperienced laborers are far more concerned about receiving
some means of wage than they are about being treated fairly. They don’t see they are
furthering capitalist accumulation.
Another aspect of accidental exploitation can be seen in entertainment, sports, educational
institutions, and religion. The acceptance of exploitation, in this case, stems from an
inept need to accept what the capitalist says. Sports and universities desire for entertainment
and further education, respectively, raise prices in a monopolistic way. The capitalists play
on the socially accepted norms in these areas. Athletes, though overpaid in relation to many
other laborers, are grossly underpaid in relation to the amount of wealth they produce for
their owners (i.e. capitalists). Universities receive tuition from their enrolled students, yet
these funds do not directly go to the individual professors. In either case exploitation can
be seen in the social need of laborers who are willing to work for low wages and consumers
who pay for overpriced commodities. Both laborers and consumers are unaware of their
exploitation; that is to say they seek without first questioning their motives.
Culture, on the other hand, plays a systemic role in exploitation within the capitalist system.
Hans writes “Many people in the US know how ugly and exploitative capitalism, is
but they still don’t reject it, because on a macro scale, the selfish actions of the greedy capitalists
come together in a dynamic macro system which benefits everyone” [2009fa:226].
Meaning, the laborer voluntarily allows himself to be exploited for the overall betterment of
the capitalist society. Hans goes on to say “The inequities of capitalism are often deplored,
but people say that eliminating the inequalities will not make the average person better off”
[2009fa:637]. It would be unrealistic to assume that a laborer would choose to be exploited
so society as a whole can have more wealth. Yet average living conditions are better because
of the actions of the capitalist and many people have risen from ‘rags to riches’. This ‘American
Dream’ contributes to the laborers’ contentment with exploitation. But the ‘American
Dream’ alone does not justify exploitation.
Capitalist exploitation is also encountered in the production process. Demand for convenience
in commodities calls for quick and cheap production, which pushes capitalists to
reduce expenses such as wages and materials. As a result, exploitation rises since laborers
are required to produce commodities for less. High demand causes a lack of discretion towards
the environmental impact caused by raw material extraction. Currently, capitalist are
going ‘green’ through the use of more efficient production processes which bring prestige
and support from consumers. However, when customers are asked to pay more for commodities,
consequently they are quick to blame the production process, failing to acknowledge
their own participation in exploitation.
The commodity form of the product and the money form of the commodity also veil
exploitation. Surface relations distort what is actually going between capitalist, laborer, and
commodity. Hans explains that “On the surface of the economy one can. . . say that labor
is traded as a commodity which has a price.” (Ehrbar, Annotations Fa2010, pg. 524). The
value of the commodity is manifested when the commodity is produced. Wages paid to the
laborer are only a fraction of the value created during production and are not actually based
on labor itself. Rather, the laborer’s wages are dependent on his labor power (i.e. his ability
to work). This information is not apparent to the laborer himself due to commodity form.
438 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The laborer thinks that his wages come from the capitalist and believes that the value of the
commodity is created when it enters the market. If the laborer actually knew the underlying
reasons for his wage he would see wages and profits are a portion of the finished product. He
would also see the capitalist’s wealth has acquired the power of reproducing itself through
the labor of others. Marx 719:1 says, “From a social point of view, therefore, the workingclass,
even when not directly engaged in the labour-process, is just as much an appendage of
capital as the ordinary instruments of labour.” That is to say, laborers will be exploited with
or without their direct acknowledgement.
The fetish-like character of the commodity also hides exploitation. Marx 164:3/o says
of the fetish-like character, “There (in religion) the products of the human brain seem to be
independent beings endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations with each
other and with human race. So it is in the realm of commodities with the products of people’s
hands. This I call the fetishism which sticks to the products of labor as soon as they
are produced as commodities and which is therefore inseparable from the production on
commodities.” Marx’s definition suggests that objects (i.e. commodities) have lives of their
own. They are “endowed” with human-like characteristics requiring “devotion” and respect.
This is unlike the modern definition which suggests fetishism occurs after production when
one has possession of the commodity. Marx makes it clear that fetishism is present at the
moment of production. Once the commodity is produced the fetishism follows the object regardless
of its popularity or branding. Another student of this class defined fetishism as “the
objects’ social relations, created by production, are mistaken to be a natural characteristic.”
(AM [430]). Marx sees fetishism through deep analysis of market values in capitalism. It is
most important to realize that most individuals in the capitalist system are not aware of the
fetish like character that the commodity takes on. That is to say that their social relations
with the commodity are hidden.
Wages are also an interesting factor of hidden exploitation. A laborer sells his entire
capacity to work not an hour here of there. Since the laborer is selling labor-power, and
not labor, time plays an important role in determining a laborer’s wages. Time wages are a
direct measure of a laborers wage power, therefore the day is the shortest and easiest period
in which to compute a laborers wages. The laborer sees his hourly wage as an incentive
because he thinks ‘the more I work the more I will be paid’. However, surface relations mask
the capitalist exploitation of the laborer. Exploitation is this case is not a direct coercion on
the part of the capitalist. The laborer believes that he is receiving the wages that correspond
to the value of the commodity he has made. A laborer is satisfied with an hourly wage
because his short-term goal is met; although, in the long run the laborer does not necessarily
work more for his own good. The laborer is working longer in order to receive enough
wages to pay the bills. The capitalist expects everyone to work more and will as a result
lower-wages forcing the laborer to work harder to receive the same wage to live. Hans says
“Capitalism needs a wage form in order to coerce the laborer to do the work, and the wage
form has the additional side effect of concealing exploitation” (Ehrbar, Annotations Fa2010,
pg. 546). Again, the laborer is exploited.
Both accidental and systemic exploitation are necessary functions of capitalism. Exploitation
takes on many forms which allow it to maintain a stronghold over all participants

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 439
in the capitalist economy. The capitalist’s ability to keep exploitation hidden contributes to
the overall success of the capitalist system.
Next Message by AM is [1059], Next Message by Somramthom is [1056], and First Message by Utefan is [90].
Question 817 is 713 in 2008SP, 716 in 2008fa, 749 in 2009fa, 844 in 2011fa, and 874 in
2012fa:
Question 817 Which use-values must be available on the market so that accumulation of
capital can take place?
[1005] Rico: Necessities for Capital Accumulation. Before seriously contemplating the
answer to this question, I made the assumption that capital was one of the necessary usevalues
that is needed in the market before further capital can be accumulated. But I wasn’t
sure what role it played as a necessary use-value. My incomprehension was clarified by
Jenn in [2008SP:748], where she states that “capital is actually a money commodity, one
must have money as a use-value in order to accumulate capital.” I believe this explanation
satisfies why capital is one of the use-values that must be available on the market so that the
accumulation of more capital can exist.
Jenn gives two more use-values, the first being labor-power, and the second being the
means of production. Jenn states that “in order for the labor-power to be a use-value to the
capitalist, the capitalist must have the means of production in which the labor-power can be
applied.” So both labor-power and means of production are to be considered necessary usevalue
on the market so that accumulation of capital can take place. Without these use-values,
commodity production is not available.
Hans: Capital is not a use-value. But an increasing money supply is needed whenever the economy grows.
About your last sentence: commodity production is possible even if labor-power is not a commodity. This
would be petty commodity production where the laborers owned their means of production and did not have to sell
their labor-power.
Clarification added later after reading [2012fa:1462]: the availability of labor-power as a commodity is not
necessary for *commodity production*, but it is indeed necessary for the *accumulation of capital*, which is the
topic of question 817.
Message [1005] referenced by [1007] and [2012fa:1462]. Next Message by Rico is [1151].
[1007] Kaush: Accumulation of capital. The use-values that must be available on the
market so that accumulation of capital can take place are the means of production and laborpower.
These use-values produce surplus value that is required for the accumulation of
capital. Since the economy needs to reproduce and grow in capitalism, an individual capitalist
starts accumulating capital acquiring machines and laborers the first year of business.
The second year, the capitalist reinvests realized surplus value in additional machines and
more labor power. Indeed it is a progressive process of accumulation and expansion through
reinvesting of the surplus value generated year after year. Furthermore, another capitalist
must be available in the market to supply more machines and keep up with the growing demand
every year and the availability of additional money. It seems a seamless process and
taken for granted as long as the resources are available and the economy is not faced with a
crisis.
Hans: Rico [1005] says that more money (which in Marx’s times meant more gold) is a necessary use-value too.
You just dropped this point as if he had never said it. Is he right or not?
Next Message by Kaush is [1015].
440 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 820 is 716 in 2008SP, 719 in 2008fa, 752 in 2009fa, 847 in 2011fa, and 877 in
2012fa:
Question 820 How can the capitalist be compared with a conqueror who buys commodities
from the conquered with the money he has robbed from them?
[947] SMIKEC: I will use Home Depot as an example of the conqueror. Since Home
Depot is not a producer but a retailer, it has to use its vendor relationships to make any
money. In order for Home Depot to take their profit, the vendors need to diminish their
profits drastically in order to even think about getting in the store. Home Depot provides
a laundry list of expectations that you have to play by to even step foot in the store. Once
you’re in the store then the vendor hopes that their product moves, otherwise Home Depot
will kick you off the shelves and get someone else in there who will make them more money.
At this point companies of decent size are left out on the street with nothing to show for other
than a loss in their investment, while Home Depot is still smiling because they really had
nothing to lose. On the other side of the fence you have the mom and pop shops which don’t
have a chance due to not having the same bargaining power of Home Depot. Home depot
comes into these more rural areas, and pushes the small guys right out of business virtually
overnight. I’ve personally seen it back in Minnesota where Home Depot came into Willmar,
MN and virtually every small local hardware store within 30 miles had to shut down. On
top of the punishment, a lot of these people then had to go work for Home Depot in order to
survive. If this isn’t an example of the conqueror using the conquered, I’m not sure what is.
Hans: The former hardware store owner, who went bankrupt and now receives a paycheck from Home Depot may
be inclined to think Home Depot is paying him with money it has robbed from him. But any other wage laborer is
in the same situation. The capitalist just has robbed the surplus product from them, and now they are employing
them for the next time period using the sales receipts of this robbed surplus-product.
Next Message by SMIKEC is [961].
[1016] Hal: graded A There is an end only to the conqueror’s plundering. When the
capitalist seizes the means of production, his objective is to force producers to provide free
labor in order to ensure their own livelihood. The products of their labor will then be sold
for money. Thus, if he is successful, the capitalist has taken by coercion money which
should belong to the producers. The conqueror’s form of coercion is threat of violence,
while the capitalist’s is threat of extreme poverty and its effects. Contrary to the conqueror,
the capitalist has not broken any law, yet they have both taken by coercion, as opposed to
free exchange.
Whereas, in this example, the conqueror uses the money to purchase the products of
the producers’ labor, the capitalist uses the money to purchase the labor-power directly. In
financial terms, the conqueror’s deed is less egregious. Assuming the conquered own their
means of production, when the conqueror buys their commodities, they can attempt to charge
exorbitant prices and make profit above subsistence. Also, the conqueror does not use his
purchases to steal more from them. On the other hand, when the capitalist purchases laborpower,
he carefully ensures that the producers only receive subsistence wages. Furthermore,
he uses the labor-power that he has purchased to take even more from the producers in an
endless cycle of deterioration. Is it any wonder that the gap between the rich and the poor
grows larger every day?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 441
Hans: Your first sentence, which Kobe [1022] finds so powerful, is not entirely true. I don’t think it is correct to
say that the capitalists intentionally seized the means of production in order to steal from the worker. The capitalists
are the drive-wheel in a system which is set up this way, but they are not the authors of the system. But this is indeed
a powerful rhetorical device because it is easier to get mad at people than at a system.
Regarding intentions, it seems to me nowadays it is accurate to say that the capitalists and their lackeys intentionally
destroy the climate and the future of our children and grandchildren in order to continue the profit system
a little longer. And I think there will be climate tribunals as there were Nuremberg tribunals. I am not saying one
should not look at intentions and should not judge people by their intentions. But one must also distinguish between
those things which are intentional and those which are not.
Message [1016] referenced by [1022] and [2012fa:1513]. Next Message by Hal is [1039].
[1022] Kobe: Conqueror vs. conquered. In response to Hal [1016] I had a few remarks.
In his opening sentence “When the capitalist seizes the means of production,his objective is
to force producers to provide free labor in order to ensure their own livelihood.” I find this to
be a very powerful thing to say. Part of this statement I believe to be true, that the capitalist is
looking to better himself in as great of way as possible but I am not sure that the capitalist is
always looking for free labor from the laborer. The threat of the capitalist to determine wages
and working conditions does cause the laborer to make a decision on whether or not the job
is worth his livelihood. The capitalist is compared with a conqueror that buys commodities
from the conquered with their money due to the nature of a capitalist to maximize his gains
in labor power. The capitalist is buying labor power and not paying FULL equivalent of
the labor performed, using the capital he has received from the laborer himself to buy these
commodities. This sentence summarizes entirely how this is an accepted comparison of the
capitalist.
Message [1022] referenced by [1016]. Next Message by Kobe is [1048].
Question 821 is 717 in 2008SP, 720 in 2008fa, 753 in 2009fa, 848 in 2011fa, and 878 in
2012fa:
Question 821 In what way must the laborer “buy back the fruits of his previous labor with
more labor than they cost”?
[972] JSmits: graded A Wages are too low. The laborer must “buy back the fruits of his
previous labor with more labor than they cost” because he is not properly compensated for
the work that he does. It stems from the capitalist exploiting the worker and robbing them
with unpaid labor. The capitalist makes his profits through exploiting the workers.
One of the important points that Hans states in [2008SP:768] is that the price tag of a
commodity is not determined by the capitalist who adds some markup to the initial cost of
materials to make the commodity. It is determined by the value of the commodities a worker
produces in a certain time frame multiplied by amount of time a worker actually takes to
produce those commodities.
What this means is that say you are making toys for your job. Your time frame is one
hour and you produce a value of $30 in that hour, you are getting paid $10 an hour, and you
produce 1 toy in 20 minutes so 3 toys an hour. The capitalist will sell the toy for $10 which
is calculated from the formula stated in the previous paragraph ($30 multiplied by 1/3 hour).
Now if you went to a store and saw one of the toys you made and it was being sold for $10
you would say to yourself, “It only took me 20 minutes to make that toy and it costs me 1
hour pay to buy it.”
442 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
This is where exploitation again is at the core of the matter. You are getting paid less than
what you produce every hour. If his wage was higher it would be a different story but it’s
not.
Message [972] referenced by [1019] and [2012fa:1333]. Next Message by JSmits is [976].
[1004] Sly: A disheartening situation. Initially I believed that I had a well-formulated
answer to provide, until I looked at a previous submission in the archives that was made by
Hans in [2008SP:768], which by the way should be looked at in order to fully understand
my submission.
The best way to understand why a laborer must buy back the fruits (product) of his previous
labor is through example, but we must remember that throughout the semester it has
been stressed that the laborer produces more than he/she is being compensated for by the
capitalist - in order to better understand this please refer to my previous submission [669] or
the definition given by Hans in [Answer:4].
In my example I will attempt to use simple numerical values to make the computations
easier on myself, and to any readers. The example I will use is a computer-producing factory,
and in this computer-producing factory each laborer produces $100 an hour of value. The
capitalist pays each laborer 20 dollars an hour, as a result the capitalist is making 80 dollars
profit an hour from each laborer, and in this example it takes the laborer 30 minutes to
produce a computer. For the final computations of prices in my example it is important to
understand the prices, as Hans stated in [2008SP:786]: “are not determined by the capitalist
who adds some “markup”, but by multiplying the half hour of labor represented” (I’m not
including the prices given in the example in order to decrease confusion) – of course if the
half hour mentioned is interchangeable with any amount of time used to produce the item.
So the capitalist sells the computers produced for $50 because two computers are produced
each hour. If a laborer wished to purchase a computer that came from the factory he/she
would have to pay $50, which is the equivalent to 2.5 hours of labor. (20+20+10=50)
So the laborer is working 2.5 hours in order to be able to purchase a computer that took
him/her 30 minutes to produce.
Message [1004] referenced by [1019]. Next Message by Sly is [1072].
[1019] Kleenex: unfair wage system. At the root of this issue is the capitalist wage
system. According to Marx, and even intuition ingrained in my mind from being raised in
a capitalist environment, the capitalist will always make a profit. The capitalist owns the
means of production: he is in control, and the workers only enter into an agreement with the
capitalist because they need a way to make a living, to pay the bills, to put food on the table.
The worker will produce x amount of value in the commodities he produces in any given
day, but he will only earn a fraction of that value in wages. Perhaps if he was his own boss,
he would be able to keep all the profits and realize all of the value he created by his labor
input, but many start-up businesses like that don’t get very far, because they don’t have the
means of production that the capitalist does.
The laborer must buy back the fruits of his previous labor with more labor than they
cost because of the above reason. JSmits in [972] uses the example of toys and Sly [1004]
illustrates his/her point with computer production. To determine what the capitalist will
sell the toy or computer for, one multiplies the value produced per hour by the required

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 443
time to produce the commodity–note that the price charged to consumers isn’t arbitrarily
determined, or “marked-up” as we commonly refer to it as. Let’s say $6 per hour of value
is produced and it takes the worker 10 minutes to complete it. $6 multiplied by 1/6 of an
hour, or 10 minutes. Though it took the worker 10 minutes to make, he will have to pay 60
minutes worth of his wages, for example, if he wants to buy that commodity. This is what
the capitalist will charge, and this is why the worker has to “buy back the fruits” of previous
labor.
Hans: You are assuming the worker’s wage is $1 per hour. Would it be $2 per hour, then he would only need 30
minutes to buy back the 10 minute product.
Next Message by Kleenex is [1021].
Question 824 Spell out explicitly the “Law of appropriation” or “law of private property”
based on commodity production and circulation. In other words, explain the principle that
ultimately entitles the owner of a commodity to own his or her commodity.
[967] AM: What’s Yours is Mine and What’s Mine is Yours. I was intrigued by this
question because it addresses an issue that we encounter from a young age: private property.
Several childish phrases came to mind while thinking about this question: “Finders keepers,
losers weepers,” “you snooze you lose,” “but you didn’t call your seat,” “no give backs.”
While I acknowledge these are all very trivial responses to the issue of who owns what,
but it gets the conversation started. Now I can address the far deeper issue at hand “law of
appropriation” and/or “law of private property.” A major implication of capitalism is that it
requires growth, the change of commodity into capital. The “law of appropriation” manifests
during the transformation from commodity to capital. This advancement of money comes
from unpaid labor as a direct result of the laborer. However, it is important to note that
property rights do not come from his labor alone. Marx says “Only the mutually independent
buyer and seller face each other in commodity production. Relations between them cease
on the day when the term stipulated in the contract they concluded expires”. The contract
need not be written but can be spoken too. The most intriguing part in all of this for me is as
Hans writes “Everything strictly follows the laws of commodity exchange, yet the result is
opposite to the principles governing simple commodity production and exchange.” I suppose
the main message in all this is the capital is essentially being created out of capital.
Hans: The “law of appropriation” of commodity production is: “if you make it, you own it.” In capitalism, the
principle “if you make it, you own it” no longer holds.
Interestingly, this principle is also absent in your collection of nursery rhymes. The nursery rhymes say: if you
are the first to claim something, and ready to defend your claim against others, then you own it. This is closer to
the capitalist reality. In other words, ever since toddler age, we are trained to accept the capitalist outrages as the
normal functioning of the world.
Next Message by AM is [1041].
Question 825 is 757 in 2009fa:
Question 825 Why mere semblance?
[1009] School: Mere Semblance of what was. Marx uses the phrase “mere semblance”
to describe the paradoxical from of exchange between the capitalist and the worker. In the
annotations pg 629 it states that “the exchange remains because of the original operation
444 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
with which we started has now become turned round in such a way that only the mere semblance
of exchange remains.” As explained in the earlier parts of Capital, Marx explains that
all commodities are linked together through the labor that was taken to produce each commodity.
Depending on how much labor-value put into said commodity was the determining
factor for the exchange of the commodity.
Unfortunately it was through the capitalist that this form of exchange was warped and
changed. Like Samwell [2009fa:1111] says “Following the events that led to the separation
of the workers from their means of production, it became impossible for the worker to produce
his own commodities as he no longer had access to the means of production. Property
became the exclusive right of the capitalist class, and labor-power the worker’s only exchangeable
commodity.” Without the worker having access to production or market power
and only having the ability to use their labor-power the worker would only create more value
to each commodity and the excess labor was unpaid labor-value produced by the workers
themselves.
So the phrase “mere semblance” describes that once upon a time the commodity exchangevalue
was measured by the labor-value, and now in the capitalist eyes it is measured by
surplus and exploitation of the workers. This change reminds me of an rubik cube, when
you first buy one all six side have the same color and after tinkering with the cube for a few
minutes you find that the colors are all mixed up and you have the desire to solve the cube,
and put it back into its original form. You then discover that it is much harder than it appears
to go back to its original form. Like the original form of exchange over time it was tinkered
with and now it is a problem that is very difficult to go back to its original form.
Hans: Good try, and I love your rubik cube analogy, but Marx sees the matter a little differently. He says exchange
proportions are still governed by labor values, but the workers don’t benefit from being the producers of all this
value because the exchange between capitalist of laborer is no longer a free exchange but an act of dispossession
posing as an exchange, i.e., a “mere semblance” of an exchange.
Next Message by School is [1018].
Question 827 is 726 in 2008fa, 759 in 2009fa, 855 in 2011fa, and 885 in 2012fa:
Question 827 Why is it not admissible to seek relations between whole social classes in the
laws of commodity exchange?
[953] Kobe: social classes. In this case only the seller and buyer face each other in
the commodity production. They have this relation during the duration of the contract, this
time can vary from a simple purchase of a hamburger or longer in the leasing of land over
50 years. If this transaction is repeated it is done again as the result of a new agreement
which has no relation to earlier transaction. Doing business with a repeat seller and buyer
is only done so by chance. If commodity production is to be judged you must consider
each exchange as a separate exchange, apart from the previous exchange as well as the
later exchange. Due to sales and purchases being done solely between individuals it’s not
valid to seek for relations between whole social classes. This argument argues that social
relations are emergent from interpersonal relations, therefore laws of commodity exchange
are interpersonal surface relations not core relations, which some believe they are.
Next Message by Kobe is [978].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 445
Question 828 is 760 in 2009fa, 856 in 2011fa, and 886 in 2012fa:
Question 828 Describe as well as you can the social mechanism of which the capitalist is
merely a drive-wheel.
[1013] Scholar: This question is not easy!
In the mode of capitalism, property right is private, also the means of production are
owned by individuals (capitalists).
Almost all production becomes commodity production, even the labor power also becomes
a commodity.
On this basis, social distribution is carried out through market exchange, which is ‘free’
and ‘fair’. That means if you have more money, you can buy more labor power and more
machine freely to produce more production, so you will get much more money.
But on the other side, this ‘good’ environment also makes competition between capitalists
more fierce. Stronger capitalists who have more money will afford more skilled workers and
better machines, even more advanced technology, which will make his products cheaper, so
the weaker capitalists who can not compete with them will be swallowed or bankrupt.
It is clear, as a capitalist, if he wants to survive in the market competition, ceaseless
capital accumulation is essential and necessary, that means every capitalist will do his best
to accumulate, whether he wants or not.
First Message by Scholar is [192].
Question 829 is 725 in 2008SP, 728 in 2008fa, 761 in 2009fa, and 891 in 2012fa:
Question 829 What does Marx mean with the remark “but original sin is at work everywhere”
in 740:1/o?
[1008] IrvingHowe: Original sin. I believe Marx is referring to the triumph of human
nature over the necessities of capital.
More specifically, Marx says in Ch. 26 “But the accumulation of capital presupposes
surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes
the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour power in the
hands of producers of commodities.” From this we see that capital accumulation is the cornerstone
of capitalist development. It is, Marx seems to say, not unlike a commandment.
In Christianity, we are taught that god gave a commandment to Adam not to partake of the
forbidden fruit. In a triumph of human nature over Adam’s desire to obtain god’s approval,
Adam eats the fruit. This despite god’s promise of everlasting life.
For a human in the role of a capitalist, capital accumulation is likened to this broken commandment.
It is first in the genesis of capitalism and essential for capitalism’s continuation
and yet accumulation is directly at odds with the human desires of the capitalist to consume.
Nature, as it always does, wins out over nurture and the person in the role of the capitalist
will indulge himself. This despite capitalism’s commandment to accumulate, accumulate,
accumulate. This, Marx would say, is ‘economic original sin’ at work.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [1097].
446 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 830 is 220 in 1996ut, 301 in 1997sp, 297 in 1998WI, 712 in 2008SP, 729 in
2008fa, 858 in 2011fa, and 892 in 2012fa:
Question 830 Is a capitalist free to decide whether to expand his business, and how much
of his profit to use for personal consumption? Which mechanisms, if any, constrain him or
her?
[988] Milly: graded A Capitalist’s Decision to Accumulate. In the annotations, the
question arises who decides how much will be accumulated and how much consumed. The
answer is the capitalist does. It states that it is an individual decision, not an economic
necessity and is an act of his will. However it goes on to say that the rate of capitalization is
not exactly determined by the individual capitalist but by the capitalist class as a whole.
Accumulation is necessary in the development of the capitalist mode of production and
with competition he constantly needs to extend his capital in order to preserve it. When
he decides to accept private consumption he decreases his accumulation. When he declines
consumption he promotes accumulation and he gains more power.
Next Message by Milly is [1116].
Question 831 is 763 in 2009fa and 859 in 2011fa:
Question 831 How was surplus-value divided into capital and revenue in the different historical
periods of capitalism?
[974] Deadfamous: graded B– In the Annotations Marx speaks of 4 main Historical Periods
of Manchester’s history depicted by Dr Aikin:
1st step was when the working class was “obliged to work hard for their livelihood.”
2nd step the working class worked just as hard as before and acquired small fortunes
3rd step is when the working class was better off due to trade, when “riders (traders)
being sent into every market town in the kingdom” [luxury began].
4th step is when trade was through all of Europe and the time “in which expense and
luxury have made great progress” being supported by the trade through all of Europe.
These four steps speak of how surplus labor was little the laborer had to be really austere
in the begining and then slowly beginning to acculate surplus over time, then if trade
becomes a part of your business you can find a way to afford certain luxuries, and this path
continues as trade continues.
In his notes to [2009fa:763] Hans pointed out something key to understanding how
surplus-value was divided in different time periods was mainly due to creation and availability
of CREDIT. Before the credit was available, the capitalist could only reinvest for better
technology with his accumulated revenue that s/he possessed. Once credit came along the
rules of the game for the capitalist changed since they could invest much more quickly, once
they (capitalists) qualified for credit of some kind enabling them to speed up this process.
It also meant that the revenues that they had after credit came along was all theirs since,
not having to worry so they could reinvest.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 447
“With the development of the credit system capitalists no longer had to selffinance
all expansion but could rely on credit. This meant they could use
much more money for consumption. This consumption also demonstrated
their wealth and therefore served as a means to get credit.”
This is probably the two main historical periods of capitalism that are most important,
PRE and POST CREDIT. It also seems that the demonstration of wealth helped your chances
to get capital through credit in a sort of snowballing effect.
Hans: You say “working class” where Marx and Aiken were talking about the capitalists. Marx did not consider
the capitalists to be part of the working class.
Next Message by Deadfamous is [1111].
Question 835 is 728 in 2008SP, 734 in 2008fa, 767 in 2009fa, 863 in 2011fa, and 897 in
2012fa:
Question 835 What is the “Abstinence Theory”?
[975] Ryan: According to the Abstinence Theory saving is an act of abstaining from
consumption. Since to abstain is painful, it is necessary to reward people for this act. This
reward is in the form of the interest paid to those who saved, rather than consumed their
incomes.
Marx does not like this idea at all, and for good reason. Marx feels that you should be
rewarded for what you do (labor in most examples) and not for what you don’t do.
Hans in [2009fa:1184] basically tells you everything you would ever need to know about
how Marx feel about the Abstinence theory. I will just highlight the stuff that made it make
sense to me and add another view as well. Marx uses a quote from Cazenove that sums up
everything that is wrong with the Abstinence Theory:
He who converts his revenue into capital, abstains from the enjoyment
which its expenditure would afford him. ... It is not the abstinence, but
the use of the capital productively, which is the cause of profits.
As we all know by now Marx claims that all joy and wages come from contribution
(action) not abstinence. In the quote above the assumption that you must abstain from enjoyment
you wish to have is to suffer seems to be a very large overstatement. Many of us
that choose to invest do consider the items we could purchase instead of putting money into
our 401k’s or IRA’s or into the stock market, but I never feel that I am owed some type of
interest (or reimbursement) back because I am now not able to buy some item. It is an investment
Plan not a long term torture plan. (although over the last few years you investment
portfolio may have felt like a torture plan :-) )
The “real” value comes to the owner of that capital not because of the abstinence but from
the use of the capital to produce more. Many people would rather invest their money than
spend it on random items. I do not feel that there is any discomfort or lack of enjoyment on
their part. The reason why I said earlier that quote above seems to be a large overstatement is
because, consider those who have more than enough money. Do you really think that when
the choose to put money into (savings) instead of spending it on commodities that they really
448 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
suffer. Are they really “abstaining from enjoyment” or do they already have so much stuff
that they really don’t need a fifth car or a seventh TV. The Abstinence Theory states that
there must be a price (suffering) for not spending but, how many of us save just because we
make more than we spend are we passively suffering, can you passively suffer?
You never choose to abstain from spending, you just choose to save. You never choose to
be miserable now, you choose to be happy later.
Next Message by Ryan is [1074].
[998] RexManning: graded A Something for nothing. Abstinence Theory is an idea
brought on by the “vulgar economists” and presented by Nassau W. Senior when he announced
his discovery “I substitute, for the word capital, considered as an instrument of
production, the word abstinence.” Senior is suggesting that the capitalist’s profits are a result
of abstaining from the overwhelming desire to expend. Suggesting that profits come from
doing nothing is in stark contrast to Marx, because value must come from something, something
real (like the comparison of the shoemaker and the capitalist). Although the capitalist
is not pouring his labor into his investments in order to profit off of the interest, he is, as
Cazenove suggests, using the capital productively in order to profit. What Senior suggests
in his abstinence theory is that because the capitalist is abstaining from expending, he is
able to convert his revenue into capital. The way in which he uses the word “abstinence”
makes it seem as if the capitalist is gaining by doing nothing, which is incorrect. The way
in which this theory is presented is as if the “vulgar economists” suggest that the capitalist
is an “abstaining saint.”
Next Message by RexManning is [1087].
[1014] Robert: (graded A) Capitalist-Apologetic Economic Theory. Abstinence theory
is a capitalist-apologetic economic theory first presented by Nassau Senior. It states that the
virtuous capitalist, by restraining from consuming his production capital, continues to be
able to loan the hapless workers his means of production. For this act of self-sacrifice the
capitalist is rewarded with profits.
I can imagine Marx’s veins bulging as he read Senior’s theory. The idea the the capitalist
“loan” their means of production to the workers brought a “(!)” from Marx. First of all,
notwithstanding that capitalists are but “one of the drive wheels” of the “social mechanism”
it is not appropriate to attribute virtue to him or her. The capitalist is exploiting the workers
by demanding from them all of the labor power he can extract in exchange for wages which
allow the laborer to exist and reproduce in exchange for access to means of production which
are not rightly is but he claims to own. There is nothing virtuous about this arrangement.
Secondly, in the “real” world value does not come from nothing. Value is real and it is created
by human expenditure of brains, muscle, and energy. Doing nothing cannot create any
value. Abstinence is NOT doing something. Hans reminds us in [2009fa:1184] that Marx
was a critical realist and he obviously had a concern with a theory suggesting something
coming from nothing.
Thirdly, abstinence as an “activity” makes no sense at a philosophic level. Right now
all of us are abstaining from doing something...I am abstaining from fly-fishing and from
doing my job (because I’m writing this email). So, whatever we are doing we are abstaining
from doing something else. For example, Marx writes: “eating is abstinence from fasting,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 449
walking, abstinence from standing still, working, abstinence from idling...” and so on. Is
the capitalists’ not consuming their means of production a special kind of non-activity? The
reasoning is flawed. We all are abstaining from certain activities and no one is attributing
value of our abstinence.
Finally, it is true capitalist generally do not consume their means of production. Marx
sarcastically wonders how difficult it is for them to not eat “all these steam-engines, cotton,
railways, manure, horses, and all.” Hans points out in [2009fa:1184] that the Abstinence
theoreticians obviously didn’t mean the literal consumption of the means of production but
the consumption of their value. So why do capitalist not consume their means of production
or the value of their means of production? We are back to where we started this discussion:
without the means of production the capitalist cannot exploit surplus-value, which he claims
for himself, from those who have no access to means of production. That is why s/he doesn’t
consume them.
Kobe: I think that Robert’s submission concerning the Abstinence Theory is a pretty thorough one. I would like
to add a few ideas that I think simplify it and put it in terms everyone could understand. In economic terms of
society there occurs not just simple reproduction but reproduction on a progressively, increasing scale. Meaning
with more goods being produced there is more to consume which leads to larger consumption, consequently more
products have to be converted into means of production. This part of the Abstinence theory I believe is a major part
of Marx’s argument. Marx denied the existence of any such function while arguing that the social product must be
attributed entirely to acts of labor.
Hans: There is a link between the abstinence theory and expanded reproduction. In simple reproduction the capitalists
consume the entire surplus-value, i.e., there is no abstention. But in expanded reproduction the capitalists do
not consume all the surplus-value, and the Abstinence theory is trying to turn this into a meritorious act.
Message [1014] referenced by [2012fa:1563]. First Message by Robert is [14].
Question 838 is 663 in 2004fa, 737 in 2008fa, 770 in 2009fa, 866 in 2011fa, and 900 in
2012fa:
Question 838 If it is true that the laborers produce all the value, it is necessary to explain
why they do not get it. This question becomes especially puzzling if one considers the
exponential character of the accumulation of capital. One should expect labor demand to
eventually outrun the labor supply, so that the labor market will eventually become a seller’s
market. Which mechanisms prevent this from happening?
[1052] TINDOZ: Bad bosses cutting their knees out from under them. I think there
are probably multiple mechanisms and though Greg’s [2009fa:1163] comment, about “(1)
technological advances, (2) finding new labor pools and (3) ... recessions and depressions”
was fantastic, I won’t regurgitate his answer, but take if from another angle - that of greed.
The mechanism that I’ll add to this question is the mechanism of how the sheer greed
of the capitalist can result in high turn over where new employees are just recycled after
refusing to work for another greedy capitalist. Before I get into it, I recognize that this isn’t
always the case, but I think in some cases this does prevent some companies from having a
labor demand that is higher than the supply - and hopefully I’m not totally off base. Years
ago I worked for a local software company where I learned first hand how a greedy capitalist
can fall into a cycle where their demand for labor becomes a simple need to replace former
laborers that refused to work for them anymore. The management would continually lie to
potential clients that they had software that they didn’t. On multiple occasions, they even
450 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
SOLD software that didn’t even exist and up to that point wasn’t even on the drawing board.
After selling the phantom software and having a set delivery date, they would return to the
development team and demand they work around the clock (with no over-time pay) to meet
their delivery date in one week. They would attempt to make it seem like we were all in this
together, working as a team - when the fact was, they wanted more profit so they lied and
expected us to do what we had to so we wouldn’t lose our jobs. However, when the money
rolled in, the pay of us laborers wasn’t increased regardless of our being a team player. They
did this over and over again. This rush resulted in multiple bugs for a basically untested
product that would trickle into my position of tech support. I’d start getting calls about
software that I had only just barely installed on my machine an hour earlier. This resulted in
multiple extremely disgruntled employees - which led to resignations. All of the sudden the
demand for labor wasn’t to fuel expansion, it was for retention - and those who replaced the
ones that left had similar stories from where they came from, not realizing until they were
hired that they just got the same package with different wrapping paper. I observed this turn
over a few times before I finally walked. This inefficiency (rapid turn over) was all fueled
by the greed of the capitalists on top. It’s now been years, and their company has had very
minimal growth because they keep cutting their knees out from under them by infuriating
their work force. I doubt that this is an intended “mechanism” of keeping labor demand to
only a few employees - it just keeps happening and it prevents any real growth. True they
are often in demand for new labor, but the new faces that would be hired were just recycled
from some other poorly managed software company. So I suppose this mechanism really
only affects the poorly managed companies (and it treats them as a group) because rather
than growing, they just reshuffle their employees ever now and then because they are too
greedy for their own good.
Hans: Capitalists are not overly worried if you quit in disgust. They may lose you, but they may be able to replace
you with an excellent worker who just quit in disgust from their competitor.
First Message by TINDOZ is [159].
Question 839 is 771 in 2009fa, 867 in 2011fa, and 901 in 2012fa:
Question 839 “Value composition” and “organic composition” are two names for the same
number, namely, the proportion between constant and variable capital c/v. When does Marx
use the word “value composition” and when does he use “organic composition?” Why
would one want to introduce two different words for the same number? Are there other
examples where Marx uses two different words for the same thing?
[1040] Kleenex: value and organic composition of capital. Marx uses different terms
for same subject, when considered in two different situations. Value composition, defined
as constant capital (materials and machines) divided by variable capital (related to laborpower),
is NOT used when value composition and technical composition are causally related,
meaning when technical composition comes before, or is “causally prior” to, value
composition. This describes organic composition. Marx writes more precisely, “I call the
value-composition of capital, in so far as it is determined by its technical composition and
mirrors the changes in the latter, the organic composition of capital.” Marx uses two different
terms also because two different outcomes can occur. On one hand, the composition of

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 451
capital is determined by a ratio of the value of the production means and the value of laborpower.
On the other hand, it can be understood by the physical component, consisting of
physical mass of employment. Also, value composition can change under different circumstances
than the conditions under which organic composition would change. To illustrate,
when you for example, buy a defective product from the store, is a defective part always a
result of the production process? It’s quite possible. However, the defect/damage could’ve
also been caused by negligence during the shipping process, or maybe how the store handled
the item, or the quality of the materials used. It seems like Marx uses two different words for
the same thing in his earlier chapters, when he talks about the value of a commodity rooted
in labor: abstract human labor, and congealed human labor, though I may have this mixed
up with other terms he uses.
Next Message by Kleenex is [1043].
Question 842 is 319 in 1997WI, 387 in 1997sp, 384 in 1997ut, 582 in 2002fa, 606 in
2003fa, 665 in 2004fa, 612 in 2005fa, 736 in 2007SP, 707 in 2007fa, 736 in 2008SP, 741
in 2008fa, 774 in 2009fa, 871 in 2011fa, and 905 in 2012fa:
Question 842 The capitalist depends on the worker for profit, and the worker depends on
the capitalist for survival. Does this mean that workers and capitalists have the same interests?
[1030] Somramthom: graded A The bigger picture. When I initially read this question,
I thought there is one interest for the capitalist and the worker to be for or against. But the
more I thought about the question, the more interests I recognized. In [2005fa:1568] SueGirl
lists 8 interest for the capitalist and 8 for the worker. She shows that both the capitalist and
the worker must and do have more than one interest. Yet, her list is fairly nearsighted since
it doesn’t account for long run interests. The players in capitalism have many different
interests and they all come into play in one way or another. So depending on which interests
you look at it can seem that workers and capitalists have the same interest or completely
different ones.
The main goal of the capitalist is to exploit the worker by profiting from the “surplus”
labor the worker creates. The aim of the worker is to obtain a wage and support himself. The
capitalist wants to drive down costs, including wages, and the worker wants an increase in
wage. The worker isn’t fairly compensated for the value he creates and still allows himself
to be exploited. These interests are clearly opposing. But there are other interests they
share. Hans states in [2009fa:226] “Many people in the US know how ugly and exploitative
capitalism is, but they still don’t reject it, because on a macro scale, the selfish actions of the
greedy capitalists come together in a dynamic macro system which benefits everyone.”
Since capitalism is a social system, interaction and dependency is involved. If it wasn’t,
it wouldn’t be social. For the system to survive, the capitalist must depend on the worker
and the worker must depend on the capitalist. They share the interest of continual social
interaction in the capitalistic system since they both live in said system.
If you look at the short-term and micro scale the capitalist and the worker have opposing
interests. It’s when you look at the bigger picture that you see that their interests aren’t so
far apart from each other.
452 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: You are right, we all share the interest to live in a society which functions well enough that it can produce
wealth for everyone. Marxists would say there is again a difference of interests, because workers play a much
bigger role in the production of this wealth than the capitalists. Marxists think that workers do not really need the
capitalists, they could easily take over the jobs of the capitalists, while the capitalists can do nothing without the
workers.
Message [1030] referenced by [2011fa:1078], [2011fa:1105], and [2012fa:1530]. Next Message by Somramthom
is [1055].
[1066] Baseball: The capitalist and worker have two different motives when interacting
with each other in the workplace. Capitalists, by nature, exploit workers and their labor
power in order to turn a profit and will do anything in order to succeed, even if it means
reducing the workforce at the expense of the employee. Workers, on the other hand, sacrifice
their labor-power in exchange for wages which cover their cost of living/surviving. They
both are interacting with each other with the expectations of making money but money is
the universal means of exchange, used to represent exchange values of commodities and
services. A quote which I thought represents the relationship is, “Capital comes to control
the supply of the exploitable material on which its accumulation depends.” Capital being a
capitalist representative and the exploitable material being the workers. Capitalists exploit
workers because if they did not, their business would not succeed aka turn profit. Workers
realize this and accept the actuality of their exploitation. For if it was not for this, they would
not have a source of income to help them survive.
Hans: How did you mean this when you said capitalists ecploit workers “by nature”? A Marxist would criticize
what you are saying because you sound as if capitalism was the only possible social order.
First Message by Baseball is [115].
[1067] KA: Incentivize the Laborer. Marx argues that Capital requires Labor in order
produce a commodity, and Labor requires Capital in order to survive. If there is an increase
in demand for Labor, wages will rise, which in turn will provide better working and living
conditions for Labor. Marx hedges this comment in stating that Labor will only be hired
if the cost of the labor-power is low enough to still assume a profit. Marx also states that
the laborer cannot employ himself (use their own labor-power) because he does not have the
means for production. Essentially stating that the laborer is reliant on Capital to survive.
The laborer is further incentivized through means of employment, to increase capital for the
capitalists. Marx argues, “The labor-power of the wage worker can only exchange itself for
capital by increasing capital, by strengthing the power whose slave it is.” Furthermore, Hans
states in the annotations “the growth of the working-class must be such that it serves the
interests of capital. Such an outcome would not be possible if the growth of the working
class were independent, exogenous, to capital.” In order for the working class to grow, its
dependence on capital is obvious. Marx answers Q: 842 clearly by stating, “Hence, increase
of capital is increase of the proletariat, that is, of the working class.”
Hans: Growth of the working class means also growth of their dependence and poverty. Marx would say that
growth of the working class is not in the interest of the workers. (He also says that the classless society can only be
achieved through a transitional period where the working class is the ruling class—but this is different than growth
of the working class in a capitalist system.)
First Message by KA is [2].
[1077] Long: I don’t think the laborer and the capitalists have the same interest. Mainly
because I think that the capitalist uses the power that they have to hire laborers only when
they deem as necessary and still able to maximize their profit. They usually try to use

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 453
whatever laborers they already have and try to push for more output. The capitalist mind
of thinking would always be minimal laborer, maximum output equals more profit. On
the other hand, when the laborer put themself on the market for a job would most likely
do it for the fact of survival. To provide for their daily needs. As Hans pointed out that
“wage labor without capital is not alive, the laborer cannot use her labor-powere for herself
because she is separated from the means of production.” I think that as laborer, we are bound
to our contracts and always willing to work for a lower wage than the capitalist wants to pay
especially in our current economic crisis. I have seen the same job opening with same duties
that are paying less now than I’ve seen in the past.
She: I agree that capitalists and laborers do not have the same interests. Maximization of someone else’s profits
does not equate to the maximization of happiness or personal gain. Large corporations have seen huge growth in
productivity and profits over the last 2 years while the average worker has been paid and employed less. The owners
of the means, as Long says, are using the worried mindset of the workers to their advantage.
First Message by Long is [207].
Question 849 is 912 in 2012fa:
Question 849 In footnote to 765:1/o Marx asks: “who created the civil institutions?” He
clearly had a specific answer in mind. Which answer? Full disclosure: Hans doesn’t know
the answer himself. He sees three possibilities:
(a) members of the ruling class
(b) individuals involved in production, with an intimate knowledge of the specific needs of
production
(c) individuals living in this society who have a general understanding of the structure of
society
There may be other possibilities.
[1027] Jo: Who created the civil institutions? My initial thought is that Marx is referring
to the members of the ruling class. He is responding to Eden’s statement: “There are others
who, though they ‘neither toil nor spin’, can yet command the produce of industry, but who
owe their exemption from labor solely to civilization and order. . . ” Those who are exempt
from labor due to civilization and order sound like the ruling class; many of whom have
inherited their fortune, all of whom are exempt from labor.
A close look at any civil institution can provide insight into who created it (or who recreated
it, or is currently influencing its actions). Who is benefiting from it? Who is it
serving? The U.S. Congress for example, consistently passes legislation that benefits the
ruling class, whether it be in the form of tax cuts, corporate bailouts, or a pitiful minimum
wage. Token concessions are made for the working class to maintain their complacency.
Message [1027] referenced by [2012fa:1499]. Next Message by Jo is [1032].
Question 850 is 743 in 2007SP, 743 in 2008SP, 748 in 2008fa, 781 in 2009fa, 879 in
2011fa, and 913 in 2012fa:
Question 850 What is the “juridical illusion”?
[1036] Guh: Illusion. According to Marx the juridical illusion is the concept that society
influences the laws and the lawmaker then makes the actual law. Thus, the laws are essentially
created and designed by the society, even though they are not the ones that are actually
454 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
making the laws laws. Marx says in 765:1/o, “He does not regard the law as a product of the
material relation of production, but rather the reverse: he sees the relations of production as
products of the law.” Moreover, Mat says in [2009fa:1175] “The illusion Marx is referring
to is that laws are created by all of us in society.” Now, I agree with part of this statement,
however, like Matt says, “this is no illusion, we all know that it is not we who make the
laws.” I agree with Matt and have never actually made or created a law, but I may have had
influence in my role in society.
Hans: The remark to Mat’s [2009fa:1175] did not come from me but from class participant Matt. Matt commenting
on Mat.
Message [1036] referenced by [1057]. Next Message by Guh is [1037].
[1047] AM: Illusions Illusions. I like, Shannon [2007SP:1212], went searching for information
that would help me define “juridical illusion”. I found an interesting quote from
Marx in Grundrisse, MEGA I/5 p. 308:
“Just as the bodily weight of individuals does not depend upon their ideal
will or caprice, so it does not depend on them whether they embody their
will in the law”.
I think this applies to the discussion of “judicial review” because it acknowledges that
an individual does not have to embody their ideal. That is to say that someone in the ruling
class may put on like he has society’s best interest at heart when trying to pass laws when he
only has the interest of a select few at heart. Laws appear to be fair on the surface but there
are underlying problems that the public does not see.
Obama Care I guess could be a good current example of this. Many people believe that
things like this go into immediate effect once law are passed, when in fact it takes time
for the effects to trickle down to those who truly need the assistance. Also, many people
are aware of what types of procedures and medications are covered by the new health care
system. I can’t blame those who take what the media and politicians tell us at face value. It
is hard not to listen to them because we hope that as elected officials and people with access
to accurate information they will only share the truth because they have the public’s best
interest at heart.
Next Message by AM is [1055].
[1048] Kobe: Definition. The illusion Marx talks of is that each individual in our society
help in creating the laws. This is an illusion because as in today’s society the rich, high
class, wealthy and politically high powered create the laws. The middle and lower class
people believe that they have a say in a particular law that is or is not made, which is untrue.
This is true of a capitalist society that the rich capitalists use their power and wealth to make
and control laws that better themselves as opposed to the society as a whole.
In today’s world we see this being done in large corporations that make their employees
feel like they are a part of the team. Laborers take less money in wages because they feel like
they are helping contribute to a higher cause, while CEOs are making millions of dollars.
This is an illusion that is created by the capitalists to better themselves and keep the laborers
happy with their wages and involvement in a particular company or industry. This is a
product of the laws created by the upper class.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 455
Hans: As you indicate in your very last sentence, the legal system is more than a smokescreen to appease the
masses. It plays a role as a foundation.
Message [1048] referenced by [2012fa:1518]. Next Message by Kobe is [1180].
[1051] Fisher: juridical illusion. Juridical illusion is when people in the middle and
lower classes of society think they are participating in law making but are not. Although
they pay taxes and are members of a social class they are at the mercy of the rich capitalists
and higher class members of society. The high class capitalists and politicians tend to control
law making and even shape it to their own benefit. AM had a nice take saying “That is to say
that someone in the ruling class may put on like he has society’s best interest at heart when
trying to pass laws when he only has the interest of a select few at heart.” I agree. Also, I
think Wall Street is a good example of this, although we are all taxpaying members of this
society, it is wall street that runs this country. This will never change because capitalism
depends on their success. Kobe was right on as well. Our employers may pretend to like us,
but its their own self interests that they really like.
Hans: You are just uncritically repeating. Your only addition is Wall Street, but I don’t see how your assertion that
“Wall Street runs this country” throws light on the juridical illusion.
Next Message by Fisher is [1099].
[1057] Kaush: Juridical illusion. I thought to add and build on Guh’s [1036] explanation
of juridical illusion and to give a direct continuous answer. Juridical illusion is viewing the
social and political institutions of capitalism—wages, profits, etc.—as institutions naturally
created and conforms to natural laws. To Marx, capitalists and laborers have equal footing
from a legal perspective when they meet on the market. To him also, nature does not produce
owners of money and commodities on one side and workers who possess nothing but labor
power to sell. For Marx this line of thinking is fallacious because it assumes those social
institutions are naturally ordained. Marx argues that people have the tendency to mistakenly
reverse order of things. Marx stresses that what is illusory about juridical thinking is that it
regards society as the product of rules and laws instead of considering those rules and laws
as social products serving capitalists.
Hans: Thank you for putting the discussion on the right track again. The issue is not whether people make the
laws, but the issue is: do laws create the social relations of production, or do social relations of production create
their own systems of justice which are then codified in laws?
Next Message by Kaush is [1094].
Question 851 is 327 in 1997WI, 395 in 1997sp, 392 in 1997ut, 589 in 2002fa, 613 in
2003fa, 672 in 2004fa, 619 in 2005fa, 744 in 2007SP, 715 in 2007fa, 749 in 2008fa, 782
in 2009fa, and 914 in 2012fa:
Question 851 Why is it more beneficial for capital to keep the working class in a state of
“easy and liberal dependence” than to exert the maximum of surplus-value from them?
[1035] Trap: Workers in a constant state of dependence. The most important role
of the capitalist is to make a profit, generally at the exploitation of his workers. Keeping
the “working class in a state of ‘easy and liberal dependence’” is an important tool for the
capitalist. If the capitalist exerted the maximum surplus value from his laborers, it would
reduce the productivity of the worker, both in the short and the long run. If a worker works
at a factory that has two 12 hour shifts, and the worker works one of the shifts every day, he
will have little time for anything else. He will become angry and more importantly to the
456 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
capitalist he won’t have time and may not have the resources necessary to raise his family,
the next generation of laborers. In the long run, the worker will have built up animosity
towards his capitalist boss, and create problems and may even quit, making the capitalist’s
job more difficult. Therefore it is important to keep the workers in a state of “easy and liberal
dependence,” they may not love their job or particularly care about what they do, but they
will continue to work, and the capitalists will continue to exploit them and make profits.
Hans: If the workers quit, this does not worry the capitalists. The system makes sure that they can always find
enough workers. The thing which scares the capitalists is if the workers organize, as Intaglio says in [1073].
Message [1035] referenced by [2012fa:1531]. Next Message by Trap is [1080].
[1038] She: graded A+ Knowledge Enlarges and Multiplies our Desires. It is more
beneficial for the capitalist to keep the working class in a state of “easy and liberal dependence”
than to exert the maximum of surplus-value from them because as Megan says in
[2009fa:1176] laborers do not live to only labor. They have families and emotions, needs,
wants, and dreams. They cannot be forced to work only until they are burnt out entirely, they
will not be satisfied. Unhappy workers are unproductive workers. Marx 764:1/oe quotes
Bernard de Mandeville as saying, “Those that get their living by their daily labor. . . have
nothing to stir them up to be serviceable but their wants which it is prudence to relieve, but
only folly to cure.” What he is saying is that if you provide everything that a worker wants,
he will have no reason to continue working. Mandeville goes on to say that only moderate
compensation will keep the worker productive and that, as Megan said, too little will break
his spirits. He argues that keeping them ignorant to their situations will never create the desire
for change. The direct Mendeville quote reads, “To make the society happy and people
easier under the meanest circumstances, it is requisite that great numbers of them be ignorant
as well as poor; knowledge both enlarges and multiplies our desires, and the fewer things
a man wishes for, the more easily his necessities may be supplied.” The cheaper a worker’s
necessities are, the cheaper it is for the capitalist to pay to reproduce the labor-power the
worker sells. Melanie in [2007fa:662] reminds us that easy and liberal dependence is yet
another method the capitalist uses to keep the exploitation of his workers secret and hidden
from plain view. It is just another pillar of deception. The greatest return for capitalists
from an ignorant society, is that the ignorant workers willingly reproduce and create a fully
stocked army of ignorant workers ready to supply to capitalists in the next generation.
So in the end, acting to not maximize surplus value actually does maximize surplus value.
This is a prime example of how the neoclassical model of creating maximum value does not
hold true because of the assumptions that are impossible to really occur. It is examples
like this, and real life stories and situations, that are creating a need for more research in
behavioral economics.
Hans: You are right. Working class parents teach their children not only the required discipline and skills to keep a
job, but (at least at this historical conjuncture) they also try to teach them to be content with the crumbs the system
has for them and not to be rebellious.
Next Message by She is [1175].
[1073] Intaglio: Bling Bling. The “easy and liberally dependent” worker is a complacent
one. If the workers enjoy a decent standard of living they will be completely apathetic
towards the system. They won’t organize unions or even start to think about how they could
be receiving the full fruits of their labor. Furthermore, capitalist marketing can get workers
to identify consuming commodities that do not improve their standard of living with “living

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 457
the life.” This is a good way for capitalists to get the extra ‘complacency’ money they give
to the worker back into their pockets. If workers didn’t have the extra money to afford
MP3 player headphones to plug their ears, SUVs with blingin’ rims, videogames to play,
snowboards to ride, and other distractions they would definitely think about the system more
often.
Keeping the workers from organizing against the capitalist system is the most important
part of staying in control of the means of production and maintaining class society as a
whole. This is why corporations are funding reactionary pro-private profit movements like
the tea party. This is why revolutions were so popular in the 1800s, because goods were
scarce, the standard of living was low, and people got angry enough to think of ways to
improve their situation. It’s too bad Americans are usurping the unseen cheap labour of
those exploited in the third world, there would have been a revolution by now if they had to
do it themselves.
Message [1073] referenced by [1035], [1097], and [2012fa:1520]. Next Message by Intaglio is [1181].
[1097] IrvingHowe: liberalism and puppy treats. In adding to what Intaglio [1073] said
on the matter:
The answer is really quite simple. As a student of econ, I see nearly every selection that
anyone makes as a thoughtful choice between the selection made and other alternatives. In
making this choice, theoretically, an individual has most likely conducted something of a
risk/benefit analysis whether they are conscious of it happening or not. This is not to say
that I believe that the world is full of 6 billion rational people or that perfect information
conditions are even in existence anywhere. I only mean to say that given a set of choices and
the information at hand, people are constantly weighing one option against the other.
In choosing not to occupy workplaces, challenge the system of government and fire their
bosses, the majority of workers have made the choice that what they stand to lose is greater
than what they think they can get. This is no accident.
Franklin Roosevelt, who is seemingly viewed by so many Democrats as a nearly (Japanese
internment camps) flawless liberal was actually forced to run and govern much farther
to the left than he intended due in large part to pressure from the left of him. Huey Long of
Louisiana wrote a book and ran on the slogan of “Every Man a King” and Socialist Norman
Thomas won over a million votes for president in the middle of the depression. For FDR,
governing as he did was a matter of survival, for capitalism and his own job.
If we’re willing to look back just a bit further to what was the catalyst for so much of the
pre and post-depression era liberalism, we can look at Russia. Here we had a family, the
Romanov family, who had ruled as an absolute monarchy for over 400 years. They were the
last absolute monarchy in Europe and even had the Russian Orthodox Church backing up the
claims of their own divine right to rule. But, the peasants and industrial workers had nothing.
For a reference on how bad things were, remember that these situations were the types of
conditions that gave birth to much of the work of Marx and Engels. Russian historian James
Heinzen, in commenting on the prevailing conditions for the people of Russia around 1917
once said “It’s pretty hard to imagine that anything other than a right-wing dictatorship, a
military dictatorship, or a left-wing dictatorship could have emerged.”
458 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
This simple notion, that the masses will put up with anything until they’ve had enough
has been parroted in a more pretentious manner for a century now. It has come from Republicans
and Democrats, Tories and Liberals since 1917. In fact, not 4 months ago, President
Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor recently publicly acknowledged that “It could very well
happen” when asked if inequality continues to get worse whether or not people would revolt
and begin taking from the rich.
James Gross, a professor at the Cornell school of Industrial and Labor Relations recently
put it best when he told me “human resources, employee perks and this new emphasis on
workplace partnerships are nothing more than the boss showing you that he thinks nothing
more of you than he does his dog. All he thinks he has to do is pat you on the back, rub your
tummy and throw you a treat and he can get you to do anything but more importantly, you
won’t go shoving that damn union down his throat... It’s a disgrace.”
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [1133].
Question 853 is 398 in 1997sp, 395 in 1997ut, 675 in 2004fa, 621 in 2005fa, 746 in
2007SP, 717 in 2007fa, 746 in 2008SP, 751 in 2008fa, 784 in 2009fa, 882 in 2011fa, and
916 in 2012fa:
Question 853 What does Marx use the metaphor of a golden chain for? Why does he say
the chain has become heavier?
[1039] Hal: graded A– This is one chain not worth its weight in gold. Marx uses the
golden chain as a metaphor for the enslavement of the working class. Each day, producers
are required to provide free labor to their capitalist employers. Producers do not wish to
perform unpaid labor, yet they must in order to survive. The chain being golden, rather than
iron, corresponds to the capitalists’ need to pay producers enough to buy commodities and
keep the market running smoothly.
As time goes on, capitalists accumulate wealth faster than the working class. Capitalists
then use that wealth to take ownership of more means of production, which makes the
working class even more dependent on their employers. Also, capitalists use their wealth
to grow their companies and eliminate competitors, making it harder each year for someone
from the working class to accumulate capital. Capitalists, with their increased power, are
able to demand more free labor from the working class. The golden chain becomes heavier.
In other words, the domination of the working class becomes more absolute.
Hans: Oreo [1045] explains better what Marx means with “heavier.”
Message [1039] referenced by [1045] and [1046]. Next Message by Hal is [1058].
[1045] Oreo: Golden Chains. For my free discussion contribution, I would like to add
to the submission by Hal [1039]. I agree that Marx uses the golden chain metaphor to
illustrate the fact that laborers are similar to slaves for capitalists. However, laborers are
not completely synonymous to slaves, seeing as they have the freedom to break free from
the chains if they so desire. Marx states, “..which the wage-laborer has already forged for
himself. . . ”, meaning the worker was not forced such as a slave would be, but has willingly
accepted these golden chains. I believe these chains are golden because gold is the generally
accepted commodity of exchange. The worker willingly subjects himself to gold in order to
provide himself with commodities.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 459
This chain is loosened when the capitalist provides the worker with a higher wage. More
gold is added to the chain, causing it to become longer and providing the laborer more
comfort and ability to move. However, the longer the chain, the heavier it becomes. The
laborer becomes more weighed down with chains and consequently has less hope to escape.
With the wage increase, the laborer is even more imprisoned to the capitalist than he was
previously. Since the laborer is making more money, he is less likely to try and break free
from the chains. As Hans states in [2009fa], the increase in wage is proportional to the
laborer’s dependence on the capitalist. As long as laborers continue to make money and
accept their subordination to capitalism, they will never break free from the gold chains that
they confined themselves in.
Hans: Very good. But I never found the reference which you call [2009fa].
Message [1045] referenced by [1039]. Next Message by Oreo is [1049].
Question 854 is 331 in 1997WI, 399 in 1997sp, 396 in 1997ut, 593 in 2002fa, 617 in
2003fa, 676 in 2004fa, 622 in 2005fa, 718 in 2007fa, 785 in 2009fa, 883 in 2011fa, and
917 in 2012fa:
Question 854 Does it make sense for the working class to fight for higher wages if the
capitalist, for economic reasons, usually maintains the upper hand in such conflicts?
[1029] Balrog: graded A Fight Back or be Abused? In 1997 185,000 UPS employees
went on strike after fighting for better wages and benefits for some time. This strike which
lasted 15 days cost the UPS company an estimated $650 million dollars. The result was
that UPS agreed to make 10,000 part time employees full time employees and overall wages
increased by 40%. As references and for more information I have provided links to the
following two websites.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec97/ups 8-19a.html
http://www.nathannewman.org/other/why ups strike matters.html
This example clearly shows that fighting for higher wages does make sense. The capitalist
is in control of the means of production and can manipulate his production process. His goal
is to achieve the highest rate of return possible and in order to do so will cut corners and
exploit his workers until they fight back.
The working class must be careful in how they go about seeking higher wages. If one
worker goes on strike by himself, a capitalist can bear to lose that worker and may fire him or
her. In the case of UPS a union containing 185,000 people worked together and due to their
numbers and organization were successful. Examples like this give hope to other workers
and help them have the courage to unite and fight for better treatment.
Message [1029] referenced by [2012fa:1507]. First Message by Balrog is [188].
Question 855 is 332 in 1997WI, 405 in 1998WI, 429 in 1999SP, 524 in 2000fa, 554 in
2001fa, 594 in 2002fa, 618 in 2003fa, 677 in 2004fa, 748 in 2008SP, 786 in 2009fa, and
884 in 2011fa:
Question 855 Does the dependence of the workers on capital decrease when wages are
high?
460 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[1049] Oreo: graded A Dependence on Capital. The dependence of the workers on
capital, in most cases, does not decrease when wages are high. In fact, it’s just the opposite.
This is apparent when you put yourself in this position. If you are working for a company,
and the company increases your wage, wouldn’t you be less likely to quit your job? Your
dependence on capital, therefore, increases. The relationship between wage and dependence
seems to be a positive and proportional one. When a laborer’s wage is increased, their
dependence to capital is increased as well. On the other hand, increased wages may decrease
one’s dependence on capital if the laborer uses his money to save up and eventually purchase
his own capital. As Bone [2009fa:1171] writes, “the only way for the worker to become less
dependent on capital is to purchase some capital of their own so that they can start producing
and selling their own commodity.” Therefore, if the higher wage leads to the purchase and
accumulation of capital, then the dependence on capital would in fact decrease when wages
rise. However, the majority of workers don’t become capitalists, meaning that the wage raise
will most often increase dependence on capital. As Marx mentions earlier in the chapter,
laborers are enslaved by the golden chain of capitalism. The wage raise would only loosen
the chains causing the worker to be more comfortable, but the weight of the chains would
increase, imprisoning the worker even more and causing him to be even more dependent on
capital.
Hans: The capitalist system has built-in mechanisms preventing too many workers from becoming capitalists.
Message [1049] referenced by [1089]. Next Message by Oreo is [1168].
[1053] Alex: (graded A–) Dependence on capital. Dependence on capital from the workers
does not decrease, instead, it creates more comfort for the worker. What happens is as
the worker is being paid more than he/she is used to, therefore the worker has more money to
buy the things that he needs, and could actually afford things that he was not able to before
this raise. Capital will always be an independent variable, as Hans explained in [2003fa:645]
that the system follows a constant pattern of alienation and exploitation, and since the workers
do not see a way of changing the system, they do not use that extra comfort level to
attempt to do so, and therefore leave it as the status quo. The dependency of the worker
for money remains the same, it is simply that he/she is now able to buy more commodities
and/or services due to the increase in comfort level, which is due to a slight increase in pay.
Hans: Their inactivity does not come from “not see(ing) a way of changing the system.” Since they have a stake
in the system they are not even looking for ways to change the system, and they have something to lose if they try.
I.e., the slight increase in wages makes them more dependent on the system.
Final Grading Note by Hans: You are a hard and conscientious worker. The reason why you didn’t get all As is
because Marx requires you to throw what you know overboard and think of things in a different way. You refuse to
do this more speculative thinking, you are always very down to earth and reasonable. This is an important function,
you are the reality-checker. I’d like to have you on my team. But try to think more outside the box sometimes.
Message [1053] referenced by [1089]. First Message by Alex is [4].
[1089] Rmc: graded A– Dependence on capital. If workers want to keep the status quo,
their dependence on capital increases when wages are high.
Alex’s answer [1053] describes a result of increased wages. Oreo [1049] explains why
workers are more dependent on capital when wages are high, and does so in great detail.
I’ll try to answer the question more concisely. It is true that, as Alex says, when wages are
high, workers are less likely to quit their jobs because they want to keep the higher income.
I’d like to add that the demand for workers allows them some power because they can more

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 461
easily obtain a higher price for their labor. More importantly, I think, once they have found
employment they depend on a strong economy—and plenty of capital—in order to keep
their jobs and maintain high wages. Low wages reflect a low demand for workers, usually a
result of a poor economy and lack of capital. In this case it is not a question of quitting, but
of being laid off.
Alex raises a good point about dependence decreasing if the worker has been saving to
purchase his own capital, and dependence decreases only “if the higher wage leads to the
purchase and accumulation of capital.”
Hans: You are saying it is good for the workers when there is plenty of capital. But where does the capital come
from? Marx would say it comes from the unpaid labor of the workers. I.e., it is good for the workers if their own
exploitation is successful.
Next Message by Rmc is [1161].
Question 859 is 430 in 1999SP, 525 in 2000fa, 752 in 2007SP, 757 in 2008fa, and 790 in
2009fa:
Question 859 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.
[1069] School: Attacking the Gazelle. Marx stated: “one of the main social functions of
the capitalist class is to determine the rate of accumulation.” Also in the annotations it says:
“it is these absolute movements of the accumulation of capital which manifest themselves
as relative movements of the mass of exploitable labor-power, and therefore seem produced
by the latter’s own independent movement.” Through these quotes we understand that Marx
had come to the conclusion that the accumulation of capital is the independent and the wage
rate is the dependent variable. The reasoning for this is because the capitalist can wait for
the opportune moment to invest. The capitalist can wait until the accumulation of capital is
at the perfect amount for investment, the mere ability to choose shows that it is independent.
Whereas TKaufmann states in [2009fa:1148] “the accumulation of capital may slow down,
causing a decrease in the demand for labor. Laborers, however, are in the unfortunate position
that they have to sell their labor power in order to survive. As the demand for labor
slows down, unemployment increases and the wage rate will drop” This shows us that the
rate wage rate is the dependent variable. It’s as if the capitalist are lions and the worker is
the gazelle. The lion will wait for the right moment to attack when the gazelle is not paying
attention. The capitalist waits for the right moments to attack the unsupecting workers.
Message [1069] referenced by [1182]. Next Message by School is [1106].
Question 861 is 334 in 1997WI, 557 in 2001fa, 754 in 2008SP, and 792 in 2009fa:
Question 861 How does the fetish-like character of capital discussed in the Accumulation
chapter differ from that of the commodity discussed in chapter One?
[1034] Babyceta: graded A Fetish-like Character: The Sequel. In [308], I assert that
the fetish-like character of commodities “is a social structure in which the products of society
are carriers of social relations resembling natural forces, and are capable of behaving
in humanistic ways, or of transforming physical matter.” Hans clarified my position by
adding in [326] that “[t]he fetish-like character of the commodity is the naturalization of society,
meaning ‘social relations take the form of quasi-natural predicates of objects’.” Others,
462 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
specifically Mhurst [2009fa:1130] and Mitternacht [2008SP:784], contend that commodities
possess power by dividing classes of people through their “attachment to items.” I believe
this view is overly simplistic and misguided. Marx would probably say that the commodities
themselves do not possess power in the literal sense; they have power only because we (the
naive masses of the working class born into an exploitative system we do not clearly see or
understand) all buy into this notion that social relations can travel through things. We give
the commodity super-human strength as if they were capable of performing feats beyond
even the ability of individuals, and therefore it is much more than simple obsession; it is
the humble acceptance that in some ways commodities are physically superior to us, and
they deserve our respect and maybe even our obedience. What’s paramount here is that this
fetish-like character of commodities lives solely in our minds; we breathe life into the idea
by our blind acceptance—a natural law, if you will—and there is nothing we can do about
it. It is an implied force living in our psyche—offspring of our collective conscience.
Not so, with the fetish-like character of capital. The power of capital in our society is
indeed real, and exists not as an internal conception lacking transparency, but as external
force that physically controls us. Capital must indeed grow and expand in order for capitalism
to function, and it must do so whether we believe in it or not. This growth is not
contingent upon collective consciousness or psyche; it is a natural mandate of the capitalist
system that requires participation of all who must toil to exist. We cannot change or control
the fetish-like character of capital. The decision was made for us long before, and is kept
alive, as Marx says in 771:1/o, “not by the product of [our] own brain, but by the product
of [our] own hand.” It is not a mental fabrication that social forces are transmitted through
objects. It is a forceful social transmission facilitated by fabricating objects.
Hans: Marx would say that the fetish-like character if commodities is not a mental fabrication either but also a
very material force, growing out of the organization of production in a commodity society.
Next Message by Babyceta is [1054].
Question 863 is 559 in 2001fa, 727 in 2007fa, 756 in 2008SP, 761 in 2008fa, 794 in
2009fa, and 896 in 2011fa:
Question 863 What is the right answer to the question: “How has the worker” (and not only
the worker but mankind as a whole) “been able to pass from being the master of capital—as
its creator—to being its slave?”
[1046] Jo: From Master to Slave. Jojo [2009fa:1143] brings up the point that the workers
are not the only ones that have become slaves to the system, but that capitalists themselves
are slaves as well. The necessity of capitalism is capital accumulation, and in order
to keep that up, the capitalists remain trapped within the system. Jojo says, “this ‘selfishness’
of the capitalist is inherent within the system. This coincides with Hans’ statement
in [2008SP:832]: “How did this control [over social relations] slip away from us, so that
commodities make social interactions for us and our means of productions are our masters
rather than our tools? If 187:1 is a guide, Marx blames individualism and atomism for it
instead of greed.”
The worker, on the other hand, does not control the means of production and has nothing
to exchange but labor. Hal points out an idea in [1039] that I had not considered: “As time
goes on, capitalists accumulate wealth faster than the working class. Capitalists then use

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 463
that wealth to take ownership of more means of production, which makes the working class
even more dependent on their employers.” The worker is dependent on the wage received
from laboring. An increase in wage, or rise in the price of labor, “comes back to them in
the shape of means of payment, so that they can extend the circle of their enjoyments, make
additions to their consumption fund of clothes, furniture, etc., and lay by a small reserve
fund of money” (Annotations, p. 670). This all sounds ok at first, but in the next section
Marx reveals the harsh reality that “this rise in the price of labor. . . no more abolishes the
exploitation and dependence of the wage laborer than to better clothing, food and treatment,
and a larger peculium, abolish that of the slave” (Annotations, p. 671). Increasing the wage
doesn’t make the worker any less of a slave to his wage, or any less dependent on selling his
labor for survival.
Marx elaborates: “Wages, as we have seen, imply by their very nature that the worker
must always provide a certain quantity of unpaid labor” (Annotations, p. 672). The worker
will always provide a certain amount of free labor for the benefit of the capitalist. There is
a limit to how much a worker’s situation can improve within capitalism and it will never be
sufficient to deliver the worker from capitalist rule.
Hans notes the following on p. 677 of the Annotations: “That the standard of living of the
laborers is subordinated to the needs of capital is an expression of the fetish-like character
of capital. ‘Fetish-like character’ no longer means, as in the case of commodities, that the
social relations lack transparency because they go through things, but that these things now
dominate the individuals.
In summary, the capitalist and the workers are slaves of capitalism: the capitalist is dominated
by an obsessive goal of making more profit; while the worker is dominated by the
goal to maintain and improve his standard of living. The harmful effects of capitalism are
hidden from view by the capitalists and workers’ intense fixation on their respective goals.
They will continue to pursue them even in the face of likely disaster, as we have seen in the
case of climate change.
Next Message by Jo is [1071].
[1068] Atticus: graded A The Nasty Side Effect of Commodity Production. The production
of goods for the purpose of being sold in market exchanges rather than for directly
meeting personal subsistence needs must be present in a given society in order for a capitalistic
economy to exist. Before capitalism, commodities were produced, owned and sold
by their producers. In the early stages of commodity production laborers owned their own
means of production and received the full value of the commodities they produced when
exchanged in the market for equivalents. They had to produce and sell enough of their own
commodities to acquire a combination of qualitatively different commodities to reproduce
their own labor-power and means of production. The early laborer was the “master of capital”.
Increases in specialization led to even more increases in specialization, increases in productivity
and deeper divisions in labor. This gradual change in the structure of production
processes led to changes in social relations. The social relations generated by commodity
production led to the implementation of private property laws conducive to the dynamics
of capitalism. Technological innovations led to exponential increases in productivity and
464 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
concentrated the means of production into fewer and fewer hands. The interdependency of a
commodity producing society created by increased specialization made it necessary for the
majority of people who did not own the means of production to meet their basic subsistence
needs by selling their labor-power as a commodity to the small class of people who did own
the means of production. This small class of people, the capitalists, kept this relationship
intact by paying laborers only for their labor-power and not the actual value they produce.
The true relationship of this dynamic was not immediately apparent to either capitalists or
laborers due to the fetish-like character of capital (annotations pp. 677) The laborer is now
capital’s “slave”.
Next Message by Atticus is [1167].
Question 866 is 435 in 1999SP, 530 in 2000fa, 561 in 2001fa, 603 in 2002fa, 627 in
2003fa, 761 in 2007SP, 730 in 2007fa, 759 in 2008SP, 764 in 2008fa, 797 in 2009fa, 899
in 2011fa, and 929 in 2012fa:
Question 866 In 773:1, Marx discusses an empirical phenomenon in which technical progress
“expresses” itself. Which phenomenon is that? Why does Marx speak here of an expression?
[1171] Jo: Expression. The empirical phenomenon is the social degree of productivity
of labor, or “the relative extent of the means of productions that one worker, during a given
time, with the same intensity of exertion of his or her labor-power, turns into products.” 773:1
The word expression is used because technical progress is expressed through the fact that the
worker is producing more products. Technical progress does not automatically equal more
products being produced in an equal amount of time. But we can see based on the fact that
the worker is using the same “intensity of exertion” to produce more products, that technical
progress is an underlying factor in this equation. As Hans explains in his response to Corey
in [2007fa:679], “A is an expression of B if A is a visible process whose occurrence indicates
that the underlying process B, which can not be directly seen, is happening.” The visible
process is the production of more products, while the invisible process being expressed is
the technical progress.
Hans: You are right, the underlying invisible process is technical progress. One of the possible expressions of technical
progress is that more products can be produced with the same aggregate labor input; another expression might
be that better products or new products become available. Marx is talking about yet another expression, namely,
that the technical composition of the production process increases, i.e., more means of production (machines and/or
materials) per laborer. You call this “social degree of productivity of labor.” This is not quite accurate. It is not this
productivity itself, but it is an expression of this productivity. Look again what Marx says in 773:1.
Message [1171] referenced by [2012fa:1555]. First Message by Jo is [475].
Question 869 is 414 in 1998WI, 438 in 1999SP, 533 in 2000fa, 564 in 2001fa, 606 in
2002fa, 630 in 2003fa, 689 in 2004fa, 636 in 2005fa, 764 in 2007SP, 767 in 2008fa, 800
in 2009fa, and 932 in 2012fa:
Question 869 Why can the soil of commodity production carry production on a large-scale
only in capitalist form, as Marx says in 775:1/o? (Also define better the “soil” which commodity
production provides for the growth of large-scale production.)
[1170] Trap: Workers are the soil. In [2002fa:392] Oregonian states that “The individuality
and lack of co-operation of commodity production in a non-capitalist system makes
large-scale commodity production practically impossible.” He is correct in saying this, but

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 465
the keyword here is “practically.” Cooperation on a large scale is only possible through cooperation
and by the workers pooling their means together to complete the task. So the
question remains, if this is possible, why is it not practiced? The answer is that commodity
production prevents cooperation. Commodity production focuses on the individual, not cooperation,
it is based on competition. If workers work by themselves they often believe they
will gain more than by combining with other workers to take over the means of production.
Marx talks about the “soil” of production. What he means is that the workers are the soil
of production that provides for the growth of large-scale production, but that is not all he is
referring to. He is also referring to the capitalist system that allows large-scale production
to prosper. It is important to realize that the division of labor allows capitalists to remain
profitable, the laborers have so little option and do the same thing repetitively for years, they
don’t realize there are other options. If they do realize other options could be available if
they combine and work together, they are too afraid to leave their dismal, but precious jobs.
Hans: You had originally written “capitalism prevents cooperation. Capitalism focuses on the individual.” This
orientation was already present in pre-capitalist commodity production. Therefore I replaced “capitalism” with
“commodity production.”
First Message by Trap is [53].
Question 871 is 343 in 1997WI, 440 in 1999SP, 566 in 2001fa, 608 in 2002fa, 632 in
2003fa, 691 in 2004fa, 638 in 2005fa, 766 in 2007SP, 802 in 2009fa, 904 in 2011fa, and
934 in 2012fa:
Question 871 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, i.e.,
are there ways in which technical progress also obstructs capital accumulation?
[1153] Rico: The Hair in the Soup. Yes, there is a “hair in the soup.” Hans’ response
to answer [2009fa:1219] explains that “higher productivity also means higher technical and
higher organic composition of capital. Therefore the rate of profits declines at the same time
as the rate of surplus-value increases.” This is the “hair in the soup.”
I believe there might be another explanation, which could be another “hair in the soup.”
The exponentially increasing amount of technology will lead to a deterioration in the amount
of human creativity and innovation used in the production process. Because increased
amounts of capital and technology lead to less worker involvement, less innovation and
creativity are incorporated into the the capitalist system. Capitalism is an unbalanced system
and as such, it has the need to consistently innovate in order to continue sustaining its
output. I understand that it is not self-sufficient and that it will collapse, but I would argue
that it is through human adaptation and creativity that the system has been able to continue
functioning well beyond the estimated collapse time that Marx predicted. If technology
takes the place of human creativity, then the collapse of technology will also become a “hair
in the soup.”
Hans: I would not say the collapse of technology, but the alienation of technology from human needs. What we
can do is almost unlimited; the question is whether we should be doing it. Nuclear power comes to mind to me as
a technology which we would be better off abandoning.
First Message by Rico is [107].
466 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 872 is 609 in 2002fa, 633 in 2003fa, 692 in 2004fa, 767 in 2007SP, 736 in
2007fa, 770 in 2008fa, and 905 in 2011fa:
Question 872 Describe the mechanisms of repulsion and attraction of individual capitals
in the course of accumulation.
[1099] Fisher: Mechanisms. The mechanisms of repulsion and attraction in the course
of accumulation are: accumulation itself, concentration, and centralization proper. First
accumulation is the “transition from handicrafts to capitalist industry”, which seems to me
as the first step taken from a collection of personal items crafted by an individual alone
for sale in the market. Handicrafts would not be made by employees who are paid by a
capitalist. The social capital of society would grow at a slow rate within the idea of original
accumulation. Second, concentration is when “existing individual capitalists invest their
profits into themselves”, causing all capital to grow at the same rate. This is more productive,
yet there remains room for improvement. Last centralization proper indicates a large mass
of capital “in a single hand in one place”, which was lost by others in another place. I
guess this might be comparable to the stock market? Obviously large amounts of capital are
exchanged, lost or obtained on Wall Street leaving the possibility of one hand holding the
whole deck of cards.
Hans: You are confusing accumulation with original accumulation.
Message [1099] referenced by [1154]. Next Message by Fisher is [1100].
[1154] Spiral: Mechanisms. Yes Fisher [1099], I think the stock market is an appropriate
setting for explaining the point about “a large mass of capital in a single hand in one place.”
More broadly I think the financial industry is full of examples because the majority of the
sector seeks to maximize profit working through the mechanism of competition. The recent
great recession was characterized by the market realizing that investment banks, the pillars
of Wall Street, had reinvested their profits into their competitors. This web of risk diffusion,
and hence exposure, accelerated the attraction of money concentrating into a couple dozen
investments banks deemed too-big-to-fail. This is a misnomer for a network that was set up
to bankrupt the system.
Tigerwoulds provides a standard to judge the mechanism used in the process: [2008fa:1236]
“When repulsion takes place in the course of accumulation, new firms are created by breaking
off or splitting up from larger firms.” The result of the great recession has not been the
emergence of new firms but further concentration. For example, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide
Financial were bought by Bank of America, Washington Mutual was acquired by
JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia, to name a few. Once the closure of
hedge funds, private equity firms, and other banks are included it’s clear the financial system
has been left more concentrated than before; recently repulsion has been a weak mechanism
in the American economy. Politicians talk of helping to create new small businesses but the
bailouts reinforced and centralized the old economic structure. Accumulation of capital is
potentially limitless raising the specter of all powerful monopolies vertically integrating all
steps in the national or global chain of production.
Next Message by Spiral is [1162].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 467
Question 874 is 611 in 2002fa, 635 in 2003fa, 694 in 2004fa, 641 in 2005fa, 769 in
2007SP, 738 in 2007fa, 767 in 2008SP, 772 in 2008fa, 805 in 2009fa, 907 in 2011fa, and
937 in 2012fa:
Question 874 How do competition and credit help in the process of centralization?
[1115] Lindsey: Competition and Credit Are Catalysts for Centralization. Competition
helps in the process of centralization because the most successful capitalists “expropriate”
other capitalists and by this mechanism, their company grows and becomes more powerful
and more productive and can continue to take over smaller companies more easily. Additionally,
the minimum requirements for capital input to be able to compete become greater
and small firms squeeze into certain sectors where there are no big firms they have to compete
against until one or a couple of the small firms conquer the others in that sector too. In
this way many small firms are transformed into a few large ones.
Credit helps in the process of centralization by “drawing the disposable money scattered
throughout society into the hands of individual or associated capitalists”. As Hans outlines,
credit becomes a weapon in the competitive battles (those who have credit can attain more
means of production and workers and thus become stronger competitors) and it pools investments
from many sources without the reorganization of firms (firms can increase their
financial power without even taking over another firm).
First Message by Lindsey is [24].
[1148] Smartergirl: Competition helps to centralize by putting small capitalists directly
in a fight for market share and profits. By fighting for market share the small capitalist has
to lower prices and squeeze production to its capacity which could potentially drop below
their operation cost putting small capitalist out of business leaving the large capitalist to take
their market share. We witnessed this in the lending industry nearly four years ago. As the
competition to lend on mortgages got fiercer between small banks and lending institutions
they lowered fees, rates, and closing costs. The smaller banks took an initial loss to secure
the loan in the hopes of making up for the loss in the long run through interest paid to
them. When the housing market bubble popped all the smaller lenders where left more
vulnerable and without the number of payments coming in that they had planned for the
lending institutions went bankrupt and were forced out of business. Someone had to service
the loans so the larger banks there are now five I believe bought all the loans for pennies on
the dollar and collect all the interest that the smaller bank that is now out of business had
anticipated. The big capitalist ultimately benefits from the smaller capitalists fight. While
the smaller capitalist in lending is nearly extinct. This hugely impacted centralization of the
lending industry.
Credit also assists in centralization. Marx saw it as a weapon to be used in competition
and it allows centralization without reorganizing firms by gathering investments from many
diffrent sources.
A large retailer comes to mind and how credit is used as a weapon is simple. If a retailor
is advertising a commodity and you want it but cant afford it you will most likely go to the
retailer that will lend you credit to have instant gratification. For example back in the 50’s
Sears Robuck and company became a major retailor partly because they offered layaway.
Esentially a form of credit. People began buying commodities that they could not afford
468 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
but because they had the option to put it on hold they could make payments to the retailer
over a longer period of time. This deceives the consumer because remember the reason for
using lay away is because they can not afford the item now. The consumer still pays the
same amount plus more for any fee and possible interest but because it is in smaller chunks
of money or coin they do not feel the impact of the purchase the same way. They are still
spending more that they can aford but are tricked by credit to feel as though they can afford
it. When credit cards, loans, and other forms of high interest credit come into the picture we
are already used to spending more that we can afford and have an addiction to consumption.
We now are at the mercy of paying what we cant afford and interest on what we already dont
have. This results in working more and a vicious cycle of consuming, working to pay cfor
the consumption, and taking more money from what we would have been able to hoard to the
capitalist collecting the interest for him to hoard and slowly the average consumer sinks into
debt and owes his life to the large capitalist who gave them credit to begin with. The more
the average consumer has in debt the more centralized we become. The capitalist get larger
and make money off of our labor even though he may not be our employer. We now work
for the capitalist whom employs us and the one that gave us credit. Everyday we lose more
and more of our personal profit and the capitalist grow closer and closer to centralization.
Hans: Speculative bubbles not only centralize but also destroy capital.
Regarding your second paragraph, I changed “and gathering” into “by gathering.”
Your example of consumer credit is good for recent forms of capitalism. Marx cannot have meant it because it
did not exist at his time.
Next Message by Smartergirl is [1150].
Question 875 is 773 in 2008fa and 938 in 2012fa:
Question 875 How does Marx’s concept of competition differ from the neoclassical concept
and from the “better mousetrap” ideology surrounding competition in modern US society?
[1107] Orville: graded A Not-so-friendly Competition. In neo-classical economics, we
are taught that competition is the engine of the economy. That everyone competing against
each other is the best for us because we benefit with lower-priced, more reliable, better
quality, higher technology goods. The idea is that with everyone competing against each
other, people who supply the goods at the low price and better quality will push those who
lag behind. That is what the “better mousetrap” idea is. Using a mousetrap as an example,
if there is a large number of people who want to make the best mousetrap, this leads to the
best mousetrap being made and sold at the cheapest price.
In our term paper [699], my group wrote about chapter 13 which is entitled “Co-Operation.”
Marx, in chapter 13, talks about the “animal spirits”, which is essentially our competitive
nature as humans. He wrote that when people work together, there is a sense of competition
even when they are working towards the same goal.
In chapter 25, however, Marx seems to be highlighting the darker side of competition.
With new advances, capital takes a larger chunk of the work away from the workers and
therefore, fewer workers are needed. He also shows how the smaller capitalists are made to
suffer because there are more to compete against and a higher likelihood that they fail. In
777:2/o Marx remarks, “It always ends in the ruin of many small capitalists, whose capitals
partly pass into the hands of their conquerers, and partly vanish completely.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 469
The above is in sharp contrast to those neo-classists who would say that competition
makes everyone better. Marx and Hans say that is it completely wrong. The small capitalists,
as Hans pg. 692 writes, “are squeezed into murderous competition amongst themselves by
the rising minimum size of capital.”
Next Message by Orville is [1157].
Question 880 is 417 in 1997sp, 646 in 2005fa, 774 in 2007SP, 743 in 2007fa, 778 in
2008fa, 913 in 2011fa, and 943 in 2012fa:
Question 880 Does the surplus-population arise from capital’s inability to keep pace with
the growth of the population?
[1140] Tyler: Surplus-population. Surplus-population does not arise from capital’s inability
to keep pace with the growth of the population. Parmenio references Hans’ four main
reasons for the rise in surplus-population as follows [2005fa:1867]:
1. An increase in centralization leads to an increase in the scale of production and technical
progress. This can occur even if capital does not experience growth.
2. Technical innovation in new capital will force the old capital to introduce the new
technology.
3. Organic composition increases in more industries.
4. Intermediate pauses become shorter.
Essentially, as Parmenio puts it, with increased technology less direct-labor is required to
produce a given product. This is the cause of surplus-population.
First Message by Tyler is [65].
Exam Question 884 is 450 in 1999SP, 576 in 2001fa, 621 in 2002fa, 645 in 2003fa, 704
in 2004fa, 815 in 2009fa, 917 in 2011fa, and 947 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 884 Why is the surplus-population created under capitalism called “relative”?
[1106] School: Army of Workers. The surplus-population created under capitalism
called “relative” because of surplus. As Hans states in [2004fa:629] “Marx does not want
to imply by the word “surplus” that there are too many people in the world. These people
only constitute a surplus relative to the hiring needs of capital – although this Surplus is on
the other hand very useful for the accumulation needs of capital.” The needs for Capitalist
to create surplus is key for their gains. By having large amounts of surplus workers the
capitalist can select and choose from an army of unemployed workers. If they didn’t have
this surplus of workers and the workers had the market power then a strike or death of even
one worker would be detrimental to the capitalist. To avoid that the capitalist take away
that power from the worker. That is what makes it relative, due to the amount of capital
that is transferred and brought back to the means of production. The fluctuation of capital
accumulation is what determines the amount of surplus-population.
Hans: At the very end you had “amount of surplus value in the population.” Even with my correction, your last
sentence is not entirely correct.
First Message by School is [193].
470 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 886 is 623 in 2002fa, 647 in 2003fa, 706 in 2004fa, 652 in 2005fa, 780 in
2007SP, 749 in 2007fa, 779 in 2008SP, 784 in 2008fa, and 949 in 2012fa:
Question 886 Which violent means did capital use in its infancy to sweep away the bounds
imposed on its accumulation by the natural limits of the exploitable working population?
[1143] Ferox: graded A Violent means of capitalist accumulation. As burgeoning capitalists
did not initially have a reserve army of laborers, violent means under the guise of
state policy were used. These mechanisms took the form of forceful resource extraction,
conquest, enslavement, genocide, etc. This is complemented by social violence furthering
capitalist interests in the form of establishing private property, taxation, and the division
of society into stratified classes. Marx says in Chapter 26 that there must be at least two
polarized classes; those with the means of production, money, and means of subsistence
(capitalists); and free laborers — who must be isolated from their own means of production
and will sell the only commodity possessed, labor power. This polarization of the commodity
market gives the primordial conditions for capitalist production. A process that clears
the way for the capitalist system inherently needs to separate the laborer through means of
violence from the possession of their own means of production. Marx termed this initial gain
by coercion or force ‘primitive accumulation’ in Chapter 26. In Chapter 27 Marx examines
the development of England’s primitive accumulation through the expulsion of the populace
from the lands and the rise of the industrial city center - a case study of the violent means by
which capitalists usurp resources and wealth, driving men to sell their labor power.
Message [1143] referenced by [1166]. Next Message by Ferox is [1165].
[1166] Spiral: Violent means of capitalist accumulation. In the proto-capitalist epoch, a
majority of producers controlled access to their means of production. Over time, some saved
and accumulated wealth, while others exchanged and spent their wealth. The inequality may
have been negligible but extrapolated over decades or centuries a marked division begins to
emerge. Eventually society internalized a new “sacred duty” in the form of protecting private
property rights. Continued enforcement of this new social norm began the separation of
people into capitalists and the working class. One explanation for this difference in behavior
is the concept of time preference: how much value an individual places on enjoyment right
now versus delayed enjoyment. Also called delayed gratification in psychology. It’s hard to
operationalize this concept into a measurable variable but behavioral psychology does have
a famous test for time preference.
The marshmallow test involves a young child typically 3-5 years of age left alone in a
room with one marshmallow. If the child is able to wait until the researcher returns a second
marshmallow will be given as their reward, otherwise the child only gets the first marshmallow
they ate too early. Tracking these same children through their secondary education
researchers found that children able to restrain themselves to not eat the first marshmallow
had statistically significant higher grades. There appears to be a connection between time
preference and success in American capitalist society at least in an academic sense. Researchers
have to wait until their subjects age through higher education and eventually join
the national workforce before broader correlations (or causation) can be assessed. A link to
the original study is here:
http://duende.uoregon.edu/hsu/blogfiles/Shoda,Mischel,&Peake(1990).pdf

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 471
More recent data does suggest high salaries and more stable family lives for those children
with greater self-control. Updated article from the New Yorker with recent analysis here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa fact lehrer
Savers vs. spenders i.e. time preference is an historical and logical argument but as a passive
force it fails to explain the vast inequality of industrial society. New violent tools were
necessary to move from primitive accumulation to modern industrial levels. Wren succinctly
states this problem in [2008fa:1273] “Capitalism in its infancy did not have a large industrial
reserve army in which it could use as leverage to maintain accumulation and growth.” Continued
accumulation and movement of capital is necessary to keep a capitalist system stable
so early capitalists were under pressure to expand their pool of available labour. Ferox
[1143] mentions coercive taxation, colonialism, and various deadly forms of conquest to
which I would like to add the creation of a legal system that recognizes the legitimate use
of force by an individual only in situations of self-defense. Governmental jurisdictions have
developed a monopoly on the use of force manifested as the various branches of the military
plus intelligence agencies at the federal level and police departments at the state level. Capitalists
created a multitude of institutions to constrain worker’s opportunities forcing them to
sell their labour-power in order to survive.
Hans: This is a rehash of term paper [1092]. It has little to do with Marx’s theories.
First Message by Spiral is [10].
887 is 887 in 2008fa, 887 in 2009fa, and 887 in 2012fa:
887 Notes about Event outside Class
[637] Hans: Ethics of Climate Change. I, Prof. Hans G. Ehrbar, will facilitate a discussion
about the Ethics of Climate Justice tomorrow evening, Friday Oct 29, 7-9pm in the
First Unitarian Church in SLC. Address:
569 S 1300 E, Salt Lake City, UT
This is very close to the Stadium Trax station. You can get a map by googling “First
Unitarian Church SLC.” The discussion will be in “the Haven”, a meeting room upstairs.
We will use the book The Ethics of Climate Change by James Garvey, see
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Climate-Change-Right-Warming/dp/0826497373/
but the discussion will be more about the topic itself than the book, therefore you should
come even if you haven’t read the book. This discussion is in preparation of the trial of Tim
DeChristopher, see
http://www.climatetrial.com
Tim’s trial is presently scheduled for Dec 13. It will be big; the world will look at Salt
Lake City. If you want to get involved in the preparations for this event, tomorrow would be a
good opportunity to meet the relevant people. If you attend, you will also get 1 participation
point just as for the class attendances. And if you want to send your notes about it to the
class, use question number 997.
Please forward this email to your friends (this is why I put my full name at the top).
472 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans
Next Message by Hans is [640].
888 is 0 in 2005fa, 0 in 2007SP, 888 in 2007fa, 888 in 2008SP, 888 in 2008fa, 888 in
2009fa, 888 in 2011fa, and 888 in 2012fa:
888 Free Discussion
[21] Zarathustra: Since I was super busy with all sort of things this week, I decided to
study the Annotation and Marx’s Capital this weekend to catch up with the class. I took a
look at both, flipped them, read the introductions and conclusions, ... to get a feeling of how
to read them. I mean when I grab a novel to read, I know how the form, genre, plot and style
are. The way I read a novel is different from the way that I read newspapers.
That would be great if someone could tell me how I should study Marx’s Capital (and
Hans’ Annotation)? Marx’s writings are very dissimilar to other econ text-books that I have
read in college. What are the form, style, genre, plot, etc.? Simply, how should I study it?
Next Message by Zarathustra is [46].
[168] Guh: Next Business Cycle. For my free discussion I am going to talk about the
factors that were behind the run up of the housing bubble, both on the demand side as well
as the supply side. When looking at this first we examine the stock market boom of the
1990’s, we had a rise in the information systems and online websites being created, which
in return drew investors to invest in these stocks. As the stocks continued to increase in
value investors became wealthier. With the increase in personal wealth, created by the stock
market boom, individuals started a consumption boom as they started to spend more and
more money. As people continued to spend money, the demand for newer bigger house
became very popular and people started buying up real estate. Given that information above
I find my self wondering if this will repeat its self? It may be in a different industry other than
real estate, but when the time comes in the next few years where we see the next economic
boom, what will be the drivers and cause for an increase in quick rapid wealth, which will
in return cause for the next business cycle?
Message [168] referenced by [176] and [181]. Next Message by Guh is [180].
[176] KA: Response to Next Business Cycle. I think your discussion [168] is interesting,
but would present an alternative outlook. You say that as the stocks continue to increase,
personal wealth of those investors increase as well. This is true, but let’s examine the investors
that were able to purchase these stocks at the IPO. Who are these investors that had
the sufficient resources/capital to invest? Were these investors pension funds, investment
banks, institutions, or individuals? What influenced their decision to invest in this pre-boom
era? I acknowledge the fact that those who got in at the onset took a significant risk that
paid off handsomely, but what opportunity does this present to those with little or no knowledge
of these investment opportunities. I would also present a conflicting argument that as
these investments increased in value, it presents little opportunity for smaller investors with
an entry point. Smaller investors do in some degree have an opportunity to get into these
investments, but only through the means of their pension/401k plan. As the information
technology era enhances, smaller investors are at a disadvantage with the introduction of
high-frequency/program trading or dark pool trading. You position your trade (as an individual
investor using your ETrade account) in a few minutes while these computer based

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 473
platforms trade on the nanosecond. By the time you have considered placing your trade,
your bid has already been displaced several seconds back. This may not answer your immediate
question of what the next boom will be, but may shed some light as to how fast we
must adapt to the ever changing environment that we attempt to compete in.
Next Message by KA is [301].
[181] Fisher: Adding to Guh. For free discussion i would like to add to GUH’s free
discussion [168] on the real estate market boom in the United States. Many people were
experiencing success either in real estate or other fields of business and became unhappy
with the “average house”. They began buying bigger homes which left many homes for
sale available to lower income families. The banks wanted to lend money to a more diverse
crowd and began lowering their underwriting standards to bridge the gap between the lower
income homes and “normal borrowers” to keep the market moving. In time many banks
followed suit, in a herd like way, and began to lend to below average credit borrowers land
essened their own due diligence into who they were lending money to. After a while the
wave of new buyers, wealthy and middle to lower class, began to drive up prices and give
balloon values to real estate throughout the country. In my opinion it might have go on for
a longer period if it had not been for gas prices going through the roof. The combination of
over priced houses and extremely high gas prices was too much for the economy to sustain
and small crash inevitably followed. Having worked in real estate for the last ten years it
was easy to see this coming. The banks were giving large loans to just about anyone who
wanted one. If i were lending my own money out, i would have to assume that eventually
some is going to stiff me. Why didn’t that occur to the banks? Did they care?
Message [181] referenced by [190]. Next Message by Fisher is [183].
[190] Orville: Oversimplification. In response to Fish [181], I think he/she brings up a
good point about the housing bubble. Having said that I also think we tend to oversimplify
the problem. Yes, the housing bubble caused a large decline in the stock market but that is
not the only factor that lead to our current recession. Our economy is far too complicated
for one market failure to bring on a full on recession by itself. There are many other factors
that caused it which include: the rapid increase in food and oil prices among others. I think
that it is important to step back and realize that every recession and/or panic that we have
had or will have before markets are overcome is not due to a single market or commodity
bubble. We are already taking a non-mainstream look at economics in this class, we need to
open our eyes and stop following pundits who simply blame one scapegoat like big banks or
the sub-prime mortgage market.
Message [190] referenced by [208] and [222]. Next Message by Orville is [312].
[208] Long: Oversimplification. Adding to Orville [190]: not to mention that at the
time people were trying to do more than they could. People got caught up in a quick money
making scheme of buying homes with low rates and thinking to quickly selling with the
intention of profits. As we find out that people buying homes not being able to pay because
they don’t make enough. At the same time the lenders are doing the same thing as consumers
trying to profit. So eventually it only takes one person to cause the chain reaction that we
see today. Borrowers can’t pay causing a domino effect of all the lenders in the process and
causing credit so crunch up so that essentially everything crashed. I think that we need to go
back to basics and live within our means.
Message [208] referenced by [222]. Next Message by Long is [382].
474 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[222] Cmellen: Long [208] said, speaking in regards to the mortgage issue that caused
the current economic state of our Union, “Borrowers can’t pay causing a dominoes effect
of all the lenders in the process and causing credit so crunch up that essentially everything
crashed. I think that we need to go back to basics and live within our means.” Long’s remark
was an addition to Orville [190] who said that our market is far too complex for one market
failure to bring forth recession crisis by itself.
Periodic economic crises has been said to be an expected pattern or economic cycle,
as Charles Sismondi pointed out in 1819. Sismondi’s theory of periodic crises developed
thru economists and eventually was addressed by Karl Marx in Das Kapital (at great length
discussed crises). “Periodic crises in capitalism formed the basis of the theory of Karl Marx”.
He (Marx) believed an economy centered upon production of commodities to be sold in the
market is essentially inclined to crisis. So why does the general public point their fingers at
this market failure or that market failure, when if we follow what Marx tried to point out, it is
essential to the economic pattern if your economy is based upon production of commodities
to be sold in the market.
Hans: If you quote Wikipedia, it is not enough to put the quoted sentence into quotation marks. Please be upfront
about your sources even in the free discussion.
Cmellen: thank you for clarifying; I will be better at quoting my sources next time.
Next Message by Cmellen is [317].
[246] Husani: After reading what Fisher posted [241] I realized that many people do need
these new technologies to function. I do have an ipod and a facebook account but I don’t
need these to function on a day to day basis. What I have realized is that the younger people
of my generation do need these technologies to function. The current upcoming generation is
in constant need of what is going on in the world whether or not it is absolutley necessary to
know them. I don’t consider myself old but I have realized that the people that are a few years
younger than me are in constant need of knowing what is going on with their friends through
facebook and other media outlets. My girlfriend and brother are constantly searching the
internet for updates on meaningless things. I believe that as technology inproves we will
become more and more obcessed with these aspects of our lives than we ever have before.
Message [246] referenced by [247] and [263]. Next Message by Husani is [261].
[247] Hans: You are in need of information? I agree. Responding to Husani [246]:
if the younger generation is using computers because they are in such constant need to
know what is going on in the world—why are so many utterly uniformed about the greatest
challenge of our time or possibly of all times, the climate crisis? Excellent info about this
is available on the internet. And this is pretty much the only source of information about it,
since newspapers and TV are systematically downplaying or denying it.
Message [247] referenced by [263]. Next Message by Hans is [257].
[261] Husani: Technology. What I meant when I said that many people in the new
generation use vast amounts of technology on a daily basis, wasn’t that they use this in a
way in which they will become more knowledgeable about history or current events but
to see what their friends and celebrities are doing. Facebook can be used to learn about
what political groups are proposing the government needs to do and how they will make our
country a better place but this is a very small portion of what its users look at when they
logon.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 475
Although we have these technologies at our fingertips we do not use them to their full
potential.
Next Message by Husani is [444].
[263] LuBr: Fetish-like character of technology. Responding to Fisher [241], Husani
[246], and Hans [247], regarding the advancement of technologies, more specifically the
fetish-like properties of the internet. I would agree that the internet holds vast amounts of
information regarding climate change, however, given the social relations of the younger
generation, this information is not sourced nearly as much as trivial “goings-on” among
friends on facebook.
It is an interesting discussion. When a lot of people think about the looming climate crisis
and the inconceivable economic and social effects of peak oil, people act as if technology
will save the day. Technology will get us out of this mess that we’ve so blindly gotten
ourselves into. It is proclaimed as if technology has a life of its own and has assumed
‘altruistic’ life-like characteristics.
When we say technology will triumph, we forget that we all have technology as a tool
at our finger tips for expanding and enlightening social relations. We all are part and parcel
of social relationships that extend throughout communities and throughout the world. We
forget that every one of us, as individuals, are simply reinforcing a society that elects big
oil apologists into our public offices. We fail to admit that our “small” carbon footprints
aggregate to one that threatens to push Earth past unknown ecological thresholds.
We forget how interconnected we are, and by connected I don’t mean to the internet. I
mean to say we forget how to relate and unite as humans around morally and socially optimal
causes.
I think it is because we lose touch of human relationships on the community level, we forget
what it means to be engaged socially. Instead of getting out in our communities, realizing
what climate change means for Salt Lake, challenging local politicians for green reform, and
communicating with other communities/countries about successful zero-emissions models,
we turn instead to our technological commodities to reinforce digital relationships and social
patterns. But in the end, technology will save us, right?
Message [263] referenced by [520]. Next Message by LuBr is [299].
[484] IrvingHowe: Hans and class-Marx on profit. A friend and I got into a discussion
the other day on Marx’s views on profit and socially acceptable labor times. The exchange
was fairly lengthy but the discussion could be broken down simply as follows:
Does not a compensation system based on socially acceptable labor times provide an
incentive for faster production?
Doesn’t it also necessarily provide profit to those who can produce a commodity in less
time than is socially necessary?
It would seem that the next logical place to take this if indeed the above can be answered
in the affirmative, is to ask: Doesn’t profit encourage overproduction?
I feel as if I understood Marx as essentially equating profit with theft of the laborer’s
leisure time.
476 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
“The first mode of expressing the rate of profit is the only one which shows you the real
ratio between paid and unpaid labour, the real degree of the exploitation (you must allow
me this French word) of labour. The other mode of expression is that in common use, and
is, indeed, appropriate for certain purposes. At all events, it is very useful for concealing
the degree in which the capitalist extracts gratuitous labour from the workman.” Karl Marx-
Value, Price and Profit
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [579].
[520] Orville: Action-less Altruism. To add to LuBr [263], there seems to be a common
theme that real change can come from a click of a button or by simply becoming a fan on
facebook. The groups on facebook are a good indication of our generation’s lack of real
action. When people add to their friends groups like ‘We support our troops’ or groups like
that. While spreading the word about causes like that and showing your support for those
causes may seem like a way to inspire real change, it rarely does. How many friends have
you heard of who were inspired by a facebook page to take action or actually give money?
During the Super Bowl XLII in 2010, the Red Cross raised funds by asking viewers to
contribute to the cause of helping of victims of the recent devastation of the earthquake
that rocked the island. By texting a certain number from their cell phones, viewers would
automatically have a $10 donation added to their next months bill. This might be a good
example of how technology grants people the ability to make a difference they might not
otherwise make. On the other hand, there is a big difference between donating money and
volunteering. By texting their contributions to the cause and not doing much else, the viewer
gets the feeling of having made a difference but the Red Cross gets $10 out of that.
Another factor that may have contributed to the large amount of money raised through
these series of commercials and announcements is the social factors. The vast majority
of fans and non-fans who watch the Super Bowl don’t watch it by themselves. Parties are
usually thrown and people tend to gather together to watch the big game. When commercials
like those of the Red Cross are shown people talk about them. This leads to a perception
that one person is better than others or that they are wealthier or simliar thoughts. This leads
us back to the philosophical discussion of whether it is better to do what is perceived as the
right thing for the wrong reasons or better to do nothing at all.
This is one of the big challenges for our generations faces and part of the reason that
support for causes and organizations are struggling to find volunteers but many times have
so little problem finding funding. By never seeing the problem and showing up for real
support, our generation has made the decision that the cause is not as important as the time
it takes to volunteer. We’d rather take a few seconds and text our money away. This can be
called generosity but it is a far from altruism.
Next Message by Orville is [689].
[552] Goldtone: Profit in Marxian Economics. For my free discussion I wanted to ask
a few fundamental questions about a hypothetical Marxian driven economic system. The
answers my be obvious to some, but I need help with them to better understand Marx’s
position.
1. Would there be any form of profit, or would the money simply be distributed to the
workers involved in creating the commodity? For this question I know that the socially

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 477
necessary labor time is the basis for how workers get paid, which would essentially increase
blue collar income and decrease white collar income. Is this trade off enough to take away
profit, or would the trade off between blue / white collar income still leave room for excess
money after costs are taken into account?
2. Without a means to profit (or only a means to have greatly reduced profits), how would
there be investments in new and improved technology? How I understand Marx is that those
that work harder, have more training, and are more efficient will yield more money for their
commodity than the average socially necessary labor time, and this drives them to innovate.
This “better than the average” work is what creates “profit” and innovation in an Marxian
economic system.
Am I thinking about this in a warped way, or is there some validity to my thoughts?
Message [552] referenced by [558] and [566]. Next Message by Goldtone is [594].
[558] AlexDaily: The worker is worth his labor. In response to [552], it’s not about
taking money away from white-collar workers and giving it to blue-collar workers. It is
about giving more money to all workers and making their wages correct for their labor. It
doesn’t matter if you are a factory worker or a doctor, you get paid less then your worth
because the owner or the investor wants to profit from your labor without adding any labor
of his own. Marx is talking about replacing those investors with money pooled from the
people (government). For example, in a factory there would be no investors or owners and
the profits would go to the workers. The incentive to be innovated would still come from the
same place it does today. The difference would be that the capital, instead of coming from
the private sector, would come from the government. But people with more responsibility
would make more then the simple worker because his labor is worth more than the worker.
However, the amount of both of their wages would go up because you are getting rid of the
investor.
Message [558] referenced by [566] and [567]. Next Message by AlexDaily is [570].
[566] Kraken: More money for all? In AlexDaily [558] response to questions posed
by Goldtone [552] he says: “it’s not about taking money away from white-collar workers
and giving it to blue-collar workers. It is about giving more money to all workers and
making their wages correct for their labor”. That sounds like a beautiful thing, but how do
you give MORE money to ALL workers? As with all things which have a finite supply, it is
impossible to give MORE money to ALL workers, unless you reduce the number of workers.
As a side note, one of the reasons we’re faced with our current financial and environmental
problems is that we behave as if there’s an infinite supply everything and we fail to manage
our finite resources responsibly.
Marx did not espouse the idea of giving more money to all workers. He advocated revolution.
He taught that the proletariat should rise up and seize control of the means of
production. In other words; blue-collar workers should rise up and take what is owned by
white-collar workers. That is a redistribution of wealth. So yes, in a Marxian driven economic
system, Marx IS talking about taking money away from white-collar workers and
giving it to blue-collar workers.
Message [566] referenced by [570]. Next Message by Kraken is [578].
478 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[567] Kat: Blue collar, white collar, and the concept of innovation. This is in response
to several questions and ideas posed by my peers. Goldtone [525] initially posed the question
concerning profit and the redistribution of wealth between blue and white collar workers.
AlexDaily [558] answers that it is about giving more money to ALL workers, about which I
would agree with Kraken [556] is not exactly the point. It is important to consider the two
classes of ‘workers’ to understand the restructuring that Marx suggested. As Kraken [556]
said, Marx advocated for revolution, a complete takeover of the means of production. If the
proletariat should succeed in doing this, the so called ‘white collar workers’ would cease to
exist. Taking their place would be the government to take control of production. I would
argue, then, it is less a redistribution of wealth than it is a complete restructuring.
AlexDaily [558] also briefly mentioned innovation in his/her answer, “.....the incentive to
be innovated would still come from the same place it does today.” I wonder, though, if this is
the case. Innovation comes in many forms, but if one’s innovation could potentially become
property of the government (in a Marxian economy), is there incentive? If innovation comes
in the form of faster or more efficient production, it can be argued costs will go down and
wages will be effected. In this way, there may be some incentive, but a Marxian economy
does not seem to support innovative behavior in the same way a Capitalistic economy does.
I wonder if anyone has any insight on this? As far as I see it, innovation is certainly not the
cornerstone of Marxian economics.
Message [567] referenced by [570] and [576]. Next Message by Kat is [632].
[570] AlexDaily: In continuation of the collar discussion. A white collar worker is an
educated professional who does no manual labor, such as a doctor, architect or engineer. In
[567] Kat says “the so called ‘white collar workers’ would cease to exist. Taking their place
would be the government to take control of production.” Kat seems to be suggesting that the
whole population would work in some kind of manual labor position and everything else
would be done by the “government.” However, I don’t see how anything would get done
without white collar workers. You can’t build a bridge on manual labor alone, you need
engineers to do the math and the design for the plans. You need foreman to manage and do
the job in an orderly way. In the production process there is need for both white collar and
blue collar workers. In [566] Kraken says this in response to my comment that all workers
would gain an increase in wage “but how do you give MORE money to ALL workers? As
with all things which have a finite supply.” If Kraken would have read on, he/she would have
received the answer. All workers gain an increase because the investor is gone and the profits
go back to the workers. For example, let’s look at the building of a house. A company has an
investor giving the company money and allowing it to buy capital such as building supplies,
work equipment and so forth. In return for the money given by the investor, the investor
wants to receive a profit. Or in other words, they want their money to grow without doing
any labor or adding to the building of the house in anyway. This company has architects
(white collar) and manual labor ( blue collar) workers. Both of their wages are lessened
because some of the money they have earned goes to the investor. Therefore, if you get rid
of the investor both white collar and blue collar workers gain an increase. And where that
money comes from is the money that would have gone to the investors.
Message [570] referenced by [576]. Next Message by AlexDaily is [586].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 479
[576] Husani: Innovation. I agree with Alexdaily [570] in the sense that there will still
be a need for “white collar” workers in any society. But I think that what Kat was talking
about in [567] was that in a society in which the government takes control and everyone
receives the profits instead of a ruling minority, everyone would reveive the same pay. There
wouldn’t be a difference between the white and blue collar workers execpt their occupation.
This also brings up questions in where innovation will come from. If everyone is receiving
the same pay there is little incentive to innovate and stagnation will happen.
There is one question I would like to ask. Alexdaily said “If Kraken would have read on,
he/she would have received the answer. All workers gain an increase because the investor is
gone and the profits go back to the workers.” If this is true then where does the money come
from to build the house? If there is no investor present to provide the company with capital
to build the house and the profits from building the house are returned to the workers, then
do these same workers forgo a portion or all of the profits to help the company build houses
in the future?
Next Message by Husani is [658].
[577] Utefan: How Exploitation Works. I had some thoughts of exploitation that I
thought I would ask the class and Hans so that I could get a better feel for how it works. I
argue that our lack of knowledge leads to an accidental exploitation of workers. For example
I had no idea before entering this class that what capitalism was and how it functioned. I
even less understood the meaning behind my own experiences and how, as I now see them,
I my self am exposed to it as well.
Now the accidental nature I am referring to has to do with the inability for workers to
recognize their own exploitation, like myself, and understand why or how it is happening. In
later chapters one comes to learn that capitalism thrives on almost a circular reshuffling if you
will of employees, the next generation comes in and allows by lack of previous knowledge
to be exploited and the cycle happens all over again. Unions are made and forced out, new
workers come in and fill jobs that are needed and reshuffle to prior experienced workers
to the unemployment line. Strength can be found in numbers for workers but they find
themselves out of a job when someone else will accept being exploited just for the sake of
work.
The accident comes from a new generation of workers who have don’t understand the
implications of their employment, and are more excited about landing some means of wage
then to be concerned with whether they are treated fairly or rather just furthering capitalist
accumulation.
Next Message by Utefan is [593].
[579] IrvingHowe: Marx and free floating currency. Upon reflecting on Tuesday’s
class, I began to wonder how Marx would view the free floating currencies that dominate
modern economies.
In Marx’s day, all currencies had the backing of some sort of commodity. Today, they can
purchase a commodity but are never actually backed by any real value (coins excepted.)
Certainly Marx would think this to be the most mysterious of commodities. After all, in
theory, all the holders of dollars in the world could literally remove the dollar of all of it’s
480 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
value (they haven’t much in the way of use-value to begin with) simply by refusing to accept
them any longer.
It would seem that modern currency is a contradiction of Marx’s Theory of Use Value
since they do not first have any use-value to speak of but may have very high exchange
values.
Is this thought misguided?
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [607].
[603] Long: Free discussion. In response to Alex [600]: I don’t think that time have
anything to do with value of a product lose. I experience similar situation in my home
country. Travelers would come to U.S. and buys the cheapest of product here (toothpatse,
toothbrush, soap, shampoo ect..) and only to return home and sell them for, like you said,
two or three times of their value. I also did this myself. I would travel home to visit my
family in Vietnam and bring all different kind of goods and items that are popular. I would
pay $1 for a tube of toothpaste and in return, I can get $4 out of it in Vietnam which is four
times more than what I paid for. People in my home country value products which are made
in the U.S that they would pay for such price of that product even though it is the cheapest
of product here in the U.S. The value of M-C-M is not being lost cause I know I can hold on
it this product for along period of time because the people demand and are willing to pay for
such price of that product. This is speaking from my past experience.
Next Message by Long is [686].
[604] LuBr: Buying perfume for money advancing purposes. On Alex’s question [600]
regarding time-lags and ones ability to advance money, first I dont think you can say that the
value of a commodity goes down when it remains in the hands of a seller for too long. As
we have learned, value is something intrinsic within the commodity, that being congealed
abstract labor. However, it does seem that the exchange value of the commodity is effected
by peoples’ perceptions of the perfume not being hot off the market from America. If this
is the case, and the price people are willing to pay for the perfume after a certain amount of
time is at parity or even below the amount the seller paid, then he would not be successfully
advancing money, and it may seem that the money would be “irreversibly spent,” as Marx
says, and the person is stuck to enjoy the perfume himself. Or it could be that instead of the
advancement of money one gets M-C-M instead of M-C-M’. In this case, the quantitative
difference of money from beginning to end would not be large enough to incentivize people
to engage in these money advancing activities using foreign perfume in the first place.
So, you could say that time in the perfume example does have a social impact on the
exchange-value of the commodity such that it reduces the quantitative amount of money in
circulation from the beginning to the end of M-C-M that would cause people to disengage
from the act of Money-Perfume-Money. The result would be either not to buy the perfume
in the first place, enjoy the perfume himself, or give them away as gifts.
Next Message by LuBr is [750].
[615] She: New Capital is all money...that has to converted into capital? Since this
concept seems either too basic to be discussed or too confusing for me to understand I though
I would try it as a free discussion.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 481
Marx says that “all new capital, in the first instance, steps onto the stage in the shape of
money, money which has to be transformed into capital by definite process,” [247:3]. This
whole sentence seems a contradiction.
Is Marx saying that new capital is in the form of money at all times, even though it actually
is capital, because it must go through some exchange to be converted into the specific usevalue
capital an investor is seeking? If money buys capital inputs, such as machinery and
technology, it has to come to the market, make a purchase of the specific capital, and then
through the M-C-M exchange, become money again?
Message [615] referenced by [616]. Next Message by She is [686].
[616] Cosmopolita: Re: New Capital is all money...that has to converted into capital?
In response to She [615]: According to Marx, money is the first form of capital. M-C-M is
one form of circulation of capital. This could be seen in real life with tools or machinery for
an industry to convert capital in money, or on finished products with an investor buying a
product(commodity) to convert it in capital. With the finished products there is many interesting
variables that can made capital multiply since many value commodities in a different
way. i.e an investor buys a house in a short sale, so invests money (capital) and sells this
commodity fixed up at a higher price than bought converting the commodity again in Money
M (capital) for a happy customer that values finished products, as in this case a fixed up
house. There’s many examples of this form circulation of capital. with so many different
commodities to enjoy in this world of consumers, the M - C first phase multiple options
could be found depending on the activities and motivations of the persons performing these
circulations acts and the social relatiosn which make these individual activities possible.
Next Message by Cosmopolita is [617].
[626] Guh: Competitive Advantage. I am taking a class called Current Economic Problems,
and in class we were discussing, what the benefits are from free trade, as suggested by
mainstream economist and using the notion of comparative advantages. As we got into our
groups it was very interesting to see other peoples opinions and viewpoints on the matter.
In my opinion, one of the main advantages of free trade that I read about in class, was the
advantage that countries have over other courtliness. For example when I say this, I mean
this in the extent that some countries have a competitive adantage in some sort of products,
which allows certain counties to produce these products at faster rates or even allows them
to produce a product that another country cannot produce. Take for instance coffee. In
South America coffee is grown and sold to other countries, which gives them a competitive
advantage vs Alaska, where they cannot grow coffee. Therefore the more closely a country
conforms to its underlying pattern of competitive advantage, the more it can consume and
this done by focusing and increasing its own product.
Next Message by Guh is [692].
[646] Ferox: Information and Open Source in a Marxist Framework. In the Friday
the 29th of October class discussion Marx’s core theory of profit was discussed. A topic that
was touched on several times during the class was a Marxist understanding towards digital
commodities. My logic so far has yielded:
M-C-M’ (the genesis of capital) exists “if there is a commodity on the market whose consumption
creates more value than the commodity itself costs” [10-29-2010 Class Discussion
(10:30)] and this commodity is labour power. The expenditure of labour power creates the
482 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
value of commodities — as the labour theory of value states. Digital commodities, say a
.mp3 file of a song or Photoshop program, have value initially because of the work that went
into them whether by recording the song or coding the program. In a digital environment,
information can be duplicated indefinitely and transferred between consumers quickly and
cheaply (if not free) by the click of a mouse button. By these acts a single digital commodity
can multiply with minimal labour input. Do all these duplicates have the same value as
the initial commodities? According to my understanding of Marx the answer would be no
— since the labour power involved in the duplicate commodity’s creation is very little (hitting
Ctrl+C). However, the duplicate commodity is effectively identical, and has the same
use-value.
So how have capitalists tried to enforce on a commodity that eludes the typical M-C-
M’ model of profit? One method is digital copyrighting, effectively a commodity as it is
a property right allowing the consumer to be the sole recipient of the intended use-value.
As Hans touched on in the Friday discussion, ‘information wants to be free’ and clever
people have been able to ‘crack’ the copyright protections on digital media and programs. A
successful example of these attempts at undermining the digital capitalist empire can be seen
with thepiratebay.com — a community of people uploading free music, movies, programs,
etc. for anyone with a torrent client to download.
Additionally, the emergence of open source software is digital community solution to traditional
profit based software and operating systems. Looking at the variety of Linux builds,
the forums devoted to improving software and sharing knowledge, and released media using
the several open source licensing agreements — all of which produce commodities outside
of profit.
Labour power is a commodity every human being can exchange on the material market.
It is something that every capitalist wants because of the M-C-M’ model, where value of
labour can be profited upon. In a digital market, an equivalent commodity to labour power is
personal information. It is something that every company wants - from Google to Facebook
to Paypal. On one hand it provides a way of organizing humans into data and can be used to
protect users from fraud or misuse. However, it makes the individual vulnerable, as that data
can be exploited for profit (Facebook selling user data, Google targeted advertising, etc.)
Just as labour power is exploited in a capitalist system, personal information is exploited in
a digital system.
Just some ideas I was throwing around this weekend. Comments or corrections are greatly
appreciated!
Message [646] referenced by [647]. Next Message by Ferox is [706].
[647] IrvingHowe: Re: Information and Open Source in a Marxist Framework. Just
a thought on the ‘sharing’ of commodities digitally as discussed in [646].
I personally believe it to be wrong and I think Marx would also because of the creator
of the commodity being denied control and compensation with regard to their own work.
To clarify, I could care less about the companies that legally own the commodity (Adobe,
Microsoft, AMC Records etc). To me, it is a sort of sweet revenge that these companies

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 483
get shorted out of their money as they shorted (nearly without exception) the actual people
behind the creation of the commodity being ‘shared.’
However, there are a lot of hardworking (mostly underpaid) people that do deserve the
fruits of their labor but are denied as much when someone downloads it for free. I think this
is a large philosophical break for me from various anarcho/syndicalist inspired movements.
Even for the most of pop-stars, it is wrong to take in their work without even minimal reward.
Now, with that I must note that some artists have given their blessing to fans wanting to
download the fruits of their labor. This is often a response to the lousy conditions most
artists get in their recording contracts and I have absolutely no qualms with downloading it
in this case– even if the artists don’t actually have the legal authority to give such permission.
Although it’s hard to equate these acts with the tangible examples of theft that we think
of, it is no different. The difficulty in making this distinction comes as a result of the market
conditions under which these particular laborers (music artists, software engineers) work.
You wouldn’t try to minimize or not pay for the work of a carpenter who comes to install
cabinets in your house and yet most people have no problem with downloading a song.
The cabinets and the songs both represent the effort, time and skill spent on a commodity.
However, since the delivery methods for the commodity are very different, it is all too easy
to draw an artificial moral distinction between not paying the carpenter his wages when they
are due and not paying for a song.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [657].
[662] Hans: Interview with Dr Michael Hudson. Michael Hudson has interesting theses
about the international monetary system and gold. H.E.
http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2010/10/interview-with-dr-michael-hudson.html
by Eric Janszen
Personal correspondence (October 25 2010)
Eric (E): Welcome Michael Hudson to iTulip again. Thanks for joining us.
Hudson (H): Thank you, Eric.
E: So we’ve had discussions in the past about China’s response to America’s escalation
of the currency wars. Yesterday they made a bold move, raising their interest rates and also
imposing an export embargo on an important industrial commodity, rare earth metals.
H: Let’s talk about the latter first. I think China finally caught on to the fact that it was
pricing its rare earth minerals at the uneconomic low-cost margin of extraction, not taking
into account the environmental clean up costs or the replacement costs for these basically
irreplaceable rare metals. They pointed out that these exports rightly should be priced at
the high-cost margin, which of course is the basis of Ricardian rent theory. So they’re conforming
to basic Western price theory and practice. America sells its military technology for
what the market will bear. If the Pentagon would sell its new missile and bomb technology
at the physical cost of production - CDs with the blueprints - then China would not have to
pay the high price of buying this information from Israeli espionage agencies.
484 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
E: That’s not likely to happen, because last time I checked, the Pentagon has China on
top of their list of places to worry about.
H: The thought that China would wage a war or pose any military threat to the United
States is crazy. The national security approach holds that any industrial capability is potentially
military, and hence is a threat. What China has reason to worry about is that there
are crazy people in the Pentagon and Congress who get ill-tempered at America’s loss of
industrial power and “blame the foreigner”.
China-bashers are encouraging the Pentagon to create problems in the China Sea. And
China has every reason to fear that US military adventurism may take a violent turn or be
accident-prone. That is what countries do when they blame foreigners for problems that
they themselves caused. The Obama administration is mishandling the economy as badly as
the Bush administration did, so you can expect the “blame the foreigner” reaction to take a
military dimension. The xenophobic idea is that China is taking away American jobs, not
that America’s pro-financial policies are responsible for de-industrializing the economy and
shrinking domestic markets and employment here.
E: Isn’t there another possible explanation more consistent with the past US policy of
raising the spectre of the fearsome Soviet Union’s military capacity, which really was just a
way to ensure that one of our greatest exports, weapons, would continue to flow?
H: That’s true. I think that just yesterday India promised a huge new fighter aircraft
purchase. America has been pressuring India, saying “Look, we’re running a big trade
deficit with you, so you have to balance it by buying what we can export”. Prime Minister
Singh is yielding, agreeing to buy 125 fighter jets. What does India need these for?
E: We just had some pretty juicy deals with the Saudis, too. I think these deals are bigger
than the entire stimulus program that Obama recently discussed.
H: Yes, this is bizarre, but what else can America export these days? Prices for these
exports are so high that other countries are beginning to compete. Unfortunately, it’s an
economically useless competition - overhead, not capital formation.
E: We could speculate that one of the motivations for cutting off rare earth metals is
there’s a lot of difficulty in making a lot of these weapons without that stuff. So maybe
China doesn’t want to participate.
H: I was in Beijing last year and they pointed out that the United States has numerous rare
earth deposits. One of the biggest is owned by Molycorp - the old Molybdenum Corporation.
Another mining company sold all its equipment, lock, stock and barrel to the Chinese.
So the United States is not mining many rare earth metals now, because China has undersold
the market so drastically - and so uneconomically. In any case, these rare earths are available
in many places, only at a higher price. The military simply will bid up prices to their
replacement cost, which is what Japan is paying to buy old computers, telephones and other
used equipment to refine the rare earth content from them.
Suppose China charges a few thousand dollars a pound for its rare earths, instead of six
or seven dollars a pound. At this price I think that the Pentagon can [be] able to get all it
needs, so higher prices are not going to stop the US military threat.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 485
E: That’s a good point. The price rise probably is going to spur a fair amount of speculation
in US production of rare earth metals.
H: It’s hard to speculate. I think the main company that was mining China’s rare earth
deposits was a Hong Kong or Taiwanese company. The government should take control of
most such monopolies and price their output at the marginal replacement cost, as textbooks
describe. China was nearly giving away these metals without taking into account either their
replacement costs or environmental clean-up costs. It pointed out that these were among the
dirtiest metals to mine, and local opposition has arisen to protest the environmental problems
they caused.
E: The second move by the Chinese was their quarter-point rate hike. This seems to be
a paradoxical response to the accusation that they’re overvaluing their currency. Certainly
you’d expect such a move to increase the yuan’s exchange rate.
H: That’s right. I can understand why they would raise the rate in order to slow the rise in
bank credit and housing prices. I would rather use a tax approach to this. Bob Stiglitz had a
good report today [October 19 2010] in The Guardian on why tax policy rather than financial
policy should be used. China will have to impose capital controls to prevent interest-rate
arbitrage from flowing into its currency out of the dollar.
E: Exactly.
H: And what Professor Stiglitz said on Democracy Now is even sharper:
[Federal Reserve] lending is actually below what it was in 2007. In a globalized economy,
the money is looking for the best place to go. And where is it finding it? In the emerging
markets.
So, the irony is that money that was intended to rekindle the American economy is causing
havoc all over the world. Those elsewhere in the world say, what the United States is
trying to do is the twenty-first century version of “beggar thy neighbor” policies that were
part of the Great Depression: you strengthen yourself by hurting the others. You can’t do
protectionism in the old version of raising tariffs, but what you can do is lower your exchange
rate, and that’s what low interest rates are trying to do, weaken the dollar. The flood
of liquidity abroad is trying to push the exchange rates abroad. And they say - they’re saying,
’We can’t allow that’. 1
So the important question is how China can respond except by imposing capital controls?
And how can Brazil or other countries avoid such controls in the face of the Federal
Reserve’s “quantitative easing” that actually is financial aggression?
E: The interest-rate rise appears to be a doubling down on China’s assertion that they’re
not underpricing their currency.
H: What is pushing up the renminbi’s exchange rate is largely capital flight out of the
dollar, not trade. I don’t think they’d raise their interest rate just for public relations or
psychological purposes. I think their main concern is to hold down price rises for real estate
and slow the stock market. Any economy in this position would probably raise its interest
rate. But given the international effects, I don’t see how China is going to withstand yet more
486 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
demand for its currency as speculators and other foreigners try to buy yuan-denominated
assets. There’s going to be a lot more renminbi flowing into the Central Bank - which already
got $2.6 trillion in reserves. What can China do with these reserves, when the United States
is taking a nationalistic position by saying, “We’re not going to let you buy US companies.
You have to let us buy your companies but we’re not going to let you buy Unocal or refineries
or anything that we consider important.” Canada now is under nationalist and even overtly
racist pressure not to let the Chinese buy their Potash mining company in Saskatchewan.
E: Almost every government that has allowed property prices to rise so steadily (Japan in
the 1980s, the US in the early 2000s) seems to think that they can end these distortions with
merely marginal measures such as rate hikes. Alan Greenspan said throughout the dotcom
bubble, “Raise the rates, raise the rates”. But it takes quite a bit to finally drive speculators
out of the market. This usually happens quite suddenly. That’s the lesson that was learned in
1999 and 2000, and again in 2006. Do you think that the Chinese will experience a similar
kind of effect?
H: I think everything happens by a phase change, not in smooth marginal movements.
You go from one phase to another. Things may be marginal within each phase, but there is
something like turning an on/off switch from one phase to the next. That’s as true for China
as it has been for any other economy. I’m sure they must realize this, but I’m not sure just
what they have in mind, except maybe an attempt to show up the US in preparation for the
G20 meeting in Seoul next month.
E: I think that’s right. There’s obviously a lot of pushing and shoving verbally before the
IMF meeting two weekends ago, and then we’ve got the G20 coming up in November. A lot
of this is probably a combination of posturing and sending messages to bolster the positions
of the various players.
H: My experience is that China’s position in the current situation is defensive, not offensive.
It’s trying to figure out a way to defend its stability. It’s saying: “We’re not going to
destabilize our economy in order for you (Europe and the US) to take measures that you
claim will stabilize your economy, but actually is making your economy worse and worse”.
In other words, “we’re not going to give in to your fantasies, we’re going to live in the real
world”.
E: So in a way, what Chinese policy makers are doing is explaining back to the Bernanke
set, “You don’t really have an inflation problem. It doesn’t make any sense with $25 silver
and $1300 gold. What the United States really has is a debt-deflation problem. That’s
a political problem, and you guys have got to deal with it without flooding us with your
money.”
H: That’s exactly correct. The US economy is all loaned up. So when the Federal Reserve
provides more liquidity to the banks, they are not going to lend to real estate that already has
one-third of homes in negative equity. Obviously, the only thing banks are going to do is to
try to work their way out of debt is by lending abroad - by speculating in the carry trade, just
as Japan’s banks did.
E: Sure. And countries from Brazil to China - any economy on the receiving end of all
this liquidity - will have to defend themselves against this “quantitative easing”.

H: That’s right.
U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 487
E: What is the end game here? On one side of the equation we have rising commodity
prices, and on the other side we have falling bond yields. I think if you went to the average
portfolio manager five years ago and told him, “Five years from now silver will be five times
the price it is today and the yield on ten-year Treasury bonds will be around 4.5%”, they’d
probably have thought you were crazy.
H: There’s no way that you can project past trends to see where the intersection point is
today, because we’re in a quandary. The US economy has reached a wall of indebtedness. It
can’t take on more debt. A choice has to be made: Either write down the debts to the ability
to pay, or flood the market with enough credit to keep the debt bubble growing. That’s
ultimately going to make it even harder for the economy as a whole to work its way out of
debt. So I don’t see what can happen, except more breaks in the chain of payments. We’re
now living under what James Galbraith calls the “Predatory State”, a government taken over
by the financial interests. They say, “We want all the debt to be paid, regardless of the effect
on the economy as a whole. And we also want all of our financial gambles and CDOs to
be made whole, even if it shrinks the economy. We don’t care if you have to scale back
pensions and Social Security, or reduce wages by twenty percent and lower living standards.
We want to get paid.” And they’re telling politicians, “Don’t forget that we’re the guys who
are paying for your Congressional and Senate campaigns. We expect you to do what we tell
you to do, or else we’ll back someone else.”
So basically, the financial sector is saying to the economy, “Drop dead!”
E: Isn’t it even worse? Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times op-ed yesterday
[October 18 2010] comparing US deflation to that of Japan. This is one of the favorite
arguments for advocates of printing more money and increasing federal deficits further. They
claim that we’re making the same mistake that Japan did, by not being “aggressive enough”
with fiscal stimulus.
H: On another plane we’re doing the opposite of what brought on Japan’s bubble crisis.
The Basel II agreement in 1988 ruled that banks needed much higher capital reserves to
bring them up to the new European standard. As a result of their weak position after World
War Two, Japanese banks had been operating for half a century on much lower capital. All
of the sudden, the Basel Agreement forced these banks to stop lending and rebuild their
capital base. In conjunction with high interest rates (which the Americans insisted upon)
and upward revaluation of the yen, this killed Japan’s economy. So Japan’s giving in to
American financial demands destroyed it.
By contrast today, instead of lowering bank liquidity the US Federal Reserve is pushing
liquidity into the financial system. This enables banks to increase their loans, on the theory
that America can borrow its way out of debt - which is crazy, of course. So Bernanke and
Krugman are drawing a false parallel.
E: I agree completely. The US was never slow on the gas pedal as the Bank of Japan was.
We never did fall into a liquidity trap that some members of the Feds are claiming we are in
today. The way I see it is that these [are] arguments for continuing to borrow - to use your
488 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
phrase, to move debt from private to public accounts by the Fed’s cash-for-trash swaps and
bailouts.
Comparing our opportunity to Japan’s, isn’t our sovereign credit risk much higher than
Japan’s in terms of per capita GDP growth, structural balance-of-payments deficit, history
of default and history of inflation?
H: The financial credit risk is really a political question of national policy. In the last few
weeks China has negotiated currency swaps with Russia, Turkey and Brazil. The aim is to
prevent losses on these swaps. There’s a mutual guarantee that a central bank of a currency
that loses value will reimburse the central bank that’s holding its currency so that the latter
will not suffer a loss as denominated in its own currency.
I suspect that all the United States would have to do (at least in the short run) would be to
make the same deal so that foreign countries would not take a loss on their dollar holdings.
Instead, America is saying bluntly: “In order for us to solve our economic problem at no
cost to ourselves, you must take a loss. We are going to solve our problem at your expense.
If you don’t like it, you had better arm yourselves (preferably by buying our own weapons
exports) because we’re going to do things our way. What are you going to do about it?”
E: Yes.
H: Imagine what effect this is creating abroad! Other countries have gone along with
US policy so far, because there was some mutual gain, at least in the US market for foreign
countries’ exports. But now that US consumers have little left to spend on goods and services
(because they have to spend so much on debt service and housing), America has little to offer
any more. So foreign countries are moving away. I was told two weeks before Turkey made
the currency-swap agreement with China that they decided that America is going to be on
the losing side, and they wanted to go with the winners - that is, with the growing economies,
not those that are sinking into debt deflation.
The United States is playing as if other countries are still going to automatically obey it.
The only ground for believing this is that other countries are looking at the United States as
a “madman”. It certainly looks as if people like Ben Bernanke are even nuttier than Alan
Greenspan. They’re disappointed with Obama, whom they see more as a continuation of
Dick Cheney than of George Bush. He’s turned over the shop to the Rubinomics gang of
financial predators.
E: You’re in Germany. What’s the general feeling there about US economic policies?
H: There is resentment against Angela Merkel and her government for following American
policy and not realizing that the world has changed from what it used to be. There is
still high unemployment here, almost twenty percent. The economy is not doing well, and
German exports - like other European exports - are being hurt by the euro’s rise while the
US Fed continues to pursue low interest rates to increase the capitalization rate of its real
estate and corporate income - which has the side effect of lowering its exchange rate. So
Europe is bearing the brunt of American financial aggression. There is a feeling that Merkel
is turning as much into Obama’s poodle as Blair was Bush’s poodle. And her French friend
Sarkozy is not popular here either.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 489
E: Regarding the currency swap agreements between China and other countries to avoid
the downside of holding dollars and doing trade in them, is this a gradualist approach?
H: It’s an either/or approach. Foreign central banks know that holding dollars is like
buying an asset that is going down in price. Nobody wants to do that, because they will have
to show a loss on their books, which are kept in their own currency. Most central bankers
expect China’s currency to rise, just like the yen rose after 1985. They naturally would rather
hold a rising currency asset than a depreciating one.
E: Speaking of which, one of the major changes in the global market over this year is that
central banks have become net buyers of gold. Earlier this week the central bank of South
Korea announced that they’re beginning to diversify out of dollars. Do you see this as part
of the process that I call decommissioning the dollar as a reserve currency?
H: Certainly. The United States, Germany and France hold half of their foreign reserves
in gold. Korea has only 0.2% of its international reserves in gold. So it’s saying, in effect:
“Wait a minute. There’s some hypocrisy going on here. You’re telling us to hold dollars,
but you’re holding gold. We’ve decided to do as you do, not as you say.” The corollary is
to spell this out: “We don’t know what the future global monetary system is going to be.
But it looks like the United States is expecting a gold-based system. Otherwise, let the US
Treasury sell off its gold stock.”
Korea may have been discussed its gold purchase with other countries. Its act says, in
effect: “We’re hosting the G20 meetings next month. Why doesn’t America hold down the
price of gold by putting its money where it’s mouth is, and announce that it’s going to sell
the gold in Fort Knox?” Other countries might well say, “By the way, can you give us back
the gold we’re holding in the New York Federal Reserve? Now that we don’t have to worry
about World War Two any more, we’d like to hold our own gold.” There is a growing feeling
that the US Government is acting on behalf of financial thieves, and that this theft is causing
unemployment in Europe and other countries.
E: So this leads to my final question: Clearly the world needs a new global monetary
system. This has been obvious for a while. My sense is that for most governments around the
world, the final straw has been the financial crisis that we’ve imposed on everybody. So the
question is, in the past such agreements were reached with at least one dominant power (that
would be us) holding most of the cards and dictating the arrangements. This time around,
that’s not really an option any more. But it’s not clear just where the leadership is. So is there
any precedent for a multilateral agreement among countries for a new international currency
regime?
H: I think this mischaracterizes the issue. There never was a multilateral currency system.
There was the US dictating to the rest of the world, as you point out. It used an internationalist
rhetoric for nationalistic financial and trade purposes. That’s what my Super Imperialism
(2003) was all about.
E: Yes, that’s what I mean. That is what we always had before.
H: The United States said to other countries: “We’ll never join a multinational system in
which other countries can set our policy. We insist on veto power - or the power to simply
490 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
ignore your recommendations. And for your part, you must do what we say, or we’ll do to
you what we did to Iraq or Afghanistan. So get out of our way!”
I think that other countries have given up hope of a multi-lateral system in which the
United States will cooperate. So they’re creating a parallel system, namely as the BRIC
countries have done. They’re saying, “We’re going to avoid using the dollar altogether”.
And the dollar’s own financial managers are turning it into nearly a pariah currency. This is
what I wrote about in the Financial Times yesterday: the US refusal to cooperate with other
countries, above all its double standard insisting that other countries must turn their foreignexchange
surpluses over to the US Treasury to promote US financial markets at their expense
- and the demand that any country running a trade surplus with America spend the money on
US arms - is so abhorrent that other countries are proceeding to create an alternative global
financial system of settling trade and balance-of-payments transactions without the United
States.
So what will emerge is a new multi-lateral financial system after all. But there will be
two financial systems: one centered on the BRIC countries with strong trade balances and
currency values, another system centered on the US dollar. Europe is likely to be left out,
and may become an economic backwater, because so much of its politics are run by US
aficionados. So I see a dual world monetary system and a dual world trade system operating
under a different set of trade and financial rules.
US diplomats no doubt will call this socialism. Other countries can reply, “What we’re
doing is just what the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and the other major
classical free-marketers wanted: no free lunch. If we’re socialists, what are you guys? We’re
too polite to use the word, but it was used in World War Two.”
E: On that note we’ll wrap it up. We appreciate your thoughts on this. It’s certainly going
to be an interesting meeting coming up next month among the G20, and we’ll see what
comes out of it.
H: Have a glance at the article I wrote in the Financial Times [October 19 2010].
E: Will do.
H: I think that spelled out a lot of the logic of what I’ve just been talking about.
E: Very good. Thank you very much Michael. Appreciate your time.
H: It’s always good to talk to you.
Next Message by Hans is [674].
[664] Balrog: Pushing Others Down. I am in favor of our capitalistic society and feel
that the pros of our current economic system outweigh the bad. As I continue to study the
words and theory of Marx my eyes have been opened to some obvious holes that do exist
capitalism. I recently had a conversation with a friend about the things that capitalists do in
our society today to remain in power and maximize their profits without consideration for
the overall well-being of their workers and society as a whole. We came to the conclusion
that too often those in charge of Fortune 500 companies and those that are considered to be
the wealthiest people in the world have screwed a lot of people to get there.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 491
Examples are Albert H. Wiggin the former head of Chase National Bank who invented insider
trading in the 1920s and Martha Stewart who was caught more recently. Meg Whitman
and other billionaires hiding money through offshore accounting. Lee Raymond a former
chairman of Exxon and his $400 million pension. Pablo Escobar a Colombian drug Lord
was the 7th richest man according to Forbes’s list in 1989. Mark Zuckerberg the founder
of Facebook at an estimated current net worth of 6.9 billion dollars has had a number of
lawsuits filed by those who accuse him of dishonest and unscrupulous business actions that
have helped him create his dynasty.
There are some good people out of there but I feel that too often those who are at the
top are those who pushed down the most people along the way and continue to exploit those
beneath them.
Message [664] referenced by [688]. Next Message by Balrog is [686].
[688] Frida: Marx, societal roles, and regulation. In response to Balrog [664]: Marx
would say that it is a contradiction to be in favor of a capitalistic society and be offended by
the actions of the richest in this society. Capitalism creates the social role of the capitalist,
which is always filled by someone. It is not in human nature itself to so ruthlessly exploit
others. If it were, we would not see nearly so much cooperation and kindness in society. It
is also not just the characteristics of these individuals. It is the power of capital itself that
creates these problems. There is much anecdotal evidence to support this claim. There are
(almost?) no successful capitalists that have not taken advantage of others to get where they
are. Capitalism feeds on surplus labor, which is impossible without exploitation of laborers.
Capitalism would cease to exist without the atrocities that those at the top commit.
As a side note, I’m curious: what exactly are the pros of the capitalist society that are
supposed to outweigh the fact that capitalism has no regard for the health of the earth or the
vast majority of humankind? Any sort of environmental or labor regulations, as I understand
them, stand outside capitalism as a restraint and do not form a part of the body of capitalism
itself. Also, welfare, social security and other social programs aren’t in accord with capitalist
ideals. Am I mistaken in thinking that they form a separate body? One that is supposed to
keep capitalism partially in check and ends up strengthening it in the end, because capitalism,
left to its own devices, would eventually self-destruct? I would appreciate other’s ideas on
this issue.
Message [688] referenced by [690] and [729]. Next Message by Frida is [721].
[690] Hans: Welfare a necessary part of capitalism. A quick answer to Frida’s question
at the end of [688]: welfare and unemployment insurance etc. are an integral part of
capitalism. Since capitalism creates poverty it needs institutions allowing people to survive
despite poverty. These institutions are intentionally demeaning, cumbersome, and intrusive,
to encourage people to re-enter the workforce.
Message [690] referenced by [729] and [818]. Next Message by Hans is [698].
[729] Robert: Alive, humble and ready to go back to work. I think that Frida’s question
at the end of her comments [688] and Hans’s response [690] pose a very interesting question
about the necessity of welfare regulation within a capitalistic society. It makes logical sense
that capitalism needs: a) healthy workers from which it can exploit value and b) peaceful
workers who will not revolt against the system. Therefore, capitalism, as Hans suggests,
492 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
must provide programs that allow workers to survive poverty (to work another day) but to
keep them demeaned enough so that they do not have the self-esteem to revolt.
Interestingly, Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward published a book some time ago
entitled, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (Updated Edition 1993, New
York: Vintage). It provides convincing evidence, from the Great Depression through the
Bush I years, that public relief programs in the United States are employed by the government
to avert uprisings by the working class during economic recession and to put pressure
on the working class to seek employment during periods of economic growth.
Welfare policy generally is another example of a phenomenon in capitalism that appears
different on the surface than it really is. It calls for a Marxian “a closer look.” It may appear to
be motivated by humanitarian compassion but in its implementation, again as Hans suggests,
it is brutal and demeaning. It says in effect, “here’s enough to keep you alive, but you must
not be much of a person to need this help...surely not enough of a person to question the
powers-that-be. By the way, don’t get too comfortable with your dole, because when we
need your labor we’ll decrease it and put pressure on you to return to the workforce and
create more value for the owners of the means of production.”
Next Message by Robert is [735].
[759] Somramthom: Re: Valued labor or upkeep? Thinking about the distinction
between labor-power and actual labor, I wonder if it would be accurate to compare laborpower
to a sort of potential, while labor itself is a sort of action. As a worker you would
sell your potential to the capitalist. The capitalist either sees your potential and agrees on a
contract of some sort, sees your potential and offers no contract, or doesn’t see your potential
at all. In the case a contract is offered and agreed upon, then the capitalist pays you (the
laborer) for your actions (the manifestation of your potential, i.e. your labor). He is no
longer focused on the potential you have, rather now he focuses on the actions you perform.
Looking at it this way, it is evident it would not be a sustainable route for the capitalist
nor the laborer to take to pay laborers according to their potential. While some short term
gain may be realized by the laborer (getting paid for work you would never do), the unpleasant
ramifications of a weak system where many laborers obtain wages for no labor and
the economy depends on a few overworked laborers would produce some bleak long-term
losses. The society as a whole would ultimately suffer.
It may seem that workers get paid according to productivity. But Hans makes it perfectly
clear that they do not, since capitalism is in essence the accumulation of surplus value
through exploitation of laborers by the capitalist. It would seem that it isn’t the magnitude
of labor that determines pay, but the exchange value of the laborer’s labor-power. The capitalist
is paying for the commodity of labor-power. Like any other commodity, say gasoline
for example, the magnitude doesn’t determine the value. If I purchase one gallon of gas or
25 gallons of gas, it costs the same per gallon of gas.
Thus, laborers whose labor-power has a higher exchange value than others will be valued
more. Since wages in capitalism cannot exceed the value of the labor performed, the
labor must be more valued in order for the laborer to receive an increase in wages, always
maintaining an adequate level of surplus value for the business to be profitable.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 493
But Hans states that wages are “determined by something which has nothing to do whatsoever
with the work they perform.” Rather it depends on the upkeep of the laborer, i.e. the
reproduction costs. How do these two differences match up?
Next Message by Somramthom is [766].
[760] Hans: Great animated video about capitalist crises. Don’t miss the animated
verson of David Harvey’s Crises of Capitalism at
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V np2c0
Message [760] referenced by [764] and [869]. Next Message by Hans is [765].
[764] LuBr: David Harvey–moving beyond capitalism. Hans [760] posted a link to
David Harvey’s animated version of the Crisis of Capitalism. It is a great practical application
of Marxist theory and an important reminder of how we all must see beyond the current
political debate about the Great Recession or Crisis of Capitalism.
Harvey says that capitalism never solves its crises, it merely moves them around geographically.
He uses a quote from Marx’s Grundrisse, where Marx says “capital cannot
abide a limit.” Instead it turns these limits into barriers which it can just transcend and relocate.
With the decline of real wages starting in the 70’s the problem of effective demand was
solved by pumping up the credit economy, which led to mounting debt in shored up housing.
Harvey explains that financial ingenuity was how capitalism was able to overcome the
barriers that it faced with declining effective demand. This financial ingenuity ensured that
those financiers who were at the financial technological frontier would be rewarded monetarily
and with ever-increasing power. To the point that in the last few years, top hedge fund
managers were earning upwards of $3 billion per year. Is this a world that we want to live
in?
David Harvey asks the most important, yet simplest question: where is the debate and
discussion about this? And I agree. I think that in the midst of a crisis of capitalism, the
only debate that has made headway within the United States is that of quantitative easing.
Printing dollars that will flood emerging markets while serving to devalue our currency and
inflate away our massive debt. Like Harvey says, capitalism never solves its crises, it just
moves them around geographically. It seems to me as if we are shifting the barriers that this
crisis exposed to avoid the limits of the capitalist system yet again.
If anyone has time, I greatly recommend another speech by David Harvey, it was filmed
and can be seen on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYQb0fthNfI).
In line with what Harvey says, we should be actively debating how we apply all of this
unemployed capital and labor towards meeting the social need of today. As Harvey says, we
must craft a theory of social change and re-teach ourselves about socialism and communism
in a mature and de-politicized way. In this theory of social change we must reexamine society’s
present day relation to nature and how environmental limits must be respected by any
future mode of production. In addition we must understand how technology has advanced
to reinforce the capitalist mode of production. In doing so, we can better understand a new
technological frontier that reproduces a more just and socialist mode of production.
494 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
In sum, we are unfortunately failing to address the root of the crisis, and that is the inherent
instability of the capitalist mode of production. Instead of using this opportunity for
debate and discussion and opportunity for change we are diffusing the crisis geographically
once again. This is a band-aid solution. Capitalism may be able to shift its crises geographically
but the ecological limits that we are bumping up against will prove to be a limit that
not even capitalist innovation and technology can evade.
Next Message by LuBr is [931].
[818] Husani: Welfare in Capitalism. I was watching CNBC yesterday and the program
that was on at the time brought up an interesting question. Should people be allowed to opt
out of social security? What I found interesting about the question is that as far as I know
people today are paying into the system to help the currently retired and the next generation
will do the same. I find it interesting that the wealthy aren’t interested in helping the poor
people in our country and would like to keep their money, made by exploiting the poor, all
to themselves. Hans said in [690] “welfare and unemployment insurance etc. are an integral
part of capitalism. Since capitalism creates poverty it needs institutions allowing people to
survive despite poverty.” I wonder what would happen if the wealthy had their way and the
poor were allowed to starve?
Next Message by Husani is [868].
[820] Bigwhite: Good ol Capitalism. So while i was listening to my ipod i heard a very
good line from a rapper out of California, it went like this ”Capitalism is pimps and hoes
i guess anything goes. I know its maybe not quite appropriate for this class yet it did shed
light on the discussions we’ve been having about labor and wages. In the system of a pimp
and hoe the pimp gets most of the money while the hoe does all the work and labor and some
would say is exploited to the fullest extent. I did make me feel like this is capitalism at its
roots. And even though you may not be a hoe you are being exploited like one in your job.
Next Message by Bigwhite is [929].
[823] Somramthom: Resubmission etiquette. I am not sure if what I just submitted is
allowed in the class. I answered an exam question ungraded a couple of days ago and just
found out it is one of the questions we can answer for extra credit. So I resubmitted the same
question only it was not tagged as ungraded and instead labeled as Extra credit. Is this okay?
If not, I apologize.
Hans: Your resubmission does not qualify for the extra credit because it did not clarify anything that wasn’t there
before. But I turned your earlier submission [766] into a graded submission.
Next Message by Somramthom is [824].
[840] Guh: Economic Instability. In one of my Economic class that I am taking this
semester, Current Economic Problems, the professor asked us to compare and contrast free
market/conservative economist and liberal economist on the their views of the source of
economic instability. So I gave my opinion and said that I think free market economist
admits that a system driven by freely operating markets will be subject to an occasional
bouts of instability. This might include bouts of inflation, unemployment and slow negative
growth, as well as that the government should not intervene. Now, as for a liberal economist,
who I find them to believe that through government tax and spending power, could ultimately
eliminate, or at least soften the sharp reduction in economic activity and as a result would
leave the economy in a more stable and balance place, with less instability.
Message [840] referenced by [872]. Next Message by Guh is [874].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 495
[869] Atticus: Ignorance and the True Origin of Value. The video Hans posted in [760]
was useful in supplementing my understanding of how capitalism has inherent contradictions
that ultimately lead to crises no matter what monetary of fiscal policy tweak is undertaken
unless it is one that involves a total reformation of the current system. It neatly summarized
some of the things I learned that I feel would be useful. A major flaw in modern economic
practices and theories is not acknowledging that prices are determined by the labor power
that is expended in creating value that is congealed in the total output by particular social
relations created by capitalism. The fluctuations in prices are due to imbalances in output and
demand indicate to producers that production processes need modification and the amount of
required labor power needs to be adjusted. However, this theory fails to explain why prices
are what they are in equilibrium.
The natural level of output should really be called the average natural level at which labor
power is expended in the long run. The tendencies of capitalism, intensification in the
divisions in labor and the private ownership of the means of production (or means of subsistence)
creates a crisis in the class structure of modern capitalistic countries. The small
capitalist class consists of a small minority of people who own the means of subsistence and
become increasingly powerful by indirectly reducing the standard of living of the proletariat
by increasing productivity and decreasing production costs. Capitalism creates an insatiable
need to compete for an edge on competition and gain extra surplus value essentially to survive.
This constant drive to gain extra surplus value eventually leads to an overall increase in
relative surplus value, cheapening of commodities of labor costs, huge strains on the environment
and greater class struggles. Capitalists make gains by exploiting laborers who believe
that they are being paid fairly and their employers make profit only through markups. True
markups only create price increases for everyone, including capitalists, and real profits are
gained by paying wages not equal to the value created remains largely unknown to the proletariat
class. The disparity in the distribution in wealth between capitalists and laborers is
a crisis in itself. This phenomenon seemingly will not forcibly correct itself until capitalism
completely collapses through either revolutionary changes or the strains on the environment
caused by capitalism finally become too great and natural catastrophes force the human race
to adapt to radical changes in the means of subsistence.
What has caused this crisis to go on for as long as it has is due to another crisis caused by
the financial system. Value and the quantity of money representing this value have drifted so
far apart from one another due to the fetish-like behavior that commodity production creates
in capitalistic societies. The amount of debt accrued represents an extremely high amount
of value that has not yet been created by the expenditure of labor power. To temporarily
ease the symptoms of the terminally ill capitalistic economy certain policy changes in the
economic structured need to modified to reverse the disequilibrium and pay off the enormous
amount of debt through significantly decreased consumption and the equalization of
money representing value and actual value created by the expenditure of labor power. However,
contradictions intrinsic in capitalism will only create future crises until an unavoidable
upheaval in the system drastically changes the means of human subsistence.
Next Message by Atticus is [966].
[872] Kobe: response to Guh. Im writing in response to Guh [840] talking about the issue
of free trade policy. Free market advocated believe the benefits of free trade are substantial.
496 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Through free trade policy, a countries real income rises which allows citizens the opportunity
to consumer more. Because citizens will have the opportunity to consume more they will be
able to afford better health care, food etc. These gains are based on the gains that are made
form the exchange as well as from specialization. A liberal economist discussing free trade
policy believes that there should be government interference through tariffs and taxes. This
is the case for many poor countries because they lack the foundation to have a competitive
free trade market. Poor countries that are undeveloped also lack the opportunity to collect
taxes, through tariffs this would give them the best opportunity to do so. The topic of free
trade policy is heavily debated and I am not sure I could pick exactly which one I think is
the best, what I do know is that each case should be evaluated by the economic stability of
the country not by a universal yes or no to free market trade.
Message [872] referenced by [2011fa:1070]. Next Message by Kobe is [952].
[873] Goldtone: I have the means of production, now what? My sister bought a
small business recently. This small business sells ice cream, has one location, and two
employees. Due to the fact that they are small and not well known, they currently are not
getting much business, and hence are essentially working for free—actually are working and
yet still losing money. This is despite the fact that she has complete control over the means
of production.
I think a big advantage of working for a large capitalist corporation that has access to the
means of production—like cold stone compared to my sisters shop—is the fact that, not only
do you always get paid, but as a worker you do not have to worry about advertising, creating
prices, management decisions, wage decisions, menu items, business financial planning, etc.
There are many reasons why working for a large company in a capitalist system is better than
trying to start up your own system and means of production.
I wanted to bring up this point because I believe that the means of production is not the
only thing that drives exploitation.
For fellow students that read this, I would like to ask how you think Marx would explains
this phenomenon in capitalism? Are things like size, capital, and ability to advertise a part
of the means of production according to Marx? I do not think they are. I think they are other
means used to exploit workers and small businesses.
Next Message by Goldtone is [1078].
[952] Kobe: where does money come from. Where does a capitalist get his original
capital from? When deciding upon where capital derives from we must leave out of consideration
the portion of the surplus value consumed by the capitalist as well as assuming he
keeps the gains in capital rather than giving it to someone else. Capital when made continues
to reproduce itself and produces surplus value. This can be explained by someone getting
an inheritance then buying capital with the capital that they first had. By buying more of
a commodity this gives the capitalist surplus value, he now has more capital. He can then
sell it for even more and the cycle is self repeating. Marx writes that “by his own labor and
that of his forefathers,” he is possessed with this capital. This supposition is the only one
constant with the laws of the production of commodities.
Next Message by Kobe is [953].
[999] Max: The Jungle. By Upton Sinclair.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 497
‘You listen to these things,’ the man was saying, ’and you say, “Yes, they are true, but
they have been that way always.” Or you say, “Maybe it will come, but not in my time - it
will not help me.” And so you return to your daily round of toil, you go back to be ground
up for profits in the world-wide mill of economic might! To toil squalid homes, to work
in dangerous and unhealthful places; to wrestle with the specters of hunger and privation,
to take your chances of accident, disease, and death. And each day the struggle becomes
fiercer, the pace more cruel; each day you have to toil a little harder, and feel the iron hand
of circumstance close upon you a little tighter. Months pass, years maybe - and then you
come again; and again I am here to plead with you, to know if want and misery have yet
done their work with you, if injustice and oppression have yet opened your eyes! I shall
still be waiting - there is nothing else that I can do. There is no wilderness where I can hide
from these things, there is no haven where I can escape them; though I travel to the ends
of the earth, I find the same accursed system - I find that all the fair and noble impulses of
humanity, the dreams of poets and the agonies of martyrs, are shackled and bound in the
service of organized and predatory Greed! And therefore I cannot rest, I cannot be silent;
therefore I cast aside comfort and happiness, health and good repute - and go out into the
world and cry out the pain of my spirit! Therefore I am not to be silenced by poverty and
sickness, not by hatred and obloquy, by threats and ridicule - not by prison and persecution,
if they should come - not by any power that is upon the earth or above the earth, that was,
or is, or ever can be created. If I ail tonight, I can only try tomorrow; knowing that the
fault must be mine - that if once the vision of my soul were spoken upon earth, if once the
anguish of its defeat were uttered in human speech, it would break the stoutest barriers of
prejudice, it would shake the most sluggish soul to action! it would abash the most cynical,
it would terrify the most selfish; and the voice of mocker would be silenced, and fraud and
falsehood would slink back into their dens, and the truth would stand forth alone! For I
speak with the voice of the millions who are voiceless! Of them that are oppressed and have
no comforter! Of the disinherited of life, for whom there is no respite and no deliverance, to
whom the world is a prison, a dungeon of torture, a tomb! With the voice of the little child
who toils tonight in a Souther cotton mill, staggering with exhaustion, numb with agony,
and knowing no hope but the grave! Of the mother who sews by candlelight in her tenement
garret, weary and weeping, smitten with the mortal hunger of her babes! Of the man who
lies upon a bed of rags, wrestling in his last sickness and leaving his loved ones to perish!
Of the young girl who, somewhere at this moment, is walking the streets of this horrible
city, beaten and starving, and making her choice between the brothel and the lake! With the
voice of humanity, calling for deliverance! Of the everlasting soul of man, arising from the
dust; breaking its way out of its prison - rending the bands of oppression and ignorance -
groping its way to the light!’... ‘ I plead with you,’ he said, ’whoever you may be, provided
that you care about the truth; but most of all I plead with workingmen, with those to whom
the evils I portray are not mere matters of sentiment, to be dallied and toyed with, and then
perhaps put aside and forgotten - to whom they are the grim and relentless realities of the
daily grind, the chains upon their limbs, the lash upon their backs, the iron in their souls. To
you, workingmen! To you, the toilers, who have made this land, and have no voice in its
councils! To you, whose lot it is to sow that others may reap, to labor and obey, and ask no
more than the wages of a beast of burden, the food and shelter to keep you alive from day to
day. It is to you that I come with my message of salvation, it is to you that I appeal. I know
498 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
how much it is to ask of you - I know, for I have been in your place, I have lived your life,
and there is no man before me here tonight who knows it better. I have known what it is to be
a street waif, a boot-black, living upon a crust of bread and sleeping in cellar stairways and
under empty wagons. I have known what it is to dare and to aspire, to dream might dreams
and to see them perish - to see all the fair flowers of my spirit trampled into the mire by the
wild beast powers of life. I know what is the price that a workingman pays for knowledge
- I have paid for it with food and sleep, with agony of body and mind, with health, almost
with life itself; and so, when I come to you with a story of hope and freedom, with the vision
of a new earth to be created, of a new labor to be dared, I am not surprised that I find you
sordid and material, sluggish and incredulous. That I do not despair is because I know also
the forces that are driving behind you - because I know the raging lash of poverty, the sting
of contempt and mastership, ‘the insolence of office and the spurns.’ Because I feel sure that
in the crowd that has come to me tonight, no matter how many may be dull and heedless,
no matter how many may have come out of idle curiosity, or in order to ridicule - there
will be some one man whom pain and suffering have made desperate, whom some chance
vision of wrong and horror has startled and shocked into attention. And to him my words
will come like a sudden flash of lightning to one who travels in darkness - revealing the way
before him, the perils and the obstacles - solving all problems, making all difficulties clear!
The scales will fall from his eyes, the shackles will be torn from his limbs - he will leap
up with a cry of thankfulness, he will stride forth a free man at last! A man delivered from
his self-created slavery! A man who will never more be trapped - whom no blandishments
will cajole, whom no threats will frighten; who from tonight on will move forward, and not
backward, who will study and understand, who will gird on his sword and take his place in
the army of his comrades and brothers. Who will carry the good tidings to others, as I have
carried them to him - the priceless gift of liberty and light that is neither mine nor his, but is
the heritage of the soul of man! Workingmen, workingmen - comrades! open your eyes and
look about you! You have lived so long in the toil and heat that your senses are dulled, your
souls are numbed; but realize once in your lives this world in which you dwell - tear off the
rags of its customs and conventions - behold it as it is, in all its hideous nakedness! Realize
it, realize it! Realize that out upon the plains of Manchuria tonight two hostile armies are
facing each other - that now, while we are seated here, a million human beings may be hurled
at each other’s throats, striving with the fury of maniacs to tear each other to pieces! And this
in the twentieth century, nineteen hundred years since the Prince of Peace was born on earth!
Nineteen hundred years that his words have been preached as divine, and here two armies of
men are rending and tearing each other like the wild beasts of the forest! Philosophers have
reasoned, prophets have denounced, poets have wept and pleaded - and still this hideous
Monster roams at large! We have schools and colleges, newspapers and books; we have
searched the heavens and the earth, we have weighed and probed and reasoned - and all to
equip men to destroy each other! We call it War, and pass it by - but do not put me off with
platitudes and conventions - come with me, come with me - realize it! See the bodies of men
pierced by bullets, blown into pieces by bursting shells! Hear the crunching of the bayonet,
plunged into human flesh; hear the groans and shrieks of agony, see the faces of men crazed
by pain, turned into fiends by fury and hate! Put your hand upon that piece of flesh - it is hot
and quivering - just now it was a part of a man! This blood is still steaming - it was driven by
a human heart! Almighty God! and this goes on - it is systematic, organized, premeditated!

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 499
And we know it, and read of it, and take if for granted; our papers tell of it, and the presses
are not stopped - our churches know of it, and do not close their doors - the people behold
it, and do not rise up in horror and revolution!
’Or perhaps Manchuria is too far away for you - come home with me then, come here
to Chicago. Here in this city tonight ten thousand women are shut up in foul pens, and
driven by hunger to sell their bodies to live. And we know it, we make it a jest! And these
women are made in the image of your mothers, they may be your sisters, your daughters;
the child whom you left at home tonight, whose laughing eyes will greet you in the morning
- that fate may be waiting for her! Tonight in Chicago there are ten thousand men, homeless
and wretched, willing to work and begging for a chance, yet starving, and fronting in terror
the awful winter cold! Tonight in Chicago there are a hundred thousand mothers who are
living in misery and squalor, struggling to earn enough to feed their little ones! There are
a hundred thousand old people, cast off and helpless, waiting for death to take them from
their torments! There are a million people, men and women and children, who share the
curse of the wage-slave; who toil every hour they can stand and see, for just enough to keep
them alive; who are condemned till the end of their days to monotony and weariness, to
hunger and misery, to heat and cold, to dirt and disease, to ignorance and drunkenness and
vice! And then turn over the page with me and gaze upon the other side of the picture.
There are a thousand - ten thousand, maybe - who are the masters of these slaves, who own
their toil. They do nothing to earn what they received, they do not even have to ask for it
- it comes to them of itself, their only care is to dispose of it. They live in palaces, they
riot in luxury and extravagance - such as no words can describe, as makes the imagination
reel and stagger, makes the soul grow sick and faint. They spend hundreds of dollars for
a pair of shoes, a handkerchief, a garter; they spend millions for horses and automobiles
and yachts, for palaces and banquets, for little shiny stones with which to deck their bodies.
Their life is a contest among themselves for supremacy in ostentation and recklessness, in
the destroying of useful and necessary things, in the wasting of the labor and the lives of
their fellow creatures, the toil and anguish of the nations, the sweat and tears and blood of
the human race! It is all theirs - it comes to them; just as all the springs pour into streamlets,
and the streamlets into rivers, and the rivers into the ocean - so, automatically and inevitably,
all the wealth of society comes to them. The farmer tills the soil, the minder digs in the earth,
the weaver tends the loom, the mason carves the stone; the clever man invents, the shrewd
man directs, the wise man studies, the inspired man sings - and all the result, the products
of the labor of brain and muscle, are gathered into one stupendous stream and puoured into
their laps! The whole of society is in their grip, the whole labor of the world lies at their
mercy - and like fierce wolves they rend and destroy, like ravening vultures they devour and
tear! The whole power of mankind belongs to them, forever and beyond recall - do what it
can, strive as it will, humanity lives for them and dies for them! They own not merely the
labor of society, they have bought the governments; and everywhere they use their raped and
stolen power to intrench themselves in their privileges, to dig wider and deeper the channels
through which the river of profits flows to them! - And you, workingmen, workingmen! You
have been brought up to it, you plod on like beasts of burden, thinking only of the day and
its pain - yet is there a man among you who can believe that such a system will continue
forever - is there a man here in this audience tonight so hardened and debased that he dare
500 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
rise up before me and say that he believes it can continue forever; that the product of the
labor of society, the means of existence of the human race, will always belong to idlers and
parasites, to be spent for the gratification of vanity and lust - to be spent for any purpose
whatever, to be at the disposal of any individual will whatever - that somehow, somewhere,
the labor of humanity will not belong to humanity, to be used for the purposes of humanity,
to be controlled by the will of humanity? And if this is ever to be, how is it to be - what
power is there that will bring it about? Will it be the task of your masters, do you think -
will they write the charter of your liberties? Will they forge you the sword of deliverance,
will they marshal you the army and lead it to the ray? Will their wealth be spent for the
purpose - will they build colleges and churches to teach you, will they print papers to herald
your progress, and organize political parties to guide and carry on the struggle? Can you
not see that the task is your task - yours to dream, yours to resolve, yours to execute? That
if ever it is carried out, it will be in the face of every obstacle that wealth and mastership
can oppose - in the face of ridicule and slander, of hatred and persecution, of the bludgeon
and the jail? That it will be by the power of your naked bosoms, opposed to the rage of
oppression! By the grim and bitter teaching of blind and merciless affliction! By the painful
groping of the untutored mind, by the feeble stammerings of the uncultured voice! By the
sad and lonely hunger of the spirit; by seeking and striving and yearning, by heartache and
despairing, by agony and sweat of blood! It will be by money paid for with hunger, by
knowledge stolen from sleep, by thoughts communicated under the shadow of the gallows!
It will be a movement beginning in the far off past, a thing obscure and unhonored, a thing
easy to ridicule, easy to despise; a thing unlovely, wearing the aspect of vengeance and hate
- but to you, the workingman, the wage slave, calling with a voice insistent, imperious - with
a voice that you cannot escape, wherever upon the earth you may be! With the voice of all
your wrongs, with the voice of all your desires; with the voice of your duty and your hope -
of everything in the world that is worth while to you! The voice of the poor, demanding that
poverty shall cease! The voice of the oppressed, pronouncing the doom of oppression! The
voice of power, wrought out of suffering - of resolution, crushed out of weakness - of joy
and courage, born in the bottomless pit of anguish and despair! The voice of Labor, despised
and outraged; a mighty giant, lying prostrate - mountainous, colossal, but blinded, bound,
and ignorant of his strength. And now a dream of resistance haunts him, hope battling with
fear; until suddenly he stirs and a fetter snaps - and a thrill shoots through him, to the farthest
ends of his huge body, and in a flash the dream becomes an act! He starts, he lifts himself;
and the bands are shattered, the burdens roll off him; he rises - towering, gigantic; he springs
to his feet, he shouts in his new-born exultation -’
p. 299-303 Read this book.
Message [999] referenced by [1000]. Next Message by Max is [1031].
[1000] LuBr: Thank you to Max who provided the excerpt from The Jungle [999], I really
enjoyed reading it, and it makes me want to go back and read the book again after having
taken this course.
It is scary that capitalism leaves the majority of us with no choice but to sell our laborpower
for a barely sufficient wage. The fact that life in a highly capitalist society is to a large
degree left up to luck. Some people have the good fortune of having money saved, but a large
amount of people are working two or even three jobs, and have high expenses for their car,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 501
rent, food, that leave them with little else to save. Should a string of bad luck come their
way they could lose everything they have worked for. The fact is that an unsettling amount
of people in this country are not very far away from living on the streets. All it would take
would be a serious injury or sickness to yourself or a family member and to not be insured, a
car accident, a natural disaster, etc. These events, which are more or less random, can mean
a person could lose everything. And this could happen even if this person was working two
or three amounting to every waking hour. It is a thankless and very de-humanizing mode of
production for the majority of the working-class.
Next Message by LuBr is [1164].
[1003] Guh: Health Care. I was reading in one my classes how the neoclassical model
doesn’t apply to health care markets. Furthermore, when thinking about this, I found myself
thinking of what I believed to be two of the biggest problems that the US health care system
has. I came to the thought that with the escalating health care cost has become unbearable
and is running up our deficit drastically. How to fix this is the huge debate, and that involves
talking with insurance providers, and hospitals to get a more reasonable price. The second
problem, and yes I am aware there are more than two problems, but again I am just thinking
what are the two biggest... Now, again the second problem that I see is in the expenditures
price times quantity p*q. We as Americans consume more health care and the price of that
health care is rising so we see both driving the costs up. I don’t have a fix it solution, but
just wanted to express my thoughts and on the matter. The billion dollar question literally,
is how to fix this.
Message [1003] referenced by [1141]. Next Message by Guh is [1036].
[1012] Fisher: Current recession. I was in another class where we have been talking
about the current situation in our economy and it seems that the blame shouldnt go to one
president, but to many presidents and their decisions. Ronald Reagan began a trend of
deregulation and corporate tax cuts that has carried on until our current president. Couple
the lack of wall street regulation of derivatives and CMO’s with the tax cuts and we have our
current situation. Once deregulation occured and Wall Street was free to sell CMO packages,
moral hazard crept into the equation and the banks were off the hook. Agree?
Message [1012] referenced by [1142]. Next Message by Fisher is [1050].
[1017] Bigwhite: Capitalism. Is anyone on the side of the capitalist? I’m thinking in
terms of them providing jobs, income, and goods for people. There is the bad side of it
all but do the cons outweigh the pros? You can also argue that they are a product of their
environment—yes they are money driven but that is how they were taught/raised in a sense.
I feel after reading Marx that the laborers are certainly getting the short end of the stick, but
what is the alternative? Is the grass really greener on the other side? It seems that you cannot
please everyone, there will be someone complaining in any economic structure.
Message [1017] referenced by [1018], [1021], [1028], and [1032]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [1092].
[1018] School: Can we reach an agreement? Bigwhite in [1017] brings up a valid point:
no matter what type of economic structure we are in, no one can or will be 100 percent
completely satisfied. As humans we are conditioned to view situations and take sides. What
is right for me won’t always be right for others. In certain aspects of life we can find that
in this life we have certain norms and truths. Meaning we all know it to be true that we
are all people that are equal to one another. We all have needs which are food, shelter,
and emotional interaction with one another. These necessities of life are what defines us
502 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
as people, and it should be that because of these basic needs this is where we should find
our middle ground. Exploitation does exist but there are fantastic things that come from
capitalism. Like for example capitalists can get tax breaks from the government if they
provide to society a public service like tuition reimbursement, or charities to benefit third
world countries. Those things wouldn’t exist if capitalists didn’t get some sort of benefit,
but yet they better our society as a whole.
There is good and there is bad, but also has to be middle grounds where we can coexist,
because our needs are the same! It’s when we confuse our wants with our needs that define
what type of person we really are.
Next Message by School is [1069].
[1021] Kleenex: I never thought about that before... I’d like to add to Bigwhite’s
free discussion contribution [1017]. The discussion I’ve been reading in the e-mails speak
more favorably upon Marxism than capitalism. I don’t think that everyone in this class is
a Marxist, necessarily, but being immersed in Marx’s literature through the readings and
the interpretations in the Annotations, speaking for myself, I can’t help but think about the
pros of what Marx is saying. Even at the most basic level, I’ve never thought of value
originating from labor: it was always “what was on the price tag” for me. Going back to
the beginning of this course, congealed human labor would’ve never crossed my mind as
something contributing to value. Though I see merits to what Marx says, especially in his
discussion on the capitalist and how he exploits the worker, I see capitalism as a way to
better technologies, processes, and products through free competition and laissez faire.
Message [1021] referenced by [1031]. Next Message by Kleenex is [1040].
[1028] SMIKEC: Capitalism. As stated by Bigwhite [1017] the capitalist does get the
short end of the stick when it comes to being the bad guy. Society looks at the capitalist
as being the greedy one, but if it wasn’t for the capitalist, where would all of the laborers
be. The capitalist is the one who takes the up-front risk of starting a business. Whether it’s
a devotion of time or financial undertaking, they are taking the chance to make a business
successful and for this they should be rewarded for creating jobs and pumping more revenue
into the economy. I think it’s at the point where they want more and more and are not
satisfied with their original projections is where society throws the greed card in disgust,
giving capitalist as a whole the bad wrap.
Message [1028] referenced by [1032]. Next Message by SMIKEC is [1072].
[1031] Max: I never thought about that before... I will agree with [1021]. If it weren’t
for capitalism, we wouldn’t have innovative products like the iPhone! Now we can listen to
music and call people at the same time! However, if all that labor power and inventiveness
that it took to create the iphone went into something that would benefit society - say ending
childhood hunger, fighting cancer, or building windmills - our society would actually be a
more pleasant place to live. It is a problem that in our capitalist world, people see material
items as a gauge for quality of life. What has the iphone really given us? A status symbol?
Capitalism is a great social system for the production of frivolous items. I would much rather
live in a society that had cured cancer than invented the iphone.
Message [1031] referenced by [1050]. Next Message by Max is [1087].
[1032] Jo: Re: Capitalism. I would like to contribute to the discussion on Capitalism that
BigWhite [1017] started and SMIKEC [1028] has also contributed to. When I began reading

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 503
Capital (I read it for the first time for this class), I found that my old ways of thinking were
useless in my endeavor to understand what Marx is getting at. The idea of the capitalist
providing “jobs, income, and goods for people” is a very capitalist mindset. I understand
how someone would arrive at that conclusion. I think what Marx is doing is trying to get us
to think about it differently.
In my limited understanding, it seems that Marx is asserting that everyone is involved in
innovation, production of value, and job creation. We are all connected in the process of
fulfilling basic human needs. Not only that, but any one person’s achievement is derived
from the sum of all of the labor and achievement that came before him, therefore it is everyone’s
achievement. Everyone’s contribution, from the laborer, to the teacher, to the scientist,
is vital and therefore equally valuable. Every job needs to be done - some people are just
better suited to certain jobs.
I don’t assume that capitalists are inherently greedy - I am more concerned about the
system of capitalism and its tendency to promote greed and oppression. It also does not
make sense to support a system that is not sustainable. We live in a finite world, with a finite
supply of resources. Capitalism operates on the principle of infinite growth, which is simply
not possible in a finite world. Not only is it not possible, but it is incredibly harmful to the
planet and to society.
I highly recommend this recent interview with Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/22/chilean economist manfred max neef us
Here are some main points from the interview. I found it very enlightening:
The principles of an economics, how it should be, are based on five postulates and one
fundamental value principle.
1: The economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.
2: Development is about people and not about objects.
3: Growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require
growth.
4: No economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.
5: The economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent
growth is impossible.
And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest,
under no circumstance, can be above the relevance of life.
Message [1032] referenced by [1071]. Next Message by Jo is [1046].
[1050] Fisher: adding to Max and iphone. I was reading what Max [1031] said about
capitalism resulting in such technologies as the iphone etc. and tend to agree that capitalism
has given us many cool things. However, i disagree in the sense that these technologies arent
helping with important things as world hunger and disease. Technology has progressed
to this point, giving us information about world hunger and disease with the touch of our
fingers. I think we are moving in the right direction to making the world a better place and
504 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
helping the less fortunate through technology. Many are able to donate money, time, and
other resources much easier now with these iphones and other technologies. Many are more
informed now as well. To make the world healthier information is the first step giving people
information and opportunities to help with ease.
Next Message by Fisher is [1051].
[1054] Babyceta: Some Final Thoughts About Marx and Veblen: A Lengthy Free Discussion
and Cynical Rant! A couple semesters ago, I took a Communism/Socialism class
and wrote a paper comparing the critical writings of Thorstein Veblen and Karl Marx. Both
men were visionary thinkers and took a historical approach to understanding the roots of capitalism;
both equally critical and merciless. Both saw the debilitating effects of capitalism
on the lives of workers; each at different periods in time where the effects of exploitation by
one class over another was extremely palpable. And both men accurately predicted eminent
crises and depressions inherent in the capitalist system, warning of increased social malaise
and dysfunction as a byproduct of the division of labor. To say that they were contemptuous
of the capitalism would be a huge understatement, and although there are amazing similarities
in their rhetoric, there are pronounced differences as well. Here is some of what I
wrote:
“Veblen’s assessment of historical influences was based largely on science as well, but
more on biological influences and less on the social aspects of change. Veblen was largely
influenced by Darwin, and his theories are sometimes referred to as “evolutionary economics.”
The villain in Veblen’s eyes was not the bourgeois class, about which Marx had written
prolifically, but the nouveau-riche industrialist, known as “robber barons,” he despised. He
disagreed with Marx that the driving force of capitalism was the exploitation of surplus labor.
For Veblen, capitalism was fueled by the competition for status and respectability. It
was not the distribution of surplus that was socially determined, as Marx believed, but “conspicuous
consumption” of extravagant and meaningless junk purchased in a vulgar display
of wealth that served no purpose except to show others just how wealthy you really were (or
at least wanted them to believe). For Veblen, these traits were inherent manifestations of the
biological nature of man, compounded by the social evolution of historical institutions of
early societies. In addition, Veblen introduced a direct refutation to the marginalist notions
of utility. He believed that social relations did influence consumption of the working class
in what he called “pecuniary emulation,” or the desire to emulate the consumptive spending
habits of our immediate peers or those in the socioeconomic class directly above. But he felt
this need for human beings was biologically determined. After all, that is what separated us
from other animal species.
Marx was also aware of the potential pitfalls of capitalist consumption and wrote extensively
on the “fetishism of commodities;” where social relationships are transformed into
objective relationships between the individual and commodities. Marx believed this obsession
to be akin to religious mania and blamed the institution of private property for its
manifestation. All societies produce goods, says Marx, but not all goods are commodities.
Commodities gain their peculiar nature through their exchange in the market, and therefore
the labor embodied in them essentially becomes a commodity. Its value determined not by
its usefulness, but by its ability to be exchanged for other goods. The social aspect of this
labor thus becomes a materialistic relationship between things...

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 505
..Although Marx and Veblen each adopted historical approaches to understanding the
origins of capitalism, their theories on class struggle vary greatly. Marx advanced theories
of class oppression in The Communist Manifesto that eluded to the inevitable uprising of
the proletariat class (workers) against the bourgeois capitalist (owners). The workers of the
world would eventually unite to overthrow their oppressors who shamelessly and greedily
exploited their labor and turned the source of their prideful humanity into a commodity of
valueless exchange. To Veblen, the bourgeoisie were in fact a “leisure class” of predatory
opportunists bent on coveting goods without the benefit of actual work. But if Marx is
correct and the proletariat was contemptuous and reviled capitalists, then why would the
world have to wait for the revolution to break out and for communism to take its rightful
place as the economic system of choice? Veblen’s answer was in the psychological nature of
workers. He believed workers did not despise their oppressors; they envied them and aspired
to emulate them through pecuniary habits. Veblen observed that workers viewed their labor
as somehow less dignified and envied the ability of the leisure class to sit around and benefit
from the efforts of others. Marx assumed that workers detested their bosses, but Veblen
contented that they instead admired them. Veblen believed the goal of workers was not to
displace the upper class; it was to ascend the mountain of historically determined inequality
to become one of the privileged.
Doubtless, both men witnessed extreme poverty and the inhumane treatment of workers.
At Marx’s time, deplorable conditions existed in industrialized factories, and women and
children were especially targeted. It is understandable, in retrospect, why Marx equated the
exploitation of surplus labor with unpaid labor, given the length of the average workday
and the demands on workers to labor for greater periods of time. Marx’s seething contempt
for the capitalist system ignited the fires of dissention and fostered a growing willingness
to entertain socialist principles. His legacy cannot be overstated, even while considering
that the great revolution he predicted never actually happened. Many of his ideas are as
profound today as when they were originally published. Ironically, Thorstein Veblen never
quite received the notoriety of Karl Marx, although in some respects his analysis was decidedly
superior. Veblen’s understanding of pecuniary and consumptive emulation is extremely
relevant even today, given the marketing strategies of luxury goods.”
I am utilizing my free discussion to illustrate a point (or go on a rant, depending on
how you look at it): although my understanding of Marx has improved greatly and I would
probably revise some of what I wrote a year ago, I still think Veblen’s analysis of capitalism
was decidedly superior (sorry, Hans), and it was definitely more prophetic, especially his
concepts of conspicuous consumption and pecuniary emulation. I agree with Veblen that
the goal of the working class was never to overthrow the bourgeois capitalist. It was to
ascend the mountain of impossibility to become one of the elite. Maybe that was the greatest
deception of capitalism overall: it dangled the carrot just enough so that the workers of the
world believed they could actually do that. Isn’t that the American dream? Isn’t that what
they told us growing up; you could be anything in life and have all that we desired? Marx
believed we would see the illusion for what it really was: a bunch of B.S. But I think he
underestimated the capitalist and overestimated the working class. Veblen didn’t. He based
his assumptions on the biological nature of human beings, and realized that the tendency to
follow the herd is just too deeply ingrained in our genetic code. No matter how much social
506 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
institutions transform, at the end of the day we are all of us dreamers. We love a good fairy
tale, especially one that involves us! Why do you think the lottery is so popular? The odds
are about 80 million:one, but as long as there’s that one chance, THAT ONE CHANCE,
people will line up to play. That’s what capitalism does: it convinces us to work our butts
off to buy that Wonka chocolate bar because that golden ticket may just be inside. The
whole time we keep working and happily buying chocolate, working and buying chocolate.
And what happens? Nothing. Wonka gets rich and retires to Miami Beach, and we become
obese, move in with our aunt Trudy and retire to the sofa. Because once they privatize social
security and the capitalists get hold of it, then Miami Beach too will be just another dream
we buy into.
I told you it was a rant, but, hey, it’s the end of the semester and probably no one will
read this anyway.
Message [1054] referenced by [1056]. Next Message by Babyceta is [1074].
[1056] Somramthom: Some Final Thoughts About Marx and Veblen: A Lengthy
Free Discussion and Cynical Rant! Interesting thoughts in [1054] about consumptive
emulation. That is definitely existent in modern society. And it is spreading around the
world. But Marx still holds clout as well. In the vast majority of business classes taught
today (at least Westernized ones) you are taught about the bottom line; profits are assumed
to be the main objective of firms. Marx’s theory of where that profit comes from could still
hold true despite your conclusion that the accumulation of capital doesn’t drive capitalism.
In my experience, there is virtually never a time where one variable decides an outcome.
It is always several variables (nearly infinite number of variables in real life situations) that
decide outcomes. Why, therefore, can’t they both be right? not completely, mind you, just
bits here and there.
P.S. I only read your post because I happened to see the “it’s the end of the semester and
probably no one will read this anyway.” comment at the end of your post. I am strange like
that.
Next Message by Somramthom is [1105].
[1059] AM: Unemployment: to stimulate or not to stimulate. I was listening to Sean
Hannity’s radio show the other day not because I necessarily agree with his point of view but
rather because I enjoy hearing all sides of an argument before making my own decision. His
topic was extending unemployment. Hannity’s opinion was that extending unemployment
will not necessarily stimulate the economy in the way that those in government would like
to see. He made the point that extending unemployment through the holiday season will not
necessarily stimulate the economy immediately or for unnecessary items. The money given
to those without jobs will go to purchases for things they desperately need (i.e. diapers,
food, gas) and not to gifts and extra things. Also, Hannity suggested that those unemployed
do not really want money to be extended to them but that they would rather be provided with
opportunities to get out of unemployment. I think that there has to be some middle ground
between increasing the debit this country has and decreasing the unemployment rate.
But what would Marx think? Hans writes on pg. 709 of the Annotations “surpluspopulation
→ sudden expansion → sudden contractions → more surplus populations.” I

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 507
am not sure if I am applying this correctly but it makes me think of the current unemployment
and stimulus. Surplus-population of unemployed→ sudden expansion of the economy
due to stimulus→rapid contraction of the economy because it could not handle the sudden
expansion→ large surplus population of unemployed. So I guess that means I am suggesting
that there will be a short-term goal met (i.e. reducing unemployment) but in the long
term there will end up being more unemployed people.
Another interesting motive of the capitalist that Hans points out on pg. 714 in the Annotations
is that “capitalists are motivated to get more out of the same number of workers
instead of hiring more workers, because hiring more workers requires higher outlays in constant
capital than having the same number of workers working longer hours.” I remember
Sean Hannity mentioning this same idea during his radio show. Currently, the average work
week is something like 36 hours a week. Since employers have not increased the hours of
the laborers they already have, it is doubtful that they are going to hire new laborers out of
the unemployment pool. The employers are more likely to increase establish laborers hours
than they are to try and increase their capital to support new workers.
Message [1059] referenced by [1065] and [1075]. Next Message by AM is [1118].
[1063] Rmc: Re: Health insurance, social security. I know I’m late contributing to this
conversation, but I wanted to add some thoughts to Kaimani’s post [854].
Kaimani said “I think that the problem is with rates at which doctors can charge per
procedure.” I agree, but it’s not just limited to doctors- everybody working in the industry,
and every material used, is responsible for the cost of health care. For example, take the cost
of getting an x-ray- isn’t it true that there are separate charges for each step, like the person
who takes the x-ray, the cost of the film and developer (which I think has become largely
obsolete with computers), maybe paying off the cost of the machine, someone different
charges to look at the x-ray, and the physician relays the results (which someone else read) to
the patient. (Also, the other staff have to be included—janitors, receptionists, even cleaning
supplies and electric bills, etc.) Each step costs a ton of money, and the price of each could
be reduced. Doctors aren’t the only ones who charge too much. (Side note: I don’t know
if this is true with many others, but my dentist said he charges much less for patients who
don’t use insurance—he knows the insurance company won’t pay him the full amount, so
he has to make up the difference by inflating the price for insurance carriers. He loves when
people come in willing to pay out of their own pockets- they are much easier to work with
than insurance companies anyway, haha.)
Next Message by Rmc is [1064].
[1064] Rmc: Re: social security. I know I’m late contributing to this thread also, but I
would like to add anyway-
Re: Kleenex [937]- While lack of innovation and flexibility is an accurate description of
some or many older workers, it is not necessarily applicable to all of them- it’s an insult to
those who are perfectly capable of adapting to ever-changing work environments or those
who still have the motivation and willingness to learn new skills, like using technology. Just
saying. / Addressing another point mentioned, about the number of years of service needed
to work before the employee is eligible for retirement benefits- I understand it’s becoming
more and more common for companies to hire increasing numbers of temporary workers
508 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
instead of permanent in order to save money on benefits. How sad is that? Many people
are stuck with their “temporary” status for much longer than is fair. Even worse, other
places will terminate employment on purpose before the worker has reached the years of
service mark. Target specifically has a disappointing reputation for letting employees go–
sometimes in the form of encouraging-to-quit– after they’ve worked 10 or 15 years just so
they don’t have to pay them retirement benefits. Well, once someone has put in that much
time at one place, how will they work 30 or so years somewhere else?
Re: Smartergirl [945]- I’d like to add another point- many older workers are forced to
retire because they believe they won’t be able to find work in their field at their age, even
if they are capable of working until late in life. I know someone personally who, while
extremely knowledgeable and skilled in his field, and who would have been an asset to
any company, couldn’t find a job in the US because he was too old to be hired- in his late
50s. The trend of hiring younger people, as long as it continues, will mean older and more
qualified, experienced workers will be replaced and they may not be able to work through to
the retirement age. The job market pushes them out.
Next Message by Rmc is [1074].
[1065] Orville: How did we get here? To add to AM [1059] in another hot-button issue,
the Bush era tax cuts are set to expire. It is no doubt what Sean Hannity would say on the
subject because of his close work with the GOP. To relate this argument to class, Marx might
look at this discussion and wonder how we got to this point. To say that the capitalists need
a greater break than they already have would be one that goes against all of the cases made
in Capital. Although it is clear that Marx would prefer some socio-economic system other
than capitalism, Marx would have a few questions about how our tax dollars are collected
and spent.
A topic similar to that mentioned above was presented in another class. One student
came at it with an interesting case, he said that his father had come from a poor family in
southern Utah and had made it into the middle class. His ideas were that there should be
no welfare system and that people could escape poverty simply by working hard. Clearly
this individual has not been presented the ideas put forth in this class or in any sort of study
of demographics in the United States. Marx would certainly have something to say to this
person. After explaining his labor theory of value and the exploitation of labor, I believe he
might ask a few questions at how we got to this point. How did we get to a point where there
are those who make more in one year more than most will make in their entire lifetime? Our
models tell us that economics allocates goods in the most efficient way; that those willing
to pay more are those who will get the most use out of it. This is my main problem with
capitalism. Under that same idea, if Bill Gates wants a sandwich and is willing to pay $50
for it while a single mother only has $5 to spend on it, is that allocating effectively? Along
with that, can we, self-interested automatons, stop the coming climate crisis as debated in
the Question 935?
Next Message by Orville is [1107].
[1075] SMIKEC: Unemployment: to stimulate or not to stimulate. I have to agree with
AM [1059] something has to be done but none of the answers seem to be the one that fixes
all. By handing out more money, by extending the unemployment handouts, we are creating
more debt for us to have to eventually deal with. If they did extend it now then would people

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 509
be spending it on gifts versus the day to day necessities, ......probably. Would that be such
a bad thing though, in the sense, one of the only ways more jobs are going to be created
is by people spending money in the economy. By spending more, then the capitalist has a
greater demand for their good and in turn a greater need for labor. However as AM [1059]
said, the capitalist would probably just extend hours on current workers versus bringing on
more staff, hence trying to get the most surplus labor out of them versus bringing on more
overhead. Its a tough scenario which is going to take a multitude of components to make a
decent fix plan.
First Message by SMIKEC is [130].
[1076] Hans: How the “American Century” will end. This article by historian Alfred
McCoy is making the rounds in the internet today:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175327/
Assuming something like this is going to happen what would be a wise strategy to prepare
for it?
Message [1076] referenced by [1102]. Next Message by Hans is [1102].
[1086] Hal: Preparing For The Decline of America. In the article “The Decline and
Fall of the American Empire,” Alfred McCoy outlines four possible future scenarios. They
are “economic decline, oil shock, military misadventure, and World War III.” Assuming at
least one of these scenarios unfolds, which I think seems likely, America will hold a much
different position in the world than before. We can prepare for such a future in a number of
ways.
On a national level, we can make our nation’s decline in status more gradual by putting
political pressure on government officials to...
(1) ...avoid military misadventure. In other words, avoid war and cut military spending.
(2) ...aggressively seek energy independence and renewable forms of energy.
(3) ...create a better public transportation infrastructure, and provide incentives for individuals
to live in cities.
(4) ...create and foster international alliances (preferably with future super powers).
(5) ...allocate more money (while we still have it) to education in order to train more
scientists and engineers.
On an individual level, we can...
(6) ...make an effort to amass knowledge and skills useful for global communication and
commerce. For instance, we could study languages (Chinese, Hindi, Russian, Portuguese),
cultures, world history, world news, and international economics.
(7) ...move into cities with better public transportation so that living without a car would
be easier, thereby leaving us less dependent on oil
(8) ...build more energy efficient houses, or even move to more temperate climates where
heating and air conditioning will be less necessary
(9) ...sell all of our stocks!
510 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [1086] referenced by [1102], [1121], [1152], and [1155]. Next Message by Hal is [1096].
[1088] Guh: I was having an interesting discussion in my current economic class about
the criticisms raised against free trade by heterodox economists. Now, this is an interesting
conversation, but I found my self to think about the arguments against the neo-liberal
orthodoxy of free trade, and the clams of small countries being pushed into free trade too
quickly by more powerful countries. Moreover, by forcing these small and weaker economic
countries into free trade, results negatively for these smaller/weaker countries. What needs
to happen is the smaller/weaker countries need to stabilize and straighten themselves and
even their products before entering the free trade market with the other big players.
Next Message by Guh is [1125].
[1102] Hans: How to soften the landing. Hal [1086] took me up on my question: how
should one prepare for the decline of the empire. I like Hal’s first point a lot. It is “avoid
military misadventure.” Note that McCoy says:
Counterintuitively, as their power wanes, empires often plunge into illadvised
military misadventures. This phenomenon is known among historians
of empire as “micro-militarism” and seems to involve psychologically
compensatory efforts to salve the sting of retreat or defeat by occupying
new territories, however briefly and catastrophically. These operations,
irrational even from an imperial point of view, often yield hemorrhaging
expenditures or humiliating defeats that only accelerate the loss of power.
Here is the link again to McCoy’s article, same as in [1076]:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175327/
I.e., we know from history that military misadventures are a completely irrational reaction
which does not support the empire but undermines it. Had the world-wide mobilization of
6 million people on February 15 2003 prevented the US from invading Iraq, then the US
empire would be in a much better situation today than it is. I think Hal came up with a wise
and achievable goal: support the peace movement. And cut military spending so that those
in power are not able to play with the fire.
McCoy calls this “micro-militarism” because it is not a world war. But World War III is
also one of McCoy’s scenarios. If it happens, it will be a war between the US and China. The
ruling class has been preparing the US public for this war for a long time by its systematic
demonization of China. McCoy’s own article demonizes China too, talking about China’s
“rigged currency rates,” and making China the aggressor in World War III.
But demonization and the creation of a “them versus us” mentality has also become much
more difficult with modern information technology. Also the economic globalization has
made world wars more difficult. Therefore Hal’s point (7) is also a good preparation for the
future: learn Chinese. The indebtedness of the US is so large that there is a good chance the
company you work for will be owned by the Chinese at some point in the future.
Hal’s points (2), (3), (8), (9) talk about energy independence and energy savings. Hal’s
instincts are better than McCoy’s, whose report didn’t say a word about climate change and

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 511
the end of world wide economic growth. (McCoy is a historian, and these issues are relatively
new.) As I see it, the world-wide environmental crisis would have been an opportunity
to prolong US hegemony if the US would have stepped into the void as the leader for resource
conservation and renewable energy. But I guess the US body politic is too corrupt for
this, also a sign of a declining empire. I like McCoy’s formulation “the American system is
flooded with corporate money meant to jam up the works.”
Besides his blindness on climate change, McCoy is also blind to the alternatives of capitalism.
I find it totally possible and compatible with our historical experience that the entire
South American continent will go over to socialism, and that China will have another revolution
and emerge as a leading socialist world power. Hal’s point (4) of better international
co-operation is not possible under capitalism, it will only be possible if the nations are socialist,
or if the threat of socialism is so strong that the capitalists go on their best behavior.
Message [1102] referenced by [1112], [1121], and [1152]. Next Message by Hans is [1182].
[1109] RexManning: Tax break here, 100% write off there. If according to the abstinence
theory, capitalists are forgoing the overwhelming desire to expend, so that they can be
the saviors that society has deemed them to be, and provide us (the workers) with access to
the production process so that we can be exploited and further increase their profits, why is it
that with the tax cuts being implemented, are they able to receive 100% write off for capital
investment? Not only are the tax cuts going to be extended to everyone, the capitalists will
get the chance to further widen the gap between the middle-class and upper-class by being
able to invest in capital without really having to pay for it. Perhaps more funds should be
directed to the people who really need it. Instead of costing the government another $200
billion which it really can’t afford.
Message [1109] referenced by [1162]. Next Message by RexManning is [1127].
[1111] Deadfamous: What if the Rich only paid taxes? I was just wondering what
Marx would think about a capitalist structure where the poor up to a certain point never had
to pay taxes, and would have to start paying taxes after 40,000 or so per person, would this
be in his frame of thinking? I know he is pro-unions what if all the poor people united and
stated that since they don’t own the means of production, they should not have to pay taxes?
Just thinking out loud?
First Message by Deadfamous is [185].
[1118] AM: a nice film. Not long after submitting a term paper on exploitation in capitalism
I watched a documentary film called Freakonomics. I was not surprised to see yet
another example where exploitation is hidden by surface relations. One of the segments
during the documentary delved into the world of Sumo wrestling. Immediately I thought,
‘Sumo Wrestling? Really ancient Japanese sport wrought with exploitation and deceit? No
Way!’ Well, as the documentary went on to explain, Sumo wrestling is in fact a sport in
which the general public is exploited by a select few. That is to say that the millions of
people who follow Sumo Wrestling and admire it as an ancient custom are exploited by the
select few chosen to participate in and oversee the sport. Social relations (i.e. ancient rituals
and reverence) hide the fact that Sumo matches are rigged. Much like it is in the best interest
of the Capitalist to exploit his laborers because his main goal is to increase his capital, it
is in the best interest of some Sumo wrestlers to lose and take a pay off in order to benefit
financially.
512 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
After spending a month writing on exploitation in the capitalist system, this documentary
brought home how many different examples of exploitation there are. I think Marx would
classify the exploitation occurring in Sumo wrestling systemic because by no means is it
accidental. The exploitation is occurring on a very conscious level without accident.
I just needed to share how delighted I was with the film and general and specifically that
I could relate it to something that I was learning in-class.
Next Message by AM is [1138].
[1121] Kleenex: How to soften the landing. I would like to respectfully comment as
a free discussion on Hal [1086] and Hans [1102], specifically the statement, “support the
peace movement. And cut military spending so that those in power are not able to play with
the fire.”
Though world peace is an ideal for everyone, and would be wonderful to experience,
unfortunately, our adversaries are not peaceful, nor do they promote peace. Reality bites.
Sure, we can be peaceful and pacifist, but I would venture to say that that would actually
leave us in an even worse condition. I am glad that there is a 1% of the US population
who is willing to keep us from being destroyed by those who hate the ideals we stand for
(democracy, freedom), the freedom that allows us to partake in these types of discussions
without persecution or government censorship.
Just also wanted to note that military spending is indeed being cut. I experience this and
am reminded of this everyday where I work: doing more with less resources. However,
many other sectors should be experiencing budget cuts as well (Department of Education,
Department of Transportation, etc), if they aren’t already doing so. Looking at our national
debt, we will all just have to do “more with less,” not just the military, but everyone, to
include frivolous consumption at the national, state, county, city, and even individual level.
Message [1121] referenced by [1152] and [1155]. First Message by Kleenex is [17].
[1123] Fisher: Palestine. The last class was interesting, particularly when Hans mentioned
Palestine and Isreal as an example of how life could become. Last class was very
interesting. I will definately read more into Marx and Capital.
First Message by Fisher is [181].
[1141] Spiral: Health Care. In response to [1003]: Classical economics doesn’t apply
to the health care market in the sense that the conditions for perfect competition within the
market are nonexistent. All available information is not available nor is the supply of health
care perfectly elastic. The unique attribute of the health care market is that the physician
controls the entire process i.e demanding and supplying health care. Here the doctor controls
demand because the consumer doesn’t have the necessary knowledge to demand the specific
health care they need. This is why we see a doctor. Additionally, the doctor supplies the
health care he just told us to demand. This is a peculiar case where the physician control
the means of production (equipment and medicine) and supplies the labour-power applying
health care.
Message [1141] referenced by [1150]. Next Message by Spiral is [1142].
[1142] Spiral: Current recession. I agree with your general supposition in [1012] that
blame for the recent economic recession and the nasty aftermath we’re all dealing with is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 513
spread across a large number of actors. But I think the list is significantly longer than Presidents
and investment banks aka Wall Street. I would add Alan Greenspan for his irrational
exuberance keeping the discount rate and the fed funds rate at never before seen historic
lows, Senator Phil Gramm for fighting to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act on behalf of investment
banks who paid him millions while in office and more afterward. The Act kept
commercial and investment banking separate since the Great Depression but after repeal exposed
the financial system to unknown risks economists are still discovering. Lets not forget
the rating agencies who were paid by banks to rate their investment instruments from mortgage
backed securities (MBS) to exotic structured investment vehicles (SIVs). The perverse
incentive of being paid to analyze and criticize the property of the entity who is paying you
resulted in millions of false triple AAA ratings.
The list of those who are morally blameworthy goes on to include many Presidents, public
officials, banks, regulatory agencies, CEOs etc. The point is that this great recession was a
system-wide phenomenon with capitalists, public officials, and workers all taking part in
the credit bubble’s creation. Moral hazard remains an issue after bailouts created a new
tier of firms under the all-powerful title “too-big-to-fail.” An answer of how to wind down
these capitalist behemoths has not been found, but some good ideas are floating around.
Institutions of this size must develop a bankruptcy plan for the government or a receivership
to parcel out the firm’s assets to those owed money. Greater transparency through new
international accounting standards will help but cooking the books will always be a danger
so more needs to be done. An intriguing idea is for moral hazard to spur the proletariat to
call for accountability in the form of a plan to vest ultimate protection and authority with the
people. This is a democratic idea but one which could also be the beginning of a proletarian
movement awakening to their unity as a class.
Next Message by Spiral is [1154].
[1146] Proletarian: What’s a Marxist to do? What is the aspiring Marxist to do? I’m
sure there are plenty of us in this class, and in this world for that matter, who would like to
see the fall of capitalism and the rise of a social order that is more equitable, sustainable,
and empowering of the masses. But what does one do in the meantime? How can we help
stop the unrelenting machine of production in the name of profits?
We have to deal with the fact that, for the moment, we live in a capitalist economic system,
and as much as we’d like it to be the case, it’s improbable that we’ll wake up tomorrow and
be living in a socialist paradise. Overcoming capitalism will take a massive social movement
that will require a lot more than the actions of just an individual. However, it seems to me
that there should be at least some ways that we can help ease the burdens on the proletariat
and help “prime the system” for larger scale social change.
One thing I’ve thought of was starting a business and organizing it as an employee owned
business. While we’ve seen that capitalism keeps the working class from owning the means
of production, there are social and governmental programs that are designed to help smallbusinesses
and entrepreneurs. While starting a business isn’t easy, it is possible, and by
organizing your business to be employee owned and operated one can create a company
where workers collectively own their means of production and benefit from them.
514 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Another thought I had is to support organized labor. Unfortunately, the strength of unions
in our county has been greatly weakened in the last thirty years, starting with Ronald Regan.
However, it seems to me that the damage is not irreprerable, and that by supporting unions we
can empower workers to fight for their rights and better work environments, and hopefully,
have mechanisms in place that can lead to employee takeover of companies once the push
for a more socially equable form of economic structure comes on a societal level.
These are just a couple of my thoughts. Any others?
Message [1146] referenced by [1156] and [1165]. Next Message by Proletarian is [1147].
[1147] Proletarian: What’s next? Coming into the semester I had no idea what to expect
from this class. Obviously I expected to learn quite a bit about Marxism, but what I didn’t
expect was the extraordinary delatil and depth of our exploration of Marx’s thoughts and the
foundations of the Marxist view on the structure and function of economics. While I went
into the class expecting to be somewhat accepting of Marxist thought, I had no idea how
much I would agree with this view of economics. In fact, one may say that I’m coming out
of this class a Marxist (or at least a Marxist-in-training).
What I hope to get out of this discussion is an answer to the following: what’s next?
Specifically, what’s next in two areas. First, what can those interested in learning more
about Marxism do next (what should they read, where should they go, etc.)? Second, what
should one who wants to cause social change and work towards the end of capitalism be
doing right now?
First Message by Proletarian is [35].
[1150] Smartergirl: Health Care. In addition to what Spiral stated in [1141] I would
like to add and go even a little deeper. Perfect competition may be seen as non existent
and because doctors were not abundant in earlier times they clearly had a market advantage.
As Spiral stated the physician had control of the entire process but we see centralization
even in health care now. More and more small capitalist doctors are going bankrupt because
they cannot afford the insurance to have a private practice. Because the doctor most likely
depended on credit to get through med school they are a slave to their debt and have to pay
it off. They need to practice medicine because it brings in a higher value. Even the doctor
is enslaved to big medical companies that have investors from insurance companies on their
board of directors. Doctors no longer can use the available medical treatment that they have
been taught because they have to clear it with the insurance company. Is the doctor truly
immune from perfect competition? I believe they are just as much a slave and victim to
modern day economics as we are.
Next Message by Smartergirl is [1183].
[1151] Rico: Capitalism vs Leftist Governments. After the in-class discussion Tuesday
night, I found it interesting that our government has often been opposed to leftist dictators.
After briefly researching the argument, I discovered that the US government has favored
right-wing dictators, while extremely opposing left-wing dictators.
Has the USA ever embraced a foreign leftist government (i.e. Marxist gov’t, comunist
gov’t, etc)?
Next Message by Rico is [1153].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 515
[1152] Zohan: Cut Spending? I would also like to comment on Hal [1086] and Hans
[1102] specifically the text, “Had the world-wide mobilization of 6 million people on February
15 2003 prevented the US from invading Iraq, then the US empire would be in a much
better situation today than it is.....support the peace movement. And cut military spending
so that those in power are not able to play with the fire.”
But first I would like to thank Kleenex [1121] for your comments. I myself am a part of
the 1% mentioned in Kleenex [1121]. I normally am pretty reserved regarding my service in
the military, but under a pseudo name I feel more comfortable to share. I spent 15 months in
Iraq, surviving, fighting and sacrificing, and I did it all for my love and devotion to this great
nation. I have never asked for a thank you from anyone, but it nice to know that there are
civilians that appreciate those that sacrifice and what it cost to enjoy the freedoms we have.
Regarding Hal’s comments. I support the peace movement, I really do. I hoped for
nothing more each day I spent a world away from my family and the things that I love. I wish
the world was a peaceful place. I wish that world leaders of nations would see eye to eye and
that we could all coexist in peace. But that’s not our world and that’s the reality that we need
to live in. After reading through the emails I have to ask would the US empire really be in a
better situation than we are today? I don’t know, but I also asked myself, would a nation be
liberated from the rule of a tyrant? Would stopping the US invasion in Iraq have prevented
the economic breakdown? Is it really the governments spending on military that has led our
nation down this path? And finally, should America reduce our global military campaign
and invest more on our domestic interest and our own people? I mean no disrespect by my
comments, or questions, and don’t claim to know all the answers, but as someone who has
given much to his country I would like to think that my time spent fighting on foreign soil
did not weaken the our nations empire, but helped secure our precious freedoms, ensure our
way of life, and help lift a nation from under the grasp of a violent tyrant so that their nation
may one day prosper as well. Maybe my time spent in the military has tainted my opinion,
or maybe I am just a naive patriot who loves his nation too much, I don’t know. But I do
know that if our nation is to continue as the empire we are,we must be cautious of how we
chose to cut spending and how we chose to allocate our budgets. We need to learn from
history and hopefully the leaders, that we as a people have chosen, make the right decisions.
Just a side note, it is a result of military spending that has provide myself the opportunity
to receive a higher education. With out the funds I received as a result of my service it is
doubtful that I would have ever stepped foot on a college campus.
Message [1152] referenced by [1155]. Next Message by Zohan is [1169].
[1155] Hal: Military Misadventure. I feel the need to respond to Zohan [1152] and
Kleenex [1121].
In [1086], the only comment I made regarding military misadventure was the suggestion
to put “political pressure on government officials to...avoid military misadventure. In other
words, avoid war and cut military spending.” I made no comments regarding any specific
wars.
In general, a nation in decline should avoid war and cut military spending along with
cutting other areas of government spending. Assuming that our country is in decline, we will
516 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
need to step down from being the leader in policing other countries and restrict ourselves to
more of a defensive role. On a smaller budget, we can still adequately defend ourselves and
provide great benefits for our troops.
Message [1155] referenced by [1160] and [1169]. First Message by Hal is [8].
[1156] IrvingHowe: What’s a Marxist to do? Proletarian,
A couple of thoughts in response to your email [1146].
You’re raising a lot of big questions that cannot be properly discussed in this format but
allow me to try and inject my two cents. First, there are a great many employee owned businesses
and it has not brought capitalism’s demise a single day closer. Interestingly enough,
the 5th largest corporation in Spain is an employee owned firm. Personally, I would say that
if your end goal is a complete re-tooling of our economy, this is not the best use of your
time. If you would like to inject a bit of justice and dignity into the lives of a few working
people, than this may be a good route to take.
Second, I believe, as you do, that the struggle has to begin with workers. Labor is something
I care deeply about and something that I have dedicated all of my adult life to. There
is work going on right now to re-start a student labor association at the University. I would
encourage getting involved. However, I for one do not blame Reagan for labor’s ails nor do
I think they began there. I have a great deal of thoughts on the matter though and again, this
format is a bit limiting.
Besides supporting workers struggles, I would say that the best thing you can do is network
with everyone and anyone that you can. The biggest problem with the real left, as I see
it, is that there are not enough bonds between the various causes and organizations that share
so much in common. The big political parties have been so successful (if you can call them
that) because they have tied together many different constituencies into one big force. Many
of these constituencies are a natural fit but most would appear to have little to nothing to
do with each other. For instance, a bible belt christian should theoretically want nothing to
do with a greedy Wall Street trader but they both go in the same tent not because they share
any beliefs but because the organization has championed each constituency’s most important
cause, abortion and taxes. Strange bedfellows though they may be, they both can feel good
about getting behind the GOP and defending one another because they know that this is the
only way either one can get what they want out of the deal. The same can be said about
culturally conservative black people and LGBT members of the Democratic Party.
My point is, I believe the most effective use of a person’s time that shares your views is to
work tirelessly to connect the various networks of concerned people into something that can
function as a community. Even absent a political party (waste of time) a group of this kind
can be a refinery for thought, a forum for thought and a support structure that can mobilize to
fight the battles that need to be taken on. If one could get anything sizable going, it is bound
to produce thought that would permeate to corners of society that have been untouched by
the left in 80 years.
Just a thought.
Message [1156] referenced by [1163]. Next Message by IrvingHowe is [1179].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 517
[1159] GoUtes: I would just like to add on to the discussion of “cutting spending on war”.
I agree with Zohan, I truly respect and admire those who have fought for our rights and
freedoms, who put aside their families, friends, obligations at home and risk their lives for
our freedom. For this Zohan I would like to thank you for your service. I adamantly believe
that cutting back spending on things such as war would not make much of a difference in an
already ever increasing national deficit.
Now don’t get me wrong, we should not throw billions of dollars away just to be reckless
or to a lost cause, but I personally believe that spending should not be cut, it should be
increased if it gives our troops any sort of advantage in helping to liberate a country that
other wise has no chance to succeed, but more than anything else, if it helps to protect our
rights and our freedoms, give our troops all that they need to defend our great nation.
Hans: There is no need to “adamantly believe” something if you can easily look up the facts on the internet.
According to the Wikipedia entry for the Military budget of the United States, military spending swallows up over
50% of total discretionary spending, and over 50% of tax revenues.
Next Message by GoUtes is [1172].
[1160] Orville: Ideas from Li. Just to add to Hal’s [1155], I agree with him. Minqi Li
is a professor who has come up in other discussions on this email list but allow me to throw
his name out there one more time. In his class, we have learned how the failed wars are a
sign that there will be a change in the hegemonic power. Like England being unable to win
wars in India and other colonies, this clearly shows that a world power is slipping out of its
dominant role. I agree with Hal in that we need to cut military spending and put it towards
better investments, those being education, green technology, and social welfare programs.
Li suggests in his book, “The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World
Economy,” the war in Iraq and our inability to successfully set up a government and get
our troops out of Iraq. I believe this to be true to an extent. The war in Vietnam seems to
have said the same thing but we’ve been the world hegemonic power for 30+ years since
then. The difference now is that there is a serious player who could take over the capitalist
economy: China.
I wonder what the future system will look like. Will China continue to run itself like a
capitalist economy? Will India take over after China? I suppose the only thing to do now is
wait.
First Message by Orville is [104].
[1162] Spiral: Tax break here, 100% write off there. In response to [1109]; No doubt
the current deal in Congress to extend unemployment benefits by 13 months for an extension
of the Bush tax cuts for two years smacks of hypocrisy. Neither extension is paid for so the
deficit will increase but just last week Congress was up in arms over recent proposals to fix
our nation’s fiscal woes. The deal hasn’t been passed by both chambers of Congress yet so
it remains to be seen what percentage capitalists will be able to write off. The President
has publicly shared his support for the deal should it reach his desk for signing. Marx sees
capitalism as a fluid system constantly in motion and should this movement slow or stop the
system careens toward collapse. This is what happened during the recent great recession;
money stopped flowing through Wall Street’s wires where it was concentrated in the hands
of a few precipitating the chain reaction of foreclosures and bankruptcies. Tax write offs
in this case are a means for the government to facilitate necessary fluidity of capital for
518 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
growth. This system of growth creation does work for the capitalists who can guarantee
public officials jobs and campaign donations. What can the working-class promise public
officials except their individual votes? Some politicians focus on how to maximize their
vote to dollar spent ratio in the campaign for public office which skews attention toward
capitalists with their monetary shows of support. If tax incentives for capital investment
decrease it will be harder for those already in the corridors of power to remain there.
Next Message by Spiral is [1166].
[1163] Wolf: For Proletarian. I agree with IrvingHowe in [1156] that worker-owned
cooperatives will not effectively counter capitalism. While it makes for a more pleasant
work-atmosphere, it does nothing except showing a limited alternative which only can be
done by those who are economically priviledged enough to start a business.
As was said before, what should we do? If there were a large anti-capitalist movement capable
of gaining momentum which could effectively counter the current paradigm, it would,
in all likelihood, be violently supressed. This has shown true in this country’s history with
the maching-gunning of strikers to COINTELPRO or assassination. Despite these odds, I
feel it is imperative that we continue building an anti-capitalist movement as this would intersect
most of the few social movements which currently exist, those being the labor movement,
animal-rights, environmental, anti-authoritarian, and the small remnants of the dead
anti-war and anti-globalization movements (besides the small Zapatista movement).These
struggles are interconnected with capital’s totality and as an anti-capitalist strategy, it makes
sense to network with these movements in order to broaden anti-capitalist struggle.
With this, I have lost complete hope in political parties and now view both Left and
Right as strategies to better manage the effects of capital through whatever social climate it
encounters. Even charity work eases the strains manifested by capital, enabling its continuation.
It has taken over all life, as well as all possible avenues for escape or struggle, using
them for its reproduction (think the Left, powerful labor unions, and globalization).
The only possibility I see is in the beginnings of collapse. If crises develop small cracks
in capitalism, it could be increasingly easier for the anti-capitalist movement to insert itself
within them, widening them. Other than that, I feel as if capital has almost entirely won.
On a brighter note, no system exists for ever and it seems as if capitalism is nearing a limit
(environmentally) which could create new possibilities in anti-capitalist struggle. It will be
very interesting to see how the world plays out in the next two decades.
I’m sorry for the overall pessimism and don’t hope to disuade you from acting. It is
easy to be hopeless, apathetic, and feel a sense of powerlessness. That’s what capital wants!
Think of it this way: There is much work to be done. Also, take note that my anarchist
convictions change how I view our situation as I don’t feel any green government will lead
us to communism, thus limiting my favorable options. I would suggest, as further reading,
many of the french communists (more recent ones), some Zizek, Negri (or any Italian
communists/anarchists from the 70’s), Camatte, and Chomsky (as info on US foreign policy).
These authors tend to tickle my palate. You could always check out revleft.com if you
are interested in discussion amongst left and post-left radicals/revolutionaries. Find local
struggles and radicals and ally with them!
Message [1163] referenced by [1165]. First Message by Wolf is [39].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 519
[1165] Ferox: DIY- taking down capitalism one project at a time. Proletarian [1146]
has posed a question that I believe we should all be asking right now. Given the tools and
knowledge we have acquired to critically analyze the capitalist structure around us, where
do we as individuals and a small group begin? Personally, I agree with Wolf [1163] in that
capital has almost (emphasis here) entirely won, that to look to government or action through
official channels for drastic and necessary change only perpetuates the capitalist system. It
is a very pessimistic (albeit realistic outlook in my opinion) to have.
However, I also agree with Wolf in that there is much work to be done. To buy into the
feelings of hopelessness and pessimism is to acknowledge that capitalism has completely
(emphasis again) won. This, I believe, is not true. Change begins with small actions and
the strength of the individual. At the core of Marx’s analysis of capital is the labor theory
of value. That is, the human sentience acting upon natural forces thereby effecting directed
change is the origin of value. The will to act upon (or against) those forces (both natural and
unnatural) in our lives is the genesis of meaningful and valued existence.
As a suggestion to anyone looking to break away some of the shackles of the capitalist
system imposed upon us - I recommend taking a DIY attitude. DIY (acronym for Do
It Yourself) is the act of making, repairing, or modifying something without the aid of experts
or professionals. This has many effects. By circumventing the traditional markets and
consumer culture where we are forced to rely on others to satisfy our needs, we are taking
back some of the means of production back for ourselves. We are making a stand against
capitalist monopolies on production, against consumption, and against exploitation of the
laborer. Through the act of creation we are imbuing objects with value and generating skills
for ourselves - even if the pair of pants you sewed are not as ‘well made’ as those produced
by exploitative labour processes in Third World countries or in line with the latest fashions
imposed upon us, pride can be taken in the fact that YOU made them. They are a crystallization
of YOUR labor power. YOU gave them value. YOU have prevented the system of
capitalist exploitation for one pair of pants.
I have found this mindset has helped me in my life to appreciate what I have, do more with
what others perceive as less, expand my creative horizons, share skills and learn new ones,
and meet a host of people who for one reason or another have said enough to the destructive
exploitation of capitalism - giving me a sense of community. As we near the twilight of a
First World capitalist lifestyle, I think we can all benefit from this mindset.
First Message by Ferox is [85].
[1169] Zohan: One last comment. I have one last comment to make on Hal [1155]
I realize that your comments were not solely directed on military spending and I thought
you had some valid points. I agree that a nation that is under economic distress should
rationally cut military spending to unneeded campaigns. I would also agree that America
should be extremely cautious of how and when we chose to get involved with the conflicts of
the world. Policies to reduce unneeded spending in certain sectors should be implemented
durning times of economic downturn. Unfortunately our nation is facing a economic crisis
at the same time as being heavily involved in two major conflicts and reducing military
spending may cause more harm than good at this point. It is a complicated situation.
520 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
We invest our budget on social programs like Medicaid and unemployment but when
compared to military spending what overall advantage do you gain. Military spending brings
advances in technology, medicine, defence systems and energy security for our nation. These
are all areas that America must continue to develop and invest in if we want to remain as one
of the great nations of the world.
First Message by Zohan is [213].
[1173] JJ: So now I’m a Marxist. Where do we go from here. One of the things that
we’ve been discussing in the class sessions is where we should go from here and what we
took away from the class. How can us new-born converted Marxists now go out into the
world and assimilate into a purely capitalist society?
At the beginning of the semester, this class had me scrambling. I found that I had to
completely clear my mind of all that I had learned before and start over my learning as if I
was a child. This was the only way that I found that I could start to comprehend the ideas
of Marx on Capitalism, without allowing any of my preconceived notions to come into play.
It’s almost as if this was the way the Marx intended it and I believe that this has much to do
with the order in which he displays his different ideas. Hans wasn’t kidding in the syllabus
when he discusses that the majority of the work for this class will come hard and heavy in
the first few weeks. This is part of the reasoning of why we don’t have a final exam in this
class. I heartily agree with Hans’ assessment of the work load and his choices on how to
handle the testing. This has naught to do with any desire to get a freebie on a theoretical final
exam, but everything to do with the level of mind altering concentration this class required
in the first few weeks.
“Clear your mind young grasshopper and imagine a commodity and only this one commodity.
. . .”
By doing so, I believe that I might have actually turned some switch in my brain that
I’m fearful that I won’t be able to turn off. If only that I always thought of myself as a
conservative independent, and now for the first time in my life I find myself wondering if
there isn’t something else to all of this. Maybe, something inside me has been awoken to
let me realize that I have some desire to be more liberal, or socialistic, or maybe I’m just a
sleeping Marxist and I don’t know it yet. Long story short is that many of the ideas on the
capitalistic system hit home and hit home hard. You might even say that I’m a capitalist that
read Marx’s “Capital” and find myself a little bit ashamed. Am I that same capitalist that
has a werewolf’s hunger for the surplus labor of my minimum wage employees? ( I work
in management ) Or will I continue to convince myself that this world is a “dog eat dog”
world? Will I continue with my philosophy of marginalism wherein there should only be a
survival of the fittest? This works for the world of biology and for the wild animals in the
Serengeti, why shouldn’t this work for us? Is the only solution to “go rogue” and quit my
job before I add to the amount of exploitation? (Going Rogue is not a Sarah Palin reference,
but it would be funny if it was) Do I have any free will in choosing whether I will or will not
be a cog in the capitalist machine? Do I choose, as a management figure and representative
of the company, to cooperate with labor unions at the risk of losing my job? I don’t have the
answers to any of the above necessarily, but find myself thinking these crazy thought after
completing this class.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 521
I have spent some time this evening going over my old submissions and was so interested
to see the difference of my first submissions. I truly believe that I was thinking differently
when I made these submissions. Although I thought myself to be logical, I now look back at
these same submissions and ask myself, “what was I thinking?”. Hans [71] even pointed out
that my submission [70] was as good as my volunteer consent to be the class guinea pig. I’m
glad that he did this to challenge me. I once again found that to even begin to comprehend so
many of the ideas that I had to clear my mind and slowly build a new structure and thought
process. The labor theory of value! Labor itself being embedded into a commodity!? This
was crazy talk. Yet, I now find myself questioning why it can’t be true as a labor-theory of
value now seems all but too natural for me.
Does this mean that I’m now a Marxist? I don’t think that it does, but I know for sure that
I’m something different than what I was before.
In speaking with some of you after class, I find that many of you also feel the same way.
Are you also now Marxists, or have you even budged a few inches in that direction more
than you did since you began this class? I guess it depends on whether you see yourself as a
capitalist of a worker.
Message [1173] referenced by [133] and [1176]. Next Message by JJ is [1174].
[1175] She: Tax cuts...what income bracket is more likely to spend the extra cash?
When an economy is down, as a true believer in demand-side economics, I believe that
circulating and spending money is the only way to fix it. If our government is going to give
people more money based on their income, where should these policies be concentrated to
achieve the greatest effect?
If we give the top 2% additional money, the Republicans are saying that they will create
jobs with it. The reality is that the top 2% already have money sitting around, idle that
they would use if they were going to invest, but they aren’t investing it because there is no
demand for new products and services since many middle income families cannot afford to
spend more money. So, if we give the top 2% more money, there is no guarantee it will get
spent or circulated in any way in our economy.
Study after study have shown that the lower we go on the income scale, the less money
people save. This isn’t because they are bad with money, it is because they have such a small
amount of it, there is never a surplus after basic goods are purchased. Tax benefits given
to the lower income classes is guaranteed to be spent and begin the process of circulation
through our economy, benefiting countless people along its way. Tax benefits for the middle
class achieve almost the same effect.
Middle class families, when given more income, tend to save only a small portion and
tend to consume more goods and services when provided with the opportunity.
The increased consumption of the middle and lower class will stimulate demand which
will require the capitalists at the top to invest and create more jobs to keep up with the new
increased demand. The demand for labor is not something that can be created on the supply
side; it is truly demand driven.
First Message by She is [37].
522 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[1176] Max: So now I’m a Marxist. Where do we go from here. Sweet submission
[1173]. I’ve also learned a lot that has changed the way I think. In a perfect system, I think
socialism would be the best option for a large population commodity producing society. In a
small population, I think anarchism with strong moral upbringing is the most decentralized
government. However, I think that in America today, too many people fear socialism, especially
because on one end of the spectrum you have republicanism which wants to do away
with big government. It is this idea that makes me a big believer in Jeffersonian Democracy;
where individualism and strong moral upbringing is supported while at the same time restricting
power from the wealthy. Jefferson believed we all should be self-sufficient farmers
so we don’t have to succumb to the exploitative powers of corrupted businesses and financial
institutions. While the self-sufficient farm movement is growing larger, Jeffersonian
ideas may not be applicable to everyone. Still, I think his republican values can be a very
strong uniting force in a divided America whose political parties are solely divided because
of wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. Jefferson wanted an end to big business,
and I think his philosophy is a great way to incorporate anti-government Marxist sentiment
without resorting to state controlled socialism.
First Message by Max is [84].
[1177] Cmellen: So now I’m a Marxist. Where do we go from here. Message from
Purely Capitalist Society: “Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated.”
Message [1177] referenced by [1178]. First Message by Cmellen is [6].
[1178] Somramthom: Re: So now I’m a Marxist. Where do we go from here. In response
to [1177]. Just because we learned a few things about how Karl Marx saw capitalism
doesn’t change the fact that we were raised in a capitalistic society. My guess is most of us
will continue on with little or no change in behavior.
Just my guess though...
Message [1178] referenced by [1179]. First Message by Somramthom is [28].
[1179] IrvingHowe: So now I’m a Marxist. Where do we go from here. Just because
you are raised a certain way does not mean you should continue on in such a way. Anybody
else want to pick up on the racism of our parents generation??
Also, you are right in [1178] that many people in the class will probably go on with their
lives in the way that they were before this class. If you fit into that group, my guess is that
this post was not intended for you.
Final Grading Note by Hans: You are more mature, more realistic, yet more radical than most of the other
participants. This is a rare combination.
First Message by IrvingHowe is [150].
[1180] Kobe: what we know now. I can truly say I understand both sides of the coin,
capitalist ideas vs. marxist ideas, after this semester of classes. With the problems that are
going on today in our government we hear many talk and radio hosts commenting that the
current regime are Marxist and hate the idea of capitalism. Until taking this class I didn’t
fully understand what they were talking about when they said this. This class will now allow
me to see both sides of the argument and both sides of issues that are going on today, such
as tax breaks. Because I was raised in a capitalist society I believe I am a capitalist but have
much more respect for Marxist ideas. Through Marx writing and ideas I believe if we were
to incorporate some of these ideas in our capitalist society we could see great growth in our

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 523
economy. There is my two cents, what does everyone else feel? Has this class changed your
way of thinking or even made you believe you are a Marxist?
First Message by Kobe is [394].
[1181] Intaglio: So now I’m a Marxist. Where do we go from here. lol at all the
reactionaries in this class.
Where to? I’d recommend exploring the different tendencies within socialism. There are
incredibly different ideas within the left wing, especially on how to get to socialism. There
are authoritarian forms of socialism and there are libertarian/anarchist forms. Personally, I
prefer socialist-anarchism. Historically marxism has been implemented from the top down,
causing stagnant workers. Yes, workers are still pissed when their capitalist oppressor is replace
by the state oppressor. Give them control of their labor! Some even consider “marxist”
state exploitation of the worker more harsh that the capitalist pillaging. There are also huge
bureaucratic corruption problems within the state apparatuses marxists have set up. The various
critiques of what happened in the Soviet Union are really important. See the anarchist
and libertarian-marxist criticisms of state-socialism. The Leninists (authoritarian socialists)
will defend the state no matter how obvious its troubles are, but you should probably read
Lenin’s The State and Revolution regardless.
But then there are marxists who see these state route as being antithetical to socialism,
such as the autonomous-marxists and council communists. Also see what the Anarchist-
Communists have to say and where they differ from marxists on communism. Kropotkin
is a good place to start with anti-state communism. Most anarchists largely agree with
marx’s critique of capital, though i would say Marx is too determinist. Or maybe you’ll like
Mutualism, a socialist/anti-capitalist free market. yeah everyone that reads Marx should also
read Kropotkin. The Conquest of Bread.
http://libcom.org/library/the-conquest-of-bread-peter-kropotkin
First Message by Intaglio is [194].
[1183] Smartergirl: So now I’m a Marxist. Where do we go from here. Its interesting
to me that everything has to have a label. Socialism, anarchism, capitalism. I think its
fair to say that each of them have their pros and cons. It would be great to take the best
aspects of each of these and try to incorporate them into a productive cooperative system.
No labels necessary. The idea of having a label and an all or nothing perspective is why our
government is stagnate and not making nearly the rapid progress that we could be. Instead
of wrapping a new idea or perspective into a labeled preconcived system, present the ideas
and their more likely to become a reality. Im not a firm believer in everything of anything
but would rather incorporate the strengths of many systems to get closer to a perfect one.
First Message by Smartergirl is [440].
[1186] RexManning: Marx as a person. I am curious, does anyone know what kind
of background Marx came from? Was he born into a wealthy family, a poor family? This
class has really gotten me interested in Marx as a person. Was there an identifiable “turning
point” in his life that spurred some of his thinking? Maybe someone can recommend a good
biography.
First Message by RexManning is [9].
524 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[1187] Husani: Taxes and Unemployment Benefits. Earlier this week President Obama
made a deal with Republican Congressman which would renew the Bush era tax cuts for
another two years. This bill is projected to cost the Federal goverment $857.8 billion due to
lost tax revenues. I guess I’m just confused by the Tea Party movement and their motives.
Leading up to the election last month they were running on reducing the federal debt but
when they have the opportunity to do something about, they decide to give money to the
ubber rich instead (by providing the top 2% with a tax cut). As this was being worked out
the Republicans voted down a bill that would provide First Responders of 9/11 with $4.2
Billion that would go to pay their medical bills. Why are the rich more important than the
people who save lives?
I just wanted to get some opinions on the recent decisions made in congress. I believe
that this is a sign that we need a bit more Marxism and a little less capitalism.
Message [1187] referenced by [1188]. First Message by Husani is [124].
[1188] JJ: Taxes and Unemployment Benefits. Many of the questions that were posed
in [1187] and their varied responses can depend greatly on your perspective to the situation.
Democrats are calling it a renewal of Bush era tax cuts and [1187] labelled this as a cost
and loss of some 857 billion dollars in revenue to the government. Seems even Obama is
making a deal with the devil.
I watched the opening statements to this latest session known as the “lame duck” session.
Republicans kept trying to remind everyone that in their view this was not a tax cut for the
rich, but the continued denial of a tax hike. To them this is not a loss of tax revenue, but a
continued savings to the American people.
The fact that this vote was even brought forward by the democrats in the lame duck
session proves this to be politics and not economics. In this I mean to say that even the
democrats knew that they had zero chance of this passing, but brought it forward regardless
to set the tone for their agenda. This failed vote is a chess move in a larger game of politics.
The fact that it was even brought forward and painted in such a light is actually a win for the
democrats. Republicans look exactly as [1187] described them to many in the world unless
you happen to be a member of the 2% elite. This had to be what the democrats set out to do
in a lame duck session. Mission accomplished! There’s a reason its called the “Lame Duck”
session. There is a lot of shuffling and maneuvering, but nothing really gets done. I think
that this is frustrating for both sides of the aisle and is most frustrating for the American
public.
Also, you’d think that even our congress could put aside their differences to take care
of our wounded first responders from 9/11. Yet I wonder if the 4.2 Billion dollar 9/11 first
responder bill was as simple as that. More often than not, bills with that are well intended
have ear marks or addendums that accomplish some other goal that is completely unrelated.
I only say this so that people might dig further to ensure that their was no ulterior motives
to the bill that also doomed it before it even came to a vote. In these siutations, Is this the
fault of the parrty that lumped partisan agendas into a non-partisan bill? Or the fault of the
party that shoots down the good willed bill in their refusal to ignore the side deals that were

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 525
thrown in with it. I see this as more politics and not economics. This is a flaw in the system
that both sides exploit to either send political messages or to tack on their side agendas.
At the end of the post [1187] it was stated that we needed less capitalism and more
Marxism. I couldn’t help but notice that the tone of the post implied that Marx would have
sided in favor of democrat’s agenda. This is why politics isn’t always economics. It is hard
to say whether Marx would not laugh or cry at the futility of the whole situation. Would
Marx side with the republicans or with the democrats? I think with neither. What is another
900 billion in the hands of the elite 2% capitalists or in the hands of the capitalist controlled
government? What good would the 900 billion do for the worker and the laboring class
when the money is controlled by a capitalistic republican government? What good does any
of our complaining do. It will not be our government that saves us from capitalism, it can
only be ourselves organized into groups. I believe that Marx might see that both sides of the
aisle are in a love affair with capitalism
In our last class session Hans noted some comments of Ralph Nader. The discussion of
course had turned to capitalism and its effects not only on the working class, but, as it so
often does, to its negative effects on the environment. Hans reminded us that Nader had one
time commented on our plight with the environment. Nader said something to the effect that
we were in a downward spiral concerning global warming and the environment and that the
only thing that might be our salvation would be inspired billionaires choosing to do the right
thing.
Naders comments made sense to me. What if the top 2% elite saw the light and helped us
to course correct. If its true that they control our government via lobbyists then our resistance
is futile in the long run. A few inspired billionaires could do some good in this world. Yet,
I think we know that we can’t wait for the day that inspired billionaires save us from our
plight. We also need to organize.
Inspired billionaires or a revolutionary working class to slow the hunger of capitalism,
either way I agree that we need some changes. Sometime’s that’s all we need is the ability
to agree first on something and then we can build and organize from there. The antics of one
session of congress will be meaningless in the long run if we are not organised.
First Message by JJ is [70].
890 Essay for the Utah Labor Newsletter
[755] Hans: Second Exam and Check List for Getting a Good Grade. This year’s
class discussion has such a high quality that I’d like to give everyone a good grade. Here is
a check list, for making sure you are meeting the minimum requirements and which informs
you of extra credit options:
Submit at least 5 homework answers in 5 different homework periods. And be aware, if
you make more than 5 regular homework submissions, then the worst grade will be dropped!
Participation in both midterms (the second midterm will be THIS COMING FRIDAY,
Nov 19, and Tuesday Nov 23. Those who took the first Midterm on Friday morning must
take the second Midterm on Friday, otherwise there will be a 10% grade penalty for the
in-class portion of the midterm.
526 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Submit your term paper.
Here are extra credit opportunities:
The discussions in preparation of the exams are riskless extra credit. This will be possible
again between this coming Tuesday until Thursday morning, Nov 16-18
Also discussions of the term papers are a riskless extra credit opportunity. Right now until
the end of Monday, term papers [686], [699], [739], and [735] are in the archives waiting for
your input. I made lots of comments to [699] if you want to have an example.
There are two additional extra credit opportunities in this Semester, they are not in the
syllabus:
(a) Utah Jobs with Justice is sponsoring a labor newsletter edited by Utah workers where
they tell each other about the latest struggles and outrages on their jobs. If you can report
about some interesting happenings in your worklife, and if you want to be published (probably
anonymously) in the premier issue of this Newsletter (probably right after the holidays),
please submit it under question number 890. This should not just be a collection of stories
but also a discussion about what should go into such a labor newsletter. Bosses have become
incredibly bold lately, this needs to be exposed, but should we also discuss the ways how
workers arrange themselves with the system? I think Bigwhite [753] posed an important and
by no means trivial question: what is one to think of it if a worker stops hating exploitation
but finds ways to arranges himself of herself with it? If you contribute stories or thoughts
to this discussion, this will give you an extra credit grade similiar to the termpaper discussions.
(With this message here I am testing whether I correctly set up the computer to accept
question 890.)
(b) I am also looking for readers and editors of the Annotations. I am spending a lot of
time this year to revise the Annotations and make them clearer. If someone wants to work
through a portion of the latest version of the Annotations, please contact me. I will make a
printout available to you which is printed only on half of the page with the other half blank,
and all I need is you carefully reading it and jotting down some notes: what you find unclear
or unconvincing, what you agree with, better formulations, questions, etc.
Message [755] referenced by [864]. Next Message by Hans is [760].
[777] Hans: The New Faces of Labor. Here is something written by a socialist organizer.
What do you think? Should this be included in the labor newsletter, or is it too radical? Does
it need changes? Your input is appreciated. Obviously, the rest of this message is not written
by me. Hans.
Last year I was fired from my job of 5 years at a call center. I was not let go due to
performance issues, the economic crisis nor restructuring. I was brought into the director’s
office by the CEO of the company and told that I was being let go because of reports that
I was working with the agents on the call floor to form a union. At this point, I closed my
mouth and did not open it again until I was told that I had 60 seconds to get my stuff and
get off the property or they would call the police. I did not open my mouth because I did
not want to say anything that could jeopardize the union organizing movement. I was not
allowed to say good bye to any of my co-workers, I was told that unions bring violence and
how dare I bring this upon the company. That my actions were not in the best interest of the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 527
company. What I wanted to say was how are your actions in the best interest of the workers?
The people that make THIS company the money? How is it in their best interest to take
away their bonuses without notice? To not offer insurance that did not cost more than they
made? How is it in their best interest that seniority not matter when it comes to pay? How
is it in their best interest that you not offer them computer monitors that show the needed
materials to do their job without ruining their eyesight? How is it in their best interest to not
offer paid sick time?
I had no protection when they fired me. I was not an hourly worker, but a Sr. Manager, a
manager that was sick of the workers working so hard, and being last to benefit. The harder
they worked the more money the company made, but that money never made its way down to
benefit the very people that were making it. When some of the agents came to me to tell me
how unhappy they were and that they were working on doing a walk off or strike I realized
that I had a decision to make. Being a socialist, I was perhaps a bit more informed of the
ramifications that an action like walking off or striking without union protection would only
hurt the workers more. So I told them about unions and joined the union movement. I knew
the second I did that there was no turning back. That in my position I would not benefit
from the formation of a union, but there comes a time when you have to be willing to lose
a bit personally to stand up and fight for something that is right and affects more then just
yourself.
Now I know that when you hear about unions and the working class you usually think of
production lines and hard helmets, but oh how times have changed. Production in the US
has dwindled, due to the outsourcing of the manufacturing jobs since globalization, and with
that has gone our working class consciousness. With credit the working class was made to
believe that we can afford anything, we can buy a car, a house—We are living the American
dream!! We are middle class!! But last year most of the country had an awakening—Banks
were failing and credit was freezing—And with that came the cold reality to most of the
“Middle Class,” a reality that made us see that we are not middle class, we are working
class. Job descriptions might have changed, we may be more service then production, but as
we are all working for a pay check, we are all part of the working class, and that is nothing
to be ashamed of.
This company that I worked for was not a manufacturing plant, nor a production line. It
was an outsourced call center. Not the type of place you would normally think of unionizing.
But times have changed. Call centers are the new sweat shops. Instead of sewing, we are
stuck at our computers, taking call after call. Making sure that we are up selling each call
and not letting the customer off the phone until they have said “no” twice. We are not given
time between calls to pull ourselves together to face the next customer, we are told when we
can take our breaks and lunches, often called off those to help answer the phones. We are
sent home first if volume is slow with no pay. We have supervisors monitoring each call we
take, each status we chose, how often we go to the bathroom, everything. So it might not be
a typical place to find a union but there is a desperate need for one.
So here we are the new faces of labor. The new faces of the working class. We are the
majority of what once was a great country, and what could be again. Unionizing and building
solidarity with our communities is just as important as the air we breathe. Right now our
528 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
communities are being picked apart separately by the system. Be it the passing of bills like
SB 81, the failure of the common grounds initiative, to the continuation of environmental
destruction, the recent shut out of single payer healthcare and the stalling of the Employee
Free Choice Act. These are stalling because we are, as the working class, we need to stop
seeing the people standing next to us as strangers and see them as members of our working
class community. It is time for us as the working class to stand up and say “Enough”
WE WILL NOT GIVE MORE CONCESSIONS TO BIG BUSINESS
WE WILL NOT FACE ONE MORE OUNCE OF DISCRIMINATION
WE WILL NOT STAND BY AND ALLOW FAMILIES TO BE RIPPED APART BASED
ON HOW SOMEONE CAME INTO THE COUNTRY THEY NOW CALL HOME
WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE ELSE TO TELL US WHO WE CAN OR CANNOT
MARRY.
WE WILL NOT PAY FOR BANKS’ BONUSES AND PARTIES WHILE SO MANY
OF OUR WORKING CLASS BROTHERS AND SISTERS ARE BEING KICKED OUT
OF OUR HOMES.
As the new faces of labor and the newly informed members of the working class it is our
DUTY to take what we have learned and join the already informed working class to continue
to learn and spread our momentum and raise our voices so that no one else in our community
gets discriminated against, or lost fighting on their own.
Next Message by Hans is [813].
Question 891 is 433 in 1998WI, 583 in 2001fa, 628 in 2002fa, 652 in 2003fa, 711 in
2004fa, 657 in 2005fa, 754 in 2007fa, 784 in 2008SP, 789 in 2008fa, 823 in 2009fa, and
954 in 2012fa:
Question 891 Why does the capitalist have the motive to get the same labor-time out of a
smaller number of workers? Which economic facts did Marx refer to, and which additional
economic facts go in the same direction nowadays?
[1144] Somramthom: graded A Low costs and lower costs. The main reason a capitalist
would want to get the same labor-time out of a smaller number of workers is to reduce costs.
The fewer costs the capitalist incurs, the more surplus labor he can extract from the worker.
Enticing a current worker to work more hours would result in the same amount of surplus
value created as hiring another worker, only with fewer costs incurred. As Marx puts it, “If
[the capitalist] has to hire more workers, the outlay of constant capital increases in proportion
to the mass of labor set in motion; if he gets more labor out of the same number of workers,
that increase is much smaller.”
For example, say Worker A works 20 hours a week and 10 of those hours is effectively
spent producing surplus labor for the capitalist. If the capitalist wants to double the output
he can do one of two options. He can either hire Worker B to also work 20 hours, thus
giving him 10 more hours producing surplus value. Or he could entice Worker A to work 40
hours a week resulting in the same amount of surplus value created. At this point it seems
irrelevant whether the capitalist chooses either option. But Worker A is already trained, has

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 529
a working spot, and already has incentive to work. He also, arguably, has greater loyalty to
the capitalist and is less likely to quit the job than Worker B, who would be a new employee.
Hiring Worker B would require paid training time, another spot in the factory to work, more
machinery if it is required to work, and he would have to develop an incentive to work. Plus
Worker A would have extra incentive to work more since he would get a greater paycheck
and possible benefits.
There are several areas of cost that can be decreased by hiring fewer people, both fixed
and variable. More workers would require more machinery and building space and utilities
like electricity, water, etc. So fixed costs would increase. The more workers you hire, the
more time you have to spend to train them to be efficient workers. If you have benefits,
then the more workers you hire the more it will cost to insure them and more investments to
match as well as more taxes to pay. Thus, variable costs also increase.
Costs would increase despite the path chosen. They would just increase less with fewer
workers.
Next Message by Somramthom is [1178].
Question 893 is 787 in 2007SP and 926 in 2011fa:
Question 893 Why does the link between variable capital, employment, and labor performed
become weaker as accumulation proceeds?
[1167] Atticus: graded A– Technology Commands the Masses. Productivity increases
in production processes leads to decreases in the amount of labor-power needed to perform
the labor required to produce surplus value. Capitalistic tendencies decrease the ratio of
variable capital to constant capital. Constant capital is accumulated at a faster rate than
variable capital. As firms competitively decrease the amount of variable capital relative
to constant capital required to operate and to fulfill their incessant drive to acquire more
surplus value they expand the relative surplus population. At the same time this is happening
the accumulation of constant capital employs more variable capital but less of this variable
capital is required per unit of constant capital. The growth of the total population increases
as more variable capital is employed. Absolute variable capital does indeed increase but at a
slower rate than constant capital. This leads to decreases in the employment rate of a given
population.
Firms decrease the rate of variable capital required to operate by quantitative and qualitative
means. Qualitatively firms decrease variable capital through technological improvements
of machinery used by either modification, more efficient labor processes requiring
less labor power and/or the complete replacement of old machinery with new and more efficient
machinery. The qualitative changes of the production process leads to the quantitative
decrease of variable capital employed. Earlier forms of machinery and constant capital employed
a greater number laborers that were more skilled. Technological innovations leads to
the displacement of skilled labor with unskilled labor to operate machinery at reduced costs
to the capitalists. “Machinery controls the laborer better and organizes the labor process in
such a way that it can be sped up” (annotations pp. 714).
530 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The accumulation of capital effectively “weakens the link between variable capital, employment,
and labor performed”.
Hans: By a “weakening link” Marx means the labor performed becomes to some extent independent of variable
capital and employment, i.e., the capitalist understands to get more labor without increasing employment or even
increasing variable capital. Those mechanisms are described in [2007SP:1408].
First Message by Atticus is [93].
Question 896 Marx says twice that the (Malthusian) law of population is a “beautiful” law.
Why does he use the word “beautiful” here?
[1110] Jon: The “beauty” of the law of population. Marx here shows his humor when
he calls the law of population beautiful. When looking at the context of this abnormally long
sentence it becomes clear that the law of population is nice and neat and in all ways quite
beautiful, the problem arises however that this is not the way the world works. The law of
population describes that wages are dependent on the absolute population size. Hans says
that this is a mistake and that “the law of population is utterly unable to to explain the facts
which according to Marx are: capital accumulation is not subordinate to the growth of the
population.” The law of population is beautiful in a sarcastic way because it is not complete.
As Marx puts it in Capital it would be absurd to lay down a law that says the movement of
capital is dependent simply on the movement of population. There are too many factors to
simplify it all to the law of population regardless of how simple clean cut and “beautiful” as
it may be.
Hans: This is a good example of the kind of questions you selected throughout the Semester: they deal with a
small subtlety in Marx’s formulations, and your answer does not say anything other than the Annotations say on
the same page as the question. And the question is pretty irrelevant for the understanding of Marx’s theory. You
addressed similar nonessential subtleties in [118] and [202].
First Message by Jon is [118].
Question 906 is 596 in 2001fa, 641 in 2002fa, 665 in 2003fa, 724 in 2004fa, 670 in
2005fa, 799 in 2007SP, 803 in 2008fa, and 939 in 2011fa:
Question 906 Which parts of the surplus population do these people belong to: A housewife
looking for a job, someone employed part time (or with several part time jobs) looking for a
full time job with benefits, high school graduates who don’t find jobs, someone unemployed
actively looking for work, someone unemployed waiting until the unemployment compensation
has run out, discouraged workers on welfare, someone who has a lower-paying job
because her skills are outdated.
[1124] Jo: Surplus Population Classification. I classified the workers as follows:
1. A housewife looking for a job: latent surplus population
Hans compares the latent surplus population to “a stream of ground water: the water is
not visible on the surface but it will collect as soon as one digs a ditch.” (Annotations, p 730)
The housewife has the potential to work, but is currently not being utilized as part of the
workforce.
2. Someone employed part-time looking for a full time job with benefits: stagnant surplus
population

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 531
This group is “characterized by a maximum of working time and a minimum of wages.”
This group may be active in the labor force, yet holds irregular employment. Explains Marx,
“It offers capital an inexhaustible reservoir of disposable labor-power.” (Annotations, p. 731)
Many workers in the U.S. economy are kept at part-time so that the employer does not have
to offer benefits. This helps keep them working as much as possible, while keeping their
wages as low as possible.
3. high school graduates who don’t find jobs: flowing surplus population or stagnant
surplus population
Hans explains on page 727 that “The flowing surplus population is readily reabsorbed
again.” This group will not remain out of work for long. They generally work in largescale
industries that don’t require advanced education. However Marx explains that, “It
is precisely among the workers in large-scale industry that we meet with the shortest lifeexpectancy.”
(Annotations, p. 729) The high school graduates could fall into that category, or
they could also be part of the stagnant surplus population, which is sometimes characterized
by a low skill level.
4. someone unemployed actively working for work: flowing surplus population
This person will probably not stay out of work for long, as they are actively seeking
employment. They will probably be happy to take the first job that comes along.
5. someone unemployed waiting until the unemployment compensation has run out: latent
surplus population
Like the housewife, this person also has the potential to work, but is hidden or is hiding.
6. discouraged workers on welfare: stagnant surplus population
“It’s conditions of life sink below the average normal level of the working class, and it is
precisely this which makes it a broad target for specialized branches of capitalist exploitation.”
(Annotations, p. 731)
7. Someone who has a lower-paying job because her skills are outdated: stagnant surplus
population
“It is constantly recruited from workers in large-scale industry and agriculture who have
become redundant, and especially from those decaying branches of industry where handicraft
is giving way to manufacture, and manufacture to machmery.” (Annotations, p. 731)
Next Message by Jo is [1171].
Question 908 is 472 in 1999SP, 643 in 2002fa, 726 in 2004fa, 672 in 2005fa, 801 in
2007SP, 800 in 2008SP, 805 in 2008fa, 838 in 2009fa, and 941 in 2011fa:
Question 908 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?
[1119] JSmits: graded A The Lowest of Lows. Pauperism is the deepest fallout from the
relative surplus population according to Marx. In Marx’s time this cyclical unemployment is
532 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
caused by the technical innovation in capitalism. In the major industries laborers are released
and then brought back again when capitalists see fit. On the whole though, the number of
laborers being employed grows at a smaller rate than the scale of production. This creates
the surplus population of laborers. Paupers are the lowest group in the surplus population.
“Pauperism is the infirmary of the active labor-army and the dead weight of the industrial
reserve army.” They are formed as a result of capitalism, and capitalists need the surplus
population for production.
Now paupers are viewed as something that is part of the surplus population but not really
part of it. This means that they are regarded as part of that population however they are a
result of that population. They become the surplus population and when they stay out of the
work force, they lose their desire to go back and then become homeless, criminals, etc. As
Hans says, “unemployment (not accumulation) turns the unemployed into paupers.”
There are many modern day paupers including some that Marx included in his text. I
think the most prevalent are the children of paupers. The children of criminals, homeless,
prostitutes, etc. will sometimes live their lives without their parents. Some people become
homeless or prostitutes because the capitalist has discarded them and they can’t find the
willpower to rise up and get back into the workforce so they live a riskier life, a more impoverished
life that can sometimes lead to death and this can lead their children to becoming
paupers.
Paupers for the most part I would think wouldn’t have that big of an effect on political
actions. They are deemed dead weight to society so they aren’t usually looked upon to fondly
and I can’t imagine their voices are dealt with high concern. I have to agree with Picard’s
statement as well in [2005fa:1837] which says that the paupers wouldn’t be too involved in
politics because they are just trying to survive.
Hans: The potential for political action does not depend on how fondly they are looked at. Our society looks down
not only on paupers but also on unskilled laborers, but employed laborers have an infinitely larger potential for
political action than the unemployed.
First Message by JSmits is [148].
[1130] Zohan: Don’t call me a Pauper. Pauperism is the group of people in society that
are the poor and destitute. They are those that our capitalist society frowns upon. They are
the homeless, the drug dealers, the prostitutes, the criminals, etc. These people are often
times forced into their position by loss of employment, injury, or national economic stress.
Once forced into this lower echelon the ability to rise becomes more outlined by the direction
of society than one’s drive to work, or succeed. Many are born into these circumstances and
are quickly placed in a position of pauperism just by simple being. The annotations on page
734 describe that in many ways the key to rising out of pauperism and reaching a new layer
of society is by society experiencing a crisis of trade becoming more machinery and mine
driven, which places a need upon the pauper and what small labor skill they posses.
Paupers are likely to commit to very little political action due to their necessity to rely
so heavily on the action of others. Unlike citizens that exist in the levels of society above
them, paupers are controlled by society, whereas others form and shape it. Often paupers
are so overwhelmed with the actions of survival on a day to day basis, that they are likely
to be found filing for unemployment, church and charity help, and many social programs

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 533
designed to provide the fourth layer class with the basic supplies of survival. I would agree
with Bone [2009fa:1237] that these people are looked down upon by society and even if they
were to overcome all the obstacles they face, it is unlikely that their voice would have a large
impact.
Next Message by Zohan is [1152].
[1197] Cosmopolita: Free Discussion on Pauperism. As a personal experience, I can
see pauperism every time I go volunteer at the Food Banks in different cities within Salt Lake
County. And I can see the displaced workers, due to lack of education or skills training, age,
disability, drug addictions, etc. There are different aspects of pauperism, and some can be
corrected or be guided through the next positive step with appropriate social help. The local
government and leaders can make a distinct difference with decisions that can change the
local environment with a change in the local people. It is true that some have been born in
this situation and did not choose their fate, but also others that decided a path in life as for
example the one of drugs, and deliberately are discouraged workers, and therefore displaced
of labor force. But we should take in consideration that this last class of pauperism could
have been also traumatized abused children at one point, that did not receive the appropriate
social help at the right moment, and the problem dragged to a further degree of social crisis.
The right help at the right moment could make the difference for people in this class, and as
active members of higher education and some us member of the workforce we could actively
call our local government and give our opinions periodically and be active members when
voting.
Message [1197] referenced by [1200]. Next Message by Cosmopolita is [1198].
[1200] Hans: Living in a war zone. I respect Cosmopolita’s civic mindedness and the
responsibility she demonstrates as an intellectual in an underserved community, but just
as food for thought I’d like to counterpose what a Marxist would think about the issues
addressed in [1197].
A Marxist would say, following the argument in chapter 25, that capitalism as a system
creates and needs unemployment because this is its reserve army, and that pauperism is the
necessary consequence of people being thrown in and out of work. Of those which the
system spits out, the state apparatus tries to fix some up just enough so that they remain
employable, and the rest is left dangling to deter everyone else from resisting exploitation.
The paupers therefore are not only the victims of bad choices or poor upbringing, they
are also the victims of class war. The state is not on their side. The state wants capitalism to
work, i.e., it cares about the people only as cannon fodder for the system. A Marxist would
suspect that people realize this, that’s why they don’t vote or call their local government
reps. A Marxist would not discourage them from voting, but a Marxist would say this is
not their only avenue for political action. They can also join the Brown Berets or Black
Panthers or similar. There you will still find the same problems, people not trained to be
disciplined and overwhelmed with problems in their families etc. But if you fix them up for
class struggle instead of fixing them up to make them employable again, this will probably
correspond much better with what these people really want to do. The Black Panthers were
a shock for the capitalists; they didn’t think poor people could organize.
Next Message by Hans is [1209].
534 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 909 is 473 in 1999SP, 599 in 2001fa, 644 in 2002fa, 668 in 2003fa, 727 in
2004fa, 673 in 2005fa, 802 in 2007SP, 771 in 2007fa, 801 in 2008SP, 806 in 2008fa, 839
in 2009fa, 942 in 2011fa, and 972 in 2012fa:
Question 909 What is worse: the misery of idle impoverishment or the torture of work?
[1096] Hal: graded A It doesn’t take a monk. If we compare extreme impoverishment
with extreme amounts of work, the argument settles around physical well-being, rather than
mental, emotional, or spiritual well-being. In both extreme cases, a person would tend to
be consumed with physical survival, rather than feeling happy. It seems obvious to me that
a rational person choosing between those two extremes would prefer being subjected to
torturous work simply for the greater likelihood of survival. However, comparing extremes
is rather uninteresting and I believe it misses the underlying question, which is focused more
on non-physical aspects of well-being.
I mention extreme cases first because, when we exclude those cases where fear for physical
well-being comes into play, the choice becomes obvious. It simply is not the case that, in
this day and age, being mildly impoverished forces us to be idle. There are so many things
to do that cost little to no money. For a list of 100, see the following web page:
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2008/07/17/100-things-to-do-during-a-moneyfree-weekend/
The things we enjoy about many jobs could be done for free. Even if a woman loves
teaching her high school math class, she might find more enjoyment out of joining the Peace
Corps and teaching math to children in developing nations. With a little imagination and assertiveness,
free time becomes much more valuable than money earned for anything beyond
subsistence.
Message [1096] referenced by [1108]. Next Message by Hal is [1112].
[1105] Somramthom: graded A Circumstantial perspectives of torture. The two extremes
in this question are very rarely the circumstance one can find himself in. Life rarely
dwells in extremes. Rather, it bounces back and forth in between opposing extremes. How
we feel about these circumstances (i.e. which is worse) depends on our perceptions of the
circumstance. I will illustrate my point with my own experiences.
After a particularly difficult spring semester I was happy to see an increase in my free
time. I still worked full time, but didn’t have to fill my days with reading and homework
and the such. However, after 2 or 3 weeks I found myself increasingly bored. I longed for
my busy days and felt ready to begin school again. The feeling grew more and more as time
passed slowly by until summer was over and I happily started fall semester. This happiness,
like the happiness gained from the extra free time, was short lived. After 2 or 3 weeks I was
ready for the semester to be over.
While the change in circumstance in this story is not the same as going from impoverished
to employed full-time, there are similarities. When employed we are more likely to perceive
the situation as torturous and wish we had more free time. In this instance, the torture of
work outweighs the misery of idle impoverishment. Yet when we are impoverished we are
more likely to perceive our situation as one of misery and wish we could find employment,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 535
in which case we would willingly accept the tortures of labor. Thus, our perceptions of our
circumstance play a vital role in answering the question, “What is worse: the misery of idle
impoverishment or the torture of work?”
Marx notices the amount of torture one receives from labor is inversely related to the
amount of misery from impoverishment. This means the more we work the more torture we
are exposed to and vice versa. Depending on where one is in between these two extremes,
one will see idle impoverishment or torturous work as worse.
Message [1105] referenced by [1108] and [1161]. Next Message by Somramthom is [1108].
[1108] Somramthom: How extreme is our poverty? I apologize for submitting [1105]
after Hal submitted [1096] this morning at 3:45am. I submitted my answer last night just
before midnight but it wasn’t assigned yet.
Hal [1096] also labels the two circumstances in the question as extremes as I did. He says
the question is not asking about extremes since they deal with survival rather than well being.
Hal says if extremes are involved, working is a better chance for survival but when extreme
cases are removed the best choice is idle impoverishment since in our day impoverishment
and idleness don’t necessarily go hand in hand.
Although Hal has good points, he is still describing different circumstances. While his
statement, “It simply is not the case that, in this day and age, being mildly impoverished
forces us to be idle,” is true for the average American, many people (I would say the vast
majority) are struggling to survive every day. The circumstances of these people would fit
Hal’s first paragraph since survival is an everyday concern. So while Hal is attempting to
avoid extremes, his main point focuses around the standard of living of the average American.
In a global perspective this is an extreme. According to The World Bank in its 2007
document titled “Understanding Poverty”, nearly half of the world (2.7 billion) live on less
than $2 a day. This is the other extreme. And this doesn’t account for all the people between
these two extremes. Again, perspective and circumstance ultimately must be decided for the
answer to hold any clout.
Hans: You are right, your answer was originally submitted very early, therefore you can’t have seen Hal’s answer
before you submitted yours. Yet both of you speak about extremes. Thank you for pointing out the relation between
your answers and your feedack to Hal. That was very helpful for flow of the discussion.
Next Message by Somramthom is [1144].
[1161] Rmc: graded A How do you choose between extremes? I think almost always,
someone experiencing one of the extremes will long for the other. If one is jobless, homeless,
and has no money for anything, I would guess they would embrace what one would call
“torturous work” because the pay would enable them to eat. Somramthom [1105] says, “In
this instance, the torture of work outweighs the misery of idle impoverishment.” On the other
hand, someone working at a job which is physically, emotionally, and mentally too much (or
perhaps too mentally uninspiring instead) for too long would probably define that job as torturous
and draining. We established earlier in the semester that it is necessary for the worker
to be allowed time off to rest, eat, socialize, etc to maintain health and mental stimulation,
which keeps productivity up. A torturous job such as this would probably make the worker
wish for the other extreme—have nothing and do nothing, rather than have something but
do too much. Somramthom says it exactly right: “our perceptions of our circumstances play
a vital role in answering the question.”
536 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Personally, I can’t say whether I would rather endure a torturous job for the paycheck
and meals than no job, which comes with no guarantee of anything. My first thought is
to endure the job, but there are so many ways to define “torturous”—physically, morally,
emotionally—that I’m not so sure I could choose the work after all, depending on the specific
choice. I’m not saying this because of pride or anything—what I mean is, how can we choose
something that is so far from our experience? It may be easy to say “I’d rather starve than
do that” when you know you have food in the refrigerator in the next room, but if you were
really faced with that choice—in real life, not just in a homework question—would you
make the same decision? Like S said, (the perceptions of) our circumstances play a vital
role in answering the question. The distance of its reality plays a vital role as well. Someone
who has suffered near-starvation would have a very different perspective than someone who
has not.
Message [1161] referenced by [1164] and [1168]. First Message by Rmc is [238].
[1164] LuBr: The harsh middle ground of impoverishment AND work. In accordance
with Rmc [1161], I would agree that it would be better to participate in the daily grind than
to be idle and impoverished. Unless you have a supportive family, being out of work can
be a very humiliating and dehumanizing experience. You would have more free time in the
short-run to dedicate to hobbies or spending time with family, something I think everyone
would enjoy, but in the medium to long term I think people lose a sense of purpose and
belonging to their society. Being unemployed is so often associated with laziness in this
society, so the stigma of being idle and impoverished can play heavily on a person’s mental
state. I think that is one thing that the unemployment numbers do not show is that of the
dehumanizing and desperate experience that people experience being unemployed. And the
human experience will only get worse as our economy sets off on a path of “jobless growth.”
On the other hand, I think of the massive population of working poor in this country who
have a “job” but that job pays minimum wage, and requires one to seek second and third
jobs. In so many of these jobs you are a faceless employee who is denied the opportunity for
overtime (and don’t even consider a raise), and the possibility of benefits. I would consider
these people in a harsh limbo, in which they are experiencing the torture of work but also
the misery of impoverishment, as even with working 50 hours a week, they struggle to make
ends meet on a good day. Considering medical emergencies or their cars break down, or
anything that would require them to take time away from work, puts people in desperate
situations whereby they’re at the misery of unhappy managers who keep their own jobs
by preserving the bottom line. I think it would be this torturous weight on the minds of
these workers that they need every hour of their miserable jobs (think Walmart) and if some
outside event meant they need to take time off work, the massive reserve army of workers
are waiting to replace him/her. I think it would be this middle ground whereby workers
experience both the misery of impoverishment (be it not idle), and the torture of work, that
is the most depressing and dehumanizing condition that exists for Americans today.
Message [1164] referenced by [1168]. First Message by LuBr is [111].
[1168] Oreo: Enduring the torture of work. For my free discussion, I want to add to
the submissions provided by Rmc [1161] and LuBr [1164] regarding whether the misery of
idle impoverishment is worse than the torture of work. I agree with Rmc that an individual
experiencing one of these extremes will always believe that the grass is greener on the other

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 537
side, and wish for the alternative. My initial thought was, similar to Rmc, that the ‘torture’
of work would definitely be preferable to the misery of idle impoverishment. Having a job is
essential in society, it provides for means of survival as well as the ability to be viewed from
your community as competent and accepted. When I first imagined the ‘torture of work’, I
thought of being stuck in an office cubicle, or standing at a register at Walmart. Jobs that
may not be fulfilling or enjoyable, but pay the bills nonetheless. I would easily choose jobs
like these over being unemployed. However, after researching the worst jobs in America, I
began to seriously question the issue.
According to Forbes.com, the top ten worst jobs included ironworkers, lumberjacks and
maintenance people for oil rigs and pipelines. These physically intensive jobs required 12+
hour work days, unfavorable conditions and high possibilities of injury and death. Additionally,
as LuBr mentioned, these employees are experiencing a middle ground where the
torture of work and the misery of impoverishment are combined. The median income of
an oil rig worker was just above $31,000, which still creates a struggle although it exceeds
the poverty level. Emotionally draining professions, such as being a lawyer, also could be
torturous. While they certainly don’t experience impoverishment, they may be selling their
lives to something that is too stressful and can cause related health issues and unhappiness
if they don’t get enough time to focus on family and themselves.
However, the misery of impoverishment may outweigh these jobs. I think which is worse
is determined by the individual, but I believe the majority would rather undergo the torture of
work. That is why over 90% of Americans are employed, and the majority of the remaining
population wish to be. The oil rig worker, while risking his life and living in fear, has chosen
this job over no job at all. Given the expenses of living and the critical society, most of us
accept the fact that we must work, and continue to endure torturous working conditions.
First Message by Oreo is [139].
Question 913 is 475 in 1999SP, 601 in 2001fa, 729 in 2004fa, 806 in 2007SP, 775 in
2007fa, 805 in 2008SP, 810 in 2008fa, and 946 in 2011fa:
Question 913 Define and discuss the law of the absolute impoverishment of the working
class. Does it apply today?
[1120] Kleenex: impoverished/all workers deserve better. The law of absolute impoverishment
says that when capital increases, laborers are worse off than they were before. Absolute
impoverishment has both financial and social aspects. On the money side, the worker
is still undercompensated for his work, as he produces more value than what he earns in
wages. He does the same work, produces the same commodities, but sees bigger cuts in his
pay, lower workplace standards, and labor violations with extended hours. While the laborer
suffers, the capitalist gains. He feels no sympathy for his workers, as these worsening work
conditions result from his insatiable greed.
On the social side, the laborer now has a harder time surviving and providing for his
family. He still doesn’t own the means of production, and is still subject to the capitalist’s
desires. He is literally impoverished: physically exhausted, mentally fatigued, and spiritually
worn out. Marx paints the picture of the laborer’s world as such: production in a
capitalist system “distort[s] the worker into a fragment of a man, they degrade him to the
538 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
level of an appendage of a machine...they transform his life-time into working-time, and
drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital.” What a revolutionary
concept it is to treat the workers like human beings! What a crazy idea it might be to put
the welfare of your workers above the company’s profits!
Absolute impoverishment still applies today. My example for this would be a facility on
base where I work. This service that they provide is contracted out, meaning, the government
hired someone, a company, from outside of the government to produce a service, at
a lower cost. Because they are not a part of DoD and are contractors, they are not held to
DoD standards: just their company’s standards, whatever those may be. It was reported that
this facility had a hostile working environment: unsafe and unpleasant to work at. Most
contractors in my experience are great at what they do, but in this one specific instance, several
workers left that company because they didn’t feel comfortable going to work anymore.
This is a result, probably, of absolute impoverishment by the capitalist owner of that company,
putting the advancement and success of the firm as a higher priority over the welfare
of his people. It’s bad enough that the worker has to be subject to the capitalist’s production
process, selling his labor-power in exchange for a way to make a living, but it’s worse that
human respect and dignity is thrown out the window for the sake of profit and advancement
of capital.
Message [1120] referenced by [1139]. Next Message by Kleenex is [1121].
[1139] Cmellen: Touching a bit more on the discussion by Kleenex [1120] – Absolute
impoverishment of working class under capitalism.
The social condition of the working class constantly deteriorates. A process of relative
impoverishment is inherent in long-term capitalist development. In Capital Marx wrote:
“The situation of the worker becomes worse, whatever his wage may be, be it high or low.”
This ever increasing misery for the workers, under capitalism, is referring to absolute impoverishment.
Today we can see this applied to the Palm Oil industry in Southeast Asia and Indonesia.
Palm oil is common cooking oil extracted from the pulp of the fruit of the palm plant. Its
increasing use internationally has been a result of its lower cost and high oxidative stability,
Palm oil is a highly sought commodity, especially for Brittain to use as manufacturing
lubricant as well as biodiesel.
Capitalists in the Palm oil industry have been accused of many human-rights violations.
These violations include low pay and poor working conditions for the locals. Even more
upsetting is theft of land and murder. The capitalists are also using whatever means to
increase production of the oil by spraying harmful pesticides that is getting into the land
making it too “salty” for anything else to grow. The poison is also polluting the rivers
and ground water, therefore affecting the population’s drinking water. But the Europeans,
with the means to production and pressing the oil from the fruit of the palm, don’t pay any
attention to the devastation they are causing the workers and their families in Indonesia.
Next Message by Cmellen is [1177].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 539
Question 915 is 383 in 1997WI, 648 in 2002fa, 672 in 2003fa, 731 in 2004fa, 678 in
2005fa, 808 in 2007SP, 777 in 2007fa, 807 in 2008SP, 812 in 2008fa, 845 in 2009fa, and
948 in 2011fa:
Question 915 “The poor and idle are a necessary consequence of the rich and active.”
Right or wrong?
[1131] Sly: The American Dream? I think not! Initially viewing this particular question,
I immediately believed the formulation to be fairly trivial – that indeed the poor and
idle are a necessary consequence of the rich and active, but I quickly found my answer to be
narrow minded and brash. Growing up here in America the adage of the American Dream
was instilled in many, including myself. (Please pardon if I butch the definition.) The adage
that I speak of is: If an individual works hard, and pays his/her dues that riches will soon
follow once the perpetual ladder of wealth – as well as the lazy will never be rich because
they don’t work hard, and thus are destined to be poor due to their laziness.
In reading through the archives I found some very interesting points like the one made
by Chris in [2007fa:702], it reads: “It’s from the poor working man that the rich accumulate
all their wealth.” – in response to not only this statement, but the entire post Hans stated: “If
one puts everything you say together then the aphorism should read: the rich and idle are a
necessary consequence of the poor and active. Right?” Chris then responded: “In a capitalist
society that would read right. The rich are not always idle but in comparison to the wealth
they amass they can be considered idle.” I would have to totally agree with that conclusion.
As a result of the capitalist system there is a division of wealth, which creates the rich/elite
and the poor/destitute. After coming to that conclusion, it was also necessary to dig deeper.
In the Annotations Marx states in pg. 737 [798:4/o] in reference to the laborer that: “that
all means of the development of production undergo a dialectical inversion so that they
become means of domination and exploitation of the produces; they distort the worker into a
fragment of a man. . . ” – the whole subsection goes even further, but a simple interpretation
is that the capitalist exploits and abuses the laborer in the name of profit.
Thugtorious in [2005fa:1798] refers to the laborer as the proletariat, which is defined as:
“a social class comprising those who do manual labor or work for wages” (http://wordnetweb.princeton
and then to reiterate the conclusions that I had come to earlier Thugtorious in the same post
also states: “If anything, it should read “the poor and active are a necessary consequence of
the rich and idle,” or just “the poor are a necessary consequence of the rich.”” With all of
this in account it seems to be general consensus that the answer to this questions calls for
more of a reformulation of the question, being: The poor and active are a necessary consequence
of the rich and idle. I wholeheartedly agree with this, and my justifications are very
similar to that of Khwai who stated in [2008fa:1295] that: “there are many idle individuals
who are wealthy, such as those born into money, and many actively engaged individuals who
are poor.” Adding to that I would say the question should really be looked at as the counter
point to the theory of the American Dream that I had brought up earlier. Capitalism allows
for these contradictions to exist, such as those who are born into wealth, and the individuals
who work hard but never climb the perpetual ladder to wealth.
First Message by Sly is [205].
540 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[1172] GoUtes: Poor and idle vs rich and active. Right, the poor and idle are a necessary
consequence of the rich and the active..... Well at least one would think that. The assumption
is that if you are rich you obviously were active and worked hard to obtain your riches,
whereas if you’re poor, you are lazy and deserve to be poor. That is a very close minded,
ignorant statement to say the least. There are many a rich people that did nothing to deserve
their good fortune and riches, and many hard working Americans that just can’t seem to
excel financially.
A prime example of this is Paris Hilton, she is blessed to be heir to the multi-million
dollar Hilton Hotel business. What has she done to deserve such financial stability? Just
milk her name sake until it is bone dry. She has made a name for herself in everything
else besides being a hard worker and most of her “accomplishments” would make even the
foulest of human kind cringe. However, Jose, who may have come to this country illegally
for an opportunity at a better life, may put in 16 hours of work and effort every single day
seven days a week and still barely make enough to support his family and be able to survive.
So the real answer would be FALSE!
Message [1172] referenced by [1174]. First Message by GoUtes is [217].
[1174] JJ: Paris Hilton is a Rich and Active Capitalist. I wish to respond to question
915 and clarify where my opinion differs from Go Utes submission [1172].
I believe that the answer to this question is absolutely YES. The poor and idle are a
necessary consequence of the rich and active. I believe that Marx states this plainly for us at
the beginning of [784:1/o] when he says:
“A surplus population of workers is a necessary product of accumulation
or the development of wealth on a capitalist basis. However this surplus
population also becomes, conversely, the lever of capitalist accumulation,
and indeed a condition for the very existence of the capitalist mode of production.
It constitutes a disposable industrial reserve army, which belongs
to capital as absolutely as if the latter had bred it at its own cost. It creates a
mass of human material always ready for exploitation by capital, according
to capital’s own changing valorization requirements, independently of the
limits of the actual population increase.”
We have thus far been shown where capitalist profits come from. We know that this
comes from the exploitation of workers by the capitalists. We saw this in the lengthening of
the working day and in our comparison of the necessary labor time to the surplus labor time.
This analysis allowed us to build on the ideas that ultimately showed us how a capitalist
could harness the surplus labor power of their workers for profits. I won’t bore you all with
my poor version of a summary of the M-C-M’ versus C-M-C’ analysis either. But let it
suffice to say that we should thus far understand that Marx is trying to show us a relationship
between the rate of exploitation of the worker to the rate of profit of the capitalist.
So. . . Capitalists need workers to exploit in order to make profits and get rich, right? One
could argue that the capitalist is to whom question 915 refers to as the “rich and active”.
Although the active part is questionable, as it seems to me that the only thing that they are
actively doing is exploiting their workers. Yet the workers that we’re talking about here can’t

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 541
be the “poor and idle” people as referenced in the question. They are working hard for their
subsistence wages and are probably working long hours or two jobs in order to reproduce
their labor. This is not idle or even lazy. So to whom is the question referring when it asks
about the “poor and idle”?
When I think of the poor and idle I think of Marx’s ideas on the industrial reserve army.
When I think of idle I think of unemployed. I do not think that the question intends us
to define the word idle here as laziness. This is the idea that the capitalists intentionally
maintain their industrial reserve army of the unemployed. It goes to say that if you are
unemployed that you are most likely idle for the lack of work. It also goes to say that you
are very likely poor as you are not even given the chance to be exploited and earn subsistence
wages like the active army of the capitalists. So at this point let us define the “poor and idle”
as the “industrial reserve army” or as the “surplus population”.
Do capitalists need this surplus population to make profits and get rich? At first glance
once might assume that they don’t need them at all, because they have all of the workers
that they need to exploit to make their profits. Yet, if we look deeper at the purposes that
the industrial reserve army serves for capitalists, we will see that the ranks of the industrial
reserve army are both consequences and the design of the capitalist to allow him to maintain
or increase his rate of profit and his capitalist mode of production.
Let me use the example of Paris Hilton, given by GoUtes in [1172]. She is the heiress
of a multi-billion dollar Hilton hotel business. Whether she deserves this dynasty or not is
not the question here. The fact is that her inheritance is an inheritance of dead capital. The
accumulated profits and capital of her family, when they die, will become hers. She inherits
most importantly the buildings that house hotel guests. It is this definition of her property
rights to these hotels which gives her exclusive access to the means of production for this
industry. Therefore she is rich from the years of exploitation of hotel workers, and is actively
being a capitalist by spending the profits of her family’s exploitation of these workers. (This
might be a stretch to call her active).
[1172] also gives us the example of imaginary but noble and hard working “Jose”. Jose
works 16 hours a day for his subsistence wages that barely feeds him and his family. Could
I extrapolate the example of GoUtes that its possible that Jose works as a maintenance tech
at a local Hilton hotel? He works hard at the Hilton fixing leaky pipes and clogged toilets
and provides for his family. In fact he’s really good at what he does and will always be
needed regardless of the hotels occupancy rate. Meaning that for purposes of the example
it is unlikely that he will be laid off. Assuming this would make him part of the industrial
active army.
Now we can look at Jose’s sister Maria. (A new character of my own creation.) She works
at the same hotel in the housekeeping department. Maria also works hard but was recently
laid off due to it being the low season for travel at the local Hilton hotel where they work.
There are not enough rooms that need cleaning and the Hilton, being the smart business
minded people that they are, laid her off. She is now poor and idle and without work. She
has been retired to the ranks of the industrial reserve army by the hotel to be called up at any
time that the hotel needs her or when the busy season starts.
542 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
These cycles, ebbs and flows of the industrial cycle is one of the reasons that Capitalists
need the poor and idle. Marx shows us this in the lower portion of 784:1/o when he says:
“ The path characteristically described by modern industry, which takes the form of a
decennial cycle (interrupted by smaller oscillations) of periods of average activity, production
at high pressure, crisis, and stagnation, depends on the constant formation, the greater or
lesser absorption and the reconstitution of the industrial reserve army or surplus population.”
[784:1/o]
Thus, Maria is a necessary consequence to the capitalist mode of production, and is part
of the industrial reserve army. She is only to be called up when needed as the ebbs and flows
of the hotel’s busy seasons and slow stagnation seasons come and go. She is placed in the
ranks of the poor and idle industrial reserve army as a consequence of the capitalist’s need
for this flexible work force.
Other reasons for the capitalist’s maintenance of the industrial reserve army is to maintain
lower wages. I believe that it can be simply put that when there is an excess supply of
laborers in the market that market forces will keep wages low. By maintaining this army of
the unemployed they are able to maintain their power over the regular laborer. If the market
was fully employed then wages would be higher. Laborers would regain some power by
being able to organize into groups and demand higher wages. If they don’t receive them
then they can strike. A fully employed market means that there are not any poor and idle
to fill the jobs of the organized strikers. Capitalists therefore also maintain their industrial
reserve army of the unemployed as a threat to the worker that demands a higher wage. They
use the reserve army against any revolts of their active army. By the upkeep of the surplus
population the capitalist can say to his worker, “What!? You say that you need a raise for
your hard work? The answer is NO. There are 50 people lining up outside my door to take
your job at the same rate!”. Thereby quelling any uprisings in the ranks of their core active
army.
Therefore, I believe that it is important for us to understand that the poor and idle ARE
a necessary consequence of the rich and active. They go hand in hand and the does not go
without the other.
Next Message by JJ is [1188].
[1189] Hans: Causality between rich and poor. This quote comes from an early economist
who thought that there simply was not enough wealth to go around that everybody
could be rich. This economist (his name was Ortis) thought the labor which made the rich
rich was not creating new wealth but was only shifting the existing wealth around. That is
why the activity of the rich caused the poverty of the poor: it shifted wealth into the pockets
of the rich which could therefore not go to the poor.
I think Marx would turn it around and say that the rich and idle are a necessary consequence
of the poor and active. It is not the rich who make the poor poor but the poor are
making the rich rich. And it is not an iron law determined by limits of productivity but it
is due to the capitalist relations of production, i.e., due to the ownership of the means of
production by the rich.
Message [1189] referenced by [1190]. Next Message by Hans is [1190].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 543
Question 918 is 386 in 1997WI, 456 in 1998WI, 480 in 1999SP, 734 in 2004fa, 681 in
2005fa, 780 in 2007fa, 810 in 2008SP, 815 in 2008fa, 848 in 2009fa, and 951 in 2011fa:
Question 918 What is the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation?
[1138] AM: capitalist accumulation. The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation involves
the advancement of money or capital (i.e. M-C-M’). Specifically, the more capital
that is accumulated the more pressure there is on the working class. The pressure stems
from the “need” to accumulate more capital and is a result of the capitalist system in general.
Aub in [2009fa:1210] brings my favorite subject exploitation into the picture writing
“capitalists exploit their workers because of an increase in profits, while they pinch every
last bit of value from the workers by using more and more proficient capital”. Even after
spending a great deal of time on exploitation, I don’t think I could have said it better myself.
Exploitation is a reoccurring theme in capitalism, which brings so many interesting issues to
the table. It is important to note that low wages for laborers and unemployment are results
of the capitalist accumulation. Marx says that the general law of accumulation like all other
laws in modified in its workings by many circumstances. I think this means that there is a
general principle, which I have described above, but the law takes shape in many different
forms and with many different influences. I will not discuss all the various ways that this
law takes shape as it would be too lengthy for a homework question.
Hans: If the capital needs to accumulate, isn’t this a pressure on the working class which the working class should
welcome and can take advantage of, by raising wages?
First Message by AM is [426].
[1190] Hans: The Need for Solidarity. After reading a long chapter called “the general
law of capitalist accumulation,” can you tell me now what is the general law of capitalist
accumulation? Just by taking a brief look into the most recent archives I discovered that
there were really no clear answers to this question, therefore here I go again, on the Sunday
after the end of the Semester.
By “general law of accumulation” Marx means the economic law that the accumulation
of wealth on the side of the capitalists is at the same time the accumulation of misery on the
side of the working class.
It is almost as if Ortis, the economist about whom I talked in [1189], was right. If part
of society becomes wealthy, people are not terribly surprised that another part of society
becomes poor: the wealth is shifted from the poor to the rich. The problem with this view
is that it considers wealth creation a zero-sum game. Marx shows that the poverty of the
masses and unemplyment does not come from the fact that there is not enough wealth for
everybody, but that the poverty of the majority is artificially created by the system in order
to force them to surrender the wealth they are producing to the rich.
People often don’t see this. When I was working on the Assembly line for Chrylser in
the 1970s, the United Farm Workers and Cesar Chavez were a big issue. There was a grape
boycott, and the UAW supported the United Farm Workers. But many rank and file workers
did not support the United Farm Workers because they thought low food prices were in their
best interest. They did not see that it was in their interest to eradicate low wages everywhere
because low wages are contagious: they tend to spread from one worker to the next.
544 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Eventually, this short-sighted attitude caught up with them. Instead of fighting for health
care for all workers, the UAW wasted its bargaining power on fighting for health care only
for UAW members — which ultimately led not only to the loss of their health care but even
the loss of their jobs. Most UAW plants still in existence are Canadian plants, because the
Canadian system does not allow the capitalists to renege on their health care liabilities by
switching to non-union factories.
Today, there is another wrinkle in the situation which Marx did not foresee. If you look
at the planet as a whole, Ortis was actually right. It is simply not possible that everybody
on earth can live the same lifestyle as the US Americans. This would require the natural
resources of five planets, but we only have one. This is a challenging situation, and if we
don’t get this one right, we will not only lose healthcare and jobs, but we will lose a livable
planet. Did I say “wrinkle”? This is the most fundamental issue of our time.
Next Message by Hans is [1200].
Term Paper 920 is 786 in 2007fa, 811 in 2008SP, 816 in 2008fa, 849 in 2009fa, 953 in
2011fa, and 983 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 920 Term Paper on the Externalities of Capitalism, i.e., on the positive and
negative local and global impacts of production in the name of profits.
[1015] Alex and Kaush: graded A Social and Environmental Externalities: For the
Good and the Bad. Capitalism is a chain reaction of consequences, with each advance
there are positive and negative consequences throughout. These consequences are externalities,
which in this case can be separated into social and environmental externalities. What is
peculiar, however, is that these externalities contain both a negative and a positive outcome
from their occurrence. Depending on every individual’s take on the matter, these externalities
can have more of a detrimental, or more of a benign influence to society and the
environment.
It is true that capitalism cannot develop under a steady economy, and therefore it needs
change and advancement in order to evolve and progress. But how much longer will it survive
until it trips in its own externalities? Or are these externalities just the precise changes
it needs in order to thrive?
Regarding the environmental externalities first, one can truly see that the first thing in
mind are the overconsumption of limited resources and the extensive pollution made by the
capitalists in their adventures. This was surely in Marx’s mind when he claimed that “sooner
or later, the accumulation of capital must run into the limitation of population growth.”
Capitalists are in these endeavors for the money, regardless of the environment’s health.
The capitalist does not consider that resources are being deteriorated and will diminish in
a given amount of time, and will continue to consume until such are depleted. As a profitmaximizer
and cost-minimizer, a capitalist will use up these resources in order to prosper
without thinking of the effects towards others, because they are cheap and easy to acquire.
Many of the resources that capitalists use and damage are often the simplest elements found
on Earth, such as water and air; nonetheless, they are the most necessary for the survival
of humans. Concerning pollution, not only is this externality affecting the environment,
it also affects human health. Only interested in increasing personal wealth and, to some

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 545
extent, power, the capitalists will consume natural resources, damage what is left after their
manipulation, and continue to do so until its thirst for profits is quenched.
The above mentioned are negative outcomes of capitalism, but with every black cloud
there’s a silver lining. Due to many of these ubiquitous effects from capitalistic activity,
many individuals, policy-makers, and concerned citizens have become aware of the harms
that all these capitalists are bringing about with their innovations. With their complaints
and pressures towards these entrepreneurs for awareness of their harmful behaviors, many
of these companies and company owners have opted for adopting a more environmentally
friendly business procedure. Needless to say, the capitalists will not survive in a business
where he is not making profit, which will be the case when these concerned citizens, individuals,
and policy-makers boycott their products in order to get their message across.
Thanks to this, the capitalist will attempt to appease their strikes and commence to employ
methods that are beneficial to the environment. Programs such as “Going Green” and “Recycling
Projects” have been implemented by many companies around the world in order to
use the resources available in a wise manner, as well reduce pollution and properly dispose
of wasteful products. With more motives such as these, to take care of this land in order
to maintain its resources, more technology is being developed, more uses for materials are
being found, and new sources of energy are being applied. All these positive technology
advances wouldn’t have come about if individuals had not become aware of the capitalist’s
negative demeanor towards this habitat.
Most of the capitalistic externalities lie within the field of social changes and outcomes.
Marx discusses in length the effects of capitalism in regards to labor, focusing on the control
of such by the capitalist, and the power they enclose in the matter. The capitalist manipulates
the control they obtain over the workers once they hire these laborers to work in their enterprises.
Not being able to sell their labor individually, the worker is forced to work for the
capitalist who exploits him to the fullest he can in order to gain most profit and benefit with
the smallest cost incurred. This might often lead to unethical practices from the capitalist
in the workplace. These negative externalities lead to positive outcomes, such as the safety
regulations and laws that have been created since the last century which protect the employees
by giving these rights and benefits in the workplace, and demanding the employers to
implement better working conditions and stipulations favorable to the laborers.
When capital expands, it increases the demand for producers of goods. Capital growth
outpaces supply of labor. This, in turn, may result in a rise of laborers’ wages. Though this
may seem positive for the laborer, which in a way is a positive externality that improves a
laborer’s standard of living, it does not free the laborer from exploitation which is, to Marx,
better chains to exploit the laborer. A laborer to the capitalist is a tool to achieve an end, once
this tool is used up, it is discarded and replaced. A laborer’s worth to the capitalist is good
in proportion to the profits generated, and then the laborer is no longer useful once he/she
ceases to produce those profits. As much as capitalism brings about a variety jobs available
to the market, which is a positive externality, it also causes unemployment, adding also to the
list of negative externalities. Again, as the goal of the capitalist is to maximize profits while
reducing costs, it will seek the best way to do so by any possible means necessary. Such
include the outsourcing of the production side to other countries, which would evidently
546 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
reduce their labor costs and increase their wealth. The positive aspect of this change is
increasing employment in other countries, which will help their economies as well as the
well-being of these families. However, this also brings about unemployment in the home
country, along with increasing unethical practices and severe exploitation in these foreign
countries. Some of the practices include unsafe places to work, child labor, and long work
hours for minimal pay. The question is how far and for how long a capitalist can continue
to grow and cut costs in a local economy to produce profits before hitting a wall? It is
analogous to inflating a balloon to its limit. This may explain the emergence of imperialism
to sustain the capitalistic system’s need for resources and markets. Again, the capitalist mind
will take advantage of the opportunities presented, not being mindful of the externalities it
leaves behind.
With the increase of capitalist profit and success, so it becomes an incentive for individuals
to become of capitalistic spirit. Individuals, armed with the knowledge that the sky is
the limit, will thrive in such environment to become successful entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs
will hire employees who will become productive members of society and consequently those
employees can provide for their families and be part of a civil society. This increases the
number of companies created and the number of capitalists who start ventures. This positive
externality brings forward more positive externalities that are favorable to society. Capitalists
are also competing against each other to have control of the market. This incentive alone
leads to many positive outcomes. More competition entices capitalists to come up with innovative
ideas that are beneficial and create great profit. Thus the technological advances from
part of these entrepreneurs give humanity advances in many fields, such as health care, engineering,
science, among many. Nonetheless, with the increase of profits, the competition
among capitalists begins to exacerbate, in many cases, leading to the creation of monopolies
or monopolistic enterprises or oligopolies, controlling the supply of certain commodities in
the hands of a few or one producers. Presently, these phenomena are seen in local water and
gas companies as oligopolies, and previously seen monopolies that emerged from excessive
practice of capitalism, such as the oil and steel industries in the early 1900’s. When these
types of business practices come around, consumers are out of luck having no other choice
but to pay their excessively high prices.
The most interesting externality that capitalism has brought about, however, is globalization.
More than a need to be connected worldwide, globalization happened as a product of
capitalism. The most reasonable example to be depicted is that of the internet. It is true that
this means of communication was created with intents to be used for military purposes, however,
capitalistic incentive led internet to become commercialized to the public. With this
new method of effortless communication, the world can be communicated in a matter of seconds
regardless of the location. Having a more globalized economy utterly aids capitalists,
being able to expand to whole new markets in ways that were impossible before. Capitalists
will also find new means of production, where labor is cheaper and resources easier to
obtain, thus making their ultimate dream come true of minimizing costs to the fullest while
their profits are sky high.
Capitalism brings about changes to the economy, and to the world, not because it wants
to, but because it has to. Without an evolving economy, capitalism will sink, making it

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 547
harder to gain profits. These externalities are those changes that took place, and are taking
place right now in the world. The capitalist’s drive to maximize profits in the midst of
fierce competition leads to technological advances that will lead to efficiency in production,
product quality, and production of commodities and services that increase the comfort level
for people. Negative externalities in a capitalistic system leads to unfair distribution of
wealth and power, a tendency toward market monopoly, and various forms of economic and
cultural exploitation, repression of workers and leads to phenomena such as social alienation,
economic inequality, unemployment and economic instability. Conversely, a capitalistic
system is not devoid of positive externalities, the fact that it is a dominant system throughout
the world boasting some of the richest economies in the world and in the absence of a
viable alternative speaks for itself. It is up to each individual and capitalist to decide which
externalities are worth the effort and time on keeping and which must be demolished for
everyone’s sakes.
Next Message by Alex is [1020] and Next Message by Kaush is [1057].
[1072] SMIKEC, Sly, and Tyler: Impacts of Capitalism. The potential effects whether
positive or negative made possible through Capitalism have made it the most practiced economic
and social system in the world for centuries. The effects of capitalism are widespread,
with positive and negative effects on laborers and capitalists – in both in local and global
economies alike. These positive and negative effects are not only economic, but they are
also social and environmental.
When analyzing capitalism, a negative consequence is very prevalent both locally and
globally, and this negative effect arises due to the limitations of the environment. This
becomes apparent through an observation that Marx makes about the environment, stating:
“sooner or later the accumulation of capital must run into the limitation of population
growth.” The effect that we attempting to refer to develops out of the requirement for the
economy to experience a sustained, and consistent growth over time, which in the long run
capitalism cannot do. Our world contains scarce and limited resources, and this challenge
is only expounded upon due to the continued use of those limited resources through the
production processes brought about by capitalism.
This same negative effect creates separate negative effect that impacts the globe not only
environmentally, but also socially. As Hans mentioned in class on Friday, the dependency
of fossil fuels to assist in the capitalistic processes – by making many if not all production
processes possible. The use of fossil fuels results in a negative effect that only multiplies with
continued use. The negative effect is that of pollution, due to the pollution of the environment
– both local and international government entities are required to enact social policies like
sustainability policies (such as the “green movement”), consumption policies, and any other
act that will sustain, restore, and prevent the environment from further deterioration. Due to
its uses, and the negative events that it brings forth, fossil fuels will eventually result in their
extinction, which is something that both locally and globally must take precedence – if the
world is to continue to not only function, but to grow.
With all of these negative effects in consideration its easy to overlook the positive effects
that capitalism brings, but it is also important to acknowledge that there are positive effects of
capitalism on the local and global – economic and social systems, as well as the environment.
548 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
As Bones and Miles cited in [2009fa:1157]: “Butters, an economics professor at Nebraska,
who suggests that “the single greatest benefit that capitalism provides is that it enables
human choice.” (p. 7).” Human choice is the single greatest impact because capitalist
are empowered with the ability to choose whether or not to invest in means of production
and labor-power, which in turn as allows laborers to maintain their, as Marx stated it, “daily
means of subsistence”. In essence capitalist enable to laborers to live, by paying laborers
wages for their labor-power, and these laborers use their wages to maintain and stimulate
themselves both physically and mentally. This positive effect impacts both local and global
economies.
Although we pointed out that capitalists pollute the environment through means of production,
conversely they also are the greatest contributors to the restoration, and preservation
of the environment. Because the environment is the lifeblood to capitalism, and capitalist
wouldn’t have the ability to be capitalist if the environment wasn’t able to provide the necessary
resources for production. Capitalist recognize this, and push for things such as sustainability
policies, consumption policies or any other act that will maintain their ability to
be capitalist even if these acts reduce profits.
Of course we didn’t discuss all of the positive and negative brought effects upon by capitalism,
but that would indeed take several more pages. There are indeed many positives
to capitalism, there are also many negatives to offset these positive, but it is important to
recognize them all.
Hans: Your declaration that capitalists are “the greatest contributors to the restoration, and preservation of the
environment” because they want capitalism to continue is wishful thinking. Capitalism is a social force which is
not under the control of the capitalists. Capitalism as a system does not have the sense organs to see the limits of
the environment as I said in [94].
Next Message by SMIKEC is [1075], Next Message by Sly is [1131], and Next Message by Tyler is [1090].
[1074] Babyceta, Giant, Kohhep, Proletarian, Rmc, and Ryan: graded A+ Externalities
of Capitalism. As with most other human activity, capitalism is a source of externalities
affecting various aspects of nature and society. While many of these externalities are readily
apparent, such as the dramatic depletion of the world’s natural resources and the pollution of
its ecosystems, others are less conspicuous. The externalities of capitalism affect virtually all
aspects of our lives, and are often so prevalent and common that those who live in capitalist
societies often fail to realize that many of these externalities are externalities at all, and they
simply accept the externalities as natural or inevitable occurrences. In this paper we will
discuss just some of the many negative (and sometimes positive) externalities of capitalism.
Effects on the Environment:
The natural environment suffers from countless negative externalities of the capitalist system.
Climate change, acid rain, nutrient imbalance in soil, polluted air and water, pesticide
accumulation, contamination, endangered species, disappearing rain forests, and damaged
wilderness are just a few examples of the negative effects of local, national, and global
economies in the capitalist mode of production. In this section, environmental externalities
caused by the use of fossil fuels, the animal and food production industries in the United
States, and the production of plastic materials, will be discussed in greater detail.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 549
One of the most widely publicized and significant externalities of the capitalist system
is climate change, or “global warming.” The excessive burning of fossil fuels for energy to
fuel capitalist production results in the the release of greenhouse gasses which accumulate
in the Earth’s atmosphere. The accumulation of these gasses has been linked to climate
change (Michaels, 2005). One of the many problems associated with climate change is
melting glaciers and polar ice caps, which may eventually affect ocean currents and result in
changes in weather patterns, average temperatures around the globe, unprecedented floods
or droughts, and the disappearance of islands and costal areas due to higher sea levels.
The ever increasing demand for energy from fossil fuels will only worsen the problem.
“The twentieth century witnessed historically unprecedented rates of growth in energy systems,
supported by the widespread availability of fossil fuel resources” (Delgado et al, 2003).
Locating, collecting, and transporting fossil fuels results in damage to the environment, including
species endangerment, contamination, and habitat destruction (Energy Guy, 2003).
Unfortunately, transitioning to alternative “clean” energy sources is far more expensive than
continuing to use fossil fuels, so despite growing awareness of the negative externalities associated
with burning fossil fuels, the implementation of alternative energy sources will be
hindered by market forces, especially since the costs of the externalities of carbon emissions
are not priced into the cost of energy.
Food production is another area with severe negative environmental externalities. In the
United States, for example, agricultural production and animal husbandry are quite detrimental
to the environment. While in the past there were more livestock farms than there are
today, they were smaller and more sustainable. Over time, as the population grew and the
demand for meat increased substantially, the capitalists consolidated livestock production
and expanded the scope of their operations exponentially. While meat production has become
very efficient, the sheer size of the industry has caused great harm to the environment.
These enormous operations have led to an alarming imbalance of nutrients in the soil both
on the farms themselves and on surrounding land. Farmers use, and have always used, the
manure produced by their animals to replenish nutrients in the soil where they live and graze.
However, since livestock production has become super-concentrated in many areas, the excessive
amount of manure produced on farms has resulted in nutrient imbalance in the soil
on the farms and nearby areas (due to polluted runoff water). Additionally, the staggeringly
high number of animals on these farms has led to significant increases in the release of the
greenhouse gas methane (a byproduct of the animals’ digestion).
Another source of harmful externalities from food production has been the development
of genetically modified plants. Genetically modified plants have come to dominate many
parts of the agricultural industry, especially in the United States. While originally intended to
help farmers grow healthier and more abundant crops, genetically modified plants have had
adverse effects. Many plants have been modified to survive drought, severe temperatures,
pests, pesticides, herbicides, and disease. Plants have also been modified to grow bigger and
faster. One negative consequence of this genetic modification is related to pest resistance
and pesticide. While the modifications to resist pests were initially successful, research has
demonstrated that insects have adapted to the modified plants and the resistance effect has
been negated. Farmers must now use more pesticides as a consequence, which means the
550 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
final product contains multiple pesticides in larger amounts than they used to in their natural
form. Aside from consumer health externalities associated with this system, the excessive
pesticide applied by farmers pollutes soil and water.
Plastics production in capitalism is another area that has had severe negative impacts on
the environment, impacts that we are now only starting to fully grasp. Plastics have had a
huge impact on modern society. Plastics are very easy to produce, are quite versatile in terms
of application, and are used in almost every industry to produce, contain, transport, or store
millions of products. Millions of jobs have been created due to plastics production (Flores,
2008). However, plastic pollution has dramatic negative impacts on the environment.
Plastics are extremely difficult to recycle and reutilize, and when incinerated produce highly
toxic emissions. ”The corrosive fumes released into the atmosphere from plastic combustion
can also increase acidity levels of the environment. A potential effect from such emissions
is the generation of acid rain” (Flores, 2008).
When plastics are not recycled or incinerated, they are dumped in landfills or taken out
to sea. Plastic trash dumped in the ocean is nearly impossible to clean up and poses a threat
to marine life because of the risk of entanglement or ingestion. Plastics placed in landfills
almost never fully biodegrade, and studies have shown that when plastics decompose,
gases released from the decomposition process contain poisonous chemicals that are toxic
to animals. Additionally, recent studies have shown that chemicals from discarded plastics
can seep into the water table. The toxic chemicals in the water act as endocrine blockers
and have severe consequences to animals and have been shown to potentially impair human
development, especially in childhood.
While several important legislative acts have been passed to regulate solid waste disposal,
the regulations are not enough to prevent terrible externalities. The Solid Waste Disposal Act
of 1965 focuses specifically on “dealing with the externalities generated by plastic materials
industrial and municipal recycling” (Flores, 2008). Plastic materials make up a large portion
of the solid waste produced in the United States, and every year more and more plastic makes
its way into our landfills and oceans. The increasing demand for plastic materials challenge
even the most progressive waste management policies, which are proving to be insufficient
in addressing the problem of plastics. The thirst of capitalist production for more and more
plastics is only going to make the problem worse and will lead to even greater plastic related
externalities.
Social Effects of Capitalism:
The social externalities of living in a capitalist society are extremely broad and complex.
Those living in capitalist societies may not even recognize the externalities as externalities,
but instead may falsely accept that these externalities are natural occurrences, as just the way
life is. What those in capitalist societies do not know is that these problems are not a natural
part of life, but that these problems stem from operating under capitalism. Capitalism exists
for one reason: profit. The quest for profits by the capitalists will be met at all costs, and the
workers are the ones who bear the burden of this vicious cycle. The burden of profit-seeking
leads to social symptoms that manifest themselves throughout our cultures, lifestyles, and
mindsets.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 551
The United States is the most prominent of the capitalist countries, and the social externalities
of the capitalist mode of production are easily seen throughout American society.
One readily apparent symptom of capitalism in the US is the enormous amount of work
hours the average American works per year compared to other industrialized nations. The
International Labor Organization (ILO) found that in 1997 Americans worked, on average,
1,966 hours. That is four percent more hours than Americans worked in 1980 (1,883 hours).
In contrast, the annual average number of hours worked in may other countries has been
declining. In Japan, average hours worked declined over 10% from 1980 to 1995 (ILO,
1999).
In 2001 and 2002 the ILO concluded that Americans work the most hours in a year, and
that their productivity has increased every year from 1995 to 2002. While Americans continue
to work more and more, Canadians, Japanese, Australians, and Mexicans work 100
fewer hours annually than Americans, British and Brazilians work 250 hours less, and Germans,
astonishingly, work 500 hours less than their American counterparts. That works out
to over 9.5 fewer hours worked in a week by German workers. Despite the huge difference
in hours worked, Germany is an economic powerhouse, in part due to its workers being more
efficient than American workers (CNN, 2001).
Because of the high number of hours an American works every year one might assume
that Americans have higher annual incomes to show for it. Unfortunately for the American
worker, this is not the case. According to the United States Census Bureau, American households
earn, on average, $50,233 annually (US Census, 2010) (CIA, Accessed 2010). This
figure puts American household average annual income behind many countries where workers
work fewer hours, such as Canada, Switzerland, and Luxembourg. American workers
do not fare as well as many of their counterparts in the world despite the fact that the United
states has the highest GDP in the world at $14.26 trillion and the highest market value of
publicly traded company shares at $11.27 trillion (CIA, Accesses 2010).
Additionally, the United States is rated at only number 42 in the world on the Gini Index
of family income distribution, just slightly better than Uruguay, and a little worse than
Cameroon (CIA, Accessed 2010). With such a low Gini Index rating and such a high GDP,
it comes as no surprise that the United States has the highest number of billionaires in the
world (403) according to Forbes magazine (Forbes, 2010). So, despite America’s unprecedented
wealth, only a small proportion of the population reaps the benefit. Approximately
one percent of the US population controls 34.6% of all privately held wealth (42.7% in terms
of financial wealth) (Domhoff, 2010).
Not only does a small proportion of the US population, the capitalist class, control most
of the wealth, the working class has failed to realize much benefit at all from America’s
recent economic success. Despite America’s GDP rising from a 1973 level of $1.37 trillion
to its current level of $14.26 trillion (World Bank, 2010), the average wage of the American
worker has been virtually stagnant (in real terms), according to a report by Dean Baker
released in 2007 (Baker, 2007). The report shows that current American wages are barely
higher than wages in 1973, which runs counter to “common wisdom” that “a rising tide lifts
all boats.” The accumulation of wealth by the capitalist class on the backs of the working
class is empirically demonstrated. For example, in 1972, average executive pay was around
552 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
$700,000 a year, or about 25 times higher than the pay of an average worker. Executive pay
in 2000 had since risen to almost $2.2 million a year, or almost 90 times higher than the
average worker’s pay (Lyon, 2008), not accounting for the unprecedented bonuses paid to
executives outside of their annual salary.
Drawing from the aforementioned example of executive pay it is very easy to see the
enormous accumulation of wealth by a very small portion of society in the United States.
These numbers are incredible to say the least, but at least the American worker is no worse
for the wear, right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. While the income of the American
worker has remained unchanged, other aspects of the average American’s life have been
drastically affected by capitalism in the last few decades. Take, for example, the changes
in American family and social life. According to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of
Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri, divorce rates have risen to 50% for first
marriages, 67% for second marriages, and an astonishing 74% of third marriages end in
divorce. At the same time, almost 30% of students drop out of school before high school
graduation (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009).
American health has also taken a hit in recent decades due in part to pressure from
work and lower amounts of personal time. According to a study commissioned by livescience.com,
the average number hours Americans committed to sleep nightly has progressively
declined to barely six hours for white Americans and, shockingly, to just above five
hours for black Americans (Britt, 2006). Poor eating habits, resulting in part from the pressures
of capitalist production, have also contributed to a decline in American health. Obesity
now affects over two-thirds of the adult American population, and childhood obesity rates
(obesity in those under 18 years of age) are approaching 33% (Doane, 2010).
In part because of low amounts sleep and poor physical health, the use of psychiatric
drugs (antidepressants) has increased dramatically. In 1996, 5.84% of Americans took antidepressants.
This figure had risen to 10.12% by 2005, and the increases were seen mostly
in white patients. Despite the increase in antidepressant usage, an increase in diagnosed clinical
depression was not observed. Antidepressants are now the most commonly prescribed
drug class in the United States (Olfson and Marcus, 2009).
In addition to poor sleep habits, poor diets, and and poor mental health, the well-being
of American youth has fallen victim to the capitalist system. For example, due in part to
the pressures of capitalist production and the pressures that it puts on parents, over 100,000
children are now locked up in juvenile detention centers across the country according to an
astonishing article published by Time magazine. These children will most likely drop out of
compulsory education (Time, 2005).
The affects of capitalism on the rest, relaxation, and recreation of Americans can also be
seen. According to recent studies, unhappy people tend to watch the most television, and
Americans now watch more television than citizens of any other country on Earth (Adams,
2008). Due in part to their lack of free time (which has been consumed by work), and lack
of disposable income, Americans will watch, on average, the equivalent of nine years of
television by the time they die. That averages out to watching four hours of television (and
247 commercial advertisements) per day (Herr, 2007)(Adams, 2008).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 553
In their free time many Americans tend to travel (or at least those Americans with the
financial ability to travel). However, travel, especially international travel, is very limited.
Only 22% of Americans have a passport, and only about 20% of those with a passport actually
use it to travel internationally (The Expeditioner, 2010). Because of heavy demands at
work it has become more and more difficult for Americans to break free and take vacations.
According to an article by ABC News, Americans receive, on average, only 12-14 days of
vacation per year. Even then, much of this time is not used for holiday or relaxation; on
average, Americans leave about four of their annual vacation days unused.
Adding insult to injury, thanks to technology such as email, cell phones, and laptops, employers
are able to keep workers working even when they’re on “vacation” (Johnson, 2006).
Overworked employees are also discouraged from taking time off, even if it is company
policy to do so, out of fear that they could lose their job if they take too much time off.
Additionally, because they do not want to come back to all the work that they will have to
catch up on (even though they were on leave using time allocated for leave), many workers
are discouraged from taking vacations (Johnson, 2006).
The fear of being fired without justification is another externality of capitalist production.
Normally a company lays off workers in times of lower profitability, but not anymore. Despite
the healthy stock markets and record profits of the early 21st century, corporations laid
off millions of workers, and upwards of 7.5 million jobs were lost during the “great recession”
(Oak, 2010). While the unemployment rate continues to hover around 10%, stocks
prices have recovered and profits have reached record levels (G Network, 2010). How is this
possible? Because the capitalists have managed to squeeze more labor out of the workers
while the working class has suffered. To maintain their lifestyle, Americans have used credit
to offset their low wages, with 43% of American families spending more each year than they
earn. The average American family currently holds $8,000 in credit card debt, and personal
bankruptcies have doubled in the past decade (Khan, 2010). Once again, the capitalist class
has benefited while the working class has suffered.
Education is yet another area where the social externalities of capitalism are manifest.
Education is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. According to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights “Education shall be directed to the full development of the
human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms.” Education serves as an important tool in capitalism. As capitalism progresses it
is essential to increase the level of education of the labor force in order to increase surplus
value for the capitalists. However, with the increased demand for education, it becomes
more expensive, and therefore more difficult, to obtain an education.
While the competition for quality education benefits the capitalist by increasing the quality
of labor, eventually allowing for greater profits, the working class suffers a negative
externality from the competition for education. A laborer without a decent level of education
has not only limited access to well-paying jobs, but also suffers from a lack of access to
quality health care, healthy food, and even quality housing.
To make matters worse, there is a catch-22 to the capitalist education system. If one is
working at a low-paying job that requires a low level of education, how does one acquire an
554 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
education to get a higher paying job? The answer, generally, is debt. This is good for the
capitalist because it supplies them with a highly skilled labor force that is willing to work
for lower wages in order to pay their debt obligation (the worker cannot hold out for higher
wages because of their debt). This willingness to work for less impacts the entire workforce
because it gives capitalists the opportunity to hire a skilled workforce at increasingly lower
wages, pitting the working class against itself.
However, there are positive externalities from education under capitalism. For example,
the general rise in education levels resulting from capitalism has contributed to an increased
standard of living for the working class (though the standard of living of the working class
has not increased proportionately to the standard of living of the capitalists). Education has
also led to the development of general knowledge that has benefited all classes. A century
ago, when it was not common knowledge that washing your hands could prevent illness,
many people got sick and even died from easily avoidable diseases. Now, thanks to scientific
progress, bacterial and viral diseases are well understood, and infections are being prevented.
Additionally, education gives insight into other large problems. For example, education and
scientific discovery has made humanity aware of overpopulation and other major problems,
and may eventually empower humanity to overcome them.
Summary:
Capitalism is a source of great wealth for the capitalist class, and in its wake follows many
externalities. While some of these externalities have a positive effect on society, most have
great negative consequences on society, the natural world, and the future of humanity. While
many efforts have been undertaken by societies and governments to offset the externalities
of the capitalist mode of production, the unrelenting influence of capital, and the overarching
drive for profits, often overwhelms these efforts. Despite the best intentions of many actors,
the quest for profits has continued to compound and complicate the externalities of the capitalist
mode of production. Capitalism, especially in its current form, is unsustainable. The
push for ever greater profits inherently leads to a strain on resources, a strain which is today
being realized in the exhaustion of, and destruction of, Earth’s natural resources. The only
way to overcome the externalities of the capitalist mode of production is to overcome the
capitalist system itself. If capitalism cannot be overcome, society is on a path to imminent
destruction.
Sources and Work Cited:
• “Americans work longest hours among industrialized countries,” http://www.hartfordhwp.com/archives/26/077.html,
accessed November 2010.
• “Study: U.S. employees put in most hours.” http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends
last modified August 2001.
• Mark Olsen, MD, and Steven Marcus, PhD, “National Patterns in Antidepressant Medication
Treatment.” General Psychiatry, 2009. Accessible at: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/co
• Dean Baker, “The Productivity to Paycheck Gap: What the Data Show,” Center for Economic
and Policy Research, 2007. Accessible at: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/g

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 555
• Tory Johnson, “The Death of the American Vacation,” ABC News, 4 July 2006. Accessible
at: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/TakeControlOfYourLife/story?id=2151399&page=1
• Shanon Lyon, “CEO Salaries: What is the Average Salary of a CEO?” Accessible at:
http://blogs.payscale.com/content/2008/07/ceo-salaries–1.html
• G. William Domhoff, “Power In America: Wealth, Income, and Power.” Accessible at:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
• G Network. “DOW JONES – Stock Market Crash 2010” Accessed November 2010,
http://gnetwork.com.au/money/dow-jones-stock-market-crash-2010/
• “The basics, How Does Your Debt Compare” http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/savingandd
• CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/2009
• Patricia Michaels, “Environmental Externalities and Air Pollution.” Green Nature. 2010.
30 November 2010. Accessible at http://greennature.com/article473.html
556 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
• “An Introduction to Externalities.” The Energy Guy, 21 July 2003. Accessed November
2010. Accessible at http://www.theenergyguy.com/externalities.html
• Norman Herr, “Television and Health,” California Stat University, http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv& • Delgado, Christopher L., Ph.D., Clare A Narrod, Ph.D., and Marites M. Tiongco, Ph.D.,
accessed November 2010.
“Project on Livestock Industrialization, Trade and Social-Health-Environment Impacts in
• Stephen Adams, “Unhappy people watch more television,” The Telegraph, 14 Novem-
Developing Countries.” 24 July 2003. Agriculture and Consumer Protection. Accessed 30
November 2010. Accessible at: http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/LEAD/X6170E/x6170e00.htm
ber 2008. Accessible at: http://www.nowpublic.com/health/unhappy-people-watch-more-tv
• Frank Baker, “Ads in a Day.” http://www.frankwbaker.com/adsinaday.htm, accessed
• “Environmental externalities, market distortions and the economics of renewable energy
technologies [dagger].” The Energy Journal. 1 June 2004. Accessed November 2010.
November 2010.
Accessible at: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi 0199-568859/Environmental-externalities-
• Jon Bruner, “World’s Richest People,” Forbes, 10 March 1010. Accessible at: http://www.forbes.com/2010/03 market-distortions-and.html.
2010-richest-people interactive-map.html
• Mario C. Flores. “Plastic Materials and Environmental Externalities: Structural Causes
• “US Census Results.” Accessible at: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/incom and Corrective Policy.” Lethbridge Undergraduate Research Journal, 2008. Accessible at
• The World Bank, “World Development Indicators,” http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol3n2/plastic.xml
development-indicators?cid=GPD WDI, accessed November 2010.
First Message by Babyceta is [33], First Message by Giant is [152], First Message by Kohhep is [36], Next Message
by Proletarian is [1146], Next Message by Rmc is [1089], and First Message by Ryan is [248].
Question 921 is 851 in 2009fa, 957 in 2011fa, and 987 in 2012fa:
Question 921 If capitalism is as bad as Marx says, why isn’t there an open rebellion against
it?
• “Divorce rates.” http://www.divorcerate.org/, accessed November 2010.
[1135] IrvingHowe: Why not revolt? On some level, there is revolt. Every day people
• Alliance for Excellent Education, Fact Sheet - High School Dropouts in America, Updated
February 2009, http://www.all4ed.org/files/GraduationRates FactSheet.pdf
• Robert Britt, livescience.com, “Americans Sleep Less than They Think They Do,”
http://www.livescience.com/health/060703 sleep less.html
from all kinds of backgrounds do in fact openly rebel against capitalism. The reason it goes
unnoticed in the US, if I may be so brash as to say so, is that the wealthy in America have
turned capitalism into an institution more sacred to the nation than any other. This condition
has paved the way for an all-out, illegal and brutal assault on anyone that dare organize or
speak out. No, I’m not trying to pitch some wild 1984 type Big Brother conspiracy.
• Seth Doane, “Battling Obesity in America,” accessed November 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01 Anyone who openly criticizes capitalism on a serious level is likely to find themselves
• Steve Liss, “Children Behind Bars,” Time Magazine. Accessed November 2010, http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/juv
losing friends, being demoted/fired at work and otherwise marginalized in society. So, like
a dandelion that keeps getting stepped on, it never dies because the roots are still alive, but
• The Expeditioner, http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans-
it is never permitted to do much.
have-a-passport-2/, accessed November 20010
As to why it hasn’t been successful, the wealthy and powerful have simply done an amaz-
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view all&address=132x736429
ing job of convincing the masses that theirs is the best system ever devised by men and that
• Robert Oak, “Unemployment 9.6% for October 2010, Accessed November 2010,
the any rough times will always be followed by better years (a ridiculous notion when you
put the last 140 years or so of capitalism in the context of a race that is 50,000 years old).
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/unemployment-96-october-2010
State, religion and business have come together to collectively support and propagate on
behalf of the status quo. And as Che Guevara noted in Guerilla Warfare ‘No revolution can
be successful without the support of the people.’
Although Marx was no doubt a first rate intellectual, he could not have foreseen the
state of affairs that Americans know as daily life. Marx once famously wrote “Religion is
the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless
conditions. It is the opium of the people.” What Marx couldn’t have foreseen is a society
where capitalism is the most popular religion. Certainly he noted conditions similar to what
we observe today when he wrote the opening of the Communist Manifesto, “A spectre is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 557
haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered
into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French
Radicals and German police-spies.” But today the defense of capitalism has gone much
further than this. Today, in every single social group, among every ethnicity, age group or
any other possible demographic of Americans there is overwhelming defense of capitalism.
While volumes could certainly be written on the matter, this is in a nutshell why there
isn’t open revolts on a massive level. The people have swallowed the pill that makes them
ill.
To convince the working masses to support policy contrary to their own interest is surely
the single greatest achievement of the world’s elite.
Message [1135] referenced by [1158], [2011fa:894], and [2012fa:1572]. Next Message by IrvingHowe is [1156].
Question 927 What does someone living today need to know about Marxism?
[674] Hans: What to tell the BYU Audience. The topic of my talk tomorrow at BYU
will be: what an anthropologist today should know about Marxism. Well, anthropologist or
not, here are some things that I think one should know about Marxism today. Please help
me with this; I made it belatedly one of the homework questions. Please tell me from your
perspective what you find most important about Marxism.
One big difference between Marxism and most modern mainstream social sciences is that
Marxism does not start the understanding of society with the individual. The utility theory
of mainstream economics is methodologically individualist; it derives the social relations
(prices) from the preferences of individuals. By contrast, the labor theory of value is not a
methodologically individualist theory but a holistic theory of the structure of society. The
preferences of individuals play a much smaller role in shaping our society than an economics
student is inclined to think. Individuals do not create their society, but they are born into an
already created social structure and they have very limited influence about the the character
of this social structure. This is a big contradiction: humankind masters nature really well,
but even today we still have a poor grip on our own social relations.
Since Marx is not a methodological individualist, he does not explain the economic
growth in our society by the greed of the capitalists and/or the high consumption demands
of the consumers. Instead, growth is deeply buried in the fabric of our society. In a nutshell
the Marxist explanation of the need to grow exhibited by capitalist societies is: in capitalism
everything is measured by a one-dimensional measuring stick, money, and the only thing
which a one-dimensional thing can do is grow.
And here is a nutshell version of Marx’s derivation of the labor theory of value: In capitalism
the organization of production is mediated by the market, and the market measures
everything in one dimension, namely money. This can only be successful if production itself
is based on a one-dimensional factor, namely on labor. Money, therefore, in Marx’s theory,
measures labor.
This means all social attention is directed to one of the factors of production, to labor,
and capitalism has indeed brought about incredible increases in productivity. Capitalism has
become so successful that it is now an anachronism: labor is no longer the most important
558 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
factor of production. What limits production today is not the availability of labor but the
exhaustion of the planet’s natural resources, expecially the exhaustion of the atmosphere’s
ability to absorb CO2 from fossil fuels. The capitalist system is structurally unable to be
sustainable. This criticism of capitalism is extremely relevant today.
Other Marxist cricticisms of capitalism are of course that it creates poverty and injustices.
But one of the main strands of Marx’s criticism is that it is a social system which seems to
those living in this society to be different than it really is. On the surface everything seems
egaliarian because market relations are voluntary relations. There is one circumstance which
is usually overlooked: in capitalism those who do all the work in society do not have control
over the means of production. The means of production are owned by a small elite, and the
most important economic decision, the investment decision, is made not according to the
greatest benefit for all, but according to the greatest benefit for this small elite.
The most important question for anthropologists and everyone else today is why humankind,
although we know we are destroying the livability of the planet, is doing far less
than we could be doing to prevent this. This is the question our grandchildren will ask us:
why did you do so little while there still was time? Unfortunately, the flaws of the capitalist
system which Marx has already pointed out come together and reinforce each other in
devious ways:
(1) Individuals who see the need for an alternative economic course, which minimizes
carbon emissions and the use of natural resources rather than minimizing labor costs, have
very little influence. The system is on autopilot, it chases after profits and growth and does
not know about the environment. The one-dimensionality of markets leaves no room for the
environment.
(2) Commodity relations are social relations which look like natural properties of things,
namely, prices attached to commodities. This is Marx’s theory of the fetish-like character of
the commodity. People tend to think economic constraints are more natural than natural
constraints. This is why they don’t want to disturb the economy even if protecting the
economy destroys the natural basis of our existence.
(3) Marxism says that we live in a class society, that the working class is deprived of
control over the means of production. They were expropriated in the past and nowadays
they aren’t even aware any more that the workers should have control over the means of
production. What is happening right now is a second wave of expropriation where the natural
environment is taken away from them as well. They don’t get outraged enough about it
because the same ideology which tells them it is ok not to have control over the means of
production also tells them that the natural environment is not really their birthright.
Here are two of the things where Marx was wrong:
(a) Marx did not recognize the role of cheap energy in the Industrial Revolution. He
thought is was all due to productivity.
(b) Since Marx was writing against Malthus in the mid 1800s, many of today’s Marxists
think overpopulation is not an issue. They argue the planet is big enough, it is only the
maldistribution of income that is the problem. They are wrong, wrong, wrong. In my mind,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 559
the limitations of the environment are one of the biggest obstacles to removing the maldistribution
of income. This is the single biggest issue which condemns the ecosocialist
movement as it stands today to irrelevance, despite the fact that Marxism would be the right
paradigm to understand and solve today’s problems.
Message [674] referenced by [675]. Next Message by Hans is [680].
[675] Robert: graded A Capitalism: A social structure that inhibits individual psychospiritual
development. I have mused (as I am known to do) about the concept Hans
[674] summarizes as: “Individuals do not create their society, but they are born into an
already created social structure and they have very limited influence about the character of
this social structure.” I think Marx taught us, and we should listen, that capitalism promotes
and fosters, at a social level to be sure, individual behavior that is harmful to the psychospiritual
development of the individual.
Even if one does not consciously know that she is being exploited or that she is exploiting
someone, I believe that unconsciously the injustice wears on the psyche or the soul of the
individual. The wealth we generate in a capitalistic society is increasingly concentrated in
the hands of few. On the outside they may appear to be “happy” being rich but their souls
are becoming increasingly bankrupt...possibly without them even consciously knowing it (or
having enough time to care about it). The increasing population of poor feels in the essence
of their beings that they are being exploited, this undoubtedly fills them with resentment and
disdain, in addition to the misery and suffering they endure because they are poor.
Capitalism flourishes if there are many workers who do not cause too many problems.
Government in a capitalistic society is a tool of the owner of production to keep the workers
pliable and to protect the means of production for those who claim ownership of them. In
capitalism, the individual is lead to believe he has freedom. He feels in his soul this is not
the case but he hears that it is. Even modern economic theory tells him he is free to choose
his preference and maximize his utility. Ironically, capitalism, which touts freedom, is very
enslaving. The soul knows it is enslaved even if the conscious brain does not.
The relationship with the planet in which the individual finds himself under capitalism is
also inhibits psycho-spiritual development. Mankind is meant to live in harmony with the
Earth of which he is a product. It is unnatural for humans to feel that they own the Earth and
that it is a thing to be used and consumed. The Earth can and will sustain humans in more
ways than simply material. Capitalism does not prompt, in fact in discourages, viewing the
Earth as a living entity with which we can live in harmony.
Finally (this may not go over well at BYU) I believe capitalism has co-opted religion to
serve its own purposes. Religion in capitalism encourages the workers to work hard for the
sake of work itself and to postpone any need of gratification. Furthermore, religion teaches
that those who accumulate wealth are “blessed” and deserving; therefore, if one works hard
and is “good” he too may receive such blessings.
Unfortunately, the very source an individual may look for help in her psycho-spiritual development,
i.e., religion, in a capitalistic society is for the most part an apologist or, worse, a
justification for the society’s embracement of capitalism. Therefore, embracing a religion in
560 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
a capitalist society may actually intensify the psycho-spiritual damage caused by capitalism
by providing a divine meaning to the capitalistic processes of exploitation and accumulation.
Message [675] referenced by [680]. Next Message by Robert is [729].
[676] Max: graded A Contemporary Marxism. The economic downturn starting in 2008
made a lot of people question the stability of the US economic system mostly relating to the
legitimacy of bank lending policies. The economic repercussions we are experiencing from
the meltdown of banks makes clearer the fact that banks take risks by gambling with loans
and interest rates. This is a blatant illustration that the drive for capitalists is not the long term
stability of the economy or the well-being of the worker, but simply providing shareholders
with maximum profits.
Marx figures that money is how commodities are valued, and money’s value is given
by the amount of labor time necessary for production. If the health and well-being of a
laborer was considered, the typical work day for them would be just long enough to meet
the economic demands of the company. However, capitalists take into the health of their
worker only insofar as they are able to come back the next day and perform their job. Thus,
they work laborers to the fullest socially acceptable limits. In this way, capitalists are able
to take advantage of the worker and amass more wealth than they are able to simply by
collecting interest off commodities.
However, if the laborers owned the means of production (the factory, the mine, etc.) then
they could schedule their own amount of time working based on the collective economic
necessity of the company. Furthermore, the banking sector would be run to sustain the
economic stability for the borrowers and users of the bank.
Not only does capitalism disregard the happiness of the worker (to the limit where the
working-class’ strength ends), but it also lacks any mechanism restraining environmental
degradation.
Marx’s theory on capitalism clarifies the inner workings of “one-dimensional” growth. A
society where money is valued higher than the quality of life for those in that society is not
a happy one.
Message [676] referenced by [680]. Next Message by Max is [895].
[678] Bigwhite: People. I’ve been reading various people’s posts that seem to put all the
ails of the world on the shoulders of capitalism, and that if the world followed the Marxist
ideal that everything would be just fine. I feel that it isn’t that simple although people may
not be able to change the social structure they are born into they do have choices that they
can make to help improve their own lives. It seems like an easy way out to blame everything
on capitalism and not hold the individuals accountable for their actions whether they be
right or wrong. I think people especially in America don’t always take full advantage of the
opportunities that they have being born into this society, and when things don’t work either
economically or environmentally they seem to blame everyone but themselves.
Message [678] referenced by [680]. Next Message by Bigwhite is [753].
[680] Hans: Thank you for your suggestions. In my BYU talk, I will follow Robert’s
suggestion in [675] to emphasize that capitalism promotes alienated behavior which is harmful
for the individual’s soul. Appealing to will power to resist the bad habits and temptations
without questioning the system which promotes this behavior is inconsistent.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 561
I will not say that religion has been co-opted by capitalism, for several reasons:
(a) It is not my place to say this as someone outside the faith.
(b) I am not sure if this irreversibly true. There is something called liberation theology.
(c) In the climate change emergency that is upon us, a religious community is probably
not a bad place to be. I said this already in [295]. The LDS community with their traditional
emphasis on resilience seems to be a good choice.
(d) Some of the best people in society are religious. I think they have to be won over to
socialism, not alienated. Again this general argument about religion applies very well to the
LDS church because of their socialist past.
Bigwhite [678] objects that by blaming the capitalist system, socialists let the individual
off the hook. The “individual flourishing” which is the declared aim of socialism does not
mean that individuals are allowed to sprout like weeds. There must be self-discipline. But
this self-discipline can only evolve after the discipline imposed by the exploiter is removed.
This is another example where you cannot go directly from the status quo to the negation
of the negation. We cannot skip over the negation, hamely, the removal of the unnecessary
restrictions on our freedom generated by capitalism.
Max [676] reminds me that I should say something about the current economic crisis.
Good suggestion, I will. Max also says that the work day is too long. Another good suggestion.
A shorter work day directly benefits the laborers, and it is also socially necessary
because we (at least those in the developed countries) have to switch to a non-growth economic
path. The demand for a shorter work week could possibly be a demand where the
labor movement and the environmental movement have joint interests.
Message [680] referenced by [682]. Next Message by Hans is [683].
[682] JJ: Mormon Socialists. I wanted to add a few interesting comments on Hans [680],
particularly to his point (d). Hans expands the discussion by giving us this statement:
“Some of the best people in society are religious. I think they have to
be won over to socialism, not alienated. Again this general argument about
religion applies very well to the LDS church because of their socialist past.”
I don’t wish to speak specifically about the religion, but possibly how Marx felt about
this type of socialism as exemplified by the early Mormon Church which I will discuss in a
round about manner.
I think this is a very valid point that many people often make in Utah when discussing
how the early Mormons actually achieved Marx’s idea of socialism. In our study of Capital
we often forget that Marx is explaining capitalism to us, so that we can understand it. He
does not spend the majority of his time explaining in detail what the “classless” society will
look like, or how it will function. Although we don’t get this from Das Kapital, I do believe
that he had a vision of what it might be like. I would argue that in Marx’s view the early
Mormon Church did not achieve this. Not that they weren’t trying, in fact he might say that
their attempt was successful on a small scale, but would be futile in the bigger picture for
America or the world.
562 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Although I have to agree with Hans that the argument made above applies very well.
Religious people can be some of the best in society and might be more predispositioned to
become good socialists. Yet, I also want to reiterate his more difficult point (as I understood
it) that he makes later in [680], when he refers to the self discipline that must evolve in
the exploiter before we can allow individuals to flourish. This means that we must take
certain steps before we can reach socialism and attain its goal of allowing the individual to
flourish properly. Hans defines this step as the removal of “the unnecessary restriction on
our freedom generated by capitalism.” Did the early Mormon Church achieve this? I would
say yes they did, or came very close. However, I still believe that Marx would be critical of
their attempt.
Once again the point I try to make is not about religion, but about socialism. I believe
that the Mormon attempt was noble, but not the right way to bring about change at a grander
level. Their isolationist ideas allowed them to cut themselves off from the rest of the world
and achieve a form of socialism. It is exactly this isolation that made this possible. Marx
was critical of other isolationist groups that tried to follow his every word to a T on a small
scale. I believe that for Marx’s dream (as interpreted by me) to come true that society as a
whole would need to throw off the restrictions to our freedom that are created by capitalism.
I believe that Marx might have argued that those peoples that desire the classless society
should not group together and isolate, but that they should integrate in society and try to
effect this change from within the ranks of that overall society.
This is true as well as our planet becomes smaller and smaller and our populations bigger
and bigger. There are fewer and fewer places to isolate oneself. Marx had to of known
that this process that might one day lead to a classless society would take a very long time.
Hence, I believe that he might have disagreed on some points of this isolationist approach to
socialism.
Hans: Excellent points!
Next Message by JJ is [912].
[689] Orville: Religion vs Capitalism. This conversation has been so interesting because
it is comparing the two subjects that most wars have been fought over: religion and power. I
say power because that is what Marx has credited the capitalist system in creating at times.
The powerful and the powerless. I feel like that is how religion acts in some ways. The saved
and un-saved. Although neither religion nor society makes it that black and white, there is
still an understanding with how conversations are formed between members in our society.
To make one more comparison between the two ideas, think about missionaries. Not
only in the LDS Church but Protestant, Catholic, Jehovah’s Witness, Islamic, Hindu faiths
all have missionaries. They travel to foreign lands (primarily) and try to convince the people
living there that their way of living is the right way, or at least better. It seems to me that
the missionaries of capitalism today are those who would go to foreign lands and try to
convince those people that there is a better way of living and a means to a more stable or
more productive and prosperous society. This can take place through such individuals as
government officials, teachers, Peace Corps workers, and many others.
This is not to say that this is a bad thing. Clearly there is good that missionaries can do.
Exposing others to alternate views is never a bad thing. Few would argue that it would hurt

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 563
anyone to convert those who would sacrifice children, like the Aztecs, as a part of their rituals
to any other non-violent religion. Capitalism also has its sacrifices. Human trafficking,
alternative and illegal-markets, prostitution, are all examples of the ways in which capitalism
has put others in horrible situations. This comparison makes me wonder if we’ll ever find a
system that works for everyone just as if the world will ever find common religious beliefs.
Next Message by Orville is [699].
935 is 350 in 2005fa, 350 in 2007SP, 935 in 2008SP, 935 in 2008fa, 935 in 2009fa, 350 in
2011fa, and 350 in 2012fa:
935 Marx and the Environment
[99] Kraken: What’s the alternative. Hans [94] says that “we have to get rid of markets
in order to avoid environmental catastrophe”. How is that done in a global economy? He
also states that the market system “does not have the sense organs to see and wisely deal with
environmental constraints”. Who or what could do a better job? I’m hoping to understand
what a better alternative would be.
Message [99] referenced by [100], [102], [106], and [150]. Next Message by Kraken is [116].
[100] Zarathustra: To Kraken. In response to [99], Hans could be talking about energy
policy, climate change, and how economic cost and benefit analysis of markets cannot be
applied to a moral (e.g. do we have the right to destroy the next generation’s resources and
planet? Is our life more important than that of the next generation? etc.) and environmental
issues which are usually long-term plan. Note that cost and benefit analysis is usually a shortterm
calculation and does not take into account the fact that sometimes less productivity is
better than high productivity, particularly when it will be catastrophic in future. As the
capitalist system exploits workers (i.e. the majority of the living human beings), it destroys
our environment through the blind logic of the market.
Next Message by Zarathustra is [126].
[102] JJ: How do we get rid of markets? In this is the great conundrum. How do we
get rid of markets? Kraken [99] does not take a stance as to whether he agrees or disagrees
with Hans [94], which states “If Marx’s explanation is correct why and how markets work,
then we have to get rid of markets in order to avoid environmental catastrophe.” Rather than
disagree Kraken might be asking, if the answer is to abolish the capitalist market, then how
do we accomplish this? Kraken’s statement might be misleading as a disagreement because
he does not deliberate further on the leading explanation of Hans [94] or offer an alternative
solution.
I see the overall connection of how a capitalist market driven by productivity and profit
will not have the foresight to account for the moral questions of their effect on the environment
and future generations. Yet, I found myself asking the same question of his solution.
How do we abolish markets in a capitalist society that is run by markets? This is indeed a
great undertaking.
I believe that any attempt to abolish markets even in very controlled circumstances can
seem futile. We see this in controlled economies that have black markets spring up. We even
see this in our prison systems where markets spring up as if from no where in a controlled
564 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
environment that specifically bans the market. Prisoners begin trading in a ‘for profit’ system
by trading what is available to them. i.e. cigarettes, sex, tattoos, protection, commissary.
There are certain players that control the means of production and trade and these are they
that ultimately benefit from the surplus of that market ultimately causing the prison population
to suffer. I may have misinterpreted the prison market as a twisted form of a capitalist
market. I don’t intend to go into a detailed analysis of a prison system market, but only
attempt to show that markets have a tendency to pop up like weeds in the strangest of places,
in the most controlled environments, and despite our best efforts to stifle them.
I also will not offer an alternative solution, but agree that getting rid of markets could help
us avoid environmental catastrophe. I agree, but also find any attempt to get rid of or abolish
markets as wishful thinking. I won’t attempt to suggest the solution of how to correctly and
effectively get rid of markets, but I believe that this unknown solution is the “who” and the
“what” that will do a better job in answer to Kraken’s [99].
In fact, one might ask the rhetorical question that if is true that markets are blind and do
“not have the sense organs to see and wisely deal with environmental constraints” [94], then
how hard is it to find a system that does a “better job” than the current system which does
nothing to account for environmental constraints? It does nothing to account for environmental
constraints because these issues are not even part of the capitalist market equation.
One might suggest ANY system would be better that at least takes this moral question into
account.
Message [102] referenced by [106]. Next Message by JJ is [186].
[106] Hans: How to Respond to a TINA Argument? I say in [94] that we have to get rid
of markets if we want to preserve a habitable planet for humans. Kraken’s respone [99] does
not reveal whether he agrees or disagrees with this provocative thesis. Instead he asks “how
is that done in a global economy?” In the first paragraph of [102], JJ reflects on this question.
JJ is very perceptive and I think his conclusions entirely correct. The next paragraph here is
a re-statement and sharpening of JJ’s conclusions:
JJ does not say this, but to me, the phrase “in a global economy” gives Kraken away—
because this is no longer a question but a counterargument. Kraken does not believe that one
can get rid of markets. He wants me to give my ideas how it should be done only so that he
can shoot them down. This is called a “TINA” compromise, an attitude based on the thesis
that “there is no alternative.” We are stuck with capitalism like it or not, therefore no need to
change anything in our lives.
TINA situations do exist. If you are trapped in a burning building or a mine you may find
yourself in situation where it is simply impossible to get out and it does not really matter
what you do. But we are not trapped in mines. On the contrary, the possibilities of what we
can do are vast. Admittedly, the horizon of our possibilities is shrinking. We had even more
options before the economic crisis hit, but we still have lots and lots of options. This is why
the text-book rebuttal of someone arguing TINA is: “there is always an alternative.”
While TINA says that the status quo is our only option, the present situation is arguably
the exact opposite of TINA because today, continuing with the status quo, business as usual,
is no longer an option. Let me explain. Those alive today find ourselves in a unique situation.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 565
I always have to pinch myself that this is real and not a dream or something I am making up.
I have lived with Marxist doomsday prophets all my life who announced the impending end
of capitalism. But today it is not Marxists thinking the proletariat will not bear this blatant
theft and exploitation any longer, sooner or later they will rise up. Today, the best scientists
of the world (natural scientists, not social scientists) predict with painstaking data analysis
that due to global warming conditions for humans will steadily deteriorate. And every month
events on the News which confirm the trend. If anything, the IPCC have underestimated the
danger. Scientists say that drastic changes are needed very soon.
Therefore today’s situation is: we know for sure that the status quo is not an option.
Are there feasible alternatives? Well, nobody can know for sure how much of the coming
disaster can be prevented or even what should be done. The only way to find out whether
alternatives exist is to try them. Be creative, think outside the box. Do something new
and radically different. Don’t be discouraged by failure, if one thing doesn’t work, try the
next. Don’t be afraid to make yourself a nuisance, maybe you can dislodge some of the
conventional ways of doing things this way. Don’t wait for a savior but take things into
your own hands. But don’t do things in isolation either. Build networks, let others know
what you are doing, maybe they want to join you. Build or join organizations. If you are
already involved in struggles against discrimination, for GLBT issues, for social justice, by
all means continue, but look to combine them with climate issues. Social injustices are one
of the reasons for society’s paralysis in climate matters.
So far I have only talked about individual actions. One form of the TINA argument today
is that individual actions are not sufficient but that social coordination is needed. We need
laws and infrastructure investments and publicity campaigns. This is true, and clearly this is
not forthcoming. Not even under Obama. But instead of giving up this means two things:
(a) People should use the full extent of their democratic rights: write letters to the editor
and to representatives, make sure they won’t get re-elected if they vote against the necessary
climate legislation. Keep copies of every letter you write to representatives or newspapers
and their responses. If you ever find yourself in court because of civil disobedience, proof
that you tried the legal avenues first is a powerful defense.
(b) On the other hand, it is an old Marxist insight that the capitalist state cannot be reformed
but a new state apparatus is needed, i.e., revolution is needed. Marxism also say
that the only force in society which is powerful enough to make a revolution is the working
class. Therefore a Marxist response to the climate crisis is to work for the merging of the
environmental movement with the labor movement.
TINA is wrong, lots can and needs to be done. When David Letterman had Bill McKibben
on his show on Sep 1, see www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JcRj-Yokuw, Dave tried to pull
a TINA on Bill. Dave was amazingly receptive to Bill’s ideas, he did not argue against
global warming, but he tried to entrap Bill into saying that nothing can be done about it.
Dave was more successful with it than I would have liked. And Bill said nothing about the
working class. It is a critical weakness of the modern environmental movement that they
have forgotten the Marxist insights.
566 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: I have known TINA for a long time and I used it in [2008SP:208], [2004fa:488], [2003fa:678], [2000fa:140],
[2000fa:87], and [1996ut:287]. Today’s posting is much more detailed, and I may not always have used it correctly
in the past.
Message [106] referenced by [120]. Next Message by Hans is [112].
[110] Wolf: Annihilating Markets. “How do we get rid of markets?” This is, I believe,
the hardest question in this day and age, as well as the most pertinent. I agree with Hans
about a new synthesis of the working class struggles and the environmental movement. I believe
that both of their struggles, if actually carried to their logical end, are anti-capitalist. I
believe these also have to be revolutionary, NOT mere reformist. The “greenwashing” strategy
used by co-opting liberal capitalists will not suffice. We can not buy green products to
end global climate change. As well, being more energy efficient may be part of the problem
(http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=112009-1)! I am convinced that these have to be decentralized,
horizontal struggles. The importance of this is too great to be risked by involving union
officials, politicians, vanguards, etc. as mediators who will probably turn their back on the
struggle. As to what to do, I have no idea. The workers struggles in Greece look kind of
promising. The economic recession has created an opportunity for fomenting anti-capitalist
sentiment in the US but it seems as if the reactionary right (tea partiers) got to it first and
are using it for pro-capitalist ends. As to the environmental struggle, many radical environmentalist
strategies are considered terrorist in the US. In China, there also seems to be
a lot of struggling over environmental/worker issues lately. This may have some potential.
One possibility I see is that as the crises deepen, these struggles will grow and resonate with
others in other countries and spread. The likeliness of that is thin, however. Other than that,
I think the future is going to be quite bleak. I remember hearing Slavoj Zizek talking about
how China is proving to manage capitalism better than the US, especially in regards to the
environmental crisis, and there is danger that the US could emulate it’s totalitarian aspects,
in order to keep capitalism on life support. Thoughts?
Next Message by Wolf is [353].
[120] Kraken: Talkin bout a revolution. I appreciate the answer [106] that Hans gives
to the first part of my question. The question being: How do we get rid of markets in a
global economy? After easing into the subject with phrases like “drastic changes are needed
very soon”, “the status quo is not an option” and “social coordination is needed”, he finally
gets around to what it will really take to rid the world of markets; “revolution is needed”.
Let me add that since much of the world has willingly embraced the free market system,
this would need to be revolution on a global scale. I don’t believe Hans is framing the
conflict correctly. He speaks as though the pure in heart proletariat are engaged in a noble
battle against the evil capitalists to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. The problem with this
argument is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that human nature is the same regardless
of whether a person would be classified proletariat or capitalist. The truth is the proletarians
want what the capitalists have and most would gladly trade places with the capitalists if
they could. The proletariats are just as short sighted, selfish and greedy as the capitalists
are. The proletariats think the same way that the capitalists do. They just haven’t been
financially successful enough to earn the title of “capitalist”. If the proletariats ever do rise
up to overthrow the capitalists it will not be because they are fighting for justice and a noble
cause, it will be because they want what the capitalists have and they are going to take
it. I am not necessarily infatuated with capitalism, nor am I opposed to revolution, but for

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 567
any solution to have a chance of succeeding it needs to be grounded in reality. The idea
of urging a bunch of wanna-be capitalists to stand up and fight to rid the world of the free
market system (a system they hope will one day make them rich), is like trying to convince
a bunch of would be porn stars to stand up and fight to rid the world of pornography. In both
cases, the idea of easy money is too alluring to ever persuade them to bite the hand that may
or may not feed them.
Hans: You say “the proletarians want what the capitalists have and most would gladly trade places with the capitalists
if they could.” This may be due to the present legal framework. Who doesn’t like getting something for
nothing, and modern property rights are basically a license to steal for everyone who has money. Marx will explain
the mechanics of this in chapter Six, and see also the dialectical reversal of the law of appropriation in chapter
Twenty-Four. But conditions can change. If capitalism were ever to experience a Fallujah moment with capitalists
hanging from lampposts, the wish to become a capitalist would wane quickly.
Message [120] referenced by [125]. Next Message by Kraken is [178].
[123] Lindsey: What’s the better alternative? In response to Hans [94] remarks and
Marx’s theory... I find the thought that “we have to get rid of markets in order to avoid
environmental catastrophe” very disturbing. I see how markets are one-dimensionally focused,
and I agree that it is a problem that the environment is seldom taken into account
since resources are scarce. However, I don’t see what the better alternative is.
Other types of economic systems that the capitalist world could convert to, while they
may take environmental circumstances into account, leave out other important concepts.
For example, workers of an agricultural co-op may find the conditions to be unfair because
everyone is rewarded the same, no matter how hard they work. This creates a shaky system
as people become disenchanted and also less productive because everyone will begin to
work no more than the laziest worker of the group, and soon the members of the co-op will
produce little agricultural product. So the environment may not be destroyed as quickly,
but people may starve to death because the co-op will not produce enough food. Thus one
pathway to scarcity and destruction is traded for another.
Can’t we think of a way to just edit the market system to take the environment into
account? I realize that we have made some attempt at this by giving corporations incentives
and putting a cap on smog etc., but can’t we do more? There must either be a way to keep
markets without destroying the environment, or an alternative to markets that doesn’t neglect
another important piece to our survival and well-being.
Message [123] referenced by [127], [158], [160], [195], and [300]. Next Message by Lindsey is [303].
[125] Hans: How markets will be overcome. Kraken [120] is probably right. There
won’t be a successful revolution, at least not in the USA. We won’t get rid of markets. This
means severe climate crisis, with perhaps half a billion people surviving at the end of the
century. Most of them will live in Alaska, Siberia, Scandinavia, Greenland, North Canada,
Antarctica, perhaps a few islands like England and Hawaii, because the rest of the world
is too hot. Conditions are primitive, those surviving will have to work many hours just to
provide food. I think it will be most difficult for those who know how things were previously
because they have to mourn the loss, and those who have to witness the great reduction in
population numbers—which will deadly for most and traumatic for the rest. Out of the 100
in this class, maybe 10 will live to see this. I.e., it will be most difficult for you in the
second halves of your lives and your children (if you/they survive). It will probably be one
568 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
of those situations where the living envy the dead. I will be dead. Those born into the new
circumstances won’t suffer as much; they haven’t known otherwise.
Yet the situation is not the same as in the middle ages. In the middle ages, the individual
did not count much, everybody was subordinated to society. It was a sin to leave your
god-given place in society. Capitalism was the reaction to this. Individuals emancipated
themselves from the social fetters, and the pendulum swang into the other direction. Now
everybody acted as if others were strangers, people competed against each other and tried to
take advantage of each other, they did not realize how dependent they were on each other.
The respect for the individual will not be forgotten, but I think in the times emerging
from the climate catastrophe people will realize their interdependence as well. This is the
negation of the negation in a more violent sense than Marx would ever have anticipated. With
the new beginning people are forced back together into small communities. Under these
circumstances everyone will have the awareness that capitalist development was a dead-end
street. They will slowly build up the technology appropriate for the new climate conditions,
over many generations and centuries, slowly re-conquer wider areas of the planet again as
the carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere decline, make the best of the crippled planet
they have inherited. But they will pass on from generation to generation the lesson they have
learned: you don’t treat others as objects, you don’t take advantage of their misfortunes, you
don’t try to advance at the expense of others. Any harm you inflict on others is ultimately
harm to yourself. And they will never again allow the fate of their societies to be governed
by anonymous markets.
Message [125] referenced by [126], [148], [158], [196], [1071], and [2012fa:464]. Next Message by Hans is [129].
[126] Zarathustra: Horrific Picture. I don’t have much to say. I just wanted to say I
very much like the horrific picture that Hans portrayed in [125]. (I don’t mean I like it to
happen. I like the way he described it.)
Message [126] referenced by [636]. First Message by Zarathustra is [20].
[127] Pweber: Externalities and Hans’ Armageddon. Lindsey [123], I think there are
ways around it within modern economics and capitalism* (asterisk, because pure market
capitalism does not provide a way around it). In modern economics, externalities exist that
cause positive or negative benefits that aren’t corrected through supply or prices; i.e., a
school brings positive externalities and pollution brings negative externalities (parties that
don’t partake in the market transaction are affected by the transaction).
Obviously, to correct for externalities, government has to be involved. Only governments
have the power and the ability to correct for negative externalities like global warming, and
yet most governments stand idly by and mumble something about “...maybe next year.” In
developed countries, no one is doing anything about the problem because we’ve let corporations
become so large and powerful they can buy whatever they want. Politicians aren’t
going to campaign about something that won’t get them reelected, especially when Exxon-
Mobil rights them a large enough check. Like Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a
man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
What this country ought to be doing is a Manhattan project of energy, defining the next
generation of power sources (and apparently we’ve forgotten all about nuclear energy). Instead,
we won’t even do CO2 cap and trade, which is a pretty lame solution already. Anyway,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 569
my point is that externalities in economics do allow the real cost of things like pollution to
be calculated and corrected for. We as a people just won’t do it.
Next Message by Pweber is [128].
[135] Hans: Robert Jensen: A World In Collapse? Robert Jensen interviewed by Alex
Doherty
(September 03 2010)
New Left Project
http://www.countercurrents.org/jensen030910.htm
Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas. He
is the author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (2007); The Heart
of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (2005); and Citizens of the
Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (2004), among other works. He spoke to New
Left Project’s Alex Doherty about the threat of environmental catastrophe.
Alex Doherty: You have written that: “To be fully alive today is to live with anguish,
not for one’s own condition in the world but for the condition of the world, for a world that
is in collapse”. Even amongst environmentalists it is rare to describe our situation in such
apocalyptic terms. Why do you think it is justified to describe the world as collapsing?
Robert Jensen: Take a look at any measure of the fundamental health of the planetary
ecosystem on which we are dependent: topsoil loss, chemical contamination of soil and
water, species extinction and reduction in biodiversity, the state of the world’s oceans, unmanageable
toxic waste problems, and climate change. Take a look at the data, and the news
is bad on every front. And all of this is in the context of the dramatic decline coming in
the highly concentrated energy available from oil and natural gas, and the increased climate
disruption that will come if we keep burning the still-abundant coal reserves. There are no
replacement fuels on the horizon that will allow a smooth transition. These ecological realities
will play out in a world structured by a system of nation-states rooted in the grotesque
inequality resulting from imperialism and capitalism, all of which is eroding what is left of
our collective humanity. “Collapsing” seems like a reasonable description of the world.
That doesn’t mean there’s a cataclysmic end point coming soon, but this is an apocalyptic
moment. The word “apocalypse” does not mean “end”. It comes from a Greek word that
means “uncovering” or “lifting the veil”. This is an apocalyptic moment because we need to
lift the veil and have the courage to look at the world honestly.
AD: Why do you think many leftists shy away from such language when discussing the
environment?
RJ: I think not only leftists, but people in general, avoid these realities because reality is
so grim. It seems overwhelming to most people, for good reason. So, rather than confront
it, people find modes of evasion. One is to deny there’s a reason to worry, which is common
throughout the culture. The most common evasive strategy I hear from people on the left is
“technological fundamentalism” - the idea that because we want high-energy/high-tech solutions
that will allow us to live in the style to which so many of us have become accustomed,
570 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
those solutions will be found. That kind of magical thinking is appealing but unrealistic, for
two reasons. First, while the human discoveries of the past few centuries are impressive, they
have not been on the scale required to correct the course we’re on; we’ve created problems
that have grown beyond our capacity to understand and manage. Second, those discoveries
were subsidized by fossil-fuel energy that won’t be around much longer, which dramatically
limits what we will be able to accomplish through energy-intensive advanced technology.
As many people have pointed out, technology is not energy; you don’t replace energy with
technology. Technology can make some processes more energy-efficient, but it can’t create
energy out of thin air.
I’ve had many left colleagues tell me that they agree with some or all of my analysis, but
that “people aren’t ready to hear that yet”. I translate that to mean, “I’m not ready to hear
that yet”. I think a lot of leftists displace their own fear of confronting these difficult realities
onto “the masses”, when in fact they can’t face it.
The other factor is that truly crazy end-times talk, which comes primarily from reactionary
religious sources, leads many people to reflexively dismiss any talk of collapse. So,
it’s important to be clear: I’m not predicting the end of world on a specific date. I’m not
predicting anything. I’m simply describing what some of us believe to be the most likely
trajectory of the high-energy/high-tech society in which we live. And I’m suggesting that
we keep this trajectory in mind as we pursue left/feminist critiques of hierarchy and domination,
in the hope that more egalitarian and humane models for human organization can help
us deal with collapse.
AD: Given the severity of the situation you are describing what are the implications for
left activism? Should other forms of activism be abandoned in order to focus on the threat of
climate change? How realistic are proposals for alternative economic systems such as green
bio-regionalism or participatory economics in the context of climate catastrophe?
RJ: First, I think every political project - whether it is focused on labor organizing, resistance
to white supremacy, women’s rights, anti-war activity - has to include an ecological
component. That doesn’t mean everyone has to shift focus, but I think there is no meaningful
politics that doesn’t recognize the fragility of our situation and the likelihood that
the most vulnerable people (both in the United States and around the world) are going to
bear the brunt of the ecological decline. A responsible left/feminist politics should connect
the dots whenever and wherever possible. Here’s one obvious example: US imperial wars,
born of a patriarchal system, are waged to support corporate interests in the most crucial
energy-producing regions of the world, which are predominantly non-white. Resistance to
those wars requires a critique of male dominance, white supremacy, capitalism, and the affluent
First-World lifestyles that numb people to the reality that they are morally implicated
in these wars. Those wars are dramatically escalating the intensity and potential destructiveness
of the coming collapse. Concern for justice and ecological sustainability demands
an anti-war and anti-empire politics. There is no way to focus on one aspect of an injustice
without understanding these intersections.
Second, more than ever, “let a hundred flowers blossom”. When we know so little about
what’s coming, it’s best if people pursue a variety of strategies that they feel drawn to. In

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 571
Austin, I’m working primarily with one group that advocates for immigrant workers (Workers
Defense Project) and another that helps people start worker-owned cooperative businesses
(Third Coast Workers for Cooperation). Neither group is focused specifically on the
ecological crises, but there’s incredible energy and ideas in these groups, and they create
spaces for advancing a coordinated critique of capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy,
all with an understanding of the ecological stakes. Maybe it’s natural for people to want to
believe that they have hit on the solution to a problem, but I believe that the problems are
complex beyond our understanding, and it’s not only unlikely that there’s a single solution
but there may be no solutions at all - if by “solution” we mean a way to continue human
existence on the planet at its current level. We need experiments on every front that help us
imagine new ways of being.
AD: Lately you have been writing about the way people react emotionally to the reality
of climate change. Why do you believe that is an important topic? What is your emotional
response to humanities [sic] current predicament? What reactions have you seen in others?
RJ: It’s not just climate change, of course, but the multiple ecological crises. Anyone who
is paying attention is bound to have some kind of emotional response. I think emotions are
important because we are emotional animals. It really is that simple. How can we confront
the end of the systems that have structured our lives and not have powerful emotional reactions?
Yes, we have well-developed rational capacities, but in the end we are animals who
feel as much, or more, than we think. And if thinking and feeling are not wholly separate
processes but are part of the way people understand the world, it is folly not to pay attention
to our emotional reactions. None of this should be confused with the apolitical therapy
culture that dominates in the United States. I’m not talking about emotions separate from
politics, but the emotions that flow from political engagement.
To borrow a phrase from a friend, I wake up every morning in a state of profound grief.
We humans have been given a privileged place in a world that is beautiful beyond description,
and we are destroying it and destroying each other. I cope with that by building temporary
psychological damns and dikes to hold back that grief. But the emotion comes so powerfully
from so many different directions that life feels like a process of constantly patching
and moving and rebuilding those damns and dikes. Some of this is intensely personal, but for
me the political work is a crucial part of that coping process. If I weren’t politically active,
I would lose my mind. The only way I know how to cope is to use some of my energy in
collective efforts to try to build something positive.
There is a lot of individual variation in the human species, which means there will be
lots of different reactions as the reality of our predicament sets in. I worry that in a society
like the United States, where so many have lived for so long with abundance and a sense
of entitlement, people won’t be able to face up to the dramatic changes that are inevitable.
That could lead people to accept greater levels of hierarchy and authority if political leaders
promise to protect that affluence. In that case, people’s inability to deal with the emotions
that arise out of awareness of collapse could usher in an era of even more unjust distribution
of wealth and resources in an even more violent world.
572 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The only way to combat that is to talk openly about what we see coming and work to
create conditions that allow us to rely on the best of our nature, not the worst.
AD: You dismiss the possibility of technological solutions to climate change but given the
severity of the crises we are facing do we not have a duty to try everything we can to avert
disaster? Shouldn’t we be ramping up research into alternate fuels and renewable energy
resources? What about geo-engineering as way to avert the worst effects of climate change?
RJ: I don’t dismiss the relevance of advanced technology to sensible policy proposals. I
do dismiss the claim that because we want to solve problems with technology we will invent
that technology, and that it will be safe and not cause new problems. I reject that because it
strikes me as a fantasy that ignores history and diverts us from the reality of the present.
So, yes, we have that duty, and I support serious investment in alternative energy. My concern
is that the culture’s technological fundamentalism leaves people vulnerable to scams.
The first step is to recognize we are all going to live in a lower-energy world fairly soon,
and that means a massive shift in how we live in the First World . There is no replacement
for that fossil energy, and we had better come to terms with that. When we don’t recognize
that, we are more easily suckered into absurd schemes like the tar sands in Canada, which is
an ecological disaster. The same for biofuels and the absurd claim that we can sustainably
replace fossil fuels with ethanol, which is also an ecological loser.
Geo-engineering goes a step beyond that, into real insanity. Proposals to manipulate the
planetary ecosystem through schemes like putting reflective particles into the atmosphere, or
mirrors in space to deflect sunlight, or altering the clouds - all of them prove that we haven’t
learned the most important lesson of the industrial era. We have not learned, as Wes Jackson
puts it, that we are far more ignorant than we are knowledgeable. We have a history of
imagining that our knowledge is adequate to manage major interventions into the ecosystem,
leaving us to face the unintended consequences of those interventions. At this point, there
is no rational approach to the ecological crises that doesn’t start with this recognition: We
are going to live in a low-energy world that is powered primarily by contemporary sunlight,
not the ancient energy of fossil fuels. As a society we are not prepared, in terms of either
physical infrastructure or cultural awareness, to deal with that. Anything that further delays
coming to terms with this reality is a threat to life on the planet, not a solution.
AD: In a recent talk you said that “I am glad to see the end of most of what we have come
to call ‘the good life’, for it never struck me as all that good, at least not for most people
and other living things”. In what respects do you think contemporary capitalism has failed
to meet the needs of even the most privileged sectors of western societies?
RJ: Capitalism is the most wildly productive economic system in history, but the one
thing it cannot produce is meaning. Even more troubling is the way, through its promotion of
narcissism and mindless consumption, that capitalism undermines the larger culture’s ability
to create real meaning. Virtually all of what is good in society - solidarity, compassion,
creativity, ethics, joy - comes from outside capitalism, giving the illusion that capitalism is
a civilized system. It’s a cliche, but important enough that we sing it over and over: Money
can’t buy you love. Capitalism cannot create a healthy human community, and it undermines
the aspect of human nature rooted in solidarity and love.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 573
The other obvious failure of capitalism is its contribution to the erosion of the health of the
ecosystem. Humans have been drawing down the ecological capital of the planet since the
invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, but that process has intensified dramatically
in the capitalist/imperialist/industrial era. Our culture is filled with talk about the success of
capitalism even though that system degrades our relationships and threatens our existence.
That’s an odd definition of success.
AD: Are there any writers on this topic whose work you would like to recommend?
RJ: Wes Jackson is one of my most trusted sources on these issues. Wes is a scientist
working in research on sustainable agriculture, but his critique encompasses politics, economics,
and culture. His new book, Consulting the Genius of the Place: An Ecological
Approach to a New Agriculture, is due out this fall, and I’m looking forward to reading. I
think Bill McKibben’s latest book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet (2010), is
important, though I think his faith in the power of the internet to help us through the transition
is dangerously naïve. William Catton’s books Overshoot (1980) and Bottleneck (2009)
have also helped me come to terms with reality.
In addition to the ecological questions, I think we also have to keep focused on the political
and cultural questions, about how the existing distribution of wealth and power are serious
impediments to meaningful change. That means continuing to think about the predatory
nature of empire and capitalism, and the degree to which patriarchy and white supremacy
structure our world and undermine our capacity to be fully human.
===========
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board
member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. He is the author of All My
Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice (Soft Skull Press, 2009);
Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of
Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of
the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent:
Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002). Jensen is also
co-producer of the documentary film “Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still
Dancing”, which chronicles the life and philosophy of the longtime radical activist. Information
about the film, distributed by the Media Education Foundation, and an extended interview
Jensen conducted with Osheroff are online at http://thirdcoastactivist.org/osheroff.html
.
Jensen can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online
at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/ rjensen/index.html . To join an email list to receive articles by
Jensen, go to http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html .
http://www.countercurrents.org/jensen030910.htm
Message [135] referenced by [196]. Next Message by Hans is [136].
[146] Frida: Ecological Philosophy. One contemporary philosopher, David Abram, has
said that the root of the problem with the way that humans relate to the environment is simply
the way we feel about it and talk about it. The idea is that the first step towards change is to
574 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
stop thinking about humans as the center of all consciousness and stop thinking of ourselves
as a separate thing from the environment. Reading his book “The Spell of the Sensuous”
really changed my view on the way that we should relate to nature, even though I had always
thought of myself as something of an environmentalist.
Reading the last few posts on this thread about ecological disaster, and thinking about
some of Abram’s writings more in the context of this class has made me think that things
are even worse that a total separation from our natural environment. People have gotten to
the point that they objectify everything, including other human beings. Without this objectification
capitalism couldn’t exist. This ruthless need for commodities etc. etc. leads to a
warping of the way people are supposed to relate to each other, the environment, and even
their own sustenance.
Message [146] referenced by [165]. Next Message by Frida is [166].
[148] JSmits: Impact of Global Warming. After reading Hans [125], the reality that
the world could be affected so drastically by global warming at the end of the century was
very alarming. I haven’t heard anything of that nature before I read Hans email and it really
opened my eyes. Of course I knew it was and has been one of biggest issues in the last few
years but to hear that my kids could be affected so greatly by this when they get older was
hard to hear.
Message [148] referenced by [158]. Next Message by JSmits is [432].
[150] IrvingHowe: Kraken—what alternative? Kraken, in response to Hans’ comments
regarding capitalism’s inability to adequately address the environmental problems,
you asked in [99] “Who or what could do a better job? I’m hoping to understand what a
better alternative would be.” First, allow me to say that there has been volumes written on
this very subject and it would be worth looking into the subject for many obvious reasons. I
think your question itself seems to concede by omission that capitalism does indeed lack the
ability to tackle the crisis it has caused to our eco-system. So, what is else is there you ask.
To understand the answer, it is necessary to ask what about capitalism causes such destruction.
Capitalism as a economic philosophy can be summed up as a system consisting of any
number of consumers and producers each when acting in their own self interest produces a
most optimal mix of outcomes. The result is supposed to be, as Adam Smith said referring to
the role of undertakers (producers) in promoting general welfare, “an end which was no part
of his intention” namely optimal social welfare for all citizens including, for the first time in
history, the working classes. The problem with that, as econ 101 tells us, is that our choices
are riddled with consequences which we neither intended nor have to deal with, or externalities.
It is beyond reason to believe that intelligent people living with even a minimal amount
of information regarding any type of natural science could not understand pollution is in fact
hurting him/herself and legions of descendent children. It is also beyond reason to believe
that this action is understood to be anything less than a moral wrong. However, because the
rewards can be so great, it overwhelms whatever human element may exist in a businesses
decisions. This cannot be reformed. It is in fact the foundation of capitalism that each firm
and consumer act in their own interest. Since the reward is so great and the chance of having
to personally reckon with the exact level of damage inflicted by their actions against the
environment so small, the result will always be the same.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 575
As for alternatives, I would like to be even handed about this but I honestly do not know
of any real ideas for reform out of the right wing (or for that matter what is commonly considered
the left) of American politics. Fortunately for this particular purpose, there is a very
fractured political left each with their own platform and ideas to address the environmental
crisis. The one thing that they all have in common, the most important thing, is a systematic
approach to radically reforming a poor set of incentives that encourages abuse against
humans and the environment alike.
For one, most include high minimum wages and a maximum wage which would greatly
reduce the potential reward for polluters. Also, there is a growing movement for what is
known as a steady-state economy. I don’t have room to do any of these things justice in
explanation, I apologize. As for the analogy of a black market in prison, I think it is misguided
for this discussion. The large scale polluters of the world have no real way of ‘going
underground.’ It is a very large investment to build, say, a steel mill on the off chance that no
one discovers the legions of workers and raw material going to said plant. To the apparent
concern over some sort of central authority making decisions for environmental purposes, I
would say think of it in context of the great services already provided by both the private,
public and not-for-profit sectors. There are wonderful things going on in each of these and
they are all being planned by some sort of powerful central body, I will say that I personally
prefer decision making to be as decentralized as is functionally feasible.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [160].
[158] Hans: Answer to a question you didn’t ask. Lindsey [123] said she found my
[94] disturbing, and JSmits [148] said, in response to my “end of the world” email [125], he
had not known how serious the situation was. If the situation is as serious as I say, why am
I not out on the barricades, throwing if necessary my body into the machinery to stop the
madness?
Answer: I think I can be more effective if I push the envelope of what I am allowed to
say as a teacher, than if I get myself fired because of civil disobedience. Since I am trying
to teach you dialectical thinking in this class, this is a wonderful example of a contradiction.
If I want to be around to tell you about climate change, I can not really act appropriately
myself, i.e., I am forced to deny with my actions what my words are saying. This, of course,
makes me also a lousy example to emulate. I may be wrong but I see this not as flight from
responsibility but the most effective use of my place in society to combat climate change.
And don’t forget that I am 65 years old. I will not live through the brunt of the climate
catastrophe. The young have to be the leaders, not the old who will not be personally affected
as much by climate change and whose reactions will therefore be much too mild.
Next Message by Hans is [173].
[160] IrvingHowe: There are plenty of alternatives. Lindsey [123],
I think that there are plenty of alternatives to the current market system, even some that
are in practice today. What we have really is a matter of life or death. Never mind the
decrease in production that comes from a group of unhappy co-op workers. The shifting
climate patterns and soil erosion already taking place are going to kill more people than an
unproductive co-op. Crop production is not possible without a resource rich earth, no matter
the happiness of the workers.
576 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Also, to address your metaphor more directly, I want to quickly point out a couple of
flaws. First, there is the almighty mistake that market-minded individuals tend to make
which prematurely cuts off debate—that is your scenario assumes that the individuals are
only motivated by money. I think that the University is a pretty good place to see an example
of why this isn’t true. Every day, thousands of students study to be teachers rather than
accountants despite the monetary reward involved in the latter. I don’t think it’s necessary to
continue with the thousands examples of non-economically motivated actions that play out
every single day on our campus. My point is simply that people are indeed moved to action
by a very wide variety of incentives.
Second, there are also thousands of companies which are very successful in which wage
rates are the same or very nearly the same for all employees. Employee owned businesses,
co-ops and any number of unionized firms come to mind when thinking of successful businesses
that disprove the need for wide wage disparities.
Whether or not Marx was mostly right about capitalism’s self destructive tendencies is
certainly worth debating, he was definitely not right on everything. In fact, he acknowledges
this repeatedly throughout Capital vol. I and Engels plainly states in vols. II and III that
he is not even certain that he is properly interpreting Marx’s manuscripts. However, I feel
that half of this discussion is operating under false premises—that is that even if it’s not been
explicitly stated, there seems to be an underlying idea that the only alternatives are command
economic models which have already failed.
I for one reject that notion. There are a lot of options out there for addressing the many
crises that capitalism creates. All of the options however require a fundamental restructuring
of incentives in our economy. This is an absolute necessity. All would require largely
dismantling the dogmatic loyalty that Americans have to the idea that business always knows
best. Some of the most productive changes we can make are as simple as ending the suburban
nightmare and turning to far more dense city structures.
This isn’t a matter of choice. Our lifestyles will force drastic change to our economy—5
percent of the world’s population just can’t go on consuming 30 percent of its resources.
She: I agree with you that the restructuring of incentives in our system is absolutely crucial to making a significant
change.
The entire capitalist system is based on incentives. Some individuals value money most and see it as the greatest
incentive, other people have different values and see other activities or emotional fulfillment as a greater incentive.
The people in the former classification don’t really exist totally, I don’t believe. This would be the ”rational man”
or the ”profit-maximizing corporation” there are plenty of examples, as you show, that do not fit these assumptions.
Yet it is assumptions like these that drive the neo-classical school of economics. People do ”irrational” things all
the time, because it makes them happier, it provides more ”utility” as some would gesture.
I think incentive changes need to happen to discourage corporations and individuals from reaping their own
profits without regard to the effects they have on others. They need to be held accountible for the social costs that
are incurred on their behalf.
Next Message by IrvingHowe is [191].
[161] RexManning: How did the cat get so fat? A song of the same title as the above
subject line from a band called NOFX, who helped to shape who I am now, brought to light
some serious problems that I had never thought of as a teenager. Now that I am much older,
and possibly a bit more grown up, I can see the problems that relate to and make up the
reality of the less fortunate as other scramble and trample over each other to get ahead in

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 577
life. After taking Poverty and Inequality last year, I became much more aware of the over
looked value of the human being. As NOFX put it “how did the cat get so fat?” How did so
much power come to rest in the hands of the few, and when did those few stop caring about
their neighbors? Maybe I am an idealist, but I sincerely believe in the idea of this country
and the good that the majority of its people possess in their hearts.
That being said, something must be done to make this world a better place for those that
will follow us. A war for profit of fat contracts, misled by our leaders and carried out by the
brave is something that would surely cause our forefathers to roll over in their graves. It is
true, we are the home of the free because of the brave, but these young men and women do
not need to be exploited in the worst kind of way. As a veteran of the Iraq war and soonto-be
veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I have seen the gruesome reality that is war, but
I also rest assured knowing that there are those out there who are willing to put their lives
on the line for others. Although, that may not be the basis of the war in Iraq, we are most
certainly putting our lives on the line for others in Afghanistan. That is the kind of love and
dedication that is needed to turn this boat around. Hans may think it is out of our hands now,
but I believe in the power of the people, and look forward to a brighter tomorrow. Here are
a few lines from NOFX. Enjoy!
“It’s all about the money
Political power is taking
Protecting the rich, denying the poor
Yeah, they love to watch the wars from the White House
And I wonder...
How can they sleep at night?
How can they sleep at night?
How did the cat get so fat?”
Next Message by RexManning is [319].
[165] Lana: Taking accountability. Frida [146] talks about how humanity’s consumption
of commodities is disconnecting us from nature and disintegrates our human-to-human
relationships. While I agree with David Abram’s idea of defocusing humans’ importance,
I believe to a degree that we are the caretakers of the Earth. Capitalism is not necessarily
a bad thing if those operating the system are aware that there are additional goals besides
making a profit. Commodities can be produced and consumed from the land, just as long as
we take accountability for what is being depleted and replace it, or make it better.
Message [165] referenced by [166] and [169]. Next Message by Lana is [415].
[166] Frida: Re: Taking Accountability. In response to Lana [165]:
The very idea that humans are supposed to be “the caretakers of the Earth” is in the same
destructive vein as the idea that the earth is here for our benefit and use, though it seems to
be the opposite idea. It still assumes that humans have a preeminent role, and objectifies the
Earth itself. The Earth’s many species have evolved to weather patterns, currents, etc. for
the past few billion years. To say that humans are caretakers of the Earth is preposterous; we
578 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
are incapable of caring for the earth in any way, as I understand the term. The attempts of
some to minimize the horrible damage we have done to other species and to the environment
in general are the closest example I can come up with. It reminds me of an old friend of
mine who once pushed me off a porch and then caught me at the last second. He then said
something about saving my life, obviously as a joke. We evolved as a small part of the
earth’s ecosystem and have since decided that we are the most important component of it.
Presumably because of our ability to do things like derive calculus equations and our over
important view of that sort of intelligence.
It is an obvious fact that humans as a species can survive without damaging the earth,
as we have many examples of such cultures (but we have less and less current ones as time
goes by). Since it is hard to know what works without experiential evidence I am open to
ideas about what sort of social structure could lead to a less abusive relationship with the
ecosystem. Still, if we are looking at capitalism, it seems an unlikely candidate. When the
goal of an economic system is private gain (correct me if I am wrong on this definition of
capitalism) it is hard to see how it could lead to a more positive relationship with the Earth.
People will take advantage of short term opportunities for profit if given the chance and
raised to believe that the economic goal of their lives should be accumulation of personal
wealth. This short-sightedness will always lead to objectification of fellow humans and of
plant life, animals, etc.
If people are aware that “there are additional goals besides making a profit”, then they
have some motivation outside of capitalism. This awareness is somewhat antithetical to the
idea of capitalism. Commodities can be produced in systems besides capitalism, we just
need to find something that works. After being depressed over all this for the last few days,
right now I’m afraid we won’t and ecological disaster will ensue. Then we will be forced, if
we like it or not, into a different lifestyle.
Message [166] referenced by [204], [519], and [521]. Next Message by Frida is [200].
[169] Max: How to regulate corporations. In response to Lana [165]:
Integrating a system that checks and balances corporate environmental degradation is a
lot harder than it seems. Even if it gets passed in congress (judging by how financial reform
was met) it will leave many aspects of our environment still extremely vulnerable. And it is
foolish to think that corporations will make the necessary changes on their own.
However, one of the only reasons we have so many archeologists is because mining companies
are usually required by law to make sure they aren’t operating where valuable prehistoric
remains are located, so they hire an archeologist. It may be possible to regulate
corporations in this way whereas they are required to hire bipartisan scientists to study the
impacts of their operations. (My friend who works for The Nature Conservancy of Utah is
involved in a program similar to this where they will be studying the value of the natural
resources corporations are using. For instance, if a company is polluting a stream, they economically
evaluate the benefits that stream makes to the company. Theoretically (though not
in existence yet) the company would then essentially be taxed for the services that nature
provides).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 579
The nature of capitalism is to take advantage of the situation to make a larger profit. If
regulation does get passed to mitigate corporate environmental wrongdoings, there are still
other aspects of production and trade that capitalists will take advantage of. For instance, the
health of workers, health of consumers, and moral aspects pertaining to unequal distribution
of wealth. A revolution may be the only way, or at least a less capitalistic nation rising to
greater power than the USA. (China?)
Next Message by Max is [212].
[195] PLG: How to Save the Environment. In agreement with Lindsey [123] who was
initially commenting on Hans [94], capitalism has showed a great amount of promise in
solving the environmental catastrophe. Markets may actually be the very force that pulls us
out of the catastrophe. We are certainly facing a severe crisis, and face crucial decisions on
how the issue can be solved. We can either delve deeper into our capitalist system, or step
back and focus more on centralized planning to provide the answers.
Commoditizing the health of the environment is a viable option. Environmental economists
have come up with savvy ways to shift incentives in favor of the environment. The cap and
trade system is a brilliant way to control for externalities. Taxing pollution is a government
driven concept, but it utilizes the market system that we have in place. Similarly the pollution
created by fishing vessels is rapidly destroying the world’s coral reefs. Coral reefs are
on the verge of extinction. Environmental economists are currently working to figure out
ways to commoditize coral reefs that would tax fishing corporations for any pollution they
put into the oceans.
Although Marxian thinking can offer a bird’s eye view of the horrible situation capitalism
has brought us into, there is certainly evidence that capitalism can pull us out. Capitalism
can work in favor of the environment in the same way it has worked in favor of major corporations
and manufacturing industries. If it costs more to reap the earth’s natural resources
and pollute, people will be more careful in how they produce. Offering tax incentives for
businesses that contribute to the health of the earth may even have a reversal effect. It will
demand a great amount of creativity, but commoditizing the environment is a worthy concept.
It may even lead to the birth of a new business cycle.
Hans: Coral reefs are destroyed in part by modern destructive fishing practices with explosives, in part by dead
zones coming only to a small part from the pollution put in the oceans by fishing boats but mainly from agricultural
runoff, by rising sea temperatures, and by ocean acidification due to higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Message [195] referenced by [204], [210], [232], and [300]. Next Message by PLG is [399].
[196] Ferox: Building a new world on the ashes of the old.... Hans’ emails [125] and
[135] regarding economic and ecological collapse hit on themes that have personally interested
me for several years. Namely I have been fascinated with the idea of mass extinctions
and the resulting bottleneck ecological growth that happens afterwards. Throughout the history
of the earth there have been mass extinctions. Following such an event the fossil record
shows amazing adaptation and proliferation of life as ecological niches open up. A familiar
example is the End Cretaceous Extinction, which ended the dominance of the dinosaurs—
after which mammals and birds flourished.
The question that arises in my mind is when the next great extinction happens - which
at this point looks to be man made - what will the world look like when the dust settles?
580 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Armed with this in mind, what can be done to either mitigate or prepare for living in a
radically different world?
I have compiled a list of books, movies, and other media which have helped stimulate
my mind on this topic over the last several years. Some of these resources, like Marx’s
Capital, have tremendous foresight and applicability in today’s climate despite their age of
publication. Others are merely whimsical musings, stories warning of hubris, or practical
survival manuals. I have tried to organize them by subject and media, and by author under
each category. This is by no means a complete list, just what I have found and enjoyed.
Anything I missed or further input would be appreciated!
—Books—
Rebuilding Societies
Horseclans - Robert Adams
The Long Tomorrow - Leigh Brackett
The World Jones Made - Philip K. Dick
The Penultimate Truth - Philip K. Dick
A Canticle for Leibowitz - Walter M. Miller, Jr.
Earth Abides - George R. Stewart
The Chrysalids - John Wyndam
Misc Apocalyptic Scenarios
The Survivalist series - Jerry Ahern
The Postman - David Brin
Children of Men - P. D. James
I Am Legend - Richard Matheson
Lucifer’s Hammer - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
The Last Man - Mary Shelley
Ecological Collapse/Dying Earth/Peak Resource
Hothouse - Brian Aldiss
Collapse - Jared Diamond
The City of Ember - Jeanne DuPrau
Dark is the Sun - Phillip Jose Farmer
Endgame - Derrick Jensen
The Road - Cormac McCarthy
Damnation Alley - Roger Zelazny
Reference Manuals

The Zombie Survival Handbook - Max Brooks
U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 581
Back to Basics: A Complete Guide to Traditional Skills - Abigail R. Gehring
How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It - James Wesley Rawles
The New Self-Sufficient Gardener - John Seymour
The Self-sufficient Life and How to Live It - John Seymour
—Film—
28 Days Later (2002)
28 Weeks Later (2007)
A Boy and His Dog (1975)
Akira (1988)
The Book of Eli (2010)
Children of Men (2006)
The City of Ember (2008)
Delicatessen (1991)
Doomsday (2008)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
I Am Legend (2007)
Land of the Dead (2005)
The Last Man on Earth (1964)
Max Max Trilogy (1979-85)
The Omega Man (1971)
Planet of the Apes (1963)
The Postman (1997)
The Road (2009)
Soylent Green (1973)
Stalker (1979)
Star Trek - First Contact (1996)
Testament (1983)
Twelve Monkeys (1995)
Wizards (1977)
—Video Games—
Fallout 3 - Bethesda Studios
582 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Borderlands - 2K Games
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadows of Chernobyl - GSC Game World
Next Message by Ferox is [485].
[204] Kat: How to Save the Environment. In response to PLG’s environmental consideration
[195], I agree that capitalism is potentially capable of adjusting to the environmental
situation. PLG discusses the incentives and economic policies that can be put in place to
shift companies’ motives in favor of the environment. These have to potential to make significant
changes on the big picture of capitalism’s effect on the environment. There is also
an important environmental shift in the products and services for domestic use. As environmental
awareness has reached the household consumers, demand has begun to shift from
cheap, large quantities of basic goods to a newly created ‘green’ version of the same good;
cleaning products, organic foods and other household goods can all now be eco-friendly.
Because often consumers feel the only way for them make a difference is in the way the
choose to consume. So, in this way, capitalism and reinvented itself to find profits in new
areas and interests, in this case environmental consideration.
Frida [166] believes that capitalism can in no way benefit the environment because it goes
against the profit seeking mentality. She claims that considerations of anything other than
turning a profit is “somewhat antithetical to the idea of capitalism.” I disagree that capitalism
cannot harbor profit seeking behavior and a basic consideration for the environment. Frida
seems to have a very unbecoming view of the capitalist, perhaps picturing a cold, calculating
person with a reckless desire to make money. While I’m sure there are such people, I think
demonizing anyone involved in the capitalistic business of making money is a bit cynical.
I think beyond profits, most people have an inherent desire to at least reasonably avoid
recklessly harming the environment. So, as the public becomes increasingly concerned with
the environment, capitalism and the capitalist will likely shift their actions to adhere to what
is now expected of them. That, now, being environmental consideration.
Message [204] referenced by [210]. Next Message by Kat is [492].
[210] Hans: How to Inform Yourselves about Global Warming. PLG [195] and Kat
[204] believe that capitalism can deal properly with climate change. Do you know what the
actual track record is and where to get information about it? I can recommend Joe Romm’s
Climate Progress web site. I visit it every day, it has several new and relevant items every
day. This is a good way to get hold of the information which should be in the newspapers
and on TV but isn’t, because the media are part of the capitalist system. Joe Romm is an
insider; he was Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy during the Clinton Administration. He knows what he is talking about. Here is a
posting from yesterday:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/19/climate-sensitivity-lukewarmers/
Joe says there:
Given that the anti-science, pro-pollution forces seem to be succeeding in
their fight to keep us on our current emissions path, it’s no surprise that
multiple recent analyses conclude that we face a temperature rise that is far,
far beyond dangerous:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 583
If you go to the web site, you will be able to follow links to specific scientific reports about
what to expect by the end of this century. The authors are not weirdos predicting the end of
the world, but prestigious scientific centers around the world. One-sentence summaries are
Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7 deg C warming by 2100 on current emissions path
M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 deg F—with 866 ppm and Arctic warming
of 20 deg F
Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching
9 to 11 deg F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 deg F
some 120 days a year—and that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual!
“The Copenhagen Diagnosis” warns “Without significant mitigation, the report says global
mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.”
Next Message by Hans is [215].
[232] Intaglio: This Gov isn’t capable of Saving the Environment. I think the most
unsettling thing about the ongoing environmental destruction is that people are looking for
solutions within the system that causes the problem. They are so used to the way things
are they refuse any alternative except the “free market” or “green Keynesianism.” If these
“solutions” persists there certainly is no hope.
I thoroughly disagree with PLG [195] about commoditizing the health of the environment
as being the way out of environmental catastrophe. It’s way too optimistic. Market incentives,
the few that come into play, won’t be nearly enough to fix the problem. It will be like
trying to soak up a flood with a tiny sponge.
Capitalism is a grow or die system due to its competitive nature. It isn’t sustainable on a
finite planet, regardless of climate change, we are still running out of other resources. When
capitalism runs out of resources to exploit it will crash.
Most of the economy is driven by oil, of which we will hit the peak of production
soon. Exploding populations and industrialization around the world will suffer a tremendous
amount from this in the near future. The only solution i can see there is depending on
capitalism or the state to invent its way out through clean energy. I think capitalism might be
capable of finding new energy sources. But again, it won’t be enough. The whole “science
will save us” theories are drastically irresponsible. The world uses 85 Million barrels of oil
a day. Biofuels are not going to save us.
Plus we have the oil companies buying up patents to clean energy so they can hold onto
the current energy model. Renewable energy isn’t as profitable because once it’s set up there
is no more profit. The capitalists have incentive not to switch to clean energy.
Another solution that does not work is placing power and responsibility in the hands
of the politicians of leading capitalist countries. Look what happened in the Copenhagen
Climate Summit. They didn’t even go for the minimal regulations like carbon trading! Their
absolute failure to do anything about climate change is rooted in the systemic problems of
our society. It makes no sense to try and fix things through the system that is in itself the
problem.
584 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
The problem with the system: In capitalist nations, control of the government is always
in the hands of the upper class. The longer wealth is allowed to concentrate upwards, the
less power the people have. Money is power. There a point reached in plutocracy where the
masses will not be able to affect change through the political institutions. Alternative means
will become necessary. They are already necessary in my opinion. Now if the economic elite
have control over government policy, why would they let market incentives come into play
when they can just as easily lobby for no regulations and make more profit? I’m expecting
very few market incentives to be put into place because of this.
I also think placing the blame solely on the Capitalist motive is an incomplete analysis;
The political elite also find regulations undesirable, especially in the USA. This is due to
their desire for power and control over other countries through energy sources. If they limit
or regulate capitalism they are seriously hindering their ability to achieve the imperialist
aims of maintaining and expanding their dominance over the world. Their ability to do this
is derived from the economic growth of capitalism. That is why our leaders in America did
nothing to regulate and control the climate problems. They depend on capitalism for their
own hegemony, and the capitalists depend on imperialism to expand their market. Remember,
capitalism will crash if it stays in a finite system. The state will do everything it can to
stop this crash because they will lose their power if it happens.
So how about a mass movement to pressure our leaders? That could be a solution. But
first, let’s consider that it is a serious problem that we have to have millions marching in the
streets to get our leaders to do anything. Even if we do get mobilized and pressure them into
passing a few laws, we are still going to have to deal with their stagnant responses to our
other needs. They obviously don’t care about us, let alone our climate.
But isn’t that their job? Taking care of the people? If you know the history of states you
will know they arose to protect capitalist profits and maintain class society, not to protect
the people. Knowing this is essential if you are going to be looking for a solution from the
Bourgeois state. They have a track record of protecting the rich, today, the corporations
pillaging the planet. All odds are against us when trying to get these corrupt politicians to
do anything.
I think the much more rational solution is to overthrow the capitalist structure, which is
inseparable from the current state. We need to change the system as a whole, i.e. revolution.
It is just a matter of which revolutionary politics to choose from. If we don’t we will experience
an intense version of fascism when capitalism runs into these ecological limits and
looks to it’s nanny, the state, for rescue.
Imagine the current energy wars times 10, and then stop looking for solutions within this
system.
Message [232] referenced by [262] and [300]. Next Message by Intaglio is [254].
[262] School: How to Save the Environment—Rebuttal. Intaglio [232] provides a great
argument about the free market and, the Capitalist Society that we currently live in. From
my understanding Intaglio’s main points were that if the free market and capitalist societies
continue, that there is no hope for the future, and that “Capitalism is a grow or die system
due to its competitive nature. It isn’t sustainable on a finite planet”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 585
I will agree that capitalism is a growing or dying system. That is because when one
job becomes obsolete another job is created because of innovation. For example, for those
people who have watched “Charley and the chocolate factory” the newest one with Jonny
Depp. In this film Charley’s dad’s job was to screw on the lids on to bottles of tooth paste.
During the course of the film Charley’s dad was replaced by a machine (innovation). At first
this was sad, but at the end of the film Charley’s dad was able to get the job of fixing the
machine that replaced him. Jobs will constantly be created and destroyed.
Intaglio continues to say “we have the oil companies buying up patents to clean energy so
they can hold onto the current energy model. Renewable energy isn’t as profitable because
once its set up there is no more profit. The capitalists have incentive not to switch to clean
energy.” I will say that Intaglio is correct in the fact that Oil companies are buying these
patents, for what reason I do not know. For all we know is that they could be buying these
patents so they can retain their oil businesses, or they could be just adapting to what the
future may bring. Right now everyone is looking for a better way to save the environment,
and I think that is fantastic! We should all do our part to find better ways of saving the world
around us, but how can you expect people to drastically change? If we are in a capitalist
society we have to slowly introduce the idea that this is not correct. And I think that is what
the Oil company is trying to do, they can’t merely change overnight. The change would be
to drastic and this would destroy jobs. The change must take place gradually if one is to be
made. You can’t merely change everyone’s opinion over night. You must show them why it
is right, you must motivate a person to choose what is best, and then let the person make the
decision for themselves.
The last point that I would like to talk about that Intaglio shared was about the current
government. Intaglio states: “The problem with the system: In capitalist nations, control of
the government is always in the hands of the upper class. The longer wealth is allowed to
concentrate upwards, the less power the people have. Money is power.”
Unfortunately we live in a world were money is power, and as history shows us, money
can corrupt people. In this case I think we should take a moment and try to take a broader
look at what is happening. It takes money to run government programs. There are a lot
of programs that benefit all, low, middle, and upper class. To say that the Upper Class
controlls the goverment is pretty bold. The only reason I say that is because if you look at
the Declaration of Independence it says “That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Our country
was established that if you don’t like something and you think that the government “becomes
destructive” it is the people’s rights to change this! It is up to ALL OF US to make a
difference.
Hans: You are making things up to feel better about the very bad situation we are in. The Oil companies are
financing disinformation campaigns about the climate. By no stretch of imagination can this, or their greenwashing
advertising, be construed to be a quest “for better ways to save the climate.” They are looking for better ways to
make money right now.
Message [262] referenced by [300]. Next Message by School is [310].
586 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[300] Oreo: Capitalism vs. the Environment. Contrary to what School [262] says, I
believe the rich do have control over those who don’t have money. A perfect example, as
Intaglio [232] brings up and School refers to, is that fact that oil companies are buying up
patents so that clean energy does not become an option. They are the ones with the money
and therefore are able to make the decisions. Global warming and other potential effects
of pollution caused by big companies are easy to ignore now because we aren’t noticing
any remarkable changes that affect our day to day lives. CEOs of the oil companies are
getting huge paychecks as incentives to keep pretending that they aren’t harming the planet.
Capitalism keeps them rich and if they were to surrender to alternate fuel, they would no
longer be able to dominate the market and make the profits that they are making now. I
believe that clean energy will not become a reality until it’s too late. Not until the effects
of the pollution overcome our planet and begin immediately affecting our lives, will big
businesses such as oil companies change their ways.
I agree with PLG [195] and Lindsey [123] when they say that capitalism can actually help
us save the environment. Once individuals working for big business realize that their lives
are at stake due the changes in our planet, there will be motivation to find alternatives. Once
we begin switching to alternate forms of energy and other measure that are healthier for our
environment, capitalism can help. Companies will compete with each other creating better
and better clean energy at less and less costs to them and the public. Capitalism was a big
factor in destroying our environment, but once the realization of the harm to our planet sets
in, I believe capitalism will be able to help us save it.
Next Message by Oreo is [377].
[519] Robert: God help us! Two interrelated factors dim our ecological future: capitalist
economics and religion. This free discussion has witnessed some interesting views about the
first of these factors and Frida in [166] began a discussion about the second. I want to focus
on the second.
The factors are interrelated because capitalism finds support in religion. For example, the
protestant work ethic, the idea that rewards for hard work and faithfulness come in the next
life encourages passive acceptance of exploitation. However, you could be “blessed” to be
a capitalist then you receive prosperity in this life because of your “faithfulness.” Somehow,
religions that teach us about loving our neighbors also allow us in capitalism to treat others
as means to an end, as I point out in [389]. Moreover, religions that preach selfless service
embrace the seemingly contrary idea that if we economically pursue our own best interest it
will be good for all.
More destructively, in my view, than supporting a destructive economic system, however,
is the fact that many modern organized religions teach that man did not come from and is not
part of the Earth. They teach that natural man is an enemy of God, that God threw mankind
out of the garden, that humans have to fight with and subdue the Earth, and that humans need
not worry about destroying the Earth because one day it will be magically renewed. Apart
from the psycho-spiritual damage such unnatural separation from Nature causes human beings;
it encourages unreasonable, unloving treatment of the Earth. Furthermore, many of

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 587
these same religions contest the most basic science. They refuse to accept the scientific evidence
about the development of the planet and its species let alone accept the evidence of
how mankind is currently destroying it.
If we all agreed today that we need to take drastic action to save the Earth we may have
some chance of reducing the impact of global warming. If, on the other hand, we continue
to debate whether the science is “real” and, in the face of science, to believe in magical
solutions, there is little hope that we can adjust our course of destruction quickly enough to
save our species and several others for whom we may well render the Earth uninhabitable.
My concern, like Hans’s, is not for myself; it is for you, my younger fellow students,
and for future generations. My concern is not even for the planet; in a few million years the
Earth will recover from whatever damage we human have wrought upon it and will evolve
another species capable of apprehending Her beauty (and hopefully capable of refraining
from destroying the ability of the planet to sustain the species).
Message [519] referenced by [591]. Next Message by Robert is [542].
[591] Robert: I’m trying to be optimistic. My last post to this question [519] was a
little bleak. Hans [521] reminded us all that Marx was optimistic about crisis resolution
and gave us an example of James Lovelock’s evolving theories of crisis management in
Revenge of Gaia and Vanishing Gaia. I just want to go on record that I too am an optimistic
person...I delayed in posting anything to our ecological discussion because I have a hard time
restraining my advocacy. I make the strongest case I can for why we need to pay attention
now.
However, even as an optimist I have to wonder about Hans’s [521] description of Lovelock’s
“boundary conditions [that] ... humans in turn are too smart they will never be entirely
extinguished...” when I read in the New York Times, October 20, 2010 the article entitled,
“Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith.” The article cites Indiana Representative
Baron Hill, an embattled Democratic incumbent, as saying, “Climate change is real,
and man is causing it.” The article reports he was booed and a Tea Party official replied,
“It’s a flat out lie.” This official cited the sources of Rush Limbaugh (go ahead Hans...you
should dock me several points for even mentioning that name in this or any class) and the
Bible. He went on to say, “I read my Bible...He made this earth for us to utilize.” Another
spokesperson for the Tea Party is reported to have said,“Being a strong Christian I cannot
help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy
us.”
Fortunately (here’s the optimism) the Tea Party only represents a few people and all of
them are not, I am sure, as stupid as the two officials quoted here. However, as long as
this sort of magical thinking exists I still worry about our ability to undertake the radical
adjustments to our current consumption necessary to save our species and those with whom
we share our beautiful planet.
Next Message by Robert is [611].
[867] PLG: What do you suggest we do? Recently in one of my other econ classes we
engaged in a conversation about the state of the environment. Our teacher explained how a
rise in global temperatures of 2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius would make the planet uninhabitable
for humans. In an article on the website that Hans recommended
588 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/19/climate-sensitivity-lukewarmers/
a catastrophic increase of 5 to 7 degrees Celsius is projected by the year 2100.
The other day on NPR a woman discussed government involvement in the climate crisis
versus individual action, and how capitalism is leading us to an uncontrollable doom.
Her theory was that individual action was like “getting better at swimming upstream”.
It’s something that we all need to do, but we are living in a system that is leading us in the
wrong direction. Capitalism is clearly at the crux of the problem. It encourages immediate
profit based on a cost benefit analysis, and incentivizes consumption. Not only does it shift
incentives away from environmental protection, but it also makes us too busy to consider
long-run issues.
I think if green technologies can truly be the next immerging market on the stock market
than we could potentially see a cultural shift to go along with it. Every venture capitalist
and entrepreneur will shift their focus and start innovating green businesses in the same
way web-based technologies experienced. This is the only solution I see our current system
offering.
Changing the capitalist structure seems daunting. The teacher who led us in the discussion
on the environment says she plans to create new recommendations for developing
countries that will consider the environment much more highly. My question for Hans is
what do you think will help solve the issue of the environment. In your opinion where
should the younger generations focus their energy and studies to help solve these problems?
What institutions have the best chance of fostering in these changes? Does anyone else in
the class have solutions to offer?
Next Message by PLG is [1006].
[868] Husani: Climate Change. I don’t know what to do as far as society as a whole. I
would suggest not listening to the media and searching out ways to lessen our impact on the
environment. I saw earlier today that a local news station is doing a special report on how
reusable bags for grocery shopping are bad for you. I believe the station was channel 2 and it
airs sometime tomorrow night. The fact that a news outlet would promote the use of plastic
bags over reusables is quite appaling to me, especially since the apparent problem has to do
with bacteria in the bags. Call me crazy but maybe a simple solution would be for people to
wash their bags after they use them.
A major problem with the debate is that so many people watch the news that is funded
by major corporations, which portray climate change as a myth. My personal view is that
whether or not climate change is fact, we should try to make our home (earth) a more livable
place. Whether or not the sulphur and other chemicals dispersed from coal power plants
creates climate change I don’t want to breathe it and others shouldn’t either.
Message [868] referenced by [874]. Next Message by Husani is [957].
[874] Guh: Climate Change Response. In response to Husani [868] discussion regarding
climate change and the role of the media I agree with you on the topic of the media, however,
the conversation with climate change is debatable, and I disagree with you on that. Moreover,
as far as the media goes I agree with you one hundred percent. The media is a ran and funded
by corporations that feed the public fear, and information that is not entirely accurate. One

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 589
thing that I found interesting about your post, was the topic of re-usable bags, and how this
is bad for you in the contexts of air pollution. Well interestingly enough, last semester I was
an intern in Washington D.C. and the District of Colombia passed a law when I got there,
that you had to pay 10 cents per plastic bag when grocery shopping. You could re-use the
bags and it was encouraged, so you wouldn’t have to spend 10 cents a bag every time you
went to the grocery store. I found this of interest and think it is interesting the channel 2
news is doing a report on this, when in D.C. they highly encourage costumers to re-use their
plastic bags. I don’t know why channel 2 would say this other than the reason you gave, and
I agree with you that people should just wash them out and re-use them.
Message [874] referenced by [877]. Next Message by Guh is [1003].
[877] Hans: Don’t let the climate deniers confuse you! If someone were to state in the
free discussion that 2+2=5, I would feel obligated to step in, although this is not a math class.
And if the author of [874] says that “climate change is debatable” and criticizes the press
for “feed(ing) the public fear”, then I have to step in too. Few scientific issues are better
checked and better confirmed than the disastrous consequences of our policies on climate.
The scientific issue is settled, but if you listen to the press you are made to think there is
a debate. The press is not feeding the public fear, on the contrary, they are complicit in
keeping the truth about climate away from the American Public.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the author of [874] learned these mistaken convictions about
climate change during his work as an intern in Washington DC. Joe Romm’s blog published
a map showing all states that have climate deniers as congressional reps, and after the recent
election the answer is: almost every state. Exceptions are Maine, Vermont, Connecticut,
Delaware, and Hawaii, tiny flecks compared to the rest of the US land mass. Here is the map
if you are interested
http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/19/the-climate-zombie-caucus-of-the-112thcongress/
That our elected representatives in these trying times stick their head in the sand instead
of providing leadership—this is another sign of a declining empire, see my [408]. Keep your
eyes open—it is scary and will be a disaster, but it is also incredibly interesting.
A big part of the responsibility for the public ignorance about climate change lies with
the schools and Universities. The University should have a requirement that everybody
graduating here must have taken at least one course where he or she learns the basics about
climate change. President Young pretty much vetoed this one, he says there are already too
many requirements. Everyone learns in school the rudiments how our bodies function, we
should also learn the rudiments of how our planet functions, especially the carbon cycle and
the role of fossil fuels. Such basic education would make it much more difficult for the
deniers and delayers to confuse the public. For more info about how this denialism was
constructed and their links to cigarette smoke denialism, read Hoggan and LittlemoreK’s
book “Climate Cover-Up: The Cruisade to Deny Global Warming”
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/
590 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
or Oreskes and Conway’s book “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured
the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/15969161
or listen to a 58-minute talk by Naomi Oreskes at
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
Next Message by Hans is [905].
[895] Max: Buy local! Hans, I noticed that you posted links to Amazon.com. Aren’t
the prices that Amazon sells there products much to low, thus forcing down prices of competitors?
This may seem like a good thing at first, until you realize that the lower prices of
goods corresponds to lower wages for the producers (abroad) and less jobs for local retailers?
I realize you can buy used products on Amazon but they still take a cut of the sale.
It seems like we haven’t discussed much about “buying local,” in this class, but it makes
sense that purchasing products from local business owners keeps wealth flowing within those
communities. You may save some money buying from online warehouses because they cut
out some middlemen, but in the end your money is going to someone who is already very
wealthy.
For example, if I’m going to buy a bicycle, I could buy it online and save some money.
Or I could go to a bike shop that sponsors local bicycle clubs and events and employs people
who are passionate about bikes; many of whom contribute to the local bicycle community
in their own right. The same can be said about all local businesses.
Anyway, what do you guys think?
Message [895] referenced by [896] and [905]. Next Message by Max is [999].
[896] SMIKEC: I agree with Max [895] that people should buy local. However, in this
economy buying local does generally cost more which people are currently looking for the
deal. I’m all about buying local and can cost justify the increased price due to maybe better
quality e.g. farmers market produce versus chain grocery stores. Customer service also
comes into play. Im willing to pay more for something if it is backed by a person that you
can meet face to face with. Buying local goes with the concept of living more green, I think
most people’s intentions are there, but are quickly side tracked or influenced to go another
route when they find the costs are higher.
Message [896] referenced by [900]. Next Message by SMIKEC is [947].
[900] Smartergirl: SMIKEC [896] has a lot of valid points and I also agree that buying
local is a ideal however can be costly. With the latest issues in our economy I feel people are
having a stronger desire to support local businesses. We felt the effects of too many imports
and an inflated market and a strong desire to go back to basics.
All of a sudden there are magazines that are booming by the titles of Simple, Clean,
minimalists. I think as a society we have had enough of commercials telling us what we
need and to stuff our homes with as much stuff as we can afford and if we cant afford it get
more credit. When the house is full get a storage unit and buy more stuff all in the sake of
keeping the money moving. Marx would have been appalled by this type of consumerism.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 591
In his idea of value, commodity, and exchange value the very basics keep us living simply
and induce a relationship with local businesses.
I believe people are willing to pay a higher price for service, quality and the satisfaction of
saying the bought locally. Companies are fully aware of this shift in the American consumer
because we all see signs everywhere stating that they are an American Company. We also
see locally grown on produce, this large shift in marketing would make it pretty clear that
consumers are looking for local goods.
Next Message by Smartergirl is [945].
[905] Hans: The world is falling apart, I better start recycling. Or putting in CFL
lightbulbs, or buying local, or stop using plastic shopping bags. All these are things we
should be doing, but this alone will not stop the climate catastrophe. Some climate activists
don’t push these things very hard because they don’t want people to think they are solving
the problem through these actions. George Marshall, in his book Carbon Detox, writes: the
biggest climate denier is in ourselves. It is really difficult to admit to ourselves the gravity
of the problem, especially since it does not feel like a crisis. Here are some videos featuring
George Marshall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EDmFglU8U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbGAKJTqOtE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn2S00 xp4M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGPnFiXC2Q0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNH20fGCz-0
BTW, George Marshall has a neat answer to Max’s [895] objection to Amazon’s low
prices: he has an Amazon UK link on his web page
http://www.carbondetox.org/html/buy.html
with the explanation “Click on this link to buy a copy through Amazon (and a small
percentage will be given to the author which will just about compensate him for the impacts
of Amazon’s cost cutting on his royalty).” Here in the US the only choice is to get it through
Amazon Market place (it’s certainly worth it), see
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1856752887/
Message [905] referenced by [914]. Next Message by Hans is [939].
[914] Giant: Climate Change is Happening Now. The George Marshall videos in [905]
demonstrate how lax the entire world is taking global warming, just waiting for another
nation to make the first move before they con-seed their advantageous yet destructive method
of production. The best point Marshall brought up was that the first step that needs to be
taken is for people to stop making climate change and global warming a future event. I did
not notice it that much before but when problems are discussed they are talked about as some
far unknown future event that will happen if nothing is done now to fix it. Climate change
is rarely discussed in present tense, and even less often is there a set number of things that
will happen in so many years. This kind of language makes it easier to imagine that climate
592 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
change and global warming is not going to happen for a long time. Instead of it staring us
right in the face now while the world does very little about it because it has not brought
about the apocalypse yet.
Next Message by Giant is [1074].
[1071] Jo: A Marvelous Victory. I have often thought about Hans’ message about climate
change [125], since he sent it to us back in September. I never imagined before that people
would survive a climate change catastrophe, so the scenario that Hans describes, while very
bleak, seems kind of exciting and hopeful to me. It makes me happy to think that humans
will live on. Granted, it will be horrible and tragic in the process, but within the scenario
that Hans offers is an opportunity to rebuild society in a more compassionate way, which is
something I hadn’t considered before.
While a climate catastrophe is likely if we don’t change course, I still don’t think it’s inevitable.
Manfred Max-Neef, see [1032], raises some interesting points about the absurdity
of shipping goods all over the world and calling it economical to do so. Reducing consumption
to local economies would make a huge dent in carbon emissions. It would mean much
less fuel required and less factory farming. Higher cost of goods and less variety available
would mean less but more meaningful consumption. It could also mean a return to close-knit
communities where many commodities can be shared. Local economies would lead to less
exploitation of workers as well. As we have learned in this class, there is something about a
huge, anonymous marketplace that encourages despicable behavior.
I know that right now it seems unlikely that such a shift could occur on a large scale, but
I think it is happening already. The shift is slow and gradual, but people are more conscious
of what they buy and where it comes from. For example, my husband’s parents are not ready
to give up eating meat in support of the environment, but they have switched to buying meat
that is raised and butchered in their town and no longer support factory farming. They aren’t
the only ones that are starting to think this way. Even if this shift never reaches a magnitude
that can halt climate change, it at least helps prepare communities to rely on each other in
the face of disaster.
I don’t think it’s cynical to believe what scientists are predicting about climate change.
It doesn’t mean we should give up on life or lose faith in humanity. It also doesn’t mean
we shouldn’t try to change things. Trying to come up with a way to change the system as
a whole will get anyone down, but when I think about what I can do in my own life, or
in my own sphere, I feel much more hopeful. I have an advantage over those who won’t
believe it. I can build my life and my experiences around people and relationships, instead
of things. I can live a compassionate, responsible lifestyle. I can see through the absurdity
of mainstream media and the commodity craze and seek out reality as an alternative. Being
able to recognize the difference means so much. My life will not be a bright, fuzzy blur, but
will be filled with rapturously beautiful moments as well as painfully bleak ones, in all of
which I will be fully present.
Here is an excerpt from The Optimism of Uncertainty by Howard Zinn. He sums up my
meaning better than I can:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 593
“Revolutionary change does not come as one cataclysmic moment (beware
of such moments!) but as an endless succession of surprises, moving zigzag
toward a more decent society. We don’t have to engage in grand, heroic
actions to participate in the process of change. Small acts, when multiplied
by millions of people, can transform the world. Even when we don’t ‘win’,
there is fun and fulfillment in the fact that we have been involved, with
other good people, in something worthwhile. We need hope.”
“An optimist isn’t necessarily a blithe, slightly sappy whistler in the dark
of our time. To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is
based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also
of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize
in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst,
it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and
places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently,
this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this
spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however
small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The
future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think
human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a
marvelous victory.”
Next Message by Jo is [1124].
[1112] Hal: Climate change and staring capitalism in the face. In [1102], Hans mentions
that McCoy’s “...report didn’t say a word about climate change and the end of world
wide economic growth. (McCoy is a historian, and these issues are relatively new.)” It is
also frustrating that even among environmentalists, scientists and economists, only a select
few openly chastise capitalism as being the primary cause of the climate crisis. Capitalism is
inherently dependent on growth of output, which is the underlying cause of global warming
and the destruction of natural resources, and ending capitalism is absolutely necessary if we
wish to avoid major environmental collapse.
Minqi Li, another economics professor at our university, has spent quite a bit of time researching
the environmental threat posed by capitalist growth. He wrote the following article
on the subject, which I believe is quite persuasive because it is readable, yet scientifically
rigorous:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080721li.php
Li provides ample evidence that no amount of technological innovation alone can save
us from global warming disaster. Even with the most optimistic projections of increased
energy efficiency and use of renewable energy courses, the economy must actually contract
in order to avoid catastrophe. Yet, as Li writes, “...under a capitalist system, so long as the
means of production and surplus value are owned by the capitalists, there are both incentives
and pressures for the capitalists to use a substantial portion of the surplus value for capital
accumulation. Unless surplus value is placed under social control, there is no way for capital
accumulation (and therefore economic growth) not to take place.”
594 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
I think many people intuitively suspect that capitalist growth causes global warming,
but most of us wish to either (a) deny that global warming exists, or (b) hold out hope for
increased energy efficiency. For the most part, not even politicians or wealthy capitalists
continue to deny global warming. Therefore, Plan B goes into effect. We are continually
reassured that technology will save us. Most of Li’s article uses scientific evidence combined
with common sense to stamp out that false hope. We can make significant advances in energy
efficiency, but the only long term solution is the world wide end of capitalism.
Message [1112] referenced by [1132]. Next Message by Hal is [1113].
[1132] PLG: 2012 is approaching. In response to Hal [1112] Minqi Li’s article provides
an informative look into the ties between capitalism and climate change. Particularly interesting
is the data on large countries CO2 emissions. Minqi Li notes that Russia is the only
large economy that has been able to reduce its CO2 emissions since the signing of the Kyoto
protocol in 1990. Minqi Li also notes that the Kyoto protocol is set to expire in the year
2012.
With the year 2012 approaching it is crucial that a new international agreement is established
before the Kyoto protocol expires. If this does not happen world-wide production
would face very few restrictions pertaining to clean energy. International agreements on the
climate crisis have been difficult to come by as the developing world blames the rich world
for the majority of the pollution, while the rich world pressures the developing world to take
on demanding development standards.
The current financial crisis is not helping the situation as the rich world is at odds with
the developing world in the financial sector. The developing world is criticizing the US
and Europe for its irresponsible financial markets. Increasing capital inflows are burdening
developing countries. Unfortunately the financial meltdowns could overshadow climate
negotiations leaving a new international agreement on the back burner. Again this is an example
of how capitalism is at odds with the environment. Financial needs must come first in
capitalism, while more holistic needs are secondary.
Final Grading Note by Hans: You were a serious and deep thinker from the beginning, and I think I noticed that
during the class you became a little more confident of your own thinking and critical of others.
First Message by PLG is [27].
Question 0 is 0 in 2011fa:
Question 0 Announcements
[11] Hans: Careful with umail subscriptions. This message is only relevant for those
who use their umail account for this class. You must subscribe that email address to the
das-kapital mailing list which shows up in the From: field when you send email.
Here is an example of what I mean. My uNID number is u0019795, i.e., email sent
to u0019795@utah.edu will reach my umail inbox. But if I send emails from umail, the
From: field of the email says ehrbar@economics.utah.edu. This may present a problem.
If I subscribe u0019795@utah.edu to das-kapital, then I will get all list emails, i.e., everything
seems fine until I send a submission to das-kapital. Mailman sees the email address
ehrbar@economics.utah.edu and it has no way of knowing that this is the same as
u0019795@utah.edu. Therefore it will think this is a submission from someone who is not

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 595
subscribed. It will send you a message with the subject line “Your message to Das-Kapital
awaits moderator approval”, but don’t get your hopes up: this message will never be approved.
I am writing this because in the last few hours at least two people subscribed themselves
with their uNID numbers but their umail account identifies their outgoing emails with a
different address string containing their real name. Sorry, you have to go to the subscription
page
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/das-kapital/
and unsubscribe your uNID address and subscribe your real-name address. This is an
issue which you will have not ony with das-kapital but with every other mailing list as well.
Next Message by Hans is [12].
[18] Hans: New Feature, not yet in the Syllabus. The syllabus says: when you write
“ug” after the question number, then your answer will receive a grade for your information
only. This grade does not enter the GPA calculation for your final class grade.
This is still true, but I made two enhancements:
(a) if you write “ug” after the question number, then your submission counts as one of
your free discussion submissions.
(b) if you write “ug” after the question number, then your answer is accepted even after
the deadline for the regular homework answers.
Next Message by Hans is [19].
[58] Hans: Beware of non-breaking spaces. At least two times in the last 12 hours
someone submitted his or her answer in the correct format, it was not html but plain text,
and the first line seemed to say
::Q: 34
where 34 was the respective question number. Yet it was rejected with the explanation
that the first line of the message did not begin with a line saying ::Q: 34. The problem with
these messages was that there was a “non-breaking space” either between the ::Q: and the
number, or after the number. This is a non-ascii character which looks like a blank space.
Some of the software which you are using to compose your mail inserts those non-breaking
spaces where it thinks there is the end of a sentence, so that there will be a bigger blank
space when rendered in html. The safest way around this is to write the line without any
spaces, as in ::Q:34, and make sure that there are also no trailing spaces at the end of the line
(and of course also no commas or periods etc).
I hate it when software is trying to guess what you want and do things without telling you.
That’s why I am using linux, not Windows. Computers are a powerful means of production,
and Windows is very capitalistic in the way I described in [54]: it tries to take away your
control over your means of production even if this means of production is sitting right in
your living room.
Message [58] referenced by [59]. Next Message by Hans is [59].
596 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
[77] Hans: How to study, no audios yet. Someone asked: “are we expected to read
every email from all students?” There are different ways to do this class. Some students
study the Annotations very carefully and compose their answers from their reading of the
Annotations, others rely more on the class discussion. Some students come to class every
single time, others show up in class only for the one obligatory class session and the exams.
You need to be self-motivated to do this class. If you don’t find the subject matter of the
class interesting, this will be a serious handicap. This class teaches you new perspectives
that require engagement with the material and mulling over. More study hints along these
lines are also in my message [19].
At the minimum you should
(1) keep up with the assigned readings
(2) read all the messages I send to class
(3) if you are preparing an answer yourself, download the pdf archive http://marx.economics.
kapital/pdf/screen/2010fa.pdf and read everything that was said about the question you are
about to answer.
This past Tuesday and Friday I did not make audios of the in-class sessions because I
projected Marx’s text on the screen and discussed this. I may do this more often because I
am polishing up my Annotations in order to get them ready for publication as a book. The
revised Annotations, which are very similar to what I said in these classes, are available
either in screen format in the zip file
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/akmc.zip
or in halfpage format in
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/halfpage/akmc.zip
If you download these, I recommend to extract them into a different directory on your
computer than the other class materials, because they contain new questions and possibly
list the old questions under different numbers.
Next Message by Hans is [81].
[258] Hans: Installment 1 not yet ready. I couldn’t keep up with the flood of submissions
last night, therefore installment 1 will not be ready before class today. I will finish it up as
soon as I can this afternoon, and send out another email when it is ready.
Next Message by Hans is [287].
[314] Hans: Sample exam, and bring student ID! If you want to see what the exams
this week are going to look like, I put a sample up at
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/print/exam.pdf
Your actual exams will look exactly like this, but they will have different question numbers.
You need to show your student ID during the exam!
Next Message by Hans is [315].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 597
[317] Cmellen: So am i to understand that the questions on the test (that we will need to
do a resubmission on) could be any of the exam questions listed on Installment 1? (three to
choose from will be listed on page 1 same again on page 2 - we pick ONE of those one page
1 and ONE on page 2) but it won’t necessarily be the questions listed on the Exam example.
So in other words.. to be prepared.. be able to answer any of the questions in the installment
1 - cause we don’t know which ones will really be on the exam?
Message [317] referenced by [318]. Next Message by Cmellen is [333].
[318] Hans: Different status of the questions called ”Exam Question” In response
to Cmellen [317]: The questions to be resubmitted are only questions in Installment 1 (or
questions similar to those in Installment 1) which are not labeled “Exam Question”. The
Exam Questions cannot be resubmitted, and you don’t have a choice with them. Therefore I
would recommend that you first make sure you know all the answers to the questions labeled
Exam Question. You know two of those will be on the exam, and you have to answer both
in class without resubmission.
Next Message by Hans is [320].
[321] Bigwhite: Looking to join or start a group to write a term paper together, im in the
friday class, let me know if interested or have a spot open to join group
Next Message by Bigwhite is [423].
[333] Cmellen: Exam question: In the instructions, we are told use self-copying “NCR”
paper for the questions that are to be resubmitted. Is this self-copying paper going to be
provided, or do we pick it up at the bookstore prior to the exam? I called the book store and
they said it is sold $10.00 per 50 sheets (no smaller quantities available).
Message [333] referenced by [334]. Next Message by Cmellen is [341].
[334] Hans: In response to [333], the NCR paper will be provided. You need a pen, and
your student ID, and perhaps some scratch paper. Blue books not necessary.
Next Message by Hans is [339].
[458] Somramthom: What the Heck! I am having a hard time resubmitting my exam
questions and don’t know what I am doing wrong. Could someone please tell me what they
did to resubmit their answers please?
Next Message by Somramthom is [461].
[464] TINDOZ: How to submit. Somramthom, you’ve asked this after midnight (with it
being due in less than 3 hours), so I might be the only one up reading my email help you out
- and hopefully you haven’t given up before reading this.
I submitted mine by just sending 2 emails (one for each question) to das-kapital@marx.econ.utah.edu
- I had a subject line of Exam Question 58 Submission (on the one) and started the email off
like any other email, (ie I sent my first one by starting with ::Q:58 followed by my answer
to the question). Then not too long after I sent it I got a confirm email. If that’s what you are
doing and you are still having problems, try sending it with a different browser (firefox for
example).
Good luck, I hope that helps you as it’s getting close to zero hour.
Next Message by TINDOZ is [562].
[465] RexManning: Re: What the Heck! I just submitted mine and they seemed to go
through. What I did was place the question number in the same format that we have always
598 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
done at the beginning of the email, for example, if you were resubmitting Q 100, the first
line in the body of your email should be ::Q: 100
Followed by a double space and then your resubmitted answer. Hope that helps.
Next Message by RexManning is [668].
[467] Somramthom: Fwd: What the Heck! I submitted them successfully! Thanks to
everyone who emailed back to help me. I really appreciate it!
Next Message by Somramthom is [522].
[492] Kat: Interactive website. I’m having a issues with the interactive website. Every
time I try to open it, I get only a series of HTML. Is anyone else having this problem? Or
have any idea why it might be doing this? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Message [492] referenced by [493]. Next Message by Kat is [494].
[493] Proletarian: Re: Interactive website. Kat, I’m having the same issue you mentioned
[492]. I’ve been getting it all day today. Just a huge page of code.
I’m assuming the site may be down for maintenance or something...
Next Message by Proletarian is [598].
[507] Hans: Plone site. The plone site sometimes goes down, because it has access to
your grade info, and this info is changing all the time with you making new submissions
and I giving grades. The software I have written for this is deliberately brittle: if there is
the slightest doubt about a grade or the identity of one of the contributors, it just tanks,
forcing me to look at the issue and rectifying it. For instance once it went down because
two different subscribers to das-kapital had chosen the same pseudonym. I also recently
discovered someone who had mistyped their student ID in the subscription, and similar
things. I notice this because I am running tests which give me error messages. But this
takes the plone site down with itself. The problem is that I don’t often look at the plone site.
Therefore if you notice it is down, please send me an email, then I can fix it. Right now it is
up again (I hope). The best email to reach me is
ehrbar@lists.econ.utah.edu
Hans
Next Message by Hans is [511].
[534] Hans: Term Papers. If you are planning to write a term paper about the topics
468 Essay about Chapter Three, Section 2.b: The Flow of Money
or
470 Essay about Chapter Three, Section 2.c: Coins and Symbols of Value
or
491 Comparison of Chapter Three in Capital with Chapter Two in Marx’s 1859 Contribution
to the Critique of Political Economy.
then someone in your termpaper group must submit the term paper between Tuesday Oct
19 and Thursday Oct 21. Submit it in the same format as an ordinary homework question,
with the question number 468, 470, or 491. But you can make a presubmission already now
if you want feedback from me before you submit your final paper. Your submissions will

U of Utah Econ 5080 2010fa 599
not be forwarded to the class but will show up in the archives at the end of the submission
window for that termpaper.
If you don’t have a term paper group yet you need to get one. If you are not in a term paper
group (or have my express permission to write your term paper alone) your submissions will
not be accepted.
Next Message by Hans is [545].
[589] Hans: Term Papers. There are two term papers in the archives now, messages [575]
and [585]. Between now and Tuesday, term paper discussions are invited, i.e., you can give
feedback about these term papers. These term paper discussions are not group submissions
but individual submissions. I will grade them strictly, so don’t send fluff just to help your
peers. But your grade will only count if it improves your GPA.
The next opportunity to submit a term paper is between next Tuesday and Thursday, and
the questions admitted for this term paper are 599 and 600. Look at the syllabus, p. 762 and
the following pages about the other term papers.
Next Message by Hans is [609].
[609] Hans: Multiple Choice Questions. All multiple choice questions are now available
at
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/questions/
The ones eligible for the second exam start at number 377.
Next Message by Hans is [610].
[803] PLG: Please Read! Hello
I was hoping that we could get a study thread going on the exam questions, multiple
choice questions, and any other info that may be pertinent to the post-midterm email discussions.
It would be great to start working on this before friday for the early test takers.
Hopefully we can get some feedback from Hans as well.
I’m posting a couple exam questions in hopes that class members will participate by
posting some more exam questions,or multiple choice questions etc.
Hopefully we can crack the next exam.
Thanks, PLG
Next Message by PLG is [805].
[804] Frida: RE: Please Read! Did I miss something, or isn’t the entire mailing list a
study thread already? I don’t think I know what you are proposing.
Message [804] referenced by [805]. Next Message by Frida is [959].
[805] PLG: Please Read! In response to [804]: I was reading some of the past annotations
where students had posted answers to exam questions during exam week. Hans commended
them on trying to answer the questions prior to the exam, but in one instance said he wished
they did it earlier in the week so he could give feedback if needed.
For the last exam only a few students posted extra credit exam questions.
I was just hoping to rally everyone to talk about the exam questions a bit.
600 2010fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
So basically I’m proposing that students try to contribute some more extra credit responses
to the examquestions. Make sense?
Next Message by PLG is [808].
Compiled by Hans G. Ehrbar 2013-07-07 04:11:38.