Exam Question 1 What is wealth? - University of Utah

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

ALL STUDY QUESTIONS 

ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SPRING QUARTER 1996 

Exam Question 1 is 1 in 1995ut: 

Exam Question 1 What is wealth? 

[5] Chocolate: Re: WEALTH The question is what is wealth, and it can simply be 

defined as some kind of material object which someone purchases, inheret, or seek. This 

object can and will better that individuals well being. Wheather the object is in a form of 

money or a phisical object like a car. Wealth is a beterment, that will help enhance one’s 

standard of living. 

Message [5] referenced by [6]. Next Message by Chocolate is [13]. 

[6] Hans: Please don’t be so cautious I did not answer Chocolate’s [5] right away, 

because, to be honest, it made me angry. Just a few minutes earlier I had made submission 

[4] which contained what I considered to be the right definition of wealth, as an answer to 

Question 2. I had the impression that Chocolate just repeated it back to me, with minimal 

embellishments, in order to get a good grade with little effort. Even though the Question 

number is different, the Questions are closely related, and therefore your grade, had this 

been graded, would have suffered for not saying anything new. 

One of the purposes of this class is to encourage you to think independently. I have more 

respect for an independent thinker, even if I disagree, than for someone who tries to say 

what I want to hear. In the discussion list for Econ 509 last Quarter, Chocolate made some 

interesting submissions, which cannot be classified as left or right, but which show that he 

or she is an independent thinker. I think it will be more fun for all of us, and you will benefit 

more from this class and probably also get a better grade, if you take on some challenges 

and write what you think. 

Next Message by Hans is [8]. 

[13] Chocolate: Re: ONE MORE TRY...... Earlier I gave a brief definition of what I 

thought wealth meant to me. Even though it was simply short and straight to the point, I 

did not repeat what Hans said earlier nor did say (write) anything that he wanted to hear. 

Instead it was a simple answer to the question that was asked. I cannot apologise for that 

first submission, because I did not give (as you thought) a reply that you would like, but it 

was a reply that I felt was the correct answer. But to make matters clearer I will elaborate 

more on the the question. What is wealth? 

Wealth, in my opinion is what an individual has or owns. For example, an individuals 

wealth can be monetary as well as materialistic. It can also be said, that wealth is the total 

amount that an individual or household have accumulated either from income (past savings) 

1 

2 1996sp Econ 5080 U of Utah 

or inheritance. Wealth is really the total of an individual’s or household’s savings from the 

income one earns. If for example an individual in a given period of time (a year), spends 

less than his/her income, that individual saves. What that individual saves can and will be 

added to his/her wealth. But, if one spends more than his/her income, than that individual 

will have to take borrow from his/her savings and therefore reduces his/her wealth. 

An individual who has a million dollars in their savings is considered to be wealthier than 

an individual who only has nine-hundred thousand dollars. Because materialistic objects 

have a value, an individual who owns more than one luxury automobile is considered to be 

wealthier that an individual who owns only one luxury automobile. Therefore, wealth can 

be considered a measurement of how much or less an individual or household owns. 

Hans: If you make more than one submissions in the same week, your total grade will be the average. 


[15] Hans: No reason to apologize I wrote in [12]: “In the Annotations you will find 

the definition: ‘wealth is anything that enhances human life.’ Therefore it is a means, not an 

end.” Chocolate wrote in [13]: “Wealth is a beterment, that will help enhance one’s standard 

of living.” And the rest of your posting did not add much to this. You repeated something 

that had already been said on the net, with only minimal additions, and therefore your grade 

would have been penalized. I did not make this decision while I was angry, but I let my 

anger cool off before making this decision. 

I am however glad that you elaborated more on this Question in [13]. These elaborations 

make it clear that you are making two mistakes: 

(1) you are reducing wealth to material things. A rich cultural heritage, cities which are 

neither noisy nor polluted, a generally high level of health and education, are also wealth. 

Marx said that an abundance of free time is true wealth. 

(2) moreover, you are reducing wealth to privately owned material things. Public libraries, 

a good mass transportation system, etc., are also wealth. 

Message [15] referenced by [2009fa:403]. Next Message by Hans is [16]. 

[22] Skippy: Wealth? The question is “what is wealth?” 

Marx says that wealth is “a collection of commodities.” 

Wealth is based upon how many and which types of material objects are possessed to 

benefit an individual. 

I can accept this, but why is wealth important in Marxism? 

I believe that Marx wanted to see all people to be equaly “wealthy” to eliminate the 

different types of economic classes. 

Wealth has no place in a Marxist society. Wealth is for those who want to separate 

themselves from society inorder to emphasize what they have instead of who they are. 

Hans: It is my impression that you did not do the readings. Everything I had to answer you in [23] was explained 

in the study guide. But I like it that you noticed that the Marxism as you understood it was contradictory, and that 

you came forward with your criticism. I gave you credit for that. Your grade would have been at least half a grade 

point worse without this. 

Message [22] referenced by [23]. Next Message by Skippy is [42].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1996sp 3 

[23] Hans: You mean, if everybody is wealthy, then nobody is wealthy? Skippy’s [22] 

pointed out a logical contradiction in Marx: why does Marx start with wealth, which is a 

collection of commodities, if his goal was supposedly to abolish wealth and make everyone 

equal? I like this approach. If you think the assigned readings of Marx are contradictory or 

have any other logical flaws, this is the place to discuss them. And I appreciate the trust you 

place in me that I will nevertheless give a fair grade. (Less trusting souls are encourated to 

write their objections with the pseudo-header 

::Q: 1 dl 

then it will count as a submission to the discussion list and cannot spoil your grade). 

As I see it, there are three misunderstandings in your argument. 

(1) Marx does not say that wealth is “a collection of commodities.” 

(2) Your definition of wealth as “the state of being a rich man” is not the same definition 

which Marx is using. 

(3) In Capital, Marx does not talk about his ideal society. 

Now what are the right answers? Material wealth (which is the only kind of wealth Marx 

is speaking of here) consists of things that enhance human life. In the first sentence of Das 

Kapital Marx says that under capitalism wealth takes the social form of commodities: that 

all the things which enhance human life are bought and sold on the market. It is important 

to understand this social form of wealth in order to understand the economic mechanisms 

which create the inequalities of capitalist society. Only if we understand how capitalism 

functions can we hope to overcome it. (This is why Marx wrote Capital). 

Message [23] referenced by [22]. Next Message by Hans is [26]. 

Question 2 is 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 2010fa, 9 in 2011fa, and 1 in Answer: 

Question 2 Can one say that true wealth is happiness? 

[1] MsMarx: True wealth True wealth does not necessarily mean happiness. Someone 

can have all the material things in the world which he desires and still be unhappy due to 

loneliness, lack of love, or some other factor other than material possessions. 

Hans: You basically misunderstood the Question, and I do not want to penalize you too much for this. It is also in 

part my fault. I reformulated the Question for the next edition of the study guide as: Can one say that happiness is 

the only true wealth? 

Message [1] referenced by [2] and [220]. Next Message by MsMarx is [3]. 

[2] Hans: Relation between Happiness and Wealth MsMarx’s message [1] misunderstood 

the question. She answered the question whether material wealth means happiness, 

and correctly pointed out that this is not the case. Question 2 actually takes this as a given 

and asks: since wealth does not guarantee happiness, should one not conclude that material 

things are not really wealth but that real wealth is happiness? Now do you want to try again, 

MsMarx? 

Message [2] referenced by [152] and [220]. Next Message by Hans is [4]. 


[3] MsMarx: Real wealth and happiness I now interpret this to mean that real wealth is 

happiness, and material things are not really wealth. How am I doing? 

Hans: You are making here a basic logical blunder, which I am explaining in message [4]. Again, I will not grade 

this very severely, because it is one of the errors everyone makes. It is one of a number of widespread logical errors 

which have the function of preventing people from seeing what is happening before their eyes every day, namely, 

the exploitation under capitalism. 

Message [3] referenced by [4]. Next Message by MsMarx is [33]. 

[4] Hans: Not very well, I am afraid One often hears what you wrote in [3], MsMarx. 

The disdain of material things under the motto: “real wealth does not consist of material 

things but real wealth is happiness” is one of the many ideologies floating around which 

prevent people from seeing their exploitation. People cannot fail to notice that their labor 

enriches only their bosses and not themselves, but then they tell themselves: this is not 

important, what matters is happiness, and I have a happy family and good friends, therefore 

I am wealthy. 

I assigned question 2 in order to debunk this myth. In the Annotations you will find 

the definition: “wealth is anything that enhances human life.” Therefore wealth is a means, 

not an end. Happiness does not fit under this definition of wealth. Happiness is the result 

of a fulfilled life, but it is not the means to have a fulfilled life. From the fact that some 

people manage to be happy without needing much material wealth does not follow that the 

distribution of material wealth is irrelevant. Everyone should have equal access to wealth, 

whether or not they use this wealth wisely, and whether or not other avenues to happiness 

are open to them. 


Exam Question 6 is 3 in 1995WI, 6 in 1995ut, 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 

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

Exam Question 6 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.) 

[10] TOAD: “Commodity” A commodity is any external object produced with the satisfaction 

of a human need in mind, that is exchange for money or exchange for a product that 

is “mutually replaceable or of identical magnitude.” 

Message [10] referenced by [12] and [21]. Next Message by TOAD is [17]. 

[12] Hans: Being a Commodity is not an afterthought In message [10], TOAD wrote 

that a commodity is something “produced with the satisfaction of a human need in mind” 

which is then sold or exchanged. This is not quite Marx’s definition. Marx stresses that 

the commodity is produced for the purpose of exchange. Since nothing can be exchanged 

which does not also satisfy a human need, this means that the commodity must also satisfy 

a human need. But the original purpose, that what counts for the producer, is the exchange. 

Just look around you at the commodities in the store shelves, and you will see what I mean. 

Message [12] referenced by [15]. Next Message by Hans is [15].


[17] TOAD: Commodity Revised A commodity is any external object with qualities 

to satisify a human need that is produced for money or exchanged for a product that is 

“mutually replaceable or of identical magnitude”. 

Hans: A correction like this will not give you a grade. I am still wondering what you mean by 

exchanged for a product that is “mutually replaceable or of identical magnitude”. 

The products which are exchanged for each other do not have to have any relationship with each other as use values, 

the use values need by no means be mutually replaceable, and they also are usually not of identical magnitude. 

Next Message by TOAD is [44]. 

[21] Wolf: commodities Toad and everyone else out there, referring to message [10] 

question 6, I can’t help but wonder if according to Marx, humans are commodities? I believe 

that they are. Because according to Dr. Ehrbar’s interpertation of Marx, “a commodity is 

everything.” (pg.6) People also exchange themselves for wage, lust, etc. with good or bad 

intentions to satisify a human need, their own or anothers. Just look arround you at all the 

people working and shopping in stores, and you’ll see what I mean. A church especially 

during a wedding is a good place to see what I am saying. 

Hans: This counts as your first submission to the open discussion list. Please call me Hans instead of Dr. Ehrbar. 

Next Message by Wolf is [98]. 

Exam Question 32 What is the use value of a commodity? What, by contrast, is “a” use 

value? (Note that the same word has two different meanings.) 

[93] Fritz: “the” vs “a” use-value “a” use value 

Either a person is alive (yes), or it is dead (no). Either Dr. Ehrbar ate breakfast before 

coming to school (yes), or he did not (no). Either a thing has use value (yes), or it does not 

(no). 

Use value is a state of being. And thus, it is inaccurate to measure the amount of use 

value derived from a thing. One cannot compare a “yes” with a “no.” 

A lift ticket to Snowbird is a use value. 

A lift ticket to Brighton is a use value. 

If I state that I prefer Snowbird to Brighton, I have compared my desires of the properties 

I attribute to the Snowbird and Brighton ski experiences. This, however, is not a comparison 

of use values – it is something else. 

One cannot compare a use value. It either is “a” use value (yes), or it is not “a” use value 

(no). 

“the” use value 

What causes a person to be alive? Why did Dr. Ehrbar eat breakfast before coming to 

school? Why is a use value useful? 

When speaking of “the” use value of a thing, one is addressing what properties a person 

or society attributes to the thing to cause it to be useful. 


Dr Ehrbar writes: BB12:col1: “The use value of a thing is therefore not a property of the 

thing, but a relationship between the thing and human wants which is attributed to the thing 

as if it were a property of the thing.” 

One of the strangest examples of use value can found in the children’s story of the Emperor 

who had no clothes. A little boy sold an invisible suit of clothing to the Emperor. 

The Emperor believed he was receiving the most beautiful suit of clothing ever constructed 

(although everybody else knew it was made of nothing but air). And yet, this invisible suit 

was a use value to the Emperor. 

IMHO, Dr. Ehrbar’s [ID 79] incorrectly accepts one of Toad’s points [60]. 

Things that have different qualities cannot be measured on the same scale. 

This would be comparing apples and oranges. All you can say is: 

¿ The use value of the material is DIFFERENT THAN that of the coat 

because the two kinds of labor are of different qualities. The quality of the 

labor in the material is DIFFERENT THAN the quality of the labor in the 

coat. 

It is not a necessary condition that a thing contain “different qualities” of labor to elicit a 

different relationship between the thing and the human desire for it, i.e., for “the” use values 

to be different. 

The strongest proof of this can be found in Marx R:131:2 “A thing can be a use-value 

without being a value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not mediated through 

labour. Air, virgin soil, natural meadows, unplanted forests, etc. fall into this category.” 

Neither the untouched forest or meadow contain labor and yet the relationship and desire 

we have for the forest and meadow are different. “The” use value we attribute to these 

different things are different. 

have “a” and “the” nice day. =) 

Franz 

Message [93] referenced by [99]. First Message by Fritz is [50]. 

[97] Skyler: use-value(32) The physical properties (physical body) or appearance of a 

commodity is its use-value. The use and consumption of the commodity shows the usevalue. 

Quantity is another factor that helps to gauge the usefulness of a commodity. 

The amount of the commodity must beable to meet the needs of the individual desiring 

the commodity to be useful. Use-value is that physical body that becomes available to the 

consumer without regard for the labor put into creating it. 

Message [97] referenced by [99]. Next Message by Skyler is [187.4]. 

[99] Hans: Incommensurable use values In [93], Fritz is puzzling whether different use 

values can be compared. He is trying out different arguments. For instance: If a use value is 

a yes-or-no proposition (something is either a use value or it is not), then use values can not 

be compared. But this is not what Marx means by “a” use value. “A” use value is a useful 

thing.


Then, Fritz tries the definition use value of a thing = personal gratification or satisfaction 

derived from the thing. 

If I state that I prefer Snowbird to Brighton, I have compared my desires of 

the properties I attribute to the Snowbird and Brighton ski experiences. 

This is also not how Marx uses the word use value. Think of the use value of something 

as a bundle of useful properties. Brighton is not very steep terrain, a high speed chairlift. 

Snowbird is a tram, large and usually steep terrain, slow chairlifts. Do you like to sit on 

a high speed quad or stand in a tram? Some aspect of the use values can be compared 

(steepness of the terrain, speed of the lifts), others cannot (the view down regulator Johnson 

in the evening light). All these are aspects of the use value. Use value cannot be reduced to 

a level of utility. 

Fritz uses the following pasage from the Annotations to back his claim that use value is 

subjective satisfaction. But this passage is misleading: 

The use value of a thing is therefore not a property of the thing, but a relationship 

between the thing and human wants which is attributed to the thing 

as if it were a property of the thing. 

I have to formulate this better, and I thank Fritz for pointing out the ambiguity. By the 

relationship between the thing and human wants I did not mean how much I like a certain 

property of a thing, but how the physical properties of the thing affect humans. 

Skyler’s [97] addresses the same question. Skyler writes: 

The physical properties (physical body) or appearance of a commodity is 

its use-value. 

This first sentence is right. But in the following sentences Skyler switches over to Fritz’s 

definition of use value as a yes-or-no proposition: 

The use and consumption of the commodity shows the use-value. Quantity 

is another factor that helps to gauge the usefulness of a commodity. The 

amount of the commodity must beable to meet the needs of the individual 

desiring the commodity to be useful. 

The last sentence does not make much sense to me: 

Use-value is that physical body that becomes available to the consumer 

without regard for the labor put into creating it. 


Exam Question 35 is 25 in 1995WI, 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, 50 in 


Exam Question 35 What is the exchange value of a commodity? (Give its definition, not an 

analysis where it comes from). 


[24] Darcy: What is the exchange value... The exchange value of a commodity is the 

value that one commodity can bring against another at the marketplace. The relation between 

a given amount of one commodity and a given amount of another. 

Hans: You chose a very simple Question, but you made an error by overlooking the qualitative side of it, and then 

you are formulating it in a very unclear way. What is “the value that one commodity can bring against another”? 

Message [24] referenced by [26], [153], and [155]. Next Message by Darcy is [25]. 

[153] MUCHO: RE: Your Submission Returned When I read [24] Darcy’s answer, 

everything she stated actually made sense to me. However, according to Hans’s response 

to [24] Darcy, her answer wasn’t on the right track. So I have tried to figure out what 

went wrong for her. With Hans’s help (hint), I kind of find out what the exchange-value of 

commodity is. 

Exchange-value of commodity is something that changes its value depending upon the 

place and time. It doesn’t has to be single commodity against another single commodity. It 

could be a various types of commodities against various types of commodities. One commodity 

could have many exchange values. 

According to Marx, the valid exchange-values of a particular commodity express something 

equal, and exchange-value cannot be anything other than the mode of expression. I 

may not answering this right. But this is what I have found out. 

Message [153] referenced by [155]. Next Message by MUCHO is [156]. 

[155] Hans: MUCHO’s correction of Darci’s answer I had two quibbles with Darci’s 

definition of exchange value in [24]: 

(1) The exchange value of a commodity is not just its exchange proportion with one different 

commodity, but a list of all exchange proportions with all possible different commodities. 

Or equivalently its exchange proportion with the universal equivalent, i.e., its price. This was 

my main complaint, and MUCHO got this point right. 

(2) My second quibble was that I found the formulation: “the value that one commodity 

can bring against another at the marketplace” unsatisfactory. If someone submits an answer 

as short as Darci’s, one should be a little more careful with one’s formulations. 

MUCHO’s sentence in [153] “Exchange-value of commodity is something that changes 

its value depending upon the place and time” is not part of the definition of the exchange 

value, but one of its properties, and this property plays a central role in the answer of Question 

37. And MUCHO’s other sentence, “According to Marx, the valid exchange-values of 

a particular commodity express something equal, and exchange-value cannot be anything 

other than the mode of expression” is a conclusion which Marx draws about the exchange 

value, which is relevant for Question 40. Since MUCHO broke off the sentence in the middle, 

I doubt if he knows what Marx meant with it. 


Question 36 is 34 in 1996ut, 31 in 1997ut, 41 in 2003fa, 43 in 2005fa, and 48 in 2008fa: 

Question 36 An acquaintance of mine regularly swaps his wife with a friend. Does this 

mean his wife has an exchange value?


[25] Darcy: swapping wives and exchange values This means that each wife has an 

exchange value. If each wife is swapped for one another, then it is taken that they both have 

the same exchange value. If one wife is given, and the other wife is given along with a sack 

of potatoes, then the first wife has the higher exchange value because the second guy has 

to also exchange another commodity to make the swap equal. But wife for wife is an equal 

exchange. 

Hans: Here is a brief addition to my [26]: It seems you halfways thought the right thing when you wrote: 

This means that each wife has an exchange value. 

But then you should have noticed that this is not the case. 

Message [25] referenced by [26]. First Message by Darcy is [24]. 

[26] Hans: Wives do not have exchange value in our society I am glad Darcy took the 

bait with Question 36. Of course you fell on your nose, but this is only a trial Question and 

I hope not only you but also others will learn from it. Marx’s statement that commodities 

have exchange value means that commodities are routinely exchanged. It is a social custom, 

everybody considers it as natural and fair. People don’t have to have a special relationship 

with each other to do it, but it is done between strangers. 

By contrast, my fictitious acquaintance has a very special relation with his wife, his friend, 

and his friend’s wife in order to “exchange wives”. Wives are not routinely exchanged in 

our society, they do not have exchange value. 

Darci’s answer [24] to Question 35 has the flaw which Marx often criticizes in his writings, 

namely, that nowadays people are used to looking only at the quantitative side of things, 

and overlooking the qualitative side of things. Both [24] and [25] suffer under the same error. 


Question 37 is 26 in 1995WI, 35 in 1996ut, 32 in 1997ut, 39 in 1999SP, 42 in 2001fa, 45 

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

in 2012fa: 

Question 37 How can one come to the conclusion that exchange value is not something 

inherent in the commodity? 

[14] Chacci: Inherent Exchange Value A commodity does not have an inherent value 

because there are several different variables that may change its exchange value. It is dependent 

on time, place, and the circumstances of exchange. As an example, our book may have 

an exchange value for people enrolled in our class, but has little or no value to those enrolled 

in a math class. Therefore our book does not hold any kind of inherent value, otherwise it 

would have the same value to the math student as it does to us enrolled in this class. 

Message [14] referenced by [16]. Next Message by Chacci is [29]. 

[16] Hans: And now the rebuttal? Chacci’s [14] is an excellent answer to Question 37. 

I am especially pleased that Chacci is answering a Question which addresses the intricacies 

of Marx’s argument in the text, rather than one of the more general questions. Does anyone 

want to tackle Question 40 now in the light of Chacci’s answer to 37? 

40¿ Reproduce, in your own words, Marx’s rebuttal that, despite the 40¿ arguments asked 

for to in Question 37, exchange value seems to be 40¿ something inherent to the commodity 

after all. 



Question 40 is 38 in 1996ut and 35 in 1997ut: 

Question 40 Reproduce, in your own words, Marx’s rebuttal that, despite the arguments 

asked for to in Question 37, exchange value seems to be something inherent to the commodity 

after all. 

[18] VanHalen: Practice Questions I’ll try to answer question 40 even though I thought 

I was just understanding the reasoning behind question 37. Thinking about question 40 for 

a while, I think an answer may lie in the definition of what a commodity is: something 

which is produced for sale or exchange. In order to qualify as a commodity, the item must 

be produced for sale or exchange. I don’t know why a person would go to the trouble of 

producing anything if they didn’t think that they could fetch some sort of a return in the 

market for the product whether it was sold or exchanged. This is where I think the inherent 

value comes in; the person may not know what their product will be exchanged for or what 

price it may get, but they do feel that it will get SOMETHING even if it is a very small 

amount of exchanged good or monetary return. There has to be some sort of inherent value 

just because of the fact that it qualifies to be a commodity and can be bought or sold. If for 

some reason the product is so worthless that it can’t be exchanged or sold then I don’t think 

it qualifies to be a commodity. As for question 37, Chacci answered well, and it builds on 

this answer. Just the fact that it is a commodity, and can be exchanged or sold, means that it 

has some value. What value it fetches in the market can change due to tastes, technology or 

percieved use. big or small. 

Hans: Don’t make the paragraphs so long. 

Message [18] referenced by [19]. Next Message by VanHalen is [46]. 

[19] Hans: Read the Question! VanHalen’s [18] is a valiant attempt to give some logical 

arguments why value is something inherent in commodities, i.e., in favor of an objective 

rather than subjective value theory. His answer is, briefly: it seems commodities have a 

value, otherwise people would not bother producing them. 

This was not at all what was asked in Question 40. The Question was to reproduce Marx’s 

argument with your own words, i.e., to read and try to understand what Marx had written, 

and explain it in a language that is more accessible than Marx’s. I do want you to read the 

text in this class! 

Now since VanHalen tried to do it from scratch, without consulting Marx, the question 

arises how his results compare with Marx’s. And there is one interesting similarity in Van- 

Halen’s method and Marx’s method. Right now I will not say more about it, but will leave 

it up to you if you see what I mean. It may be helpful to go to class tonight because I will 

describe Marx’s method in class. Question 40 is from now on no longer a trial Question 

but is added to the assigned Questions for the upcoming week. I.e., if you want to try to 

answer my Question what the similarities with Marx are, this counts as your assignment for 

the second week, together with Questions 51-77. 

VanHalen: Prof. Ehrbar - Just for your information, I did read the text, two times in fact and tried to consult 

Marx for my interpretation. In your analysis you said that my answer was “doing it from scratch.” That seems a 

pretty quick judgement for someone who is entirely new to Marx, who tried their best to interpret the question and 

interpret the text from which the answer was to come from. I put a lot of though into the question. To say that


my answer was doing it from scratch was almost an insult. I didn’t write to complain like a baby but just for your 

information I tried the best I could and thought I was answering the question. pseudonym VanHalen - Derek Ward 


[28] Hans: Quick judgement? In response to [19], VanHalen sent me this to my private 

email address (please use in future the address Hans.Ehrbar@m.cc.utah.edu for any 

messages related to the class): 

Prof. Ehrbar - Just for your information, I did read the text, two times in 

fact and tried to consult Marx for my interpretation. In your analysis you 

said that my answer was “doing it from scratch.” That seems a pretty quick 

judgement for someone who is entirely new to Marx, who tried their best to 

interpret the question and interpret the text from which the answer was to 

come from. I put a lot of though into the question. To say that my answer 

was doing it from scratch was almost an insult. I didn’t write to complain 

like a baby but just for your information I tried the best I could and thought 

I was answering the question. 

Reading the assigned few pages two times was obviously not enough. This is like reading 

the textbook for your Math class two times. You have to work through Marx step by step. 

And if you say that you “tried” to interpret the text, you indicate yourself that you know that 

you failed. You did use some of Marx’s categories, scientific work is never entirely from 

scratch, but I did not see an inch of Marx’s argumentation regarding this specific question in 

your submission. 

I also believe that you put a lot of thought into the question. Your answer was quite good. 

You are not aware how good it is, but I can see it because you came to use an approach which 

is in some specific way similar to Marx’s own, and which Bhaskar, a modern philosopher, 

argued, based on sophisticated reasoning, is necessary in social sciences. This is why you 

got a fairly good grade (which I gave you before I saw this complaint of yours). And what 

did you say about a baby? 


Question 49 is 38 in 1995WI, 47 in 1995ut, 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, 93 in 


Question 49 What is value (according to Marx)? 

[7] Peaches: Value according to Marx Value as defined by Marx is that social property 

which makes things exchangeable in a commodity society. Value does not describe the 

“worth” of a thing, but that of its need in a society. For example, money is not worth 

anything unless it can be exchanged for something else. 

Message [7] referenced by [8] and [92]. Next Message by Peaches is [246]. 

[8] Hans: Value is not determined by social need I agree with Peaches’s first sentence 

in [7]. Value is that property of things which gives them weight on the market. If a thing has 

high value, then it can be exchanged for large quantities of other things. 


Now which property of things is being rewarded by the market in this way? In the second 

sentence, Peaches says it is social need. This is wrong. This is not Marx’s position on value. 

Peaches says something else in the second sentence: that value is not based on worth, i.e., 

use value. This is in agreement with Marx. 

The last sentence is, if I understand it right, an illustration of the fact that value is not 

based on use value: money has lots of value but it does not have use value. If this reading of 

the sentence is correct (and please correct me if I am wrong, Peaches), then it should read: 

“Money is not worth anything unless it is exchanged for something else” instead of “unless 

it can be exchanged for something else.” 

As you notice, I said that a part of Peaches’s answer is wrong, but I did not supply the 

right answer, and I did also not give arguments why it is wrong. I want to leave this to 

others. Perhaps someone wants to jump in and say what the right answer is, and give as 

many arguments as possible why Peaches’s answer cannot be right. 

Message [8] referenced by [92] and [179.1]. Next Message by Hans is [11]. 

[9] Dragonfly: The use-value of money Hans, I am confused by your statement that 

money has no use-value. It would seem to me that many people consider money to be 

worthwhile outside of it’s value-based considerations. As a working definition of the value 

of money I submit the face value denomination of any given currency. The value of a hundred 

dollar bill is $100. The use-value of that dollar bill would then correspond to the idea 

of what that dollar bill represents, the that it feels to hold that hundred dollar bill, memories 

of childhood that involve being impressed by a hundred dollar bill, and how important it 

made you feel when your parent let you handle that hundred dollar. Granted these impressions 

have been desensitized as money has passed through your hands over the years, but 

the thought-streams remain related.Many people have more money than they can spend. It 

would seem they view money as an end in it’s self, i.e. it has a use-value. Granted the money 

can be collapsed into an exchange of commodities, but large sums of money represent potential 

commodities, which you seemed to reject as value-based in your response to Peaches. 

To use Barthes’ analysis of steak or wine, from “Mythologies”, the value of these items is 

a direct result of cultural held mythologies about what it means to eat steak, what kind of 

people eat steak, and one’s perceptions of how one appears to the others surrounding one’s 

self while eating steak. Thus the values of commodities are determined by culturally held 

use-values. While use-value will certainly vary for individual to individual, some varying 

more widely than another, there may be said to be certain generalities about the way a culture 

identifies the use-values of commodities. While this agreement may not be complete, 

it may at least be referred to as a standard. This is not to say that value is determined by 

use-value, but that they are interdependent. I think I have failed to see the mutual autonomy 

of value and use-value. Set me straight, Hans! 

Hans: In my response [11] to you, I concentrated only on one aspect of what you said. Here are some more 

comments. You are right that use values have a social dimension, but Marx seems to say that this does not have 

economic significance. In a Marxian approach, these cultural things can be understood only after one understands 

the economic base. The concept of “value” Marx uses is a social reality which can be understood without reference 

to cultural values. 

Message [9] referenced by [11]. Next Message by Dragonfly is [53].


[11] Hans: Use value of money In message [9], Dragonfly argued that money has a use 

value. I.e., that people desire money not only in order to buy things with it, but also for its 

own sake. Marx agrees that people want money for its own sake, but what drives them is 

not the use value of money, but they are, so to say, under the spell of value itself. Here is, in 

rough outlines, how this goes, but we will discuss these things later in more detail: 

(1) Marx says that every commodity has two sides, it is value and use value. Money is 

the value side of the commodity that has shaken off the cumbersome use value side of it. 

(2) Under capitalism, this independent value, which originally developed in order to facilitate 

the exchange (that is not quite right but good enough for now), has developed from a 

servant to a king, from a means to an end. It has acquired the blind purpose of turning itself 

into more and more money. This is what Marx calls capital. 

(3) Marx argues that capital’s drive for self-expansion does not come from the greed of 

its owner but it is a necessity anchored in the structure of the capitalist economy. Case in 

point: a capitalist who does not actively and aggressively pursue profits and expand, will go 

under in competition. If he wants to remain a capitalist, he has no choice. He is the slave of 

self-expanding value. 


[20] KALISPEL: Use value of money What is value (according to Marx)? In my opinion 

I will share what I believe the basis of Marx’s value system is. Marx is focused on the idea 

of a community that is wealthy. His version of wealth is not material goods, but as what 

philosphers call “the good life.” As was stated previously, to have free time and pursue as 

Abraham Maslow said the b values. These values, love, freedom, kindness, compassion, etc. 

are perceived to produce greater happiness than a thick wallet. Marx, I believe is pointing 

out the obvious counter-melodies to bringing out these intrinsic values of the human species. 

With the idea in mind of “pursuing true wealth,” Marx points out what value is. This value 

is important because it will throw a “monkey wrench” into mainstream economics. Why? 

This is because mainstream economics focuses primarily on productivity and profits. These 

other intrinsic values are important in mainstream economics, but they certainly are not 

favored to profits and productivity. Marx looks at economics from the point of view of what 

produces the greatest happiness for everyone. Marx believes intrinsic value and equality are 

essential to a “happy” community. Why these values are necessary for happiness I believe is 

obvious, so I will not argue this further. 

To me, the difference between value and use-value is confusing and seems not terribly 

important, at first. This is what it means to me, correct me if I am wrong. In capitalism, 

the value of a product is its money value. The use-value is what it is worth intrinsically. 

Capitalism distorts this as the annotation says. For example, food is worth a lot intrinsically, 

but has a very low price. We could say food has a high use value and a low value. In 

capitalism, the price of a good is often not the true value of the good. For example, if there 

is little competition in an industry then the price will be high and so will be the profits. 

In effect, society suffers at the hands of the rich capitalist. We might say other firms will 

eventually enter the industry and drive profits down, but think of the unneccessary things 

that go on continually in society. There will always be a few Bill Gates types. How much 


money can several billion dollars do in the way of eliminating poverty? This leads society 

on wild goose chases. Profits are sought after, yet the good may have given little value 

to anyone. It is a capitalist establishment parameter that the pursuit of profits serves the 

needs of the people. Marx is subtly pointing out that this is not the case. Society should 

decide what to produce in the name of true intrinsic value for everyone, not for the notion 

of profits. Additionally, there are inherent problems in the motivation in capitalism. The 

motto is always to cut costs and many times the quality is eliminated. If you produce food 

that looks good with no nutritional value, but tastes the same, Go For It. Marx’s idea of 

value screams another motivation and his belief is that this new motivation will much more 

accurately serve the happiness or wealth of society (i.e. prices and profits do not reveal 

needs. This is a myth). 

Hans: I sympathize with the values you are expressing here, but you can only understand the text if you understand 

that the word “value” designated a very specific economic relation in commodity societies. 

Message [20] referenced by [27]. Next Message by KALISPEL is [52]. 

[27] Hans: Socialist versus capitalist values KALISPEL’s [20] does not explain what 

Marx means by the word “value” but describes Marx’s values, which he also characterizes 

as “intrinsic values of the human species” (and I agree with this characterization). 

Then KALISPEL describes the non-achievement of these values under capitalism, which 

values “productivity and profits.” 

According to Marx, capitalism cannot be explained by people’s misdirected aspirations. 

In order to understand capitalism, you need something which Marx calls “value”, but it is 

not the kind of value KALISPEL is talking about here. 


[75] Caren: Rewrite the first assignment Value is the general social form taken by all 

the products of alienated labor. Marx said that the commodity represents the labor and the 

labor is accumulated in the product. But value does not refer to a “worth” or “relevance” 

in any society. The value must be put on something to get the use value. Now, I hope my 

submission is right. Please let me know if I have done any mistake again. I rewrite the 

answer this time not reply them! 

Message [75] referenced by [76]. Next Message by Caren is [114]. 

[76] Hans: Rewrite Question 49 Just a brief point, Caren, about your [75]: You wrote 

that “the value must be put on something to get the use value”. It is generally right that labor 

must be expended to get use values, although some use values can be obtained without labor. 

But this labor does not need to have the social form of value-creating labor. 

However, in capitalism your sentence becomes correct if one reverses it to read “use value 

must be put on something to get value”. The accumulation of value, i.e., congealed abstract 

labor, is the purpose, and use values are only produced because a “carrier” is needed for 

these values. 


Question 51 is 40 in 1995WI, 49 in 1995ut, 49 in 1996ut, 54 in 1998WI, 63 in 2000fa, 63 

in 2001fa, 113 in 2011fa, and 111 in 2012fa:


Question 51 Is the magnitude of value of a commodity determined by the quantity of abstract 

labor necessary to produce it, or by the quantity of other commodities against which 

it can be exchanged? 

[33] MsMarx: Magnitude of Value, Labor (fwd) The value of the labor power and 

the value which that labor power creates in the labor process are two different magnitudes. 

The basis for profit lies in the difference between. Marx is totaling up on the one hand the 

exchange-values of the commodities needed to maintain the mass of workers and on the 

other the exchange-values of the commodities produced by them. 

If a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain proportion, or the value of a quarter 

of wheat is expressed in a certain amount of iron, the value of wheat and its equivalent in 

iron are equal to some third thing, and they have the same magnitude in two different shapes. 

Either of them, independently of the other, can be reduced to a third common measure. This 

third thing determines the exchange-value of the goods being sold. Labor is this common 

social substance for all commodities. The value of laboring power is determined by the 

quantity of labor used to produce it, both directly and indirectly. As exchange-values, all 

commodities are merely definite quantities of congealed labor time. In other words, the 

magnitude of value of a commodity becomes the amount of labor congealed in it. This 

quantity of labor itself is measured by the duration of time as defined by hours, days, weeks, 

etc. If we consider commodities as values, we consider them under the aspect of social labor. 

Social labor is the common social substance of all commodities. They differ by representing 

a greater or smaller quantity of labor. 

Time is important in isolation of the labor process because it represents the opportunity 

cost or the time which the worker could have spent doing something else. In essence, the 

worker is also a commodity on the market, like wheat or iron. He offers his labor power for 

sale. His exchange value is ultimately the amount of labor provided by himself and other 

workers needed to produce and maintain him and his family, or the labor embodied in him. 

It is the exchange-value which determines the general price category. The exchange of 

goods for each other is determined fundamentally by the amount of labor embodied in it. So 

if goods are ultimately sold at their exchange values and these values embody labor, profit is 

surplus labor. 

The form aspect of value is value as exchange-value, which is independent from use 

value. If one abstracts from the use value of the product of labor, one obtains the value. 

Marx implies that this abstract takes place in the mind, as opposed to reality. As use-values, 

commodities differ in quality, and as exchange-values they can only differ in quantity and do 

not contain an atom of use-value. If the use-value of commodities is disregarded, only one 

property remains, products of labor. If we made abstraction from its use-value, the useful 

character of the kinds of labor embodied in it disappears. This entails the disappearance of 

the different concrete forms of labor. These forms are all reduced to the same kind of labor, 

human labor in the abstract. 


[34] Hans: Someone who is trying to understand it all at once MsMarx’s [33] gives 

not only an answer to Question 51, but also discusses several other issues from the assigned 


readings. With the exception of one sentence which I will point out below, nothing is really 

wrong, but it is not presented in a very coherent way. Perhaps you are too impatient to 

go through it step by step? I will reproduce it with my comments, which try to put your 

development in perspective. 

The value of the labor power and the value which that labor power creates 

in the labor process are two different magnitudes. The basis for profit lies in 

the difference between. Marx is totaling up on the one hand the exchangevalues 

of the commodities needed to maintain the mass of workers and on 

the other the exchange-values of the commodities produced by them. 

This is a good opener, showing how relevant the Marxian theory of value is. It uses 

several undefined terms, which need now to be defined to make this more precise. One of 

them is “value”. What is value? The next paragraph gives an answer: 

If a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain proportion, or the 

value of a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain amount of iron, the 

value of wheat and its equivalent in iron are equal to some third thing, 

and they have the same magnitude in two different shapes. Either of them, 

independently of the other, can be reduced to a third common measure. This 

third thing determines the exchange-value of the goods being sold. Labor 

is this common social substance for all commodities. 

What comes now is not only true for labor power but for all commodities: 

The value of laboring power is determined by the quantity of labor used to 

produce it, both directly and indirectly. As exchange-values, all commodities 

are merely definite quantities of congealed labor time. In other words, 

the magnitude of value of a commodity becomes the amount of labor congealed 

in it. This quantity of labor itself is measured by the duration of time 

as defined by hours, days, weeks, etc. If we consider commodities as values, 

we consider them under the aspect of social labor. Social labor is the 

common social substance of all commodities. They differ by representing 

a greater or smaller quantity of labor. Time is important in isolation of the 

labor process because it represents the opportunity cost or the time which 

the worker could have spent doing something else. 

Now you are saying some specfic things about labor power: 

In essence, the worker is also a commodity on the market, like wheat or 

iron. He offers his labor power for sale. His exchange value is ultimately 

the amount of labor provided by himself and other workers needed to produce 

and maintain him and his family, or the labor embodied in him. 

Here you are giving th answer to the Question, which is correct. 

It is the exchange-value which determines the general price category. The 

exchange of goods for each other is determined fundamentally by the amount


of labor embodied in it. So if goods are ultimately sold at their exchange 

values and these values embody labor, profit is surplus labor. 

Now you suddently start talking about use value. 

The form aspect of value is value as exchange-value, which is independent 

from use value. If one abstracts from the use value of the product of labor, 

one obtains the value. 

Here is the one sentence I do not agree with: 

Marx implies that this abstract takes place in the mind, as opposed to reality. 

As use-values, commodities differ in quality, and as exchange-values they 

can only differ in quantity and do not contain an atom of use-value. If 

the use-value of commodities is disregarded, only one property remains, 

products of labor. If we made abstraction from its use-value, the useful 

character of the kinds of labor embodied in it disappears. This entails the 

disappearance of the different concrete forms of labor. These forms are all 

reduced to the same kind of labor, human labor in the abstract. 


[46] VanHalen: MsMarx gave a good answer to question 51 and I don’t mean to criticize 

because I don’t think I can do much better. However, when I read the answer given by 

MsMarx, I don’t think it ever came out and plainly said what the answer to the question 

really was. MsMarx said “the form aspect of value is value as exchange-value, which is 

independent from use value. If one abstracts from the use value of the product of labor one 

obtains the value” 

The question asks about the magnitude OF the value that MsMarx did a good job of 

uncovering in the above excerpt. I would add to the above answer of MsMarx that the 

Magnitude Of The Value is determined by the the amount of labor socially necessary for the 

production of the item. 

The bottom of page 129 in Capital says ,“What exclusively determines the magnitude of 

the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labourtime 

socially necessary for its production.” 

I interpret this sentence to answer the question 51 by setting up what determines the 

magnitude of the value once it has been uncovered from its expressive form; exchange value. 

Hans: Thanks for taking the trouble of putting MsMarx’s answer more in focus. I think this is helpful for the 

readers of this list. I also like that you pointed out what role the exchange relation with the other commodities plays 

in this answer: You say that in your last sentence, it is the expressive form of the inherent value. 

Message [46] referenced by [47]. Next Message by VanHalen is [47]. 

[47] VanHalen: MsMarx did a pretty good job of answering the question and my answer 

is in no means a put down of the answer. However I don’t think that the answer MsMarx 

gave directly came out and answered the question. 


Ms Marx makes the correct point that use value is different than exchange value and that 

exchange value is the expression of value. but the question asks as to what determines the 

Magnitude Of Value. 

From the paragraph at the bottom of page 129 of Capital, it says,“what exclusively determines 

the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labor socially 

necessary or the labor-time socially necessary for its production.” 

Using the logic of Ms Marx and the paragraph at the bottom of pg. 129, I would say 

that what determines the magnitude value of a commodity is the quantity of abstract labor 

necessary to produce the product, if it is assumed that abstract labor is the amount of labor 

socially necessary to produce the item. 

Hans: Why did you get doubts about your [46] and felt you had to re-do it? I already found [46] pretty good. I 

will not give you a grade for this one. 

Next Message by VanHalen is [142]. 

Question 52 is 41 in 1995WI, 50 in 1995ut, 54 in 1997ut, and 81 in 2004fa: 

Question 52 In [mecw29] 274 Marx writes “It is as if the different individuals had thrown 

their labor time together and allocated different portions of the labor time at their joint 

disposal to the various use values.” Why the formulation “It is as if?” Have they done it or 

haven’t they? 

[55] Wight: The formulation “It is as if” is used by Marx to illustrate the sweeping generality 

of the entire statement. Marx is aggregating all of the labor of the entire population. 

There are a few incorrect assumptions in this view of labor. First, it assumes that all laborers 

are willing participants, which we know they are not in the capitalist system. Secondly, 

the underlying assumption that all people perform the same amount of labor i.e. equal in 

efficiency, time, and quality of tasks completed is incorrect. I think Marx is trying to point 

out these discrepencies and inconsistencies, hence the formulation at the beginning of the 

statement. In response to wether or not people have behaved this way, I would say that they 

have in a sense. Basically, you can aggregate anything in the economy and generalize for 

all involved parties. But, where this theory falls short is in not taking account for individual 

contributions. Every person works differently and no credit is given for good workers vs. 

poor workers. Marx’s statement just views labor as one huge, entire aggregated concept. It 

is my proposition that this is why Marx begins this passage “It is as if,” because it can appear 

to be so and still not be accurate. 

Message [55] referenced by [59], [69], [206.1], and [335.5]. Next Message by Wight is [132]. 

[59] Hans: Incorrect assumptions In [55], answering 52, Wight wrote 

The formulation “It is as if” is used by Marx to illustrate the sweeping 

generality of the entire statement. 

This is a plausible interpretation, but in the present case the statement is not only too 

general but also in a very specific way incorrect. You write that too, two sentences later: 

There are a few incorrect assumptions in this view of labor. First, it assumes 

that all laborers are willing participants, which we know they are not in the 

capitalist system.


This is tantalizingly close to the way I interpret this sentence, but it is not quite the 

same. You seem to say that Marx stated a “stylized fact” which made some simplifying 

assumptions about the world. One of them is that not everyone is a willing participant in the 

system. I think Marx wrote “it is as if” they had done it, because they did it but it was not 

their intention to do it. They did it so-to-say unconsciously. Whether willing or not, none of 

them was a conscious participant in this deed. Do you see the difference? 

They interact on the market in order to get the best outcome for themselves. This competition 

has the same effect as if it had been their intention to do what Marx describes here. 

Message [59] referenced by [206.1], [219.1], [318.2], [335.5], and [2004fa:642]. Next Message by Hans is [62]. 

[69] Fritz: why ask why? Wight wrote in [55]: 

But, where this theory falls short is in not taking account for individual 

contributions. Every person works differently and no credit is given for 

good workers vs. poor workers. Marx’s statement just views labor as one 

huge, entire aggregated concept. 

What of the human behaviorial assumptions you studied in microecon 201? Does microecon 

201 theory “fall short” because every person is not a 100% self-interested, pleasure 

maximizing agent? 

why do economic theories make assumptions and break things down into smaller pieces? 

why ask why? 

Cheers. Fritz 

Next Message by Fritz is [70]. 

[173.1] Wight: Marx uses the formulation “It is as if” to illustrate that the individuals had 

in fact done it, but it was not their intention to do it. They did it in sense unconsciously. 

Whether willing or not, none of them was a conscious participant in the deed. The individuals 

described here are interacting on the market in order to get the best outcome for 

themselves. This sort of competition has the same effect as what Marx describes here as all 

individuals throwing their labor time togerther and allocating at their joint disposal to various 

use values. In essence, the participants are perpetuating their own exploitation under the 

capitalist system, but don’t even realize it. This competition created between the individuals 

drives the system and fools the participants into thinking they are acting in their own best 

interest and benefiting themselves. 

Hans: Very well formulated, clear and crisp, and literally the same as you wrote in class. I especially like the 

implications for capitalist exploitation, which is a new element which was not discussed previously. 

Next Message by Wight is [173.2]. 

[189] Wight: Econ 201 vs. reality In response to Fritz’s critique of my answer to question 

52, I thought I should clarify my answer and stance. In microecon 201, we learned nothing 

about the behaviors of individuals as they relate to economic life. The theories are structured 

and concise and businesses and individuals are seen as profit and utility maximizing agents. 

This is not how life really is. Businesses and people have may other objective and motivations 

aside from self-fulfilling utility maximizing. If in fact we really lived in the kind of 

world described, it would be very inhumane. It is unfortunate that many times in economics 

we lose the human perspective. In Marx’s quote that questions 52 addresses, the appearance 


of all individuals all pleasure maximizing agents and criticizes this result. The end result is 

the driving force behind capitalism and perpetuates the oppression of the common worker. 

Message [189] referenced by [339]. Next Message by Wight is [190]. 

[206.1] Gilligan: It is as if Well we need to remember that not everyone is a willing 

participant inside the system. Many times we are forced to do things that we don’t want to 

do, but we are obligated by the system to do so. Think about yourself Hans and the fact 

that you would rather not given out grades because you feel there unfair, but because the 

system says you have to then you are forced to do so. I know at my work there are a lot 

of things that I would like to change but I don’t have the power to state my opinion, and 

how I think we could better the production process. Its as if we just do them unconsciously 

without really thinking about it because we are so used to following what the system says 

is best. We may not even be a willing participant but we find ourselves right there obeying 

what guidelines are set for us. In the workplace there are many different type of workers, 

some good and some bad but they contiue to do the job not because the product they are 

producing creates utility for them but because its a job and thats what the system thinks is 

socially acceptable. therefore I do think they have thrown their labor together but it doesn’t 

create any type of utility because they have no voice in what the outcome will be, they are 

subjects of the system. 

Hans: You are elaborating well on one aspect of it, which Wight brought out in [55], but you missed the main 

aspect, which I tried to describe in [59]. 

Next Message by Gilligan is [258]. 

[207.1] Femme: One assumption is that not everyone is a willing participant in the system. 

I think “it is as if” they had done it, because they did it but it was not their intention to do 

it. They did it unconsciously or subconsciously. Whether willing or not, no one party was 

a consciouse participant in this deed. They interact on the market in order to get the best 

outcome for themselves, the highest value for their commodity. This competition has the 

same effect as if they had done what Marx described as a “stylized fact”; by this I mean going 

back to the assumption that everyone is a willing participant in the system. This competition 

is driven subconciously and has the same effect as if they had done this consciously; which 

is the highest exchange for their commodity on the market. 

Hans: You have all the relevant quotes from the class materials, but you are putting them together in such a way 

that I doubt whether you understood what you were writing. 

Next Message by Femme is [210.1]. 

[219.1] Punani: Why the formulation“it is as if?” Have they done it or haven’t they?, this 

is because they did it but it was not their intention to do it. They did it so-to-say unconsciously. 

Whether willing or not, none of them was conscious participant in this deed. They 

interact on the market in order to get the best outcome for themselves. 

Hans: Your whole answer consists of some sentences copied literally from my [59]. I cannot tell from this whether 

you really understood it. This hurt your grade. 

Next Message by Punani is [245]. 

[318.2] Brumbys: One of them is that not everyone is a willing participant in the system. 

I think Marx wrote “it is as if” they had done it, because they did it but it was not their 

intention to do it. They did it so-to-say unconsiously. Whether willing or not, none of them 

was a consious participant in this deed.


They interact on the market in order to get the best outcome for themselves. This competition 

has the same effect as if they had done what Marx describes here. 

Hans: Your answer is a literal copy from my [59]. I have no idea if you understood what I wrote. I had a “do 

you see the difference?” in my text, which you left out, instead of taking a few words to explain to me that you 

do see the difference. And you started abruptly in the middle of my submission (“one of them”, who is “them”?), 

therefore it seems that you do not know what I was talking about. Also your resubmission was late and was in the 

wrong format (you had both answers in the same message, and I had to re-do it by hand). 

Next Message by Brumbys is [318.3]. 

[335.5] Dunny: Dunny did not resubmit his exam. He thinks that Marx’s formulation 

shows uncertainty that it is true what he says. Whatever one may think of Marx, Marx was 

not a sloppy writer. 

Otherwise, Dunny says things similar to [55], and apparently he misunderstood Hans’s 

[59], where Hans tried to critize [55]. 

Next Message by Dunny is [335.15]. 

[339] Franz: why ask why? Wight and inhumanity Wight wrote in [189] 

In microecon 201, we learned nothing about the behaviors of individuals as 

they relate to economic life. 

. . . businesses and individuals are seen as profit and utility maximizing 

agents. This is not how life really is. 

What? utility maximization is behavior. 

your 2nd sentence contradicts the 1st 

Businesses and people have may other objective and motivations aside From 

self-fulfilling utility maximizing. If in fact we really lived in the kind of 

world described, it would be very inhumane. 

Why? I will build my economy according to a Micro 201 textbook. Where is the inhumanity? 

Please explain. 

Next Message by Franz is [340]. 

Question 53 is 42 in 1995WI, 51 in 1995ut, 51 in 1996ut, 60 in 1998WI, 66 in 1999SP, 70 

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

123 in 2011fa: 

Question 53 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 do things this way? How is it 

enforced? 

[29] Chacci: Value of Labor The value of a commodity does not increase because of 

a slow or inept laborer because the labor time required to produce the commodity is taken 

under socially normal conditions of productions. This means that the slower or more inept 

worker does not produce commodity with higher value because we are considering identical 

human labor power, we look at “the labor time which is necessary on an average”, not 

individual labor times. In a capitalistic society the decision to do things this way is made 


collectively by all commodity producing laborers. It is enforced by social mores and norms 

that serve to ostracize the slow and inept by not employing them. 

Message [29] referenced by [30] and [212.1]. Next Message by Chacci is [147]. 

[30] Hans: Nature of collective decisions under capitalism In [29], answering Question 

53, Chacci wrote that workers who are slower than the norm are not employed in capitalism. 

This is indeed Marx’s point of view; a reference is in the Annotations soon after Question 55. 

But it requires an additional step which is too complicated right now. We have to understand 

one thing at a time. Let us stick with “simple commodity production”, in which each worker 

owns his own means of production and is not hired by a capitalist. In this situation, Marx 

claims that a worker who works at half the pace of the average will produce half as much 

value per hour. This seems only just to us, but I tried to argue in the Annotations that it is a 

more repressive and less innocuous rule than it may first seem. 

Since it seems so just, one is tempted to think it has somehow been collectively decided 

and is enforced by social mores and norms, as Chacci writes. I disagree. The mechanism by 

which this is enforced is a different one. Does anyone see what this mechanism is? 

Message [30] referenced by [212.1] and [318.3]. Next Message by Hans is [34]. 

[32] Gottlieb: The value of labor Marx makes the argument that the value of a commodity 

relates directly to the amount of labor it takes to create the commodity. He makes a point 

to show, however, that a lazy or inept worker does not make his or her commodity more 

valuable simply because it takes more of their labor time. Marx says that the worker must 

be held to a standard, a minimum standard, which is the average of the society. This would 

cause those below average to “hurry up” to meet the minimum requirements. He does not 

follow the thought further as he should. If those below the average are constantly forcing 

themselves to work faster, then the average would continuously rise, raising the minimum 

standards for production and raising the output for all of the workers because they all want 

to “meet the minimum requirements.” The only other option in keeping with this “average 

labor time” rule is that instead of the slower workers having to “hurry up,” the faster workers 

must slow down lowering the minimum standard. 

It is the society as a whole who decides how much value a commodity holds due to the 

amount of time it allocates to produce the commodity. Marx should have pointed out in 

more detail the “theoretical” problem of capitalistic societies of mismatching labor to different 

types of production. He says that in a capitalistic society, “Wasted labor will then be a 

labor in which the producer is not matched to the production in order to make his or her best 

contribution.” The CEO will produce no more valuable commodities than the car salesman 

in a perfect society if they are 1) Producing commodities with the same labor time, and 2) 

are both matched with the production of a commodity in which they make their best contribution. 

I am confused however which society decides the value of the commodity. Would 

this be on a local, national, or world level. Surely I cannot type as fast as most secretaries, 

but I can type faster than most aboriginies. Who constitues the average? Adherance to this 

rule is not enforced in a capitalistic society. 

Message [32] referenced by [62] and [201.1]. Next Message by Gottlieb is [200.6]. 

[53] Dragonfly: mechanism of production THe mechanism described by Hans is complex 

and multi-faceted but as I understand it , Capital is at the very heart of it. In a capitalist 

market, the worker, by and large, does not own her/his mode of production. THe mode


of production is owned by the capitalist. The capitalist is a capitalist by virtue of having 

amassed enough capital to employ a more cost-effective mode of production: i.e. build a 

factory, use assembly-line techniques, purchase better machinery and/or tools. With these 

more effective( from the standpoint of labor) modes of production, the labor investment in 

each commodity produced is less and consequently can be sold for a lower price. THe independent 

worker producing the same commodity as the capitalist will be unable to offer 

their commodity at the price of the capitalist and still have the exchange value of their commodity 

commeasurate with the labor they have invested in it. The capitalist will continually 

undersell the independent worker, eventually driving them out of business, eliminating the 

competition. With no competition (and assuming a laissez-fair government), the capitalist 

would be free to price their commodity at whatever price the market will bear, depending 

on the use-value of the commodity. Not only is the worker now expected to pay whatever 

the capitalist wants, but her/his own mode of production has been eliminated. THe only 

commodity the worker has left to sell is her/his labor and raw materials like labor are less 

valuable than other commodities. THe producer becomes the consumer and the capitalist 

owns the mode of production. Why? Because they had the capital in the first place. 

Hans: Although you did not answer the Question which was asked, you are getting a good grade, for two reasons: 

(1) the mechanism which you describe is a very important one. It is really much more important to understand this 

mechanism than the answer to Question 53. (2) Your description of this mechanism is a little different than what 

one usually reads, which shows me that you came to it through independent thinking. I think your description is 

quite accurate. 

Message [53] referenced by [64], [70], [166.2], and [335.9]. Next Message by Dragonfly is [242.2]. 

[61] Emma: Commodity, Labor and Value Following the model set by Hans in class for 

interpreting passages of Capital, I will take the question apart and answer it in pieces first, in 

part by defiing some terms. Then I intend to put the pieces together and answer the question 

in whole. Hopefully by making some of my assumptions overt through definitions the many 

errors in my thinking will be more easily spotted and corrected. 

For Marx a commodity is a use value which is produced for sale in the market and thus 

has an exchange value. The “value” referred to in the question is the exchange value. It is 

primarily a social relation and may have a dollar amount ascribed to it. Unlike a use value 

which is a carrier of exchange value and represents utility possibilities not measured per se, 

the value mentioned in the question has an explicit exchange value, or price, that may or 

may not change over time. 

Exchange value is set in a capitalist society through a market where bartering and negotiating 

work to set a price. In this process, the capitalist observes the needs of the market 

to determine which commodities are in demand. He then adjusts his production to meet the 

demands he observes. This is a process grounded on the self-interest of the producer of the 

commodity who intends to meet a market need and thereby maximize his own benefit. The 

commodity in question is produced strictly for the market. The exchange value of a commodity 

in a capitalist society is exactly equal to what someone is willingto pay or trade for 

it. 

Marx believes that a better and more equitable way to establish the exchange value of 

a commodity is through the quantification of the labor required to produce the commodity, 

but not just any labor. For Marx the substance of value is labor and the magnitude of value 


is measured by the amount of labor. And it is the duration of time that measures labor, 

time being defined in typical terms. There are a number of peculiar assumptions posited by 

Marx and upon which Marx bases his value theory that should be understood when trying to 

grasp his meanings of labor and value. Specifically, the notions of “concrete” and “abstract” 

labor should be considered, with the latter being the real basis for the measure of exchange 

value, though it is also an incomplete idea on its own. As I understand it, concrete labor is 

the labor act that results in a particular commodity. Abstract labor is characterized as the 

general expenditure of human energy. 

From this model it would be tempting to assume that the longer it takes to produce a 

commodity the greater its value would be. That is, time spent relatively unproductively on 

the job would count equally toward creating value as time spent actively and skillfully engaged. 

Now, intuitively most people, including Marx, would conclude that such an approach 

is absurd since qualitatively there would be an obvious difference between the results of the 

two uses of time. Therefore, Marx was compelled to include in his theory of concret and 

abstract labor as the fundamentals of value the idea of “average human labor power” which 

is a social interpretation and measurement of the abstract labor time necessary to produce a 

commodity. It is an attempt at establishing a norm against which to measure the productivity 

and value of other labor. For Marx, the socially necessary labor time required to produce a 

commodity must take into consideration the fact that the abstract labor expended to create 

exchange value in one commodity is equal to any other abstract labor because special consideration 

must be given to the “prevailing socially normal conditions of production and with 

the socially average degree of skill and intensity,” the idea being that although some labor 

may be aided by higher levels of technology and produce more of a commodity than labor 

without such advantages for example, the abstract labor in both cases is still of equal intrinsic 

value. Therefore, while the results of various abstract labors may be different and equate 

to different exchange values in the production of a commodity, the intrinsic value of the abstract 

labors required to produce the commodity are equal; and given the idea of “average” in 

this context one would expect that the laborer favored with the means for greater productivity 

would produce absolutely more product while the average product of this laborer would 

still equal that of the laborer not so favored. This theory holds so long as the differences 

in abstract labor are as described in the question, that is, slow and inept in the benign sense 

of not being as skilled or procicient as someone else, and not something purposeful such as 

lazy. Marx seems to discount the possibility of lazy or willfully inept workers (something 

most people who work in the real world would have difficulty accepting) except to say that 

society might sanction someone who isn’t measuring up. 

For Marx, labor is the key to the problem of value, and the amount of socially necessary 

abstract labor determines exchange value. The assumption again is that workers are working 

diligently, and the speed with which a product is produced is irrelevant to its exchange value, 

contrary to capitalism. The notion that this concept forces everyone to “hurry-up” is wrong. 

On the contrary, it allows all workers to labor at their own pace. It specifically allows for the 

“Mozarts” and “Einsteins” of the world because it values labor intrinsically and abstractly 

equally with concrete labor. In this model the end result is not the determinant of exchange 

value, contrary to capitalism. (By the way, Mozart and Einstein are bad examples of artists


and thinkers whose efforts are generally suspect by the materialists of the world. Better to 

use Courtney Love and Jackson Pollack. Yikes!) 

How Marx would go about setting the socially accepted labor standards is unknown to 

me. I assume his theories would lead toward establishing some very unproductive “lowest 

common denominator” standards. That the world that once theoretically embraced his ideas 

is moving away from them to something that isn’t quite capitalism yet also not socialism is 

telling. 

Message [61] referenced by [66] and [71]. Next Message by Emma is [139]. 

[62] Hans: What is average labor? Gottlieb’s answer [32] to Question 53 has many 

thoughful and interesting points, but also a few gaps and errors. I will go through it sentence 

by sentence. At the beginning, Gottlieb briefly summarizes Marx’s argument leading up to 

Question 53: 

Marx makes the argument that the value of a commodity relates directly 

to the amount of labor it takes to create the commodity. He makes a point 

to show, however, that a lazy or inept worker does not make his or her 

commodity more valuable simply because it takes more of their labor time. 

So far it is very good and helpful. But then Gottlieb continues: 

Marx says that the worker must be held to a standard, a minimum standard, 

which is the average of the society. 

Marx does not say this anywhere. He shows that in capitalist society the worker is indeed 

being held to a standard, not because there is a need for it and someone steps in and says: 

this freeloading is getting out of hand, we must introduce some standards here, but by the 

automatic working of the market. Marx’s argument is not as clear as it could be, this is why 

I am asking Question 57, which can be re-phrased as: which market mechanism is Marx 

referring to here? Gottlieb is not answering all this, but he brings an interesting implication 

of the existence of such a mechanism: 

This would cause those below average to “hurry up” to meet the minimum 

requirements. He does not follow the thought further as he should. If those 

below the average are constantly forcing themselves to work faster, then 

the average would continuously rise, raising the minimum standards for 

production and raising the output for all of the workers because they all 

want to “meet the minimum requirements.” 

You are coming to this conclusion because you are taking the word “average” in the sense 

of “arithmetic mean”. Had Marx written “median” instead of average, then your conclusion 

would no longer have been valid. If the outliers are moved towards the median without 

crossing the median, this does not change the median one bit. 

Marx’s concept of “average” does not specify whether the median is meant or the mean 

or whatever. These are mathematical formulas which know nothing about the specific circumstances. 

Marx does not expect any formula to be able to automatically figure out what 


the socially normal level is in the given circumstance. It is kind of strange that we tend to 

think that there should be such a formula, isn’t it? 

Having said this, I still agree with you that the mechanisms Marx refers to and which you 

did not explain tend to push the normal level towards more intensive labor. 

The only other option in keeping with this “average labor time” rule is that 

instead of the slower workers having to “hurry up,” the faster workers must 

slow down lowering the minimum standard. 

I hope you know now what to think about the ‘average labor time rule’, but you are 

still broaching an important issue. Indeed, there is no automatic mechanism causing those 

who work too fast to slow down. This has to be done by peer pressure, union work rules, 

etc. There is an interesting analogy in international finance: in the Bretton Woods system, 

countries in balance of payments deficit were penalized and had to scramble in order to 

adjust to the “average”, but those in balance of payments surplus did not feel any pain and 

did not have to do anything. Keynes wanted to put more of the burden of adjustment on the 

surplus countries, but he was voted down in 1944. 

It is the society as a whole who decides how much value a commodity 

holds due to the amount of time it allocates to produce the commodity. 

Marx should have pointed out in more detail the “theoretical” problem of 

capitalistic societies of mismatching labor to different types of production. 

He says that in a capitalistic society, “Wasted labor will then be a labor in 

which the producer is not matched to the production in order to make his or 

her best contribution.” 

The sentence which you quoted is from me and not from Marx, and it refers to socialism, 

not capitalism, i.e., to a society in which the law of the average no longer reigns. 

The CEO will produce no more valuable commodities than the car salesman 

in a perfect society if they are 1) Producing commodities with the same 

labor time, and 2) are both matched with the production of a commodity in 

which they make their best contribution. 

I hope you are aware that in Marx’s view, the CEO does not produce any value. His high 

income is not a sign of his productivity but is the sign that he is on the receiving end of 

capitalist exploitative relations. In socialism, these people will be allowed to do something 

more useful than figuring out the latest tricks how to channel as much of the social surplus 

value as possible into their pockets. 

I am confused however which society decides the value of the commodity. 

Would this be on a local, national, or world level. Surely I cannot type as 

fast as most secretaries, but I can type faster than most aboriginies. Who 

constitues the average? 

Very interesting question. With modern computers and satellite communications, it has 

indeed become feasible that the aborigines take over certain rote office tasks, like scanning


in checks or sorting merchandise coupons. Right now we are using Mexicans to do this, 

and the question how fast these people are able and willing to work is tendentially affecting 

the number of coffee breaks in offices in the USA. It is a matter of both technology and 

the character of the international economic institutions how far beyond the own nation these 

social norms go. 

Adherance to this rule is not enforced in a capitalistic society. 

You haven’t described the mechanism which I am looking for, therefore you cannot know 

how “forceful” these mechanisms are. 


[64] Hans: Mechanisms of Capitalist Exploitation Dragonfly’s [53] gives an accurate 

description of one of the most important economic mechanisms in capitalism today: how it 

happens that the workers have to do all the work and the capitalists get all the money. 

I would just like to add one paragraph, in order to make the connections perhaps a little 

clearer. In today’s technology, a worker working with his own tools is hopelessly outdated. 

Today mass production is socially necessary. In a society of mass production, the workers 

should collectively have control over the factories which are so-to-say their tools. But in 

modern capitalism they do not. Control over the factories is monopolized by a small elite 

group in society, who, due to this control, can cream off most of the wealth produced in 

these factories. 

Of course, this is not an answer to Question 53. In Question 53, I was also looking for an 

economic mechanism, but a much simpler one. Dragonfly’s [53] may give you an idea what 

an economic mechanism is. 

Message [64] referenced by [92] and [335.9]. Next Message by Hans is [66]. 

[66] Hans: Emma did in [61] exactly what she intended to do: she laid out her assumptions 

so openly and clearly that it is more easily possible to “spot and correct” her errors. 

At the beginning, everything is correct, and I am repeating it here, because it is so well 

formulated: 

For Marx a commodity is a use value which is produced for sale in the 

market and thus has an exchange value. The “value” referred to in the 

question is the exchange value. It is primarily a social relation and may 

have a dollar amount ascribed to it. Unlike a use value which is a carrier of 

exchange value and represents utility possibilities not measured per se, the 

value mentioned in the question has an explicit exchange value, or price, 

that may or may not change over time. 

Exchange value is set in a capitalist society through a market where bartering 

and negotiating work to set a price. In this process, the capitalist 

observes the needs of the market to determine which commodities are in 

demand. He then adjusts his production to meet the demands he observes. 

This is a process grounded on the self-interest of the producer of the commodity 

who intends to meet a market need and thereby maximize his own 

benefit. The commodity in question is produced strictly for the market. 


The exchange value of a commodity in a capitalist society is exactly equal 

to what someone is willingto pay or trade for it. 

But what comes next is a misunderstanding. Emma continues 

Marx believes that a better and more equitable way to establish the exchange 

value of a commodity is through the quantification of the labor required 

to produce the commodity. 

This is incorrect. Marx says on the contrary: the blind bartering for self-interest on the 

market has the social consequence that exchange proportions are governed by labor time. 

Please go back and read the text again, Emma. What you interpret to be Marx’s judgments 

how a fair economy ought to function are in reality Marx’s inferences about how an actual 

“simple commodity” economy ticks. Admittedly, everything looks fair, but it already has 

some hidden sources of inequity built in, which will assert themselves later in the book. 

There is really lots of good stuff in what you write, Emma, even if your main organizing 

principle is wrong now. But I will just pick out one example of what you say in order to make 

my point. For instance, regarding the question that all labor is equally valued, regardless of 

what it produces and how high the technology is, you write: 

the idea being that although some labor may be aided by higher levels of 

technology and produce more of a commodity than labor without such advantages 

for example, the abstract labor in both cases is still of equal intrinsic 

value. 

Marx’s conclusion is not based on the value judgment that all labor should be valued 

equal, but on the simple fact that the exact same labor which today produces with very low 

technology can tomorrow go to a different workplace and produce something with very high 

technology. This mobility of labor is the reason why certain kinds of labor cannot permanently 

command higher prices on the market than others. If they would, then laborers would 

just migrate into those industries which command the higher prices. This is an economic 

mechanism of the kind I was looking for. Modern economic models are full of them. 

Marx differs from modern economics in that he does not yet consider these economic 

mechanisms to be the final explanation. He goes one step further and says: this migration of 

labor is possible because in a certain respect these two kinds of labor are indeed equal, they 

are both the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, etc. Now it is easy to interpret this 

as a value judgment, that it would be fair to treat these labors as equals, but Marx means it 

as a factual statement, these labors are equal qua abstract labor, and this equality is socially 

recognized in the equality of market prices. 

Question 53 still has not yet been answered. The answer is really simple, almost trivial, 

and after all this, many of you will probably be disappointed when you hear it. But nevertheless, 

your attempted answers to 53 have been very instructive and have by no means been 

a waste of time. 

Message [66] referenced by [176.2]. Next Message by Hans is [72]. 

[70] Fritz: car wash Dragonfly wrote in [53]:


THe independent worker producing the same commodity as the capitalist 

will be unable to offer their commodity at the price of the capitalist and 

still have the exchange value of their commodity commeasurate with the 

labor they have invested in it. The capitalist will continually undersell the 

independent worker, eventually driving them out of business, eliminating 

the competition. 

Question is more along the lines of: 

I can wash a car in 1 hour. You can wash a car in 15 minutes. Our product (the car wash) 

is the same. The value contained in our product is the same. 

why? 

Cheers. Fritz 

Message [70] referenced by [104] and [197.4]. Next Message by Fritz is [71]. 

[71] Fritz: Courtney Love Emma wrote in [61]: 

For Marx a commodity is a use value which is produced for sale in the 

market and thus has an exchange value. The “value” referred to in the 

question is the exchange value. 

Doesn’t “value” refer to the amount of abstract labor contained in the good or service. 

For example, the price (exchange value) can fluctuate, but its value remains constant. 

of “average human labor power” which is a social interpretation and measurement 

of the abstrac labor time necessary to produce a commodity. It is 

an attempt at establishing a norm against which to measure the productivity 

and value of other labor. 

Abstract labor is characterized as the general expenditure of human energy. 

if we wanted to quantify how many brake shoes are produced using one hour of abstract 

labor, how would we go about it? 

would we pluck 100 people at random and check their productivity? or, would we find 

100 people who are adept at this task and check their productivity? 

you provide the beginnings of an answer: 

“prevailing socially normal conditions of production and with the socially 

average degree of skill and intensity,” 

but question remains – if I were such a poor builder of brake shoes that no capitalist would 

ever hire me, would I still be included in determining the amount of abstract labor needed 

for creating a brake shoe? 

if I am a very adept builder of brake shoes, and yet my personal supply curve is such that 

I will never be demanded, am I included in the determination of the abstract labor necessary 

for producing brake shoes? 


basically, my question boils down to whether the definition of abstract labor is ultimately 

based upon the supply and demand for commodities. 

or if it simply a question of the skill and intensity of the average human? 

Better to use Courtney Love and Jackson Pollack. 

Was not Jackson Pollack the artist dripper? 

Cheers. Fritz 


[96] Pizza: value of commodities The assertion that the value of a commodity does not 

increase if it is made by a slow or inept laborer exists under certain conditions. 

The homogeneity of products 

Perfect market information of all participants 

No differentiation of labor 

Under these conditions, the commodity has a uniform exchange value to other commodities. 

This exchange value will remain constant regardless of the individual contribution. 

Under these conditions the exchange value is a reflection of “the labor time socially neccessary... 

required to produce an article under the prevailing socially normal conditions of 

production and with the socially average degree of skill and intensity”. There is no distinguishable 

differences between one good and another produced by the abstract labor. This is 

one of the conditions resulting from the unifrom production of goods that asserts itself in the 

marketplace. The marketplace therfore dictates the exchange relation commodities and thus 

enforces the abstraction of labor. 

Message [96] referenced by [104], [206.5], and [321.1]. Next Message by Pizza is [135]. 

[104] Hans: A much-desired connection with the mainstream Pizza’s answer [96] 

phrases the same argument in the language of modern mainstream economics, which Chocolate 

gave in [54], and which also Fritz gave in [70] with his car wash example. When I say 

“rephrase” one might think this is no big deal. But it is. By this rephrasing, Pizza makes a 

very powerful analytical apparatus available to us. 

Neoclassical theory is wrong, but this does not mean we cannot learn from it. Lots of 

extremely smart people are working in the field. Yes it is amazing that despite their IQ they 

don’t notice (or in any case do not admit to themselves) the obvious flaws of their approach. 

Just one question, Pizza: I don’t quite see which role your assumption of 

No differentiation of labor 

plays in this derivation. 


[161.1] Chocolate: Submis. of 1st. midterm According to Marx, workers who are 

slower and are not capable of keeping up to with the norms are not employed in capitalism. 

The value of a commodity does not increase if produced by a slow worker or inept worker, 

because that worker is not providing any useful or additional labor that might increase the


value of the commodity. In fact, Marx states that a worker who works half as much as 

another will only produce half as much value per hour. 

Our own society is what causes us to do things this way and also enforce it throughout the 

workforce. A worker who is slow will be forced out of a job because he/she will be unable 

to keep up with other employees who are faster. The capatilist will see that the slow and 

inept worker is only holding up progress for his company, therefore terminating that worker 

and hiring a faster worker is the only logical solution. Competition is the primary enforcer 

of it all. 

Hans: You see correctly that it is enforced by competition, but you think it is competition in the labor market, while 

it is really competition in the goods market. When the buyer buys the finished product, he has no idea whether it 

was made by a slow or an average worker, and he does not care; he pays the same price. Therefore the worker who 

puts in twice as much labor than the norm, will only get half the reward per hour. 

Next Message by Chocolate is [199]. 

[166.2] MUCHO: According to Marx, the value of a commodity relates directly to the 

amount of labor it takes to create the commodity. However, a low or inept worker does 

not make his or her commodity more valuable simply because it takes more of their labor 

time which will be an extra cost for the firm. Gap between cost and profit make the value 

of commodity. When the gap expands to certain commodity, the value of the commodity 

will rise. On the other hand, as the gap narrows down, the value of the commodity will 

decrease. The labor is the key to the value, and the amount of socially necessary abstract 

labor determines exchange value. 

Hans: During the exam, you literally copied a passage from [53], which is a different mechanism, not the one 

asked for in this Question. In your resubmission you take the very capitalist point of view to consider only the 

gap between cost and price to be value. I.e., the part of the product which the worker gets is not considered value. 

It is capitalist logic to consider the wage, the income of the worker, as cost, but in Marx’s eyes the wages are an 

equivalent of part of the value newly created by the worker. 

Next Message by MUCHO is [182]. 

[169.5] MsMarx: Skilled labor will always produce more value per hour than unskilled 

labor. If there are two individuals, one skilled and one unskilled, and they produce an identical 

product and it took them the same amount of labor and time to produce this product; then 

both of the products that were produced (one by an unskilled and one by a skilled worker) 

will have equal use and exchange value. 

An individual who is skilled in what he or she produces will always find a better way to 

increase his or her technology of producing his or her product. Because he or she is skilled, 

that individual will also find a way to produce more products per hour. Who would you 

trust to fix your transmission–a mechanic with 10 years experience or one with one 1 year 

experience? The logical answer in this point would be to pick the one who has 10 years under 

their belt. But assume that the individual who only has 1 year of experience graduated with 

very high credentials from their automechanic school Also assume his credentials were much 

higher than the mechanic with 10 years of experience. I would still choose the mechanic 

with 10 years experience, because throughout the years, this individual will have acquired 

the necessary knowledge. 

The mechanic who had only one year of experience, might have answered all of his 

test questions correctly, but how would he perform under such pressure of actually fixing a 


transmission under a certain amount of time. Better yet, how fast and accurate would he be 

able to fix the transmission if their company is booked and very busy on a certain day? 

The mechanic who has ten years under his belt, will know how to deal with those kinds of 

pressure situations mainly because he has been around longer and has acquired the necessary 

skill that will enable him to overcome those situations and produce more output than one who 

is unskilled. 

Thus, the economic mechanism which enforces that the labor of the slow worker produces 

less value than that of the fast worker is that both products are indistinguishable once they 

are on the market, and therefore the values of the products must be the same, regardless of 

the circumstances under which they are produced. 

One of the important mechanisms in capitalism today is how it happens that the workers 

have to do all the work and the capitalists get all the money. In today’s technology, a worker 

working with his own tools is hopelessly outdated. Today mass production is socially necessary. 

In a society of mass production, the workers should collectively have control over 

the factories which are so to say their tools. But in modern capitalism they do not. Control 

over the factories is monopolized by a small elite group in society, who, due to this control, 

can cream off most of the wealth produced in these factories. 

The labor time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the prevailing 

socially normal condition of production and with the socially average degree of skill and 

intensity. The image of the lay or unskilled laborer makes the concept of socially necessary 

labor time look more natural and innocuous than it really is. Everyone thinks automatically: 

if someone is lazy, he or she should not get full credit. But one need not be lazy or inept to 

be slower than others! Perhaps a producer is slower because he or she is producing a work 

of art, offer is making a unique contribution which nobody else can make. The concept of 

socially necessary labor time leaves no room for this; it forces everyone to hurry up, everyone 

has to meet some minimum standards, everyone has to be like the average, which means 

that exceptional contribution cannot be recognized. 

Socially necessary labor time is not identical to the labor time actually used. For example, 

the introduction of power looms into England probably reeduced by one half the labor 

required to weave a given amount of yarn into cloth. The English hand-loom weavers, as a 

matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but after the change, the production 

of one hour of their labor represented only half an hour’s social labor, and consequently 

fell to one-half its former value. Here Marx does not take the average of the old and new production 

method, but the new method is the one socially necessary! That which determines 

the magnitude of the value of any article is only the amount of socially necessary labor, or 

the labor time socially necessary for its production. The value of the necessities of life, when 

they are exchanged the one for another, is regulated by the quantity of labor necessarily required 

and commonly taken in producing them. Not the labor time actually contained in the 

commodity, but the socially necessary labor time under which it can be produced, counts. A 

result like this is to be expected since the individual commodity is generally to be considered 

as an average sample of its kind.


Even if the socially necessary labor time is not actually contained in a particular article 

under consideration, it usually is contained in the majority of other articles which have the 

same use value. As long as the use values are identical, the buyers do not distinguish between 

them. In other words, an exceptionally slow worker has to compete with identical articles 

made by average laborers, therefore he cannot fetch a better price than those. 

Hans: This is a very comprehensive contribution. Everything your wrote except the paragraph how it happens that 

the worker has to do all the work and the capitalist gets all the money is relevant for the Question asked. 

Next Message by MsMarx is [262]. 

[176.2] Karl: The value of a commodity is two-fold. A commodity is comprised of use 

value, and value. These two parts of the commodity are sub-divided into underlying components 

of “concrete labor(with use value)” and “abstract labor(with value).” Marx said, “ all 

human labor expenditures are equal.” Taking this into consideration we can see that Marx 

was not concerned with qualitative values of labor, ie:slow or inept labor, rather with quantitative 

values. Therefore a commodity does not increase in value based on the qualitative 

worker. Marx only goes as far as giving an average societal labor power in definition of 

qualitative efforts in labor. He called this subdivision “simple labor.” 

It makes no difference or change to the commodity, whether made by “skilled” or “unskilled” 

labor. This is re-enforced by the second part of the question. Hans stated, “sometimes 

simple labor is better than skilled.” 

Who makes the decision? In a pure capitalist system it seems to be extremely arbitrary, 

and this may be one reason why Marx wrote Capital. An example of this was made in one 

of the submissions. The example was given of an Aborigine being able to type as fast as 

one of our class mates. Taking in consideration outside cultural factors, really doesn’t make 

sense that one person or a societal aggregate can be the one who defines who is a “slow” or 

“inept” laborer. 

How is it enforced? Assuming the status quo of a capitalist system, this question is 

answered in the question 53 submission rebuttals, by Hans. It was stated, “that in a capitalist 

system this rule is not enforced.” So we can infer by this that no person or entity enforces 

this assuming a capital system. 

Hans: It is true that, according to Marx’s theory, the market considers all human labor expenditures to be equal, but 

only if these labors are performed with the socially average level of skill and technology. You are right, this means 

that labor only counts quantitatively, but my “only if” in the preceding sentence gives rise to the qualification: the 

quality only enters if the labor does not meet certain social minimum standards. 

The remainder of your submission suffers under several confusions: 

(1) you seem not to be clear about the difference between the two issues which Chocolate’s [160] also confused, 

and which I tried to explain in [165]. 

(2) you must have misunderstood my submissions. I never said that these minimum standards were not enforced. 

They are enforced by the fact that the buyer does not see whether the product was produced by an exceptionally 

slow or an average worker. 

(3) generally you also seem to be confused about the purpose of Marx’s work: he does not try to enunciate a 

set of principles which a market system should adhere to, but he is trying to explore those which it does adhere to. 

Look what I wrote about this in [66]. 

Next Message by Karl is [184]. 

[181.4] TOAD: Midterm 53 The value does not increase because product value is based 

on an average of time taken by such a large number of workers that one slow worker will not 

change the average. It is the decision of the society to do things this way. It is enforced by 


the market and the value of the product if a company can’t produce as many items per hour 

as another company producing the same thing they will fall out of the market. Labor time 

enforces itself if one person isn’t producing as well as those arround him then he will lose 

business because he won’t be selected in the future to produce. 

Hans: You are describing why a capitalist who needs more than the average labor time cannot survive, but your 

description is not very well written and also incomplete. He will fall out of the market because his costs will exceed 

his revenues. (And there is another gap: why does he not simply pay the slow worker a lower wage?). In the case of 

independent producers (which is the case we are dealing with right now, Marx does not yet speak of wage laborers 

in Chapter One), they have no wage costs, because they themselves produce; they do not fall out of the market, but 

they must make do with a lower revenue. 

Don’t say: 

It is the decision of the society to do things this way. 

It is built into the structure of society that things must be done this way, but it is nobody’s decision. 


[182.2] Caren: “The exchange-value of commodities is measured by the labor time 

needed to produce them.” The use-value of a commodity depends on the totality of its physical 

qualities, which determine its utility. The existence of this use-value is an indispensable 

condition for the appearance of an exchange-value; nobody will accept in exchange for his 

own product a commodity which has no utility, no use-value, for anyone. But the use-value 

of 2 commodities, expressed in their physical qualities, is incommensurable; one cannot 

measure with a common gauge the weight of corn, the length of cloth, the color of flowers. 

For reciprocal exchange between these products to be possible, a quality must be found 

which they all possess, which can be measured and expressed quantitatively, and which must 

be a social quality, acceptable to all members of society. The totality of the physical qualities 

of commodities which give them their use-value, is determined by the specific labor which 

has produced them. But if the commodities are each the products of specific kind of labor, 

they are also the products of social human labor, that is, of a part of the total labor time 

available to a particular society, and on the economy of which society is based. Now, we 

consider only “simple commodity production” which labor no longer results directly in satisfying 

the producer’s needs; labor and product of labor are no longer identical for him. But 

producer remains owner of the product of his labor; he gives it up only in order to acquire 

for himself the goods which will ensure his existence. The division of labor has already 

separated the producer from his product, but it does not yet oppress the former by means 

of the latter. Commodity production develops slowly within society, while production of 

use-values pure and simple is slowly shrinking. On the market where the products of labor 

of different regions meet, exchange-values establish themselves henceforth in accordance 

with social averages. It is not the number of hours actually spent on making an object that 

determine its value, but the number of hours of labor necessary to make it in the average 

conditions of productivity of this society in this period. Commodities would indeed become 

incommensurable if their value were determined by the actual time spent, by chance, by each 

individual producer on producing them. Since the value of commodities is established by the 

amount of labor socially necessary to produce them-that is, since this average becomes fixed 

by the experience of repeated acts of exchange,by the simultaneous appearance of products 

from several different producers competing with each other-producer who are clumsy, slow, 

or who employ out-of-date methods, are penalised. They receive in exchange for the labortime 

they have individually given to society only an equivalent produced in a shorter length


of time. Greater discipline and stricter labor accounting thus accompany the development 

of commodity production. With the development of simple commodity production, human 

labor begins to be differentiated according to quality. Composite, skilled labor separates off 

from simple labor. 

Hans: Your resubmission is excellent, and quite different than your in-class exam, which was excellent too. The 

only sentence which I do not like is the following: 

For reciprocal exchange between these products to be possible, a quality must be found which 

they all possess, which can be measured and expressed quantitatively, and which must be a 

social quality, acceptable to all members of society. 

This sounds as if valuation by labor time was somehow agreed on by all commodity producers, because it is fair 

and acceptable. In your in-class exam you stressed correctly that it was the blind competition on the market and 

mobility of labor which led to the measurement by labor time, not an agreement. 

I like the following, which is very close to how Marx himself argued: 

I also like this: 

Commodities would indeed become incommensurable if their value were determined by the 

actual time spent, by chance, by each individual producer on producing them. 

With the development of simple commodity production, human labor begins to be differentiated 

according to quality. Composite, skilled labor separates off from simple labor. 

Next Message by Caren is [271]. 

[182.5] Lamma: The question here is kind of tricky because Marx does not believe that 

in a capitalist economy there are any slow or inept workers that get hired because those type 

of people are not employed by the owners of capital. The owners of capital are trying to 

make as much money as possible and would not hire a worker that would effect thier profits. 

Therefore a value of a commodity would not be in this particular situation as outlined in the 

question. The decision to make things this way is decided by the owners of capital. They are 

the ones who control the means of earning a wage for the workers. They own the means and 

the mode of production at this point. If a guy were to try and go out on his own and compete 

with his employer, the chances are that he will not be able to compete at the same price with 

out running himself into banktruptcy. So it is the capitalist system itself that enforces this 

process, by having the owners of capital much more able to sell at low prices and still make 

a profit. The owners of capital keep the workers in thier factories and out of competition 

with themselves. 

Hans: I like your first observation: 

The question here is kind of tricky because Marx does not believe that in a capitalist economy 

there are any slow or inept workers that get hired because those type of people are not 

employed by the owners of capital. 

You could even have said it more bluntly: under capitalism this question does not make sense. But it does make 

sense under simple commodity production, this is a point which your answer overlooks. 

Another point: You say the decision is made by the capitalists. I disagree. The capitalists are faced with the 

following economic realities: (1) the product of the slow laborer fetches the same price on the market as the product 

of an anverage laborer, and (2) he cannot just pay the slow laborer half the wage, and (3) modern mass production 

techniques, in which the machine controls the laborer, simply cannot accommodate the exceptionally slow laborer. 

This is why the capitalist has to fire the slow laborer. 

Next Message by Lamma is [185]. 

[182.1] Jupiter: slow laborer The slower a laborer is in producing a commodity does 

not increase the price or the value of a commodity. When a laborer is slow or lazy his 

or her work is only a by product of time, and the time lost in producing this product is a 


quantitative factor. This means that the slower laborer will only produce a fraction of what 

a normal laborer could produce. In other words, the slower or more inept a laborer does not 

mean that they will get a higher price for their commodity or product. It is the difference in 

use-value that brings about a differentiation in the price, if two identical products are out in 

the market place the person who is purchasing that product will pay for that which is going 

to cost the least amount, which in turn leaves no room for the slower laborer to go out and 

ask for a higher price. 

The second part of this question is not as obvious a the first, however I feel that I have 

found one strong economic principal that will prove my answer. I would have to say that 

the responsibility would fall on the person who is performing the labor thus the laborer. The 

laborer has the ability to dictate at what speed he or she is willing to work. It has been said 

that that is not true in a capitalistic society, rather that the slow worker has to speed up and 

be compeditive in their labor, or they will not be used and end up without a job. To this I do 

agree but to take a different angle of approach I would say that it is the individual laborer and 

their choice of allocating their time. It is the simple theory of “opprotunity costs”, a laborer 

is going to choose whether or not the time that is spent on laboring is profitable or not. This 

is what I see as the problem, if a person is willing to labor hard but get minimal rewards 

for their efforts they will do something else that will give them greater returns, whether it br 

monetary, spiritual or physical. 

The way this is enforced is through an individuals own perspectives of what is important 

and what is not. 

Hans: By “how is it decided” I meant “how is it decided that a slower worker produces proportionately less 

value”, but you answered the Question: “how is it decided how fast the worker is producing.” This second Question 

is interesting because in simple commodity production or for self-employed individuals, this decision is up to the 

individual, as you say. But in full-blown capitalism, a worker who is too slow will disrupt the production process 

and therefore will be fired, i.e., in this situation the worker has no choice regarding the speed of his or her work. 

Next Message by Jupiter is [182.3]. 

[187.4] Skyler: Fwd: Your Submission Returned “Marx claims that a worker who 

works at half the pace of the average will produce half as much value per hour.” The value of 

a commodity does not increase if made by a slow worker because the value of the commodity 

is the same regardless ofthe necessary labor time used in producing it. Capitalism weeds out 

the slow or inept worker inorder to control costs and increase the amount of production per 

hour. The socialist society tries to individualize people into those areas of work that they are 

good at. Socially necessary labor time is an example of the manufacturing (industrialized) 

society. For example; line-workers produce the same products at variable speeds, although 

the value of the commodity is the same regardless of the labor time it took to produce the 

commodity. The actual socially necessary labor time is not found in a particular product, 

but in the mass of products as a whole. If a group of line-workers are producing bottles of 

beer at different speeds the socially necessary labor time cannot be seen until the mass or the 

amount of say 200 beer’s is produced at a quota of 205 bottles of beer per hour. Showing that 

the average time to produce 205 beer’s is 1 hour, but the group of worker’s only produced 

200 beer’s in 1 hour. THe slow worker or the fast worker cannot be seen although the quota 

shows a problem in labor time. It is enforced by corporate and business America in trying 

to control costs and increase profits. Done through the increase of machinery (technology).


Hans: Your first two sentences claim Marx as an authority. This is not sufficient; I wanted you to reproduce the 

arguments which lead Marx to his conclusion. These may be very simple arguments, but I want you to be aware of 

them. Your obsrvations that one may know that there is a problem without necessariuly knowing what the problem 

is is a good one; this comes from the fact that enforcement is done by the market. 

Next Message by Skyler is [188.1]. 

[193.1] Angela: From the Marx’s point of view, the value of a commodity relates directly 

to the amount of labor it takes to create the commodity. But the value of a commodity does 

not increase if it is made by a slow or inept labors. Because a slow or inept labors spend 

more the labor time to produce the commodity and this labor time excesses the labor time 

socially necessary on the average. So that the value of a commodity does not increase if it is 

made bu a slow or inept labor. 

Marx is referring to market mechanism which decides the necessary on the average of 

labor time. I think the necessary on the average of labor time is determined by the average 

labor power which is made by the speed of the output. So if a slow or inept labor spend more 

labor time to produce the commodity and it will not increase the value of commodity. 

Hans: You were unable to identify the market mechanism which enforces this rule regarding the value produced 

by a slow laborer. 

Next Message by Angela is [194.2]. 

[194.4] Panacea: The value of the commodity is not determined by the amount of labour 

necessary for the slow/inept worker to produce it, but rather the “social labour” required. 

“Social labour” is a function of the average rather than the best or the worst labourer. For this 

reason, perhaps an example of Marxist ‘goals’ would be to ‘raise the average’ by increasing 

skills for everyone rather than educating a couple of perfectionist craftsmen. 

Often if an item is built by inferior skills it is unfit for use, and therefore its value drops. 

Conversely, the extra labour time it took a slow worker to produce a commodity is not added 

into the value, for the value remains a function of the average 

Whose decision is this? My opinion is that it is a social decision. I won’t pay full price 

for lousy workmanship, and I think most people would agree. In addition, I won’t pay more 

for an item simply because the producer was slow and inefficient. I will pay the average 

of the cost of production. Consumers in the economy enforce this through the allocation of 

their buying power in this way. Panacea. 

Hans: Since value is determined by “average” labor, you conclude that 

perhaps an example of Marxist ‘goals’ would be to ‘raise the average’ by increasing skills for 

everyone rather than educating a couple of perfectionist craftsmen. 

I tried to argue in the Annotations that the conformity implied in this rule of the “averages” is very restrictive. In 

my view, socialists have to get away from the necessity to do one’s work like everybody else. Will that open the 

doors to perfectionism? Perfectionists suffer under psychic injuries. I hope and assume that socialism will be a 

social environment which makes such injuries less likely, and which offers more opportunities for people to heal 

themselves again. Socialist policies should not be influenced by the few perfectonists that remain. 

Regarding the question: Whose decision is this?, you overlook that the social decision you are talking about 

is helped along by the fact that the buyer usually does not even know under which conditions his commodity was 

produced. I would argue that this decision is pre-empted by the social structure. 

Next Message by Panacea is [196]. 

[197.3] Kia: According to Marx value of one’s commodity should be judged on how it 

was produced. If one produce a commodity that is developed effectively by using his or her 

skills and time fully it should be valued. Compare to the product that is produced spending 


great amount of uneffective time. Like worker who are slower than the normal standard time 

that is required. This workers product is valued less than compare to ones that are producing 

in norm times. Worker who produe in half the pace of regular time than Marx said this 

worker is not employed in capitalism. On top of it slower workers cause the factory to ship 

the product slow or needs more wage put into the prodcut. Therefore, costs could be added 

to consumers creating higer price that could of been voided. 

Next Message by Kia is [197.6]. 

[197.7] Jake: If two commodities are identical in all ways, they will contain the same 

value as market sees it. One of these commodities could have been produced by an individual 

that produces less than the levels of normal productivity of the society. As a price taker in 

the market, the slow individual must take the price the market has to offer. Capitalism 

controls mechanisms in the market. A slow worker working with his own tools is hopelessly 

outdated in a market today based on mass production. For the slow worker to blend into 

todays production ways, it would mean that instead of using his old tools, he would be using 

large machines that are more efficient and productive. For the situation to be un-capitalistic, 

the worker would have to have a collective control over the factories or their so called tools. 

Marx also treats labor as abstract labor, and this equality is socially recognized in the equality 

of market prices. 

Next Message by Jake is [201]. 

[200.2] KALISPEL: The value of a commodity does not increase because of a slow 

or inept laborer because the labor time required to produce the commodity is taken under 

socially normal conditions of productions. This means that the slower or more inept workers 

do not produce a commodity with higher value because we are considering identical human 

labor power, we look at “the labor time which is necessary on average” no individual labor 

times. In a capitalistic society, the decision to do things this way is made collectively be all 

commodity producing laborer. 

In capitalism this decision is made by the capitalist; the owner of the means of production. 

The mechanism that is used to keep workers from being slow and inept is unemployment. 

Government policy is made to keep x amount of workers unemployed. This is because 

politicians of both parties believe full employment will lead to inflation. This, however, does 

not need to be the case. Under full employment a worker can reduce his/her exploitation. 

The happened in the UK from about 1950 to about 1970. It was these years that the rate 

of exploitation halved and profits of capitalists halved from 23.4% to 12.1%. It can be 

concluded that capitalists have created unemployment to keep profits high. 

Hans: You are right, unemployment is an important mechanism, and government cannot eliminate it because 

capitalism would unravel because of it. But a slow worker will produce proportionally less value even in simple 

commodity production without capitalists and workers, but where everybody produces with his own tools. 

Next Message by KALISPEL is [203.1]. 

[200.4] Emma: Some musings, for what they’re worth. At the root of Marx’s criticism 

of capitalism and his theory on the value of labor seems to be the belief that all abstract 

labor is equal as expenditures of human energy. It apparently makes no difference whether 

the energy is expended in splitting the atom, composing a beautiful sonata, or contemlating 

just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Marx faults capitalism for attaching 

different exchange value to different expenditures of human energy and, asthe study guide 

says, such a system discourages the production of artists and thinkers. Marx also doesn’t


like the idea that only socially necessary time, and average time at that, is what counts in 

the labor process and which attach to exchange value. On a theoretical level I might agree 

with Marx to some extent. But unfortunately we can’t really afford ourselves his luxury and 

survive at the level of consumption we enjoy. This in no way, however, prohibits the creation 

of Mozarts and Michaelangelos. But it does limit their usefulness, if not their number, given 

the concept in capitalism of “socially necessary labor time.” Fortunately we have the option 

to pursue avocations in addition to vocations. What I do by vocation is, I believe, important 

work that also allows me and my family to survive and even thrive. But my avocation is 

much different and while highly valued by me is not highly valued by society as socially 

necessary. But that doesn’t stop me from pursuing it. I just can’t expect society to value my 

avocation, as I believe Marx is saying, although not in the same words. And their is also the 

chance that at some point my avocation will overtake my vocation and be deemed socially 

necessary through acquiring exchange value and I can have the best of all worlds. 

The real criticism of capitalism is not that labor is viewed prejudicially but that it contains 

no provisions for the “slow and inept” workers that will naturally exist. Strict capitalism is 

not compassionate and does not make allowances for such laborers. But within capitalistic 

societies the notion of a social net to catch such individuals has evolved. The problem is 

occurs when the net becomes a hammock and ends up encouraging the behavior. 

Hans: You have a tough philosophy: everybody must first toil on some money making job before they are allowed 

to think about what contribution they can make to society, and compassion should be used sparingly because it 

encourages weakness. 

By the way, what you wrote in class was not bad, and it seem also from your “musings” that you understand the 

material. 

Next Message by Emma is [217]. 

[200.1] Kia: Inept workers or slow wokers costs more for the factory or even to those 

who consumes this workers product or service. If you look at businesses they main goal 

is to maximize their profit. By attaining higest possible prices at cheapest costs. To do 

so, business needs workers who can provide cheapest labor at fastest rate of producing the 

goods. Doing so, it will produce the goods that is valued at higest point it could possibly get. 

So, society has come to know, if you work effectively by putting you greatest efforts you 

will receive your compensation on your effort. This is something we learn as child at home 

where parents and role models teaches us that what ever you do give your fullest effort. 


[201.1] Gottlieb: The value of labor Marx makes the argument that the value of a 

commodity relates directly to the amount of labor it takes to create the commodity. He makes 

a point to show, however, that a lazy or inept worker does not make his or her commodity 

more valuable simply because it takes more of their labor time. Marx says that the worker 

must be held to a standard, a minimum standard, which is the average of the society. This 

would cause those below average to “hurry up” to meet the minimum requirements. He does 

not follow the thought further as he should. If those below the average are constantly forcing 

themselves to work faster, then the average would continuously rise, raising the minimum 

standards for production and raising the output for all of the workers because they all want 

to “meet the minimum requirements.” The only other option in keeping with this “average 

labor time” rule is that instead of the slower workers having to “hurry up,” the faster workers 

must slow down lowering the minimum standard. 


It is the society as a whole who decides how much value a commodity holds due to the 

amount of time it allocates to produce the commodity. Marx should have pointed out in 

more detail the “theoretical” problem of capitalistic societies of mismatching labor to different 

types of production. He says that in a capitalistic society, “Wasted labor will then be a 

labor in which the producer is not matched to the production in order to make his or her best 

contribution.” The CEO will produce no more valuable commodities than the car salesman 

in a perfect society if they are 1) Producing commodities with the same labor time, and 2) 

are both matched with the production of a commodity in which they make their best contribution. 

I am confused however which society decides the value of the commodity. Would 

this be on a local, national, or world level. Surely I cannot type as fast as most secretaries, 

but I can type faster than most aboriginies. Who constitues the average? Adherance to this 

rule is not enforced in a capitalistic society. 

Hans: You resubmitted exactly your [32] again. I was hoping you would learn from my comments and the general 

discussion of this Question. 

Next Message by Gottlieb is [202]. 

[206.5] Rambis: The question rightly states that “the value of a commodity does not increase 

if it is made by a slow or inept worker.” Marx says on page 129 (Study Guide) that 

“..that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is only the amount of 

socially necessary labor, or the labor time socially necessary for its production.” Dr. Hans 

Ehrbar followed this up by saying on page 28 (Answers) that “the labor time actually contained 

in the...(production of the commodity), counts.” ‘Pizza’ rather succinctly encapsuled 

the main point of why this is when he said (on page 18 [96] of the Answers),“There is 

no distinguishable difference between one good and another produced by the abstract labor.” 

Because the final goods are identical, the value is fixed regardless of the time spent 

to produce them. Slower workers would turn out less final products and be forced out by 

competition. To quote Pizza again,“This is one of the conditions resulting from the uniform 

production of goods that asserts itself in the marketplace. The marketplace therefore dictates 

the exchange relation commodities and thus enforces the abstraction of labor.” 

Hans: Good answer. I have only been puzzling over your quote of me saying that 

“the labor time actually contained in the...(production of the commodity), counts.” 

I did not find this quote, and I suspect it is a misunderstanding. It would also directly contradict the Marx quote 

about which you said mine was a follow-up. 

Next Message by Rambis is [206.7]. 

[210.1] Femme: The value of a commodity does not increase because of a slow laborer 

because the labor time required to produce the commodity is taken under socially normal 

conditions of productions. What this equates to is the slower worker does not produce commidity 

with higher value because we are considering identical human labor power, not individual 

labor time. In a capatilistic society the decision is to do things this way is made 

collectively by all commodity producing laborers. It is enforced by social normes that ostracizes 

the weak and slow by not employing them. Or it may be enforced because we only 

look at production under socially normal conditions, or the most optimal production enviornment, 

and one could assume an average outcome of labor production force. According 

to Marx the market enforces the value of the commodity. Because a commodity’s value is 

already predetermined, it is what one receives in exchange in the market place. 

Hans: Instead of saying that the decision is made by the whole society, I would rather say that it is not really a 

decision, it is built into the way production is organized in a commodity economy.


Next Message by Femme is [212]. 

[212.1] Positive: The value of a commodity does notincrease because of a slow or inept 

laborer because the labor-time required to produce the commodity is taken under socially 

normal conditions of production. This means, that the slower or more inept worker does not 

produce commodity with higher value because we are considering identical human laborpower, 

we look at “the labor time which is necessary on an average”, not individual labortimes. 

In a capetalistic society the decision to do things this way is made collectively by 

all commodity producing laborers. It is enforced by social mores and norms that serve to 

ostacize the slow and inept by not employing them. Also in order to produce any use-value 

commodity , the socially necessary labor-time is required. Therefore, no matter the worker 

is fast or slow, skillful or inept, there is still a requirement of average labor-time, certain 

level of skill or ability, and intensive labor for every individual. In order for the society to 

get the most in retun from the commodities produced, all laborers shall work towards their 

individal capability. 

Hans: You literally copied Chacci’s [29] without noticing that I voiced some disagreements in [30]. 

Next Message by Positive is [275]. 

[214.3] Chacci: The value of a commodity does not increase because of a slow or inept 

laborer because the labor time required to produce the commodity is taken under socially 

normal conditions of productions. This means that the slower or more inept worker does 

not produce commodity with higher value because we are considering identical human labor 

power, we look at “the labor time which is necessary on an average”, not individual labor 

times. The decision to do things this way is done by the market in which the commodity 

producers exchanges his or her goods. If the commodity producer does not produce at what 

is ‘socially necessary’ he or she will produce a commodity that is of too high of a ‘price’ for 

the producer to survive. This is how it is enforced. 

Hans: You write: 

If the commodity producer does not produce at what is ‘socially necessary’ he or she will 

produce a commodity that is of too high of a ‘price’ for the producer to survive. This is how it 

is enforced. 

It goes a little differently: if he is too slow, he will not be able to fetch a high enough price for his things, and 

therefore he will not be able to survive (maybe it would be better to say: live at the customary standard of living for 

his class). 

You also wrote some additional things in your in-class submission which were not completely wrong. Instead 

of dropping them out I would have liked it if you had integrated them into your resubmission in the right way. 

Next Message by Chacci is [214.4]. 

[214.2] Kalle: Since Marx chose to use amount of labor as one measure for the value 

of a commodity, one can easily be fooled to believe that a commodity produced by a slow 

worker is more valuable then one produced by a fast one. However, Marx uses the term 

,socially necessary, which refers to the average necessary time for producing a commodity. 

By necessary one the average, Marx means amount of time necessary given the prevailing 

conditions in the society regarding both labor and technology. As new technology and production 

methods are introduced, which speed up the production process, the new method is 

the socially necessary. Marx does not consider the average of the old and the new method as 

the time socially necessary. At the same time the value of what is produced also decreases 

since less labor time is represented in the finished commodity. If you do not adjust to the 


“new standard” in the market, and continue to produce with the old method you will use 

more labor time than socially necessary on the average, and thus produce less value. 

Hans: It is implicit in your answer, especially in the last sentence, that this is enforced by the market. The important 

point is that buyers cannot distinguish between the commodity made by a slow worker or under outdated conditions 

and the other commodity. I would have liked you to say this a little more explicitly. You also did not say anything 

about whose decision it is to do things this way. This depressed your grade for an otherwise excellent answer 

(which is exactly the answer you wrote in class). 

Next Message by Kalle is [219]. 

[221.1] Homer: The value of a commodity is based on the social average of the labor time 

needed to produce it. Therefore, a slower worker who takes more time will not increase the 

value of a commodity. For the same reason, a faster than average worker will not reduce the 

value of the commodity. 

This has been decided and enforced by the market. It is immpossible for someone to 

know how much labor time went in to the production of a specific article. But they do 

know exactly how much time they spent producing the item they are offering for exchange. 

Therefore they must base their decision of whether or not the exchange is fair on the average 

amount of time to produce the commodity. 


It is impossible for someone to know how much labor time went into the production of a 

specific article. But they do know exactly how much time they spent producing the item 

they are offering for exchange. Therefore they must base their decision of whether or not the 

exchange is fair on the average amount of time to produce the commodity. 

This is not quite the mechanism. When you are considering an exchange, you are not necessarily comparing labor 

times. You are considering whether the use value you are getting is worth the labor time put into the thing you are 

giving in exchange. Marx writes that the use value of the coat (not the value of the coat or the labor time in the 

coat) is the representation of the value of the linen. No you probably wonder how does proportionality with labor 

time come in? Not through the demand side but through the supply side. If something has a use value which is so 

desired that the price on the market is relatively high compared to the labor time in it, then more people will start 

producing it. 

What you wrote in class was not entirely wrong either, and I would have liked you to integrate the two. 

Next Message by Homer is [221.2]. 

[314.3] Peaches: The value of a commodity does not increase if that commodity was made 

by a slow or inept laborer simply because we are not measuring the laborer and his time, 

but that socially necessary labor that was put into the commodity. Because the commodity 

has a uniform exchange value to other commodities, the exchange value which is a “byproduct” 

of value remains constant regardless of the individual contribution. There is only 

a difference of qualities between the commodities, not between the laborers/workers. The 

standard average requirement to produce a commodity enforces the need to only market 

the “end product” of a commodity. Value is defined as that property of things which gives 

them weight on the market. If a thing has high value, then it can be exchanged for large 

quantities of other things. Therefore, the exchange of goods for each other is determined 

fundamentally by the amount of labor embodied in it. Besides, in Marx’s point of view on 

Capitalism, slow workers are not employed in Capitalism. 

Hans: You mean the right thing but you are not saying it very clearly. “By-product” is perhaps too loose a connection 

between value and exchange value (the exchange value is the expression of value), but I appreciate your using 

this original term, because this shows that you are thinking these things through instead of repeating buzzwords 

back to me. Your grade suffered because your resubmission, which is identical to your in-class exam, was late.


Next Message by Peaches is [314.4]. 

[315.1] Fox: The value of a commodity does not increase if it made by a slow or inept 

laborer because the lobor time required to produce the commodity is taken under socially 

normal conditions of productions. This means that the slower or more inept worker does not 

produce a commodity with higher value because we are considering identical human labor 

power, we look at the labor time on average not the individual labor times. In a capitalistic 

society, the decision to do things this way is make colletively by all commodity producing 

laborers. 

The mode of productin the laborer uses is owned by the capitalist. If the worker owns his 

own capital and is not forced by the owner, then Marx claims a worker who works at half 

the pace of the average will produce half as much value per hour, thus the individual labor 

is an average of the commodity. 

Hans: You are giving a careful restatement of the rules which Marx derives, without giving a good explanation 

where they come from. This is what I meant with “why not”. Your sentence that this is a collective decision of 

all commodity producing laborers is plain wrong. Apparently you were not aware of your errors because your 

resubmission is literally what you wrote in the exam. Although your resubmission was late, I did not duck your 

grade because of that because you got your email account extremely late. 

Next Message by Fox is [315.2]. 

[318.3] Brumbys: We will stick to a “simple commodity produciton”, in which each 

worker owns his own means of production and is not hired by a capitalist. In this situation, 

Marx claims that a wroker who works at half the pace of the average will produce half as 

much value per hour. It is more repressive and less innocuous rule than it may first seem. 

Hans: Your answer was taken literally from my [30]. Apparently you did not notice that I did not answer the 

Question in [30], but I merely restated the Question. Then I said that one common explanation is incorrect and 

asked the class to come up with a different explanation. Your resubmission was also late. 

Next Message by Brumbys is [388]. 

[321.1] Pizza: The value of a commodity does not increase when created by an unskilled 

laborer due to the fact that the process of production eliminates any distinction between 

skilled and unskilled labor. A perfect information market would disallow any distinction 

between commodities produced by skilled and unskilled labor and thus unskilled labor value 

would not manifest itself in the marketplace. The decision to do things this way is not a 

conscious one instead it is the manifestation of the perfect information marketplace which 

enforces the continual process of abstracting labor. 

Hans: Your in-class exam was very similar to your [96]. In the resubmission you tried to distill it down to the 

general principles, and here I disagree with the sentence: 

the process of production eliminates any distinction between skilled and unskilled labor. 

This is a mis-characterization of [96] and it is also not in keeping with Marx’s thinking. The abstraction of labor 

is not caused by the production process. It happens because producers relate to each other through the (too) 

narrow channel of market interactions. (This is by the way what you are saying in your last sentence.) It may 

seem as if productivity increases require the standardization and abstraction of labor, but Marx claims that under 

a social arrangement where the workers are the masters of the production process this will not be the case. Your 

resubmission was also late. 

Next Message by Pizza is [335.16]. 

[335.9] CaseWorker: CaseWorker did not resubmit his exam. His in-class exam were 

two literal excerpts from [53], although Hans had responded in [64] that this was not an 

answer to the Question that was asked, but was nevertheless an example indicating what an 

economic mechanism is. 


Next Message by CaseWorker is [335.13]. 

[335.8] Chuck: Chuck did not resubmit his exam. He said that a coat has the same value 

no matter who produces it, and then he says it is decided by the sellers how much to charge 

for the coat. But the fact that the same coat has the same price is really enforced by the 

buyers, who will not buy a more expensive coat if the same coat is also offered at a cheaper 

price. I would say it is nobody’s decision, it comes from the structure of a market economy. 

Next Message by Chuck is [335.11]. 

[545.2] Skippy: This question is not placing individuals value, but the value of the commodity. 

This value is based on the average. An individual may take 1 hour to produce a 

good, while it only takes another 2 hrs. This good, on the average of these two has the 

average of 1.5 hrs. of labor time. Since it takes some individuals more time or less time to 

produce identical commodities, the value of the commodity is averaged, not based on the 

one who produced it. 

Hans: You restate that the value is averaged, and you speak of “identical” commodites, but you do not make the 

conclusion that the market enforces it that identical commodities must have identical prices. 

Next Message by Skippy is [546]. 

Exam Question 54 is 52 in 1996ut and 69 in 1999SP: 

Exam Question 54 Why must every individual commodity be considered as an average 

sample of its kind? 

[48] Snowman: Average value of a commodity The value of any product according to 

Marx “is determined by the quantity of labor used to produce it.” The reason that he uses 

this determinant for deriving the value of products is it is the only factor of production that 

is inherent in all commodities, and therefor by measuring the quantity of that factor in any 

one commodity we can compare its value to any other commodity. The relative value then is 

the quantity of labor used to produce a product. The value of a given product is not any one 

individuals labor but instead the labor hour is determined as a whole based on the average 

labor hour for the entire society. The labor hour is then merely the average time it takes to 

produce a commodity in a society. 

Because a commodity’s value is determined by the average amount of labor hours that is 

required in its production, and labor hours are an average of society, it is required to consider 

any one commodity as generic, or representative of all the commodities of its kind. That is to 

determine the value based on the average labor in production we must assume that which is 

being produced is representative of a group of products identical to one another. For example 

to know the value of a hammer one must assume that we are comparing an average hammer 

and its value to some other product and its value. This is a requirement that ensures apples 

are compared with apples and not oranges, as with the hammer its value would reflect the 

amount of labour used to produce it and all the hammers that are identical to it, but would 

not require that it represent the features of a hammer with different features, though it may 

accidently. So when given the value of hammer “A” that all hammers identical to “A” would 

have the same value and use value based on the average of the labor hours used to produce 

all “A” like hammers, and as such any on of the “A” like hammers is an “average sample of 

its kind.”


Hans: Although this was labeled a Review Question, it was not an easy Question. Market relations seem so simple, 

but there is a lot implied in them. It is difficult to distil the abstract principle out of this, but you did a commendable 

job working yourself towards this. 

Message [48] referenced by [85] and [327]. Next Message by Snowman is [138]. 

[85] Hans: The commodity as Mr. Average Snowman’s [48] starts with a misunderstanding 

which I want to clear up right away. It is not true that labor is the source of value 

because labor 

is the only factor of production that is inherent in all commodities 

One can find many other things like this, for instance electricity is used for almost every 

production process, and if you look at direct and indirect inputs, there are many so-called 

“basic” goods which enter every product directly or indirectly. It is a social question, not a 

technological question, that labor is singled out by this society among all other inputs. 

But now let us go to Question 54. Snowman explains correctly what it means to be 

considered an average sample of its kind; not only the labor content, but also the use value 

is considered average (and if it is not, you can return the good to the store). Now why is 

this so? Market relations are not established between idiosyncratic individual commodities, 

but between standardized commodity types. The commodities copy each other: if a certain 

commodity fetches a good price on the market, other commodity just like it come after it 

and want the same good price. There is no room for individuality in these abstract market 

relations. All labors are equalized not only with respect to intensity but also quality of 

output, etc. 


[91] Slacker: The commodity must be considered to be an average sample of its kind if 

it is to reflect the socially neccessary labor time that it embodies. It is also average in that 

the consumer cares not whether the commodity was produced by the most expediant worker, 

giving the lowest cost, or the slowest worker, giving the highest cost. The consumer pays the 

average of these two. In other words the consumer pays according to the socially necessary 

labor time required to produce the commodity. If the commodity was not sold according to 

snalt (socially necessary abstract labor time) then indeed the lazy and slow worker would 

recieve a higher price for the commodity that s/he produces. 

Message [91] referenced by [103] and [327]. Next Message by Slacker is [122]. 

[103] Hans: Commodities must represent what they are I like Slacker’s answer [91] to 

Question 54. Slacker’s first sentence is: 

The commodity must be considered to be an average sample of its kind if it 

is to reflect the socially neccessary labor time that it embodies. 

Here is my take, how I would write this sentence and how I would interpret it. This may 

not be the same as Slacker had in mind, but it was certainly inspired by Slacker’s response. 

Each of us gets a glimpse of a different aspect of it, and then when we compare notes, we 

may be able to put things together in a coherent way. 

Socially neccessary labor time is only the quantitative aspect of it, I would write “abstract 

labor” in order to get away from the emphasis on quantity. In Contribution, Marx wrote 

“abstract general labor”. I don’t know why the “general” was de-emphasized in Capital, to 


me this seems relevant. (“General” means: the question of who is working is disregarded, 

extinguished.) Anyway, throw in the “general” too. 

Now we can use an argument given at the beginning of Section 3 of Chapter One: a 

commodity is something twofold, the product of concrete useful labor and the product of 

general abstract labor, and it must reflect what it is. Its being an average sample of its kind 

is the reflection of the general nature of the abstract labor in it. 

This may seem a very abstract argument why a commodity must always be considered an 

average sample of its kind, but I think it is the right way to go. I hope that things will become 

clearer as we discuss Section 3 of Chapter One, which is central to Marx’s argument, but 

which is generally not very well understood. 

After his first sentence, Slacker switches to a different argumentation: 

It is also average in that the consumer cares not whether the commodity 

was produced by the most expediant worker, giving the lowest cost, or the 

slowest worker, giving the highest cost. The consumer pays the average 

of these two. In other words the consumer pays according to the socially 

necessary labor time required to produce the commodity. 

Marx would call this kind of argumentation an argument located in the “sphere of competition”. 

It takes appearances as given without identifying the forces that create this appearance. 

Marx says that by their competition on the market, the agents force each other 

to conform with the laws of capitalism, but one cannot infer these laws themselves from 

competition. 

In the last sentence, Slacker switches back to a derivation of the appearances from the 

essence (here the “essence” being that the quantity of value is determined by “snalt”): 

If the commodity was not sold according to snalt (socially necessary abstract 

labor time) then indeed the lazy and slow worker would recieve a 

higher price for the commodity that s/he produces. 

My argumentation probably seems fuzzy to you, and at this point I am aware that it 

is fuzzy. But I am convinced that this is the direction to go in, and once we understand 

Marx better, we will be able to argue all this in a much more rigorous way. In my view, 

Marx has never been fully understood; the development of Marxism as a science is just now 

approaching the point where we may get ready to scale the same heights again which Marx 

had occupied in his lone mountain scale over a century ago. (And one of the “underlaborers” 

helping us to get there is Bhaskar). 


[327] Hans: What to do with my responses I am sending you my comments to Snowman’s 

resubmission of his midterm answer [313-1] to Question 278 (which is similar to 54, 

and for the present purposes we can ignore the differences). Snowman’s resubmission was 

never sent to the list, but I hope my response is understandable on its own, and that you 

learn a little bit more from it about the structure of capitalism, and also about what you are 

expected to do with my responses, and how to best prepare for the second quiz.


Snowman, you copied your own answer [48] to Question 54, but you either misunderstood 

or ignored my response [85] to you, and you ignored the further discussion of this 

Question in [91] and [103]. 

Let us see what you made of my response to your [48]. Your first paragraph says that 

value is determined by labor because labor is the only input which enters all commodities. 

My response was that there are many other inputs which enter directly or indirectly all 

commodities, and that the determination of value is a social and not a technological affair. 

My reasoning here was very similar to the reasoning often applied by Marx: it depends on 

the society, on the structure of the social relations of production, whether things have values 

or not. In some societies things are not exchangeable etc., although these societies still have 

a technology. Therefore it is wrong to try to derive value from technological principles. 

You apparently thought that I meant: since there are more than one input to production 

entering every product, it is a matter of social convention to pick labor and no other input. 

In the in-class quiz you wrote: 

Though Labor is not perhaps the only constant variable in the production 

of commodities it is the best suited to be used as a constant variable, 

and in your resubmission you deepen the argument by saying: 

it is the best suited to relate values, because of its relation to the society as 

a whole, most other inputs merely serve to increase or decrease the productivity 

of this one variable. 

This reasoning is still too much based on technological arguments, and on the implicit 

assumption that it is somehow agreed on by society to value commodities by labor content. 

In Marx’s view, capitalist society simply does this, and the market is the mechanism which 

forces the participants in the economy to abide by it, but it is not the result of an agreement 

(just as it is not the result of a decision of the frog to be green and have four legs). 

Regarding your second paragraph, I had written in [85]: “Snowman explains correctly 

what it means to be considered an average sample of its kind”, and then I asked: “Now why 

is this so?” Perhaps I was too polite; I should have reminded the reader more clearly that 

Question 54 had asked “why”, and that Snowman’s [48] did not give a reason “why”. In the 

homework submissions I am often satisfied with partial answers working themselves in the 

right direction, but in the quiz I want complete answers, i.e., you should be able to recognize 

whether the homework answers which you are citing are complete or not, and to fill in the 

missing parts. 


Question 56 is 45 in 1995WI, 54 in 1995ut, 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, 112 

in 2010fa, and 131 in 2012fa: 

Question 56 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? 


[43] Karl: Value of scarce and raw materials The value of raw materials must be determined 

differently than a commodity by Marx. Marx said, “that as values all commodities 

are only greater or smaller amounts of congealed labor.” In other words a commodity’s value 

in direct correlation with labor, in fact it is the “labor power” embodied in the commodity 

that solely value, as in the societal aggregate of labor, or speaking about an individually 

produced commodity. 

Speaking rationally then, how can Marx say there is a value, use or otherwise intrinsically 

attached to a “raw material?” For instance in the reading the example given was that of a 

diamond. Now a diamond in it’s natural, or raw state beneath the earth required no labor of 

any individual or societal aggregate. Therefore Marx would consider its value to be nil, as 

there is no appendage of labor to it. This seems to be one of Marxs’ underlying, planned, 

contradictory thoughts, that was mentioned by Hans. Because while it is a raw material the 

diamond sould be thought of as a commodity in embryo. In class it was mentioned that a 

commodity held value regardless of exchange. The diamond as a raw material also holds no 

exchange, and therefore can only have value once it is required to be developed by a laborer 

or in other words, unearthed, cut, and polished. 

Addressing the question pertaining to scarcity having an influence on value, Marx appears 

to be straight forward with this. Marx seems to give a straight answer, without any 

underlying abstract meanings. Marx stated, “all human labors are equal in so far as they are 

equal expinditures of human labor power.” And that a commodity “represents” labor, and 

thus labor is it’s value. Therefore if one variable changes in a commodity, but the labor remains 

constant to produce it, there needs to be addtional elements which caused the change 

in exchange value. In this particular case that additional element is scarcity. Marx believed 

that exchange value is dependent on other variable factors such as abundance, where, and 

when a product is exchanged etc.. 

The third question requires more subjective insight on how I think Marxs’ arguements 

would hold in terms of an exhaustible resource. This requires me to be somewhat revisionistic 

in my response. Marxs’ arguement still holds validity in the use of an exhaustible 

resource, with the exception of variance in the resource itself. For instance if I was in the 

desert, with a supply of water to exchange, that product is exhaustible. Once used, that 

particular material is relativley exhausted. But to the purchaser of the resource it makes 

no difference if it is exhaustible, only that it is scarce or limited to a finite supply as addressed 

earlier. If anything it would increase the exchange value of the water, and finitness 

no exhaustibility would be included as the variable element reliant on change in value. 

Message [43] referenced by [67], [109], and [1997WI:29]. Next Message by Karl is [121]. 

[67] Fritz: Whip me! Karl wrote in [43] 

Now a diamond in it’s natural, or raw state beneath the earth required no labor 

of any individual or societal aggregate. Therefore Marx would consider 

it’s value to be nil, as there is no appendage of labor to it. 

yes, correct 

This seems to be one of Marxs’ underlying, planned, contradictory thoughts, 

that was mentioned by Hans. Because while it is a raw material the diamond


sould be thought of as a commodity in embryo. In class it was mentioned 

that a commodity held value regardless of exchange. 

spell check Marxs’ should be Marx’s, sould should be should 

yes, because that is the definition of commodity 

The diamond as a raw material also holds no exchange, and therefore can 

only have value once it is required to be developed by a laborer or in other 

words, unearthed, cut, and polished. 

a raw diamond “holds no exchange”? – no price? Marx would not agree. . . 

Marx stated, “all human labors are equal in so far as they are equal expinditures 

of human labor power.” 

spell check expinditures should be expenditures 

yes, your labor is equivalent to mine in the sense that under Jon Huntsman’s whip, we 

sweat the same number of droplets. . . 

but as a skilled graduate student, I will create more value per hour for my master than the 

unskilled misspeller. =) 

Cheers. Fritz 

p.s. Dr. Ehrbar is a stickler for spelling. He learned English and asks the same of his 

students. =) 


[109] Hans: Value of raw materials Karl’s answer [43] has a number of interesting 

thoughts. Question 56 is really three questions, and I will go through Karl’s answers to the 

three questions one by one. 

The first question is: How is the value of raw materials determined? In the assigned 

readings, Marx answers: by the labor needed to extract the raw materials. But this is not the 

full story. Marx disregards here the fact that even before any labor was applied to them, the 

raw materials in the ground have a price. This is the ground rent which the land owner can 

get from allowing the capitalist to mine the land. 

Although the raw diamond in the earth does not contain any labor, and therefore does not 

have value in Marx’s usual definition, Karl says: 

Because while it is a raw material the diamond should be thought of as a 

commodity in embryo. In class it was mentioned that a commodity held 

value regardless of exchange. The diamond as a raw material also holds 

no exchange, and therefore can only have value once it is required to be 

developed by a laborer or in other words, unearthed, cut, and polished. 

This is similar to the following sentence by Ricardo (which is not quite a literal quote, for 

reasons of brevity and clarity): 


The logging company which paid for the right to fell trees in the virgin 

forest, paid in consideration of the valuable commodity which was then 

standing on the land and actually repaid itself with a profit by the sale of 

the timber. 

Instead of giving my own analysis of Karl’s thoughts regarding diamonds in the ground, 

I think it is more instructive if I show you how Marx analyzed Ricardo’s thoughts regarding 

the very analogous situation of a virgin forest. Here I am quoting from Marx’s Theories 

of Surplus Value 2, p. 247-9, in German MEW 26.2, p. 246-9, it is also somewhere in 

MECW 31. Marx gives extracts from the above quote of Ricardo on p. 246:0 in MEW 26.2 

and then criticizes it. These criticisms which Marx makes of his contemporary economists 

in Theories of Surplus-Value are very thorough. Marx looks at selected sentences word by 

word, and points out even small errors in their thinking. On the other hand Marx also takes 

pains to find the true kernel in what the others say. 

Marx makes three criticisms of the above sentence of Ricardo: 

(a) the word “valuable” is out of place here; the trees have use-value, but not value. 

(b) The price which the logger pays for the tree cannot be explained by the fact that the 

logger will be able to recover this price when he himself sells the timber. 

This is I think what Marx means when he says that the question what the logger’s purpose 

was when he paid money for the right to fell trees has nothing in common with the real 

question. (“He paid in consideration of ...”) Marx does not say this here, but this would be 

an attempt to explain the economy from the sphere of competition, compare my [103] about 

this. 

(c) This compensation does hold the answer to the question. The existence of the compensation 

is not enough, however. The relevant question is: out of which fund does the 

compensation plus profit come which the logger receives from the sale of the trees after they 

are felled? And Marx argues they come from the unpaid labor of the workers who felled the 

trees. 

But then Marx also shows that Ricardo’s theory was not entirely wrong. There is some 

kernel of truth in what Ricardo says. After all, Ricardo was a great economist and Marx had 

a lot of respect for him. One should not expect him to say complete nonsense, what he says 

must be at least partially right. And Marx acknowledges this. 

Ricardo remarks that the logging company recovers the price of the trees plus a profit. It 

is clear where this profit comes from: it is the unpaid labor of the workers felling the trees. 

Then Marx adds: the ground rent, the fee the logging company has to pay for the right to 

fell these trees, comes from the unpaid labor as well. And then Marx generalizes: The price 

paid for natural resources is therefore the share of the social surplus-value which those who 

control access to the natural resources can claim for themselves. For production one needs 

three things: labor, produced means of production, and natural resources. In our capitalist 

society, the capitalists monopolize the means of production and can extort a tribute from the 

laborers for using them. But natural resources are privately owned as well; and the ground 

rent is that part of this tribute which goes to the owner of the natural resources. The “value”


which Ricardo attributes to the virgin forest before logging does therefore have a link to 

human labor: it derives from the forest owner’s ability to take part in the exploitation of the 

workers. 

Let us go to the second question, how scarcity affects value. Karl does not mean natural 

scarcity (gold is valuable because there is not much of it), but an excess of demand over 

supply. Karl is not always using the right terms, he does not distinguish value and exchange 

value clearly enough, but he seems to say the following: in the statement that exchange value 

is a representation of value, Marx leaves it open that factors other than value may find their 

representation in exchange value as well, and scarcity is one of them. This is totally correct, 

with respect to the kind of scarcity Karl is talking about. 

Also with respect to the third question, value of exhaustible resources, Karl makes a valid 

point. I am really taken by the way Karl is thinking, is is quite similar to Marx’s thought processes, 

although someone not trained in reading Marx will probably not understand Karl’s 

reasoning. Karl writes: 

If I was in the desert, with a supply of water to exchange, that product is 

exhaustible. Once used, that particular material is relatively exhausted. 

By “relatively”, Karl apparently means: disregarding the fact that one can make the trip 

back and get more water from outside the desert. For here and now, water is exhaustible. 

Karl’s next sentence is very interesting: 

But to the purchaser of the resource it makes no difference if it is exhaustible, 

only that it is scarce or limited to a finite supply as addressed 

earlier. 

Excellent point. Value is a social relationship attached to the product, and it is impossible 

to see, just by looking at the product, whether it is exhaustible or not. If you buy a can of 

Anchovis in the store, you do not see whether this is the last Anchovis ever fished out of the 

ocean. The only thing you see is whether there are many or few cans of Anchovis on the 

shelves. But this can be very misleading: the last school of fish can be detected by satellite 

and “harvested” as cheaply and easily as a school of fish with thousands others around. The 

lesson from this is: market relations are a very inadequate mechanism for dealing with issues 

such as exhaustibility of resources. 

Message [109] referenced by [113], [521], and [1997WI:29]. Next Message by Hans is [110]. 

Question 57 is 61 in 1997WI: 

Question 57 How do you explain the fact described here by Marx that the price of many 

scarce goods is below their value? 

[35] Angela: The price of many scare goods is below their value In our economy, we 

usually produce the scare goods at frist and then we want to produce as more quantities of 

scare goods as we can. Because of this reason, we will try to improve and develope the new 

methods of production process by technological applicability or others in order to increase 

the quantities of scare good. So in the market, the price of the scare goods usually is lower 

because the supplies are greater then the demands. 


And from Marx’s point of view, the value of a commodity would be greater or smaller 

ammounts of congeales labor time. Because the congealed labor time is determined by the 

productivity of labor that will be affected by a wide range of circumstances. Moreover, we 

also know that technological progress will induce a contradiction between value and real 

wealth. Therefore, the vaule of a commodity varies directly as the quantity and inversely as 

the productivity of labor. 

Tha price of the scare goods is not determined by the value of a commodity, because of 

the above reasons, the price of many scare goods is below thier value. 

Message [35] referenced by [72] and [73]. Next Message by Angela is [131]. 

[42] Skippy: Prices below their their value. Many scarace goods have a high market 

value due to the extensive labor hours required to extract them from where they hide. Over 

time, faster and efficient ways to excavate or produce these goods are put into effect. Or 

perhaps a new mine is found with a more abundant supply of the good so equal lobor time can 

produce a greater amount. This also depends on the conditions of the working enviroment. 

Since these goods do not expend as much labor time as before, be it by technology, or 

man’s own intervention, these goods are below their full value. 

Message [42] referenced by [73]. Next Message by Skippy is [143]. 

[51] Camera: Additional comments to Skippy’s answer I feel that Skippy’s answer 

to 57 did overlook an important element to the question. That is the idea that these goods 

are scarce. It is true that with changing technology and new discoveries, the scarcity of 

these goods can change at any time. However, it is the element of the unknown that brings 

about undervalued goods. For example, we are aware that eventually the earth’s supply of 

fossil fuel will be depleted. But do we really know how many more trips to Chevron we 

can take? When do we outlaw gasoline cars and convert to natural gas? This also brings 

the individual’s opinion on how important driving is to he or she. Are you willing to pay 

$15/gallon in order to drive to work? All these elements determine the value of gasoline 

and because we don’t really know what it will take to give up the old Chevy, our system of 

valuing is only an estimate. 

Message [51] referenced by [73]. Next Message by Camera is [222]. 

[72] Hans: Now it is scarce, now it is not In [35], answering 57, Angela wrote 

In our economy, we usually produce the scare goods at frist and then we 

want to produce as more quantities of scare goods as we can. Because of 

this reason, we will try to improve and develope the new methods of production 

process by technological applicability or others in order to increase 

the quantities of scare good. So in the market, the price of the scare goods 

usually is lower because the supplies are greater then the demands. 

You are saying: if something is scarce, then we produce so much of it that it is no longer 

scarce, and then its price falls below its value. But we start out producing so much of it 

because initially the price was above the value. 

Your next paragraph is just a summary of things from the study guide, I do not see the 

relevance of it for the present question. I will omit it here.


Finally, in your last sentence, you found a proof in Marx that the labor theory of value is 

wrong: 

The price of the scare goods is not determined by the value of a commodity, 

because of the above reasons, the price of many scare goods is below thier 

value. 

This is the only thought in your whole submission. 


[73] Hans: Success at the third try Skippy’s answer [42] to Question 57 is very similar 

to Angela’s [35]. The only difference is that Skippy knows better what is meant by “scarce” 

in the context of the present Question. After two bummer answers [35] and [42], Camera’s 

[51] is like a ray of light. Camera notices that Skippy, although he knew what was meant by 

“scarce”, did not use this knowledge in his answer: 

I feel that Skippy’s answer to 57 did overlook an important element to the 

question. That is the idea that these goods are scarce. It is true that with 

changing technology and new discoveries, the scarcity of these goods can 

change at any time. However, it is the element of the unknown that brings 

about undervalued goods. 

Excellent point. I also like how Camera integrates Skippy’s answer in her answer. She 

should have done it a little more explicitly, but it is fairly clear from her answer that the 

expectation that new technologies may at any time change the scarcity status of the good is 

part of the uncertainty she is talking about. Unfortunately, the examples Camera brings use 

exhaustible goods rather than just scarce (but reproducible) goods; therefore they bring in 

additional complications. 


Exam Question 58 is 55 in 1996ut, 105 in 2007SP, 106 in 2008fa, 109 in 2009fa, and 133 

in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 58 Explain the following sentence in the text: “Jacob questions whether 

gold has ever been paid for at its full value.” 

[86] Alf: Jacob’s question Marx says that the value of a commodity depends directly 

on the labor time required to produce a given product. Take for example, the diamond. 

Diamonds are very rare, they are hard to find, and the process required to transform carbon 

into diamonds is very tedious. Therefore, a great deal of labor time goes into the production 

of a diamond, and the end product becomes a very valuable commodity. High labor time 

plus small volume equals much value. Unlike a diamond, the production process of gold is 

more advanced technology wise. One must also realize that gold has always been used as 

a medium of exchange, and the metal is found more abundant in the market today. Jacob 

knows this, and realizes the differeces determining the values of both gold and diamonds, 

and he expresses this in his statement that questions whether gold is ever paid for at its full 

value. I too, believe this to be the case. 

Message [86] referenced by [110]. First Message by Alf is [83]. 


[110] Hans: Jacob’s question In [86], Alf brings two reasons why “gold has never been 

paid for at its full value.” His first reasion is wrong and the second is right. The first reason 

is: 

Unlike a diamond, the production process of gold is more advanced technology 

wise. 

If the productivity of mining gold is more advanced, then the value of gold is lower. This 

would be an explanation why the value of gold is what it is, not why the price of gold is 

below its value. 

Alf’s second reason is right: 

One must also realize that gold has always been used as a medium of exchange, 

and the metal is found more abundant in the market today. 

So much gold has been mined, because of the monetary functions of gold, that there is 

far too much gold around in relation to the nonmonetary needs for gold. Keynes called it a 

“barbarous relic”, and Lenin thought one should use all this gold to gold-plate the pissoirs 

for the workers in Moskow and elsewhere. 


Question 59 is 55 in 1995ut, 62 in 1997WI, and 60 in 1997ut: 

Question 59 Give other examples where something is the carrier of something else but not 

its source. 

[95] Rambis: Carrier relationship to source Marx states that use value is the carrier 

of exchange value, but as use value is not dependent on exchange value and yet exchange 

value is non-existent without use value, use value cannot then be considered the source of 

exchange value and use value and exchange value are not interchangeable terms. In simpler 

terms, the sun and the light that it emits can be considered the carrier of “daytime”, but the 

sun is not intrinsicly dependent on daytime, yet daytime doesn’t have expression without the 

sun (near the poles during seasonal periods of prolonged darkness, “daytime” exists because 

people are up and around and about their work, but “daytime” as it is perceived and conveyed 

in the mind is not fully expressed). The sun is not considered the source of daytime, 

and sun or sunlight and daytime are certainly not interchangeable terms although there is an 

obvious relationship between the two. The same is true of the relationship between basketball 

equipment (basketball, backboard and rim) and the game of basketball. The equipment 

can be considered the carrier of the game itself, but is not the source of the game in the same 

sense that the sun is not the source of daytime. Without the equipment, the game does not 

exist, but the equipment does not depend on the game in the same way that the sun does not 

depend on daytime. 

Message [95] referenced by [105]. Next Message by Rambis is [141]. 

[105] Hans: Carrier versus content I agree with the basketball example in Rambis’s 

[95]. This is a good example of a “carrier”. 

The relationship between sunlight and daytime is a different kind of relationship. Expressed 

in the Hegelian paradigm Marx is using, it is a form - content relationship. Such a


relationship is discussed in [1995WI:63]. The rotation of the earth with the periodical exposure 

to light is the content, which imprints itself on the life rhythm of the animals living on 

earth. This life rhythm can be considered some kind of form taken by the raw astronomical 

content. 

The example with the arctic city illustrates nicely how the form can obtain relative autonomy 

from the content: even if the animals move into an environment in which there is no 

longer a periodical change between light during the day and darkness at night, they maintain 

their life rhythm because this rhythm is now inside them. 

Interestingly, if left to their own devices, people would switch to a 25 hour day rather than 

a 24 hour day. This is an example of incongruity between form and content. Marx discusses 

such incongruities on many places without using the word, but he uses this word explicitly 

in 195:2/o. 


Question 60 is 48 in 1995WI, 56 in 1995ut, 58 in 1996ut, 65 in 1997sp, 347 in 1998WI, 

348 in 1999SP, 441 in 2002fa, and 523 in 2007fa: 

Question 60 Labor power creates products. The value of the products comes from the 

value of labor power, and the use value from the use value of labor power. Is this a correct 

rendering of Marx’s theory? 

[44] TOAD: Labor Power Yes. I would say that this is a correct rendering of Marx’s 

theory. I feel this way because of the readings of the following paragraphs 132:1-134:0 and 

R134:0-136:2. in these paragraphs Marx uses the example of the linen material and the coat 

that is made from the material. He explains that the linen is a product of nature and would 

exist weathor or not man used it for any purpose. However after the linen is woven into a 

fabric that can be used it has use value because of the labor that was put into changing it into 

fabric, eventhough the use value of the fabric is half of the finished product it still has use 

vlaue. The use value of the fabric doubles when the coat is taylored because there is twice 

as much labor in the coat then there is in the linen. 

The value of the coat only represents the amount of labor put into the production of 

the coat as the value of the linen only represents the amount of labor put into weaving the 

material. Therefore the coat has twice the value as the material. 

The use value of the material is half that of the coat because the two kinds of labor are of 

different qualities. The quality of the labor in the material is half the quality of the labor in 

the coat. 

Message [44] referenced by [68] and [79]. Next Message by TOAD is [74]. 

[68] Fritz: skinny puppy vs the stones TOAD wrote in [44] 

The value of the coat only represents the amount of labor put into the production 

of the coat as the value of the linen only represents the amount of 

labor put into weaving the material. Therefore the coat has twice the value 

as the material. 

yes TOAD, correct. 


1) i spend 1 hour picking cotton, spinning and weaving the linen 

2) using this linen I add 1 additional hour of my labor to create the coat 

linen = 1 hour of embodied labor 

coat = 2 hours of embodied labor 

The use value of the material is half that of the coat because the two kinds 

of labor are of different qualities. The quality of the labor in the material is 

half the quality of the labor in the coat. 

not “quality”, it should be quantity: The quantity of the labor embodied in the linen is 

half the quantity of labor embodied in the coat. 

The use value of the fabric doubles when the coat is taylored because there 

is twice as much labor in the coat then there is in the linen. 

spell check taylored should be tailored 

grammar check “coat then there is” should be “coat than there is” 

nein. . . 

when you go to Blockbuster and are deciding whether you want to purchase a CD of 

Skinny Puppy or the Voodoo Lounge, you are comparing amounts of use value you will 

derive from each. 

i doubt your comparison involved a measure of the amount of labor hours expended by 

Mick and Keith to the labor hours of the Puppies. 

Cheers. Fritz 


[74] TOAD: skinny puppy vs. the stones “shot down” The quality of the labor embodied 

in the linen is half the quality of the labor in the coat. This is true in the comparison of use 

value. If it were just vlaue then quantity would be correct. 

Not “quantity”→quality 

The “use value” (not value) of the fabric doubles when the coat is taylored because there 

is twice as much qualitative labor (not just labor but “quality labor”) in the coat this increases 

the “use value”. 

Reference Marx Capitol 136:2 

Cheers. TOAD 

Message [74] referenced by [78]. Next Message by TOAD is [148]. 

[78] Fritz: oh Ja, ich liebe die Stones TOAD [74] provides a proper reference 136:2, but 

is confusing different definitions which contain the word value. 

For example, use-value, value, and exchange value. 

When Marx writes 136:2, “Why is there this difference in value?” He is not referring to 

use-value but value.

I will try to define Marx’s definition and use of use-value. 

use-value 


Marx writes 126:1: “the usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value.” 

So what is meant by “usefulness”? Well, Marx provides a footnote in the sentence above 

in which he makes reference to a quote by John Locke: “The natural worth/(use-value) of 

anything consists in its fitness to supply the necessities, or serve the conveniences of human 

life.” 

I read this to mean: anything which brings an individual utility/satisfaction is a use-value. 

Examples might include: food a visit to the Million Dollar Saloon enjoying the sunset 

over the Great Salt Lake 

If you say that sunsets and nudie bars are not necessities of life, I will ask to see Marx’s 

definition of “necessity.” 

If you said: 

“I get twice as much use-value from listening to a CD of Skinny Puppy than a CD of 

Rolling Stones.” 

I would shrug and say “o.k.” 

Marx writes 127:4–128:1, “As use-values, commodities differ above all in quality...” 

If we put headphones on Marx and forced him to listen to a CD of Puppy and then a CD 

of Stones, the first words out of his mouth would be: 

“oh Ja, der music of die Stones ist sehr qualitatively different than die music of die Puppies.” 

His next sentence might be: 

“oh Ja, ich liebe diese CD of die Stones 2X as much as die Puppy.” 

All of this to say that Marx would not take issue with a quantitative measurements of 

use-value – except to point out that the principal difference is qualitative. 


[79] Hans: Quality and Quantity Sorry to say, TOAD’s answer [44] to Question 60 has 

a number of errors. Let us go through it in detail. TOAD writes: 

Marx explains that the linen is a product of nature and would exist weathor 

or not man used it for any purpose. 

No, linen is a woven fabric, it contains a lot of labor. 

However after the linen is woven into a fabric that can be used it has use 

value because of the labor that was put into changing it into fabric, eventhough 

the use value of the fabric is half of the finished product it still has 

use vlaue. 


Use values can not be compared. You cannot say whether an ice cream cone has more 

or less use value than a VCR rental. You cannot even say whether linen has more or less 

use value than a coat. You can describe the use value of each, but not arrange them on a 

comparative scale. 

The use value of the fabric doubles when the coat is taylored because there 

is twice as much labor in the coat then there is in the linen. 

Marx writes in 126:1 that the use value of a commodity “is independent of the amount of 

labor required to appropriate its useful qualities.” 

The value of the coat only represents the amount of labor put into the production 

of the coat as the value of the linen only represents the amount of 

labor put into weaving the material. Therefore the coat has twice the value 

as the material. 

Yes, as values, these things can be measured on the same scale. This scale is labor time. 

The use value of the material is half that of the coat because the two kinds 

of labor are of different qualities. The quality of the labor in the material is 

half the quality of the labor in the coat. 

Things that have different qualities cannot be measured on the same scale. This would be 

comparing apples and oranges. All you can say is: 

The use value of the material is DIFFERENT THAN that of the coat because 

the two kinds of labor are of different qualities. The quality of the 

labor in the material is DIFFERENT THAN the quality of the labor in the 

coat. 


[82] Pippy: hats In (74), Toad answered this question by comparing the two different 

use values of different commodities and translating this difference into different values of 

the labor which produced them. I disagree. First, when commodities are compared with 

one another, their use values are abstracted, we are only able to compare them with regard 

to their common substance, the amount of socially necessary abstract labor time which they 

congeal. My second confusion, how one could measure these qualitative distinctions was 

addressed by Hans previously; they are in fact “apples and oranges.” 

Now, The statement in question 60 is incorrect. 

The capitalist purchases labor power to create commodities which will have a greater 

magnitude of value than the value of the inputs to produce the commodity. The laborer sells 

his labor power to the capitalist at its value, the amount of socially necessary abstract labor 

time embodied in the necessaries that refuel the worker. As the worker labors he creates 

value, he acts as the surrogate father for the capitalist with capital as the womb. His labor 

power is consumed in the production process, ergo it is the use value of labor power which 

creates the value we see embodied in the commodity.


Furthermore, the latter part of the statement “and the use value from the use of labor 

power”, is also false. The use value of the commodity has already been abstracted at the 

onset of its confrontation with other commodities as a valuable being in its social context. 

It has shed its natural properties like a gentleman who has removed his hat upon entering 

a room with proper company. The commodity as a social creature abandons its individual 

qualities when it sits in relation to other commodities. 

Summary: 

The value of a product is created by the use value of labor power. The use value of the 

product is extracted upon valuation. The value of labor power is the amount of abstract labor 

required to replenish labor power. 

Message [82] referenced by [84], [87], and [315.2]. 

[84] Hans: Commodities: monks or angels? Pippy is right when she writes in [82]: 

The statement in question 60 is incorrect. 

Since Question 60 uses the concept “value of labor power”, it is appropriate that her 

explanations are given in a paragdigm in which is labor power is a commodity. In other 

words, Pippy uses things which are described in Chapter Six. In Chapter One, Marx already 

introduces the concept of labor power, but labor power is not yet a commodity. Therefore, 

what comes now is a preview of Chapter Six: 

The capitalist purchases labor power to create commodities which will have 

a greater magnitude of value than the value of the inputs to produce the 

commodity. The laborer sells his labor power to the capitalist at its value, 

the amount of socially necessary abstract labor time embodied in the necessaries 

that refuel the worker. As the worker labors he creates value, 

So far it is good. But Pippy’s next sentence brings an unfortunate analogy: 

he acts as the surrogate father for the capitalist with capital as the womb. 

And I thought Pippy Longstocking was speaking here! In childbearing the mother is 

doing all the work, while the father can at most ask every now and then: how is our baby 

doing, darling? In the factory, the worker is doing all the work, while the capitalist then 

claims ownership afterwards. 

His labor power is consumed in the production process, ergo it is the use 

value of labor power which creates the value we see embodied in the commodity. 

This is right, and this holds true whether the worker is a wage laborer or an whether he 

or she is an independent producer for the market. Pippy continues: 

Furthermore, the latter part of the statement “and the use value from the use 

of labor power”, is also false. 


Yes, strictly speaking one can call it false, because it is not only labor (the use value of 

labor power) but also nature which together produce the use value. But this is not what Pippy 

means. She writes: 

The use value of the commodity has already been abstracted at the onset 

of its confrontation with other commodities as a valuable being in its social 

context. It has shed its natural properties like a gentleman who has removed 

his hat upon entering a room with proper company. The commodity as a 

social creature abandons its individual qualities when it sits in relation to 

other commodities. 

I do not quite agree with all of this, although there is a lot of truth in it, and I do like the 

analogy of the hat. I would rather say that a commodity is like a monk, it is only concerned 

with its value-soul and considers its profane use-value body as burdensome and troublesome. 

But that a monk prays all the time does not mean that he is already in heaven. The 

commodity has both sides, for better or for worse, and they fight with each other. Therefore 

it is legitimate to talk about the use value of a commodity and to ask where it comes from. 


[98] Wolf: I agree and dissagree with your rendering of Marx’s theory. I say this because, 

labor power consists of two parts singularly or together. Labor power is abstract labor and or 

concrete labor the difference of the two is qualitative. Abstract labor is synonomyous with 

unskilled labor, labor that is monotnous, with the main focus on producing a utility that is 

demanded. It is the least rewarding and with the highest turnover rate of the two. Where 

as concrete labor is the same as saying creative / skilled labor. This is innovative and more 

rewarding because it is aimed at makeing or doing something new and exciting, bigger and 

better with or with out a commodity (in demand). 

As I said before, labor power consists of two parts, singularly or together. Let’s look at 

them singularly, abstract labor has the focus of producing a utility that is demanded (by the 

market). Therefore, the value of products comes from abstract labor. Thus saying, value 

of labor power is the same as abstract labor. Where as the use value of the products comes 

from concrete labor. Where upon one can say that use value of labor power is the same as 

concrete labor. 

But however, this is where I dissagree. Labor, it’s value and use value can’t simply define 

labor power, because something is still lost / wasted. The reason for this being, that laborers, 

capitalists or anyone for that fact aren’t able to reap these powers we speek of because it 

may be the case that laborers are forced to bottle up their creative and innovative tallents all 

in the name of producing something for the market, something with value, not use value, 

something to be a carrier of exchange value. On top of it all, a laborer has to deal with a 

sence of alienation / depression / oppression, thus slowing their production and then even 

the capitalists suffer. 

Message [98] referenced by [112]. Next Message by Wolf is [242.3]. 

[112] Kevin: Civil Society and Alienation Re: Wolf’s answer Wolf writes in [98] 

I agree and dissagree with your rendering of Marx’s theory. I say this because, 

labor power consists of two parts singularly or together. Labor power


is abstract labor and or concrete labor the difference of the two is qualitative. 

Abstract labor is synonomyous with unskilled labor, labor that is 

monotnous, with the main focus on producing a utility that is demanded. It 

is the least rewarding and with the highest turnover rate of the two. Where 

as concrete labor is the same as saying creative / skilled labor. This is innovative 

and more rewarding because it is aimed at makeing or doing something 

new and exciting, bigger and better with or with out a commodity (in 

demand). 

The one thing I would tend to disagree with in your analysis is the qualitative description 

of abstract labor as monotonous, rather Marx defines abstract labor as alienated commodity 

production. Skill level, or the psychologically rewarding value of the task does not change 

the nature of commodity production. 

But however, this is where I dissagree. Labor, it’s value and use value 

can’t simply define labor power, because something is still lost / wasted. 

The reason for this being, that laborers, capitalists or anyone for that fact 

aren’t able to reap these powers we speek of because it may be the case that 

laborers are forced to bottle up their creative and innovative tallents all in 

the name of producing something for the market, something with value, not 

use value, something to be a carrier of exchange value. On top of it all, a 

laborer has to deal with a sence of alienation / depression / oppression, thus 

slowing their production and then even the capitalists suffer. 

Here we venture into the territory of alienation, which I would like to get a perspective 

on from anyone on the list with interest in psychology, and especially its related Frankfurt 

School of Marxism. The question is the subject of much debate and of much importance; 

whether Marx adequately developed a theory of subjectivity from the perspective of both the 

worker and the capitalist. By subjectivity I mean it in a broader context than it is sometimes 

used, that is the modern relationship between action, and reaction in civil society and class 

struggle. Perhaps this is an issue that Hans would like to begin a sub-thread on, as this list 

seems to have become too much of a critique parlor in which involvement in extracurricular 

discourse has been low. 

On a different topic, for those interested in extra reading I would strongly recommend the 

letters of Antonio Gramsci in addressing the question of subjectivity and its relationship with 

alienation. Lukacs, Sartre, and Adorno could also be interesting additions to a mini-reading 

list to pursue. Suggestions or thoughts from anyone else? 

Next Message by Kevin is [191]. 

[117] Mike: Re: Does anyone want to comment on Wolf’s answer? Wolf is correct in 

that Marx’s analysis of abstraction could use some “fleshing out.” In effect, market creates 

a double abstraction. 1. It takes the many sided nature of concrete labor and reduces it to a 

value, which we call the wage, or the value of labor power. 2. In doing so, it treats labor as a 

thing. To manage the labor process, capitalists go further, reducing the individual differences 

within concrete labor, making labor more thing-like. 


Marx looks at labor from the perspective of capital [You should check out Michael 

Lebowitz’s book, which says that Marx was intended to write a further book, which would 

incorporate the perspective of labor]. So you are right to spot the deficiency, but the problem 

was not with Marx – it was with the nature of the capitalist perspective. 

By the way, I am working with a group of people from Chico, who are following your 

course. We are grateful for the opportunity. All of us are impressed with the quality of your 

questions. 

[157] Kalle: The relative concept of use value I think most of what Fritz said about 

use value is correct, but he is obviously not aware of the relativity of use value. It is correct 

that use value is the utility of a thing. However, since we all are different human beings we 

are likely to attribute different properties to things. Therefore one can conclude that the use 

value of a thing is not universal nor an inherent property. The use value arises from each 

indvidual wants in relatinship to the thing he/she encounters. 

Im am, as you, a Stones fan and would therefore attribute the same proprerties to their 

music as you do. However, other people hate The Stones and attribute negative properties to 

the music, and concider the use value of a song as notthing more than a mean to get them in 

a bad mood, etc. Therefore one can not say that the use value or property of all music is to 

evoke good feelings. Properties are subjective, and it follows therefore that use value also is 

subjective. 

Next Message by Kalle is [214.1]. 

[159] Hans: Properties are not subjective Kalle, if the unnamed person in your life 

gets in a bad mood about the music, this does not mean she hears different music than you 

do. The music is the same. Properties are not subjective. But of course you have a point. 

The use value of a thing is not the same as its properties. The use value is relative; it arises 

from the connection between the thing’s properties and human needs (and every human is 

different). A good example is the bandana in Pizza’s [135], which was intended to be an 

answer to Question 90. It has nothing to do with Question 90, but it gives an impressive 

example where two bandanas which have physcially almost identical properties have quite 

different use values. 


Question 62 is 62 in 1997ut: 

Question 62 Can you think of actions whose result is not one of its determinations? 

[101] Dunny: Actions Result. According to Marx, “Result” is considered a determination 

so from his point of view I would have to say No. But from my point of view I think that 

there are many whose actions result would not be a determination. In the example of the 

linen and the coat I would have to ask what do I want out of this? If I just wanted a nice 

linen sheet for the bed, it is done and is as satisfying and useful as the coat would be for 

the situation. Depending on the action and circumstance, the use-values could be equal for 

either commodity. It would be the same for rubber and the automobile. You need the rubber 

for the tires of the car or you would have a car without a use. At the same time the rubber 

can be used for a number of other commodities that satisfy given use.


One of the determinations could be taken earlier in the production process as an action 

and result., 

Message [101] referenced by [106]. Next Message by Dunny is [161]. 

[106] Hans: Result and determination Dunny writes in [101]: 

According to Marx, “Result” is considered a determination so from his 

point of view I would have to say No. 

I disagree here. In my interpretation of Marx, sometimes the result of an action is one of 

its determinations, and sometimes it is not. 

What you write afterwards shows that you do not understand what Marx and / or my study 

guide were talking about. For you, “result” is the final end product, and “determination” is 

something desirable or useful. You are arguing correctly that intermediate products are use 

values, but this has little to do with Question 62. 


Exam Question 67 is 54 in 1995WI, 63 in 1995ut, 71 in 1997WI, 80 in 1999SP, 85 in 

2000fa, 106 in 2004fa, 107 in 2005fa, 132 in 2010fa, 152 in 2011fa, and 151 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 67 Is labor the only source of use value? Is labor the only source of value? 

(“Value” is here the property which makes things exchangeable.) 

[37] Caren: Marx’s labor theory of value Marx’s labor theory of value is primarily 

concerned with the basic problem of why goods have prices at all. The slave owner takes by 

force what slaves produce. The feudal lord claims as a right some part of what is produced 

by the serfs. Only in capitalism is the distribution of what is produced a function of markets 

and prices. Marx’s explanation of this anomaly concentrates on the separation makes necessary. 

As a result of this separation, all the things that workers produce become available 

for exchange, indeed are produced with this exchange in mind. “Value” is the general social 

form taken by all the products of alienated labor. (The people who do the work in capitalism 

own none of the means such as machines and raw materials that they use in their work. 

These are owned by the capitalists, to whom workers must sell their labor power, in return 

for a wage. This system of productive activity, playing no part in deciding what to do or how 

to do it. The worker is alienated from the product of that activity, having no control over 

what is made or what becomes of it. The workers is alienated from the product other human 

beings, with competition and mutual indifference replacing most forms of cooperation. And 

the worker is alienated from the distinctive potential inherent in the nation of human being.). 

Such products could only sell (have “exchange values”) and serve (have “use values”) in 

ways that express and contribute to this alienation. 

Therefore, labor is not the only source of use value; but labor is the only source of value, 

that is here the property which makes things exchangeable. 

Message [37] referenced by [50], [81], and [179]. Next Message by Caren is [75]. 

[40] Kalle: Respons to Carens answer to question 67 I do not think Caren really 

answered what was asked in question 67. I interpreted the question in a little bit different 

way. To me the question was if a product must be produced by humans (labor) in order to 

have use -and exchange value. According to Marx labor is not the only source of use value 


or only source of value. In most cases labor seems to be the major source of both values. 

However, the nature can by itself, without the help from human labor, furnish and shape 

objects to become “goods” with both use value and value to human beings. Wild apples 

for example, do not involve any kind of human labor in order to become a finished product. 

Even though no labor is involved, the end product has both use value and exchange value. 

One aspect that might be reason for some confusion is that Marx said earlier that use value 

is created from human labor creativity. Then one must draw the conclusion that the nature 

also has the ability to create, and produce use value. 

Message [40] referenced by [81]. Next Message by Kalle is [137]. 

[41] Jake: Use value and value with labor Any object that has some utility in it could 

be considered to have use value. By saying that labor is the only source of use value would 

be to say that any thing with utility has had labor involved receiving of that utility. I feel that 

labor isn’t the only source of use value. What physical labor is done when breathing other 

than inhaling? Air brings me great utility. As value is defined by Marx or the interpetation 

that value = abstract labor content, this tells us that value is directly related to the labor that 

is input. Labor is the only factor that gives value to something. 

Message [41] referenced by [81]. Next Message by Jake is [118]. 

[50] Fritz: slave = (insert your name here) Caren wrote in [37]: 

The slave owner takes by force what slaves produce. The feudal lord claims 

as a right some part of what is produced by the serfs. Only in capitalism is 

the distribution of what is produced a function of markets and prices. 

These are owned by the capitalists, to whom workers must sell their labor 

power, in return for a wage 

yes, to marx you are still my slave. if you don’t submit to my whip, you will not be paid. 

. . you will starve and die 

you do not see yourself as a slave because you live under a veil of false consciousness. . . 

i am terrified that you may read about false consciousness. . . because once you do, it 

isn’t likely you will be pleased with your position in my sausage machine. 

in fact, you might demand to be paid the value of what you produce. 

yikes I will pay and contribute handsomely to causes which promote the vision that you 

are not a slave. . . 

earlier modes of productions were a hassle. . . i had to house, feed and care for my value 

producers. today it is far easier and less burdensome to offer my slaves health insurance and 

let you care for yourselves. 


[81] Hans: What it means to be the only source We have three answers to 67. Caren’s 

[37] uses this simple and specific Question to write a very interesting and far-reaching essay 

about exploitation. However I do not see the connection between this essay and the Question 

asked; therefore this essay hurt her grade rather than helping it.


Caren’s answer to the Question is contained in the last two lines of her submission. It is 

right as far as it goes, but if Caren says that labor is not the only source of use value, she 

should also identify the other sources of use value. 

Kalle noticed that Caren went overboard with her answer (apparently he overlooked the 

last two lines in her answer), and tried to focus the answer more. This is good, Kalle’s 

answer [40] is focused, but unfortunately it is wrong. 

Jake’s answer [41] is for all practical purposes correct, but he interprets the question in a 

different way than it is meant. This discrepancy occurred in previous years too, and I want 

to identify the source of these misunderstandings here. 

With the formulation: is labor the only source of use value, I meant to ask: are there other 

sources of use value besides labor? The answer I wanted is: labor cooperates with nature to 

give use values. Therefore use value has two sources, labor and nature (labor is its father, 

and nature its mother). 

But I should not have asked the question in this way. The present formulation suggests 

that all use values must contain labor. This suggestion is not a logical necessity. It is not 

necessary that every single use values derives from all possible sources of use value. Not 

every drunk person must have imbibed every alcoholic beverage there is. But I know by 

now from experience that the present formulation of my question misleads a good number 

of people, therefore I should find another formulation of this question. 

When Jake denied my question, he denied this secretly suggested assumption in my question, 

he said that there are things which have use value but do not contain labor. This also 

answers the question itself in the negative, because these things must get their use value from 

something other than labor. 

A question to the class: how should I formulate Question 74 so that this misunderstanding 

will be avoided? 


Question 69 is 74 in 1997WI, 76 in 1997sp, 72 in 1997ut, 95 in 2002fa, 98 in 2003fa, 109 

in 2004fa, 110 in 2005fa, 123 in 2007SP, and 127 in 2008fa: 

Question 69 Explain better what I meant by the sentence: “Under capitalism, labor has 

social significance only as abstract labor.” 

[38] Panacea: Re: social significance of abstract labour Hans’ sentence “under capitalism, 

labour has social significance only as abstract labour” I found quite interesting. In many 

ways, social status has very little to do with the ‘time’ required to complete a task, but rather 

with the nature of the task itself. We look upon the job of the architect as much more important 

than that of the construction worker, although both may work eight hour days. This 

is manifested in the pay each recieves. The abstract labour of the architect has more value 

socially, and could be a basis for stratification in a society. This is odd, especially when one 

recognizes how much more physically demanding, and even in many cases more dangerous 

the job of the construction worker is when compared to the architect. The actual equality in 

time spent has nothing to do with the supposed inequality of their respective abstract labour 

Message [38] referenced by [87] and [92]. Next Message by Panacea is [39]. 


[87] Hans: Labor is taking off its hat Panacea’s answer in [38] argues that the abstract 

labor of the construction worker does not have as much prestige as that of the architect, 

although it should. This seems to be just the opposite of what I said. How can this be 

reconciled? 

First of all, what I meant by “social significane” is not social prestige, but economic 

significance: only the abstract labor counts in the social interaction between the labors. 

Pippy’s metaphor with the hat in her [82] fits better for labor than for the commodity. Pippy’s 

text should be rewritten as follows: 

The concrete useful aspect of the labor has already been abstracted at the 

onset of its confrontation with other labors in the social context. It has 

shed its useful properties like a gentleman who has removed his hat upon 

entering a room with proper company. Labor as a social creature abandons 

its individual qualities when it sits in relation to other labors. 

Regarding the architect and the construction worker, there is on the one hand the social 

oddity that the productive laborers are socially looked down upon, although they create 

all the value. Perhaps one can also say that architects still have so much prestige because 

homebuilding is an industry which has resisted mass production. How long before they will 

be replaced by computer programs in the hands of the sales agent for a firm which sells 

mass-produced “custom homes”? 


[100] Reidar: Abstract labor In considering two types of labor, “useful labor” and 

abstract labor, Marx defines useful labor as the act of manipulating an object or some thing 

to create a use which fulfills a perceived societal need. Abstract labor is defined as the energy, 

muscle, mind, and brain usage of the individual. Marx stated that, “useful labor...is therefore 

a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society.” Useful labor was in existence 

before any society gave form to demand for commodities. Abstract labor is the only labor 

significant to societies because regardless of what use is given to an object to make it a 

commodity, only abstract labor, or the mental and physical usage of an individual’s abilities 

are left remaining in the commodity. The commoditie’s value is the percieved value which 

is held by a society, i.e., its “ghostlike parallel existence.” 

Message [100] referenced by [107]. Next Message by Reidar is [129]. 

[107] Hans: Social significance of abstract labor At the beginning of [100], Reidar 

gives a good definition of abstract and concrete labor. Then he continues: 

Abstract labor is the only labor significant to societies because regardless 

of what use is given to an object to make it a commodity, only abstract 

labor, or the mental and physical usage of an individual’s abilities are left 

remaining in the commodity. 

This is a little circular. It is like saying: this person is rich because he has big houses 

and nice cars, instead of saying: this person is rich because he is exploiting many workers. 

You also seem to say that abstract labor is significant for all kinds of societies. It is only 

significant for societies which have commodity production. 

Next Message by Hans is [108].


[169.1] MsMarx: Only the abstract labor counts in the social interaction between the 

labors. The concrete useful aspect of the labor has already been abstracted at the onset of its 

confrontation with other labors in the social context. It has shed its useful properties lke a 

gentelman who has removed his hat upon entering a room with proper company. Labor as a 

social creature abandons its individual qualities when it sits in relation to other labors. 

Useful labor is the act of manipulating an object or something to create a use which fulfills 

a perceived societal need. Abstract labor is the energy, muscle, mind, and brain usage of the 

individual. Marx says, “useful labor... is therefore a necessary condition, independent of all 

forms of society.” Useful labor was in existence before any society gave form to demand for 

commodities. Abstract labor is the only labor significant to societies because regardless of 

what use is given to an object to make it a commodity, only abstract labor or the mental and 

physical usage of an individual’s abilities value is the perceived value which is held by a 

society, i.e. it’s like “ghostlike parallel existence;” although abstract labor is only significant 

for societies which have commodity production. 

To help explain abstract human labor, let me define specific labor. Specific labor is what 

defines the physical qualities of commodities and gives them their use “value.” For example, 

the labor of the mason determines the size and shape of the bricks he makes, and the labor 

of the violin maker determines the physical qualities of the instrument. 

While bricks and violins are two products of specific labor, they are also the products 

of abstract human labor (called abstract because abstraction is made from its specific nature). 

The specific labor that was used to produce the two commodities was part of the total 

labor time available to society. This abstract labor is what provides the measurement of exchange 

value. Abstract labor is what bricks and violins have in common so that they may be 

exchanged for each other. 

An analogy: When one adds together four carrots, four peppers, and four turnips, one has 

to abstract from their specific characteristics to be left with twelve vegetables. 

In further reading, abstract labor is suggested to be a key to understanding the emergence 

of the working class through the development of the modern factory system. The description 

of factory work–the automaton itself is the subject, and the workers are only coordinated 

as the conscious organs of an organ without consciousness and subordinated to the same 

central power source–suggests the reality of factory work under capitalism. This is a realworld 

application of the concept of abstract labor. It is no longer the personal and purposive 

activity of a shoemaker or a tailor who creates a product for a person he meets face to face. 

It is, rather, the repetitious, machine-dominated toil of the growing mass of unskilled and 

semi-skilled workers characteric of nineteenth-century England. 

Marx put the same thought in the Critique of Political Economy: “Labor, which is thus 

measured by time, seems in fact not to be the labor of different subjects, but rather the 

different laboring individuals seem to be mere organs of the labor.” 

Hans: Very good. The following passage is somewhat contradictory: 

Abstract labor is the only labor significant to societies because regardless of what use is given 

to an object to make it a commodity, only abstract labor or the mental and physical usage of 

an individual’s abilities value is the perceived value which is held by a society, i.e. it’s like 


“ghostlike parallel existence;” although abstract labor is only significant for societies which 

have commodity production. 

There are many societies in which the concrete labor, not the abstract labor, is the labor’s social form, i.e., where 

labor does not take off its hat. See the examples of medieval society or of an autarcic peasant family, 170:1 and 

171:1. Abstract labor is a real aspect of every labor process, but only in commodity production does it obtain social 

significance. 

One more remark. You call the abstractness of factory work a 

real-world application of the concept of abstract labor. 

I would formulate it as follows: since socially, every labor counts only as abstract labor, actual labor is more and 

more stripped of its concrete qualities (which do not count and which only are an obstacle to exploitation) and is 

made more and more abstract. 

Next Message by MsMarx is [169.5]. 

[175.1] Snake: abstract labor By definition, it is only the expression of equivalence 

between different sorts of commodities which brings to view the specific character of value 

creating labor, by actually reducing the different kinds of labor embedded in the different 

kinds of commodity to their common quality of being human labor in general. Therefore, 

the labor which constitutes the substance of value is equal human labor, expenditure of the 

same human power in which represented in the value of the commodities produced by a 

given society. Innumeraible individual labor power given by human labor power. Under 

Capitalism, society produce what they need to survive. Where abstract labor is determined 

by people of equal wants. The society binds together in order to allocate different portions 

of time at their jiont disposal to the variuos use-values needed to operate in market time or 

self implication. 


By definition, it is only the expression of equivalence between different sorts of commodities 

It is the other way around: the equivalence of different commodities on the market is the expression of the abstract 

labor in them. Reading on in your text, I think you are confusing the way Marx concluded about abstract labor with 

the way the real dependencies go. The remainder of your text is very unclear. It is literally from your in-class exam, 

but it would have needed some straightening out. 

Next Message by Snake is [176]. 

[179.2] Bandit: Abstract labor is the actual concrete and specific work done by an individual. 

It is the condition that must take place before the evolution of the commodity. 

The reason abstract labor has social significance under capitalism is because after what 

use is defined for the commodity, only the mental and physical abilities of the laborer are left 

in the commodity. I believe Marx is saying that there is some kind of injustice with capitalism. 

He is arguing that there is an unequal balance between those who do the “grunge work” 

and those who do the “managerial work.” Those who do the “grunge work” are rewarded 

less, yet their jobes may entail more than the managerial position. Marx said himself that 

abstract labor is only the same when taken out of a capitalistic society. This is what I think 

he meant. 

Hans: Your instinct is right but the reasoning behind it is different. Grunge work is treated so badly under capitalism 

because only the grunge aspect of all work creates value. Marx said that it is not a blessing but a curse to be 

productive in capitalism. Because if you are productive then all the sharks descend on you who are trying to benefit 

from the value created by other people. 

Your theoretical analysis starts on the wrong foot because your definition of abstract labor is paradoxical (abstract 

is the opposite of concrete) and wrong: 

Abstract labor is the actual concrete and specific work done by an individual.


Yes, Marx says there is an injustice: not only because grunge work is harder than managerial work, but because the 

grunge workers produce all the value, yet they have no say about who gets it. But the question why market value 

comes from the drudgery of the grunge worker and not the ingenuity of the manager was not addressed. 

Next Message by Bandit is [180]. 

[182.3] Jupiter: Abstract labor Abstract labor is a step beyond specific labor, they are 

different in that specific labor defines the physical qualities of commodities and gives them 

their use-value. The use-value is a product of the time and the labor put into the natural 

commodity. 

Now that i have very briefly defined specific labor, we have to look at abstact labor. 

Abstract labor is the mental, physical, and muscle that a laborer put into a commodity, the 

hard work and precision if you will. Once we have this in place we can now derive an 

exchange-value so that the product can and will be exchanged in the open market for other 

products that have different values. 

In a capitalistic society all labor has social significance only as abstract labor, this is the 

statment that Marxs makes, what is ment by this is clear to see but not so simple to explain. 

In a capitalistic society the end product is what is being exchanged, thus it is the abstact 

labor that has been put into the product which gives it its social value, the mental and the 

physical abilities of the laborer who performed that task. In a capitalistic society abstract 

labor itself is a commodity in the market, it ie being bought and sold as well as traded. This 

is what Marxs is meaning by his statment of its significance is only as abstract labor. 

Hans: Your definitions of concrete and abstract labor are good. Perhaps it might be worth while mentioning that 

both are aspects of every labor process. You are right, the fact that labor power is a commodity (and abstract labor 

is the expenditure of labor power) underlines the social significance of abstract labor. However there is something 

else that should be said here which you did not say. 

Here is more about your in-class exam. You defined abstract labor correctly, but did not explain why abstract 

and not concrete labor has social significance. You seem to say that abstract labor is what one needs at the bottom of 

the hierarchy, and concrete labor at the top, and there is not enough room at the top. But this presupposes that there 

must be a hierarchy. The emphasis on abstract labor comes from the one-dimensionality of the market interactions 

of the goods. 

Next Message by Jupiter is [183]. 

[192.1] Scott: Abstract labour is the energy, muscle, mind and brain useage of the individual. 

It provides the measurement of exchange-value. Abstract labour determines the value 

of commodities, whereas concrete labour determines the use-value of commodities. Marx 

states that societies’ “recognition of” or “refusal to recognize” a given quality of labour, occurs 

exclusively in function of meeting effective demand on the market, that is independent 

of the use-value or social usefulness of the specific physical qualities of a given commodity. 

Society recognizes qualities of abstract socially necessary labour. Marx makes his points 

concerning his “labour theory of value”, by emphasizing that this theory has nothing to do 

with judgements concerning the usefulness of things from the views of human happiness 

or social progress. i.e. Therefore, the use-value is not of importance to a capitalist society. 

Only the value has social significance, under capitalism, as it has weight in the markets. 

Hans: You interpreted the Question to mean that in a market economy the decision which use value to produce is 

not made by social need but by “effective” demand, i.e., demand backed by money. Yes, the existence of money 

fouls this up, as it does everything else. The decision about use values is not made deep in society; deep down, 

society only cares about the abstract labor, not its concrete manifestations. 

Here is a smaller point. You write: 


Abstract labour is the energy, muscle, mind and brain useage of the individual. It provides the 

measurement of exchange-value. 

Value is not the measurement of exchange value. Value is the underlying thing of which exchange value is the 

expression. 

Next Message by Scott is [192.3]. 

[197.4] Reidar: Marx defines abstract labor as the expenditure of human energy, muscle, 

and mind usage. In guestion [70], Homer calls abstract human labor an abstraction from the 

specific labor of a worker; specific labor being useful or concrete labor. 

Under capitalism, labor has social or economic significance because it is what Homer 

calls the aspect which, “provides the measurement of exchange value”. Abstract labor becomes 

the equivalent form which gives a commodity value in the exchange process. Abstract 

human labor is interchangeable between differing work environments and is simply the human 

energy involved. 

In a capitalistic commodity producing society, the value created through exchange is 

the driving force, and because this value is the abstract human labor, this labor is the only 

socially significant labor to this type of society. 

Hans: Your in-class exam was longer and I liked it better than the resubmission. But also the resubmission is good. 

Next Message by Reidar is [209]. 

[200.3] Emma: One concept I may have overlooked in the answer is the idea that for 

labor to have a social relationship and for it to interact among different people in a society 

it must have something common to it that will be relevant to others. That commonality is 

abstract labor. Abstract labor allows labor to have social significance. All labor is derived 

from abstract labor, so when one producer intends to interact with another producer in a 

market and their products are different, they must resort to their common labor factors for 

reference, their common abstract labor as a denominator of exchange. 

Hans: The equality you are talking about in your resubmission is necessary only because the social relations are 

exchange relations, and exchasnge is an equalization, in other words, a very on-dimensional affair. This is why one 

has to reduce the many different concrete labors to one-dimensional abstract labor. 

Next Message by Emma is [200.4]. 

[206.2] Super: Abstract labor can be seen when a labor produced commodity is exchanged 

for a different commodity of equivalent value. They can have different characteristics but 

equal exchange values. “Labor has social signifigance only as abstract labor,” can be described 

as different types of social interaction between laborers. The laborers used their 

minds and physical abilities to produce these different commodities. These commodities 

are socially equivalent. The use-value of these commodities are not considered here. Marx 

describes labor values as being equal and exchangeable for commodities. Therefore quantitative 

equivalence between commodities can always be seen; 

10 yards of linen = 1 coat 

Hans: Your thinking is not bad, but you are not explaining yourself very clearly. Your first paratgraph is not 

a definition of abstract labor; you say that exchange is the expression of abstract labor, but that does not define 

abstract labor. From your second paragraph it seems that you know the definition of abstract labor. 

Next Message by Super is [206.4]. 

[221.2] Homer: First, the definition of abstract labor: Labor that is performed has two 

aspects. One is the specific labor that defines the physical qualities of commodities and gives 

them their use-value. The second is abstract labor. It is called abstract because abstraction


is made from its specific nature. the abstract labor is what provides the exchange-value. 

Abstract labor is ehat all commodities have in common so that they may be exchanged for 

each other. 

Under capitalism, labor has social significance only as abstract labor because the usevalues 

that are created by specific labor cannot be compared; one cannot measure use-values 

with a common standard. Therefore, for the reciprocal exchange of commodities to be 

possible, which is neccessary for capitalism, a social quality must be used - abstact labor. 

Hans: Very good. The market reduces everything to a one-dimensional price number, and can therefore coordinate 

social labor only along a one-dimensional criterion. 

Next Message by Homer is [231]. 

[242.3] Wolf: To begin with, I feel that it is necessary to recognise the fact that to abstract 

is to simply choose a focus. In this sence, labor it self is an absrtaction. With in labor there 

are many different qualities allowing for different focuses. The qualities I wish to speak of 

are those which we have discussed =¿ abstract and concrete labor. 

Abstract labor is the expenditure of human brain, muscles, nerves, etc. In some respects, 

it is synonomyous with unskilled labor, labor that is monotnous, with the primary intention 

to produce a utliity that is demanded. It is some times viewed as the least rewarding and 

with the highest turnover rate compaired to concrete labor. 

As I said before, abstract labor is intended for the production of a commodity that is 

demanded (by the market). Therefore, the value of products comes from abstract labor along 

with the fact that these products upon completion, due to abstract labor, become carriers of 

exchange value. 

Now that abstract labor has been defined and many of it’s postitive attributes have been 

recognised, it becomes necessary to answer/clear up the second part of the question. Ideally, 

in capitalism everything is determined in the market. Thus, giving rise for the use of abstrtact 

labor. In the above paragraphs, abstract labor is shown to be the reason why a commodity 

has value and carries an exchange value. But however, it still isn’t clear why, according to 

Marx, labor has social significance only as abstract labor. The following should clear this 

up. 

The process of production is like leadership. Before something is produced it must first 

be invented, realistic, efficient, and in demand. Then all other alternatives must be weighed 

and the degree of demand calculated (concrete labor). This is like leadership in that the 

leader must first come up with a vision of what could/should be, explain it to the masses (of 

people) and then motivate them to set it into action. This too could be refered to as concrete 

labor. But , next is where social significance comes into play. Once the commodity is decided 

upon, abstract labor takes over from there on out (to consumption). The same holds 

true for leadership because a dream/vision is only a dream with out action by many people 

to set it into action (abstract labor) to MAKE it a reality. On top of it all, concrete labor or 

the vision of a leader doesn’t belong to just the concrete laborers or leaders because once 

it is set into action the vision/concrete labor belongs to the abstract laborers. In which the 

concrete laborers are now followers of abstract laborers, the leaders become followers and 

the followers became leaders. The is seen through out labor relations in our capitalist economy 

leading to the necessity of mediation and arbitration between capitalists and laborers. 


An example of such is seen with the dealings of unions with owners / heads of companies. 

It is the hard to tell who works for who or who is at who’s mercy. And ultimately it is up 

to the abstract labor to get the job done. That is why labor has social significance ONLY as 

abstract labor. 

Hans: The in-class exam was only one sentence, which was wrong. The resubmission shows that you apparently 

did some reading, but you did not understand Marx’s argument. 


[256.1] VanHalen: Abstract labor is kind of labor in it’s most basic sense; the use of 

brain/muscle effort to do something. It differes from concrete labor in that concrete labor 

is like a weaver, mason, or an airline pilot; these are categories that abstract labor can be 

applied to. Abstract labor is like the raw lifeblood which when added to a set of skills 

becomes some type of labor that produces something. 

I think Marx, when he said,“under capitalism, labor has social significance only as abstract 

labor,” meant that under capitalism, labor is reduced to its lowest , most basic level. 

Meaning that there is capital and abstract labor. If you don’t own capital and make your 

money that way then you have to work for a capitalist in whatever job you can. If you lose 

your job you go find another one, maybe in a completly different industry. You may have 

been just a ditch digger and then now you are a chef. What is underlying all these jobs, and 

the fact that people can move between jobs as the economy goes up and down, is the concept 

of abstract labor. 

I think that Marx was pointing to the fact that a capitalist society polarizes people. Your 

either a capitalist or brain/muscle power. Those who work for capitalists can really be reduced 

to just abstract laborers moving to and for between different concrete labor jobs. As 

the market for fishermen is hot more people work for fishing companies. As building homes 

becomes lucrative, people flock to work for home building companies. The social significance 

comes in when if you’re not a capitalist, in a capitalist society you are reduced to an 

abstract laborer. 

Hans: Excellent! 


[332.4] Dragonfly: Dragonfly did not resubmit his exam. Good definition of abstract 

labor, but its social significance according to the readings in Chapter One is not that it is the 

only power of the working class, but it comes from the fact that products are produced as 

commodities. 

First Message by Dragonfly is [9]. 

[332.6] Camera: Camera did not resubmit her exam. I like her sentence: “the only thing 

recognized socially is the expenditure of time and energy”, but a few words of explanation 

why society ignores all the fun aspects of the labor process would have been appropriate. 

It is also wrong to say that the concept of abstract labor exists “in order to better analyze 

and measure labor as a whole.” This is an abstraction not only made in our heads but also in 

society. 

Next Message by Camera is [335.14]. 

Exam Question 70 is 57 in 1995WI, 66 in 1995ut, 75 in 1997WI, 84 in 1999SP, 89 in 

2001fa, 99 in 2003fa, 139 in 2010fa, 159 in 2011fa, and 158 in 2012fa:


Exam Question 70 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. 

[45] Positive: AbstractDrudgery Abstract human labor is concrete and specific work by 

an individual. It can be for tailoring and it can be for larger production. The products which 

are being made from “abstract human labor” will always have a given value. This value 

is determined by the costs of production. There is no difference between one compared to 

another, all labors are the same. It is not a matter of who is doing the labor, it is depended 

upon how it is done, which again will effect how long it will take to make that specific 

product. 

Message [45] referenced by [89]. Next Message by Positive is [136]. 

[56] Homer: abstract human labor To help explain what abstract human labor is, I will 

first define specific labor. Specific labor is what defines the physical qualities of commodities 

and gives them their use-value. For example, the labor of the mason determines the size and 

shape of the bricks he makes, and the labor of the violin maker determines the physical 

qualities of the instrument. 

While bricks and violins are the products of specific labor, they are also the products 

of absrtact human labor (called absract because abstraction is made from its specific nature). 

The specific labor that was used to produce the two commodities was part of the total 

labor time available to society. This abstract labor is what provides the measurement of 

exchange-value. Abstract labor is what bricks and violins have in common so that they may 

be exchanged for each other. 

An analogy: when one adds together four carrots, four peppers, and four turnips, one has 

to abstract from their specific characteristics to be left with twelve vegetables. 

Message [56] referenced by [89]. Next Message by Homer is [145]. 

[80] Peace: Abstract Drudgery Abstract human labor is not merely a cognitive act, but it 

is in fact concrete or has “ontological” status. But it is not concrete specific, but is (concrete) 

labor in general (or as such). 

Abstract human labor is a social process that exists in capitalist production relations, but 

is not rendered an empirical status until the act of exchange. In this sense, abstract human 

labor should be understood as a reality that exists in capitalism (it has ontological status). 

Abstract human labor is a generative mechanism of capitalism. 

It is the condition that is necessary for the emergence of commodity production. Marx 

wants to explain the generative mechanisms which presuppose the existence of commodity 

production and the act of exchange, this is not necessarily an empirical question, but a more 

transcendental (as Collier explains in the optional course text) question. Or to repeat, it is the 

type of (transcendental) question that asks what is necessary for the act of exchange to exist 

that renders heterogenous labor homogeneous. The generative mechanism that is necessary 

to perform this function (which is specific to capitalism) Marx dubs “abstract human labor.” 

Hence, in this sense it is a social process in capitalism. More specifically it occurs in the 

labor process itself. 

Hans: You don’t seem to realize to what extent abstract labor is an aspect of every actual labor process. 

Message [80] referenced by [89]. Next Message by Peace is [237]. 


[89] Hans: Is abstract labor “concrete”? We have received 3 answers, which I will 

comment on in turn. 

Positive’s answer [45] starts out with several wrong statements: 

Abstract human labor is concrete and specific work by an individual. It can 

be for tailoring and it can be for larger production. 

No. Marx distinguishes abstract human labor and concrete useful labor. They are two 

opposite aspects of the same labor process. 

The products which are being made from “abstract human labor” will always 

have a given value. 

This is the significance of abstract labor in commodity-poducing society, something 

which the Question asked you not to talk about here. 

This value is determined by the costs of production. 

The costs of production are the values of the inputs. Defining values of the outputs by 

values of the inputs is circular. At the end, Positive is also saying something right: 

There is no difference between one compared to another, all labors are the 

same. It is not a matter of who is doing the labor, it is depended upon how 

it is done, which again will effect how long it will take to make that specific 

product. 

Homer’s [56] is an excellent answer. I have nothing to add to it. 

Peace’s [80] tries to see Marx’s analysis through Bhaskarian lenses. I am not quite convinced 

and have one question here: generative mechanisms are “simply the ways of acting 

of things” (RTS2, 51). Which thing is acting in the generative mechanism which Peace 

identifies here with abstract human labor? 


Question 72 is 59 in 1995WI, 68 in 1995ut, 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, 141 in 2010fa, 161 in 2011fa, and 160 in 2012fa: 

Question 72 What is the difference between labor and labor power? 

[58] Chuck: labor Labor is the human act of producing an actual commodity. labor 

in turn produces use value. Labor power on the other hand is the average amount of labor 

that every unit of labor gives. Labor power is the amount of effort and the skill level that is 

required in order to produce a good. 

Message [58] referenced by [90]. Next Message by Chuck is [335.8]. 

[65] MsMarx: Labor and labor power The Capitalist buys labor power in order to use 

it, and labor power in use is labor itself. The purchase of labor power consumes it by setting 

the seller of it to work. By working, the seller becomes actually, what before he only was 

potentially, labor power in action, a laborer.


Capitalism labor power is just one commodity among others, whose price is determined 

by the amount of labor that goes into its production. Human labor power itself must be 

developed before it can be expended in different forms. The value of a commodity represents 

human labor plain and simple, the expenditure of human labor in general. Labor power needs 

development (schooling, training, experience). 

Labor is a process in which both man and nature participate, and in which man of his own 

accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and nature. 

Message [65] referenced by [90] and [1997ut:56]. Next Message by MsMarx is [88]. 

[90] Hans: Labor power need not be a commodity The second of the two answers to 72, 

MsMarx’s [65], is very good. The only thing MsMarx overlooks is that under commodity 

production labor power exists and has real economic effects even if it is not a commodity 

itself. 

Here is the other answer, Chuck’s [58], with my comments: 

Labor is the human act of producing an actual commodity. 

By an “actual commodity” you apparently mean what Marx calls the “body” of the commodity, 

the physical thing that makes up the commodity. (A commodity is more than a 

physical thing; it is a physical thing endowed with social powers). 

labor in turn produces use value. 

This sentence seems to be a re-wording of the first sentence, using Marx’s terminological 

convention to write “a use value” instead of “the body of a commodity”. But why did you 

write “in turn”? 

Labor power on the other hand is the average amount of labor that every 

unit of labor gives. 

Look at this sentence closely; it does not make any sense. We are using email here so that 

we can formulate our thoughts a little more carefully than that. 

Labor power is the amount of effort and the skill level that is required in 

order to produce a good. 

This might be a possible explication of the phrase “labor power is potential labor”, but it 

does not convey the universality of labor power. It is a central aspect of Marx’s definition of 

labor power that the same labor power can give rise to various kinds of labor. Your definition 

should be rephrased along the following lines: “labor power is the ability to exert goaldirected 

effort, and to learn and use various skills, in order to produce various commodities.” 

Message [90] referenced by [1997ut:56]. Next Message by Hans is [92]. 

Question 74 is 61 in 1995WI, 70 in 1995ut, 73 in 1996ut, 81 in 1998WI, 88 in 1999SP, 93 

in 2000fa, 93 in 2001fa, and 117 in 2005fa: 

Question 74 Does skilled labor produce more value per hour than unskilled labor? Explain! 


[31] Pinky: Skilled vs. unskilled labor values per hour. In response to this dilemma, 

Marx theorizes that “a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to a bigger amount 

of simple labor.” He states that “...the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents 

nothing but the quantity of labor embodied in it, ...all commodities, when taken in the right 

proportions, must be equal in value.” Based on this, I would believe that Marx’s answer to 

the question would be yes. In Marx’s view, one hour of unskilled labor would be equal to 

an hour of skilled labor because the unskilled laborer is able to turn out a larger quantity of 

something that, despite its lesser value, is produced in greater quantities because of the lack 

of skill it requires. Additionally, though one hour of work performed by a skilled laborer 

may produce something of greater value, because it required skill, the laborer was not able 

to produce as much. 

If I have correctly interpreted Marx’s theory on this subject, I disagree. There are many 

instances where the results of skilled labor exceed the value of unskilled labor not only on an 

hourly basis, but on a much larger scale. Compare the commodities produced by the surgeon 

and the plastic whistle assembler. The surgeon can rid a patient of a life threatening ailment. 

The whistle assembler can provide you (at best), hours of whistling entertainment. Even if 

you take the money you would have spent on one surgergy and bought all of your friends and 

relatives multi-colored whistles, and you all joined in on a big, beautiful whistling session 

like you have never known before, it can not equal the value of saving a life. 

Message [31] referenced by [92], [218.1], and [407.1]. Next Message by Pinky is [123]. 

[36] MUCHO: skilled labor produce more than unskilled labor? I don’t think there 

is an right answer for this question. Because there is no guarantee that skilled labor always 

produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. I think that it really depending upon the 

circumstances or the environments. For instance, different countries, different cultures and 

the level of complication for the labor. All these can change the level of production no matter 

how skilled or unskilled labors are in production line. As the labor gets complicated, skilled 

labor produce more value per hour. However, under the simple labor, it doesn’t mean that 

skilled labor always better off with unskilled labor. I believe, there is a good chance for the 

unskilled labor may produce more value per hour than skilled labor. Because, sometimes 

unskilled labors can be more efficient for the simple labor. I’ve heard a great example to 

support my argument before but, I cannot remember the story exactly. I will let you know 

the story as soon as I remember or find out. 

Message [36] referenced by [92] and [166.1]. Next Message by MUCHO is [111]. 

[39] Panacea: Re: skilled labour and unskilled labour This has got to be a loaded 

question, Hans, but I’ll take a stab at it. 

The quote ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ comes to mind. Marxian thought, as far 

as I understand, views knowledge and learning as a social activity. Society accumulates 

knowledge, and no one individual is responsible for ‘new knowledge’, but rather we all owe 

each other and our forebears. (Erich Fromm) So your question is difficult. Could the skilled 

labour have any effectiveness if it were’nt for unskilled labour? The architect designs the 

house - but it must still be built. What due you mean by ‘value’, here? Socially attributed 

value? I believe Marx had a great deal of insight when he spoke of how little recognition 

goes to the hands which actually build the abstract concepts which skilled labour create. The


architect will be cold and wet without the construction worker. And then what value has his 

concept of a beautiful new house? 

Message [39] referenced by [92]. Next Message by Panacea is [194.3]. 

[54] Chocolate: Re: skilled vs. unskilled labor First of all i believe that skilled labor 

will always produce more value per hour than unskilled labor. My understanding of Marx’s 

views on this questions is that if two individuals (one skilled and one unskilled) produce 

an identical product, and it took them the same amount of labor and time to produce this 

product. Then both of the products that were produced (one by an unskilled worker, one by 

a skilled worker) will have equall use and exchange value. 

An individual who is skilled in what he or she produces will always find a better way to 

increase his or her technology of producing his or her product. And because he or she is 

skilled, that individual will also find a way to produce more products per hour. Who would 

you trust to fix your transmission, a mechanic with ten-years of experience, or one with only 

a year of experience? The logical answer in my point of would be to pick the one who has 

ten-years under their belt. But, let us assume that the individual who only has one year of 

experience graduated with very high credentials from their automechanic school. Let us also 

assume that his credentials were by far higher than that of the mechanic who has ten-years 

of experience. In my opinion, I would still chose the mechanic with ten-years of experience, 

because throughout the years this individual will have aquired the necessary knowledge, 

experience and know-how, to properly and quickly fix a transmission. The mechanic who 

had only one year of experience, might have answered all of his test questions correctly, 

but how would he perform under pressure of actually fixing a transmission under a certain 

amount of time. Better yet how fast and accurate would he be able to fix the transmission if 

their company is booked and very busy on a certain day. 

The mechanic who has ten-years under his belt, will know how to deal with those kinds of 

pressure situation mainly because he has been around longer and has aquired the necessary 

skill that will enable him to overcome those situations and produce more output than one 

who is unskilled. 

Message [54] referenced by [92] and [104]. Next Message by Chocolate is [160]. 

[60] Gilligan: skill v/s unskilled Who is to say that a skilled worker produces more 

than a unskilled worker. People seem to forget that those skilled workers that sit atop of the 

unskilled workers often times had the oportunity to attend school and receive the training 

necessary to be in those types of situations. Where as, an unskilled worker maybe a very 

bright person who is capable of the same tasks and positions as the skilled, but has been left 

out of these situations because he didn’t have the same oportunities as the skilled worker. We 

need to look at the situations in which these people come from and most often it is the answer 

to the reason of them being in this type of situation. If it weren’t for the unskilled worker 

many skilled workers would be out of a job because it’s through the unskilled production 

that these skilled workers look so good. We can’t just say that a skilled worker produces 

more per hour than an unskilled worker because I feel in many cases the unskilled worker 

produces equal to or more than a skilled worker. Like I stated many times those who are 

very bright and are able to produce find themselves discriminated against and in a position 

under the skilled worker do circumstances they had no control over. 

Message [60] referenced by [92], [93], and [205.1]. Next Message by Gilligan is [134]. 


[92] Hans: Skill: a protection against exploitation? We received five answers to Question 

74: Pinky’s [31], MUCHO’S [36], Panacea’s [39], Chocolate’s [54], and Gilligan’s 

[60]. This Question has so much interest because getting a skill is widely believed to be a 

protection against exploitation. 

Here are some comments. Pinky wrote in [31]: 

In Marx’s view, one hour of unskilled labor would be equal to an hour 

of skilled labor because the unskilled laborer is able to turn out a larger 

quantity of something that, despite its lesser value, is produced in greater 

quantities because of the lack of skill it requires. 

In other words, the value produced is the same, because unskilled laborers must make up 

for their lack of skill by working faster. Here is my reaction to this: 

Of course, the capitalist would love it if the skilled workers were to work faster too, but 

it is much more difficult to control and speed up a skilled laborer than an unskilled laborer. 

The difference which Pinky observes here is therefore not due to the intrinsic character of 

skilled or unskilled labor, but it usd “constellational”, i.e., it comes from the side effect that 

labor which is skilled can also often not be controlled so easily. According to this, getting a 

skill is a protective measure, like joining a union. 

The remainder of Pinky’s answer makes it clear that she does not know that in the Marxian 

paradigm value comes from “congealed abstract labor time”, but that she thinks more along 

the lines of Peaches’s [7], which I critizised in [8]. This is a major misunderstanding, which 

adversely affects her grade. 

MUCHO’s [36] notices that the difference pointed out by Pinky is constellational, he 

writes that it is 

depending upon the circumstances or the environments. For instance, different 

countries, different cultures and the level of complication for the labor. 

All these can change the level of production no matter how skilled or 

unskilled labors are in production line. 

But MUCHO fails to notice that Pinky has the wrong concept of value, and adopts Pinky’s 

error. 

Chocolate’s [54] discusses a different situation than that which the Question referred to. 

Instead of comparing two workers producing two different commodities, one requiring skill 

and the other not, she compares two workers producing the same commodity. Therefore 

Chocolate is really answering Question 53, and she finally gives the economic mechanism 

which enforces that the labor of the slow worker produces less value than that of the fast 

worker (compare my [64]): both products are indistinguishable once they are on the market, 

and therefore the values of the products must be the same, regardless of the circumstances 

under which they are produced. 

Panacea’s [39] is much too philosophical, and similar to her [38]. Panacea has not yet 

noticed that this is no longer Econ 509. In 508 we mean business and require specific, 

rigorous thinking.


Gilligan’s [60] argues that the skilled workers should come down from their high horse. 

Often it is not their merit that they had the opportunity to acquire a skill while others did not. 

This point is well taken, and I agree with it. But Gilligan should not conclude from this that 

the skilled worker produces no more value than the unskilled worker. Value does not come 

from merit but it is a very specific economic relationship. 

In other words, due to this flurry of submissions, we finally have the answer to Question 

53, but Question 74 is still not answered properly. 


[94] Scott: Skilled labor produce more value per hr than unskilled? According to 

Marx the answer is not. It seems that most of the previous answers are imposing personal 

opinions and relating them to the wages paid between the two separate groups. I have the 

same problem. We are asked to reduce all labor to simple labor so that we don’t continually 

have to make the reduction between skilled and unskilled labor. Marx states “More complicated 

labor counts as multiplied simple labor, so that a smaller amount of complicated 

labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple labor.” It is then annotated that the market does 

the counting. I believe this to be the answer in that the market counts by valuing through 

higher salaries, (which is the capitalist greatest desire and its’ mark of success. Opinions 

may or may not agree with the market, obviously. It is a capitalist“value” being reduced to a 

quantitiy. I think one of the problems is whom determines value, and this more or less value 

should be unique to individuals. i.e. I may think that lawyers are much more valuable than 

teachers or plumbers, but my opinion would only be just that. 

Message [94] referenced by [108]. Next Message by Scott is [146]. 

[108] Hans: Getting higher wages is not the same as creating more value Scott’s [94] 

goes to Marx’s text in order to answer Question 74. This is good; the previous answers 

haven’t done it enough. Scott writes: 

According to Marx the answer is not. 

This is not true. Marx thinks skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled 

labor. 

Further down Scott misunderstands Marx again: 

We are asked to reduce all labor to simple labor so that we don’t continually 

have to make the reduction between skilled and unskilled labor. 

This is only a stylistic device. Marx will act from now on as if all labor was unskilled, 

although what is really the case (according to the way how Marx sees it) is that there are 

different skills, which are then reduced to unskilled labor. 

Next Scott writes how he understand my sentence in the Annotations that “the market 

does the counting”: 

I believe this to be the answer in that the market counts by valuing through 

higher salaries, (which is the capitalist greatest desire and its’ mark of success. 


This is another misunderstanding, and a basic one which I haven’t criticized enough in 

my earlier submissions. We are not yet talking here about wages. We are talking about the 

values which the commodities containing skilled or unskilled labor fetch on the market. 

In another thread of his argument, Scott criticizes that the previous submissions used a 

subjective concept of value. I agree here, this is again something which I should have marked 

as wrong with a big red pen in the earlier submissions. When Marx talks about “value” he 

means some objective social reality, not some subjective valuation. 


[160] Chocolate: Sub. of 1st. midterm According to Marx, a skilled labor does produce 

more value per hour than an unskilled labor. If two individuals, one skilled and the other 

unskilled, were to produce the same commodity their end results would be quite different. 

For example, let us say that given the time of one working day, the unskilled labor will 

be able to produce one coat. Whereas the skilled labor will produce more than one coat 

but also in better quality because of the experience and the advance training he/she had 

recieved. Therefore I believe that the more education and job training an individual recieves 

the better the chances of that individual producing a better product than an individual with 

less education and training. 

Hans: I offered you to send in another submission. 

Message [160] referenced by [165] and [176.2]. Next Message by Chocolate is [161.1]. 

[165] Hans: Errors in the Quiz Question Message [160] was Chocolate’s answer to the 

Quiz question 74. It was forwarded to everyone by mistake. I hope I have removed the bug 

in my program now, and your resubmissions will no longer be forwarded to everyone. But 

since you have [160] now, I will point out its errors so that you will not repeat those errors in 

your resubmissions of the Quiz. Chocolate is welcome to re-send her submission too after 

reading my comments. 

According to Marx, a skilled labor does produce more value per hour than 

an unskilled labor. If two individuals, one skilled and the other unskilled, 

were to produce the same commodity their end results would be quite different. 

For example, let us say that given the time of one working day, the 

unskilled labor will be able to produce one coat. Whereas the skilled labor 

will produce more than one coat but also in better quality because of the 

experience and the advance training he/she had recieved. 

Chocolate is confusing here two issues. One is: you have two people producing the same 

product, one has the average dexterity, skill, and experience necessary to do the job, and the 

other is lazy or a beginner. Then the average worker produces value in proportion to the 

labor time he spends, and the value produced by the exceptionally slow worker is measured 

by the time it would take the average worker to produce the same output. Everything is clear 

and simple here. 

The other situation is: two people from different trades, each with the average skill required 

for their trade, produce two different things. The mason is building a house and the 

engineer is designing a car. Do they produce the same value per hour, and if not, how are 

the values determined? This is the situation which Question 74 refers to.


By the assumption that the unskilled tailor not only produces less per hour but also produces 

an inferior product, Chocolate makes it impossible for herself to make this clear distinction. 

If she were to assume that the unskilled tailor produces an identical product, but 

uses more time for it, she would get a clear-cut answer. But what if she were to compare the 

labor of a tailor with that of a blacksmith? 

Therefore I believe that the more education and job training an individual 

recieves the better the chances of that individual producing a better product 

than an individual with less education and training. 

It was not the question who produces a better product, but who produces more value per 

hour. 


[166.1] MUCHO: I would like to add little bit more to what I wrote for the question 

74. According to the book, The additional labor costs necessary for producing the skill, in 

which are also included the total costs of schooling spent on those who do not successfully 

conclude their studies. The book also mentions that skilled labor participates in the total 

labor-power of society not only with its own labor-power but also with a fraction of the 

labor-power necessary to produce its skill. The skill can be compared to an additional tool, 

which is in itself not value-producing, but which transfers part of its own value into the value 

of the product produced by the skilled worker. 

Hans: Your resubmission is right, while that what you wrote in class, which was taken from [36], was wrong. 

Better late than never. 

Next Message by MUCHO is [166.2]. 

[172.2] Snake: labor represented in commdities This is true. Once the location of the 

determined workers are established, then we can break down the skill level of the workers 

into one defined time frame. The amount of an commodity to be produced differentiates the 

skill level of the laborers. Where a high standard of labor is put into the production of an 

commodity, could be compared to say, the production of an unskilled laborer under a distinct 

period of time. Yet, both could produce a commodity of the same value. Although this does 

not exclude the idea that under these cicumstances one laborer might just produce the same 

quality product of another unskilled laborer under the same time period. Where the value 

of both the the skilled and the unskilled laborers commodities could be of equal value. Yet, 

since the skilled labor can produce the commodity much faster, then that individual will gain 

more in value from his commodity because this skilled individaul will have aquired more of 

the commodity then the other unskilled laborer, once the given time frame has expired. 

Hans: I found the text you wrote in class much clearer than your resubmission. You only made a few, mostly 

cosmetic, changes, but these changes made your resubmission very hard to understand. 

You are arguing the right point if both workers produce the same commodity, but Question 74 was posed in 

a context in which Marx was discussing different kinds of labor, one skilled and the other unskilled, producing 

different use values. 


[173.2] Wight: Yes! Marx asserts here that skilled labor does produce more value per 

hour than unskilled labor. Marx from this point on adopts the idea that all labor is unskilled, 

although what is really the case according to the viewpoint of Marx is that there are different 

skills, which are then reduced to unskilled labor. The tricky issue here is how does Marx 

quantitatively measure value produced between skilled and unskilled laborers. It is important 


to note that Marx is not talking about wages here. When Marx talks about value, he means 

some objective social reality not subjective valuation. Value does not come from the merit of 

workers, instead it is a very specific economic relationship. We are talking about the values 

which the commodities containing skilled or unskilled labor fetch on the market Marx states 

that “More complicated labor counts as multiplied simple labor, so that a smaller amount 

of complicated labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple labor.” The market then assigns 

values which the commodities containing skilled or unskilled labor fetch on the market. 

The important point here is that the value of labor, as it is being discussed here, is market 

determined not wage determined. 

Hans: Everything you are writing is right and relevant to the Question. You do not quite answer how exactly this 

tricky issue of reducing qualitative skill differences to merely quantitative differences is done, but Marx himself 

stays vague about it because there is not really a general rule. 

Next Message by Wight is [189]. 

[179.1] Bandit: Yes, the reason skilled labor produces more value per hour than an ujnskilled 

laborer is becuase of the skill in which they are trained. Example is a doctor who 

provides a much more valuable service than say someone who makes cardboard egg cartons. 

Because of the difficulty of the task or job, a skilled worker is trained and taught in the trit 

and therefore are able to conquer the more complicated and sophisticated jobs. 

I believe the basis of the argument is the value to society each type of laborer provides or 

contributes. A doctor is one who analyzes the body and its multi-functions and learns how 

to treat the different parts when they are disfunctioning. If soceity had to do without doctors 

the result would be choas. On the hand if we lost those who make cardboard egg cartons 

(this may be an extreme comparison) we certainly could find another place to put our eggs. 

Hans: I said in [8] that value is not based on social need. This is a basic misunderstanding of Marx’s whole 

argument. 

Next Message by Bandit is [179.2]. 

[181.1] Caren: Marx states that the quantity of the ‘value-forming substance’,the labor, 

must be of an average or a socially necessary labor-time. He also wrote that socially necessary 

labor-time is the labor-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions 

of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity 

of labor prevalent in that society. In the case of producing the same kind of use-value, it 

is not difficult to compare and measure the degree of skill and intensity of labor under the 

same conditions of production. The labor-time of skillful workers is reduced to a certain 

amount of the socially necessary labor-time by comparing the resultant quantity of products. 

Moreover the mechanised factory system of capitalist production generally homogenises the 

efficiency of labor under the same conditions of production, making the instruments o labor 

the main determinants of production, rather than in workers’ ability, tend to be the decisive 

influence on productivity of the same sort of product. Therefore, in this case, the answer is 

“NO”. 

However, the problem of the degree of skill and intensity of labor cannot conceptually 

be confined to the same kind of labor. Marx refers to complex labor in contrast with simple 

average labor, when he compares different kinds of useful labor. Complex labor can be 

regarded as expenditure of labor-power of skilled workers better trained or educated than 

the average unskilled or simple workers. For example, an engineer is a skilled labor and a


mason is an unskilled labor. Marx then explicates the reducing complex into simple labor; 

quote: 

“ More complex labour counts only as intensified, or rather multiplied simple 

labour, so that a smaller quantity of complex labour is considered equal 

to a larger quantity of simple labor. Experience shows that this reduction 

is constantly being made. A commodity may be the outcome of the most 

complicated labour, but through its value it is posited as equal to the product 

of simple labour. The various proportions in which different kinds of 

labour are reduced to simple labour as their unit of measurement are established 

by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers; 

these proportions therefore appear to the producers to have been handed 

down by tradition. In the interests of simplification, we shall henceforth 

view every form of labour-power directly as simple labour-power; by this 

we shall simply be ourselves the troubles of making the reduction,”. 

Marx believed that the higher value of complex labor-power is causally related with the 

higher value created by that labor-power. A higher sort of skilled labor can be regarded as 

being able somehow to create higher values in proportion to its value according to Marx 

quotation: 

“ All labour of a higher, or more complicated, character than average labour 

is expenditure of labor-power of a more costly kind, labour-power whose 

production has cost more time and labour than unskilled or simple labourpower, 

and which therefore has higher value. This power being of higher 

value, is expresses itself in labour of a higher sort, and therefore becomes 

objectified, during an equal amount of time, in proportionally higher values. 

Whatever difference in skill there may be between the labour by which the 

jeweller merely replaces the value of his own labour-power does not in 

any way differ in quality from the additional portion by which he creates 

surplus-value,”. 

Therefore, in this case, the answer is “YES,” skilled labor produces more value per hour 

than unskilled labor. 

Hans: Your resubmission is excellent. 

Next Message by Caren is [182.2]. 

[181.3] TOAD: Midterm74 Yes skilled labor gets paid more per hour, but this is because 

it took more invested time to become skilled. Therefore a skilled laborer hour, eventhough 

it consists of 60 minutes also includes the time it took for that person to become a skilled 

laborer. So what took a skilled laborer 1 hour to do may take a unskilled laborer 2 hours to 

accomplish. So there is more value per hour in the skilled laborer as opposed to the unskilled 

because of the one hour of additional hour of training the skilled laborer has. I believe an 

example was of the doctor that went to school for 15 years and then practiced for 15 years. 

He is getting paid twice as much for his labor as someone that has only worked for 15 years. 

This is because the doctor has twice as many hours invested. 


The example would be the same if it took 10 hours to produce 10 yards of linen and 10 

hours to produce 20 yards of cotton. The cotton would be the same value because it took the 

same amount of labor time to produce the product. 

Hans: Your first argument is right: 

Yes skilled labor gets paid more per hour, but this is because it took more invested time to 

become skilled. Therefore a skilled laborer hour, eventhough it consists of 60 minutes also 

includes the time it took for that person to become a skilled laborer. 

But now you are bringing a different argument. This is not applicable here, because usually someone who does not 

have the training cannot do what the trained person does, even if he takes 10 times more time: 

So what took a skilled laborer 1 hour to do may take a unskilled laborer 2 hours to accomplish. 

So there is more value per hour in the skilled laborer as opposed to the unskilled because of 

the one hour of additional hour of training the skilled laborer has. 

In the next part of your answer you are confusing the question what someone gets paid with the question how much 

value someone creates. These are two completely different issues (and it cannot have escaped you that a doctor gets 

paid much more than twice as much as an unskilled laborer): 

I believe an example was of the doctor that went to school for 15 years and then practiced for 

15 years. He is getting paid twice as much for his labor as someone that has only worked for 

15 years. This is because the doctor has twice as many hours invested. 

Next Message by TOAD is [181.4]. 

[182.4] Lamma: Marx feels that skilled labor does produce more value per hour than 

unskilled labor. He argues that the value of a commodity produced by skilled labor will 

bring a higher price on the market. In other words a product produced by skilled labor will 

obtain a higher value than a commodity produced by unskilled labor. This is determined by 

the quality of work and the pace of that good quality work. However, Marx assumes in his 

arguments from this point on that all labor is unskilled. He sees skilled labor as a bunch of 

unskilled labor that has come together and is acting as one now. 

Hans: You wrote: 

He argues that the value of a commodity produced by skilled labor will bring a higher price 

on the market. In other words a product produced by skilled labor will obtain a higher value 

than a commodity produced by unskilled labor. 

This sounds as if value was determined by price. This is not Marx’s view. He considers price to be the expression 

of value. And besides you are not explaining why the product of skilled labor has a higher price. 

This is determined by the quality of work and the pace of that good quality work. 

Marx says that the quality of work does not matter for value (as long as it meets some minimum standards). And 

there is a difference between intensity and skill level. 

Your last sentence is good. 

Next Message by Lamma is [182.5]. 

[192.3] Scott: Marx explains the higher value of skilled labour in regards to unskilled 

labour strictly in terms of his “labour theory of value”.He does not involve wage differentials 

between the two groups, as I have misstakenly in previous submissions. Clearly, this is an 

area where Marx has many critics, as the capitalist cannot see beyond realtionships between 

the two groups’ wages. The skilled labourer has the higher value due to the additional labour 

costs necessary for being classified as skilled in the first palce, namely education or training. 

The skill, in Marxs’ words,“can be compared to an additional tool, which is in itself not 

value-producing, but which transfers part of its own value of the product produced by the 

skilled worker.” So, the values that the commodities containing either skilled or unskilled


labour “fetch on the market”, is the value comparison here. Marx does indeed state that 

skilled labour produces more value per hour than the unskilled labour. 

Hans: Your submission (but not your in-class exam) says correctly that the value created does not depend on 

people’s wages. But apparently you do not quite believe this, since you add: 

Clearly, this is an area where Marx has many critics, as the capitalist cannot see beyond realtionships 

between the two groups’ wages. 

This difference in value created is present even if there are no capitalists but only independent producers. As with 

many value relationships, the competitive mechanism which enforces it is very long term: if a certain skill gets a 

higher premium than warranted by the difference in costs of education, then more workers will acquire the skill. 

Next Message by Scott is [220]. 

[194.2] Angela: Marx thinks skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled 

labor. Because skilled labor and unskilled labor have the diverse kinds of labor powers, 

the diverse kinds of labor powers will constitute the different substance of values. The 

skilled labor has to spend more training time to develop his/her skill and technical knowledge 

so that he/she will create more value labor power. I think this is the interpretation for 

Marx to explain this question. 

Hans: Your in-class exam was much clearer than your very terse resubmission. 

Next Message by Angela is [239]. 

[194.3] Panacea: Yes! The greatest difficulty in speaking about labour is it’s reduction 

to general terms - ‘skilled’ and ‘unskilled’. This is not an exact and absolute science, and 

Marx knew it. There are no absolutes. But a great deal of evidence exists which indicate 

a ‘multiplier effect’ possible in labour - this is the qualitative distinction between ‘skilled’ 

and ’unskilled’labour. A brain surgeon studies for years ( a relatively unproductive time 

for society) in order to become an effective doctor. Those years of training multiply his 

effectiveness in terms of use value (one coat clothes one man; if I can work better and more 

skilled, I can produce two coats to clothe two men in the same time). Note: the effort 

expended remains the same between unskilled and skilled (or should). Panacea. 

Hans: The case in which two workers produce the same product is much clearer than the case discussed in this 

Question in which the skilled labor of a doctor is explained with the labor of his janitor. Your “multiplier effect”, 

if I understand it right, is an effort to combine the two. Forget it! A surgeon does not have to work twice as fast as 

someone else in order to get his training time added to the value produced when he uses his skills. 

Next Message by Panacea is [194.4]. 

[197.6] Kia: Marx believed that skilled workers labor does produce more value per hour 

compare to unskilled laborer’s product. Skilled laborer produce something that not all of us 

can produce. Something that is unique and takes time and special skill to produce, which 

puts more value to the item. If you look at those who has special skills, they put in time 

and effort to learn those skills. Therefore, their skills should be valued more than unskilled 

laborers. Society too had the same ideas who should get paid more. Like the doctors and 

lawyers who put vast amount of time and money to acquire the skills needed to perform. So, 

it seems logical for skilled workers labor should be worth more and compensated for. 

Hans: In your in-class exam you wrote the additional sentence: “Unskilled labor is something most of us can do, 

so putting value on something like this is not common.” This also seems to be underlying your resubmission. You 

think skilled labor creates more value because it is exceptional. Marx thinks just the opposite: skilled labor creates 

more value to the extent that it is equivalent to a larger amount of unskilled labor – unskilled labor that first has to 

be trained etc. 



[197.2] Jake: Marx thinks that skilled labor does produce more value per hour than 

unskilled labor. Skilled labor seems to fetch more value on the market compared to unskilled 

labor. In capitalism this concept of skilled and unskilled labor is really noticed or amplified. 

The skilled labor seems to take a higher social stance than unskilled labor. Usually the 

skilled labor sector is the sector that exploits the unskilled labor force. This meaning that 

workers are not receiving full compensation for the work they do. The capitalist high in 

the pyramid reaps this excess denied to the common worker. Though skilled labor produces 

more value per an hour than unskilled, the difference in the value that society puts on the 

skilled labor is inflated. 

Hans: You are right, a skilled laborer may be in a position in which his income consists of more value than 

he produces. (You must distinguish these two questions: the value one produces and the income one receives). 

However the prime means to exploit other workers is not skills but ownership of the means production. Marx said, 

the capitalist is not the a capitalist because he is the boss, but he is the boss because he is capitalist. 

Next Message by Jake is [197.7]. 

[200.6] Gottlieb: Einfache Arbeitskraft Skilled labor produces no more value per hour 

than unskilled labor, according to Marx. He explains that two laborers both have the same 

value due to the abstract value of labor they posses. The only problem facing a society 

is matching the laborer with the production of a commodity that he or she does best. As 

Gottlieb said, as long as the laborers are matched to the “effective” commodity producing 

job, the CEO makes no more valuable contribution than does the car salesman. 

The reader gets the idea after reading Marx’s comments on “simple labor power” that he 

is refering more to time than to labor. Perhaps in the German translation, Marx could have 

said not that simple labor is “einfache Arbeitskraft,” but that there is “einfach Arbeitskraft,” 

or...there is simply labor! 

It makes no difference what you are producing. You are “simply” producing “labor.” You 

are not producing a type of labor, just labor. One could give time a value and get a better 

idea of this “simple labor.” Each society is given so much time or labor hours. As long as 

they are all being utilized effectively, they are producing their potential. 

Hans: Good thinking, but: your formulations are sometimes inaccurate, and you are overlooking something. First 

regarding your formulations: You write: 

What you mean is: 

[Marx] explains that two laborers both have the same value due to the abstract value of labor 

they posses. 

[Marx] explains that two laborers both create the same value per hour due to the abstract labor 

they represent. 

And later, instead of saying: 

It makes no difference what you are producing. You are “simply” producing “labor.” You are 

not producing a type of labor, just labor. 

you should have said 

It makes no difference what you are producing. You are “simply” performing “labor.” You are 

not performing a type of labor, just labor. 

Now here is your oversight: From your argument that all labor only counts as time follows that labor which needs 

training before it can be preformed should be credited not only with the time of the actual preformance, but also 

with the training time. 

Next Message by Gottlieb is [201.1].


[200.5] Kia: I believe skilled workers produce more value per hour than unskilled laborer. 

If you look at teachers, we think of them as educational provider, leaders in many ways, and 

role models. However, what if everyday we seat in class for hours and learn nothing from 

this teacher. Not because the teachers personality or race, color, age, nor sex has nothing to 

do with the sub par performance students are receiving. Then students must wonder if this 

teacher is worth their time and money. Therefore, unskilled workers produce less value per 

hour compare to skilled workers. 

Hans: Your resubmission re-interprets the question so that it is more in line with Question 53, where two people 

produce the same commodity, one is good at it, and the other is not. This was not the Question Marx was grappling 

with in the text where Question 74 was posed. 


[205.1] Gilligan: Skilled vs. unskilled Many times we find ourselves saying a skilled 

laborer can produce more per hour than an unskilled laborer. We almost automatically make 

that assumption, but we actually need to look upon the laborers circumstances. Many skilled 

laborers are able to get the training necessary to be in the situations that they are in, where 

as a unskilled laborer doesn’t have the same opportunities as the skilled laborers have i.e 

schooling and the means by which to become a skilled worker. Even though Marx does state 

that skilled labor does produce more per hour than an unskilled laborer does. Something 

produced can have a lot of time and effort put into it, and therefore the value placed on that 

good should resemble the labor time spent in creating the good. But there is a key factor in 

determining the value of labor whether it be skilled or unskilled and what produces more per 

hour. If we break everything down into simple labor we can define the value of a commodity. 

If we use simple labor as a measurement we can better determine the value. So if a skilled 

worker is able to create a product the value comes through by mesuring as a quantity of 

simple labor. It takes a smaller quantity of skilled labor per hour to produce a product that 

is measured in simple terms, therefore stating the fact that the quantity of labor involved in 

creating a product measured by simple labor time creates the value, and therefore the skilled 

laborer produces more simple labor value per hour than a unskilled worker. 

Hans: I regret now that I did not say more in my [92] about your [60]. The income earned by skilled workers may 

be boosted if others are denied access to education. But the value they produce is computed under the assumption 

that enough people have access to education; therefore the only thing that counts is how much time is spent at 

school, and the cost of schooling. This is the only way to break skilled labor down into simple labor. 


[206.4] Super: According to Marx skilled labor does produce more value per hour than 

unskilled labor. However the use value of these commodities will always be equal. Along 

with this all labor used in production for these similar commodities will be equalized. The 

skilled laborers make up for the loss in production of the unskilled workers. For this reason 

all labor can be viewed as unskilled labor with respect to this commodity. These commodities 

will have equal labor values. 

Hans: You are confusing the present Question, which deals with different kinds of labor producing different products, 

one skilled (needing training) and the other not, with the issue of the fast and slow worker producing the same 

thing, which was the subject of Question 53. 

Next Message by Super is [230]. 

[206.7] Rambis: On page 33 of Answers, Hans states, “Marx thinks skilled labor does 

produce more value per four than unskilled labor..(and) when Marx talks about ‘value’ he 

means some objective social reality, not some subjective valuation.” The argument is that 


the unskilled worker might be able to turn out a large quantity of commodity X because 

the skill required to produce them was minimal, but the skilled worker (because the work 

required much skill) was able to turn out a much smaller amount of commodity Y. However, 

the exchange value of the commodities produced by the skilled and the unskilled workers 

is where the compensation for quantity comes into play. Qualitative differences are factors 

as important as quantitative differences. Generally speaking, the skilled worker turns out a 

commodity of a much higher qualitative value, while the unskilled worker produces a higher 

quantitative commodity. 

Hans: Say commodity X is cleaning an office building, and commodity Y is writing a computer program. Is the 

quantity of X larger than the quantity of Y? They cannot be compared. Also your argument with the quality of 

labor is wrong. Qualitatively, both kinds of labor are needed. 

Next Message by Rambis is [207]. 

[209.1] Positive: Marx defines value as the social property which makes things exchangeble 

in a commodity society. Value does not describe the “ worth” of a thing, but a property 

of things which gives them weight on the market. The value of labor-power and the value 

which that the labor-power creates in the labor-process, are two different magnitudes. The 

basis for profit lies in the differences in between. All labors are the same. It does not matter 

if you are the chief excecitive in a larger corporation, or an unskilled worker at a mill.Labor 

is still labor. According to Marx, there are different kinds of skills, which then are reduced to 

unskilled labor. Any human being, skilled or unskilled, uses ¿ the same amount of energy to 

produce something. Skilled labor counts only as multiplied simple labor and it will usually 

produce more products. Nevertheless, the only thing that changes is an increase of production 

in the use-value of the commodity. In other words, one coat will clothe one man, two 

coats will clothe two men and so forth. Therefore, the increased use-value of a commodity 

from an increase due to skilled labor does not change the value of the coat. If we are to bring 

the labor-power expended to produce a commodity down to how much time or a per hour 

basis, then the skilled worker will produce more value than the unskilled worker. They still 

have the same value as human beings, but in the meaning of efficiency as workers, they are 

different. 

Hans: The beginning is right. The sentence 

Any human being, skilled or unskilled, uses the same amount of energy to produce something. 

is irrelevant. Value is not the expression of the “energy” used by the producer. The first half of the next sentence is 

right 

Skilled labor counts only as multiplied simple labor 

but now it gets wrong: 

and it will usually produce more products. 

Marx’s text where Question 74 was posed deals with different kind of labor, producing different products. You 

cannot quantitatively compare different products, apples and oranges. 

You must go by the time it takes to acquire the skill, and in some cases just by the constellation of demand and 

supply. 

Next Message by Positive is [212.1]. 

[212.3] Snowman: The first and thing to consider is that Marx here is not referring to the 

wages or value that a given “labor receives for its labor time, what this question addresses is 

the value of the commodity in which the labor time is materialized.” Skilled labor is assumed 

to produce a greater quantity of a commodity than does unskilled labor for the same duration 

of time. If the skilled labor is then producing a larger quantity of a commodity then the


value of that labor per hour is of higher material value than the unskilled. This is because 

the output of the skilled labor creates quantitatively more use-value per hour. However “the 

same labor applied for the same duration of time always produces the same amount of value, 

independent of it productivity.” In other words the labor of one hour is always of the same 

value, the only thing that actually changes for changes in productivity is the quantity of use 

values that are produced. An increase in the overall productivity therefor reduces the amount 

of labor contained in the commodity thus lowers its value, that is if you determine the value 

of commodities by the amount of labor that they contain, as Marx does. The reason for this 

paradox, an increase in use values with, corresponding decreases in value is because of the 

dual nature of labor, which relates labor on two level quanitatively and qualitatively. 

Hans: The resubmission was much better than your in-class exam. You are still confusing this Question with 

Question 53, but you made some interesting observations. You discovered an apparent contradiction between what 

Marx said about the exceptionally slow worker, and what he said about general increases in productivity. How can 

it be resolved? 

Next Message by Snowman is [241]. 

[213] Dunny: Re-submission of labor comparison Upon reading your interpretation of 

Marx’s point of view concerning skilled and unskilled labor and reviewing my own quiz, I 

need to clear up some of my own ideas on the subject. I was comparing the differing skills 

as producing different commodities. If the two workers were to produce the same thing or 

commodity then it is obvious that there will be a difference between the quantity and the 

quality of the two. This is where the value comes into the picture. Do people value a job 

well done or does the value come with how much of the thing you are able to get. Many 

people argue over the matter even with life. Is it more important to have a life of quality or 

is it better to just have a lot more time in your life. The answer lies in the judgement of value 

in each of the labors. “Quality or Quantity”. 

Next Message by Dunny is [218]. 

[214.4] Chacci: When we observe labor in the simple form, skilled labor is a ‘multiple’ 

or is ‘intensified’ simple labor. This simple labor is still expenditure of human labor. Marx 

states ‘A commodity may be the product of the most complicated labor, but its value, by 

equating it to the value of simple labor, represents a certain amount of simple labor alone.’ 

Thus all labor skilled and unskilled can be reduced to its simplest form. Then we can compare 

it at a quantitative level. Since a commodity has value because human labor has been 

expended on it and since skilled labor is a ‘multiple’ of simple labor it follows that skilled 

labor will produce a ‘multiple’ value of unskilled labor. For example, a skilled shoe maker 

can make two pairs of shoes an hour because he has a certain amount of training or experience. 

While an unskilled laborer will only be able to make one pair of shoes an hour because 

he has not had the experience. 

Hans: I like your in-class exam better than your resubmission. You are juggling with all the right concepts and 

thoughts, but you need to sort them out better. 

Next Message by Chacci is [232]. 

[216.1] Pinky: Marx believes that skilled labor does produce more value per hour than 

unskilled labor. He explains that simple labor varies from culture to culture and country to 

country, but is given once society is given. In determining the “value”, Marx is referring to an 

objective social reality. He states that skilled labor counts merely as potentiated or multiplied 

simple labor, so a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple 

labor. This, however is not to say that a C.E.O, for example would be more productive than 


an assembly-line worker; money (income) is NOT the determining factor in evaluating one’s 

productivity. 

Hans: You are bringing interesting and relevant facts about skilled labor, but I am missing the argument with the 

training time prorated over the work time. 

Next Message by Pinky is [278]. 

[218.1] Punani: In response to this question, Marx theorizes that a “smaller amount of 

complicated labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple labor.” He states that...“the magnitude 

of the value of a commodity represents nothing but the quantity of labor embodied in 

it,..all commodities, when taken in the right proportions, must be equal in value.” In referring 

to the answers Pinky wrote in [31]: “In Marx’s view one hour of unskilled labor would 

be equal to an hour of skilled labor because the unskilled laborer is able to turn out a larger 

quantity of something that, despite its lesser value, is produced in greater quantities because 

of the lack of skill it requires.” So to sum it up, the value produced is the same, because 

unskilled laborers must make up for their lack of skill b working faster. And the capitalist 

would love it if skilled workers were faster, but much more difficult to control and speedup 

a skilled laborer than an unskilled laborer. Value does not come from merit but it is very 

specific economic relationship. Marx also thinks skilled labor does produce more value per 

hour than unskilled labor. According to the way Marx sees it there are different skills, which 

are then reduced to unskilled labor. When Marx talks about“value” he means some objective 

social reality, not some subjective valuation. 

According to Marx, skilled labor does produce more value perhour than an unskilled 

labor. If we had one skilled labor and an unskilledd laborer to produce the same commodity 

their end results would vary. The skilled labor will produce more and the quality would 

be better due to their experience and advance training they’ve received. Thus, the more 

job training and education a person receives the better chances that person produces better 

products than the person with less job training and education. 

Hans: You are excerpting the students’ wrong answers and my arguments trying to correct them without even 

noticing that something was wrong. In this class you cannot just copy things; you must think them through. Your 

submission is repetitive and unorganized. Instead adding another paragraph in your resubmission (which went in 

the wrong direction anyway), you should have tried to organize better what you had written in class. 

Next Message by Punani is [219.1]. 

[242.2] Dragonfly: Skilled Labor does not produce more value per hour than unskilled 

labor. Skilled labor, in it’s accessment of value per hour, must take into account a variety of 

factors, including: the cost to the laborer of education (resulting in the skilled labor status) 

and the value of the time spent getting the education (time not spent selling labor or producing 

commodities). While these arguments are equally relevant to a description of the wage 

of the skilled laborer vs. the wage of the unskilled laborer, one must be sure not to confuse 

the value of skilled labor and the wage of the skilled laborer. There is also the question of 

the value of the commodity produced by the skilled laborer. THe unskilled laborer produces 

through their labor, the commodity which, most often, are the most necessary commodity: 

perhaps even the foundation of the economy, i.e. food, water, power, roads, etc. Without 

these commodities, the skilled laborer would not only not be able to produce their commodities, 

but would scarcely be able to live. Marx would suggest that as all value is simply 

congealed abstract labor time, and, thusly all labor hours are equal.


Hans: Your grade suffered because your resubmission was one day late. You bring some of the right arguments, 

but you do not put them together correctly, and at the end you bring the wrong arguments instead. It is right that 

the skilled labor has to account for the time spent for acquiring the skill. Consequently, one hour spent in using the 

skilled labor produces more than one hour of simple labor. This has nothing to do with the fact how necessary the 

labors are. 

Next Message by Dragonfly is [332.4]. 

[314.4] Peaches: Marx writes in 126:1 that the use value of a commodity “is independent 

of the amount of labor required to appropriate its useful qualities.” So whether it is skilled 

labor or unskilled labor we cannot measure its value in a commodity. For instance, if a coat 

is more expensive than another, it is not because the more expensive one was done by a 

skilled laborer and the latter by a non-skilled laborer. It is the socially necessary abstract 

labor time put into the coat that makes a commodity more valuable. It is this that makes the 

coat have more quality. This means that all we can say is that “the use value of the skilled 

laborer is different than that of the non-skilled laborer because the two kinds of labor are of 

different qualities.” 

Hans: Your first sentence says: 

the use value of a commodity is independent of the amount of labor required to appropriate its 

useful qualities. 

This is correct, but it seems what you really wanted to say, and what fits with the rest of your argument, is so-to-say 

the mirror image of this sentence, which is also correct: 

the value of a commodity is independent of the specific character of the labor required to 

appropriate its useful qualities. 

Arguing from there you come to the conclusion that it does not matter whether the labor is skilled or not. This is 

logical and it is also in the spirit of Marx. Skills as such do not make a difference. They only make a difference if 

society has to spend labor time to make a laborer skilled, i.e., when society has a choice between a lower number 

of hours of skilled labor or a higher number of hours of unskilled labor. I like the way you are woring on these 

problems; unfortunately your grade suffered because your submission was late. 

Next Message by Peaches is [323]. 

[315.2] Fox: The value of a product is created by the use value of lobor power. The use 

value of the product is extracted upon valuation. The value of labor power is the amount 

of abstract labor required to replenish labor power. When commodities are compared with 

one another, their use values are abstracted, we are only able to compare them with regard 

to their common substance, the amount of socially necessary abstract labor time with they 

congeal. 

The capitalist purchases labor to create commodities which will have a greater magnitude 

of value than the value of the inputs to produce the commodity. The laborer sells his labor 

power to the capitalist at its value. As the worker labors he creates value, he acts as the 

provider substitute for the capital market. His labor power is consumed in the production 

process, it is the use value of labor power which creates the value we see in the commodity. 

Hans: This is an almost literal copy from Pippy’s [82], which was an answer to Question 60 and has nothing to 

do with Question 74 asked here. Instead of reproducing Pippy’s flowery sentence “he acts as the surrogate father 

for the capitalist with capital as the whomb,” you changed it into: “he acts as the provider substitute for the capital 

market.” This makes me wonder how much you understood of what you wrote. 

Next Message by Fox is [316]. 

[335.13] CaseWorker: CaseWorker did not resubmit his exam. He is talking about two 

workers producing the same product, one faster than the other, instead of the problem which 


Marx was discussing around Question 74 with two people producing different products and 

having different skills which may require schooling. 


[335.15] Dunny: Dunny did not resubmit his exam. He seems to say that skilled and 

unskilled labor produce the same value because skilled labor does not have to work as fast 

as unskilled labor. This is not bad thinking. 


[335.11] Chuck: Chuck did not resubmit his exam. He says skilled labor is harder labor, 

which is not true. And generally he only compares laborers producing the same commodity 

at different speeds, instead of comparing laborers who produce different things and have had 

different trainings to do that. 

Next Message by Chuck is [601]. 

[335.16] Pizza: Pizza did not resubmit his exam. He says two unskilled workers equal 

one skilled worker. This is right, but why is this so? 

Next Message by Pizza is [386]. 

[335.14] Camera: Camera did not resubmit her exam. She has some basic confusions 

about value but seems to be a thoughtful person. I think she would benefit from submitting 

more answers. 


[407.1] Punani: In response to this question, Marx theorizes that “a smaller amount 

of complicated labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple labor.” He states that “... the 

magnitude of the value of a commodity represents nothing but the quantity of labor embodied 

in it,...all commodities, when taken in the right proportions, must be equal in value” in 

referring to the answers pinky wrote in [31]: In Marx’s view one hour of unskilled labor 

would be equal to an hour of skilled labor because the unskilled labor is able to turn out a 

larger quantity of something that, despite its lesser value, is produced in greater quantities 

because of the lack of skill it requires. So to sum it up, the value produced is the same, 

because unskilled laborers must make up for their lack of skill by working faster. And the 

capitalist would love it if skilled workers were faster, but much more difficult to control and 

speed up a skilled laborer than an unskilled laborer. Value does not come from merit but it 

is a very specific economic relationship. Marx also thinks skilled labor does produce more 

value per hour than unskilled labor. According to the way Marx sees it there are different 

skills, which are then reduced to unskilled labor. When Marx talks about “value” he means 

some objective social reality, not some subjective valuation. 

Hans: You are stringing several quotes from Marx and the printut of the discussion list together, without explainign 

clearly enough the connections between them, or resolving apparent contradictions between these statements. 


[545.1] Skippy: Finally this thing works; sorry. Value has little to do with who produces 

the good. The good is produced. A person put in a hour of work. Skilled or not. A hour of 

labor went into producing this commodity. 

In Marxism, each person is just as valuable as the next. It does not matter if he is a doctor, 

teacher, lawncare, etc. A hour of work is a hour of work. 

There isn’t any difference in who has worked the hour. A hour is a hour. Under Marxism, 

each hour worked is equal.


If a equal amount of labor was put into the production of a good, then it doesn’t matter 

who put in that hour. 

Under the capitalist system, skilled labor can be more valuable tha unskilled. The skilled 

person would produce a higher quality product at a faster rate than a nonskilled person doing 

the same job. 

Hans: You are making the elementary error of thinking that Marx was talking about socialist society, in which all 

labor counts as equal. Also the explanation in the last paragraph about capitalist society is wrong. Question 74 is 

about skilled workers who produce different things than unskilled workers. 

Next Message by Skippy is [545.2]. 

Question 75 is 62 in 1995WI, 75 in 1996ut, 81 in 1997WI, 95 in 2000fa, 103 in 2002fa, 

and 119 in 2004fa: 

Question 75 Discuss the implications of the fact that an increase in material wealth in the 

form of commodities may be accompanied by a decrease in the total amount of their value. 

How does this contradiction manifest itself in developed capitalism? 

[52] KALISPEL: More wealth leads to more exploitation I like this question because, 

to me, it refers to the nature of the rigid capitalistic system in place controlling the workers. 

In capitalism there is this rush to produce more, more, more. American standards of living 

have continually increased. This has been possible due to longer work hours, increases in 

technology, etc. Essentially, one worker produces more of a commodity in the average work 

day than ever before. 

This has made it possible for the goods produced to cost less and for there to be “more 

for everyone”. Thus, in answer to the question, the rush for material wealth has decreased 

the value of the commodities. 

How does this decrease in value affect the working class? What happens is it is cheaper 

for the subsistence level needs to be met. As farming is more productive and textile industries 

innovate you can clothe and feed people much more cheaply. This makes it possible for the 

capitalist to keep wages down. Why? If you do not eat very well and are not healthy and 

likewise if you do not have adequate work clothing your productivity goes down greatly. 

The capitalist knows he must pay you at least this much. The contradiction here is that as 

society innovates and brings about more material wealth it only puts a firmer grip into the 

capitalist’s hands. It is more possible to keep wages low and have more surplus left over for 

the those at the top of the economic system. 

It is interesting to note that after some time additional goods will be introduced into the 

average working class family lifestyle. For example, a car is considered a necessity for most 

people in modern day society (America). This was not the case 70 years ago. What’s ironic 

is that Americans are at the point where, more than ever, they could opt for leisure time. 

Some economists have argued this is because of the desire for class and status. We all want 

to have “x” amount of goods. Keep up with the Jones’s. This is true for a large extent, in my 

opinion. What I believe, although, is that we do not really need all that we think we need. 

Somehow society has been convinced that they really do need “x” amount of goods. Being 

convinced that we need “x” amount of goods has some interesting effects. 


It makes us work more and more to get these goods. It also gets us to buy what the 

capitalist produces. It is part of the established parameters around the capitalist system. 

If man was happy with food, shelter, clothing, and a few intrinsic interests there would 

be a decline in the rich capitalist. Capitalism must grow, innovate, and produce a desire 

to exchange in the market place for goods. All of this is fueled by the capitalist desire 

for growth because growth=profits. Thus, in my opinion, you should be careful what you 

believe in. Capitalists are there to convince us of the things that they want. If they had our 

best interests in mind they would not exploit us. They would not let the unproductive stand 

on the street corner with a sign will work for food. 

Simply stated: 1 – The drive is for material wealth and/or profits 2 – This drive reduces 

the value of goods 3 – this keeps the capitalist system firmer in place 4 – be careful of what 

you believe about capitalist dogma. Capitalists do not have your best interests at heart 5 – It 

will get worse before it gets better. 

Please note: I read this in the Salt Lake Tribune. In several of the industrialized nations 

the average work week has been reduced to 32 hours with the same 40 hour a week pay. 

Interestingly, productivity has gone up as a result! 

Hans: Please do not rest on your laurels now after this grade. This class requires not only a sense of the overall 

connections, which you showed you have, but also some quite tedious analysis of the details. 


[102] Hans: Non-congruence of wealth and value Your answer [52] is terrific, KALISPEL. 

To be honest with you, I hadn’t thought about it this way, but now that you explain it, I am 

thinking: how could I have missed this aspect of it? The answer I had in mind when posing 

Question 75 went along the following lines: 

(1) if wealth and value move in opposite directions, then a market economy, which focuses 

on value, is like a ship whose compass went awry. This is why you have economic 

phenomena like: when crops are good (which means more wealth), then the farmers suffer 

(because farm prices plunge). Or the recent developments in which incredible increases in 

productivity (the computer, the technology which allows us to have this class in this way), 

do not lead to the enrichment of all but to unemployment and misery. 

(2) But the fact that capitalism, through the market system, focuses on the wrong measure 

of wealth, also comes to haunt the capitalists: despite all technological innovations, 

it becomes harder and harder for the capitalists to make money, because machines do not 

create value, only workers do, and workers are being more and more eliminated out of the 

production process. This is the law of the “falling rate of profit”, which Marx considered to 

be the most important law of capitalism. 

Therefore I saw how the non-congruence of wealth and value hurts the capitalists, but I 

did not see the much more obvious fact, pointed out in your answer, how it hurts the workers. 

I guess this bias on my part is due to my middle-class upbringing and the privileged job I 

have as a university professor. Recently, the capitalist system has become so desperate for 

profits that it is getting ready to seriously squeeze the university professors. In my view, this 

is stupid of them, because they risk losing their best apologists.


Allow me just one minor quibble with the wording of one sentence in your answer. You 

write: 

They would not let the unproductive stand on the street corner with a sign 

will work for food. 

Don’t call the unemployed “unproductive”. These are workers willing to work whom 

capitalism does not need, because, as you said, the capitalists do not have the general welfare 

in mind, but only their narrow class interests. The state of being unproductive is forced on 

these workers, they are not intrinsically unproductive. 


Exam Question 78 is 65 in 1995WI, 74 in 1995ut, 78 in 1996ut, 84 in 1997WI, 86 in 

1997sp, 82 in 1997ut, 89 in 1998WI, and 101 in 2000fa: 

Exam Question 78 Give economic, not philosophical reasons why a commodity must appear 

as what it is (use your own words). 

[132] Wight: Commodities must appear as what they are Commodities must appear as 

what they are from an economic standpoint because sellers and buyers both participating in 

the market for the commodity must be able to easily understand and interpret what exactly 

the commodity is in order to have a need for the commodity as well as determine a market 

price. Price is determined both objectively, based on the actual value of the commodity i.e 

labor hours, cost of inputs, capital, etc, as well as subjectively, based on the price of other 

comparable or substitutable items. What is boils down to is buyers and sellers must be able 

to identify commodities on the market in order to determine utility for the item and price, 

therefore the commodity must appear clearly and simply as what is truely is. This seems 

a very basic and fundamental concept but is important is keep in mind as the basis for the 

exchange of commodities in the economy. 

Hans: In the Annotations, just above Question 78, it says: “appear as” is used here in the meaning of “take the 

social form of.” Then the Annotations elaborate on what this means. It does not mean, as you seem to think, that 

the buyer must know what use value he is buying. You must look more closely at the context in which the Question 

is posed. 


Question 79 is 66 in 1995WI, 75 in 1995ut, 85 in 1997WI, 87 in 1997sp, 83 in 1997ut, 113 

in 2002fa, 116 in 2003fa, 131 in 2005fa, 150 in 2007fa, and 156 in 2008SP: 

Question 79 Why can commodities not express their values in their own use values? 

[83] Alf: A commodity, when produced, is always in its natural form and has a use 

value, but does not yet have value. Although it was produced through labor, the value of 

a commodity does not exist until the product is introduced into the market. The market is 

what gives a commodity labor value, but only if the product is accepted socially. If accepted 

by the market, the products labor value will be validated, and the product will become a 

commodity with both use value and value. Products must always be integrated into a real 

social context, or in other words, as Marx says, must take the form of a commodity. All 

products must pass a test of whether or not the labor time exhausted on them is socially 

necessary. Therefore, commodities cannot express their own use values, this must be done 


through social acceptance in the market as a valuable commodity. This is only done by the 

market, or through the market socially, and not by the commodity itself!! 

Message [83] referenced by [113]. Next Message by Alf is [86]. 

[88] MsMarx: Expression of commodity’s value Marx says that commodities come into 

the world in the form of use values or material goods. Those objects which are a result of 

the production process are only one form of the commodity, its natural form. Marx states 

that a commodity is a product whose production process has the double character of being 

the congelation of abstract labor in addition to being the application of concrete labor. 

Commodities have a twofold character, so they need a twofold form. One of their forms 

is their natural form, or use value (the product of useful labor). To express their values, commodities 

need the other aspect of their character, value form or money form (the congelation 

of abstract labor). Therefore, the commodity cannot express its value in its own use value in 

and of itself. 

Commodities must take the form of a commodity by becoming a social product. This social 

form is manifested in that products must be sold on the market and in this way they pass 

the test whether the labor time spent on them was socially necessary. Since commodities 

need this double form, even if a commodity had the highest quality use value, that doesn’t 

mean the commodity is socially accepted as a social product. The social form of the commodity 

is an expression of the value of the commodity. 


[113] Hans: Alf’s and MsMarx’s answers Although Alf’s [83] starts out with a wrong 

statement, it gives at the end a good answer to the Question. But first the wrong statement: 

Although it was produced through labor, the value of a commodity does not 

exist until the product is introduced into the market. 

Alf confuses here value with value form, something which is easy to do and often done. 

The value already exists, because the labor has been spent on the good, but the introduction 

into the market is necessary to “realize” the value, to induce this labor into a social context. 

Alf’s next sentence is somewhat contradictory, this contradiction coming from Alf’s 

confusion of the categories: 

The market is what gives a commodity labor value, but only if the product 

is accepted socially. 

Did you notice the contradiction? How can the market give labor value? It can at best 

give market value. Only labor can give labor value. But the market can give this labor the 

proper social form. 

Now let us go to that part of Alf’s submission where he gives the right answer to Question 

79. Actually, I have another quibble with the first sentence here. Excuse me that I am so 

pedantic, I don’t mean it personally. Let’s read this sentence: 

Products must always be integrated into a real social context, or in other 

words, as Marx says, must take the form of a commodity.


Only in very particular kinds of economies, those based on commodity production, will 

this integration into a social context go through the market. It is a very impoverished, onedimensional 

link between the different labors; for instance it cannot deal very well with the 

issue of exhaustible resources (I just wrote [109] about this). 

The rest of Alf’s submission is exactly the right answer to Question 79: 

All products must pass a test of whether or not the labor time exhausted 

on them is socially necessary. Therefore, commodities cannot express their 

own use values, this must be done through social acceptance in the market 

as a valuable commodity. This is only done by the market, or through the 

market socially, and not by the commodity itself!! 

Now let us go to MsMarx’s [88]. Instead of directly tackling this one specific Question, 

MsMarx briefly recapitulates Marx’s development at the beginning of Section 3. This is appreciated, 

such a bird’s eye view can be a greatly help clearing things up. I won’t reproduce 

MsMarx’s first and second paragraphs here. They are basically right, although the second 

paragraph, in my view, makes a claim which it does not back up sufficiently. This claim is: 

since the commodity has a twofold character, it needs a double form. My objection, which 

gave rise to the present Question 79, is: I grant you that the form must be a reflection of 

the inner character, but why can both aspects of the commodity not be reflected by the same 

form? 

In her third paragraph, MsMarx’s discourse unravels a bit. Marx’s argument is very 

abstract, and if one argues so abstractly, it is difficult to keep track of what one is talking 

about. MsMarx writes: 

Commodities must take the form of a commodity by becoming a social 

product. 

I would see it just the other way around: Commodities must become a social product by 

taking the form of a commodity. MsMarx’s next sentence kind of says this: 

This social form is manifested in that products must be sold on the market 

and in this way they pass the test whether the labor time spent on them was 

socially necessary. 

The sentence that follows again argues in exactly the opposite direction than I would 

argue: 

Since commodities need this double form, even if a commodity had the 

highest quality use value, that doesn’t mean the commodity is socially accepted 

as a social product. 

The concrete economic fact MsMarx refers to in the second half of the sentence, which I 

will rephrase as: “Even if a commodity had the highest quality use value, that doesn’t mean 

the commodity is socially acceptable as a social product (because there may not be a need 

for this use value)”, is not the consequence of this double form, but I would see it as the 


reason why the commodity needs a double form. But perhaps MsMarx is aware of a deeper 

reason for the necessity of a double form than this? 

Finally, I cannot make anything of the last sentence in MsMarx’s submission: 

The social form of the commodity is an expression of the value of the commodity. 


[121] Karl: Expression Commodities cannot express their values in their use values 

mainly because commodities are multi-faceted material products. It is a conglomeration of 

two separate, but reliant categories that comprise the holistic element of the commodity. I 

mentioned that the commodity is multi-faceted implying that even the two said categories 

can thus be divided and sub-divided into a plethora of new underlying components. Much 

the same way as all things in nature work, ie: atoms, and subatomic particles. In the same 

manner an atom is dependent on the subatomic particle, although it is a differentially separate, 

a commodity also relies on individual sub-components that are unique, and cannot be 

found as a holistic representation of the commodity as it stands as a separate entity. 

The two aspects of the commodity at hand, are values, and use values. As one further 

studies Marx, we come to realize these are derived expressions of other unique categories, 

mainly concrete labor (useful labor), and abstract labor. It has been stated in the reading, “If 

something is a commodity it must take the form of a commodity...since the commodity has a 

two-fold character it needs a double form.” This form is the unique and separate quality that 

adds shape and dimension to the commodity, it cannot be intertwined or it will subtract and 

change the actual form of the commodity to something entirely different from the character 

of the original. For example concrete labor is instrinsically, and inseparably connected with 

certain elements such as use value, as is abstract labor connected with the value of the 

commodity. Marx believed the two were unique in character, in that abstract labor and 

value are a “mental process”, while concrete labor and use value contained unique physical 

properties. Thus the two values cannot express themselves interchangably, as they are found 

in two different mediums. 

It is the heterogeneous aspects of abstract labor, and concrete labor that serve as essential 

tools in answering the question of why commodities cannot express thier values in their own 

use values. Just as the underlying forms of labor are separate, and reliant identies. So also 

are the products they produce or “conceive”, mainly value and use value. They cannot be 

expressed in each other or else the unique identity of the value and use value will be changed 

into a form unrecognized from the original properties combining the two values. 

Message [121] referenced by [134] and [151]. Next Message by Karl is [176.1]. 

[134] Gilligan: values compared to use values Well a commodity cannot express its 

value through its use value, because they are two different components of a commodity. 

When one thinks of a commodity they must realize that it carries two values, one being its 

use value and the other being its value or better stated its exchange value. A commodity 

cannot express its own value through a use value because it still isn’t a social commodity. 

Something has use value if it creates some type of utility but this use value does not carry 

any form of monetary value often called its exchange value. As marx states they must take 

the “form” of a commodity. Like I stated above the commodity has double form its natural


form or its use value, and a social form in which the exchange value is created. I can create 

something that gives me a great amount of utility and by this I have created something with 

use value, but that item that I have created must be socially acceptable if I even think about 

placing an exchange value on it, not until the item has been accepted socially can I truely 

express the value of the commodity. Even though something gives utility and has a use 

value doesn’t say that the item has value. The use value and the value of something are 

two different components that make up what we call a commodity. So for a commodity to 

express its value through its use value, I’am sorry to say this but it can’t be done. X 

Hans: What you are saying is right. It is a reformulation of some ideas in Karl’s [121], which depressed your grade 

a little, but not by much, since you used your own words to express these same ideas. 

Next Message by Gilligan is [205.1]. 

[139] Emma: Commodities expressing values As in the first assignment, I will attempt 

to lay out my assumptions and define my terms as clearly and concisely as possible in answering 

the question. I have chosen this question since it seems to me that, while deceptively 

simple, it contains elements of seminal importance to understanding Marx’s theories of value 

and commodities in capitalism, two issues at the foundation of Marx’s criticism of it. 

Marx believes commodities are use values, or products, produced intentionally for exchange 

in the market, as opposed to being simply produced for a private purpose. They have 

a “double character” that lies at the heart of the answer to the question. In the first instance, 

or level, commodities are something capable of satisfying human wants or needs and are 

at this point the product of abstract labor. They have the substance of value, that is, they 

are pure use value due to some inherent qualities or properties that are desired at the time 

of production but which may not be desired in the future. In the second instance, or level, 

commodities are use values produced for exchange in the market either directly for other 

use values through barter or with money. Therefore, due to their desirability and exchangeability 

in the market commodities also possess an exchange value that is part of the result 

of concrete labor, that is, labor performed to produce a discreet product. It is through this 

second level that the commodity takes on a form of value via its exchangeability for other 

use values. 

Up to now, I have attempted to define commodity and describe the two kinds of labor 

required to produce it. The next part of the question asks why a commodity cannot “express” 

its [exchange] “value in their use values?” Here I am assuming that “value” as used in the 

first occurence in the question refers to “exchange” value, consistent with the dual nature of 

commodities. 

At the first level, the purely use value level, commodities have only potential possibilities 

for utility or exchange value. Commodities are first produced outside the social forum of the 

market, even though they are intended ultimately for participation in the market. Although, 

as the study guide points out, there is a social context at this level which determines what 

the laborer will produce given what he observes as market demand. His interaction with the 

market to decide how to direct his abstract labaor and apply his concrete labor is therefore a 

type of social component. Still, at this first level there is no exchange value to be expressed 

because for exchange value to exist there must be included a second social aspect, the market, 

wherein exchange value is determined. 


For Marx, the expression of the exchange value of a commodity is a level two activity 

and is a purely social function made up of various relationships with other use values being 

offered in the market at their own relative exchange values determined in conjunction 

with other commodities. The exchange value of each commodity is therefore dependent on 

the market as the setter of exchange value. That a commodity has exchange value implies 

that is has exchangeability. This exchangeability in turn acts to validate the private level 

one decision to produce the commodity and allows a wide variety of different use values to 

interact rationally in the market. At the same time it validates the labor time expended to 

produce the commodity and confirms that the time necessary for production was “socially 

necessary.” Indeed for the producer of the commodity the labor he has expended in production 

only becomes useful if and when his product enters the social context of the market and 

interacts therein. For it is only such commodities capable of useful interaction and which 

have exchangeability that are socially necessary. 

In short, at the use value level, level one, a commodity is only a possibility, it has substance 

but no form. It is only half developed. Its (exchange) value, however, is a function 

not only of its abstract level one labor, but also a function of its level two form or exchange 

value which can be determined only in the market. Until the commodity enters the market it 

cannot express its value as a whole since it is only in the market that its form is identified. 

Message [139] referenced by [152]. Next Message by Emma is [200.3]. 

[143] Skippy: What defines value? Use values depict personal preferences in the form 

of utility. Utility is the measurement of pleasure that one receives from an item. This does 

not reflect the exchange value of the item. As we discussed in class, a commodity has two 

values, a use value and an exchange value. 

The exchange value of an item is the value on the market. This is the trading value which 

one is able to exchange for other goods. 

For example: I have paintings that were painted by by my late Grandmother. The market 

value of these are probally very low, but to me they are priceless. That is that they are worth 

so much to me that I won’t sell them. They represent a great deal of my utility. 

Through this, the values of the paintings are not express through their use values. 

A commodity is expressed through two independant values, their use value and their 

exchange value. One is not reflective of the other. 

Hans: A commodity’s value is not the pleasure one gets from a commodity, but all ist uses, whether pleasurable of 

not. You missed the central part of the Question and obviously everything the people before you wrote about 79. 


[151] Hans: Karl, is Marx your surname? When Karl’s answer [121] came late on 

Sunday, I was tired and in a hurry and could not make much of it. But on Monday night after 

midnight, I made a nice typeset printout of all your submissions, and Tuesday morning, after 

a good night’s sleep, I looked at it first thing in the morning with a fresh mind. Then I could 

see what Karl was doing, and I will tell you about it in a minute. 

But first I want to emphasize the moral of what I just said. It is something which I have 

experienced more than once: reading Marx’s text (or also your submissions, which is similar 

kind of mental effort,) is not something which you can do in a hurry. You need time to ponder


it, and you need a clear mind for it. Once I had good ideas when I went over my Annotations 

sitting in the bus taking me up to Snowbird. The anticipation of a nice day of skiing made me 

relaxed and therefore my mind was open. Often it happens that I try to understand a certain 

passage of Marx, and nothing goes; the text is closed, it won’t reveal itself to me. Frustrated 

I lay it aside, but my mind keeps working on it without me being aware of it. When I return 

to it a day later, I suddenly recognize the things which I missed in my earlier reading. 

Now let’s go to Karl’s submission. 

Commodities cannot express their values in their use values mainly because 

commodities are multi-faceted material products. 

The more interesting facets of commodities are not material, but social. What you are 

going to emphasize below is correct: such social properties can, to some extent, be theorized 

in a way similar to material things. Bhaskar calls this “naturalism”, and he wrote a whole 

book, called “The Possibility of Naturalism,” about exactly this question: why and to what 

extent social and natural phenomena can be investigated using a similar methodology. But 

this does not mean that social phenomena and natural phenomena are one and the same 

thing. 

It is a conglomeration of two separate, but reliant categories that comprise 

the holistic element of the commodity. 

I think you mean “interrelated” instead of “reliant”. 

I mentioned that the commodity is multi-faceted implying that even the 

two said categories can thus be divided and sub-divided into a plethora of 

new underlying components. Much the same way as all things in nature 

work, ie: atoms, and subatomic particles. In the same manner an atom is 

dependent on the subatomic particle, although it is a differentially separate, 

a commodity also relies on individual sub-components that are unique, and 

cannot be found as a holistic representation of the commodity as it stands 

as a separate entity. 

Good analogy: just as in physics one goes from molecules to atoms to “elementary particles” 

(protons, neutrons), to quarks, and there is no end in sight how far one can go down, 

so one can go from the commodity to value and use value; and then use values can have 

a social dimension, a psychological dimension (those which come from the “imagination” 

etc.), while value comes from labor, and then we have the problems of skilled labor and of 

individual differences of the laborers, etc. Nevertheless, a commodity, just as an atom, is 

also a very elementary unit. It makes sense to start there; it is not necessary (aside from the 

fact that it is also not possible) to start at the bottom of this hierarchy. 

The two aspects of the commodity at hand, are values, and use values. As 

one further studies Marx, we come to realize these are derived expressions 

of other unique categories, mainly concrete labor (useful labor), and abstract 

labor. 


I would rather say: one can find concrete and abstract labor in the commodity, just as one 

can find muscles and bones in a person. But this does not mean that the person is “derived” 

from his or her physcial body; there is emergence (see Question 89). Without emergence one 

would have to start at the bottom of the hierarchy. Similarly, the commodity is not “derived” 

from labor. One cannot start with the general characteristics of the labor process and hopeto 

derive capitalism from it. 

Now Karl starts talking about the “form”: 

It has been stated in the reading, “If something is a commodity it must take 

the form of a commodity...since the commodity has a two-fold character 

it needs a double form.” This form is the unique and separate quality that 

adds shape and dimension to the commodity, it cannot be intertwined or it 

will subtract and change the actual form of the commodity to something 

entirely different from the character of the original. 

I am not quite sure what you mean by “intertwined”. But the thrust of what you are saying 

is right: “form” is not extraneous to the content, and form is very important. 

For example concrete labor is instrinsically, and inseparably connected with 

certain elements such as use value, as is abstract labor connected with the 

value of the commodity. Marx believed the two were unique in character, 

in that abstract labor and value are a “mental process”, while concrete labor 

and use value contained unique physical properties. Thus the two values 

cannot express themselves interchangably, as they are found in two different 

mediums. 

It is media, not mediums. And Marx emphasizes that the abstraction of labor is not a 

mental process but a social process. But your argument still stands: the laws of society are a 

different set of mechanisms than the laws of nature, and the social properties of commodities 

cannot be represented by something natural. This is a very good answer to Question 79, and 

it is different than what I wrote in the Annotations. 

It is the heterogeneous aspects of abstract labor, and concrete labor that 

serve as essential tools in answering the question of why commodities cannot 

express thier values in their own use values. Just as the underlying 

forms of labor are separate, and reliant identies. So also are the products 

they produce or “conceive”, mainly value and use value. 

I think you means “namely” instead of “mainly”. But more importantly, it is wrong to say 

that all the characteristics of the production process must be reflected in the product. It was 

one of the errors of Hegel to think that everything is preserved (and modern thinking is very 

much influenced by Hegel, although almost nobody has read him nowadays). For instance, 

a product will only remind us of the concrete labor of its producer if there are some flaws in 

it. The good laborer disappears behind the product. The abstract labor, however, lingers on 

in the price or exchange value of the product.


They cannot be expressed in each other or else the unique identity of the 

value and use value will be changed into a form unrecognized from the 

original properties combining the two values. 

Again, as in your submission last week, you show that you are a very good thinker. 

Somehow your mind escaped the shallowing of thinking which is so prevalent today, and 

which is also so necessary for capitalism to remain unchallenged. I can easily imagine that 

you may sometimes not get the grades which you deserve, because those who grade you do 

not recognize the depth of your thinking. 


[152] Hans: What makes things exchangeable? I will only pick out one sentence from 

Emma’s [139], which contains the pivotal error which taints all the rest of her answer: 

Due to their desirability [...] in the market commodities also possess an 

exchange value that is part of the result of concrete labor, that is, labor 

performed to produce a discreet product. 

To us living in a commodity society it seems as if usefulness implies exchangeability. 

However primitive societies exist which produce lots of useful things, without any of them 

ever being exchanged. Also the flow of goods inside a factory is not mediated by exchange. 

It is a property of society at large, a level [2] property, that allows useful things to be exchanged 

on a routine basis. Which property of society is it? That all labors count as equal. 

I exchange my product against yours because I consider the labor I put into my product 

equivalent to the labor you put into yours. But labors are equal only as abstract labors. This 

is why Marx says that the abstrat labor inside the goods is what makes them exchangeable. 



in 1997ut, 142 in 2005fa, 162 in 2007fa, and 186 in 2010fa: 

Question 80 What does Marx understand to be the riddle of money? 

[144] KALISPEL: What is the riddle of money? Money as a measure of value is the 

necessary form of appearance of the measure of value which is immanent in commodities, 

namely labour-time. In other words, money represents the amount of labor time that was put 

into a product. 

Money can be represented in equation form. For example, 2 dollars = 2 king size candy 

bars. The point of having an equation is to show that an equal amount must be on both 

sides. Money should accurately represent the worth of the commodity as it relates to other 

commodities. This is where the price of a commodity comes from. Thus, pricing items 

needs to be a social process. However, money has no price and in order to give it a price 

it can only be brought in equivalent with itself. Not with other commodities. Herein lies a 

danger and a riddle. 

Additionally, money becomes more difficult to use because it is “invisible.” Commodity 

values are expressed in this invisible form. Sellers dictate the prices of commodities based 

on this “imaginary” price. However, to purchase the product you must pay in the actual 

substance itself. 


This is the basis of problems in the money system. A Ford Explorer may be worth 

$30,000 dollars today imaginary price, but because of market fluctuations or any type of 

altered ratio between the Explorer and the money creates a problem. Why? You may pay 

more for the vehicle than the labor that was socially necessary to be put into it. On the other 

hand, you may get a good deal and pay less than the labor put into it. Either way, the two 

sides of the equation do not match up. The true value of the Explorer is skewed. The equation 

could start out like this: 1 Explorer = $25,000 dollars, and end up like this in real terms; 

1 Explorer = $45,000 dollars. This happens in capitalism all of the time. 

Additionally, if all commodities are represented in an equivalent of money there is a 

loss of control to consumers. The commodity now has an objective value outside of itself. 

This changes relations of production. Relations of production are now independent of their 

control and their conscious individual action. In other words, the individual can no longer 

individually control means of production. People must now look to an outside or objective 

source for meaning or exchange. This is what makes money magic and a riddle. It is 

imaginary, you can’t see it and can’t control it. 

The ruling class can now take money and manipulate it to serve their best interests. For 

example, in Germany at the end of World War II the country was having serious debt problems. 

One of the plans to pay back the debt was simply to raise the interest rates faster than 

the economy could pick up, (without destroying it). What you do is print a lot of money 

to pay back your debts. Of course, it will cause the price of everything else to rise, but 

your debts will be paid back easier. Why? Essentially, you are stealing because you are not 

paying back the real value of the money. Capitalism is good at introducing “money tricks” 

through various types of the same things. If anyone is interested I would like to discuss some 

of these “money tricks” in thread 301. 


[146] Scott: What does Marx understand to be the riddle of money? The riddle is 

related to Marxs’ view that money is a commodity. Marx writes“ money, like every other 

commodity, cannot express the magnitude of its value except relatively in other commodities. 

This value is determined by the labour-time required for its production, and is expressed 

in the quantity of any other commodity in which the same amount of labour-time is congealed.” 

Finally, “the difficulty lies not in comprehending that money is a commodity, but in 

discovering how, why, and by what means a commodity becomes money.” I believe this to 

be his riddle concerning money. 

Hans: You are just guessing, picking out two Marx quotes which seem especially mysterious to you, and not 

revealing any understanding of the text on your part. Do you think these are the riddles which will disappear if one 

does what Marx describes in 139:1? 


[163] Hans: The Capitalists do not need Money Tricks for Exploitation KALISPEL’s 

answer [144] makes many theoretical statements about money, and I will see here how much 

they coincide with or contradict Marx’s theory. The first paragraph is something Marx could 

have said as well: 

Money as a measure of value is the necessary form of appearance of the 

measure of value which is immanent in commodities, namely labour-time.


In other words, money represents the amount of labor time that was put into 

a product. 

Next KALISPEL says that actual prices often deviate from the value proportions: 

Money can be represented in equation form. For example, 2 dollars = 2 

king size candy bars. The point of having an equation is to show that an 

equal amount must be on both sides. Money should accurately represent the 

worth of the commodity as it relates to other commodities. This is where 

the price of a commodity comes from. Thus, pricing items needs to be a 

social process. 

KALISPEL is going to stress this again two paragraphs down. Marx is not as upset as 

KALISPEL about this discrepancy. Marx says such a discrepancy is necessary as long as 

production is private. Only in exceptional cases will demand and supply be such that the 

market clearing prices deviate from values. That will lead to an adjustment of supply, and 

this is the mechanism by which the production responds to demand. 

However, money has no price and in order to give it a price it can only be 

brought in equivalent with itself. Not with other commodities. Herein lies 

a danger and a riddle. 

My guess is that KALISPEL means here: although money is so valuable, it can be printed 

or created by the banking system at no cost. I have the hunch that this is his main concern 

regarding “money tricks.” But this is the wrong place to be worried about capitalism. Only 

in very primitive conditions, in which the state does not have the apparatus to raise taxes, 

will capitalist states resort to printing money as a source of revenue. This is not cost free; 

this creates inflation and makes the currency an unreliable measure of value, and this is 

very bad for capitalism. Modern capitalist states know how important it is to have a sound 

monetary system and not to debase the currency, and not to let anyone, state or bankers etc., 

screw around with the currency. It much more lucrative for the ruling class to have a stable 

currency and do the exploitation on the workplace, in the sphere of production, rather than 

the state or anyone else trying to skim off some of the wealth from circulation. The factory 

owner is the much more successful robber than the bank robber. 

Additionally, money becomes more difficult to use because it is “invisible.” 

Commodity values are expressed in this invisible form. Sellers dictate the 

prices of commodities based on this “imaginary” price. However, to purchase 

the product you must pay in the actual substance itself. 

The difficulty for the workers to buy what they need, does not come from the monopoly 

power of the corporations to charge what they want, and also not from the fact that there is 

not enough money because someone is screwing around with the monetary system. It comes 

from the fact that the means of production are private property. All those who get income 

not from labor but from property get it in fact from the unpaid labor of others. 


This is the basis of problems in the money system. A Ford Explorer may be 

worth $30,000 dollars today imaginary price, but because of market fluctuations 

or any type of altered ratio between the Explorer and the money 

creates a problem. Why? You may pay more for the vehicle than the labor 

that was socially necessary to be put into it. On the other hand, you may get 

a good deal and pay less than the labor put into it. Either way, the two sides 

of the equation do not match up. The true value of the Explorer is skewed. 

The equation could start out like this: 1 Explorer = $25,000 dollars, and 

end up like this in real terms; 1 Explorer = $45,000 dollars. This happens 

in capitalism all of the time. 

I agree that it is infuriating how the prices change; you bought something last week for 

one price, and today it only costs half this amount. This variability comes from the fact 

that all prices have a profit margin in them, and sometimes this margin is very large. The 

capitalist sells most of his goods at a high profit, and when he has some left over at the end 

of theseason or so, he clears out his inventory at low prices, becausehe has already made 

a lot of profit. If he had to pay the workers anywhere near the value they produce, prices 

would not fluctuate so wildly. 

Additionally, if all commodities are represented in an equivalent of money 

there is a loss of control to consumers. The commodity now has an objective 

value outside of itself. This changes relations of production. Relations 

of production are now independent of their control and their conscious individual 

action. In other words, the individual can no longer individually 

control means of production. People must now look to an outside or objective 

source for meaning or exchange. This is what makes money magic and 

a riddle. It is imaginary, you can’t see it and can’t control it. 

This is a very deep and very true point. We will discuss more of this when we discuss the 

commodity fetishism section. 

The next point is a myth. After World War II, the German ruling class was extremely 

successful exactly because the USA guaranteed them a sound monetary system. The USA 

acted here as a friend, not as a competitor. They wanted a successful capitalism in West 

Germany, so that the people in East Germany and elsewhere in the Eastern Bloc would be 

thinking their socialism was inadequate. There was hyperinflation after World War I, and this 

was due to the misdirected attempts of the foreign states to exploit Germany via reparations. 

IT did not work, and everyone learned the lesson: the regular capitalist exploitation is so 

efficient that it dwarfs any other attempts to enrich oneself by legalized stealing. 

The ruling class can now take money and manipulate it to serve their best 

interests. For example, in Germany at the end of World War II the country 

was having serious debt problems. One of the plans to pay back the debt 

was simply to raise the interest rates faster than the economy could pick up, 

(without destroying it). What you do is print a lot of money to pay back 

your debts. Of course, it will cause the price of everything else to rise, but 

your debts will be paid back easier. Why? Essentially, you are stealing


because you are not paying back the real value of the money. Capitalism 

is good at introducing “money tricks” through various types of the same 

things. If anyone is interested I would like to discuss some of these “money 

tricks” in thread 301. 


Question 81 is 70 in 1995WI, 78 in 1995ut, 88 in 1997WI, and 91 in 1997sp: 

Question 81 What is the most simple expression of the value of a commodity, and what is 

the most “dazzling,” commonly known expression of the value of a commodity? 

[161] Dunny: value of a commodity What is the most simple expression of the value of 

a commodity, and what is the most “dazzling,” commonly known expression of the value of 

a commodity? 

The most simple expression of a commodity is the expression that you obtain by relating 

one commodity to another. It is not as simple as merely looking at the cost in and of 

itself. There needs to be some kind of a comparison but at the same time needs to contrast 

one another. The financial comparison or strictly speaking the money form comparisons of 

commodities is not the best route. Marx describes this money comparison as “dazzling” or 

“blinding”. It makes it easier to look past the real value of a commodity. The price does not 

necessarily tell you the amount of labor used to produce the product of the differing values 

or use-values that it contains. The simplest expression therefore lies within comparing the 

values of commodities one with another and not just individually. 

Hans: I like your independent thinking. You cannot expect to get everything right the first time, but this is much 

better than just regurgitating Marx’s formulations. 


[166] Hans: Dunny’s answer to Question 81, and Question 90 Dunny gives a basically 

correct answer in [161]. Just a minor quibble: Marx calls the money form “dazzling” not 

because the price may quantitatively diverge from value, but because the commodities need 

something as mysterious as money, glimmering gold, the key which opens all locks, to 

express such a prosaic fact as that they are all products of the expenditure of human labor 

power. 

Furthermore, Dunny says that the most basic expression of value is “the cost in and of 

itself.” I hope by this he means the labor content, the labor hours directly and indirectly contained 

in the commodity. This is the theoretical analysis of value which the social scientist 

comes up with. The “expression” of value, by contrast, can be viewed as the analysis of 

value which the commodities themselves make and tell us in their language. See R141:3 

and Question 90 about that: 

90¿ How does the social scientist’s analysis of the substance of 90¿ value differ from 

what the commodities tell each other in the 90¿ exchange? 



1997sp, 88 in 1997ut, 95 in 1998WI, 112 in 2000fa, 117 in 2001fa, 147 in 2004fa, and 

199 in 2010fa: 


Exam Question 83 In the equation “20 yards of linen = 1 coat,” what is the difference 

between the left hand side and the right hand side? 

[118] Jake: 20 yards of linen When Marx made the relationship between the yards of 

linen being equal to a coat, he was making a relationship between two commodities that 

were to have no relation in use values. So when analyzing each side of the equation, one 

can see that if the value of 20 yards of linen has the same value of say 10 bags of potatoes 

a relationship can be made between the potatoes and a coat to form an equality. If 1 coat 

carries the same value as 10 bags of potatoes then the two commodities are equal and the 

equation of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat becomes true. The point is that no matter what the 

good is, it can have a relational value with other goods no matter how different the uses may 

be. 

Message [118] referenced by [120]. Next Message by Jake is [197.2]. 

[120] Hans: Difference between left and right The subject of the present reading assignment 

is so difficult because it is so simple and abstract. The statement 

20 yards of linen is worth 1 coat 

is a different and indeed a simpler statement than 

20 yards of linen is worth as much as 1 coat. 

Do you see the difference? In the second statement, the worth of the 20 yards of linen 

and the worth of the coat are some third thing outside linen and coat, which is equal for both. 

In the first statement, the coat is the worth of the linen. One might say (oversimplifying a 

bit) that Marx’s tedious development in Section 3 of Chapter One is the transition from the 

former statement to the latter. 

Jake in his answer [118] overlooked this. He used the bag of potatoes as the outside 

measure of the worth of both linen and coat. He did not notice that Marx did not say “20 

yards of linen is worth as much as 1 coat,” but that he said “20 yards of linen is worth 1 

coat.” The former statement is symmetric, but the latter statement is not. Question 83 asked 

you to elaborate on this asymmetry. Since Jake converted the statement into a symmetric 

statement, he could not do that. 


[137] Kalle: 20 yards of linen= 1 coat Before I explain the difference between the two 

sides of the equation I will first look at the relationship between the two. Marx clearly states 

that there exists a value relationship between the linen and the coat. In this example the 20 

yards of linen expresses its value in a certain “amount” of coat. Since the coat here plays 

the passive role, any other commodity could in the same way be on the right hand hand side 

of the equation, as an expression of the value of linen. The value of a commodity can only 

be expressed relatively compared to another commodity. The amount of the commodity on 

the right hand side is the equivalent, and therefore, dictates the relative value of the first 

commodity. 

However, if we change the commodity represented on the right hand side, lets say 200 

green apples, the relative value of 20 yards of linen can no longer be said to be equivelant 

to 1 coat. Now the equivelant value of 20 yards of linen is 200 apples, but we know nothing


abouts it’s relative value to coats. Both the relative and equivelant value have changed, even 

though we only changed one side of the equation. 

In a barter economy, value relationships between commodities would be easier to identify, 

because commodities are exchanged daily, and “prices” of commodities are expressed in 

terms of others. An infinit number of value relationships would exist in this economy. The 

relative value of all commodities in terms of others, would also be subject to constant change, 

as the supply and demand for these commodities change the equivalent value. 

Hans: I like the connection you see between passivity and the fact that any other commodity might take the place 

of the equivalent too. 

I don’t like the sentence 

The amount of the commodity on the right hand side is the equivalent, and therefore, dictates 

the relative value of the first commodity. 

because “dictates” is not passive enough. 


[142] VanHalen: The difference between the left hand side and the right hand side of 

the equation is the roles that the respective sides of the equation play. The value of the 

first commodity (the left hand side), is represented as relative value, in other words the 

commodity is in the relative form of value. The second commodity (the right hand side) 

fulfils the function of the equivalent, in other words it is in the equivalent form. (pg. 140 

Capital) But these two qualitatively equated commodities do not play the same part. (pg.141 

Capital) 

Thats the difference between the left and right side of the equation, the 20 yards of linen 

are playing the role of the relative form and the 1 coat is playing the role of the equivalent 

value. The converse of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat could be written, but as Marx points out 

on page 140, we must first reverse the equation in order to express the value of the coat 

relatively. 

Marx seems to place a lot of emphasis on which side of the equation a commodity falls 

on. On page 140 of capital, Marx says,“ whether a commodity is in the relative form or in 

its opposite, the equivalent form, entirely depends on its actual position in the expression of 

value.” Earlier on page 140, Marx also says,“ The value of the linen can therefore only be 

expressed relatively, i.e. in another commodity. The relative form of the value of the linen 

therfore presupposes that some other commodity confronts it in the equivalent form.” 

I think that Kalle did a good job of answering the question and in her response she points 

out the same idea as the above quote when she said,“The value of a commodity can only be 

expressed relatively compared to another commodity.” 

I think Jake gave it a good go but by bringing in the third commodity I think he kind of 

lost the point that Marx was trying to make. 

Hans: Everything you write is correct, but you are sticking a little bit too much to the text, without giving the 

slightest hint what it all means, and also without trying to draw the slightest conclusions of your own, as Kalle and 

Jake did. I like it that you referred to Kalle and Jake. 

Next Message by VanHalen is [170.2]. 


in 1997ut, 148 in 2004fa, and 172 in 2008SP: 


Question 84 Can one say the coat symbolizes the value of the linen? 

[136] Positive: The coat symbolizes the linen. According to the reading, value is measured 

by the amount of average labor-time it takes the society to produce the commodity. 

The use value, is how much the specific product is worth to the individual owner of the 

product. Exchange value, is how much the product can be exchanged for in terms of other 

products. In this case, the linen has been made. The person who did it, is actually the only 

one who knows how time consuming it really was. 

The linen is now ready for exchange at the market place. 

The maker of the linen is to determine how much it is worth to himself, but the price he 

will get, is still the price the market is willing to pay for it. If the person wants to exchange 

the linen for the coat, it is because he thinks the coat is of a high enough exchangeble value. 

The maker of the linen knows anything about his own product, but very little about the 

labor time put into the coat. Even though the linen and the coat has different use value, the 

maker of the linen is willing to exchane his product with the coat, so long as he consider the 

coat as an equal source of commodity. 

Message [136] referenced by [140] and [322]. Next Message by Positive is [209.1]. 

[140] Hans: Positive’s answer Positive’s [136] has overall the right ideas, but it often 

uses the wrong words and has a number of other flaws in the details. Apparently, Positive 

grasps the connections but does not want to be bothered by the details. Let us go through it 

sentence by sentence. The first sentence is right (although a purist may complain that value 

should not be reduced to its quantitative dimension): 

According to the reading, value is measured by the amount of average 

labor-time it takes the society to produce the commodity. 

The next sentence is still right (although a purist may complain that Marx’s cconcept of 

use value is not a measure of the satisfaction of the user but should rather be thought as the 

menu of possible uses of the thing): 

The use value, is how much the specific product is worth to the individual 

owner of the product. 

The next sentence is right: 

Exchange value, is how much the product can be exchanged for in terms of 

other products. 

Having these three concepts sorted out right is a big advantage. Now Positive starts his 

argument: 

In this case, the linen has been made. The person who did it, is actually the 

only one who knows how time consuming it really was. The linen is now 

ready for exchange at the market place.


The next sentence uses worth, a word Marx only uses for use value, but Positive uses it 

for exchange value: what the maker of the linen has to determine is how much he is going 

to ask for the linen: 

The maker of the linen is to determine how much it is worth to himself, but 

the price he will get, is still the price the market is willing to pay for it. 

Positive’s remark at the end of this sentence is well taken, the linen weaver may not get 

what he is asking for, but here Marx is concerned with the process how the asking price is 

determined. 

In the next sentence, Positive should have used the word “use value” instead of “exchangeable 

value”. The question whether he wants to accept the coat in exchange for the 

linen is determined by the use value which the coat has for him. What Positive calls “equal 

source of commodity” in the last sentence, I would transcribe as: “enough use value to compensate 

for the labor the weaver put into the linen (plus of course the cost of raw materials, 

etc., i.e., for the whole deal).” 

If the person wants to exchange the linen for the coat, it is because he 

thinks the coat is of a high enough exchangeble value. The maker of the 

linen knows anything about his own product, but very little about the labor 

time put into the coat. Even though the linen and the coat has different use 

value, the maker of the linen is willing to exchane his product with the coat, 

so long as he consider the coat as an equal source of commodity. 

Now Positive’s answer stops, although he has prepared himself very well to answer the 

question: does this mean the coat is a symbol of the linen’s value or not? 



in 1997ut, and 150 in 2004fa: 

Question 86 Think of a real life situation (not necessarily related to what Marx is speaking 

about here) where someone says, “a pair of shoes is a pair of shoes,” or “a car is a car,” 

or “20 yards of linen are 20 yards of linen,” or “I am I” (compare footnote 18 to R144:1 

below). Describe exactly what is meant by this phrase in the situation you chose. 

[111] MUCHO: “I am I” I think all the phrases in this question meant that no matter 

what type of commodity you chose, the value of the commodity will determined by each 

individual. Because, there are many cases that if the certain commodity is extremely valuable 

to someone, it doesn’t mean that the commodity is valuable to others. 

For instance, the textbook I bought for the Econ. 508 class is very important and valuable 

to me. Because, without the textbook, I cannot study for exam or assignment. By using 

the textbook, I learn and get educated. Getting education in specific field of study is one of 

the great investments for my future. On the other hand, for someone who studies computer 

science does not need to buy Econ. book. Even though this someone and I agree with 

getting education is one of the great investments for our future, Econ. book for this person 

is absolutely useless and worthless because of the different field of study. 


Thus, the value of commodity is depending upon individuals. Time to time, certain value 

of commodity is shared by many individuals. Then, the commodity would be also valuable 

in real world such as gold. However, real value should be determined individually. 


[115] Caren: The relative form of value “a pair of shoes is a pair of shoes” 

“a car is a car” 

“I am I” 

These expressions above have different meanings in each individual. In the real life situation, 

I think people who say “a pair of shoes is a pair of shoes” do mean something with it; 

even though, they do not see that it has “value” but everything has “worth” in itself. They do 

not relate the expression with the words “exchange” but the “useful object”. According to 

Annotations to Marx’s Capital on page 52, quote... “By means of the value-relation, therefore, 

the natural form of commodity B becomes the value-form of commodity A, in other 

words the physical body of commodity B becomes a mirrors in which the value of commodity 

A is reflected,”; all three expressions do not have any relationship or do not involve with 

this definition. There is no relative form of value. People who say those expressions seem 

to not care anything about value, but indeed about “use value”, I think! In addition, human 

being is in the same situation as a commodity. The words “I am I”, is also meaningless in 

terms of means of value. We cannot relate to ourselves as a mirror in our hands. 


[119] Hans: Mucho’s and Caren’s answers and some general hints The two answers 

received so far did not yet get us very far. 

MUCHO [111] read these examples as individual declarations of “value”: “I am I, and 

for me, a pair of shoes is worth this much, and a car is worth that much.” This is not how the 

Question was meant; each utterance was an example for one isolated statement. But even 

if this had been the meaning of the Question, MUCHO did not notice that such a statement 

would be a declaration of use value and not of value. The distinction between use value and 

value is so simple, if one thinks about it, but it is easy to trip up if one is unaware. This is 

why you must study the study guide, not just buy it. 

Caren’s [115] corrected MUCHO’s error; she noticed that these statements are not value 

statements but have something to do with use value. This is right as far as it goes; but the 

Question wanted you to do more. It asked you make up a true or fictitious story where 

someone says “John is John” or “a T-shirt is a T-shirt” or whatever, and then analyze in that 

particular story exactly what this seemingly tautological statement means. No relation to 

economics or the reading required. 

But since this is a non-economic Question, somewhat of a side line, I will be a tough 

grader with this Question. The subject assigned this week is extremely difficult, and I would 

prefer if you were to plunge into the more central issues, instead of avoiding them by taking 

up the tangential Questions. If you take some risks, you will have my sympathetic ear. 

On the other hand, don’t try to substitute courage for a reasonable amount of reading and 

working through the material. Chances are slim that you can intuit the right answers without 

having done your homework.



[129] Reidar: “I am I” Any situation in which one is apathetic about the commodity 

which one purchases can be a good example for this question. I personally, am not particular 

about which brand or type of gasoline I buy. There are those companies and people which 

claim that a gasoline with a higher octane content will help my car run better, but I say 

,“gasoline is gasoline”. In this statement I am inferring that the use value of the commodities 

involved are the same. Caren compared this likeness of use values to showing a commodity 

its own reflection in a mirror. I would not only compare the likeness of their use values, 

but point out that for me, the consumer, they contain the same use value, and it makes no 

difference to me which product I buy. They therefore do not contain differing values, neither 

product has a greater value than the other for me. 

It is not only senseless to compare two products which contain the same use value, but 

a comparison cannot be made, because they contain the same value based on the abstract 

human labor that is “congealed” in their production. Footnote 18 points this out by explaining 

that exchanging commodities is really only exchanging the labor involved in those 

commodities. And Marx also says, “the value of the linen can therefore only be expressed 

relatively, i.e. in another commodity.” Marx hereby restates that commodities only contain 

an external value when they are compared to commodities which contain the same amount of 

social human labor. By containing like amounts of social human labor and having differing 

use values, these commodities have an exchange value. 

In my first example re: gasoline, the different types of gasoline have no differing use 

values and therefore have no exchange value one with another. I would not exchange one 

gasoline for another. Therefore, gasoline is gasoline. 

Message [129] referenced by [167]. Next Message by Reidar is [197.4]. 

[131] Angela: Logical mistake: I am I “I am I”, we usually make a logical mistake 

to say this sentence. If we say this sentence, we actually mean something except for the 

meaning of my personal. The first utterance “I” denotes “myself” and the second utterance 

“I” denotes lots of things except for “myself.” The second utterance “I” might mean “my 

individual,” “my personality,” “my characteristics,” etc. If I said this sentence, I mean that I 

am my own master, or I have special personalities or characteristics so that no one can affect 

me, or I believe in myself, or I am independent individual, etc. 

When we say this sentence, we mean lots of and not just “I am I.” We know this is a logical 

mistake but we usually do that in our real life. Because of this reason, the commodities can’t 

express their values in themselves. If we did so, then we make a logical mistake. 

Message [131] referenced by [167]. Next Message by Angela is [193]. 

[167] Hans: “I am I”, two right answers Reidar’s answer [129] and Angela’s answer 

[131] are basically right. 

Angela elaborates on the statement made in the Annotations in the paragraph just preceding 

Question 86, that in the sentence “I am I”, the first “I” means something different than 

the second. (In the Annotations, I used the statement “a plant is a plant”.) I agree with Angela’s 

examples, but I would not call it a logical mistake. It only looks like a logical mistake, 

or say better, it looks like a meaningless statement, a tautology, to someone who does not 

recongize that the first “I” means something different than the second. 


Reidar gives a good example, and he also tries to make a connection to the expression of 

value. Here is my take on what Reidar should have written: 

The statement “linen is linen” or for instance “gasoline is gasoline” may not sound very 

meaningful at first, but people say such things all the time. If someone does not care about 

the brand of gasoline he is putting into his car, he may justify his indifference with the words 

“gasoline is gasoline.” 

Assume P in our fictitious exchange economy wants to trade Brand A gasoline against 

Brand B gasoline. He puts up a sign saying: “Trading brand A gasoline for brand B gasoline: 

to me, one gallon Brand A gasoline is worth one gallon Brand B gasoline.” Q happens to 

read this sign and mutters to himself: “gasoline is gasoline!” This muttering almost sounds 

almost like the price sign P has put up, but has a quite different meaning: “Despite the brand 

differences, this is the same use-value. There is no need to trade gasoline against gasoline.” 

If P were to rely on the success of his proposed trade in order to confirm that the labor 

spent producing Brand A gasoline was socially necessary, he would be disappointed. Nobody 

would want to make this trade—but this would not mean that P’s gasoline was socially 

superfluous. This is why Marx says: the statement “gasoline is gasoline” is not an expression 

of value. An expression of value must have two different commodities on the different 

sides. Marx has a very deep interpretation of this necessity. It is formulated most explicitly 

in 154:1, but it is implicit in everything he says around there: the expression of value 

requires a different use value, because the value of the linen is something different than its 

use value. An argument on a less abstract and more explicit economic level would be: In 

order to assess the social necessity of the labor contained in linen one must compare it with 

alternative uses of the same labor. 


Question 87 is 85 in 1995ut, 88 in 1996ut, 94 in 1997WI, 92 in 1997ut, 99 in 1998WI, 107 


Question 87 In the Simple or Accidental form of value, which commodity plays an active 

role, and which a passive role? Explain what it means in this situation to be active or 

passive. 

[123] Pinky: Active/Passive In the example: 10 bags of potatoes = 1 coat, the potatoes 

take the role of the relative form of a commodity and the coat takes the role of the equivalent 

form. The relative form is active in that it is expressing its value in the equivalent form. The 

equivalent form is passive since it is merely a means by which the relative form expresses 

its value. 

Message [123] referenced by [125] and [174]. Next Message by Pinky is [188]. 

[125] Hans: Pinky’s answer Pinky’s [123] repeats what Marx says, but I wanted her to 

translate Marx’s abstract statements into something more tangible, fill these abstract concepts 

with concrete meaning. From everyday experience it seems like money, i.e., the equivalent 

(the coat), is active, not passive. The goods lie frozen on the shelf until your money 

takes them down from the shelf. Now Marx says, this is an illusion. It is not money that is 

active, but the goods are active. But Marx’s argumentation is encrypted in some Hegelian


formalisms, which we are no longer used to nowadays. I want you to de-crypt Marx’s argument. 

Assume you had to explain to your little brother the idea that money is not active but 

passive. What would you say? 

Message [125] referenced by [174] and [2003fa:294.18]. Next Message by Hans is [140]. 

[169] Super: Active and Passive roles When 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, the linen is 

representing the active role and the coat, the passive role. The linen is the commodity who’s 

value is being analized. Here, 20 yards of linen is being related to a different quantity of 

another commodity which is considered equal in value. Therefore the linen is focused upon 

and plays the active role. 

The coat is the commodity which acts as a relation to or expression of equivalence to the 

linen. The linen’s value has been expressed through the value of the coat. So the coat acts 

as a passive role in this situation because it is the object being used by the previous so as to 

come to a solution of relative equivalence in value. 

Message [169] referenced by [174]. Next Message by Super is [197]. 

[174] Hans: Super’s two errors Super’s answer [169] has lots of overlap with Pinky’s 

[123] without answering any of the questions I posed in my commentary [125] to that submission, 

and therefore does not get a good grade. Besides, it has two errors. Super writes: 

20 yards of linen is being related to a different quantity of another commodity 

which is considered equal in value. 

The coat is not considered equal in value to the linen, the coat is considered the linen’s 

value. See what I wrote about this in [120]. 

Super’s second error is that he writes: 

The linen’s value has been expressed through the value of the coat. 

Marx stresses several times that it is the use value of the coat which expresses the value 

of the linen. 


Question 88 is 86 in 1995ut and 95 in 1997WI: 

Question 88 In the Random House edition of Capital, this sentence reads: “In order to 

find out how the simple expression of the value of a commodity lies hidden in the value 

relation between two commodities, ....” I claim that this translation is blatantly incorrect 

and self-contradictory. Can you see why? 

[141] Rambis: contradiction This translation is blatantly incorrect and self-contradictory 

because it says that the “simple expression of the value of a commodity lies hidden in the 

value relation between two commodities.” This would imply that the simple expression of a 

value is an implicit inference while by definition a simple expression of a value is an explicit, 

equation-like statement (Ex: x commodity A = y commodity B, or x commodity A is worth y 

of commodity B). The value relation between two commodities is expressed by the exchange 

relations of the two commodities and by the division and interdependence of the different 

labor processes. It is incorrect obviously because it misdefines the terms of simple expression 

and value relationships, but it is also self-contradictory because the simple expression 


of value is not hidden but is explicitly understood and given at the outset when measuring 

the relationship between two commodities. The value relation is determined by comparing 

and examining the ways in which the commodities interact and are interdependent and the 

processes used to arrive at their formulation. 

Hans: You seem to know what is going on, but you do not say it very clearly. Were you not quite sure? 


Question 89 is 80 in 1995WI, 87 in 1995ut, and 95 in 1997ut: 

Question 89 Marx gave here a mistaken example of emergence. Give examples where there 

is indeed emergence. 

[145] Homer: emergence Emergence is where something possesses certain qualities 

which cannot be explained by the summation of its individual components. 

Using this definition, I can think of a couple of examples. The first is human thought. 

The brain is composed of millions of individual cells. No single cell is capable of thought, 

therefore if one were to look at thought as the summation of the thought power of the millions 

of individual cells the total would equal zero and thought would not be possible. However, 

when brain cells are arranged in the right way, thought emerges from the cells, although no 

cell by itself contained any thought. 

Another example is the emotional effect of a musical composition. For instance, when 

listened to in its entirety, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony has certain emotional effects on 

the listener. As the brain is composed of cells, the symphony is composed of notes. The 

individual notes do not possess any emotional quality. Therefore, the sum of the emotional 

qualities of the notes should be zero. But when the notes are arranged in a certain way, the 

music has an emotional effect which was not contained in the single notes. 


[158] Hans: Emergence is even more miraculous than that Homer’s answer [145] 

gives two good examples of emergence, but in both examples, he did not quite see how far 

the emergent quality is above that from which it emerges. For instance you write: 

However, when brain cells are arranged in the right way, thought emerges 

from the cells, although no cell by itself contained any thought. 

I would argue that the physiological processes which the cells are capable of when they 

are connected, and which one cannot find in a single cell, cannot be identified with thought 

either. It is humans that think, not nerve cells. They use the nerve cells to think. But 

humans have a free will, and what they are up to cannot be derived from the structure of 

their brains. (You cannot really think of a human in isolation here, humans are intrinsically 

social animals). 

And the emotional content of music is also not given by the succession of notes, just 

as the meaning of a sentence is not given by the succession of vowels and consonants. The 

meaning of a music, that which grips us, is emergent from the melodies and the other musical 

elements.


All this is pretty vague; and many philosophers don’t like the concept of emergence 

because it is so vague, and because nobody really understands how it works. But if one 

looks at the real world, it seem obvious to me that there must be something like emergence. 

That we don’t understand it yet is not a reason to assume that it does not exist. 


[162] KALISPEL: Emergence. I find this concept of emergence to be intriguing. It 

presupposes that there is no such thing as complete knowledge on any one subject. For 

example, God is transcendental. This means we can never be on his level. Emergence is the 

process of going through these various levels. Once we a level of thought we must look to 

another level, for there are infinite possibilities. 

Emergence is known to have four or five successive levels: 1-psychophysical events 2life 

3-mind 4- spirit or God. Other emergents describe five levels: 1- space 2-time 3-matter 

4-life 5-mind and 6-deity. All of these categories interact together to explain intelligibility. 

One form leads to the other and in some way all are inextricably intertwined together. 

For example, we know that water is made of of hydrogen and oxygen. This chemical 

make-up explains the physical properies of water and bonding capabilities. However, oxygen 

and hydrogen cannot explain that water is translucent. Thus, it is evident that there is 

much to still understand about the composition of matter. Emergists attempt to explore these 

“unsolvable” realms. 

I find it interesting to explore the nature of what it is to be alive. If we take some energy 

in material form and unsolidified form (electricity) and make a computer that can reason. Is 

it now alive? World chess champions have been beaten by computers. And if the computers 

can reason out logically what the best move is then they are capable of logic. Additionally, 

they are made of matter just as we are. Once the computer learns how to “think” logically 

does this make it also capable of introspection. Then again, if this internal monologue in 

our heads called introspection or consciousness doesn’t exist are we reactionary robots as 

computers are? Do we really have power over our individual actions? Here is the problem, 

nobody in this world can introspect for another. I can never get into your head no matter 

how hard I try. What if matter can be created or exists naturally in a form that has consciousness. 

What about animals? If this is all so, then the world is far different than we might 

think. Many attribute this introspection to deity or a soul, but what if introspection works on 

scientific laws that can be manipulated like the human body? What if it would be possible 

to go to the doctor and get a metaphysical essence prescribed to you that could change your 

intropection or consciousness? Would this then be the manipulation of God. If God controls 

our introspection then we may not have control over who we are. If we control it then how 

do we do it and by what laws of nature. 


Exam Question 90 is 96 in 1997ut and 156 in 2004fa: 

Exam Question 90 How does the social scientist’s analysis of the substance of value differ 

from what the commodities tell each other in the exchange? 


[135] Pizza: substance of value The substance of value from the perspective of a social 

scientist is that value which is separate from the exchange relation between two commodities. 

You note that we should skip over Marx’s analogy to the butric acid and propyl formate 

but lets apply this structure again. Lets take two bandanna’s each same size, shape etc.. 

identical in all material fact excepting their colors. One’s color is red and the other is blue. 

The exchange relations are equivalent. A gang member of the bloods walks into a store and 

looks at the two bandana’s and having no value for the blue bandanna purchases the red and 

walks out, why? The substance of value for the red bandana was its embodiedment of value 

in the eyes of the blood’s as a representation of their neihborhood, membership in a unit 

of brotherhood that only held its value within their own society. This is not a quantifiable 

value as the exchange value the blue bandana equates the same but does not embody the 

substance of value that the red bandana did. The substance value not only is unrelated to the 

quantifiable exchange but is additionaly dependent upon those in which the embodiedment 

of its value rests. 

Hans: You missed the Question, and your confusion between use value and substance of value is a serious blunder. 

But you brought in interesting example of the relativity of use value. 

Message [135] referenced by [159]. Next Message by Pizza is [290]. 


Question 92 Have we gotten away from this personality cult in a modern democracy? 

[147] Chacci: Cult of Personality In a modern democracy where everyone is supposed 

to be equal we still have a cult of personality. For example, presidential candidates use 

campaign managers, public relations experts and professional speech writers to make them 

appear to be intelligent, wholesome, religious and proper. Basically presidential candidates 

use these people to make them look more ‘presidently’. And people want to see a president 

in office that looks and acts like a president. Hans gives the example that good music sounds 

like Mozart, another example would be a presidential candidate looks like every other president. 

If a modern democracy didn’t have a cult of personality a Muslim African-American 

with long hair could be considered for president. 

Hans: This is excellent. I have nothing to add. And the Questions which you answered last week and as your trial 

submission were very specific economic Questions, therefore there is nothing wrong with you picking one of the 

more general and tangential Questions for a change. 

Message [147] referenced by [175]. Next Message by Chacci is [214]. 

Question 101 is 93 in 1995WI, 108 in 1997WI, and 112 in 1997sp: 

Question 101 I am the tailor. If I have a coat and want linen, would the linen weaver, who 

just said “20 yards of linen is worth one coat” have to make an exchange with me? 

[122] Slacker: Even though the linen weaver expresses the value of his/her commodity 

as worth one coat there is nothing in this that states that the weaver wants the coat. If the 

coat is the universal equivalant all producers would express the value of their commodities 

in coats. In fact, the inital statement may preccede a continuing statement as to the desire 

for a pair of trousers which is worth 1/2 a coat. This relation is expressed by the expanded 

relative form of value. 

Message [122] referenced by [124]. Next Message by Slacker is [215].


[124] Hans: Slacker’s answer Slacker, in [122], says: no. In order to argue his claim, 

Slacker assumes that the coat is the universal equivalent (i.e., roughly, that the money commodity 

is coats). Let us go for a moment with this assumption. In one respect, Slacker 

is right: the primary function of the universal equivalent is to deliver the material in which 

people can express their value. If you look at Chapter Three, you see that the first function of 

money is “measure of value”, which is just that. All of mainstream and also PostKeynesian 

economics overlooks that, because they do not have an objective concept of value. 

But at the end of Section 1 of Chapter Three, Marx writes: “In the ideal measure of value 

lurks hard cash”, and Section 2 discusses the role of money as means of circulation. What 

is going on here? Very simple: if everybody measures the value of their goods in gold (or 

in coats, as in your example), then nothing is more natural than that they also use gold as 

the means to trade their goods. If you offer to buy something for $10, the seller will never 

say: although the price tag of my commodity says $10, I do not really want the $10, but I 

want something in that other store which is also valued $10. Instead, he will take your $10, 

and go to the other store and buy the other article himself. Therefore if we have a universal 

equivalent, then this is at the same time the commodity which everybody wants. 

But we are not yet there. In section 3 of Chapter One, Marx is trying to explain how 

it happens that one commodity, gold, obtains such a privileged position. In the context of 

Question 101, there is no money. This is why people express the values of their goods in 

other commodities, not in money. And if my reading of Section 3 is correct, this is for them 

a simple practical matter. They do not think: how can I express the value of my linen, but 

they think: after working so hard on the linen, would I be willing to trade 20 yards of linen 

for a coat? In other words, do I need a coat bad enough to give my linen for it? Unlike in 

neoclassical revealed preference theory, they do not compare the use value of the linen with 

the use value of the coat. The linen has no use value for the linen weaver. The linen weaver 

has linen coming out of his ears. Rather, he is comparing the time and effort he put in the 

linen with the use value of the coat. This is what Marx means by: expressing the value of the 

linen in the use value of the coat. It is therefore in the very nature of this value expression 

that the linen weaver is willing to exchange his linen for the coat. If he were not willing, 

then he would not have anything to back up his statement; his statement would only be an 

empty phrase, and not an expression of the value of the linen. 


Question 104 is 95 in 1995WI, 111 in 1997WI, 115 in 1997sp, and 109 in 1997ut: 

Question 104 Is it really true that a king is only king because others behave towards him 

as subjects? 

[150] Bandit: It is true that a king is only a king because others behave towards him as 

subjects. For instance, throughout history we have seen people who have risen up agaisnt a 

king and taken his life because they no longer respect his authority and will not act as his 

subjects. A king can also be taken from his own country and placed in another and people 

will not respect him as a king, especially if they have never heard of him. 

This is what Marx was saying with his theory “determination of reflection.” A king will 

only be treated as a king if his people wil reflect him as a king. 


Hans: It does not make a good impression if someone who starts with his submissions as late as you do (this is 

your first submission, and it was originally sumitted ten minutes after the deadline), picks a Question which has 

nothing to do with economics. In the future please pick Questions from which I can see that you understand the 

readings. 

Message [150] referenced by [168] and [241]. Next Message by Bandit is [179.1]. 

[168] Hans: About the Ontology of Kings Bandit’s answer [150] gave good arguments 

supporting the point Marx made. Nevertheless, I did not mean Question 104 to be a rhetorical 

Question. As I see it, there is much more to a king than the obedience of his citizens. If 

they are not obedient, he can force them. There is a very powerful social structure, including 

an army, laws and a judicial system, a school system which tells the citizens at a tender age 

how great their king is, etc. 


[241] Snowman: respnse to bandit’s answer Bandit wrote in [150] 

It is true that a king is only a king because others behave towards him as 

subjects. For instance, throughout history we have seen people who have 

risen up agaisnt a king and taken his life because they no longer respect his 

authority and will not act as his subjects. A king can also be taken from 

his own country and placed in another and people will not respect him as a 

king, especially if they have never heard of him. 

This is what Marx was saying with his theory “determination of reflection.” 

A king will only be treated as a king if his people wil reflect him as a king. 

I feel that though this is fairly logical in defining the condition for which a person hold 

the position of a king it fails to recognize all the conditions for which one can be a king. The 

one situation that I can think of is in the cse where the “king” is king because of the coercive 

power over those that he rules such that though they may not desire him to be king, and in 

fact do not consider him a worthy ruler, they are forced to be his subjects. Situations such as 

this may lead to social unrest and a loss dictative power for the position of king, such that the 

subjects are no longer in the control of the king, however for the matters of the state the king 

would still be the one making all the decisions. Theat is the king may be able to make the 

decisions for the country concerning other countries yet not have the control or leadership 

of the public. Though this is more unlikely than the standard by which the “determination 

of reflection” theory is based it is a possibility. I do not believe the possibility of this negates 

the validity of Marx as he applies it though. 


Question 107 is 118 in 1997sp, 121 in 1998WI, 143 in 2001fa, 178 in 2004fa, and 197 in 

2007fa: 

Question 107 Repeat in your own words the three peculiarities of the equivalent form. 

[138] Snowman: The three peculiarities of equivalent form The first peculiarity is 

that in exchange economies the form of notation that any one value takes. What is odd 

about this is that we express the value of an object in terms of other objects different from 

the original object itself. The value of any one object as it relates to another is socially 

determined, and not based on any physical property. values are then assigned not based


on distinguishable properties but those socially assigned and not directly easily related to 

the object. For example my bicycle has many physical properties that can be compared in 

relation to other objects, maybe a skate-board, that also have physical properties. These 

physical properties include weight, mass, volume, and size. So physically speaking the bike 

may have a height value of four skate-boards, in other words the bike is four skate boards 

tall, yet this has nothing to do with the exchange value of either product, it is only the 

Physical “equivalent values.” The value, and its magnitude, is different in that it is socially 

determined, or determined by the various relations that individuals keep with the object of 

value as a whole. In other words it is determined by all the relations of the society and can 

not by reduced to any one individual relation. 

The second peculiarity is the statement that “concrete labor is the expression of abstract 

labor.” That is the labor used in production of a product is its concrete labor yet the abstract 

labor, or the labor that will be used to determine its price, is based on the socially determined 

labor value given the various factors of production. For example in my pocket I have a wallet 

whose value on the market is four dollars based on the abstract human labor used to produce 

the average wallet of its kind, though this particular wallet may have required more or less 

time to produce. The value of the wallet is the average of all the specific labor hours required 

to produce all the individual wallets and it is this average that is known as the abstract labor. 

The third peculiarity is derived from the second, that is all individual labor that produces 

a commodity is also social labor. That is in that act of producing any individual commodity 

that has value, that value is determined socially and not by the individual producing it, nor 

is the value determined by the type of labor, say frame building in case of the bike, the value 

is instead determined by its social value in terms of abstract labor hours. Therefor even as 

the labor is performed individually it contains “immediate social form.” 

Hans: Your grade suffered because you had the wrong concepts of value and of abstract labor. 

Message [138] referenced by [170] and [187]. Next Message by Snowman is [203]. 

[170] Hans: Value is not the aggregate of use values According to Marx, the equivalent 

form is peculiar because it expresses the general social value qualities of the product in terms 

of individual use value qualities. 

In his discussion of the first peculiarity, Snowman’s [138] uses a mistaken concept of 

value: he thinks “value” is an aggregation of use value qualities, and therefore he is surprised 

at the fact that the value of a product is measured by the use value of a different product. In 

the framework of Marx’s theory, in which product have value because they have absorbed 

a part of social labor which could also have been used for the production of a different 

product, the relation to a different product is not surprising; what is surprising is that value 

expresses itself in the use value of this different product. But since Snowman uses a concept 

of value informed by neoclassical utility theory, he is surprised at what the equivalent form 

does “right” instead of that what it does “wrong”. 

Regarding the second peculiarity, Snowman starts with a mistaken concept of abstract 

labor. Just as he considers the value of a product as an aggregate measure of all its use 

values, so he considers abstract labor as an average taken of all the different skill levels 

of concrete useful labor. He misses the main point here, that in abstract labor the useful 

properties of labor are extinguished. Therefore he misses that what Marx finds surprising. 


The third peculiarity, that in the equivalent form (and in that form only, i.e., Marx really 

speaks here only about the labor producing gold, not the labor producing an ordinary 

commodity), individual labor directly counts as social labor, is re-interpreted by Snowman 

to mean that the individual labor of any commodity does not create value, but that value is 

something social. This is in keeping with Snowman’s conception of value laid out at the 

beginning of his contribution, according to which value derives from a social aggregation 

of the use value of the commodity (this aggregation presumably being accomplished by the 

play of demand and supply). 

For someone steeped in neoclassical concepts, who is just beginning to understand Marx, 

it is easy (and almost automatic) to fill in neoclassical concepts for those parts of Marx’s 

theory which one does not yet understand. This is not only Snowman’s problem, but this is 

a general problem which everyone in this class must grapple with. Therefore it can happen 

that you write something which is quite intelligent, as Snowman’s contribution, but you will 

get the answer back that it is all wrong. Do not let that discourage you. 


Question 120 is 13 in 1995WI, 14 in 1997ut, 18 in 2003fa, 20 in 2005fa, 24 in 2008fa, 

and 23 in 2012fa: 

Question 120 Why does Marx not go from the Simple form of value directly to the Universal 

form of value by letting everyone express their values in the same commodity? 

[126] Jupiter: Universal To understand the value of a given commodity we cannot simply 

just throw it into the market place without first understanding what type of use value it is 

going to hold, as well as how much labor time is going to go into this product. Why Marx 

starts out with a simple-value commodity, is to give it a basis of value to be compared in 

direct correlation with another commodity ie.(20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of 

linen is worth one coat). This is a direct comparison of two commodities which derive their 

value from both the use-value of the commodity as well as the labor that is put into the 

commodities. With this they are given quantitative and a qualitative properties and thus are 

given a value in the market place and are put up for exchange for other commodities. 

A more sophisticated form of the market place will evolve from this simple form of value 

to a universal form. In the universal form we have one basis of exchange, or one thing to set 

the market prices, this is other commodities of value. 

Marx does not go directly into this form of exchange because we need to see how a 

commodity gets its value, then we can start to see how there is, labor and use value involved 

in the final forn of a product. Once we understand this process that goes on in every form of 

a product, then we can put it in an open market place, exchanging coats for iron, corn, gold 

etc. I see it as a metamorphosis of an evolving market place with the values of the different 

products setting their own equalibrium prices. 

Next Message by Jupiter is [182.1]. 

Question 127 is 118 in 1995WI, 138 in 1997sp, 130 in 1997ut, 147 in 1999SP, 156 in 

2000fa, 163 in 2001fa, 177 in 2002fa, 180 in 2003fa, 207 in 2004fa, 203 in 2005fa, 223 

in 2007SP, 227 in 2007fa, 238 in 2011fa, and 248 in 2012fa:


Question 127 What is the progress of the Money form as compared to the General Equivalent 

form? 

[148] TOAD: Progress of the Money form If I understand the question correctly you 

are asking what changes have taken place in the commodity of gold to change it from a 

commodity to the Universal equivilent. 

First off in example form C gold expresses its value in tearms of linen. As Kalle answered 

in question 83 the value of the commodity on the left of the equivelent is dictated by the the 

exchange vlaue of the commodity on the right. Meaning that in form C the value of gold 

was dictated by the “current exchange value” of linen. 

As time passed gold was more widely accepted as the universal equivalent meaning that 

is was used more and more as the means by which the exchange value of other commodities 

was judged. Gold made its move from the relative value to the equivalent value. (left side of 

the equation to the right) 

As this change became widley accepted it gained a monopoly over all other forms of 

equivelents and became “the expression of value for the world of commodities”. With this 

change to the money commodity form D became the Money form and for this reason it is 

different from form C the General form. 

Message [148] referenced by [175]. Next Message by TOAD is [181.3]. 

[173] Snake: progression of money The progression of money is deriveded from the 

idea of exchanging commodities by General Equivalent form. When we exchange goods by 

their equivalent form, the problem of determing the value of a commodity weighted agaisnt 

other commodities arises. The problem which arises is that it would be difficult to transport 

various commodities by which you would want to exchange with. Also you would have 

a difficult time finding another person with equal wants, whom you would exchange with. 

Therefore the progression of money form becomes tranferred to commodities which are 

fitted to perform the social function of a universal equivalent. Those commodities are the 

precious metals, gold and silver. The process of money has lead to simplifing the matter of 

exchange by creating an general equivalent form that is portable, durable, divisible, easily 

reconizble, and acceptible for exchange. Money form of the thing is external to the thing 

itself. By which a standard of one commdity which buys everthing else, currency. 

Message [173] referenced by [175]. Next Message by Snake is [175.1]. 

[175] Hans: Toad’s and Snake’s answers Of the two answers received to this Question, 

I will discuss Snake’s [173] first, although it was the second submission. Snake describes 

the practical advantages which the introduction of money brings for the exchange. Implicit 

here is a “functionalist” explanation of money: money exists because it has a function in the 

exchange process. 

Functionalist explanations have always been viewed with suspicion, and rightly so. Without 

getting into the details of this philosophical debate, it is important for us here to notice 

that Marx is not giving a functionalist explanation of money. In Chapter Two, about the 

Exchange Process, Marx brings many of the arguments from Snake’s [147], but Marx’s underlying 

argument is not: money has been introduced in order to resolve these practical 


difficulties, but rather: since money is an appropriate expression of value, it can (among others) 

resolve these practical difficulties. But to Marx, the function of means of circulation is 

not the most basic function of money. Marx’s derivation in Section 3 of Chapter One is of a 

more general nature than the functionalist explanation suggested by Snake. The function of 

money in the circulation of commodities is only one corollary of Marx’s general derivation. 

A second and arguably a more important corollary of this derivation will be the transition 

of money to capital given in Chapter Four, an issue which completely eludes mainstream 

economics with its emphasis on the circulation process. 

Now let us turn to Toad’s [148]. Toad understood better than Snake that Question 127 

was meant to be a rather narrow Question about the difference between form C in 157:4 and 

form D in 162:3. Toad wanted to argue himself through step by step, but his argument did 

not quite get off the ground. I think this may have to do with the fact that Toad was confused 

about two issues. 

(1) Toad noticed that gold was on the left hand side in form C and on the right hand side 

in form D. Therefore he thought the transition from C to D was a switch from the left to the 

right hand side. But this is not how one should look at it. The difference between form C 

and D is that form C is a temporally and spacially transitory form: one tribe may use linen as 

general equivalent, another spices, a third seashells, a fourth cattle. In form D, the function 

of general equivalent has been attached for good with one use value only, and that is gold. 

Seems a quite unimportant difference, and therefore my question: what is the progress in 

this? 

(2) Toad also mis-quotes Kalle. Kalle had written in [137]: 

The amount of the commodity on the right hand side is the equivalent, and 

therefore, dictates the relative value of the first commodity. 

I wrote Kalle privately that I did not like the word “dictate” which was not passive enough, 

but Kalle was right to start his sentence with “the amount”, which refers to use value, not 

value. But Toad thought that Kalle had written “its exchange value”, as becomes clear from 

Toad’s sentence 

the value of the commodity on the left of the equivelent is dictated by the 

the exchange vlaue of the commodity on the right. 

Toad did therefore not write the same thing Kalle had written. Nevertheless it can be 

argued that both are right, because they refer to different situations. Kalle had written about 

the Simple form of value, while Toad wrote about the Universal form of value. If all commodities 

express their values in gold, they no longer mean the use value of gold, but that 

what gold can buy, which is the exchange value of gold. 


Question 129 is 120 in 1995WI, 131 in 1996ut, 141 in 1998WI, 148 in 1999SP, and 167 in 

2001fa: 

Question 129 Do you know of other phenomena in capitalism which seem to be the result 

of “magic”?


[192] Wight: Capitalist magic In mu opinion, there is quite a bit of magical phenomena 

taking place in a capitalist system. Economic changes seem to be ongoing with no definitive 

cause and effect relationship. What causes economic conditions and data to fluctuate 

so wildly? Some of the so called magical phenomena are as follows: unemployment rate 

statistics, interest rate and stock price fluctuations, the changing value of the dollar on international 

currency markets, changing prices of various goods and services, especially gas 

prices (why is gas $.15 more expensive this week as oppossed to last week), fluctuations 

regarding economic growth, GDP, and business cycles. All of these economic indicators or 

gages are endlessly being monitored and modified. They seem to be abstract numbers without 

any explanation. Especially the huge aggregated indices. How anyone ever compiles this 

data is a mystery to me. Economists try and explain this phenomena through changing supply 

and demand graphs, but are the theories really accurate and appropriate? What causes 

these huge market wide changes in supply or demand? When you really begin to look at the 

root of the issue, it becomes very unclear and irrational. Do these economic indicators really 

have a magical quality about them? Definately yes when really analyzed from a critical 

perspective. 


[203] Snowman: Though there may be a great number of other factors in the capitalist 

society that are magical, the one that occurs most readily is the appreciation and depreciation 

in the value of commodities as a direct response to public taste. What is odd about this 

relation is that though a commodity has neither gained nor lost any of the original labor or 

utility from its time of introduction to the mardet a commodity can lose or gain value by 

there being a sway of public opinion. The two examples that leap to mind are old cars, and 

cabbage patch dolls. 

The ’57 chevy in 1957 cost at most between one and two thousan dollars, today however 

the same car can fetch a price of between thirty and fifty thousand dollars. This increase in 

price is not a result of any increase in the labor hours used to produce it, in fact to produce 

the car now would require fewer labor hours per unit. The increase is not from any increased 

utility from the car, as cars today are more reliable. The increase is indicative of the change 

in peoples wants and pecuniary emulation. 

The case of the cabbage patch dolls that I referenced before is refering to the incredible 

demands for that doll that existed in the mid eighties around Christmas time. This rush 

resulted in a shortage in the supply of the dolls compared to demand. This shortage resulted 

in people paying very high prices for the dolls. Though the dolls had no greater attributes or 

quantified labor in them, they became very expensive, at least as far as exchange values are 

concerned, it was not unheard of for people to pay three hundred dollars for a doll, a ten fold 

increase. 

What both these examples portray is the propensity of the capitalist to price set according 

to the influences of pecuniary emulation. Pecuniary emulation is the human condition which 

keeps the majority of the population in a capitalist society in competition withone another 

to display their wealth and prowess. Because what is determined to be prowess or wealth 

is determined by the society as a whole based on thier wants, when thier wants change so 

does the relative values of commodities. What then is the magical part about this is that it 


works and that people continue to by into the whole plan, even though any shift in the public 

wants and desires may crumble ones worth in the pecuniary relation, and thus forcing the 

individual to continually amass new forms of material wealth for the attempt at improving 

thier social status. The magic is the unconscious decisions of the mass in determining wants, 

desires, and values for commodities. 

Hans: Yes, this is a good example. 

Message [203] referenced by [228]. Next Message by Snowman is [212.3]. 

[228] Franz: Snowman Copperfield Snowman wrote in [203]: 

Though there may be a great number of other factors in the capitalist society 

that are magical, the one that occurs most readily is the appreciation and 

depreciation in the value of commodities as a direct response to public taste. 

The ’57 chevy in 1957 cost at most between one and two thousan dollars, 

today however the same car can fetch a price of between thirty and fifty 

thousand dollars. This increase in price is not a result of any increase in the 

labor hours used to produce it, in fact to produce the car now would require 

fewer labor hours per unit. The increase is not from any increased utility 

from the car, as cars today are more reliable. The increase is indicative of 

the change in peoples wants and pecuniary emulation. 

The increase is indicative of changes in supply and demand. 

The case of the cabbage patch dolls that I referenced before is refering to 

the incredible demands for that doll that existed in the mid eighties around 

Christmas time. This rush resulted in a shortage in the supply of the dolls 

compared to demand. This shortage resulted in people paying very high 

prices for the dolls. Though the dolls had no greater attributes or quantified 

labor in them, they became very expensive, at least as far as exchange 

values are concerned, it was not unheard of for people to pay three hundred 

dollars for a doll, a ten fold increase. 

What both these examples portray is the propensity of the capitalist to price 

set according to the influences of pecuniary emulation. 

Capitalists set price according to supply and demand. 

Pecuniary emulation is the human condition which keeps the majority of the 

population in a capitalist society in competition withone another to display 

their wealth and prowess. Because what is determined to be prowess or 

wealth is determined by the society as a whole based on thier wants, when 

thier wants change so does the relative values of commodities. 

yes, when supply and demand curves change, so too relative prices. 

What then is the magical part about this is that it works and that people continue 

to by into the whole plan, even though any shift in the public wants 

and desires may crumble ones worth in the pecuniary relation, and thus


forcing the individual to continually amass new forms of material wealth 

for the attempt at improving thier social status. The magic is the unconscious 

decisions of the mass in determining wants, desires, and values for 

commodities. 

After watching a commercial of Michael Jordan drinking Gatorade on TV, you go to 

Smiths and buy a bottle of Gatorade. 

Is this what you mean by magic? 


Question 131 is 121 in 1995WI, 98 in 1995ut, 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 


Question 131 Which evidence does Marx refer to when he calls the commodity “mysterious”? 

[188] Pinky: Mysterious commodity evidence Marx notes that the economy exhibits 

tendencies which are independent of the individuals involved in the production and consumption 

of the commodities. He determines that the separate life that the economy has 

finds its origin in the mysterious aspects of the commodity itself. 

Before revealing the source of the mystery, Marx eliminates the aspects of the commodity 

which are not mysterious. Marx explains that “There is no mystery involved when man, 

by his activity, changes the forms of the materials of nature in a manner useful to him.” 

Hence, use value is ruled out. Now, he investigates the possibilities contained in the value 

side of the commodity; the content of the value determinations and the form that the content 

takes. Marx defines three determinations of value; substatnce, quantity, and form. Then, 

he describes the content of these determinations as; human labor (abstract), socially necessary 

labor time, and a social relation. Marx eliminates these three contents systematically: 

Human labors are physiological truths, labor is always work. Labor time is not a mystery because 

even a society that is not mystified must consider it. And finally, the social interactions 

between the producers within a social web is not a mystery either. 

As a result of this analysis, Marx leads into the identification of the mystery as being 

found within the form itself. Namely, the discrepancy between content and form. Because 

Marx sees social relations in terms of a social connections rather than just the social relations 

of the individual, he points out that a finished product takes on social abstraction, apart 

from the specific labor put into it. The mystery is the relationship between the products 

themselves. “...the social characteristics of men’s own labor are reflected back to them as 

objective characteristics inherent in the products of their labor, as quasi-physical properties 

of these things, and that therefore also the social relation of the producers to the aggregate 

labor is reflected as a social relation of objecte, a relation which existe apart from and outside 

the producers.” The real labor and the social relation between one’s labor and social aggregate 

labor assume properties and relations that exist as if they were inherent to the product 

itself and outside the world of the laborer. 

Hans: You are giving a very good summary of Marx’s argument, but Question 188 was much more specic; it refers 

to your second sentence: 


He determines that the separate life that the economy has finds its origin in the mysterious 

aspects of the commodity itself. 

Is there any evidence which would justify his focusing on the commodity? 

Message [188] referenced by [200]. Next Message by Pinky is [205]. 

[217] Emma: Mysterious Commodities Marx asserts that there is something mysterious 

about commodities. That is, that commodities assume a role in capitalism that one would 

not deduce based on available knowledge and which goes “beyond use value and the content 

of determinations.” After eliminating use value and content as the mysterious component, 

Marx settles on “form.” The evidence adduced for this mysterious characteristic derives from 

secondary phenomena in acapitalist society supposedly caused by the mysterious form, not 

unlike how astronomers and physicists deduce the existence of black holes and pulsars by 

extrapolating from behavior of objects in the vicinity whose actions could only be explained 

thus. Hard examples include how capital can grow on its own, how inflation works or recessions 

come about. Further examples would I presume include how interest rates are set 

and how unemployment rates change. It’s as if commodities were “endowed with their own 

life and striving to express their own substance” due to their ability to “transmit certain 

contraints faced by society as a whole to the individuals.” 

What does all this mean? Well, admittedly after being even more confused than usual 

I have come to the (tenuous) conclusion that what Marx is talking about as the mystery 

component has to do with his notions of commodities as social products and fetishism. 

First, it should be noted that Marx understood commodites to be social products, that they 

owe their value not primarily to the estimation of their utility by consumers, but to the existence 

of social relations which constitute the “fabric of society and which make the productin 

of the commodity possible in the first place.” Next, for Marx mystification meant fetishization, 

which in turn worked to obscure the reality behind commodities. Marx believed that 

when people worked for one another their labor automatically assumed social form. That 

is, the products of labor were “merely the material representation of social relation, of the 

living connections between human beings.” 

But people don’t comprehend that social aspect of the commodity and are thus alienated 

from their own products. The commodity is in fact much more than the laborer suspects 

and much less. More, because the true social character of the commodity appears to the laborer 

instead as an “objective character stamped upon the product of that labor.” Any social 

relation left is not seen as one between laborers but one between commodites, between products. 

That other phenomena in the capitalist economy exist a products of the unrecognized 

social relations between laborers will necessarily be considered “mysterious” or “as being 

endowed with their own life” since their origins are obscured through a false understanding 

of the nature of commodities. Less, because there really is no mystery about the origins of 

the mystery component of commodities. It derives from the laborer himself and from the 

social relationships which make the production of the commodity possible. 

Hans: Excellent answer. Only one quibble with it: the conclusion about black holes which you describe is a 

second-order conclusion. This is not what Marx is doing here with the mysteriousness of the commodity. A second 

order conclusion about the mysterious commodity would be: the commodity must be mysterious because everyone 

looking at commodities has a baffled expression in their face. (This is of course a joke but I hope you get the point.)


Marx does not use arguments like this. He is digging into the commodity and trying to catch a glimpse of the 

mystery before it becomes too smooth, to sophisticated, where one can no longer see how it is functioning. 


Exam Question 132 is 125 in 1995WI, 102 in 1995ut, 139 in 1997WI, 143 in 1997sp, 135 

in 1997ut, 185 in 2002fa, and 253 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 132 Why is it surprising that Marx states, in the last Section of Chapter 

One of Capital, that the commodity is “mysterious”? 

[204] TOAD: Mysterious It is suprising because he spent so much of the first part giving 

his theory which explains the commodity. 

He gives two examples, one of the eye and how the eye and the object it sees are two 

separate things. He relates these to the commodity form and the value relation of the products 

of labor within which it appears. Meaning that the commodity and its value are two separate 

things. The commodity is produced by labor and the price of the commodity is placed on it 

by society. They are two separate steps, yet we associate them as one thing. 

The second example that he gives is that of religion and how man’s brain is given life 

and man is able to interact as one, inseparable. He relates this also to the commodity stating 

that as soon as it is produced as a commodity it is inseparable from the labor that went into 

producing it. 

This is why I think that he continues to label the commodity as mysterious. Because no 

matter how well he explains it the commodity and the price it has are inseparable. I think he 

fills that it is a mystery of human nature to tag an item with a price and not to see price and 

commodity as two separate things. Human nature is the mystery not the commodity. 

Hans: Your first sentence is right, but your interpretations of the analogies of the eye and religion are quite different 

than what Marx had in mind. 


[226] Franz: Toad TOAD wrote in [204]: 

Meaning that the commodity and its value are two separate things. The 

commodity is produced by labor and the price of the commodity is placed 

on it by society. 

the price of a commodity is determined through supply and demand. 

Because no matter how well he explains it the commodity and the price it 

has are inseparable. I think he fills that it is a mystery of human nature to 

tag an item with a price and not to see price and commodity as two separate 

things. Human nature is the mystery not the commodity. 

it is likely your grade will benefit if you e-mail Dr. Ehrbar before he grades and change: 

to 

tag an item with a price and not to see price and commodity 

tag an item with a price and not to see value 



Question 133 is 122 in 1995WI, 99 in 1995ut, 144 in 1997sp, and 136 in 1997ut: 

Question 133 Someone says: “It is not the commodity which is mysterious, it is only the 

explanation Marx gives of it, and Marx should not make the commodity responsible for the 

mystical and irrational explanations he is coming up with.” Do you agree? 

[218] Dunny: Is the commodity mysterious? “It is not the commodity which is mysterious, 

it is only the explanation Marx gives of it, and Marx should not make the commodity 

responsible for the mystical and irrational explanations he is coming up with.” True or False? 

I am going to say True. You can find great mystery in everything you put a lot of thought 

into. Isn’t that what life is all about. I find it a mystery how the toilet flushes in the opposite 

direction on the other side of the world. I experienced that “down-under”. To a physicist, 

this mystery of mine might seem silly to him because he understands the laws of nature that 

would cause the water to travel in the opposite direction. Not to make light of the situation, 

I believe Marx is headed in the right direction and I give him credit for the thought that he is 

putting into the commodity so that he can have a greater understanding of it. I feel that the 

social and the material side of a commodity come more as a “given” and do not need to be 

tested or debated as mysterious. 

Hans: I am inferring from your last sentence (and I may be wrong, but I want to say it anyway for didactical 

reasons) that you understood Marx better than you want to admit, and that your disagreement with his method is 

really a disagreement with his results. Marx definitely did not consider the commodity relation as something given, 

he saw the very undesirable consequences it had in capitalism, and he was very concerned about whether the bad 

parts of capitalism were already contained in the commodity form. This is why he is so probing, so testing, so 

debating, so critical. 


[242] VanHalen: Stop the digging I found it interesting that question 133 posed the idea 

that the commodity is not mysterious but Marx’s analysis of the commodity is the mystery. 

As I’ve been reading through the text for our class, I’ve thought this many times. The 

basic principles that Marx is talking about seem for the most part understandable and are 

enlightening. However sometimes I think Marx may think too much and in the process of 

digging deeper to find meanings, he digs the foundation from under arguements he is trying 

to make. Sometimes in his explanations and justifications he seems to suffocate the point he 

is trying to make. 

The mystery of the commodity was one of those times for me. 

I didn’t want to submit this as one of my graded questions because it kind of seemed like 

a trick question. I was curious though if anyone else felt the same way I do about some of 

Marx explanations?? 


Question 134 is 123 in 1995WI, 137 in 1997ut, 164 in 2000fa, 186 in 2002fa, 194 in 

2003fa, 221 in 2004fa, 242 in 2007fa, 249 in 2008SP, 247 in 2008fa, 260 in 2011fa, and 

272 in 2012fa: 

Question 134 Whether the commodity is “mysterious” or not is a value judgment which 

can neither be proved nor disproved. Do you agree? What would Marx say about this?


[184] Karl: Solved, or unsolved mystery? First off the question asks that I make a 

subjective response on if I think that a commodity’s mysterious nature can be proved or disproved. 

In my estimation it is an uneducated person who would assume that something could 

not be proven. Take for instance an electromagnetic wave, just because it has a quiescent 

nature does not mean we cannot prove it’s existence. The same lies true for the commodity. 

The very fact that we can see something “mysterious” about the commodity makes me think 

it can be further proved and studied. Tying in my example of the unseen electromagnetic 

wave, we see it’s results as we watch TV, or listen to the radio. Before Einstein’s General 

theory the world assumed time and space to be constant factors. It is a matter of delving in 

and using our abstract capabilities to prove, or attempt to prove unseen things. 

Marx said that at first glance the commodity seems “trivial and obvious.” It therefore 

needs a further look into what lies within the commodity to get us closer to making theories 

about it’s mysterious nature. Speaking of the commodity, and the mystery behind it 

Marx said, “It is difficult to analyze this form. The distinct determinations contained in it 

are hidden, undeveloped, abstract, and it requires therefore a certain effort of our abstractive 

capabilities to distinguish and grasp them.” In answer to the second part of the question, it is 

obvious that Marx believed that the mystery of the commodity was possible, although “difficult” 

to uncover. From this statement we can also see that like Einstein, Marx had definite 

distinct ideas of what is or is not “mysterious” about the commodity. In my opinion Marx 

may have gained a grasp for proving mysterious things in his years as a student of theology 

in Germany. In the text Marx starts unearthing the mysterious attributes of the commodity. 

He uses the technique of elimination to theorize what exactly constitutes mystery in the 

commodity. Here we see again Marx’s belief that there is an answer, but it requires deep, 

abstract thought. He eliminates “use value” because he finds nothing mysterious in a human 

ability to make a transformation of substance into a useful thing. Which then leads him to 

value, and eventually he finds that it is the “form” itself that is mysterious. We may not 

have arrived fully at all ot the mysterious attributes of the commodity, but by the use of axioms 

Marx has moved us closer to seeing what constitutes the mysterious nature of the the 

commodity. 

Hans: Your anser is good, but you missed one important aspect of the Question, namely: would the “mysteriousness” 

of the commodity not automatically be disqualified from being provable because it is a value statement? 


[200] Punani: The fetish-like character of the commodity and its secrets A commodity 

comes into existence as an extremely obvious,frivolous thing. But in examining it, it shows 

that it is a bizarre thing, filled with “metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.” As a 

use-value, there is nothing incomprehensive about it. It is doubtlessly obvious that human 

activities change the form of materials in nature so that it is useful to man. For example the 

form of wood. Wood is modified if a chair is made out of it. But the chair is still wood. As 

soon as it appears as a commodity, it changes into a thing which surpasses sensuousness. 

Thus, the mystical character of the goods does not arise from its use-value. Just as little 

does it result from the nature of the determinants of vlaue. As Marx states “ The mysterious 

character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply in the fact that the commodity 

reflects the social characteristics of men’s own labour as objective characteristics of the 

products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things.” 


Hans: You are not addressing the Question at all, and everything you said is contained, in a better, more precise 

form, in [188]. 


Question 136 is 126 in 1995WI, 138 in 1996ut, 143 in 1997WI, 147 in 1997sp, and 139 in 

1997ut: 

Question 136 Why does Marx emphasize, and mainstream economics deny, the mysterious 

character of the commodity? 

[197] Super: Mysterious character of the commodity Mainstream economists would 

argue that a commodity has only use value. And the production and exchange of a commodity 

is strictly enforced by it’s demand. They would describe this thought of commodities 

having a mysterious character as irrational. Marx is describing the social relationships between 

producers in an exchange setting. The social characteristics within their commodities 

take form during this exchange relation. The productive activities which took place in the 

production of a commodity, the labor inputs, come out as a shadow of the laborer’s talents 

and abilities and has social form. This social form is what distinquishes a commodity from 

another. The unique human labor input for this commodity represents the value of the final 

product. This mysterious character is seen in the social exchange relationship between these 

producers who see the commodities social relation with eachother. Marx is saying here that 

the value of a commodity is subject to one’s aesthetic sense of value. One can see the labor 

effort and content that goes into a commodity. One then makes a value judgement upon that. 

Hans: I looked at your answer again, and although I still think what you say about Marx is wrong (look at Question 

160 about that), I like your characterization of mainstream economics, and I also like what you write with the 

“shadows”. It was some original thinking and it was close to how Marx was thinking. The grade I had given you 

for it previously was unfair, and I apologize. 

Message [197] referenced by [198]. Next Message by Super is [206.2]. 

[198] Hans: Super has it all backwards Super’s [197] did not even get close to answering 

this Question, due to some basic misunderstandings. First of all, he thinks the proportionality 

of prices with labor content is enforced by the buyers of the commodities in the following 

way: 

One can see the labor effort and content that goes into a commodity. One 

then makes a value judgement upon that. 

Such a tenuous behavioral assumption is not necessary for the labor theory of value. 

All one needs is mobility of labor and, in the case of simple commodity production, the 

assumption that (direct or indirect) labor costs outweigh all other costs. (In capitalism, it is 

not labor but both the stock and flow of capital necessary). As long as demand is so high in 

a certain industry that prices rise above labor content, labor will migrate into that industry, 

and this will re-establsh prices in line with labor values. 

Super himself finds his behavioral assumption “mysterious”, and he apparently thinks 

this is the mystery Marx talks about in the Commodity Fetishism Section. Super thinks that 

commodity producers mysteriously 

see the commodities social relation with each other.


If one has everything backwards, it is obviously possible to read the text without noticing 

that something is wrong. 



Question 137 Skip forward to Subsection 1.4.4, pp. 169:2-172:0, and describe the social 

role played by this “physiological truth” in the Robinson example and the other examples 

of different societies given there. 

[185] Lamma: social roles The social role played by this ‘physiological truth’ leads us 

find that each commdity is produced by a single man’s labor power. It represents an article 

of utility. Therefore commodities can not be compared to each other and determines thier 

value. Each one is a separate useful thing when no exchange takes place and no value is 

placed upon them. 

However, as commodities are produced by a group on a social level, they represent a 

commodity with exchange as its purpose and not to fulfill the makers needs only. These 

have value. The group brings its labor powers together in a social form. or a ‘homogenous 

mass’. Even though the labor each person produces is still only individual labor power, 

it is a function of human organism. Whether it be for personal use or for exchange the 

commodities made may still be from the same idividual labor power. The difference occurs 

when the social role takes this labor power, brings it together, and gives it he properties of 

exchange and thus a value and not just a use value. So that is the social role that takes place 

here. 

Hans: You are saying things have value whenever they are produced socially, but not when they are produced 

individually. But if you were to go through the different examples of societies, you would see that in some societies 

it is not the abstract labor in the things that is counted by society, but the concrete labor. See my points alpha in the 

Annotations after each of the examples. 


Question 138 is 128 in 1995WI, 105 in 1995ut, 142 in 1997ut, and 242 in 2007SP: 

Question 138 Compare the one function of labor time in the Robinson example, p. R169:2/o, 

with the two functions of labor time in the example of an “association of free men,” i.e., of a 

communist society given on p. R171:2/o in Subsection 1.4.4. 

[216] VanHalen: Both Robinson Crusoe and the freemen have needs to satisfy. 

Crusoe being only one man with only 24 hours in a day must economize his time as he 

sees fit. Of the many different production functions Crusoe prioritizes his activities according 

to as he sees fit. Everything Crusoe makes benefits him. He puts in all the time to make 

everything and he reaps all the benefits of his labor time. Thus labor time serves the function 

of time, how much time should be spent in various productive activities. 

The free men society and their labor time serves two functions. First, like Crusoe, labor 

time is divided up into time consuming activities that will benefit the society and work to 

satisfy their needs. The second function is that labor time measures the participation of each 

individual in the society and consequently rewards the participant with a share of the total 

product that is set aside for the consumption of the society. 


In comparing the two examples, Crusoe and the freeman share the first function of labor 

time; maintaining the correct proportion between the different functions of labor. Crusoe’s 

products were made and used/consumed only by him (until Friday came on the scene). The 

products of the free men society were social products which introduced the second function 

of labor time. Since there are more people in the free man society, (versus one Crusoe) labor 

time developes a new dimension, that of being a measure of how much a person put into the 

common labor pool and hence what they will receive from the total product of the society. 

Hans: Very good answer. 

Message [216] referenced by [2007SP:437]. Next Message by VanHalen is [242]. 


1997ut: 

Question 139 Describe in your own words the difference between social[1] and social[2], 

and give examples. Hint: it is not correct to say that some relations are social[1] and some 

are social[2]! 

[220] Scott: One meaning utilised by Marx for social, seems to be in the context of 

the exchange relations between two commodities. It appears as “social relations between 

objects” in various sections of the readings. 

Another meaning for social appears to be as used in the context of interpersonal relations 

between individuals in the performance of labour. I guess in determining divisions of labour. 

It feels as if I’m not delving into these distinctions on the higher levels of Marx or for 

that matter even the anotations. I haven’t made the leap from Hans’ annotated definitions: 

social {1} to designate the web of relationships on level {1} in which people 

find themselves. 

social {2} to designate the direct interpersonal interactions and contact on 

level {2} by which these relations are sustained. 

to the social(s) as used in the text. Not very well, I’m afraid keeps coming to mind! 

Hans: You don’t have to feel bad if you haven’t discovered it yourself that the word “social” is used here in two 

meanings. It is not easy to see because we brought up in a tradition of methodological individualism, which does 

not make the difference between social[1] and social[2]. I would recommend that you go back to the Annotations 

and try to understand this difference. You may want to consult the Bhaskar reference given in the Annotations 

(Possibility of Naturalism). 


Question 141 is 131 in 1995WI, 108 in 1995ut, 149 in 1997WI, 154 in 1997sp, 147 in 

1997ut, 246 in 2007SP, 256 in 2008fa, and 298 in 2010fa: 

Question 141 What is a relation of production? Explain carefully whether or not value is a 

relation of production. 

[180] Bandit: A relation of production has two meanings. First, it is the relation of 

the laborer’s characteristics manifested in the commodity itself. Second, it is the laborer’s 

own characteristics compared to the total social labor. In a nutshell, the first definition is the 

laborer’s own characteristics reflected in the product/commodity they produced (relationship


between laborer and product). The second, is where the product/commodity stand up agaisnt 

all of the other social labor put into their products/commoditys (relationship between product 

and other products). 

Value is a relation of production. It is on the laborer’s side of the production of the 

commodity. Marx says in 172:2, that these products are treated as values because capitalism 

is a society of producers. 

Message [180] referenced by [181]. Next Message by Bandit is [266]. 

[181] Hans: Relations of and in production Bandit’s answer [180] is not bad, but I 

would have liked him to make a connection to the definition of relations of production given 

at the beginning of Appendix A, which is also part of the assigned readings this week. But 

I like Bandit’s distinction between concrete labor, which is a relation between the producer 

and the product, and abstract labor, which is a relation between the different producers in 

society. 

I think there is a misunderstanding in Bandit’s last sentence: 

Marx says in 172:2, that these products are treated as values because capitalism 

is a society of producers. 

When Marx talks about a society of commodity producers, he does not mean with this 

that commodity producers are especially productive, but this reflects his general belief that 

the relations of production are the most basic social relations, therefore one can characterize 

a society by its relations of production. 


Question 144 is 134 in 1995WI, 111 in 1995ut, 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, 303 in 2010fa, and 277 in 

2011fa: 

Question 144 How does Marx’s use of the term “fetishism” compare with its modern dictionary 

definition? 

[156] MUCHO: “Fetishism” According to modern dictionary(Webster’s Dictionary), the 

word “fetishism” was defined as; 1. belief in magical fetishes. 2. extravagant irrational 

devotion. On the other hand, Marx defines the term as “the world of commodities with the 

products of men’s hands.” Marx also mentions that the fetishism attaches itself to the products 

of labor as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from 

the production of commodities. He makes strong connection between the term fetishism 

and commodities. He uses this term for the peculiar social character of the labor which 

produces commodities. I think the main difference of using the term fetishism between the 

Marx’s way and in general is; in general, the term was commonly used for describing mental 

situations. However, the way Marx uses this term is more of the material or physical situations.(I’m 

sorry for whoever happened to read this, it might not make good sense to you. I 

don’t think I wrote exactly what I wanted to say because of my vocabulary problem.) 

Message [156] referenced by [177]. Next Message by MUCHO is [166.1]. 


[164] MsMarx: Fetishism Marx’s use of the term “fetishism” is quite different from the 

modern dictionary definition. Webster defines fetishism as a worship of an object or image 

superstitiously invested with divine or demoniac power, invested with reverence. Marx does 

not intend it to mean this excessive devotion to material goods. 

Marx’s meaning of the “fetish character” of the commodity arose because the source of 

its value, the social labor of man working in interdependence, was transmuted in capitalism 

into an objective character of the product, into a price. That interdependence was isolated 

and indifferent; it could not straightforwardly assign value to the satisfaction of needs, but 

only to sales on the market, the only place where private labors became social. 

His concept of fetish implies the inversion of persons and things. The fetishism of commodities 

has its origin in the peculiar social character of the labor that produces them. Commodity 

fetishism is the belief that goods possess value just as they have weight, as an inherent 

property. To the unmystified mind, it is clear that a commodity has exchange value only 

because it stands in certain relations to human labor and human needs. In the bewitched 

world of commodity fetishism, goods appear to exchange at a certain rate because of their 

inherent values. 

Hans does a good job of explaining that fetishism is in part the illusion that commodities, 

money, and capital have properties and powers of their own. However, whether people are 

aware or not of the social origin of the quasi-physical properties of the commodity, they 

must treat the commodities as beings with supranatural properties if they want to survive 

in a commodity society. It is easy to think that commodities really do have supernatural 

properties. Most of the people most of the time forget that the powers of the things which 

they are trying to take advantage of originate in their own activity, but nobody is forced to see 

the commodity this way. This false consciousness implies Marx’s meaning of “fetishism.” 

Message [164] referenced by [177]. Next Message by MsMarx is [169.1]. 

[177] Hans: MUCHO’s and MsMarx’s answers MsMarx’s [164] is a very good answer; 

I would only reformulate the last sentence as: 

Marx means this false consciousness when he uses the word “fetishism.” 

MUCHO’s [156] has many more problems. He writes 

Marx defines the term as “the world of commodities with the products of 

men’s hands.” 

This does not make any sense. Did you omit part of the sentence here? The next thing 

Mucho writes is not a definition of fetishism but one of its properties: 

Marx also mentions that the fetishism attaches itself to the products of labor 

as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable 

from the production of commodities 

This may be relevant for the bridge to the dictionary definition, but Mucho does not make 

this connection. The sentence


He uses this term for the peculiar social character of the labor which produces 

commodities. 

is strictly speaking wrong. Marx is seeking the origin of fetishism in the peculiar social 

character of commodity-producing labor, but he does not identify fetishism with this. I get 

the impression MUCHO is just throwing Marx quotes at us, fishing for points. This won’t 

work in this class. If I see someone building a coherent argument, this will be rewarded. The 

next sentence has something like an argument: 

I think the main difference of using the term fetishism between the Marx’s 

way and in general is; in general, the term was commonly used for describing 

mental situations. However, the way Marx uses this term is more of the 

material or physical situations. 

This is true for the fetish-like character of the commodity, which is an objective fact. 

It is not material or physical but social—social relations can be as real as brick walls, and 

although they are often based on what people have in their brains, they also have material 

carriers, such as guns, police cars, prisons, schools, and electronic databases. Fetishism 

itself is mental. I developed that argument in the Annotations. 


[194] Hobbes: question 144 I would like to expand on the discussion of fetishism proposed 

by MUCHO and MsMarx. The dictionary definition of fetishism has be clearly identified 

as a belief in magical fetishes or an extravagant irrational devotion. MarxUs use of the 

term fetishism has elements of both definition within it. 

MsMarx brought up the point that fetishism grants supernatural properties to commodities. 

In todayUs society there is no clearer example of this point than television ads. Almost 

every product that is advertised has be endowed with super powers, we can conquer our 

social problem if equipped with the right deodorant, beer turns the desert into a beach full 

of beautiful, scantily clad women and shaving cream that instantly attracts members of the 

opposite sex. These products have been given powers exceeding our own, and we rush out 

and purchase them to posses these powers. 

Fetishism, as addressed by Marx has elements of both belief in magical items and extravagant 

irrational devotion. We believe in the magical properties of the products we seek 

to posses and our extravagant irrational devotion is our willingness to rush out and buy the 

latest fad, which is something we do not need in the first place. 

Message [194] referenced by [195]. 

[195] Hans: Trying to get the social powers back from the commodity Marx criticizes 

the commodity relation because people hand over their social powers to things, instead of 

exercising them directly. The advertisements in Hobbes’s [194] feed on this commodity 

fetishism: since things seem so powerful to people, people long to benefit from the social 

powers of their possessions. There is a clear difference to commodity fetishism proper: Marx 

would say that the car was sexy, was wealthy, or had a great social life, whereas advertisers 

suggest that such properties would accrue to the owner of the car. 



[219] Kalle: Fetishism Fetishism, the definition from dictonary, stated belief in magical 

fetishes, means an object is believed among primitive peolpe to have magical power to protect 

or aid its owner, broadly an object regarded with superststions or extravagant trust or 

reverence. 

Marx stated that fetishism is that the commodity-form consist simply in the fact that the 

commodity reflects teh social caracteristics of men’ s own labor as objective caracteristics 

of the products of labor themselves, as the socio-natural properties of theses things. The 

commodity form, and teh value relation of the products of labor within which it appers, have 

no connection with teh physical nature of the commodity and the material relations arising 

out of this. In order to find an analogy we must take flight into the misty realm of religion. 

Therethe products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of 

their own, which enter into relations both with eachother and with the human race. So it 

is in the world of commodities with the product of hand, which calls this is fetishism, and 

fetishism attaches itself to the products of labor as soon as they are produced as commodities, 

and is inseparable from the production of commodities. 

Also, objects of utility become commodities only because they are the products of labor of 

individuals who work independently, and the sum of total of the labor of all private individuals 

forms the aggregate labor of society. The labor of the private individuals manifests itself 

as an element of the total labor of society through the relations which the act of exchange 

between the products and their mediation between the producers. So, as the commodityform 

is teh most general and the most undeveloped form of bourgeois production, it makes 

its appearence at an eraly date, though not in the same predominant and caracteristic manner 

as nowadays. Hence, its fetishism is still easy to penetrate. 

Hans: Sorry, but just copying Marx without a word of interpretation will not give you a good grade. 



1997ut, 202 in 2002fa, 209 in 2003fa, 237 in 2004fa, 232 in 2005fa, 257 in 2007fa, 264 

in 2008SP, 278 in 2011fa, and 291 in 2012fa: 

Question 145 Modern advertising specialists know that consumers often buy a certain 

product not because they need this particular article, but because they are trying to compensate 

for other unmet needs. These compensatory demands are important for the economy 

because they are insatiable. Advertising addresses them whenever it suggests that social 

recognition, happiness, etc. are connected with the possession of a certain object. 

Is this what Marx meant by “commodity fetishism,” or does it contradict it, or would Marx’s 

theory give rise to amendments of this theory? 

[212] Femme: Advertiser’s try to create compensatory demand to satisfy unmet needs is 

not what Marx means by “commodity fetishism”. Fetishism as defined in the dictionary is 

a stated belief in magical fetishes, which means an object believed among primitive people 

to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly: a material object regarded with 

superstitions or extravagant trust or reverence. Fetishism has to do with people’s false consciouseness 

in reference to commodities. People attempt to control commodities as if they 

had a life of their own, what they fail to relaize is they themselves gave the commodities


the power of life. In capatalism individuals see their social relations reflected back to them 

as material properties of their products. Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism would be 

in agreement with the advertising example because individuals do exhibit false consciousness 

by thinking that by wearing the right name brand clothing and driving the right cars 

will compensate for some unmet need. This could be thought of as Marxian fetishism in the 

sense that people’s own products are taking on a social aspect. So in conclusion the advertising 

example may not be exactly equivalent to what Marx means by “commodity fetishism”, 

advertisers do take advantage of commodity fetishism and individual’s fetishism to sell their 

products. 

Hans: I fully agree with what you say in your summary statement at the end. 

Message [212] referenced by [344.1], [392.2], [399.3], and [457.4]. Next Message by Femme is [259]. 

[339.1] Wight: Advertisers trying to create compensatory demand to satisfy unmet needs 

is not what Marx means by “commodity fetishism”. Readers in the modern USA often interpret 

the term “commodity fetishism” to mean an excessive devotion to material goods. 

There is no evidence that Marx ever used it in this way. Today, overemphasis of material 

goods derives from the fetish-like character of commodities. Material possessions become 

too important because they are the individual’s only link to society: conspicuous consumption 

compensates for the paucity of direct social relations. Fetishism has to do with people’s 

false consciousness in reference to commodities. People attempt to control commodities as 

if they had a life of their own. What people fail to realize is that they gave the commodities 

the power of life. In capitalism, individuals see their social relations and value reflected 

back to them as material properties of their products. Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism 

would be in agreement with the advertising example, because individuals do exhibit false 

consciousness by thinking that by wearing the right clothes and driving the nicest cars this 

will compensate for some unmet needs. This could be thought of as Marxian fetishism, in 

the sense that people’s own products are taking on a social aspect. In summary, the advertising 

example may not be exactly equivalent to what Marx means by “commodity fetishism”, 

but advertisers do take advantage of commodity fetishism and the individual’s fetishism to 

sell their products. 

Hans: You are quoting the right places, but the quotes contradict each other and give several competing explanations. 

In one sentence you say it is in agreement, in another that it is not exactly in agreement, etc. 


[342.1] Panacea: Advertisements addressing social recognition, personal appearance, 

etc. show (in my opinion) that an amendment to Marx’s concept of “fetishism” is necessary, 

rather than a contradiction. Consumers have “unmet needs” of a social nature which are 

not logically directly solveable through, nor direct result of wealth - be it too much or too 

little. Yet society begins slowly to identify desired (or undesired) attributes with certain 

commodities...the commodities become the means to an end with which the have inherently 

nothing whatsoever to do with, and consequently this “fetishism” of commodities result 

in the commodities becoming ends in themselves. “If I drink this Miller Beer (TM, All 

rights reserved) it will make me sexy and desirable.” Sexiness or desirability are not inherent 

properties of the beer, but rather are attributes impressed upon the beer through advertising 

and are not natural. 

I believe there should be an advertising “amendment” because Marx could not have foreseen 

the effect, the level of control available through the media. 


Hans: Your argument begins as follows: 

Consumers have “unmet needs” of a social nature which are not logically directly solveable 

through, nor direct result of wealth - be it too much or too little. 

You show that you are under the influence of market categories since you are thinking of wealth in quantitative 

terms. But this is a minor side remark. My main complaint at this point is that in the next sentence you do as if 

these needs of a “social nature” were the needs to have certain desirable attributes. I disagree. The identification 

of the need for social connectedness with the need to be more attractive to others is the error of competition and of 

methodological individualism. 

Yet society begins slowly to identify desired (or undesired) attributes with certain commodities...the 

commodities become the means to an end with which the have inherently nothing 

whatsoever to do with, and consequently this “fetishism” of commodities result in the commodities 

becoming ends in themselves. “If I drink this Miller Beer (TM, All rights reserved) 

it will make me sexy and desirable.” Sexiness or desirability are not inherent properties of the 

beer, but rather are attributes impressed upon the beer through advertising and are not natural. 

I also disagree with this last sentence: advertisement can only fool people into thinking that certain objects of 

consumption (beer) have wide ranging social powers because people live in a society in which objects do have 

magical powers of social origin. 

I believe there should be an advertising “amendment” because Marx could not have foreseen 

the effect, the level of control available through the media. 

As I tried to make clear in my last remark, the media technology is not the deepest cause of it. Advertisement 

exploits the distorted view of society and self which people inherit from their participation in a market economy. 

I am glad that you are taking this Economics course. It is not possible to understand the cultural issues without 

understanding the economic base of it. 


[344.1] VanHalen: My in class answer has the right idea, but I’ll try and be more precise in 

what I mean. The statement in question 145 is not exactly what Marx meant by “commodity 

fettishism.” However the example of the advertisers does give an example of how advertisers 

take advantage of commodity fetishism and individual fetishism. I think Marx could build 

on the example in Q 145 to explain his commodity fetishism. 

The commodity fetishism I think refers to a false consciouseness that people have about 

the commodity. An example to illustrate my point I hope follows Marxs idea: There is an 

exciting, formal party and the people coming to the party all wear formal attire. All the 

people are there and in walks a lady with a very expensive dress, the one that is advertised at 

only the most elite store. All the people at the party gasp to themselves because of the dress. 

People at the party want to be seen with this lady and be associated with the dress because 

of the power the dress gives off. 

Commodity fetishism I think refers to people giving social power to things instead of to 

the people who really gave the things the power. In our example of the formal party, the 

lady’s dress seems to be what came to the party not the lady, the dress is what people are 

admiring not the lady. The dress becomes the basis for the social relationship. People’s 

things are the basis for social relationships, and different things will qualify you to be in 

different social circles. Cars, boats, clothes, are all claims to social cirlces and relationships. 

By acquiring the dress, the lady now has claim to the power of the dress. Things seem to 

rule the people. 

Advertisers know this very well and advertise at great expense to “capitalize” on this false 

perception or consciouseness of people.


Femme [212] gives a good conclusion....“the advertising example may not be exactly 

equivalent to what Marx means by ‘commodity fetishism’, advertisers do take advantage of 

commodity fetishism and individual’s fetishism to sell their products.” 

Hans: I almost like your in-class exam better. Your resubmission was not more “precise” as you say. There is much 

in the printout of the answers which needs to be made more precise, but do not seem aware of these gaps (or maybe 

you thought it was too risky to come up with your own thoughts?). Is the example with the expensive party dress 

an illustration of Marx’s original commodity fetishism, or of that what consumers, goaded by their advertisers, are 

trying to make out of it? It is a non-sequitur if you write: 

By acquiring the dress, the lady now has claim to the power of the dress. Things seem to rule 

the people. 

The lady is one step beyond being ruled by things, or maybe one can say she is doubly enslaved by things, in her 

efforts to take advantage of the power things have in this society. People try to instrumentalize everything for their 

purposes, even their own commodity fetishism. 


[392.2] Brumbys: Advertisers try to create compensatory demand to satisfy unment needs 

that is not what Marx means by “commodity fetishism.” Fetishism as defined in the dictionary 

is a stated belief in magical fetishes, which means an object believed among primitive 

people to have magaical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly , a material object regarded 

with superstitions or extravagant trust or reverence. Fetishism has to with people’s 

false consiousness in reference to commodities. People attempt to control commodities as if 

they ahd a life of their own, what they fial to realize is they themselves gace the commoditites 

the power oflife in capitalism individuals see their social relations reflected back to them 

as material properites of their products. Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism would be in 

agreement with the advertising example because individuals do exhibit false cousiousness by 

thinking that by wearing the right name brand clothing and driving the right cars will compensate 

for some unmet needs. This could be thought of as Marxian fetishism in the sense 

that people’s own products are taking on a social aspect. So in conclusion the advertising 

example may not be exactly equivalent to what Marx means by “commodity fetishism,” advertisers 

do take advantage of commodity fetishism and individual’s fetishism to sell their 

products. 

Hans: This is a literal copy of Femme’s [212] from the collection of Questions and Answers. Although you copied 

it twice, once in class and once in your resubmission, you apparently did not notice the contradictory statements in 

[212] and the general vagueness of the argument. 


[399.3] Femme: Advertiser’s attempts to create compensatory demand to satisfy unmet 

needs is not exactly what Marx meant by “commodity fetishism”. Fetishism has to do with 

people’s false consciousness in regards to commodities. People attempt to control objects 

or commodities as if they were alive and had a life of their own, what they don’t relaize 

is that it is they themselves who gave the commodities this supernmatural power. So in 

capitalism people see their social relations reflected back to them as material properties of 

their products. 

Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism would be somewhat/is in agreement with the advertising 

example in the sense that people do exhibit false consciousness by thinking that 

wearing the right clothing will compensate for some unmet need. This could also be thought 

of as Marxian fetishism in the sense that people’s own products are taking on a very social 


aspect. So while the advertising example may not be exactly what Marx meant by “commodity 

fetishism”, advertisers do take advantage of commodity fetishism and people’s fetishism 

to sell their products. 

Hans: Your in-class text is the same as your original answer [212]: you first said that those advertising tricks are 

not the same as Marx’s fetishism, then you said that it is the same, and then you said that it is not exactly the 

same. In your resubmission you changed your first “not the same” into “not exactly the same” and the second “it 

is the same” into “it is somewhat in agreement”. At least you noticed that something was wrong with your original 

submission, but the changes you made are only cosmetic changes; you did not see any need to make the reasoning 

itself more precise. 


[401.5] Homer: The use of the term “commodity fetishism” as defined in the advertising 

example is related to what Marx meant, but it is not quite the same. 

What Marx meant by the term was the tendency of people to reify commodities, to treat 

what are in fact social relations between humans as if they were relations between things. 

The advertiser promises that the owner of the products will be viewed as smart and sexy. 

This is different in that the advertiser wants people to think that their social status and social 

relations will be improved through the possession of certain commodities. The item gives 

the possessor these desirable qualities. There are, however some similarities in use of the 

term, “commodity fetishism.” One way in which advertisers approach Marx’s definition is 

when commercials say that a car has “sexy curves” of the cut of a dress is “smart and sassy.”; 

here the commodities themselves are talked about as though they were humans rather than 

just giving these qualities to the owners. 

Hans: Your in-class exam was clearer, you watered it down in your resubmission. 


[457.4] Rambis: In her [212] response to this question, Femme states that this advertising 

example is “not...exactly equivalent to what Marx means by ‘commodity fetishism’, (yet) 

advertisers do take advantage of commodity fetishism and individual’s fetishism to sell their 

products.” In order to understand how this is and the relationship to commodity fetishism it 

is important to understand these elements as what they are. Due to time constraints, I will 

borrow heavily from what is written in the Study Guide and in the Answers booklet. 

First of all, commodity fetishism is “the belief that goods possess value just as they have 

weight or other inherent properties.” Due to this intrinsic property, “goods appear to exchange 

at a certain rate because of their inherent values.” Fetishism is the illusion that “commodities 

have properties and powers of their own.” It is the reifying of the abstract entity 

known as a “commodity.” When Marx uses the word fetishism, he means this type of “false 

consciousness [in reference to commodities].” Fetishism itself is totally mental. 

As far as the unmet needs are concerned, society attaches a certain “power” to commodities 

which can be used to ‘compensate’ for the perceived unmet wants or needs of the 

individual. With the right soft drink, for example, one can become a stellar athlete, or with 

the right cologne or clothing one is suddenly desirable to the opposite sex. “Since things 

seem so powerful to people, they long to benefit from the social powers of their possessions.” 

This is the process advertisers use when appealing to individual’s fetishism but is not 

exactly what Marx means by commodity fetishism.


Hans: You had it all there, but then you did not draw the conclusions quite clearly enough. Instead of iterating in 

your last sentence the vague “not exactly”, you would have been able to explain, based on your previous argument, 

that the advertisers take the Marxian commodity fetishsim as given, the power which goods seem to have, and try 

to give the consumer the illusion that he can use this power for his own ends. 


[475.4] Emma: Marx understood commodities to be social products, that they owe their 

value not primarily to the estimation of their utility by consumers, but to the existene of 

social relations which constitute the “fabric of society and which make the production ofthe 

commodity possible in the first place.” Marx believed that when people worked for one 

another their labor automatically assumed social form. But people don’t comprehend that 

social aspect of the commodity and are thus alienated from their own products. Society has 

unfortunately come to act socially only in the exchange process and has missed altogether to 

opportunity to recognize the social implications within the production of the commodity itself. 

It is this confusion about the nature of the commodity and what it embodies of society’s 

relations that is the mystery of commodities. The passage about the advertisers pandering to 

the transient needs of people through their acquisitiveness further illustrates the alienation 

of people in a capitalist society who believe that social relations come from possessions, I 

suppose. But this is not what Marx had in mind about commodity fetishism, in my opinion. 

Marx’s theory would, I suspect, perhaps add deeper understanding to the phenomenon of the 

“shopper” as evidence of the missed opportunity in capitalism for developing social relations 

during the production of the commodity, not after, or during the market exchange process. 

Hans: Resubmission is good, unfortunately your in-class exam was not so good. 


[504.1] Gottlieb: The attempt by consumers to find some sort of fulfillment from a commodity 

is definately in agreement with Marx’s idea of “commodity Fetishism.” Fetishism is 

having an excessive or unusual interest in something. Commodity fetishism is giving commodities 

human or social traits and attributes. When the commodity has these attributes, 

then the consumer thinks that they can obtain these attributes by consuming the commodity. 

The “trait” of the commodity is somehow transferred to the consumer. 

Let us say that someone in Beverly Hills is missing a desired attribute. They want everyone 

to think that they are very very rich. Because they are not perceived this way right 

now, they must somehow obtain this attribute. If they buy a ring with a large rock on it, 

everyone with think, “That is a large diamond...diamonds are worth a lot of money...because 

they have that diamond, they must be worth a lot of money.” Society has given the diamond 

a trait “worth,” and this trait was transferred to the consumer. Marx argues that there really 

is not trait to be transferred, but the fetishism makes this happen. 

Advertisers can take advantage of this Commodity Fetishism and with it make lots of 

money. For instance, Advertisers pick a trait that they want the commodity to have, and 

somehow must convey that trait to the commodity. Advertisers want NIKE shoes to be 

“geil” so they portray all people who wear these shoes as being “geil.” These are really cool 

shoes! Young people watch this on the tele and some feel that they are lacking this trait of 

being “cool.” They buy this shoe and they inherit this trait. They are suddenly cool! 

I am not sure if Marx thinks that this transfference actually occurs, but there is no doubt 

that it does happen. The cool kids in high school are the ones who had “cool” clothes. If 


you are lacking many traits, usually those conveyed upon you by society, you can obtain it 

through a commodity. 

Hans: Good examples, but the relationship with Marx’s commodity fetishism is not worked out well enough. 

Next Message by Gottlieb is [505.1]. 

[617.6] Pizza: Pizza did not resubmit his exam. The exam itself was very good. He said 

that people often buy things so that they have a symbol of the participation in the American 

dream, to which they feel entitled. Unfortunately he did not say how this related to Marx’s 

theory. 

First Message by Pizza is [96]. 

Question 146 is 258 in 2007fa, 263 in 2008fa, and 305 in 2010fa: 

Question 146 Mark Blaug writes on p. 268:2 of his Economic Theory in Retrospect, fourth 

edition, Cambridge University Press 1985: “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? 

[221] Homer: Is Blaug right? Blaug’s statement is correct. The mode of commodity 

production causes distortions in the minds of people. Because of strict divisions of labor, 

people are very dependent on each other. It would be impossible for everyone to grow all 

their own food, make their own cars, houses, etc. Yet, at the same time, people have illusions 

of individualism and self-reliance. These contradictions cause people to view exchanges 

that are really relations between people as relations between themselves and objects. Blaug 

writes, “...to treat what are in fact social relations between men as if they were relations 

between things.” When a mason creates a dozen bricks and exchanges them for a violin, 

he looks at the situation as the relation between the commodities, when in reality he is 

exchanging some of his labor with the labor of the violin maker. 

Message [221] referenced by [2007fa:123], [2007fa:128], [2007fa:205], [2007fa:283], [2008fa:287], and [2008fa:299]. 



1997sp, 155 in 1997ut, 267 in 2008SP, 265 in 2008fa, 307 in 2010fa, and 294 in 2012fa: 

Question 148 Make a thought experiment comparing two situations. In situation a, you are 

an artisan producing something for sale. In situation b, you are also an artisan, but you 

know the people who will use the things you are producing, and these are the same people 

who are producing the things you are consuming. Would you act differently in situation a 

than in situation b? Would, over time, the use value of your product and the technology of 

your labor evolve differently in situation a than in situation b? 

[215] Slacker: In situation (a) you would produce at maximum output in an effort to 

maximize returns. In situation (b) you would produce at a level that would provide you 

with a quantity of goods that satisfy your need as well as a surplus to cover the costs of the 

exchanges that you make with your fellow traders. This situation is a comparison of trades 

of value = value (situation [a]) and trades of value = use value (situation [b]). 

In situation (a) you would make advancments in technology at a more rapid pace in an 

attempt to further maximize returns. In situation (b) you would be content to produce with


the current technology as long as it meet demand. In situation (a) the producer would attempt 

to see into the the current market and look for other ways in which to modify his commodity 

(commodity and not product because it is produced for sale not consumption) to meet some 

new need, and thus have a new use value. 

Hans: Often people are idealizing situation (b). I am glad that you are not doing that. 

Next Message by Slacker is [305]. 

Question 151 is 141 in 1995WI, 118 in 1995ut, 158 in 1997WI, 167 in 1998WI, 174 in 

1999SP, and 195 in 2001fa: 

Question 151 What does it matter whether exploitation follows from alienation, or alienation 

follows from exploitation? (Define those terms.) 

[171] Caren: Alienation The people who do the work in capitalism own none of the 

means (machines and raw materials, for example) that they use in their work. These are 

owned by the capitalists, to whom workers must sell their “labor power,” or ability to do 

work, in return for wage. This system of labor displays four relations that lie at the core 

of Marx’s theory of alienation. The worker is alienated from his or her productive activity, 

having no control over what to do or how to do it. The worker is alienated from the product 

of that activity, having no control over what is made or what becomes of it. The worker 

is alienated from the product of that activity, having no control over what is made or what 

becomes of it. The worker is alienated from other human beings, with competition and 

mutual indifference replacing most forms of cooperation. Finally, the worker is alienated 

from the distinctive potential inherent in the notion of human being. 

The severing of these relationships leaves on one side a seriously diminished individual– 

physically weakened, mentally confused and mystified, isolate and virtually powerless. On 

the other side of this separation are products and ties with other people, outside the control 

and lost to the understanding of the worker. In the marketplace the worker’s products pass 

from one hand to another, changing names and form along the way–value, commodity, capital, 

profit, interest, rent, wage– eventually reentering the worker’s daily life as the landlord’s 

house, the grocer’s food, the boss’s factory, and the various laws and customs that prescribe 

relations with other people. The world that the worker has made and lost reappears in the 

misunderstood form of private property to serve as the necessary conditions for reproducing 

his or her own alienation. Only in capitalism is the distribution of what is produced a 

function of market and prices. On the separation of the worker from his or her means of 

production and the sale of his or her labor power that this separation makes necessary. As a 

result of this separation, all the things that workers produce become available for exchange. 

“Value” is the general social form taken by all the products of alienated labor. Such products 

could only sell and serve in the ways that express and contribute to this alienation. 

Message [171] referenced by [179]. Next Message by Caren is [181.1]. 

[179] Hans: Alienation and Exploitation Caren’s answer [171] is a spruced-up version 

of her [37]. That means, she had the answer before the Question, and although her essay 

fits here ten times better than for Question 67, it still does not fit completely. Caren shows 

that people who are exploited are also alienated, and the commodity relation, which Caren 

limits to the things the worker has to buy, leaving out the capitalist’s investments, merely 

reproduce this alienation. 


From Caren’s essay one can infer (and she should have made this inference more explicit) 

that alienation follows from exploitation. However in the commodity fetishism section, 

Marx talks about alienation on the basis of commodity production alone, before we even 

know about wage labor and surplus value. This seems to suggest that alienation is the more 

basic concept, and exploitation follows from it. Which interpretation is right? 

And finally, coming to what Question 131 really asked: does it matter which interpretation 

is right, or is that just idle philosophizing about other people’s misery? 


[545] Skippy: What comes first? To exploit a worker means not to properly compensate 

him/her for their efforts. This is a key in capitalism. To under pay an employee so the 

employer can make more for himself is now the American way. 

To alienate a worker is to keep them away from parts of the production process. Also too 

keep them away from decisions which concern what to produce, and what to do with it once 

produced. The workers are also alienated from each other to keep communications down. 

When a worker is alienated from the most of the production process, he loses touch with 

what is being produced. The utility that he had once received from his larger role in the 

production process, is now lower if not gone. 

The personal satisfacation will be replaced by working harder for the same, or maybe for 

less rewards. 

This is how alienation proceeds exploitation. 

If it were the other way around, then the worker would worker harder 

for the same benefits and then be shut out of production decisions. That does not make 

sence. 

Hans: Your are taking the “follows from” too literally, as a time sequence. The question was meant as: which is 

the more basic ill of our society? 



1997ut: 

Question 152 Describe cooperative situations in which the participants do not use and 

serve each other as means to obtain their individual goals. 

[199] Chocolate: Re: Means to obtain a goal. Individuals who work on an assembly 

line (let’s say to produce a vehicle) do not use and serve each other as means to obtain their 

individual goals, but in fact they are dependent on each other’s working efforts to finish 

building a common product. In this case a vehicle, which is owned by an individual and/or 

a group of individuals whom the worker’s are not in contact with throughout the production 

process. 

Each worker who is on the assembly line must depend on the individual working before 

him/her. For example, the individual who installs the windshield wipers cannot do so without 

the individual in front of him/her to install the windshield.


Even though the employees are being used by a capatilist to produce a commodity that 

will benefit solely the capatilist, the employees must still depend on each other to produce 

that commodity. Therefore the participants(worker’s) do not use and serve each other as 

means to obtain their individual goals, but in fact to obtain the goals of another individual. 


[206] Gilligan: cooperatives (fwd) Its funny that there is a question like this because I 

deal with this type of situation everyday. I work in a warehouse putting together machines 

that enable a person to put stuffed items or flowers inside of 18” balloons. there are numerous 

pieces that go into the making of a machine that is called a Classy Wrap system. So you can 

sy that we have a process of building the system that resembles an assembly line. There are 

different people in different locations in the warehouse that assemble the different parts that 

go into creating the machine. I work at the end of the production process and receive the 

machine whenit is completely assembled. I test the machine to make sure it is functioning 

properly and then clean it and package it for shipping. If the machine isn’t working correctly 

I must fix it and get it working. But I look at the beginning of the whole process and see a 

motor, a backcover, a chamber, a lid assembly, a checkvalve, several different gaskets, and a 

few more items that make up the machine, each item put together by a different person, and 

then I receive it as a completed unit that functions and does what each person was preparing. 

We don’t work to create a motor, checkvalve, and all the other items separately for the benefit 

of ourselves rather we work to obtain the final product which is the classy wrap system itself. 

So its not working for our own personal goals rather the goal as a whole of creating a system 

that works and can be shipped for use. We work for someone who tells us what and how 

things will be done, a classic example of the capitalist system. there are no personal goals 

only the goal of the owner who makes all the money!!! 

Hans: A very similar example was already Chocolate’s [199], this depressed your grade. 


Question 157 is 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, 318 in 2010fa, 296 in 2011fa, and 309 in 

2012fa: 

Question 157 Why does value not have it branded on its forehead what it is? 

[230] Super: Different social roles within the products themselves determine what type 

of value the social product has. The value of these products can then be seen as a social 

communication between them. The social product communicates the levels of labor value 

which was put into the product and also determines it’s utility. This is a hidden message 

within the social product and that is why value does not have it branded on its forehead of 

what it is. 


Question 160 is 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 


Question 160 Commodity producers do not exchange their products because they consider 

these products as the materials shells of homogeneous human labor. Marx claims that, 


on the contrary, the market interactions induce them to unknowingly equalize their labors. 

Describe the process by which they equalize their labor, and the goals which they pursue in 

this process. 

[209] Reidar: Equalization of Labor Commodity producers equalize their labor by 

first putting labor into the production of commodities which will give them more exchange 

value, I.E., if a farmer has a choice of producing two different kinds of crops which require 

the same amount of labor, he/she would choose the crop which has a greater exchange value. 

The farmer will also find ways to make the labor expended on the commodity production 

he/she has chosen more efficient. I.E., He/She will utilize the accepted forms of production, 

say a mechanized combine. He/She will find the most updated and efficient method to 

produce the commodities they have chosen. 

All other producers of these commodities will attempt to do the same, and they thereby 

equalize their labor. 

The producers take the exchange value of the commodity as a fixed amount, independent 

of the labor involved. They therefore maintain a goal of producing a greater quantity of 

a commodity which will give them greater returns. Hans stated that through this process, 

“they give their labor the qualitative character..of value-creating labor.” 

Hans: Very good. 


Question 161 is 150 in 1995WI, 127 in 1995ut, 163 in 1996ut, 174 in 1997sp, 220 in 

2002fa, 228 in 2003fa, 258 in 2004fa, 273 in 2007SP, 278 in 2007fa, 284 in 2008SP, 282 


Question 161 Someone says: The law of value cannot hold. We are free people, we do what 

we want. We are not forced to price our commodities by their labor content. Do you agree? 

[214] Chacci: The Law of Value I do not agree with this statement. In a commodity 

producing society producers are consistently seeking to obtain the use value he or she needs 

at the most valuable terms. This is one aspect of why whoever said this was incorrect. Since, 

in this kind of society, producers ‘channel their labors into branches of production which the 

market rewards best for their effort’, those who try to break the law of value will not be able 

to exchange their commodities on the market because their ‘prices’ will be to high. And 

since their competitors are always looking for ways to gain advantage over their competitors 

those who try to break the law of value will be out priced by their competitors, who are 

valuing their commodities by the human labor power expended on them. 

Hans: Your argument only goes through if everybody else follows the law of value and one producer tries to charge 

higher prices. To make the argument right, you need the mobility of labor into those branches in which prices are 

higher than values, and everybody’s attempts to improve production (which is also an attempt to circumvent the 

law of value) which leads to an equalization of labor. Marx said: by trying to circumvent the law of value, people 

end up enforcing it. 


[227] MUCHO: The law of value I have different point of view from what Chacci wrote 

regarding the question 161. According to Chacci’s submission, he or she disagree with 

the statement. However, there is a certain sentence in the question I want to agree with.


The sentence states that “We are not forced to price our commodities by their labor content.” 

Even though we do price our commodities by labor content in real life. I still don’t think that 

isn’t such a good idea. We really should not include labor content to price the commodities. 

The commodities should be priced depending upon its necessity. If the demand of certain 

commodity goes up, price of the commodity also goes up under the normal circumstances. 

But if we avoid including labor content, the price of the commodity won’t be as high as we 

include the labor content. 



2004fa, 276 in 2007SP, and 305 in 2011fa: 

Question 163 Why can empiricism, the starting with and clinging to facts, only come to 

conclusions which affirm existing social relations? 

[207] Rambis: empiricism If the individual sets out from a point of tenaciously holding 

pre-set beliefs or positions, then s/he only will see the evidence collected through the 

spectacles of personal bias and “seeing what you want to see, and hearing what you want to 

hear.” Just about any survey, public opinion poll, or data-specific study can be used (or ‘manipulated’) 

to bolster a person’s previous position if given the right twist or if approached 

from the right angle. Instead of forming an opinion from what the data gathered infers or 

from the light that the study seems to shed on the particular subject, empiricism when used 

self-servingly acts only as a rubber-stamp approval to what the individual purports from the 

beginning. I think the prime example of this in contemporary society is how people approach 

political issues and politics in general. 

Message [207] referenced by [211] and [2007SP:239]. Next Message by Rambis is [427]. 

[211] Hans: Question 163 was meant to be provocative Rambis’s [207] re-interpreted 

this Question to mean that it is possible to massage the facts until they seem to confirm one’s 

pre-set beliefs. This is not the problem Marx was addressing in the text where Question 163 

was asked. Question 163 is very provocative and was meant to be so – after all, what else 

should one base science on if not on facts? 


Exam Question 167 is 157 in 1995WI, 134 in 1995ut, 227 in 2002fa, 235 in 2003fa, 260 

in 2005fa, 280 in 2007SP, 285 in 2007fa, 290 in 2008SP, 302 in 2009fa, 330 in 2010fa, 

and 309 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 167 Why does Marx call Ricardo’s exchange between primitive fisherman 

and primitive hunter a “Robinson Crusoe story”? 

[182] MUCHO: “Robinson Crusoe Stories” According to Marx, some of the Ricardo’s 

ideas are similar to the political economists’ ideas. Especially, the way these two think about 

exchange-value is very simple. In the book, it says that as political economists are found of 

Robinson Crusoe stories. Then the book explains how simple the political economists think 

about the exchange-value by illustrating Robinson Crusoe story. Despite the diversity of 

their productive functions, political economists know that they are only different mode of 

human labor. The reason why Marx made fun of Ricardo is that his concept of ideas tend to 


be too simple. Immediate exchange of commodity is not going to work for real economy. It 

is important to consider the labor-time which is materialized in exchange-value. 

Hans: Good try. You recognized that Marx did not mean the “Robinson Crusoe stories” literally. Robinson Crusoe 

does not serve here as a symbol for simplicity, but for some other, often unrecognized, property of market 

economies. 

Message [182] referenced by [475.2]. Next Message by MUCHO is [227]. 

[475.2] Skippy: Marx did not want us to think of “Robinson Cursoe Stories” directly. The 

exchange value was just put into words to refere to “Robinson Cursoe.” Richardo made th 

mistake of being too simplified, according to Marx. The concept of immeadiate exchange 

is not feesible in reality. Labor time must be recognized to achieve a true exchange value. 

“robinson Cursoe Stories” is trying to get another concept accross besides simplicity. 

Hans: You are trying to make sense of MUCHO’s [182] and my response to it. In your in-class exam you wrote 

that you did not know which other concept I meant. Perhaps you should have realized that before the exam when 

you had the time to figure it out. 


Question 174 is 164 in 1995WI, 141 in 1995ut, 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, 339 in 2010fa, 318 in 2011fa, and 332 in 2012fa: 

Question 174 Is there a connection between Christianity and the commodity relation? 

[208] KALISPEL: Christianity and the commodity relation. Marx believed that people 

have freed themselves from the incubus of religion by relegating it to the personal sphere, 

cut off from competition. In this separation he saw alienation of man from man, making it 

impossible for the individual to be a full human being. He considered Christianty, with its 

focus on individual man and soul, as a creed most apopriate to an economy of commodity 

exchange. There are some people who believe that predestination or the premortal life is a 

root in the success or failure in the capitalistic system. 

Marx wondered whether Christian doctrine could offer an alternative to communism. He 

believed that Christianity offered cowardly submission when what the working class really 

needed was courage and self-respect. 

Christianity is nice because even the lowest strata, the disinherited, can indulge in unrealizable 

dreams of an ideal world of the future, in the spirit of Christianity. 

In Rome, among mass misery, with no hope of material relief, people learned to turn thier 

thoughts to spiritual salvation. People learned to blame their sinfulness as a “good” reason 

for their lot in life. The atonement was the only thing that could offer deliverance. These 

Christian teachings of atonement reflect the impotence, feeling of doom, and helplessness 

of the oppressed working masses. Christianity has the effect of retarding the political and 

intellectual process of emancipation. 

While this is true for the working class, there may indeed be two Christs; that of the 

ruling and that of the working class. Christs’s characteristics, though the same for each 

class, are applied differently in each social structure. And even though, Christianity does 

oppress people in some ways it can also emancipate them. For example, Christianity has


been able to help develop an economic system of equality and fairness through the principle 

of consecration. 

The commodity relation is closely related to Christianity. Labor in commodity relations 

appears to producers as their own private labor, instead of social labor. In Christianity it 

focuses on the individual sinfulness of the individual and not the society as a whole. Commodity 

labor is expended independently of society as a whole to meet private wants and 

needs through exchange. Through division of labor human beings are reduced to impersonal 

and uncontrollable market forces. The producers, see themselves as existing in world of 

things, the commodities. The commodity form makes private labor social as products are 

exchanged and fragments social labor into private labor. The confusion of relations between 

people with relations to things is the basic contradiction of commodity production. 

Christianity, does the same thing by having workers focus individually. The most important 

social relations are subservient to the after life or some type of predestination. This 

leads to alienation and despair; social and personal. On the one hand you can never be equal 

with a transcendental God and on the other hand if you do not try you will burn in hell. To 

put social relations above “salvation” would contradict your own beliefs. Result: People 

suffer from alienation in commodity fetishism and Christianity helps make this possible. 

Hans: Very deep! 

Message [208] referenced by [2002fa:128]. Next Message by KALISPEL is [240]. 


2004fa, 318 in 2008SP, 316 in 2008fa, 358 in 2010fa, 337 in 2011fa, and 352 in 2012fa: 

Question 183 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? Where should it 

have its limits? 

[273] Peaches: This is what I interpret Marx to be saying of commodity owners’ will 

residing in the objects which are his property. Let’s say a an olympic gymnast practices 

once a day for three hours. She has a commodity, a skill, that she is selling to the market 

in exchange for something of value to her, fame, money, etc. She resides her will in his 

commodity, skill, which is important to her. How am I doing? Then this commodity becomes 

overly important and she begins to practice five hours a day, and gradually increases it to 

more than eight hours a day. Nothing else matters except this commodity so she has become 

a slave to this commodity. Is this the correct interpretation? 

This is not a good thing because eventually nothing else will matter and she will be come 

addicted to this commodity. Then gradually she will want to increase its exchange value. 

Isn’t this how we start competition, raising prices, etc. Where does it have its limits? She, 

her trainer, will eventually have to set limits. Is this where he government laws become 

applicable? In effect, this will affect our economy either by inflation/deflation or boom/bust, 

etc. What’s he saying about having a good thing can’t last for long before it eventually loses 

its value? 

Hans: Excellent, very deep example. It is somewhat a metaphor, because attending an athletic competition is not 

quite the same as exchanging a commodity. But your example shows clearly that the concept of private property is 

harmful even if one applies it to one’s own body. 


Message [273] referenced by [299]. Next Message by Peaches is [314.3]. 

[299] Wight: When Marx states that the commodity owner’s will resides in the commodity 

he is making an interesting comment about the capitalist system. Marx is trying to illustrate 

how obsessed we are as a society with consumption. With many people, it gets to the point 

were commodities control their life. They are motivated and controlled by an unending need 

for more “things”. By stating that the commodity owners’ will resides in the commodity, 

Marx is implying that the commodities take on a life of their own. The owners believe 

that they benefit from acquisition of more commodities, but what they don’t realize is that 

commodities end of controlling their lives. A case in point is someone witha beautiful, 

expensive home, new Porsche 911, and a home entertainment system that would blow the 

neighbors away. This person may believe that these items inprove his standard of living, not 

to mention status (image is everything), but what he/she will eventually realize is that they 

have subjugated their will in these commodities. The commodities now control their life i.e. 

they work long hours to pay bills, don’t ever see their kids, of take vacations, they even work 

on Sundays now. Marx is making a strong statment about the quest for things that people 

are consumed with in a capitalist society. Eventually, people lose control of their lives and 

become slaves to the commodities. 

Although people may see the possession of lots of commodities as good, in reality it is 

a bad relationahip. People lose control of their lives and chances are live more stressed out 

lives without as much carefree fun. The only limit in our society is your own individual 

purchasing power or your limit on all 3 of your Visa cards. People with commodities are 

viewed as successful or of higher status many times by their piers. Everyone wants to have 

nice, new cars to look good in. Where these limits really should be in a good question and 

probably a moot point. Obviously, to be economically and ecologically conscious, we should 

in theory only consume what we require as individuals to survive. But, what each individual 

interprets as what they need to survive is another thing. In another economics class, I learned 

an interesting statistic in terms of the amount of consumption in the United States verses 

population. Roughly, the United States has less than 10% of the world’s population, but we 

consume 30-35% of the world’s resources. We are a society consumed with consumption. 

Hans: I would have liked to hear from you how your answer relates to Peaches’s [273]. You concentrate on the 

commodities the individual buys and consumes, while Peaches concentrated on the commodities the individual has 

to sell. 



1999SP, 222 in 2000fa, 235 in 2001fa, and 359 in 2010fa: 

Question 184 Is there anything wrong with private property? 

[251] Wolfie: Private property In Marx’s eyes private property is a fallacy. He talks about 

an individuals will residing in an object. However how can someone reside in a hammer? 

Private property is a way in which the capitalist society has enabled capitalism to function. 

without private property whomever held the physical object would thus be the owner of the 

object. However objects have become the private property of a person thus they have made 

laws to protect an ownership of something they may not physically control. This meaning


the capitalist who lives in New York who owns a manufacturing plant in Detroit considers 

the plant his private property and would prosecute anyone who thinks otherwise. 

In Marx’s view things could be controlled by public which would mean the workers in 

a factory would work on the machines as they saw fit. However Private property does have 

the qualities that hold the capitalistic society together. Private property gives incentives for 

people to work to obtain more and more private property. Private property is the backbone 

of a capitalist society. If there was no private property the capitalist would have no way of 

getting capital. 

Hans: Kevin said it all. The distinction between private and personal property is a very important distinction, 

which you should try to remember. It is one of those things the capitalists don’t want people to learn about. 


[254] Kevin: Re: Private property Wolfie wrote in [251]: 

In Marx’s eyes private property is a fallacy. He talks about an individuals 

will residing in an object. However how can someone reside in a hammer? 

Private property is a way in which the capitalist society has enabled capitalism 

to function. without private property whomever held the physical 

object would thus be the owner of the object. However objects have become 

the private property of a person thus they have made laws to protect 

an ownership of something they may not physically control. This meaning 

the capitalist who lives in New York who owns a manufacturing plant in 

Detroit considers the plant his private property and would prosecute anyone 

who thinks otherwise. 

This is only private property in the means of production. A common misinterpretation of 

Marx is that he had a problem with all private property: from homes to toothbrushes. This 

is not true, only property relations which are used to exploit someone. 

In Marx’s view things could be controlled by public which would mean the 

workers in a factory would work on the machines as they saw fit. 

This is a little vague, as Marx looked more towards giving worker’s the power to keep 

alienation to a minimum. Thus in today’s time Marx would probably favor giving worker’s a 

choice to completely mechanize their plant, in order to increase free time for themselves, and 

the rest of society. Marx would also see that worker’s had administrative power to elect their 

supervisors, rotate positions, end speedups, and educate themselves on the overall picture 

of the factory (or modern service industry workplace) rather than being confined to a small 

series of menial and tedious tasks. 


[263] MUCHO: private property? Basically, I don’t think there is any problem with 

private property. However, under the capitalist mode of production, “The way which this 

analysis of capital and capitalism hinges on the institution of private property has often been 

misunderstood or misrepresented, both by critics and by disciples of Marx” accordance of 

the book. What Marx really wanted to argue was that economical point of view. He did 

not have any intention of the meaning for ideologically and juridical point of views. In 

economical point of view, he is opposed to private property based on labor. Because under 


the capitalist mode of production, relationship between buyer and seller will be ambiguous. 

In addition, anybody who works for capitalist’s private owner always be a worse off in the 

real economy. 

Hans: You did some additional readings and tried to bring something into the discussion which Ernest Mandel, a 

famous Marxist, wrote in his introduction to Capital on p. 57. (It would have been nice of you to give the page 

number.) But your explanation, how (according to Mandel) the role of private property has been misunderstood, is 

not precise enough. You write 

What Marx really wanted to argue was that economical point of view. He did not have any 

intention of the meaning for ideologically and juridical point of views. 

Which economic aspect of private property was argued by Marx? Your next few sentences try to say that: 

In economical point of view, he is opposed to private property based on labor. Because under 

the capitalist mode of production, relationship between buyer and seller will be ambiguous. In 

addition, anybody who works for capitalist’s private owner always be a worse off in the real 

economy. 

This has only a dim resemblance to Mandel’s argument. Mandel writes, in italics, that the point of concern to 

Marx was not private property in general but the economic fact that “social labor has been fragmented into private 

labors conducted independently from each other.” Mandel argues that the relationship between worker and capitalist 

obtains an exploitative dimension because of this, instead of being a relationship between “producers and 

administrators” or “producers and accumulators.” 


[264] MUCHO: Basically, I have an almost same idea of what Wolfie has stated for the 

question 184. I would like to add a few more thing to what Wolfie had to say. 

According to Marx, the institution of private property has often been misunderstood or 

misrepresented by both disciples of Marx and critics. What Marx really wanted to argue was 

that economical point of view for the institution of private property. He had no intention of 

his idea leading to ideological and juridical point of views. 

I also want to mention that I think under the capitalist mode of production, relationship 

between buyer(the owner of private property) and seller(worker for the private property) will 

be ambiguous. 


[283] Lamma: privae property That he feels that without private property the capitalists 

would have no way to obtain their wealth. However, I would like to look at it in a different 

light. Look at the definition of provate property...simply put it means an object owned exclusivley 

by an individual. I would like to submit that there is no pure form of privte property. 

Whether a good is produced in a factory or in someones basement, the good eventually effects 

more than one person. For example: a man makes a pipe to smoke out of and produces 

it in his own shop. Even though he is the only one who will own this pipe, the good is not 

private because it was made with tools that were purchased elsewhere, and e may end up 

smoking near other people where the smoke may get to them...ect. So can a good be private 

in the purest sense? I would say not due to the fact that it will eventually affect other people 

in some form. 

Hans: Unlike Kalle in [293], I do see a connection between your answer and the Question: apparently the thing 

which you find wrong with private property is that private property is usually not private enough. You do not 

want anyone to interfere in your love affair with material objects. Of course, this is not Marx’s critique of private 

property, and you say that this is not your goal. Fair enough. It is not a critique of private property at all, and it is 

probably also not meant as such. It is implicitly a critique of the other members of the society you are living in, 

who spoil your fun of smoking, and who are especially obnoxious because you depend on them, they are producing


the things which you are using. Even if you try to produce things for yourself, you still depend on tools made by 

others. Yikes. 

By the way, the first line of your answers disappears because you start your paragraph with the Pseudo-header 

like word ::lamma: My computer thinks this is a new type of pseudoheader and eats the rest of the line. You 

do not need anything to indicate your pseudonym, my computer derives that from your return address. The only 

pseudoheader you need is the one indicating the Question number. 

Message [283] referenced by [293]. Next Message by Lamma is [284]. 

[286] Sunshine: private property Questioning the right of wrongness of private property 

is a trick question. Marx offers a critic of capitalism and in going so he lays open all aspects 

of capitalism including private property. Private property and all that it encompasses is a key 

aspect of capitalism and Marx in his critic is showing us how capitalism works not that it is 

wrong or right. I understand capitalism and its private property to be a needed step, one may 

say a necessity, in the procession towards a socialist state. With this in mind how can one 

pass a somewhat moral judgement on the right of wrongness of private property? 

Private property is necessary for the social relations of both commodities and commodity 

owners. The concept of private property locks commodity owners into exchange relationships. 

It fools owners into believing that they are in control of their existence when in fact 

they are being controlled. Individuals who own private property and desire to apropriate the 

private property of another must acknowledge the overriding importance of the concept private 

property. This importance subverts all other interests and will lead to denial of human 

needs. 


[290] Pizza: In review of question 184, I did not feel the question was adquately addressed 

by the other submissions so heres my bit. 

The concept of private property is a social form used by individuals to survive. Marx 

states the perception of individual ownership of property as a manifestation of freedom is 

false. The bait is the perception of the voluntary act of exchanging that blankets the social 

forms of society. It is the social forms which limit your freedom. You identify freedom with 

the commodity and with more commodities comes more freedom. Your choices however, 

are narrow in focus as your framework for interpretation of freedom focuses on what to 

do with my commodities, exchange? consume? protect? I begin only to relate to society 

through my commodities. The commodities start to dictate my relations to society, defining 

who and what I am in society. Who is in control, the commodity or the individual? When we 

define a successful person, do we look at the individual or do we look to their wealth? If we 

start to value each other in the eyes of the commodity then we have lost our freedom as the 

concept of private property is false. We then realize social form of private property frames, 

defines and limits an individuals freedom as you accept the socials forms accompanied by 

private property. 

Hans: Excellent! This is the best answer. You are saying: 

It is the social forms which limit your freedom. 

It might have been good to say more explicitly what about this social form it is which is limiting freedom. You are 

hinting at it in the following sentence a little later: 

I begin only to relate to society through my commodities. The commodities start to dictate my 

relations to society. 


This is not only the psychological question of how we see ourselves, but also a very tangible economic question of 

how we produce what we need. 


[291] Hans: Fact-Value Distinction and Teleology both Wrong Marx does not make 

such a strict distinction between facts and values as Sunshine does in [286]; in Marx’s mind, 

understanding capitalism and criticizing it is one and the same thing. 

And it seems Sunshine is not too far away from Marx in this respect. Her second paragraph 

is very critical indeed; she is using words like “subverts” and “denial” which have 

value connotations. For modern philosophical arguments why the fact-falue distinction is 

wrong, look at Bhaskar. 

Other than the fact-value distinction, another argument Sunshine brings is: since capitalism 

is a necessary step towards socialism, how can it be bad? This is a teleological argument. 

Teleology is the belief that history works itself towards a good end. Teleology is wrong and 

dangerous. Capitalism can easily lead to the destruction of the environment or to nuclear 

holocaust. We have to get rid of capitalism in order to get socialism. 


[293] Kalle: Private Property (respons to Lamma’s 184) This is not only an answer to 

Question 184, but also a response to Lamma’s submission [283]. Maybe I am missing a few 

points, but I can not find a relevant connection to the question asked. The question at hand 

is not whether private property exists in a “true” form or not. What is asked, is if anything 

is wrong with private property. (When answering this question I assume we are asked to 

interpret Marx own discussion about private property and not introduce our own opinions 

and feelings.) 

The main problem Marx identifies about private property is that people are fooled to 

believe that ownership over commodities will provide them with some kind of freedom they 

otherwise not would have. What actually happens is that people become slaves of the things 

they take possession over. Because people must allocate so much energy and importance to 

things they own, freedom they enjoy actually decreases. What I think is important to note is 

that Marx is not saying that the concept of private property is wrong, but that private property 

does not come entirely without negative side effects. One often hear the phrase that some 

people are merely driven by material things and that some people just can not get Enoch 

possessions. That we believes this is wrong illustrates what Marx says about becoming 

slaves of our possessions. Another thing that illustrates the relationship between possessions 

and freedom how Native Americans viewed the land they lived on. They believed they 

belonged to the land, and not vica versa. Marx would view these people as more free than 

people who believe they own the land they live on. 

Hans: Lamma did address the Question: according to him, what is wrong with private property is that it is not 

private enough. Nevertheless I appreciate your responding to the contributions of the others. Unfortunately you did 

not refer to the very good contribution of Pizza, which was posted two hours prior to yours, and which would have 

been more relevant to your own argument. 

In the following sentence I like it that you write: people must allocate: 

Because people must allocate so much energy and importance to things they own, freedom 

they enjoy actually decreases. 

But why must they? Because their private possessions are their only link to society. This is an aspect which I should 

have stressed more in my Annotations.


Message [293] referenced by [283]. Next Message by Kalle is [371.1]. 

[296] Snowman: question 184 The ownership of private property is a two edged sword 

such that the owner is afforded the luxury of complete control of his/her property and the 

right to exclude the use of that property to anyone he or she wishs, but by the same token this 

owner can also be excluded from all the property belonging to others. This is so because the 

ability to own any thing requires that there be a mutual agreement of the community such 

that all those in the community respect and adhere to the idea of ownership, thus respecting 

what others also own and their rights as inherent there in. There for by willingly accept 

the requirements of ownership one also accepts the idea of exclusion from the benefits of 

property owned by others. If everything that it was possible to own was owned privately, 

including food and and the basic needs then there would be the possibility of owners being 

perfectly exclusive of the rights to everything that they own, regardless of the needs of others. 

There for it would be possible for one to be excluded from the ownership, or at least use of 

various things that are required for living. It is for this reason that the ownership of very basic 

necessities should be left to the community as a whole. Such things as the basic amount of 

food that is required for living as well as the shelter and clothing should at least be available 

through some sort of communal offerings, but on the same token there are some things that 

should be owned by the individual. Things such as tools used for production in their trade, 

and land, or any luxuries that pecuniary emulation, or conspicuous consumption, may dictate 

as desirable. What is needed and what is frivolous is left to the demands of the communitiy 

and should there for be judged by that community so as to determine what should and can 

be owned as opposed to what should be communal or availible without exclusion. This is 

because the needs change from one community to the other and the ones that are best situated 

to judge what is a need as opposed to what is a want, are those that are in the community, 

for instance in the U.S.A there may be a strong argument that cars are a requirement, while 

on a small island in the South Pacific this may not be the case. 

Message [296] referenced by [318], [352], [369], and [607]. Next Message by Snowman is [313.1]. 

[297] Femme: I agree with Kalle, I would like to add a few more comments. People 

do become slaves to their private properties. Man controls other men politically through the 

politics of the bourgeois state-the protection and enforcement of the right to private property. 

“The right of man to private property is, the right to enjoy one’s property and to dispose of 

it at one’s discretion without regard to other men, independently of society, the right of self 

interest. It makes every man see in other men not the realization of his own freedom, but the 

barrier to it” (Marx). This quote reaffirms Marx’s view that private property is the destroyer 

of civil society. Marx states that the right of private property allows individual capatalists to 

harm society by pursuing their own interest in private property. An example of this is when 

the tobacco industry pays token lobbyist to influence laws which will help the company, but 

not neccesarily the society. 

The ideology of capitalist society feeds the belief in the natural right of private property. 

I’ll repeat what other students have wrote; Marx says that what is bad about money is that 

it distorts our perception of ourselves and others. The more wealthier individual is able to 

purchase the apropriate influence to get laws that help him earn more profit, while the poor 

worker has little influence to affect these laws that help set the rich fellows destiny. So you 

ask if someone is more wealthier than another (has more private property), is he a better 


person? I don’t think so; I’m all for owning toy’s but the person with the most toys isn’t 

a better person. So a society that feeds the idea that the rich man is more worthy is only 

boldening the lines between the classes and isolating individuals. According to Marx, the 

gap will get larger as man alienates man causing more problems for society; this is why I 

think Marx feels private property is not a good thing. 

Hans: Your Marx quote is excellent (please add a precise citation next time you give a quote like this), but I am less 

enthusiastic about your second paragraph. It emphasizes the sociological and psychological dimensions, instead 

of the economics, although in Marx’s view, the economy is the basis to which the psychology and sociology must 

correspond. Secondly, you sound as if capitalism was the fault of greedy individuals. Do you know how Marx’s 

position differs from this? 


[309] Wolf: private property Private property and the concept there of was the main 

catalist for a transition of communities from being tribal to eventually becoming a capitalist 

economy. With this in mind, private property is a means of survival and a way of keeping 

things constant. An example of this is when societies/tribes made a move to capitalism. An 

argument that has been proposed by Marx and F. Engles alike is that once private came about 

men could force women to monogamous relationships = marriage so that they, the owners 

of private property could pass on their accumulated possessions to their children of which 

they were certain to be of their blood line. With out private property, Women would still 

run everything. Women would not be tied to men due to private property, they could have 

children with whom ever they wanted and get what they wanted. Marriage and monogamy 

may not even exist with out private property. 

Private property facilitates monogamy=¿marriage=¿inheritance. And thus leading to 90% 

of all civil court cases in the form of divorces and inheritance disputes. Based on this abstraction 

concerning private property I see it, as being nothing more than a waste and foundation 

for laws and codes facilitating sexism, greed, and alienation. 

Hans: You are assigning the following positive effects to private property: 

(1) it helped mankind to develop from tribalism to capitalism, 

(2) it is a means of survival, 

(3) it is a way of keeping things constant (how do you reconcile this with (1)?) 

(4) it prevents women from running everything, having children with whomever they want, and get whatever 

they want 

(5) it is a condition for marriage and monogamy. 

If you see private property this way, I do not understand how you come to the assessment: 

I see it, as being nothing more than a waste and foundation for laws and codes facilitating 

sexism, greed, and alienation. 

Is this because of the civil court cases about divorce and inheritance disputes? 

Next Message by Wolf is [317.1]. 

[318] Hans: The Pitfalls of Unradical Critique Snowman’s thinking in his answer [296] 

is very logical. And since Snowman starts with an insufficiently radical critique of private 

property, his inexorable logic gives a nice schoolbook example of the absurdities you end up 

with if you try to criticize something without penetrating down to its basic contradictions. 

Can you see why the following sentence is not a very radical critique of private property? 

The ownership of private property is a two edged sword such that the owner 

is afforded the luxury of complete control of his/her property and the right


to exclude the use of that property to anyone he or she wishes, but by the 

same token this owner can also be excluded from all the property belonging 

to others. 

Snowman is not deploring that private property draws fences across society, he is only 

deploring that one may end up on the wrong side of the fence. I.e., from the right side, 

fences are ok. 

Snowman sees very clearly the dangers of private property: it allows to exclude people 

from resources which they need, and what is his answer? Welfare. 

It is for this reason that the ownership of very basic necessities should be 

left to the community as a whole. Such things as the basic amount of food 

that is required for living as well as the shelter and clothing should at least 

be available through some sort of communal offerings, 

Again not a very radical solution, since this solution assumes that poverty persists in 

society. Snowman uses the rest of his answer to debate where to draw the poverty line. 

Marx’s solution is more radical: he is saying that we only have to give people food if they 

cannot produce it themselves, and the root cause of poverty is the fact that the means of 

production are privately owned, therefore people are not allowed to produce the things for 

themselves which they need. 


[352] Franz: the Snowman’s “willingness” Snowman wrote in [296]: 

The ownrship of private property is a two edged sword such that the owner 

is afforded the luxury of complete control of his/her property and the right 

to exclude the use of that property to anyone he or she wishs, but by the 


to others. 

yes, I can be excluded from working in Jon Huntsman’s chemical factory in the same way 

I can exclude Jon Huntsman from riding my bicycle. 

so what? 

This is so because the ability to own any thing requires that there be a 

mutual agreement of the community such that all those in the community 

respect and adhere to the idea of ownership, thus respecting what others 

also own and their rights as inherent there in. 

the ability to own requires “mutual agreement” – what? ? ? 

Jon Huntsman (and other capitalists) give money to: 1) make sure that Utah lawmakers 

protect his property rights 2) make sure the Utah Police will punish those who trespass his 

property. 

where is it that I “mutually agreed” to the ownership of property? 


There for by willingly accept the requirements of ownership one also accepts 

the idea of exclusion from the benefits of property owned by others. 

you are saying that we are “willing” to accept property rights because we live in the USA 

. . . this seems a rather strange definition of “willingness.” 

Message [352] referenced by [369] and [414]. Next Message by Franz is [353]. 

[369] Snowman: the Snowman’s reply to Franz I had written in [296]: 

The ownership of private property is a two edged sword such that the owner 




to others. 

Franz answered to this in [352]: 

yes, I can be excluded from working in Jon Huntsman’s chemical factory 

in the same way I can exclude Jon Huntsman from riding my bicycle. 

so what? 

Franz what you fail to see here because you are an owner of property and live nowhere 

near the poverty line is that the exclusion that I refer to here is the right of exclusion, not 

a required practice of exclusion. under the laws of capitalism it is possible for the whole 

system to implode on its self, for the sake of saving the idea of property ownership. What 

is failed to be realized is that we in our country have the idea that we are pure capitalists, 

and this is not the case, there are various mechanisms built into our government that prevent 

complete exclusion, such as taxes and welfare. These systems are socialistic in nature and 

something that people mistakingly take for granted as a part of pure capitalism. 

Again, here is another excerpt from my earlier message: 

This is so because the ability to own any thing requires that there be a 

mutual agreement of the community such that all those in the community 

respect and adhere to the idea of ownership, thus respecting what others 

also own and their rights as inherent there in. 

Franz remarked about this: 

the ability to own requires “mutual agreement” – what? ? ? 

Jon Huntsman (and other capitalists) give money to: 1) make sure that Utah 

lawmakers protect his property rights 2) make sure the Utah Police will 

punish those who trespass his property. 

Not to answer a question with a question but do you readily agree to ride “your” bike, 

and in that agreement while riding your bike do you carry the right and want to keep other 

random people form riding your bike? If your answer is yes then do you also feel this to be 

fair and expect the same of others on their bike? Again if the answer is yes then is there not 

an inherent agreement that by claiming the bike to be yours that you have also claimed the


right to exclude the use of that bike from others, and also respect the same qualifications for 

what others may do with their bike or what ever they may own. 

where is it that I “mutually agreed” to 

the ownership of property? 

Here is a third excerpt; 

There for by willingly accept the requirements of ownership one also accepts 

the idea of exclusion from the benefits of property owned by others. 

Franz commented: 

you are saying that we are “willing” to accept property rights because we 

live in the USA . . . this seems a rather strange definition of “willingness.” 

Willingness is not always blatant and is often implied in the actions of living. 

Message [369] referenced by [414]. Next Message by Snowman is [369.5]. 

[414] Franz: SNOWMAN (from FRANZIE) Snowman wrote in [369]: 

the exclusion that I refer to is the right of exclusion, not a required practice 

of exclusion. 

while riding your bike do you want to keep other random people from riding your bike? 

Snowman, IMHO, this is far from the response Dr. E was looking for. When I wrote “so 

what?” in [352] I was hoping your response would save your answer before Dr. E graded it. 

I was trying to get you to see that there is a big difference between 

1) owning something like a bike (consumption good) C-M-C 

and 

2) ownership over the means of production (production good) M-C-M’ 

because of 2), you get M’ – surplus value. . . 

when Dr. E asks “Is there anything wrong with Private Property?” he is referring to 

number 2), not 1). 

Had you written something like: It is only through the ownership of the means of production 

(private property) that the capitalist is able to bleed his/her workers – I think you would 

have received a grade of A. 

What is failed to be realized is that we in our country have the idea that we 

are pure capitalists, and this is not the case, there are various mechanisims 

built into our government that prevent complete exclusion, such as taxes 

and welfare. These systems are socialistic in nature and something that 

people mistakingly take for granted as a part of pure capitalism. 

socialistic? I doubt it. I say these are tools of the Capitalist – used to “buy off” the truly 

downtrodden who might otherwise revolt. 


I see them much more as a “Capitalist safety net” than some sort of benevolent/socialistic 

aspect of our society. 

¿ and also respect the same qualfications for what others may do with their 

bike or what ever they may own. 

why should we “respect” the capitalists who use their property right to bleed the working 

class? 

under the laws of capitalism it is possible for the whole system to implode 

on its self, for the sake of saving the idea of property ownership. 

? ? ? 


[607] Snowman: Re: The Pitfalls of Unradical Critique Hans wrote in [318] 

Snowman’s thinking in his answer [296] is very logical. And since Snowman 

starts with an insufficiently radical critique of private property, his 

inexorable logic gives a nice schoolbook example of the absurdities you 

end up with if you try to criticize something without penetrating down to 

its basic contradictions. 

Can you see why the following sentence is not a very radical critique of 

private property? 

The ownrship of private property is a two edged sword such that the owner 




to others. 

Snowman is not deploring that private property draws fences across society, 

he is only deploring that one may end up on the wrong side of the fence. 

I.e., from the right side, fences are ok. 

While it is late to defend what I have previously written I feel it is required now for the argument 

that i gave was what I and intended I do not think that I was thorough enough. What 

I lacked, which immediately drew the attention of all those that read my answer was that I 

hate fences of any sort that block the access of others for no other reason than exclusion. 

This is something that I have in grained in myself to the extent that when writting the argument 

I made the cardinal mistake of assumption. To me it is not that being on the “wrong 

side of the fence that is the trouble” but rather that the potential for there to be completely 

exclusive fences around that which contains potential for public good on the whole that is 

the trouble. The problem that I see with this is the good of the community/society usually 

leads to the good of the individual, and because ownership of certain goods inhibits this I 

feel that the good of the individual and the whole is comprimised no matter the side of the 

fence one finds themself.


Snowman sees very clearly the dangers of private property: it allows to 

exclude people from resources which they need, and what is his answer? 

Welfare. 

It is for this reason that the ownership of very basic necessities should be 

left to the community as a whole. Such things as the basic amount of food 

that is required for living as well as the shelter and clothing should at least 

be available through some sort of communal offerings, 

Again not a very radical solution, since this solution assumes that poverty 

persists in society. Snowman uses the rest of his answer to debate where 

to draw the poverty line. Marx’s solution is more radical: he is saying 

that we only have to give people food if they cannot produce it themselves, 

and the root cause of poverty is the fact that the means of production are 

privately owned, therefore people are not allowed to produce the things for 

themselves which they need. 

The other confusion which I have allowed is the lack of clarity for that which should 

or should not be owned. I would say that the goods invloved with the perpetuation of the 

individual in reproduction or what ever means one finds to perpetuate their existence should 

be owned in such a way so as not to be exclusive in any manner, such that no one finds 

them selves lacking what is needed. What I do think can be owned by a person with out 

comprimise is that which is consumed as an end product by the individual in such a way so 

as to remove it from the market as a commodity, or as an instrument of production for the 

individual producing commodities. 

First Message by Snowman is [48]. 

Question 186 is 174 in 1995WI, 153 in 1995ut, 206 in 1997sp, 207 in 1998WI, 292 in 

2005fa, 312 in 2007SP, 322 in 2008SP, 320 in 2008fa, and 356 in 2012fa: 

Question 186 Which legal relations must exist between producers so that they can exchange 

their products as commodities? Describe groups or societies in which individuals do not 

have these relations. 

[282] Gottlieb: privatization and human needs The legal relations that must exist 

between producers so that they can exchange their products as commodities are very clear. 

There must be a law that a producer’s right to private ownership takes precedence over all 

other rights of the society or other individuals. The needs of other individuals must take a 

back seat to the commodities’ owners. The starving child in the slums must be allowed to 

become ill and die in order for the store owner to retain his right of ownership; even if he 

chooses to throw away the food the child needs so badly. 

Though this way of thinking seems rather extreme, it is the basis of the rights most people 

have today. Just as important, however, is the need for other people to respect the rights of 

ownership held by other individuals. It takes compliance of all of the individuals. Even 

though most of us comply to these rules automatically, Marx claims that this is against the 

natural human will. This way of behaving is learned. 


Early settlements in the state of Utah were forced to set aside rights of ownership in order 

to survive. In order for the individual to prosper the group or settlement as a whole had to 

flourish as well. Settlers were given stewardship over particular areas or ‘areas of specialty’ 

and produced for the whole settlement. Some settlements in Southern Utah lasted for years 

with this sort of relationship. All eventually succumbed to the rule of private ownership. 

Message [282] referenced by [326], [2012fa:423], and [2012fa:1314]. Next Message by Gottlieb is [498]. 

[314] TOAD: The legal relationship that must exist is that of a contract. 

A group or society were this may not exist is that of a free trade society. In this form of 

a society individuals would use there skills or talents to produce that which they are capable 

of. This is done in hope that someone would want there product and pay for it with some 

other good that was of use to them. 

Also in a society such as the one we live in where things are exchanged for money. I 

personaly don’t have any contracts with any clothing producers nor do any of my friends or 

family. However this dosen’t stop the clothing manufactures from producing clothes. They 

procude the clothing to be in compliance with the contracts they may have with the retailers, 

but the retailers only carry clothing in there store in hopes that a consumer will purchase 

those clothes. Not because it is in a consumers contract to purchase a set amount of clothing 

to keep the manufacturer in business, but because it is in the consumers wants to purchase 

clothing. 

Message [314] referenced by [326]. Next Message by TOAD is [394.3]. 

[326] Hans: Legal Background of Commodity Trade Of the two answers received for 

this Question, Gottlieb’s [282] is right on target. Gottlieb gives an “extreme” but accurate 

description of the sinister underside of modern exchange relations. He writes: 

There must be a law that a producer’s right to private ownership takes precedence 

over all other rights of the society or other individuals. The needs of 

other individuals must take a back seat to the commodities’ owners. 

Such a law will only then be considered just and can therefore only then be enforced if 

people consider each other as strangers. The only thing that is missing in Gottlieb’s answer 

is the explicit recognition that these undesirable consequences come from the fact that people 

in a commodity society treat each other as strangers. 

TOAD’s answer [314] is somewhat of a puzzle. Apparently TOAD concluded from 

Marx’s text preceding Question 186 that the right answer to the Question is “a contract”. 

Therefore he states this, but then, both of his examples of societies in which these legal 

relations do not exist are commodity-producing societies! He did not comment on the inconsistency 

that in his view certain commodity-producing societies do not have the social 

relations necessary for the products to be exchanged as commodities. 



1997sp, 199 in 1997ut, 208 in 1998WI, 228 in 2000fa, 241 in 2001fa, 273 in 2003fa, 330 


Question 187 Why are commodities not interested in each other’s use values?


[244] MUCHO: commodities not interested in each other’s use value The main reason 

for this question would be a different use value. Each commodities has different use value. 

Because, each commodities has produced in different way. I think it is also important to 

mention that each commodities has different labor. To be more specific, different labor time, 

power, and skills. According to the book, use value is something that make the commodities 

useful. Therefore, commodities are depending on use value in some sense. On the other 

hand, use value is independent. Under these circumstances, it is hard to say that each commodities’ 

use value are related. They must be separated in order to make each commodities 

useful. 

Hans: I am a little puzzled why you wanted to answer this question, although you did not have a clue how to 

answer it. 


[258] Gilligan: use values are boring Let’s say one day I created a widget, and that 

widget was something that meant a lot to me and it actually gave me utility. I would use the 

widget each day and it would be very beneficial to me throughout the day, but for some reason 

everybody around thought that the widget was irrelevent and had no use. They just didn’t 

see the utility that the widget created and therefore was socially unaccepted. As something 

is created there is always some use value involved and therefore each item produced has use 

value, it is a universal thing. So for something to be so common it would be rather boring. 

Think about everyone in the world having one exact thing in common, you really wouldn’t 

think about that certain thing let alone be interested in it. When something has use value its 

a common bond among most everything, but what sets something apart from other things is 

exchangeability. When we create something or have something that has exchange value then 

it creates an interest and the whole form of the commodity has come together. If something 

has use value and exchange value th it can be qualified as a commodity because it has been 

socially accepted. So when we think of use values its something that may interestaa person 

or thing but it has no bearance on other commodities and it is rather useless. If somethn is 

produced and no one wants it or is interested in it , like my widget than its a waste of time 

and labor. Use values are boring without exchaange value. 

Message [258] referenced by [269] and [547.1]. Next Message by Gilligan is [308]. 

[269] Hans: Why are commodities bored with their use values? MUCHO, in his 

[244], was completely in the dark about this Question, but Gilligan’s [258] had some right 

elements. Nevertheless, in the next exam it will still count as wrong if you repeat Gillign’s 

[258]. Gilligan has some valid thinking, and I will emphasize this here in my comments, 

because it seems more important to me whether what you say is valid, than to stick too 

literally to the Question. But one of the reasons [258] is wrong is that Gilligan acted as if 

Marx had said that use values are boring, although he merely said that use values are boring 

to the commodities. The question is therefore still open, and further submissions are invited. 

On the other hand, Marx did say elsewhere that use values do not fall into the purview of 

Economics. There are some cases when they do, but usually they don’t. Why not? because 

the use values are a private affair, they are not social enough. Gilligan gives this argument 

in his answer; my widget is useful to me but not necessarily to anybody else. 

Gilligan gives a second argument why a look at use values as such will not lead to economic 

insights: 


As something is created there is always some use value involved and therefore 

each item produced has use value, it is a universal thing. So for something 

to be so common it would be rather boring. Think about everyone 

in the world having one exact thing in common, you really wouldn’t think 

about that certain thing let alone be interested in it. 

Marx argues along these same lines. He says: if one wants to understand what is specific 

about capitalism, one cannot start with the general characteristics of production and 

consumption, because they are shared by all economies. 

In this light, Gilligan’s next sentence is almost right, although the thrust of it needs a little 

adjustment: the exchange value is interesting not because it sets the commodity apart, but 

because it sets capitalism apart: 

When something has use value its a common bond among most everything, 

but what sets something apart from other things is exchangeability. When 

we create something or have something that has exchange value then it 

creates an interest and the whole form of the commodity has come together. 

In the rest of his submission, Gilligan is acting too much as if exchange was the only way 

to establish a social link between the producers. Marx goes exactly in the opposite direction: 

he argues that it is not the only way to organize production, and moreover that it is not a very 

good way to organize production. 


[271] Caren: the commodity exchange For Marx, the commodity first appears as the 

unity of exchange-value and use-value. As a simple product of labor the commodity immediately 

appears in it tangible form as a set of physical attributes that, having been fashioned 

from nature by a set of concrete labors, constitute it as a socially recognized use-value. Yet 

for the producer/seller of this commodity these attributes are of no immediate concern except 

for the fact that they may serve to command other commodities with other use-value in 

exchange. For the producer/seller of the commodity what is of interest is not so much the 

use-value of the commodity - in fact for her the commodity is not a use-value but a non-usevalue 

- but the commodity as an exchange-value: that is, its potential to be exchanged for it 

is not. According to the text (Annotations to Karl Marx’s ’capital’) on page 113; 

“The commodities do not care about their use values. Instead, they are eager to act out 

the relations which they have as commodities. They are produced privately, and if they do 

not find someone who needs them, the labor that went into them is wasted. This makes them 

like hot coal in the hands of their producers. Since they are the products of private labor 

which needs validation as social labor, their purpose in life is exchange. It is the labor inside 

them which gives them desire. Commodities are willing to exchange themselves against any 

other product of labor that crosses their way, which has a different use value than their own. 

This is all that is needed for them to express their value,”. 

The exchange-value of a commodity stands in mutual opposition to its use-value and 

this opposition can only be overcome through the act of exchange. With exchange the usevalue 

of the commodity becomes realized in the hands of its recipient owner who consumes


it; while the exchange-value of the commodity becomes realized when its producer/seller 

obtains her desired other use-values. 

If a commodity is to exchange with other commodities then, to the degree that such 

an exchange is not random or accidental, the commodity must have something that is in 

common with all other commodities with which it may exchange. It must have something 

that makes it commensurate with other commodities. While the different use-values that 

arise from the varying physical and natural attributes of different kinds of commodities make 

commodity exchange necessary they do not serve to make systematic commodity exchange 

possible. For Marx, the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a 

total abstraction from use-value. Having dismissed use-value as this common something we 

come to exchange-value. But exchange-value as such immediately appears only in terms of 

multiplicity of other use-value that the commodity can command in exchange, and, as such, 

appears as being both external and accidental to the commodity itself. 

Message [271] referenced by [272] and [281]. Next Message by Caren is [357.3]. 

[272] Skyler: question 187 I liked what was said in this statement; “the commodity 

considers every other commodity only as the form of appearance of its own value.” Commodities 

are not interested in their different use-value. Their interested in expressing their 

value regardless of which use-value is used to represent its value. A commodity is separate 

from its owner in that it wants to express its value, and its owner wants to exchange the 

commodity through its use-value. 

“Products of private labor need validation as social labor;” meaning that the act of exchange 

is the central process for a commodity to express its value. Marx’s sexual analogy 

is very good in saying that procreation takes two, but the individuals goals or desires are 

their own. The commodities and commodity owners purpose is the same but their individual 

goals are their own and different. 

Hans: Taken by itself, youranswer is not bad. I would have liked you to give references for your quotes (I do 

not require this in the in-class exams, since you do not have enough time, but I do require it in your homework 

submissions), and I would have liked you to explain some of the things in your quotes which you are taking for 

granted. It is quite remarkable and deserves some explanation that Marx does as if the commodities had their own 

mind which is different from that of their owners. 

But your answer was posted to the list five hours after Caren’s [271], which says quite similar things as your 

message, although in a different way. Your grade suffered because you ignored [271]. 

Message [272] referenced by [383.13]. Next Message by Skyler is [383.13]. 

[281] Hans: Nitpicking about Caren Caren’s answer [271] is excellent. I will take issue 

with some of her formulations here, and some subtle issues, which are misunderstood by 

many Marxists. 

For Marx, the commodity first appears as the unity of exchange-value and 

use-value. 

Marx started Chapter One of Capital with the observation that the commodity has two 

different aspects, use value and exchange value, and he investigates these two aspects separately. 

In Contribution, Marx calls the commodity the “immediate unity” of these two 

aspects. The word “immediate” is important here; it means “without mediation.” These 

aspects are packed together in the same thing, but they are by no means reconciled in the 


commodity. Marx rather stresses how much these two aspects cleave apart and fight each 

other (and Caren says the same thing further down in her contribution). 

As a simple product of labor the commodity immediately appears in it tangible 

form as a set of physical attributes that, having been fashioned from 

nature by a set of concrete labors, constitute it as a socially recognized usevalue. 

Why do you call these use values socially recognized? The problem with private production 

is exactly that these use values may be perfectly good in their own terms, but there may 

be nobody in society who needs such a use value. The “social recognition” is exactly what 

is still missing. The rest of the paragraph is excellent: 

Yet for the producer/seller of this commodity these attributes are of no immediate 

concern except for the fact that they may serve to command other 

commodities with other use-value in exchange. For the producer/seller of 

the commodity what is of interest is not so much the use-value of the commodity 

- in fact for her the commodity is not a use-value but a non-usevalue 

- but the commodity as an exchange-value: that is, its potential to be 

exchanged for it is not. 

In the sentence after your quote from my Annotations I would see things a little bit differently. 

Caren writes: 

The exchange-value of a commodity stands in mutual opposition to its 

use-value and this opposition can only be overcome through the act of exchange. 

First of all, Marx says that real contradictions cannot be solved, they can only be given a 

“form of motion” but this does not mean that they disappear. Chapter 2 shows that the direct 

barter of products is very contradictory too, and if one introduces money, one gets a whole 

slew of new contradictions. 

Secondly, Caren’s sentence sounds as if the exchange process exists in order to overcome 

the contradictions in the commodity. I am not sure if this is right, maybe it is. I would settle 

for a less ambitious claim: in the act of exchange, the contradiction between the two aspects 

of the commodity asserts itself. (This contradiction is the reason why we are not bartering 

directly but why we sell and buy with money.) 

Nothing wrong with the next sentence: 

With exchange the use-value of the commodity becomes realized in the 

hands of its recipient owner who consumes it; while the exchange-value 

of the commodity becomes realized when its producer/seller obtains her 

desired other use-values. 

In the next sentence, I would again put the emphasis a little differently:


If a commodity is to exchange with other commodities then, to the degree 

that such an exchange is not random or accidental, the commodity must 

have something that is in common with all other commodities with which 

it may exchange. 

You can either say (as Marx says in Section 1 of Chapter One): obviously, commodities 

are systematically exchanged, and from this we can conclude that they must have something 

in common. Or you can say (as in Section 3 of Chapter One): commodities are the product 

of abstract labor, and the exchange is the social form in which their equality as abstract 

labor is expressed. I.e., the investigator has to start with the exchange, because this is visible 

on the surface. But in the logical structure of capital, production is primary. Caren on the 

other hand acts as if exchange was primary and as if value was a device to make exchange 

possible. 

It must have something that makes it commensurate with other commodities. 

While the different use-values that arise from the varying physical 

and natural attributes of different kinds of commodities make commodity 

exchange necessary they do not serve to make systematic commodity exchange 

possible. 

To repeat, I disagree with this, because it takes the exchange as the ontologically most 

basic category, while Marx considered production more basic and derived exchange from the 

character of production. Bhaskar would probably consider Caren’s error here an example of 

the “epistemic fallacy”. 

The next sentence is due to an unfortunate mistranslation in the Moore-Aveling translation 

of R127:4: 

For Marx, the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised 

by a total abstraction from use-value. 

Marx did not mean this. A more precise translation is: 

The exchange relation of commodities is evidently characterised by a total 

abstraction from use-value. 

The exchange relation is the proportion in which commodities are exchangeable. There 

are many more exchange relations than there are ectual exchanges. In the actual act of 

eschange, the traders certainly look at the use values too and do not abstract from them (see 

Chapter Two). 

Having dismissed use-value as this common something we come to exchangevalue. 

But exchange-value as such immediately appears only in terms of 

multiplicity of other use-value that the commodity can command in exchange, 

and, as such, appears as being both external and accidental to the 

commodity itself. 


Well, now Caren gets into Marx’s impasse without resolving it, see Question 40. And 

besides, this is quite irrelevant for the Question at hand, it only described how Marx was 

investigating the commodity, it is an epistemological question, not an ontological one. 


[335.2] Positive: The value a commodity gets after it has been produced and exchanged, 

and is being used by the consumer, is called used-value. The use-value which one commodity 

has is different from another if we assume the commodities are different products. If 

commodities are made at the same time, in the same way, and in general under the same circumstances, 

the products will have the excactually same value. One commodity to another 

does not need to depend on each other. Even if they did, their use-value is not the same. 

The use-value is determined by how and why the consumer uses its commodities the way he 

does. Let us assume we have the commodities A and B. There is no need for either A or B to 

be interested in each others value. The value is set by the market. The value the commodities 

have been exchanged for is the exchange-value, which is indirectely the use-value. Actually, 

the use-value is set by the consumer. It is therefore up to the consumer to determine what 

the specifically commodities are worth to him. The consumer is to keep his goods, and his 

goal is to use them. They are not for sale. This is why commodities do not care about each 

others use-values. The commodities A and B can together make the use-value C, but they 

do not neccessary need to be linked to be determined their value. 

Hans: There is one correct element in your answer; use value is relative, it is a relationship between the commodity’s 

properties and the user. Other than that, this answer does not show much understanding of Marx’s arguments. 


[335.4] Jake: Commodities do not care about their use values. Instead, they are eager 

to act out the relations which they have as commodities. They are produced privately. If 

they do not find someone who needs them, the labor into them is wasted. The commodities 

are more concerned with there relative exchange values. The use values can be the same or 

completely different, the exchange value is what is important in the trade. The use value is 

only realized by the recipient owner who receives the traded product. Commodities then do 

not care what other commodities use values are. What person A does with the good produced 

by person B is unimportant. The importance was the value expressed in the exchange. 

Hans: Ok, the only thing missing is an explanation why Marx portrays commodities here as living things. 


[336.1] MsMarx: Why commodities are not interested in each other’s use-value Marx 

started Chapter One of Capital with the observation that the commodity has two different 

aspects, use value and exchange value, and he investigates these two aspects separately. In 

Contribution, Marx calls the commodity the “immediate unity” of those two aspects. “Immediate” 

means “without mediation.” These aspects are packaged together in the same thing, 

but they are by no means reconciled in the commodity. Marx stresses how much these two 

aspects cleave apart and fight each other. As a simple product of labor the commodity immediately 

appears in it’s tangible form as a set of physical attributes that have been fashioned 

from nature by a set of concrete labors. 

With private production, use values may be perfectly good in their own terms, but there 

may be nobody in society who needs such a use value. For the producer/seller of a commodity, 

the attributes are of no immediate concern except for the fact that they may serve 

to command other commodities with other use-value exchange. For the producer/seller of


the commodity, what is of interest is not so much the use-value of the commodity (in fact 

for him/her the commodity is not a use-value but a non-use-value), but the commodity as an 

exchange-value: that is, its potential to be exchanged for it is not. 

The real contradictions cannot be solved, they can only be given a “form of motion.” 

But this does not mean thay they disappear. In direct bartering, there is this contradiction, 

and if one introduces money one gets a whole slew of new contradictions. In the act of 

exchange, the contradiction between the two aspects of the commodity asserts itself. With 

exchange the use-value of the commodity becomes realized when its producer/seller obtains 

his/her desired other use-values. Commodities are systematically exchanged, and from this 

we can conclude that they must have something in common. Commodities are the product 

of abstract labor, and the exchange is the social form in which their equality as abstract 

labor is expressed. Marx derived exchange from the character of production. The exchange 

relation of commodities is evidently characterized by a total abstraction from use-value. The 

exchange relation is the proportion in which commodities are exchangeable. There are more 

exchange relations than there are actual exchanges. 

In the actual act of exchange, the traders certainly look at the use-values too and do not 

abstract from them. Having dismissed use-value as this common something, we come to 

exchange-value. But exchange-value as such immediately appears only in terms of multiplicity 

of other use-value that the commodity can command in exchange, and, as such, 

appears as being both external and accidental to the commodity itself. 

The commodities do not care about their use-values. Instead, they are eager to act out the 

relations which they have as commodities. They are produced privately, and if they do not 

find someone who needs them, the labor that went into them is wasted. This makes them like 

hot coal in the hands of their producers. Since they are the products of private labor which 

needs validation as social labor, their purpose in life is exchange. It is the labor inside them 

which gives them this desire. Commodities are willing to exchange themselves against any 

other produt of labor that crosses their way, which has a different use value than their own. 

This is all that is needed for them to express their values. 

Hans: The only thing that is wrong in your encyclopaedic answer is the following sentence: 

But exchange-value as such immediately appears only in terms of multiplicity of other usevalue 

that the commodity can command in exchange, and, as such, appears as being both 

external and accidental to the commodity itself. 

No, on the contrary. The multiplicity of the exchange relations reveals that it is not something accidental and 

relative, but that the equivalents signal something about the given commodity itself. 

I would also recommend that you try to condense your answers more. They are very stretched out, and I think 

their inner connection and logic would win if you tried to pull them together more. 


[341.3] KALISPEL: For Marx, the commodity first appears as the unity of exchange 

value and use-value. Yet for the producer/seller of this commodity these attributes are of no 

immediate concern except for the part that they may serve to command other commodities 

with other use-value in exchange. For the producer/seller of the commodity what is of 

interest is not so much the use-value of the commodity, in fact, for her the commodity is 

not a use-value but a non-use-value, but the commodity as as an exchange value: that is, its 


potential to be exchanged for it is not. According to the text (annotations to Karl Marx’s’ 

Capital) on page 113: 

“The commodities do not care about their use values. Instead, they are eager to act out 

the relations which they have as commodities. They are produced privately, and if they do 

not find someone who needs them, the labor that went into them is wasted. This makes them 

like hot coal in the hands of their producers. Since they are the products of private labor 

which needs validation as social labor. It is the labor inside them which gives them desire. 

Commodities are willing to exchange themselves against any other product of labor that 

crosses their way, which has a different use value than thier own. This is all that is needed 

for them to express their value”. 

Obviously, commodities are systemically exchanged, and from this we can conclude that 

they must have something in common. The exchange relations of commodities evidently 

characterised by a total abstraction from use-value. 

Hans: Only a brief remark about your first two sentences: 

For Marx, the commodity first appears as the unity of exchange value and use-value. Yet for 

the producer/seller of this commodity these attributes are of no immediate concern except for 

the part that they may serve to command other commodities with other use-value in exchange. 

You say that the attributes are of no immediate concern, but the rest of your sentence shows how thoroughly they 

use both attributes: they use the exchange value of their commodity to obtain the use value which they need. 


[344.2] Kia: Marx stated that the commodity first appears as the unity of exchange value 

and use value. As a simple product of labor the commodity immediately appears in the 

tangible form as a set of physcial attributes that have been fashioned from nature by a set 

of concrete labors. Also constitue it as a socially recognized use value. The problem with 

private production is exactly that these use vlues maybe perfectly good in their own terms, 

but there maybe nobody in society who needs such a use value. Yet for producers and 

seller of this commodity these attributes are of no immediate concern except for the fact that 

they may serve to command other commodities with other use value in exchange. For the 

producer and seller of the commodity what is of interest is not so much the use value of the 

commodity, in fact the commodity is not a use value but a non use value. But the commodity 

as an exchange value. That is, its potential to be exchaged for it is not. 

The exchage value of a commodity can not be solved, they can only be given a some 

kind of motion. However, they do not disappear. If one offers money, other gets whole new 

ideas of contradictions. This is the reason why we do not barter, but why we sell and buy 

with the money. With it exchange the use value of the commodity becomes realized in the 

hands of its recipient owner who consumes it. On other hand the exchange value of the 

commodity becomes realized when its producers and seller gets her desired other use value. 

From this reasoning we can say that commodities are exchanged regularily, thus it must 

have something in common. The exchane relation of commodities is evidently characterised 

by a total abstraction from use value. There are many more exchange relation than actual 

exchange. In real sense traders often look at the use value too and do not abstract from them. 

Hans: Your answer is a collage of sentences from the Collection of Answers. Not all of these sentences make 

sense because there are words or parts missing. Sometimes the sentences are connected in an illogical way. And 

not all of your sentences are relevant to the topic. I have the impression of listening to a computer or a parrot, not a 

person who is explaining me something.



[345.1] MUCHO: To exchange the commodity’s use-value won’t be variable for anybody. 

Because the relation changes constantly with time and place. Hence, exchange-value appears 

to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value. 

Hans: I am completely mystified by your resubmission. It is illogical and has nothing to do with the Question 

asked or your in-class exam, which made much more sense. Please see me in my office during my office hours 

Tuesday Thursday 10-11 or make an appointment. 

To exchange the commodity’s use-value won’t be variable for anybody. Because the relation 

changes constantly with time and place. Hence, exchange-value appears to be something 

accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value. 

Next Message by MUCHO is [345.2]. 

[357.4] Karl: It is important that you should not take this question literally. Some go to 

the extreme of personifying the commodity. For example the shovel(commodity A) cannot 

be interested in bread(commodity B) because it is an inanimate object. 

However it should be looked at in the following way. If I make linen I have no use for it. 

I want to exchange only what is superfluous to me as well. It is a two part interaction. This 

is because a commodity needs a “social labor validation” according to Marx. The other part 

is the beginning step of the commodity as it is used for personal subsistence or consumption. 

Thus the commodity is not validated until it is sold at “exchange value” in the market. It 

is then that the commodity realizes it’s value , thus use value becomes uninteresting and 

obsolete. Marx said, “As a simple product of labor, the commodity immediatly appears in 

it’s tangible form, having fashioned from nature by a set of concrete labors, constituting it 

as a socially recognized use value.” 

It’s as if the commodities behave with minds of their own, disregarding use value. Marx 

used a sexual analogy to explain this phenomena. Marx explained in the readings that two 

people have their own interests, but serve a common goal of procreation without realizing it. 

Such is the nature of the commodity as it relates to ignoring it’s use value. 

Hans: You are answering the part of the Question which most others disregard. Good try. 


[368.1] Chocolate: First of all the commodities first appear as both exchange value and 

use-value. The use value of the commodity is not as important as it’s exchange value. Marx’s 

states that “ the commodities do not care about their use values. Instead they are eager to act 

out the relations which they have as commodities.” 

He also states that “since they are the products of private labor which needs validation as 

social labor, their purpose in life is exchange. It is the labor inside them which gives them 

desire.” All that is needed by a commodity to express their value is how they express their 

usefulness once they are compared to another commodity. The commodity must posses 

something whithin it that will allow it to have an exchange value. Something that is in 

common with the commodity it is being exhanged with. 

Use value of a commodity may be good and valueble, but what if no-one (including 

yourself) has any-use for that particular commodity anymore? What will one do with it then? 

Obviously that individual cannot exchange it for another commodity since no-one else has 

any use for it. And, since that individual no longer has any use for it either, the commodity is 

left untouched, unused and collecting dust. But, if the commodity were to have an exchange 


value and the owner of the commodity no-longer has any use for it. He/she can simply 

exchange it for a different commodity that will be usefull to him/her. 

For example, suppose I am a farmer who only raise chickens, if one day chickens became 

a bad thing for people to eat and own because of a fatal desiese that can only be found in 

chickens, then no-one (including myself) will have any use for them anymore. I will then be 

stuck with a lot of chicken and nothing to do with them. But, if nothing bad will ever come 

from eating or owning chickens then I can easily find another farmer (or individual) to trade 

my chickens with if I no-longer have any use for them. 

Hans: In the Annotations, only the large print is from Marx, the small print is my annotations. 

Your last example is not an example of the typical and pervasive disproportions of demand and supply (in which 

chickens would still be edible, but there are already enough chicken on the market for everyone who wants them 

and canafford them), but one in which a whole class of former use values is suddenly no longer a use value. 

Next Message by Chocolate is [374.1]. 

[369.6] Snowman: Commodities are not interested in each other’s use values because 

as commodities their relation to one another is based in exchange relations. Exchange is 

their purpose, without exchange they are not commodities. Their use-value, a commodities, 

is what makes them different from one another and thus also allows them to be exchanged 

for one another, for you do not exchange or trade in the market for identical things, rather 

exchange is facilitated for the want of different commodities. Therefor the exchange relation 

that a commodity has with another commodity is what quantifies the value contained in 

the first commodity in relation to the second. The use value only states that if there is a 

difference then there is the potential for trade, and as such is of no interest to a commodity 

in terms of exchange for if there is to be an exchange then it is assumed that it is of different 

commodities. A commodities need for social validation is satisfied by its exchange value, 

which is represented in quantitative terms which relate the different amounts of abstract 

labor in the commodities. These different amounts of labor are what determine the value for 

the commodity in terms of exchange and value, and there for is why the commodities are not 

concerned with the use values, as use values are not what their social value is measured by. 

Hans: You are a little confused about how to reconcile the fact that differences in use value are needed for the 

exchange with the claim that commodities are not interested in use values. In every actual exchange, both use value 

and exchange value have to be considered. But the concerns about the use vale are so much in contradiction with 

the concerns about the exchange value that it is as if the exchange decision was not made by one poerson, but by 

a mis-matched team of two, the commodity owner who is only interested in use value, and the commodity who is 

only interested in exchange value. 

What you wrote is more a reformulation of the Question than an answer, i.e., a step towards the answer but not 

the answer itself. 


[370.1] Peaches: For an owner, his commodity possesses no direct use-value. It has usevalue 

for others, but for himself, its only direct use-value is as a bearer of exchange-value or 

a means of exchange. The owner of a commodity is prepared to part with it only in return 

for other commodities whose use-value satisfies his own need. According to Marx, p. 113 

Annotations, “the commodities do not care about their use-value. Instead, they are eager to 

act out the relations which they have as commodities. They are produced privately, and if 

they do not find someone who needs them, the labor that went into them is wasted. This 

makes them like hot coal in the hands of their producers. Since they are the products of 

private labor which needs validation as social labor, their purpose in life is exchange. It is


the labor inside them which gives them this desire. Commodities are willing to exchange 

themselves against any other product of labor that crosses their way, which has a different 

use value than their own. This is all that is needed for them to express their values.” 

Hans: First of all, the passage on p. 113 Annotations is from me, not from Marx. It is relevant for the Question but 

I would have liked you to explain how Marx uses the literary device of attributing its own will to the commodity in 

order to describe this situation. 


[371.1] Kalle: A commodity is different from it’s owner in that it wants to express it’s 

value (exchange value), while the owner is interested in what a commodity can do for 

him/her (use value.) Commodities are produced for exchange and their mission in life is 

to be exchanged on the market. It does not matter to the commodity what use value it is 

exchanged for, but rather the relative or equivalent value it represents in an exchange situation. 

To Marx, the exchange of commodities is an act totally abstracted from use value if one 

takes the commodity’s point of view. When two commodities change hands on the market, 

the owners get the use value they wanted, but are not a concern to the commodities involved. 

Hans: I like it. You are spinning on your thoughts in the right direction. By the way, you made a few slight changes 

in your resubmission, but none of them was an improvement! These changes were something like a watering-down; 

your in-class text was more eloquent. 


[383.13] Skyler: “The commodity considers every other commodity only as the form of 

appearance of its own value.” Commodities are not interested in their different use-values. 

They are interested in expressing their value regardless of which use-value is used to represent 

its value. A commodity is separate from its owner in that its wants to express its value, 

and its owner wants to exchange the commodity through its use-value. Commodities are 

willing to exchange themselves against any other product of labor that crosses their way, 

which has a different use-value than their own. 

This is all that is necessary for them to express their value. The producer of the commodity, 

the physical attributes of the commodity are of no immediate concern except for the fact 

that they may serve to command other commodities with other use-value in exchange. The 

producer/owner of the commodity is interested in exchangability or exchange value on the 

market. The exchange process helps the consumer of the commodity to realize the use-value 

of the new commodity. The exchange-value is realized when its producer receives his/her 

desired other use-values. Marx uses sexual analogy to explain this concept between the desires 

of the owner and commodity. The process of pro-creation takes two species. although 

the goals or desires in the act may be different for the two species. The exchange relation of 

commodities is evidently characterised by a total abstraction from use-value. 

Hans: Sorry to say, I like your [272] less well now than when I first graded it, and [383-13] seems to have only 

cosmetic changes without any essential progress. Your argument does not hang together sufficiently, it is unclear 

what the sexual analogy is supposed to say, and I also see no attempt on your part to give a better explanation why 

Marx pretends commodities had their own mind, something I asked you about in my remarks to [272]. 

Message [383-13] referenced by [383.13]. Next Message by Skyler is [395]. 

[394.3] TOAD: They are not interested in each others use value because they cannot use 

each other. For example a shovel is not concerned with the use it will receive from a loaf 

of bread, neither is a loaf of bread concearned in the number of ditches that a shovel can 

dig. Therefore they are interested in the exchange value, the exchange value is what gives 

them value. Since they are privetly produced there exchange value is only validated if they 


are found on the market by someone that needs them, if they are not found the production 

that went into them is wasted. There sole purpose in life is exchange they need to exchange 

themselves with any other product of labor that has a different use value in order to express 

there value. 

Hans: They can’t use each other because they are just things. By the same argument one could say they are not 

interested in their exchange values either. The whole thing is metaphorical, and the answer to the Question depends 

on figuring out what it is a metaphor of. 

Next Message by TOAD is [394.4]. 

[394.2] Caren: The exchange has two purposes that are to realise commodities as usevalues 

and values. All commodities are non-use-values for their owners, and use-values for 

their non-owners. Consequently, they must all change hands. But this change of hands is 

what constitutes their exchange, and the latter puts them in relation with each other as values, 

and realises them as values. Hence commodities must be realised as values before they can 

be realised as use-values. Every owner of a commodity wishes to part with in exchange 

only for those commodities whose use-value satisfies some want of his. Exchange is for 

him simply a private transaction. On the other hand, he desires to realise the value of his 

commodity, to convert it into any other suitable commodity of equal value, irrespective of 

whether his commodity has or has not any use-value for the owner of the other. From this 

point of view, exchange is for him a social transaction of a general character. But one and 

the same set of transactions cannot be simultaneously for all owners of commodities both 

exclusively private and exclusively social and general. Value is basically the property of 

commodities requiring them to exchange. For example, the expression, “20 yards of linen 

worth 1 coat”, shows that the expression of the value of the commodity linen in terms of 

coats means nothing but the request to exchange linen for coat. The use-value of a coat 

is chosen by the owner of linen as a desirable object in which to realise the value of linen 

by exchange. The request to exchange linen for the coat by placing linen in the position 

of the relative form of value is not certain to be realised, since the owner of a coat which 

is passively chosen as the equivalent, may not want linen. The specificity of the use-value 

of linen restrict the realisation of its value. So far as a coat is wanted as the equivalent of 

linen, the owner of a coat can directly exchange his commodity with linen if ever he wishes. 

the direct exchangeability given to the equivalent form can thus be understood easily from 

the basic nature of the value expression as the request for exchange. The value of linen can 

be expressed in terms of various use-values of commodities. The nature of value is shown 

more distinctly from that of use-value. The quantity of value of linen, which is relatively 

expressed in the requested ratios of exchange with other commodities, must still be more or 

less subjectively and individualistically stated by its owners. The commodities do not care 

about their use values. Commodities are willing to exchange themselves against any other 

product of labor that crosses their way, which has a different use value than their own. This 

is all that is needed for them to express their values. 

Hans: There are some good things in your answer, but also many things that have nothing to do with the Question. 

I wish you would focus yoru answers more. 


[396.2] Wolf: The purpose of a commodity is to be exchanged and thererfore they must 

be willing to do so. It may be the case that the other product of labor that they exchange 

themselves for has a different or the same use value but it makes no difference, use value of


other products do not serve to make systematic commodity exchange possible. However one 

need not dismiss use values all together because it does characterise commodity exchange 

(to some degree), but it is still not 100% responsible for the production and exchange of 

commodities. 

Use values are like billboards on the capitalist market freeway that one just ignores while 

driving as fast as they can to be exchanged. After the exchange takes place, it then facilitates 

the discovery of the use value of the commodity upon both of the acts of CONSUMPTION 

for the consumer and EXCHANGE for the producer ( when they exchange for other use 

values). 

Hans: Original thoughts, especially also in your in-class quiz, and some of them are quite good. Like this one: 

Commoditiers are not interested in use values because 

use value of other products do not serve to make systematic commodity exchange possible. 


[401.3] Pinky: Marx introduced chapter 1 of capital specifying that the commodity has 2 

different sides/aspects: use value and exchange value. Marx (in contribution) states that the 

commodity is the “immediate unity” of these two aspects. Though they are parts of the same 

thing, Marx notes how the two tend to oppose each other. For the producer/seller, these 

attributes are of no immediate concern except for the fact that they are parts of the same 

thing, Marx notes how the two tend to oppose each other. For the producer/seller, these 

attributes are of no immediate concern except for the fact that they may serve to command 

other commodities in their exchange. For the producer/seller, is what Marx calls a “formal 

use value” essentially; a non use-value to him/her. Exchange value is the seller’s focus. In 

the act of exchange, the contradiction between the two aspects asserts itself. With exchange, 

the use-value of the commodity becomes realized in the hands of the buyer, and exchangevalue 

becomes realized when seller (because of the exchange) obtains use values he desires. 

The exchange relation of commodities is evidently characterised by a total abstraction from 

use-value. The exchange relation is the proportion in which commodities are exchangeable. 

Marx states that the “...commodity considers every other commodity only as the form of 

appearance of its own value....it is always ready to exchange not only soul, but body, with 

each and every other commodity, even if it is more repulsive than Maritornes herself.” Commodities 

are only related with one another on the market as exchange values. That is all that 

matters. 

Hans: Good thoughts. 

Next Message by Pinky is [402.1]. 

[402] Dunny: Commodities’ lack of interest If I produce some sort of commodity like 

linen and go to the market to exchange it for something else, my object is not in the use-value 

if my linen but instead I am most anxious to get the most of the exchange. The exchange 

value is the big determinant between the buyer and the seller. 

Marx said that commodities are produced privately and if no one needs or wants that 

commodity, then the labor and the work that went into producing that commodity was all 

in vain. You can imagine the pressure the producer feels when entering the market with the 

product of use-value that in a sense is useless if it is not wanted. At this point it is easy to 

see the necessity of exchange brought on by this uncertainty. After the commodity has been 


exchanged and the buyer holds this commodity as his/her own, it now takes on use-values 

for him/her. 


[547.1] Gilligan: for Marx, the commodity first appears as the unity of exchange value 

and use use value. One of the main reasons why commodities aren’t interested in each 

others use values is because use values maybe perfectly good in their own terms, but there 

maybe nobody in society who needs that specific use value. I can create a widget that 

generates utility for me and therefore has use value, but if I take that widget and show other 

people and they think the widget is worthless, then it hasn’t been socially accepted and 

it won’t become a commodity because without he social acceptance I wouldn’t be able to 

put a value on the widget. As something is created there is always use value involved and 

therefore each item produced has use value, it is a universal characteristic. so for something 

to be so common it would be rather boring. Think about everyone in the world having 

one exact thing in common, you really wouldn’t think about that certain thing let alone be 

interested in it. When something has use value its a common bond among most everything, 

but what sets something apart from the rest is exchangeability. When we create something 

or have something that has exchange value then it creates an interest and the whole form 

of the commodity comes together. With exchange the use value of the commodity becomes 

realized in the hands of its recepient owner who consumes it; while the exchange value of the 

commodity becomes realized when its producer/seller obtains her desired other use values. 

Therefore use values don’t create the key factor that would have commodities interested in 

one another. 

Hans: it seems you were taken my criticisms [269] to your original [258] into account. 


[584.2] Lamma: Commodities do not care about one anothers use values because it is 

not the use value that drives them in the market. Before any form of exchange takes place, 

commodities are independant of one another. Thier use value at this point is only important 

to the producer of them. Commodities are more concerned with thier value as an exchange 

item. It is the exchange that allows them to obtian thier value. So therefore, before the 

exchange the commodity has use value but it is not important to other commodities due to 

the fact that use value is pertinant to exhange. 

Hans: You are groping in the dark. Some of the sentences in your answer are clearly wrong, and others are 

questionable. 


[617.7] Chuck: Chuck did not resubmit his exam. He said the reason was that each 

commodity has a different use value according to who is using it. Good thinking. 

First Message by Chuck is [58]. 

[617.8] Fox: Fox did not resubmit his exam. The in-class exam was ok, but I would have 

liked him to use his own words. 

First Message by Fox is [315.1]. 

[617.9] Dunny: Dunny did not resubmit his exam. The in-class exam was very good. 

Next Message by Dunny is [617.10]. 


Question 188 a) Why do commodity producers exchange their commodities?


b) What is their motivation to exchange their commodities? 

You should come up with two widely divergent aspects of the same process. 

[266] Bandit: Assignment 5 The reason commodity producers exchange their commodities 

is to satisfy their needs in other areas which their own personal commodity cannot 

satisfy. The motivation of the producer is the satisfaction the producer gets in seeing the use 

value that the commodity can be exchanged for. 

The difference between the two answers is that the first, the producer looks at the “material” 

exchange as a way to obtain his “material” needs. The second answer is more an 

“egotistical” fulfillment the producer receives from seeing the value his commodity has. 


[270] Hans: Bandit’s answer Bandit’s [266] goes in the right direction. If I understand 

his argument right, it is similar to the following: the reason why we eat is because we need 

the nutrients of the food. The motivation for our eating however is the taste of the food and 

our feelings of hunger. 

Regarding the exchange, I wanted you to find a reason which is more specifically social, 

while the motivation is on an individual level. 


[301] VanHalen: “For the owner, his commodity possesses no direct use-value. Otherwise, 

he would not bring it to the market....It has use-value for others.....He therfore makes 

up his mind to sell it in return for commodities whose use-value is of service to him.” Commodity 

producers spend time producing things that have no use value to the producer. To 

stockpile many shovels wouldn’t do the producer any good, one shovel is enough unless it 

breaks and then he would need another shovel so he might keep two shovels. But after keeping 

the second shovel the 3,4,....shovels wouldn’t do the producer any good. But he knows 

that other people need shovels, so he produces them and exchanges them for things he may 

need. 

I like how Bandit put his response when he said, the motivation of the producer is the 

satisfaction the producer gets in seeing the use value that the commodity can be exchanges 

for. I would agree. 

I would also add that the exchange process of finding a substitutable value for his shovel 

makes this producer part of the social process of exchange as there are many things on the 

market that this man could exchange for his shovel. Value for value. However, the motivation 

for the exchange, is the selfish, individual process of seeking what use value he can exchage 

his non-use-value commodity for. One process is individual and the other social. 

Hans: You are pointing out, correctly, that the exchange process is a social process. People engage in it for purely 

individualistic motivations, but it is a social process, and therefore it makes sense to look for the reason for this 

social process in the social sphere. But you have not identified such a reason. 

Message [301] referenced by [353]. Next Message by VanHalen is [344.1]. 

[353] Franz: VanHalen, meet Mick Jagger VanHalen wrote in [301]: 

But after keeping the second shovel the 3,4,....shovels wouldn’t do the producer 

any good. But he knows that other people need shovels, so he produces 

them and exchanges them for things he may need. 


I like how Bandit put his response when he said, the motivation of the 

producer is the satisfaction the producer gets in seeing the use value that 

the commodity can be exchanges for. I would agree. 

Mrs. Marriot don’t work. . .she spends her day lounging in whirlpool and feeling the 

warm touch of her personal masseur. . . for exercise, she might drive her Rolls to Deer 

Valley for a private lesson from Stein Erickson. . . 

You are saying that she will clean the rooms in her hotel instead – because she takes 

pleasure in changing dirtied bedsheets? 

Its like Mick Jagger says: 

FIND SOME LOSER, FIND SOME JERK 

– TO DO THE DIRTY WORK 



2002fa, 278 in 2003fa, 337 in 2008SP, and 375 in 2012fa: 

Question 189 Which contradictions do commodity owners face if they want to barter their 

products (as opposed to buying and selling them)? Make up imaginary dialogs on the market 

place in which these contradictions are expressed. 

[262] MsMarx: Contradictions in bartering Marx says, “the owner of a commodity is 

prepared to part with it only in return for other commodities whose use values satisfy his own 

need.” He also “desires to realize his commodity as a value, i.e. in any other commodity of 

the same value which suits him regardless of whether his own commodity has any use value 

for the owner of the other commodity or not.” Exchange for him is a general social process. 

There is also the social-individual aspect of bartering. As soon as the trader has decided 

on the use value he wants in return, then it is a matter between him and the seller of that use 

value what the exchange proportions should be. 

In other words, it is hard for the producer to find someone who produces what he wants 

and wants what he produces (the double coincidence of wants): 

Merchant 1: I am looking for some sandals. Do you have any? 

Merchant 2: No, I do not have sandals. I just have flowers which I would like to sell or 

trade. 

Merchant 1: But I do not need flowers. I have a beautiful garden with all the flowers I 

might ever need. My feet are sore and tired, I need sandals. 

Merchant 3: I have sandals for you, but I need grain because I am very hungry and have 

gone without food for days. Do you have grain? 

Merchant 1: No, I am sorry, I only have linen to trade with. 

Merchant 3: But these sandals are valuable. I spent much time on them and I make the 

best sandals in this land.


Merchant 1: I can’t take them just because they are valuable. I may as well just keep my 

linen because it is valuable too. 

(In modern terms, this is similar to an optometrist who might need a furnace and heating 

system. The furnace and heating man might not need $10,000 worth of glasses. He is the 

only one in his family who wears glasses). 

A second contradiction in bartering is that one person might think that his wares are worth 

more than the other person’s wares. The second person might be asking an outrageous price 

for his goods. It is a matter between him and the seller of that use value of what the exchange 

proportions should be. 

Merchant 1: I have finally found a merchant who has sandals to trade in exchange for my 

linen. Sir I am willing to give you 3 yards of linen for that one pair of sandals. 

Merchant 3: I’m sorry, I cannot take 3 yards of linen for these sandals. I have worked for 

days and days to make these sandals. You will have to give me 50 yards of linen before I 

will trade this pair of sandals with you. 

(In modern day terms, it is as if the optometrist says, “I will give you this one pair of 

glasses, if you install an entire heating system in my home for me.” He faces the same 

dilemma of deciding on the use value and what the exchange proportions should be.) 

Message [262] referenced by [268], [274], and [288]. Next Message by MsMarx is [274]. 

[268] Hans: MsMarx’s answer MsMarx opens her answer [262] with the right Marx 

quotes: 

Marx says, “the owner of a commodity is prepared to part with it only 

in return for other commodities whose use values satisfy his own need.” 

He also “desires to realize his commodity as a value, i.e. in any other 

commodity of the same value which suits him regardless of whether his 

own commodity has any use value for the owner of the other commodity or 

not.” Exchange for him is a general social process. 

But then, MsMarx seems to say, there is also something else: 

There is also the social-individual aspect of bartering. 

This is not something else. What is called here the “social-individual aspect” (my not very 

fortunate formulation from the study guide) is the contradiction between the first and second 

function of the barter represented by the two Marx quotes. The first Marx quote means that 

bartering has a very private dimension, because it is up to the individuals to decide whether 

or not they want a given use value. The second Marx quote means that bartering also has 

a social dimension: in addition to finding the right use value, one also has to make sure 

that one does not “give away the farm” for it, but that one barters only for things which 

roughly have the same value. If one does not, one will run out of things to offer to others 

before one has acquired what one needs to survive. Marx says that these two functions are 

so contradictory that they cannot be performed by the same act. Why not? This dilemma is 

exemplified by MsMarx’s next sentence, which again comes from my Annotations (there is 


nothing wrong with quoting my Annotations, MsMarx, I only want to make sure that they 

are understood correctly): 

As soon as the trader has decided on the use value he wants in return, then 

it is a matter between him and the seller of that use value what the exchange 

proportions should be. 

In other words, if the trader takes the individual function of the barter seriously and goes 

to that one out-of-the way store which has exactly the lamp that perfectly fits into his living 

room, then he has no longer any bargaining power left. Then the exchange proportions are 

no longer socially determined, but it is a matter between him and this one seller to determine 

what the exchange proportion should be. If the trader wanted to realize the full social value 

of his product, he would have to offer it to everybody (and not just to this one lamp maker), 

in order to find out how “socially necessary” the labor was he put into his product. 

Next MsMarx says that this dilemma is nothing other than the double coincidence of 

wants: 

In other words, it is hard for the producer to find someone who produces 

what he wants and wants what he produces (the double coincidence of 

wants): 

It was my contention that the conundra pointed out by Marx go beyond that what is 

generally understood by the phrase “double coincidence of wants.” Mainstream economics 

does not know what it means to “realize the value” of the commodity, because it does not 

have a concept of value separate from the commodity’s use value. 

Now let us look at MsMarx’s dialogue: 

Merchant 1: I am looking for some sandals. Do you have any? 

Merchant 2: No, I do not have sandals. I just have flowers which I would 

like to sell or trade. 

Merchant 1: But I do not need flowers. I have a beautiful garden with all 

the flowers I might ever need. My feet are sore and tired, I need sandals. 

Merchant 3: I have sandals for you, but I need grain because I am very 

hungry and have gone without food for days. Do you have grain? 

Merchant 1: No, I am sorry, I only have linen to trade with. 

So far it is ok. But now MsMarx confuses the roles of her actors: 

Merchant 3: But these sandals are valuable. I spent much time on them and 

I make the best sandals in this land. 

Merchant 1: I can’t take them just because they are valuable. I may as well 

just keep my linen because it is valuable too.


Merchant 3 does not need to argue for the value of his sandals, since Merchant 1 already 

said that he wanted sandals. MsMarx should have written instead: 

Merchant 1: But my linen is valuable. I spent much time on it and I make 

the best linen in this land. 

Merchant 3: I can’t take the linen just because it is valuable. I may as well 

just keep my sandals because they are valuable too. 

Sorry, MsMarx, that I am so critical. I do not mean it personally. But I also disagree with 

your assessment in the next sentence: 

In modern terms, this is similar to an optometrist who might need a furnace 

and heating system. The furnace and heating man might not need $10,000 

worth of glasses. He is the only one in his family who wears glasses. 

This is an indivisibility issue. Indivisibility is an issue, but a different one than the one 

illustrated in your dialogue. 

The next issue is only an issue if one tries to combine the social and individual aspects in 

one act: 

A second contradiction in bartering is that one person might think that his 

wares are worth more than the other person’s wares. The second person 

might be asking an outrageous price for his goods. It is a matter between 

him and the seller of that use value of what the exchange proportions should 

be. 

Merchant 1: I have finally found a merchant who has sandals to trade in 

exchange for my linen. Sir I am willing to give you 3 yards of linen for that 

one pair of sandals. 

Merchant 3: I’m sorry, I cannot take 3 yards of linen for these sandals. I 

have worked for days and days to make these sandals. You will have to give 

me 50 yards of linen before I will trade this pair of sandals with you. 

If Merchant 1 could offer his linen to the highest bidder, he may end up with fish instead 

of a living room lamp, but he will have a good chance to realize the full value of his linen. 

Someone to whom the linen is not worth much will be outbid by those who have a more 

urgent need for the linen. 

Message [268] referenced by [288] and [2008SP:422]. Next Message by Hans is [269]. 

[274] MsMarx: Bartering contradictions today The private and social bartering contradictions 

in [262] which Marx presents and other contradictions, are somewhat taken care of 

in today’s modern bartering systems. It still has a private dimension because the individuals 

themselves decide if they want a given use value. Perhaps people don’t separate value and 

use value of a commodity. However, today people are issued trade credits for their goods 

which allow them to exchange their goods or services for something they need, when they 

need it, and from a variety of different sources. This eliminates the indivisiblity issue. Trade 

group brokers market a wide range of products, so that if you are trading dental services, 


you would receive trade credits which would enable you to receive printing services, airline 

travel, garbage pickup, or a vast array of possibilites. But more than likely, there would be 

a good or service available which would suit your needs. Most traders receive a fair market 

price for their goods and services and pay in exchange a full retail price for the goods or 

services they receive. The trade broker won’t accept someone’s goods in trade if the prices 

are inflated. 


[288] Chocolate: Re: Bartering. In our society today their can be many different contradictions 

that commodity owners face if they want to barter their products. These contradictions 

arise and vary depending on the product that they want to barter. For example, suppose 

your neighbor has created a new gadget that can paint your entire house in less than an hour, 

as opposed to the usual two and half hours it usually takes for you to do it before. But his/her 

service fee of painting your house is either five-hundred dollars or you can mow his entire 

yard, which would take at least seven-hours. Obviously you would end up paying a large 

fee to have your house painted by your neighbor’s new gadget or end up working more than 

twice as long (mowing the lawn) to equall the exchange values or not go along with the 

barter at all. Unless the neighbor can lower his service fee and/or his labor fee (mowing the 

lawn), not everyone will be willing to barter with him/her. This is a simple contradiction 

that the neighbor faces when trying to barter his product. Because he/she has put time and 

money in creating a product that would not bring him/her much returns and/or interest from 

other’s. 

Hans: After MsMarx’s [262] and my [268] you cannot expect a grood grade for this. 

Next Message by Chocolate is [368.1]. 


1998WI: 

Question 190 How does that what Marx says conform with or contradict the common saying 

that money is an instrument to overcome the requirement of the “double coincidence of 

wants.” 

[304] KALISPEL: money as a double coincidence of wants In Marx, money is a general 

equivalent of value, a form in which the value of commodities appears as pure exchange 

value. The money form of value is inherent in the commodity form of production organized 

by exchange. In Exchange a definite quantity of one commodity is equated to a different 

commodity. For example, 1 coat=20yards of linen. Any commodity can serve as the equivalent. 

Money is a general social equivalent. Commodities emerge in social reality to play the 

role of general equivalent, and excludes all other commodities. Any produced commodity, 

in principle, could serve as money. The money form is latent in and arises directly from 

the commodity form of production. Wherever the commodity form of production appears 

money as a form of value will tend to develop as well. The most fundamental property of 

money in Marx’s theory is its function as the measure of value of commodities. In this role, 

the general equivalent need not be physically present, since it is possible to express the price 

of a commodity in money without actually exchanging money. Once a commodity emerges


as a socially accepted general equivalent, quantities of the money come to be used as price. 

The government often plays a role in regulating and manipulating prices. 

Since the commodity is a produced commodity its value is determined by the same laws 

that determine the value of other commodities. If we abstract from all those factors that may 

make commodities exchange at ratios different from the ratios of abstract labor contained in 

them, an amount of the money commodity containing one hour of abstract labor will buy a 

quanitity of any other commodity that also embodies one hour of abstract labor. The value 

of the money commodity changes continually as production changes. Thus, although, prices 

can be regulated, the value of money cannot be regulated. This is the third conundrum 

in the annotations. Even if there is a double coincidence of wants, and the two comodity 

traders agree on an exchange, they cannot know whether they arrived at the “right” exchange 

proportions. 

For example, I want to buy a pig and someone else needs shoes that I make. We both 

want what the other person has so we barter. We decide that 1 pig=20 shoes. The problem is 

that this relation is not possible in society. We must not trade in shoes or pigs to get the right 

abstract labor, but in the third form, the socially accepted form, money. Marx implies that 

the commodities do not have a social form of value. By giving commodities a social form 

is a framework to manipulate outcomes to meet society’s needs. Therefore, commodities do 

not confront each other, as commodities, but as products or use values only. 

Marx, makes an important point R143:3/0. If the theoretical mind comes to an unresolvable 

contradiction, practical man can keep on going: by creating the social forms which 

resolve these dilemmas. However, here I disagree with Marx. This concept would mean that 

capitalism will work out fine because we have instituted ways to resolve dilemmas through 

social programs such as welfare and unemployment compensation. Capitalism has many 

unresolvable contradictions and so does Marxism. How can Marxism support this logic in 

light of his own problems? Maybe someone else in the class can answer this? 

The circulation of money permits and requires the formation of hoards, stocks of money 

held either to facilitate circulation of commodities, or to accumulate the crystallized abstract 

labour of the society as an end in itself. Money is the end result in capitalism. This is wrong 

because, I believe that this is not a good end to achieve. Money should be a means to an end. 

Money should be a means to produce happiness and well being for everyone in the society. 

Money should not be an end in itself. This “end” is a major flaw in the capitalist system. If 

we shoot for the wrong goal we are sure to miss the target. 

In response to the question. Marx agrees that money is an instrument for the “double 

coincidence of wants”. 

Message [304] referenced by [307] and [2008SP:422]. Next Message by KALISPEL is [321]. 

[307] Hans: Can the contradictions of capitalism be resolved? As always, KALISPEL’s 

answer [304] is very deep. Here are a few scattered remarks, trying to put the many thoughts 

contained in [304] a little more into perspective. 

In this class, we have not discussed the function of money as measure of value (although 

I mentioned it somewhere in my responses). But the following passage from KALISPEL’s 

answer is a good description what it means to be a measure of value: 


Even if there is a double coincidence of wants, and the two comodity traders 

agree on an exchange, they cannot know whether they arrived at the “right” 

exchange proportions. For example, I want to buy a pig and someone else 

needs shoes that I make. We both want what the other person has so we 

barter. We decide that 1 pig=20 shoes. The problem is that this relation is 

not possible in society. We must not trade in shoes or pigs to get the right 

abstract labor, but in the third form, the socially accepted form, money. 

Marx implies that the commodities do not have a social form of value. 

But they can get a social form of value if confronted with money. This is the most basic 

function of money, money as a measure of value. 

Next, KALISPEL makes an interesting connection: 

Marx, makes an important point R143:3/0. If the theoretical mind comes to 

an unresolvable contradiction, practical man can keep on going: by creating 

the social forms which resolve these dilemmas. However, here I disagree 

with Marx. This concept would mean that capitalism will work out fine because 

we have instituted ways to resolve dilemmas through social programs 

such as welfare and unemployment compensation. 

You are drawing a very good parallel here. The answer to your objection lies in the 

meaning of the word “resolve”. On 198:2, Marx stresses that, in general, real contradictions 

cannot be resolved by abolishing them, but merely by providing a form in which they can 

move. And in a famous passage on p. 208:2/o Marx shows that even with the development 

of money, the contradictions of the barter are still there, but they take a different form now. 

I hope that this will give you more confidence that Marxism is indeed a powerful enough 

theory to guide us in our quest for a better society. 

In the following passage you are trying to make the transition from simple commodity 

circulation to capitalism by saying: circulation of commodities leads to hoards, and hoards 

lead to capitalism. 

The circulation of money permits and requires the formation of hoards, 

stocks of money held either to facilitate circulation of commodities, or to 

accumulate the crystallized abstract labour of the society as an end in itself. 

Money is the end result in capitalism. 

Marx’s transition at the beginning of Chapter Four is a little different. He says: Circulation 

leads to the breakup of direct barter into the two acts C-M-C, but the elements C-M and 

M-C can also be put together in the “wrong” order M-C-M, and this is capitalism. 

Finally, coming back to Question 190, KALISPEL writes: 

In response to the question. Marx agrees that money is an instrument for 

the “double coincidence of wants”. 

This is wrong, but perhpas it is merely a semantic question about what it means to be an 

instrument. At the beginning of his answer, KALISPEL had shown very clearly a different


interpretation: that money is the development of something that is already inherent in the 

commodity. This is different from being an instrument, by which Marx means some external 

“trick”. 


Question 191 is 180 in 1995WI, 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, 381 in 2010fa, 363 in 2011fa, 377 in 2012fa, and 191 in Answer: 

Question 191 Which “deed” is Marx referring to here? 

[278] Pinky: The deed Marx is referring here to the “social deed” applied to remedy 

the contradictions of commodity exchange. A system of exchange of expanded forms of 

value having equivalent forms that are mutually exclusive is not feasible. The value of the 

commodities that would have to be exchanged will almost always be subjective. Therefore, 

a universal equivalent to enable exchange is needed. This social equivalent is money. Money 

implies a social form of value upon the commodities it purchases. 



[317] Panacea: Examining ‘Logos’ Pinky already shed quite a bit of light on this issue 

with his/her posting [278], but I thought about the question in an entirely different way, being 

a literature major rather than an economics major. I want to focus a bit on the ‘subjectivity’ 

issue Pinky mentions: 

A system of exchange of expanded forms of value having equivalent forms 

that are mutually exclusive is not feasible. The value of the commodities 

that would have to be exchanged will almost always be subjective. 

Goethe’s Faust is such an epic piece of literature, I think we can only do Marx’s quote justice 

if we look at Goethe’s text. In the scene, a convuluted mirroring of Faust’s contemperary 

Martin Luther is attempted - Faust is seeking inspiration and knowledge by translating the 

Gospel of John from Greek into German. The steps lend themself very well to Marx’s three 

conundrums (I take this from the version translated by Walter Arndt): 

“In the beginning there was the Word”(1) - thus runs the text. Who helps me on? Already 

I’m perplexed! I cannot grant the word such soveriegn merit, I must translate it in a different 

way If I’m indeed illuminated by the Spirit. “In the beginning was the Sense.”(2) But stay! 

Reflect on this first sentence well and truly Lest the pen be hurrying unduly! Is sense in fact 

all action’s spur and source? It should read: “In the beginning there was the Force!”(3) Yet 

as I write it down, some warning sense Alerts me that it, too, will give offense. The Spirit 

speaks! And lo, the way is freed, I calmly write: “In the beginning there was the Deed.”(4) 

We have here four different (and all correct I might add) translations of the Greek “logos” 

- Word/Wort, Sense?Sinn, Force/Kraft, Deed/Tat. Faust translation of “deed” represents 

his search in the drama: he has studied and studied all there is to study, yet finds himself 

impotent intellectually because of his lack of experience - his lack of action, of Deeds. 

Goethe’s source may very well have been his contempary philosopher named Fichte, who 

in his “Wissensschaftslehre” wrote, and forgive my translation: “experience, consciousness, 


even LIFE ITSELF begins only when the ‘self’ portrays itself through action.” Maybe this 

seems very abstract in reference to Marx - but then, why does he make this particular quote 

while dealing with his three conundrums? 

In Goethe’s quote above, (1) could represent the beginning, the very simple starting point 

from which to analyze owner/commodity relations. (It is also Fausts way of saying Luther 

is simple and naive, since this is how Luther translates the verse) “The Word” is not enough, 

and in this case decieving for Marx as well as us. This moves us to (2), which could be 

construed as Marx’s first conundrum, having to do with the owner’s intentions to accrue 

‘use value’ - for Goethe: Sense or Feeling? - which would be directly opposed to (3), the 

second conundra, the exchange value - for Goethe: Force or Strength. These two conundrum 

conflict - I like Hans’s analogy of the refrigerators and the flowers. The implication of this 

conflict reflects the subjectivity, the individuality of the forces at play - neither the use-value 

nor the exchange value have inherent and absolute ‘social forms’. What is worth a hundred 

roses to one may be worth only ninety-five to another - or absolutely useless to a third. 

Goethe’s (4) - the transformation/ substitution of ‘word’ with ‘deed’ is reflective of 

Marx’s third conundrum, and obviously why he used the quote at this point in the text rather 

than earlier or not at all. Marx has come to a similar conclusion as Faust: “In their difficulties 

our commodity owners think like Faust: ‘In the beginning was the deed.’ They have 

therefore already acted before thinking.” (Marx) Commodity owners have the third conuncrum 

as a illusionary (in my opinion) solution: they give social forms or structures to their 

exchanges in order to somehow regulate them. The first two only create confusion, so they 

apply a third, simpler idea: “they do not confront each other as commodoties, but as products 

or use-values only.” (Marx) They create the illusion that their values have social objectivity, 

rather than simply individual subjectivity. Scary. 

The whole point, to me, seems to simply be Marx’s observation - they act before thinking. 

They are wrong in doing this, just as Faust was wrong in his translation, but continue this 

strange phenomenon. 

I’m interested in a response from fellow students as well as Hans. 

Panacea “...no one seems to know ’bout the death-wish that they’ve signed...” Beautiful 

South 

Hans: Being an English major does not excuse you from understanding Marx’s argument, and your contribution 

shows that you still have some misunderstandings! Try to read! Isn’t that what English majors are supposed to be 

able to do? 

Message [317] referenced by [Answer:15], [328], and [2011fa:383]. Next Message by Panacea is [333]. 

[328] Hans: Goethe, Marx, Bhaskar Thank you, Panacea, for your very stimulating 

contribution [317]. Here is my attempt at interpreting Faust’s monologue, right now without 

recourse to chapter Two in Marx. Disclaimer: I have not studied that stuff, I do not know 

the many interpretations of Goethe’s Faust, therefore I do not really know what I am talking 

about. Which does not diminish my pleasure in saying it. Here I go: 

“In the beginning there was the Word” - thus runs the text. Who helps me 

on? Already I’m perplexed! I cannot grant the word such sovereign merit, 

I must translate it in a different way If I’m indeed illuminated by the Spirit.


Faust is on the search for the first principles, for “was die Welt im innersten zusammenhaelt” 

(can you supply an appropriately poetic English translation of this line, Panacea?). 

He rejects the “word”. Why? An alternative and perhaps clearer translation of the third line 

above would be: “I cannot possibly hold the word in such high esteem” (Ich kann das Wort 

so hoch unmoeglich schaetzen). The word cannot possibly have such an important task as 

to be what holds the world together. Therefore he goes on with his search: 

“In the beginning was the Sense.” But stay! Reflect on this first sentence 

well and truly Lest the pen be hurrying unduly! Is sense in fact all action’s 

spur and source? 

Everything hinges here on the translation of “sense”, in German “Sinn”. It does clearly 

not mean “perception” or “feeling,” here you went down the wrong path, Panacea. “Sinn” 

and “Gefuehl” are not synonymous at all! I think it should be translated with something like 

“meaning”, “notion”, “idea”, “logic”, “thought”. I will use “idea” in what follows. Faust 

wants to find something that is deeper than the word, and therefore he goes over to that 

which the word signifies, and that is the idea. Words are expressions of ideas. This is why 

so many philosophies (like the Hegelian, and BTW Hegel called Goethe a “good authority”) 

end up thinking the world is populated by ideas. Marx sees where the error lies in this. In 

his Introduction to Grundrisse, mecw28, p. 38, Marx writes: 

The whole, as it appears in the head as a whole based on thoughts, is a product 

of the thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way open 

to it, and which differs from the artistic, religious, or practical-intellectual 

appropriation of this world. 

Since my translation differs a lot from the prettified but unintelligible text in mecw, I am 

supplying here also the German: 

Das Ganze, wie es im Kopfe als Gedankenganzes erscheint, ist ein Produkt 

des denkenden Kopfes, der sich die Welt in der ihm einzig moeglichen 

Weise aneignet, einer Weise, die verschieden ist von der kuenstlerischen, 

religioesen, praktisch-geistigen Aneignung dieser Welt. 

In other words, we think the world is populated with ideas because our head can conceive 

of the world only in terms of ideas. This is not quite as deep as Bhaskar, who continues 

to ask: if logical thinking allows us to make conclusions about the world, then this tells 

us something about the world. But Marx does notice here something which Bhaskar calls 

the “epistemic fallacy”: we should not confuse the world with what we are thinking about 

the world. Clearly this is the motivation for Faust’s next step, the transition from logical 

necessity to natural necessity: 

It should read: “In the beginning there was the Force!” 

Force is what Bhaskar would call the “generative mechanisms.” Yet Faust is still not 

satisfied: 


Yet as I write it down, some warning sense Alerts me that it, too, will give 

offense. 

Why will it give offense? Because it is reification. A force must always be the force of 

something, it cannot float in thin air. Bhaskar says, generative mechanisms are always the 

ways of things to act, see RTS2, pp. 49/50, and he has an interesting argument to support it: 

because forces are not always active. Also Faust arrives at the action (which presupposes an 

actor, although Faust does not say this here): 

The Spirit speaks! And lo, the way is freed, I calmly write: “In the beginning 

there was the Deed.” 

By the way, Faust’s trek out of his study room into the world of deeds reminds me of 

Bhaskar’s extension of philosophy from its traditional realms into new areas, in his “Dialectic”. 

No wonder the philosophers whom he left behind are pissed off. 

Now what is the connection of all this with the three conundra of the exchange process in 

Chapter Two of Capital? In their aftermath, Marx writes: 

In their dilemma our commodity-owners think like Faust: ‘In the beginning 

was the deed.’ They have therefore already acted before thinking. 

Our mental appropriation of the exchange process has led us into irreconcilable contradictions. 

But now we should remind ourselves of the differences between the brain and the 

real social forces: the brain can only think, but the real social forces can act, they can create 

new conditions. And the condition which they created is: they have selected one commodity 

as the general equivalent. This allows the exchange process to go on without being thwarted 

by its contradictions. 

Message [328] referenced by [Answer:15]. Next Message by Hans is [346]. 

[342] Panacea: Goethe and Marx Hans, you criticize yourself needlessly - your knowledge 

of secondary literature dwarfs mine, putting me necessarily on the defensive - yet I 

differ with you on a few points and wish to clarify a few others. Much of this may seem 

trivial to other members of the class, but let me continue: 

“In the beginning there was the Word” - thus runs the text. Who helps me 

on? Already I’m perplexed! I cannot grant the word such sovereign merit, 

I must translate it in a different way If I’m indeed illuminated by the Spirit. 

Faust is on the search for the first principles, for “was die Welt im innersten 

zusammenhaelt” (can you supply an appropriately poetic English translation 

of this line, Panacea?). 

I’m glad you pulled this out, Hans. It is a very interesting line, and offers another clue as 

to why Marx saw relevance. The Norton translation by Walter Arndt is rather clumsy: “...the 

inmost force / that bonds the very universe,...” I would translate it more as “...that inner force 

which holds the world together...”, which is perhaps less poetic yet more exact - but then I 

am no professional.


Is this not that after which Marx himself seeks - the inner force which holds Capitalism 

together? Marx is, in this light, a Faustian figure - even more so when we recognize (now 

this is blatantly my opinion) the relation with the ‘salvation through sin’ topos of Goethean 

tragedy - we can find social salvation through wading through capitalist moral sin (fairly 

blatant, eh?). But this is all tertiary, unimportant. 

Everything hinges here on the translation of “sense”, in German “Sinn”. It 

does clearly not mean “perception” or “feeling,” here you went down the 

wrong path, Panacea. “Sinn” and “Gefuehl” are not synonymous at all! 

OK, Hans - this is where I win. For years critics have found a base similarity in some 

usage between the two, ‘Sinn’ and ‘Feeling’, most especially in this passage. Cyrus Hamlin 

draws an analogue to this from line 3465 - in English for our non-german speakers, “Feeling 

is all!” Whereas the contemporary religions accept Luthers ‘Am Anfang war das Wort’, 

Faust cannot accept names for God, nor can language attempt to explain God - this ‘feeling’ 

is then used in an almost identical form - and leads necessarily to ‘Kraft’ or power in the 

next lines. And Hans, what after all is “Gefuehl” wenn nicht ein “Sinn”? 

I think it should be translated with something like “meaning”, “notion”, 

“idea”, “logic”, “thought”. I will use “idea” in what follows. Faust wants 

to find something that is deeper than the word, and therefore he goes over 

to that which the word signifies, and that is the idea. Words are expressions 

of ideas. This is why so many philosophies (like the Hegelian, and 

BTW Hegel called Goethe a “good authority”) end up thinking the world is 

populated by ideas. 

Again, I think we are simply saying the same thing, only not understanding each other. 

Why will it give offense? Because it is reification. A force must always be 

the force of something, it cannot float in thin air. Bhaskar says, generative 

mechanisms are always the ways of things to act, see RTS2, pp. 49/50, 

and he has an interesting argument to support it: because forces are not 

always active. Also Faust arrives at the action (which presupposes an actor, 

although Faust does not say this here): 

The Spirit speaks! And lo, the way is freed, I calmly write: “In the beginning 

there was the Deed.” 

Did you perhaps notice the circular argument here, Hans? What ‘power’ shows him the 

way to his ‘senses’? - “The Spirit SPEAKS!” Thus, without Faust evidently realizing it, we 

are back to Luther’s translation: In the beginning was the Word, and here is where the real 

reification appears in my humble opinion - in both Goethe’s text and in all of Christianity. 

More of Goethe’s ambivilence. 

Now what is the connection of all this with the three conundra of the exchange 

process in Chapter Two of Capital? In their aftermath, Marx writes: 


In their dilemma our commodity-owners think like Faust: ‘In the beginning 

was the deed.’ They have therefore already acted before thinking. 

Acted before thinking - because commodity owners automatically and subconsciously 

judge the value of our commodities in reference to two often diametricly opposed conditions 

- 1) the use value the owner can squeeze out of the commodity he owns, and 2) the 

exchange value he can squeeze out of it if he sells it on the market. The headache enters the 

picture when we realize that fifteen different people view the same commodity with potentially 

fifteen different use and exchange values because each of us have different and varied 

needs/desires. To solve this headache we use MONEY, and I love the first quote Marx uses 

in reference to this, although I find it considerable strained - Revelations 13:17 and 17:13. 

Beautiful - Money is the Beast! 

But now we should remind ourselves of the differences between the brain 

and the real social forces: the brain can only think, but the real social forces 

can act, they can create new conditions. 

Hans, just one more point considering the bewildering conundra: two quotes from Goethe 

which underly, arguably, everyone of his works. More specifacly, I think they address exactly 

that of which you write: the differences between the brain and social forces surrounding 

us. I really hope these two quotes appear somewhere later in Marx’s text. They moreover 

stress the ambivelence which Goethe so dearly loved: 

“Only by making the riches of others our own do we bring anything great into being.” 

-and- “What can we in fact call our own except the energy, the force, the will!” 

Two very capitalist approaches to human nature - on the one hand advocating exploitation 

in the name of creation, and on the other recognizing the one thing each man can really own: 

his/her own labour power. What then should we exploit in others? Eachother’s labour power, 

naturally. Unlike Goethe’s friend and companion, the younger radical Schiller, Goethe was 

a life long advocate of the Bourgiousie, and forever an upholder of classical aristocratic 

traditions. Schade, na? Der alte Spiesser, der schoen dichten konnte. 

Panacea “...to be honest, I don’t hold much respect for ‘words’ or ‘thoughts’. For me, the 

only value lies in ‘things’...” Siddhartha Hermann Hesse (my translation) 



1998WI, 233 in 2000fa, 312 in 2005fa, 343 in 2008SP, 343 in 2008fa, 368 in 2011fa, and 

382 in 2012fa: 

Question 192 Why is the occasional exchange of surplus products between tribes not an 

exchange of “commodities” but one of “products”? 

[279] Chacci: Immediate Product Exchange The occasional exchange of surplus products 

between tribes in not an exchange of commodities. The definition of a commodity is 

something that is produced for sale or exchange. The tribe produced the product to satisfy 

needs of the tribe not for the explicit intention of sale or exchange. During the production, 

if a surplus is produced, the tribe has no use for it, so it can be traded to another tribe that


may have desire for the item. To quote Hans ‘The immediate product exchange is a mutual 

giving away of products based on the mutual desire of the owners to exchange them.’ The 

two conditions for immediate product exchange are met. First, since the product is a surplus, 

the tribe has no need for the use value they intend to exchange. Second, both the tribes 

recognize that each other is the private owners of what they intend to exchange. Thus they 

must be an exchange of products, not an exchange of commodities. 

Hans: Very good. I have nothing to add. 

Message [279] referenced by [294]. Next Message by Chacci is [405.5]. 

[280] Super: When the exchange of products are described as just “products” they are seen 

for only their use-value. People in tribal communities percieve these products as something 

they need for survival. Once the product is looked upon for not only it’s use-value but also 

for it’s exchange value it becomes a commodity. A portion of the commodity is produced 

for the reason of exchange with another commodity which has equivalent exchange value. 

These commodities are in a movable form so that the owner can transport it, for the reason 

of exchange, to other distant communities. 

Hans: The difference does not just lie in the way people see their products. Production for the exchange is a 

different social organization of production than production for immediate use by the tribe. 

Another error in your answer: things can be exchanged even if they cannot be transported (houses). 

Message [280] referenced by [294]. Next Message by Super is [395.1]. 

[294] Jake: Tribal Trade For a commodity to be considered a product, Marx first talks 

about owners of commodities and how they relate their commodities with certain equivalents 

of other commodities. Since all commodities exchange with each other in the market, there 

is no commodity that acts as the universal equivalent. The commodities confront each other 

as products. The only real meaning of exchange being their use-values. 

When a tribe exchanges goods or products with another tribe, the gain from the exchange 

is purely in the use-value that each tribe receives from the exchange. If they didn’t make the 

exchange, it can be considered that the goods not exchanged would probably go to waste. 

This principal of the goods being considered products and not commodities can be explained 

by the tribe possessing the excess goods. Excess goods lose value because of the lack of 

purpose for them. As the good gains potential use-value then it becomes a product. If the 

tribes original purpose of the over production of the good was strictly for exchange, then it 

is still considered a commodity because the production of it was for the intented purpose of 

exchange. Because the tribe occasionally trades with the other tribe, one might think of the 

surplus resulting from a good harvest year or something similar to that. The potential is still 

there that the excess product won’t be exchanged. This is then not considered a loss because 

the good wasn’t produced for trade. 

Hans: The word “product” comes from “produce,” it is something that is produced. A “good” is a thing with a use 

value (whether produced or not). You are grappling with the right issues, and you found another quote where Marx 

speaks of the exchange of products (as opposed to exchange of commodities). But analytically I do not see you 

going beyond Chacci’s [279] or Super’s [280]. 


Question 197 is 185 in 1995WI, 163 in 1995ut, 199 in 1996ut, 218 in 1997sp, 210 in 

1997ut, 229 in 1999SP, and 391 in 2010fa: 

Question 197 Why does a general equivalent become necessary as the number and differentiation 

of commodities increases? 


[303] Homer: question 197 Simple exchange, bartering, is one product being directly 

exchanged for another product. Primitive societies were used to bartering the same products 

and had traditional and sometimes ritual procedures to govern these exchanges. These procedures 

made the exchanges easy and were adequate for the situation. With the development 

of generalized commerce, the situation became much more complex. Instead of a single 

product exchanged for other products (one tribe’s surplus for anothers); a large number of 

commodities are exchanged for many different commodities. Instead of one craft measuring 

the labor time invested in a commodity with the labor time of another craft; dozens, or perhaps 

more, crafts have to compare their respective productive efforts. In addition, the owner 

of commodity “A” has to find a buyer who has commodities that are wannted by the owner 

of “A”. For smooth exchanges based on equivalence to take place, a commodity in which 

all other commodities can express their respective exchange values is needed. This need is 

satisfied by the universal equivalent commodity. 

Hans: Good answer to an easy Question. I like your mention of the exchange rituals. Apparently even in the 

absence of a general equivalent, barter was not an individual act but was given social form. Any anthropologists 

out there who might be able to fill us in on the details? 


Question 199 is 188 in 1995WI, 221 in 1998WI, 350 in 2008SP, and 375 in 2011fa: 

Question 199 Why could the idea to use land as money arise only when capitalism was 

already developed? 

[295] Karl: Land as money In my estimation, it is important to look at historical evidences 

of why this question makes sense. Delving into the mercantilist era before a real 

capitalistic structure we see that they did not use land as a means of exchange, wealth or 

money. They were primarily dealing in precious metals(ie: gold, silver). There universal 

equivalent form was based upon a nomadic lifestyle, which according to the text, was when 

the need for an equivalent form of commodities usually takes place. The mercantilist did not 

operate in a real capitalistic market, and therefore land was not “viewed” as being an item of 

exchange, or a means to acquiring wealth. This came in the reaction against the mercantilist. 

In the 1700’s the physiocrats developed the ideology that land itself could be exchanged as 

a money form. The ideologies of Quesnay for instance did not start to take hold until a more 

capitalistic system evolved. This is where Marx steps in to say that this can only happenin a 

“bourgeois society”, this is the case of the French aristocrats during the start towards a more 

defined capitalist system. 

This ties in directly to what Marx said regarding private property, or the ability to own 

land. Marx said, “Property (such as land), is not assigned to you...” He goes on to mention 

that it is only when people consent to land being a private exchangable commodity that it 

actually takes place. In a command economy any land is not owned privately. In primitive 

societies there tends to be a lack of ownership concept. For example, the existence of the 

ownership of private property was not held by the American Indians prior to the settlements 

by the European capitalists, which caused a great faction. These ideas were introduced in 

the peak of capatilism by such people as John Locke. From the text we also see that Locke 

was wrong in believing that gold as a money form held an imaginary value. This is the 

illusion that only capitalism can create, as I discussed primitive and command economies


do not create this deception. This capitalistic idea even penetrated itself into the American 

Bill of Rights, “life, liberty, and property.” You see, capitalism relies on this created concept 

that we can own land. It is only in the frame of capitalism that we can blindly accept the 

fact that land is owned, and this is what allows it to possess all the attributes of the universal 

equivalent form, or of the money form. 

Hans: Your last sentence says it best, and the idea is throughout your submission, but you should have thought it 

through and formulated it a little more cripsly. Land is the most basic condition of life. The general equivalent is 

the most “liquid” commodity, the one which most easily changes hands. Only under capitalism, when people are 

generally uprooted and separated from their means of sustenance, will it occur to them to use land as money. 



1997ut, 290 in 2003fa, 327 in 2004fa, 321 in 2005fa, 342 in 2007SP, 352 in 2008SP, and 

377 in 2011fa: 

Question 200 Explain in your own words the meaning of the sentence: “Although gold and 

silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver.” 

[285] Panacea: Goldie Hawn and Long John Silver Whether or not gold or silver 

have inherent properties ( z.B.: general degree of scarcity, yet relatively well distributed 

throughout the world, etc.) would not seem to be the point here, for there are better natural 

commodities in existence which could be used. In addition, it would seem that gold/silver’s 

scarcity paired together with its use as ‘money’ is in contradiction to Marx’s LVT. Then why 

silver and gold? 

Another way to look at the question is from the stand point of ‘origin’. It is difficult to 

find the beginning of it’s use in history as negotiable tender; the Bible is replete with examples 

of their use. Then which came first: the “bullion perception” or gold/silver, or in 

other words, did humans create the value of gold/silver, or does gold/silver inherently have 

“money-value”, yet another kind of value with mysterious properties all its own? I personally 

see very obvious religious implications - that the history of christianity, especially, 

seems to be intertwined around the history of gold value is to me, suspect. Are their ‘divine’ 

reasons for gold’s value to man, real or imagined? A naive thought, but there may be something 

to it. I’ve heard arguments like “God made it to adorn the beauty of man and women” 

repeat ad nauseum. 

For Marx, as I understand the issue, the question is reduced to the term ‘fetish’ - the 

case in which “social properties of commodities do not come from society but from nature,” 

as Hans has said before. Considering Marx’s attitude towards religion, I believe he would 

agree that religion is a very important catalyst for this fetish. The history of man’s fetish 

with gold and silver would certainly read as a comedy for other-worldly archeologists come 

to excavate our culture twenty thousand years from now. 

Panacae “...if you want to reach the American Dream, you’ll need a trampoline...” Beautiful 

South 

Hans: You understand that the Question is about: why have gold and silver (and not some other commodities) 

been selected as the money material? But you are ignoring Marx’s very puzzling formulation: “money is by nature 

gold and silver.” Why would Marx say something like this? An important part of your answer to the question is: 

There are better natural commodities in existence [than silver and gold] which could be used. 


I doubt this, and I would be curious which commodities you mean. Since you do not see a logical reason why gold 

and silver were selected, it makes sense to look at the historical origin of this convention. But I am very suspicious 

about your concept of “money-value,” this does not seem to fit into a Marxian framework. 


Question 202 is 191 in 1995WI, 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, 401 in 2010fa, 383 in 2011fa, and 397 in 2012fa: 

Question 202 Explain the sentence: “The exchange process gives the commodity which it 

turns into money not its value, but its specific form of value.” Which specific value form does 

Marx mean here? 

[323] Peaches: Extra Credit A commodity’s specific value-form is that form of value 

which will be associated with that commodity’s use value alone. Remember, use value is 

that physical property or appearance which makes it a useful thing. Value is that property of 

things which gives them weight on the market. I interpret Marx’ meaning as such: a model 

is normally pretty, slim, and “healthy” (relatively speaking). She has a commodity, “looks” 

that she sells on the market. Her use value is her “talent.” The market has given each of 

many models a specific value-form depending on what other talents they possess, ie. Cindy 

Crawford vs. Bette Midler. Cindy Crawford graduated from college and Bette Midler has 

a beautiful voice. So each sell for their own “qualities.” So Marx would say that each has 

its specific form of value from somewhere else than where it got its value. Does that make 

sense or am I completely off the hook? 

Message [323] referenced by [324]. Next Message by Peaches is [370.1]. 

[324] Hans: Peaches is answering a different Question Peaches’s answer [323] is, 

as she herself suspected, completely off. Her answer would have been justified had the 

Question been: the market gives every commodity a specific form of use value (instead of 

value). This could also be justified: product differentiation makes things easier to sell, see 

Question 64 about that. 

Question 202 refers to a specific sentence written by Marx, and Peaches should have 

worked through the text in the neighborhood of Question 202 in order to understand the 

flow of Marx’s argument. 



Question 206 What is the magic of money? Explain it as a higher developed form of the 

fetish-like character of the commodity. 

[292] Emma: Magic of Money That money is magical is virtually taken for granted in 

our capitalist/market society. It’s interesting to look more deeply at the “why’s.” 

First, the direct answer to the question seems to be that the magic of money lies in its 

ability to instantly take on the characteristics of human labor and become “the direct incarnation 

of all human labor.” Further, money becomes the manifestation of the social relations 

of production through objectified form which is “beyond their [people’s] control and independent 

of their conscious striving...” Before going any farther, I would just say that I believe


Marx is wrong in maintaining that money as the objectifiable for of social relations is beyond 

people’s control. It is clearly the consent of society that allows the phenomenon to occur. 

That it happens without conscious thought individually is true enough, but that is more the 

result of its successful application and generally successful results in market circumstances 

than some conspiracy to alienatae people from their labors. Were money ever to not fulfill its 

purpose as a medium of convenient exchange and solution to the “double instance” problem, 

society would quickly make the process conscious and change it. Marx seem to be implying 

that there are forces working without society’s consent, which I don’t think is the case. 

I do find Marx’ description of the properties necessary for a commodity to become money 

very interesting. Marx is right on the money (pun intended) when he says “money form 

comes to ‘be attached’ to the most important articles of exchange...” Or to the “object of 

utility which forms the chief element of indigenous alienable wealth, for example cattle.” 

It’s interesting to note other forms of money used especially in extreme situations when 

conventional forms were not available. For example, cigarettes were used in Europe during 

WWII and in the POW camps as currency. Although I suppose one could argue that 

cigarettes possess some “indigenous alienable wealth,” they were for the most part symbols 

of wealth. And this brings up another point. The same could be said for paper money. I 

don’t completely understand Marx’s contention that money is not merely a symbol. It seems 

clear that in some instances that is just what it is, especially since we are no longer on the 

gold standard. Did Marx anticipate our situation without the gold standard in his theory? 

From last week’s discussion in class one might have gotten the impression that capitalists 

everywhere were “collecting” money for its own sake. This would seem to be an example 

of money fetishism. The claim is also untrue. Most people, even capitalists, know that 

money is inherently useless, that its power is derivative in today’s capitalism. But the notion 

is not without some historical precedent. With the mercantilists, money was power, as if 

money could of itself effect something. Well, Adam Smith and other showed them to be 

wrong. Still, there do seem to be some capitalists who seem to be collecting money for no 

other purpose than to have more. For them, the accumulation of money beomes an end. 

But that doesn’t remove the fetish like character of the behavior, or legitimize it. What is 

often mistaken as the pure fetishism of collecting money is really the pursuit of what money 

represents, that is, food, clothing, shelter, etc. 

The fetish like character of money is also seen in the notion of financial capital and money. 

Money a capital is often believed, incorrectly, to contain some magical inherent quality to 

grow without a relation to the labor process. This is seen in the interest and interest rate 

components of depositing capital in interest bearing accounts. The faultiness of this thinking 

is best seen in the extreme example of the results that would attend to everyone’s investing 

their capital at the same time with the same expectations of growth. Obviously without the 

labor process component the capital is just going to sit there. 

Message [292] referenced by [311]. Next Message by Emma is [376]. 

[311] Hans: Emma’s objections against Marx Emma’s answer [292] to Question 206 

has some arguments against Marx. I am glad someone is bringing such arguments (and I 

am encouraging others to do the same). Since I think that Emma is not the only participant 


in class who has some objections against Marx’s theory, I will reply publicly with possible 

Marxist responses to Emma. 

Emma’s first objection is: 

I believe Marx is wrong in maintaining that money as the objectifiable for 

of social relations is beyond people’s control. It is clearly the consent of 

society that allows the phenomenon to occur. That it happens without conscious 

thought individually is true enough, but that is more the result of its 

successful application and generally successful results in market circumstances 

than some conspiracy to alienatae people from their labors. Were 

money ever to not fulfill its purpose as a medium of convenient exchange 

and solution to the “double instance” problem, society would quickly make 

the process conscious and change it. 

My answer consists of three parts: 

(1) For Marx, the central economic function of money was not that of means of circulation, 

and the “double coincidence of wants” is for Marx not the only issue complicating the 

direct exchange. But this is only a side note in the present context. 

(2) In Section 3 of Chapter One, Marx develops the general equivalent as the most appropriate 

“form of value”. In my view, this Section is so relevant for modern times because 

nowadays, money is very much a creation of policy, and the goal of monetary policy is 

exactly to ensure that money is a good external represenation of the value inherent in the 

economy. Subject my point (1), that it is not the function of money as means of circulation, 

but its function as measure of value (i.e., the stability of the value of the dollar), I agree here 

with Emma. 

(3) Where is then the point where people are not in control of their social relations? Our 

economy needs money (with all the bad things coming from it) because production is done 

privately, and the products will find their social “validation” only afterwards, on the market. 

Marx basically says that this is a very odd way to run the economy. If you try to run the 

economy in this way, then it is not you who is running the economy but the economy is 

running you. 

Next I want to comment on a point Emma brings in her contribution which is not an 

objection to Marx. She writes: 

Although I suppose one could argue that cigarettes possess some “indigenous 

alienable wealth,” they were for the most part symbols of wealth. 

I disagree. It is a sad testimony of the addictive powers of nicotine that even in situations 

of severe economic hardship, those who smoked still needed cigarettes. Cigarettes served 

as money because they were the most demanded goods, they were not merely symbols of 

wealth. 

Now comes Emma’s second objection to Marx:


I don’t completely understand Marx’s contention that money is not merely 

a symbol. It seems clear that in some instances that is just what it is, especially 

since we are no longer on the gold standard. 

Marx says that in its function as means of exchange, money can indeed be replaced by a 

symbol of itself. But the function of measure of value cannot be played by a symbol. Commodity 

money relies on the fact that money can be mined in the ground in order to ensure 

price stability. Nowadays other mechanisms are used. But you need some real mechanisms 

which have some clout behind them. In my view, the world-wide military superiority of the 

United states is the muscle which gives US monetary policy enough power to have a real 

economic impact. 

Emma’s third objection is: 

From last week’s discussion in class one might have gotten the impression 

that capitalists everywhere were “collecting” money for its own sake. This 

would seem to be an example of money fetishism. The claim is also untrue. 

As a reason why this claim is untrue, Emma says that 

Most people, even capitalists, know that money is inherently useless, that 

its power is derivative in today’s capitalism. 

My answer here is: despite the fact that the capitalists know that the accumulation of 

more and more wealth is an absurd goal (it would be absurd even in a monetary regime 

when money represents real value), they are forced to accumulate more and more, because 

otherwise they would be driven out of business. What is worse, the economy is organized 

in such a way that it cannot function unless it “grows.” Here “growth” does not mean the 

provision of wealth for the population, but the accumulation of monetary wealth in the hands 

of the few. This necessity of growth is a systemic “spell” built into the structure of the 

economy. It is not really wanted by anyone, but individuals are not in charge of the economy, 

not even the capitalsits are in charge of this economy. Notwithstanding the obscene wealth 

of a small minority of the population, the luxury consumption of the capitalsits is not the 

purpose of the capitalist economy either. 


Question 207 is 363 in 2008SP, 392 in 2011fa, and 406 in 2012fa: 

Question 207 Are people, by their atomistic attitude towards each other, responsible for 

their lack of control over their own social relations? 

Question 208 is 363 in 2008SP, 392 in 2011fa, and 406 in 2012fa: 

Question 208 Is a person’s attitude towards other individuals the reason whether this person 

ends up as a capitalist or a worker or what other position they will inhabit in capitalist 

social relations? 

[287] Panacea: Who is to blame? Perhaps the question could be reformulated as “do 

people have control over / responsibility for their social relations?” My answer to Marx 


would be ‘jaein’ - ja and nein. The German slang word for the capitalist who drives a giant 

mercedes and wears Boss suits is ‘Spiesser’ - literally, from the word ‘Spiess’, or spear, the 

word means ‘the one who spears things.’ The connotation is that the capitalist is much like 

a hunter, killing things around him. 

I write this to explain a perspective on capitalism: it is a game of cat and mouse, with 

some of us being cats, some mice. There inevitably needs to be many more mice than there 

are cats, or else the cats will starve. The big ‘Fat Cat’ reaches his physical position by eating 

a lot of mice, and is praised for his ability at ‘mousing’... 

This is one perspective of capitalism, whether we like it or not. Some will defend it with 

the old argumant “but the only mice who get eaten are the old and infirm. The cats keep us 

strong and smart” and other crap. Social Darwinism. But this doesn’t answer the question 

of ‘whose fault is the cat and mouse game in the first place?’ 

Can we blame capitalists for making lots of money? Marx seems to say no, and I agree. 

But are the labourers and blue collar workers of our nation responsible for their social status? 

Also no. The system has put them there, people are to a great extent born into a ‘caste’ in 

America (though many are able to break out of it, don’t think this always means they move 

up in the class system. Many move down as well). 

On another level, all of us are responsible for allowing it to continue, and this responsibility, 

I feel, is graduated depending on your ability to effect change. Whether the Spiesser 

continues spearing the lower class is his responsibility. 

Panacea “...looking for the wings of angels in the den of a hawk...” Beautiful South 

Hans: It is easier for a capitalist to stop being a capitalist and become a worker than for a worker to stop being a 

worker and become a capitalist, but is this the change we want? Capitalists may have more resources to fight the 

system if they desire to do so, but they also have been brainwashed more, and if they succeed, they will deprive 

themselves of a livelihood. The upshot of these dilemmas is that we can only then effectively fight against the 

system if we organize, it cannot be done individually. 

Message [287] referenced by [2008SP:850] and [2011fa:401]. Next Message by Panacea is [317]. 

Exam Question 210 is 197 in 1995WI, 176 in 1995ut, 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, 496 in 2010fa, 506 in 2011fa, and 528 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 210 Give examples for “advancing” and “expending” money. 

[306] Dunny: question 210 The “advancing” and “expending” of money. A woman takes 

her hard earned savings to buy an older house with the idea of fixing it up or refurbishing it 

in some sort of way to improve the resale value of the home. She wants to get it done fast so 

that she can have a greater amount of money soon. This is an example of the “advancing” 

of money. This woman took her money (savings) and purchased a commodity. She had no 

desire to hang on to that commodity but her real desire was to get more money for the same 

house. 

Suppose the situation were a little different. This woman already owned a small home 

that she had lived in for quite some time. She realizes that the house is just to small for 

her needs so she sells her cute little house so that she can purchase a larger home that will


satisfy all of her needs and wants. To me this is the “spending” of money. She was not in 

it for the money but simply wanted to sell her commodity for money so that she could buy 

another commodity. These two ideas can be compared to investment and consumption. The 

first of the two ladies was buying and selling a house as an investment opportunity while the 

latter was merely trying to satisfy her own desires by consuming another commodity with 

no intention of selling it. 

Hans: A very good pair of examples. It is a good didactical device to make them as similar as possible in all 

respects except those that count. 

Message [306] referenced by [2005fa:1007]. Next Message by Dunny is [335.5]. 

Question 211 is 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, 497 in 2010fa, 530 in 2012fa, and 497 in Answer: 

Question 211 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? 

[289] Angela: C-M-C and M-C-M The first question, I think it is C-M-C. Because 

he buys first car and uses it. After tow years latter, he trades it for a new car. So at the 

beginning and the ending are both commodities. So I think that it is C-M-C. Besides, this 

behave is selling in order to buy and he holds money only temporarily. Moreover, I think 

that money serves as money, not capital, because in the circulation of C-M-C, money is in 

the end converted into a commodity which serves as use- value and money in here just spent 

one time and money did not incrment by selling a car. Because of these reasons, I think that 

this behave is C-M-C. 

The second question, I think it is M-C-M. Because at the first he buys the house with 

money and after ten years he sell his house for a profit. In this behave, at the beginning 

and ending are both money and he also earns the profit with selling a house. But I was 

confused about one meaning for Marx’s explaination - He releases the money, but only 

with the cunning intention of getting it back again, and this behave is M-C-M. But for this 

question, at the beginning, this person buys a house for living not intention of getting money 

back. Just because after ten years he wants to move and sells a house with profit. So this 

is contradiction with this idea or not. And I was confused about this part. But I think it is 

M-C-M because this behave fits the another ideas which is holding commodities temporarily 

and money is not expended because money withdraws with selling a house. 

The third question, I think it is C-M-C. Because a farmer raises wheat which purpose is 

selling in order to buy. But I think his behave might be divided into tow parts. When he 

sells his wheat with money, he might buys the materials to raise next year’s wheat with part 

of money and using the other part of money to buy his needs. Anyway, no matter what kind 

of commodities he buys, at the beginning and ending are both commodities. Otherwise, he 

holds money temporarily. So I think it is C-M-C. 


But I was still confused when I read the chapter 4. I think our trade behaves are not so 

easily to classify into C-M-C and M-C-M. I have some question: What is more important 

for the form of C-M-C and M-C-M or their contents of them. And do we have to think at 

first about the purposes of C-M-C and M-C-M. Or I misunderstand about this chapter. Or I 

think to much about them. 

Message [289] referenced by [319] and [320]. Next Message by Angela is [370]. 

[315] Reidar: I would argue that in both the first two examples involving the purchase 

and resale of a car and home, bzw., both demonstrate M-C-M. Marx described the M-C-M 

process as an inverted process which displaces the commodity two times. The first time 

is when the commodity is bought with money, and the second time being when the buyer 

resells the commodity in return for money. Marx calls this, “the twofold displacement of the 

same commodity causes the money to flow back to its initial point of departure.” 

One might argue that they purchased the car and house for their use value, and that the 

car’s sale value was diminished through its use. However, the car and the house have been 

displace twice, first when the person bought them, and second when they resold them. Although 

the car buyer trades the car in on a new car, he uses the money which he receives for 

this second displacement to finance the second car. 

In the third case which involves the sale of wheat, the farmer displace the money twice. 

He/She is clearly involved in the C-M-C process. They first sell the wheat and gain money 

proceeds, and they expend the money on materials for next years crop. 

If the first two questions were asked as; If someone owns a house (car), and sells it 

and buys a new house (car)......? It could be understood that they are practicing the C-M-C 

process. The phrase, “If someone first buys”, implies that they buy with the intention already 

in mind to sell. 

Message [315] referenced by [320]. Next Message by Reidar is [356.1]. 

[319] Hans: Angela’s answer I like the style of Angela’s [289]. If she gets in doubt or 

sees some ambiguities, she admits it. This opennness makes her answer a good basis for 

further discussion. 

Angela is right that the “trading in” of a car is C-M-C. Most of the money for the new car 

will not come from the trade-in value, but from the buyer’s income, if he is a wage worker, 

most of this transaction has therefore the form L-M-C (L stands for labor), and this is the 

form in which most of us do C-M-C. 

With the house the situation is no longer so clearly cut, because houses are often sold with 

a profit. Nevertheless, I would argue that the primary motive of the home purchase is shelter 

for the family, therefore I would still count the house payments as L-M-C. Such houses also 

count as part of the savings for retirement, i.e., for final consumption, which is still not the 

same as a purely capitalist M-C-M. 

The farmer raises the wheat as a cash crop, therefore he is doing M-C-M. Again this is not 

a pure form, since he is often also his most industrious productive laborer, and the purpose 

is survival of the family, not growth as such.


These examples show that in real life, the forms C-M-C and M-C-M will often not be 

found in their pure manifestations. In the case of a mixed form, it is to some extent arbitrary 

which of the two groups they are assigned to, and therefore I do not claim that my 

classification is the only correct one. 


[320] Hans: Ambiguities regarding C-M-C and M-C-M Reidar’s answer [315] was 

received on Monday before Angela’s [289], but it was not forwarded to the class because it 

had the wrong return address. Now Reidar resubmitted it unchanged, and I accepted it, but 

for all those who are preparing for the quiz I must warn you: in my view he got all three 

answers exactly wrong. It is a somewhat slippery terrain because the cases are ambiguous, 

and Reidar remarks on this. But in the social sciences things are never as clear cut as in 

Mathematics, and the question what to do in an ambigous situation is a legitimate question. 

Reidar argues that buying a car and two years later trading it in, just as buying a home 

and after living in it for a period selling it for a gain are both M-C-M. His reasoning is: 

Marx described the M-C-M process as an inverted process which displaces 

the commodity two times. The first time is when the commodity is bought 

with money, and the second time being when the buyer resells the commodity 

in return for money. Marx calls this, “the twofold displacement of 

the same commodity causes the money to flow back to its initial point of 

departure.” 

But Reidar acknowledges that a different reasoning might give different results: 

One might argue that they purchased the car and house for their use value. 

Yes, yes, this is the way to go. The essential difference is the motivation. I think Reidar 

likes this displacement criterion because it seems more objective, but subjectivity is not 

wrong here. The question is: was the purchase made in order to make money, or was it made 

for consumption. One might argue that it is both, but the consumption purpose is clearly 

the overwhelming reason, and the making of money is more a side effect. This is especially 

clear with the car, but I would also say this is so with the house. Only in the third case I 

would say that the dividing line has been crossed, and I would classify it as making money, 

although the farmer is usually in it for his own sustenance. But as I said in [319], others may 

want to draw the dividing line differently. If this Question were on the exam, I would look 

at the argumentation at least as much as at the final answer. 


Exam Question 213 is 178 in 1995ut, 230 in 1997WI, 294 in 1997sp, 290 in 1998WI, 302 

in 1999SP, 339 in 2001fa, and 383 in 2003fa: 

Exam Question 213 Argue why C-M-C is an independent act, while M-C-M is a link in a 

chain. 

[267] Bandit: The reason C-M-C is an independent act is because after the process of 

capital to money, the remaining stage is an independent act of the owner. The last stage can 

be used as money to buy another commodity or it can be left in the basic form of capital, 


as money. The reason M-C-M is a link in the chain is because it starts with money and 

returns to the basic form of capital, money, which the owner has no control over, but stays 

continuous throughout the loop. The main difference is the owner’s ability to change C-M-C 

into what he or she desires, whereas the M-C-M always returns to its former self. 

Hans: C means commodity, not capital! You cannot have read the assignments carefully at all to make such a 

mistake. I also do not see how the owner has no control over money. Nevertheless, the general idea of your answer 

is right. 

Message [267] referenced by [277], [305], [392.3], and [420.3]. Next Message by Bandit is [329]. 

[277] Jupiter: Independent/link C-M-C is named as an independent act for the fact that 

within its frame work the end goal is to purchase a commodity for consumption. This is set 

up for the bearer of a certain commodity to sell his commodity in the market for money in 

order to purchase another commodity which he or she has a use-value. The final goal has 

been met, the conclusion, each act of selling and buying on the market is independent of 

another transaction. For example I will make a chair and sell it (because I have no use-value 

for it), with that money I will purchase another good for which I have a use-value (food), 

this transaction is final my money well spent is gone and not mine any more, nor can I get it 

back, the goal is met. This is a cycle which all transactions are independent of one another, 

each with there own goal in mind. 

M-C-M, on the other hand is the complete opposite or inverse of the prior mentioned. The 

main difference in these two different movements is that C-M-C, has a final goal and M-C- 

M, does not have a final goal. Buying in order to sell is how the second works, a final goal if 

you will is to convert money into more money. There is no use-value for the “miser”who is 

seeking to get gains by converting money into more money (M-M). This is how we can say 

it is a link in the chain, it has no ends it is the capitalistic thought to constantly buy and sell, 

buy and sell... ,which never ends. There is no end goal, the movement never fades away. 

Hans: It was a review Question, i.e., one of the simpler Questions. Bandit’s [267] was at least partially right, but 

you did not refer to it. Your argument had a few flaws. You say that in C-M-C, “the final goal has been met.” If 

someone does M-C-M’ successfully, has he then not met his final goal? You seem to say no, because money has no 

use value. This is not the same as Marx’s argument. It is also not right to characterize C-M-C as 

a cycle which all transactions are independent of one another, each with there own goal in 

mind. 

Message [277] referenced by [305] and [392.3]. Next Message by Jupiter is [346.1]. 

[305] Slacker: Addition to 213 I think there is more to it than Bandit has addressed. 

C-M-C is independent in the sense that its motivation is to an specific end, the sale of one 

commodity for the purchase of another. This is done to satisfy some want. M-C-M is a 

capitalist venture where the goal is to use X quanity of money to buy some commodity that 

you will sell for Y quantity of money. The goal is that Y ¿ X. This is the generation of profit 

and for the capitalist the reason for existance. This is what makes it a link in the chain. 

Hans: Your explanation of C-M-C is better than Bandit’s, but Jupiter’s [277] has already said the same thing. On 

the other hand, Bandit’s [267] has a better explanation than yours why M-C-M is a link in a chain: simply because 

the second M looks exactly like the first, and it is ready to enter the same cycle over again. 

First Message by Slacker is [91]. 

[346.1] Jupiter: C-M-C is an independent act because of the method in which the actions 

take place. Say a person enters the market with a commodity (that he or she has produced), 

this commodity is then sold for money to a person who is seeking this particular item to 

satisfy a particular use.


This person who has sold the commodity has now money in their possession to go and 

purchase a item that they have a need for, this item is them bought and consumed. The 

process has ended at this particular time and the needs have been met by all those who 

participated in the transaction. 

The commodities have been used and the money is gone on into the hands of others, it is 

irreversible, the money is no longer theirs. The process will go on in order to fill all needs, it 

is a cycle but not a repetitive cycle, a person will use this regime to acquire commodities of 

all sorts to satisfy their needs, each with a independent goal in mind, these acts are indeed 

independent of one another. 

M-C-M, on the other hand, is a reversal of the above mentioned, it entails a person going 

to the market with the intention to purchase a commodity, then turning around to sell the 

same commodity for a hopeful gain or surplus in money. This is referred to as a a chain 

of events but the events are not independent as was C-M-C. The final goal in this series of 

events is to have money create more money through “working the market”. So as one can 

see there is really no end in this process, the use value of the commodity is being perverted 

into a capitalist scheme in order to get gains, and this will hurt or exploit those who are on 

either end of this plan! 

Message [346-1] referenced by [457]. Next Message by Jupiter is [346.2]. 

[356.3] Snake: c-m-c...m-c-m (commodity-money-commodity) c-m-c is the representation 

of direct barter. (money-commodity-money) m-c-m is a representation of capitalism. 

Where as, c-m-c motivation is to a specific end. In use in direct barter you have to have 

independent exchange among two individuals. Where the remaining stage is the independent 

act of the owner. m-c-m is a capitalist venture where the goal is to use A quainty of 

money to buy some commodity that you will sell for B qaunity of money. Where B quanity 

of money is greater than A quanity of money. Which starts as money and then returns to the 

basic form of capital, money, in which the owner has no control over the situation. It stays 

continous throughout the loop. 

Hans: You are reproducing the misunderstandings about this Question in the past answers, without taking into 

consideration what I wrote in response to them. You did not think through the Question enough. See also my [457] 

for additional explanation. 

Next Message by Snake is [357.1]. 

[356.1] Reidar: In the C-M-C process, the owner of a product or commodity sells his/her 

product and receives money in return. He does this in order to use the money he/she receives 

to purchase a commodity he wants, a commodity which holds a use-value for him. In this 

process the money he received is expended on the commodity he/she purchased. The process 

is over. 

In the explanation from Marx, if the owner initiates a second transaction by selling the 

same type of commodity and again spends the proceeds on a commodity which he wants, 

this second transaction takes place independent of the first. 

Therefore, C-M-C transactions occur independently of one another. They conclude with 

the expenditure of the M, and a new C-M-C does not begin with the same commodity the 

owner has already sold. 


In the M-C-M process, the owner of money buys a commodity only in order to sell the 

commodity in exchange for M. You pointed out that Bandit said, “it starts with money” 

and returns again to money at the conclusion of the transaction. It is the same thing which 

the owner started with and is simply forwarded to the next M-C-M transaction. Therefore 

M-C-M is a continuous chain with money being forwarded. 


Next Message by Reidar is [356.2]. 

[369.3] Camera: C-M-C is an independent act because the last step changes money to a 

commodity by a purchasing act by the holder. The same piece of money is displaced twice. 

In M-C-M it is the commodity that is displaced twice. C-M-C’s result is money converted to 

a use-value bearing commodity; the money is spent for the last time. The process ends there 

and does not lead to further market activity, therefore is an independent act. In M-C-M the 

money is laid out always with the intention of regaining it, so it is not spent but advanced 

with the future of being used in another market transaction. As a result, the “link in a chain” 

idea is established. 

Hans: Your answer summarizes the thrust of Marx’s argument better than my question does. 


[392.3] CaseWorker: c-m-c is named as an independent act for the fact that within its 

frame work the end goal is to purchase a commodity for consumption. This is set up for 

the bearer of a certain commodity to sell his commodity in the market for money in order to 

purchase another commodity which he or she has a use value. 

The reason m-c-m is a link in the chain is because it starts with money and return to 

the basic form of capital(money), which the owner has no control over, but stays continuos 

throughout the loo 

Hans: You copied some relevant sentences from [277] and [267], but I would have poreferred you saying it in your 

own words. 

Next Message by CaseWorker is [398]. 

[393.1] Angela: The C-M-C is an independent act because the last term is a commodity 

and money in here will be expended and the buyer will have a use-value for the commodity. 

And the M-C-M is a link in a chain, Because the commodity in here likes a medium to trade 

in the market in order to increase the money. So the money in here will not be expended 

but it will be increseing with selling the commodity. So the agent will repeat the buying the 

commodity and selling the same commodity to earn more money and the commodity in here 

has no use- value. 

Hans: I don’t like the last part of your last sentence: 

the commodity in here (in M-C-M) has no use-value. 

The C in M-C-M has the use value to increase itsw value. The fact that money has no use value of its own is is not 

what makes M-C-M a link in a chain. 


[395.2] Super: C-M-C is an independent act because the money in the end has changed to 

a commodity which is seen as use-value. This money therefore has been spent as a final act. 

The money was spent in exchange for a different commodity than what the owner previously 

had. 

In M-C-M the buyer intends on recovering the money at a later time with the sale of the 

commodity he purchased in the first step. The money is dispensed into circulation with the


intention of recovering it again. The money in M-C-M isn’t spent, it is transformed into a 

commodity, then transformed back to money again. This is a continuous chain. 

Hans: Good. 


[405.5] Chacci: C-M-C is an independent act because a commodity is traded for another 

commodity that has more use-value for the producer. The purpose of the C-M-C movement 

is to achieve use-value. This makes it independent because the commodity producer has 

achieved his goal, more use value. The purpose of the M-C-M movement is to obtain more 

exchange-value. This means that the money-owner would gain the same qualitative as he 

started with. While the C-M-C movement has achieved a definite change in qualitative value. 

For example, I would take commodity A to the market because it had no use-value to me. I 

would trade it for money or for another commodity B, which has more use value for me. I 

have achieved my goal of obtaining something that has more use-value to me, and I would 

consume it. This follows the path C-M-C, which is an independent. If I was a money owner 

I would trade my money for a commodity. I would then put value into the commodity, by 

labor, then trade it for a higher exchange-value. This would follow the M-C-M movement. 

I would have more money, M’, to continue in the above fashion to obtain more exchange 

value. Thus the movement is only a link in a chain of events. 



[420.3] Punani: C-M-C is named as an independent act for the fact that within its framework 

the end goal is to purchase a commodity for consumption. The reason M-C-M is a 

link in the chain is because it starts with money and returns to the basic form of commodity, 

which the owner has no control over, but stays continuous throughout the loop, thus it enters 

the same cycle over again. Another explanation of C-M-C is that C-M-C is independent in 

the sense that its motivation to an specific end, the sale of one commodity for the purchase 

of another. This purpose is to satisfy wants. 

Hans: Why do you copy someone else’s sentence (from [267]) and then change a key word into its opposite, 

instead of formulating your own argument? 


[429.1] Scott: M-C-M’ is a link in a chain since it is self-propagating, such as a hermaphroditic 

plant reproduces. The M easily becomes M’, at a different quantity or it would be meaningless, 

(i.e. M cannot = M’), and the cycle continues. M’ has the appearance of M, but of a 

different quantity. 

C-M-C is usually independent, and cannot clearly propagate itself in many instances. For 

example, when the second C is consumed, the “act” is completed. C-M-C ends with a sale 

and thereby “falls out of circulation into consumption.” C-M-C is driven by satisfaction of 

needs or use-values whereas M-C-M is driven by exchange-value. 

Hans: Excellent! 


[457] Hans: Jupiter’s answer I will bring here Jupiter’s test resubmission [346-1] together 

with my detailed comments, so that you can see how I would like this question answered. 

Jupiter’s first sentence correctly identifies the method as that which makes C-M-C 

an independent act: 


C-M-C is an independent act because of the method in which the actions 

take place. 

By their purpose, the different acts C-M-C performed by the same simple commodity 

producer are usually not independent. They must provide for the continued living of the 

commodity producer. But since he tries to achieve this through commodity production, he 

must to perform a series of isolated acts to achieve this continuous end. 

Next Jupiter writes: 

Say a person enters the market with a commodity (that he or she has produced), 

this commodity is then sold for money to a person who is seeking 

this particular item to satisfy a particular use. This person who has sold the 

commodity has now money in their possession to go and purchase a item 

that they have a need for, this item is them bought and consumed. The process 

has ended at this particular time and the needs have been met by all 

those who participated in the transaction. 

This is good, but there is an error in the last sentence. Not all participants have completed 

their tasks. This would be true in direct barter, but here the buyer of your commodity has 

finished his C-M-C, while the seller of the commodity you bought just has obtained money 

and therefore is in the middle of his C-M-C (assuming that everyone involved does C-M-C, 

it is different if some do M-C-M). This interweaving of different half-finished transactions 

contains the possibility of breakdown (crisis) which is not present in the direct barter. 

Jupiter goes on: 

The commodities have been used and the money is gone on into the hands 

of others, it is irreversible, the money is no longer theirs. 

Marx says this in 250:2 in order to contrast it with the situation M-C-M, in which the end 

point, money, is immediately again the starting point for a new cycle. In C-M-C, the second 

commodity will be consumed, and the consumer has to produce a new commodity in order 

to start a new C-M-C. This is perhaps what Jupiter means with the next passage, but it is not 

very clear: 

The process will go on in order to fill all needs, it is a cycle but not a 

repetitive cycle, a person will use this regime to acquire commodities of all 

sorts to satisfy their needs, each with a independent goal in mind, these acts 

are indeed independent of one another. 

M-C-M, on the other hand is a reversal of the above mentioned, it entails a 

person going to the market with the intention to purchase a commodity, then 

turning around to sell the same commodity for a hopeful gain or surplus in 

money. This is referred to as a a chain of events but the events are not 

independent as was C-M-C. 

Question 213 asks you to argue why the first M-C-M and the second M-C-M depend on 

each other, while the first C-M-C and the second C-M-C are independent. Jupiter is confused


about this. He is talking about the dependence of the two halves M-C and C-M in the same 

M-C-M. Of course they are dependent, but in C-M-C, the first half C-M and the second half 

M-C depend on each other too. 

The final goal in this series of events is to have money create more money 

through “working the market”. So as one can see there is really no end 

in this process, the use-value of the commodity is being perverted into a 

capitalist scheme in order to get gains, and this will hurt or exploit those 

who are on either end of this plan! 

Jupiter is right, Marx will argue a little later in chapter Four that M-C-M is also by its 

intention an unlimited process. But here, around Question 213, Marx emphasizes that it is 

also by its method much more susceptible to this unlimited character. It does not take extra 

effort by the capitalist to make it unlimited, the continuation of this process beyond the first 

M-C-M is quasi automatic, since the capaitalist already has the money in his hands with 

which to re-start the process. 



1997ut, 323 in 2000fa, 342 in 2001fa, 385 in 2003fa, 440 in 2007fa, and 515 in 2011fa: 

Question 216 What is capital? 

[300] Snake: capital Wealth by means of currency or property, which is owned or used by 

an individual or group association. Wealth, in what ever form used, to produce more wealth. 

Some key elements of capital could be the source of profits or benefit, assets, resources, 

energy and education. To make the most of capital in order to take advantage of for personal 

profit or power. This although does not include operating cost. It is purely an accumulated 

stock of such wealth. 

Hans: Instead of “wealth” it would be better to say “value”, because the value is what counts, not the use value. 

The use values are only the means to get more value. I also do not agree with the sentence: 

Some key elements of capital could be the source of profits or benefit, assets, resources, energy 

and education. 

Marx would not use a classification like this; can you see whay? Finally I don’t understand what you mean with 

the following sentence: 

This although does not include operating cost. It is purely an accumulated stock of such 


Next Message by Snake is [356.3]. 

Question 217 is 182 in 1995ut, 234 in 1997WI, 294 in 1998WI, 306 in 1999SP, 344 in 

2001fa, 373 in 2002fa, 387 in 2003fa, 442 in 2007SP, 445 in 2007fa, 452 in 2008SP, 455 

in 2008fa, and 474 in 2009fa: 

Question 217 Why does monetary wealth have the tendency to multiply itself? 

[316] Fox: We talked in class how the pure form of capital (gold, precious stones, money) 

is something that is always sought after more than other forms of capital because it can be 

used in every market. I believe that one reason that monetary wealth will multiply itself is 

the barrier into the capital market. Monetary wealth lets you in the door of the capitalist 


world. There are hundreds of people that have great ideas to compete in different markets 

today, but they are kept out because of a lack of monetary wealth. How often have you heard 

people complain that they have a great idea for a product if they could only get the money 

to ge things started. There are some great “rags to riches” stories about how a very poor 

person makes it in the world and becomes wealthy, but at some point that person had to get 

the capital to start their big idea. The person with that capital is the one who had his foot in 

the door and lets the individual with the idea come into the market. 

Message [316] referenced by [322]. Next Message by Fox is [617.5]. 

[322] Hans: Down with the Fact-Value Distinction! The argument in Fox’s [316] starts 

with the obverse side of the coin: that it is impossible to get rich without money, even if one 

is a hard worker and has good ideas. Why? Fox does not formulate it the way I am going to 

formulate it now, because he tries to stay value-neutral, but as I read it, a clear text version 

of his answer is: the workers themselves cannot get rich from their ideas and their labor, 

because they do not have access to the means of production (Fox calls it the “barrier into the 

capital market”). Those who monopolize the means of production can therefore get rich off 

the backs of the workers. In other words, money has the magical property of begetting more 

money because, due to private ownership of means of production, money allows you to take 

part in the exploitation of the workers. It is up to you to decide whether Fox’s value neutral 

description [136] or my value-explicit clear-text version is a more accurate characterization 

of what is really happening. 

Message [322] referenced by [2007SP:1048]. Next Message by Hans is [324]. 

Question 221 is 200 in 1995WI, 186 in 1995ut, 221 in 1996ut, 238 in 1997WI, and 291 in 

1997ut: 

Question 221 Discuss the social role of the capitalist. What role does greed play in capitalism? 

[276] Jupiter: make-up submission The social role of a capitalist is to get gains, power, 

honor, property etc. The capitalist is a major player in the market he or she has to know 

the role that each product or commodity plays in the market, as well as knowing the usevalue 

of these commodities in order to sell them again to other buyers. Capitalists have many 

different roles in society, the goal in which the ideology of a capitalist would (in my opinion) 

be to get to the top by exploiting others in order to get what best suits their needs, at that 

particular moment in time. Once they get to the top if they ever do, they will continue to 

exploit others, continue to strive for more power and property thinking this will bring them 

honor. In one sentence, doing whatever it takes to get more gains (whatever form) at the 

least amount of cost. 

Greed as one can see is going to be enveloped in this ideology. Living in a capitalistic 

society, we encounter it every day of our lives people can not be satisfied with what they 

have. It begins to consume their thoughts and actions as to how to get more, to hoard all the 

commodities and sell them for more, to make a profit off of them. Greed has evolved as a 

main interwoven thread that may or may not be seen, there are different levels of greed but 

with all capitalists there is going to be certain amounts within their economic actions. 

Hans: Your first sentence is: 

The social role of a capitalist is to get gains, power, honor, property etc.


This is not the social function of the capitalist but perhaps his individual motivation. 

Then you do give a social role: he has to know the market and has to do many of those tasks which would be 

done by a central planning office in a planned economy. 

The third function you give can be summarized in your last sentence: 

Doing whatever it takes to get more gains (whatever form) at the least amount of cost. 

Again, this is a social function seen through the lenses of individual motivation. The social function is the one of 

promoting M-C-M’ and while doing this developing the productive forces. 

Had you read the three pages R738–741 more carefully, which were recommended in the Annotations for this 

Question, you would probably have understood the Question better. 


Question 224 is 199 in 1995WI, 189 in 1995ut, 305 in 1997sp, 294 in 1997ut, and 454 in 

2007SP: 

Question 224 Which other form does capital have besides money, and what distinguishes 

the money form from the other form? 

[275] Positive: According to Marx, capital is predicted on the exchange of commodities, 

trade in commodities, but it may be formed at various stages of production. The other 

form of capital besides money is a commodity. Money cannot be a form of capital without 

commodities. Commodities possess the abstract-labor, and the use-value in which value is 

based on. The distinction that money has from other capital is that it has no internal value 

(no abstract labor). Money has to be exchanged with something that has use-value to become 

of value itself. 

Hans: Reading your first sentence I could imagine that you possibly mean something right, but it is very poorly 

formulated. The difference between money and commodity is not that the commodity contains abstract labor and 

money does not, but that capital can increase its value only in commodity form . This is a big difference. See 

lamma’s [284] for a correct answer. 


[284] Lamma: make up question The thing that sets the two apart lies in the action of 

the commodity. Money itself is simply money and is valued at its face value. However the 

commodity represents a means to reproduce itself and keep making money. Money acts as 

the starting point to identify itself. Commodities act as the means to creating more and then 

turning back into money. So money would be the start and the end of the cycle. It is this 

action that a commodity holds within itself that sets the two appart. 

Hans: Very good! 

Message [284] referenced by [275]. Next Message by Lamma is [368.3]. 


Question 226 What is merchants’ capital? industrial capital? money-lending capital? 

[302] Scott: Mercantilists’ capital is “buying to sell dearer” which refers to speculative 

buying in regards to appreciation, refinement, or even transportation to the buyer by 

the seller. Home purchases and the turning over of, would be a good example in the last 

five years in the greater SL valley. Industrialist capital defined by Marx as “money which 

has been changed into commodities and reconverted into more money by the sale of these 

commodities.” One example of this would be of a cars’ production, whereas many of the 

components are purchased and assembled into a unit for sale. Money-lending capital or 


“money which is worth more money, value which is greater than itself ” refers to the timevalue 

of money in financial discussions. Obviously, interest bearing or the like. Money 

begets money. 

I am curious about the allusion to the Jews in the phrase “ The capitalist knows that 

all commodities, however” the condition, sic.... “are by faith and in truth money, are deep 

inside circumcised Jews”...... Is Marx referring to a historic Jewish “shylock” or money 

lender here? If so why the analogy? 

Hans: Mercantile capital is not necessarily speculative. Historically, merchants have made profits by buying products 

in one country below their value and selling them in another country above their value. They were mediators, 

not producers. 

Marx’s “definition” of industrial capital, which you quote, was meant by Marx to be a characterization from 

which the reader could see the communalities between industrial and mercantile capital. 

Marx’s “definition” of interest-bearing capital, which you also quote, was meant by Marx as an illustration how 

mystified the form of interest-bearing capital is: how can something be worth more than itself. “Time-value of 

money” refers to an explanation of this mysterious self-expansion of money which Marx does not share. 

Marx uses anti-semitic metaphors several times. He wants to say with this that the commodities conform with 

the stereotype of a Jew, not that real Jews conform with this stereotype. 


Question 227 is 205 in 1995ut and 227 in 1996ut: 

Question 227 How does Marx define the concept of necessary labor if the capitalist pays 

his workers less than the value of the labor power? Is it the time they need to produce an 

equivalent of the value of their labor power, or is it the time the workers need to produce an 

equivalent of the wage they actually get? 

[337] MsMarx: Necessary labor According to Marx, the working day can be thought of 

as divided into two parts. Neccessary labor time is that part of the day in which the worker 

recoups for the capitalist the value which the capitalist has paid in wages. The rest of the 

working day is surplus labor, in which the worker creates surplus-value. 

Therefore, the necessary labor is the length of time every day needed by the worker to 

produce an equivalent of his or her wage, not the time needed to produce an equivalent of 

the value of their labor power. 

Hans: This sounds like an reasonable interpretation. 


Question 228 is 206 in 1995ut, 280 in 1997WI, 346 in 1997sp, 345 in 1997ut, 355 in 

1998WI, 356 in 1999SP, 442 in 2000fa, and 468 in 2001fa: 

Question 228 Can one say that the question how this geometric possibility might be turned 

into reality goes through the mind of every capitalist every day? 

[361] Karl: ABC’s The answer to this question is obviously yes, it does go through every 

capitalist’s mind. Take the geometric example given in the readings, of A——B-C. The ray 

A-C representing the total working day. The ray A-B representing the necessary labor time, 

while B-C represents surplus labor. The goal of the capitalist is to always give the laborer 

less, and himself more surplus. It is a well known fact in Marxism, and also neo-classical 

economics that the capitalist tries to maximize profits or surplus, or in this case try to shift 

B toward A.


Let’s say that the work day of A-C is 10 hours long. The rate of the labor power in terms 

of dollar magnitude is $1/hr. The segment from A-B identifies 8 hours of labor or 8/per 

working day. This in symbolic terms identifies necessary labor time, or directly correlates 

it’s value to the laborer’s subsistence consumption. The profit to the capitalist then becomes 

the surplus skimmed off the laborer. This is simply derived by subtacting A-C(total work 

day) minus A-B(subsistence consumption) to total the surplus that the capitalist receives. 

In this case the capitalist receives 2 dollars. The goal of the capitalist operates on the pig 

principle more is prefered to less. The capitalist in his head wants to make 3$-$10 surplus, 

but as we will see this is sound mathematically to move B to A, taking in human subsitence 

this is only the “wishes of the capitalists,” as Marx stated. 

Marx seems to agree that all capitalists wish to prolong the surplus labor, and shorten 

the necessary labor. This is not possible due to the fact that laborers need a necessary subsistence 

to keep producing, which is represented by necessary labor. The key word here is 

necessary, the laborer needs this wage to survive, this can only be shortened in the very short 

run. It is due to this conflict of interests, that the capitalist will never realize the amount of 

prolongation of surplus labor that is desired. The goal of the laborer is survival, and subsistence. 

While the goal of the capitalist is altered with an incentive to cheat, by taking more 

than he himself put in. Therefore we can see in conclusion that the capitalist does want to 

change the geometric structure of A-C, but in the real world the faction between the two 

parties do not allow for this to happen. 

Hans: This Question was meant to be a question about the capitalist’s consciousness; does he see his role in this 

way? Most capitalists do not even believe that their profits come from labor. But even if the capitalist does not think 

in terms of Marxian categories, he certainly considers the laborer’s revenue “cost” which he has to reduce like any 

other cost. 


Question 230 is 208 in 1995ut, 230 in 1996ut, 282 in 1997WI, 348 in 1997sp, 347 in 

1997ut, 357 in 1998WI, 358 in 1999SP, and 470 in 2001fa: 

Question 230 If the length of the working day is fixed, then surplus value can be increased 

in two ways: either one shortens the necessary labor by extending the surplus labor, or one 

extends the surplus labor by shortening the necessary labor. Which of these two possibilities 

is Marx discussing here? 

[345] MUCHO: surplus value According to the book, “Capitalist did not invent surplus 

labour”(pp. 344) It also states on the same page that “ the worker must add to the labour 

time necessary for his own maintenance an extra quality time in order to produce the means 

of substance for the owner of the means of production” With these statements, I would think 

that Marx is trying to discuss the possibility of one extends the surplus labor by shortening 

the necessary labor. Because, Marx does not say that it is impossible to shorten the necessary 

labor (According to Hans). Surplus labor will be restricted by a more or less confined set of 

needs. 

Hans: What is going on? Do you have language difficulties? 

Message [345] referenced by [346]. Next Message by MUCHO is [345.1]. 

[346] Hans: Don’t let yourselves be confused by MUCHO’s answer Sometimes someone 

says something that is so completely off the wall that one has to think: are you crazy or 


am I crazy? I just want to assure you that you are in the same boat as I if you cannot make 

sense of MUCHO’s answer [345]. 

Mucho’s second quote from p. 344 has some typos, and neither of the two quotes has 

anything to do with the Question. The quote from my Annotations: 

Marx does not say that it is impossible to shorten the necessary labor 

goes in the opposite direction from what MUCHO is using it for, because MUCHO left 

out the following words which are: “by lengthening the surplus labor”. The following sentence 

Surplus labor will be restricted by a more or less confined set of needs. 

is also a quote, from p. 345, and in its original context it has again nothing to do with the 

Question at hand. 


[362] Pinky: increasing surplus value Marx made it plain that we are to assume that all 

commodities, including labor-power, are bought and sold at their full value. Therefore, one 

must conclude that as a result; the option of reducing the worker’s wage below the value of 

his labor-power is a violation of the law of value and thus, not feasible. Rather, the value of 

the labor-power itself must decline. If such a decline takes place, it is no longer a violation 

of the law of value. When this option is taken, because “...the same means of subsistence 

formerly produced in 10 hours can now be produced in 9 hours.” it becomes obvious that the 

only way to accomidate for this discrepancy is in an increase in the productivity of labor. 

Message [362] referenced by [367] and [395]. Next Message by Pinky is [373]. 

[367] Hans: Depression of wages below value of labor power is feasible Pinky’s answer 

[362] is correct, except for the words “not feasible” in the following sentence: 

the option of reducing the worker’s wage below the value of his labor-power 

is a violation of the law of value and thus, not feasible. 

Marx was enough of a realist to know that there are many situations in which capitalists 

can get away with lowering the wage below the value of labor power. Everybody on a minimum 

wage is paid less than a “living wage”, i.e., less than the value of labor power. Marx’s 

argument is roughly the following: discrepancies between price and value give additional 

icing on the cake for the capitalists, but the cake itself, the bulk of exploitation, can be explained 

on the basis of equal exchange. Marx first wants to study the cake before studying 

the icing of the cake. 


[395] Skyler: question 230 Marx started out by appealing to the capitalist point of view or 

what they would want to do. Then he looks at the method in reality senerio. Marx discusses 

increasing the surplus value by extending the surplus labor by shortening the necessary labor 

time. “The necessary labor time is the underlying force which determines the division of 

the working day.Surplus labor is the difference between the whole working-day and the 

necessary labor. If the working-day is constant, this difference can only be changed by 

changing the necessary labor.” Quote out of annotations; p.141. On paper this geomtrical 

method is possible, but in the real world the ability to shift b-b’ is not reality, even though


that would be idle for capitalists. Value of daily wage is determined by what the workers 

needs are. “The price of necessaries of life is, in fact the cost of producing labor.” [Mal 15. 

p.48 note] Two teams may look equal or very opposite statistically on paper, but the actual 

outcome of a game between the two could tell a very different story. 

Hans: Your answer is ok, but why did you write it after the perfectly satisfactory [362]? 

Next Message by Skyler is [395.3]. 

Question 231 is 202 in 1995WI, 209 in 1995ut, 231 in 1996ut, and 283 in 1997WI: 

Question 231 Did the fixation of the lengh of the working day discussed in Chapter Ten 

place a lid on exploitation? 

[408] Chocolate: worker’s exploitation In my point of view, the worker’s wage in our 

economic system can never equall the amount of labor that the individual has put into making 

a product or working for a capatilist. For example, suppose the workers on an assembly line 

(producing a car) are paid a wage of ten-dollars an hour. And throughout a course of a 

single day, the workers in the assembly line are able to produce at least one-hundred to twohundred 

cars. Each car is then sold for an amount of about ten to fifty thousand (sometimes 

more, sometimes less depending on the make and type of the car) dollars. But let’s suppose 

the cars on this particular assembly line all sell for twenty-thousand dollars. If the factory 

produces one to two-hundred cars a day and eventually sell all of them, that would bring 

in a return (profit) much greater than what the worker is being paid to make these cars. 

The capitalist who owns and controls this particular plant never lays a single hand into the 

production process. But, because of his/her stature his salary is at least ten times that of the 

workers, who actually produce the car. Therefore the workers in the assembly line are being 

exploited because they never receive (or benefit) a wage that equals the amount of work the 

put into producing a car. 

But if the hours worked were to be lowered and the wage were to raised to a point where 

wage does in fact equall the amount labor applied to producing a certain product, then the 

worker, in a way is not being exploited. They are only exploited in the sense that they never 

receive the exact amount of what one has put into making that product. They lose a sense 

of unity with thier product that a painter has with his/her own painting. The vehicle they 

produce can last an individual (buyer) anywhere from ten (sometimes shorter) to fifty years, 

(sometimes longer). But the wage they are given can only last an individual with a family a 

few years. Increasing the working day can only increase the amount of exploitation a worker 

goes through. Therefore no matter how much (or less) a worker is required to work he/she 

will always be exploited, because he/she never recieves the full amount of payment for the 

work one does. 

Hans: You see correctly that higher wages and shorter hours will not eliminate exploitation. What is also needed 

is that the workers have more say about their product and the labor process. 

Message [408] referenced by [463] and [575]. Next Message by Chocolate is [425]. 

[463] MUCHO: exploitation... I absolutely agree with Chocolate’s submission [408]. 

Just fixing the length of the working day won’t place any lid on exploitation. The most 

important factor for the worker not to be exploited would be only under the wage change. 

Otherwise the workers must be exploited. Because they need to get paid the equal amount 


of the salary for what they acutely produced. However, I feel that it is almost impossible for 

the workers to work without exploited in today’s world. 


[546] Skippy: Expoitation will never end. The exploitation of workers will never end 

in society. The working day is said to be 8 hours. Too bad that not every company follows 

these rules. 

A company that hires on a worker has him by his throut. The well being of his family 

depends on his job. If the company tells him to work exxcessive hours, he will do it because 

he needs the support of the company to keep his family together. 

The head of a company wants as much for himself as possible without the concern of 

who is below him. They are always replaceable. To hurt the little guy is the American way. 

More for me is the ideals of the companies of today, no matter what the costs are. 

The more a company can exploit his workers, the better off he will be. The work day was 

a good try to help the working man out, but if it does not benifit the company, there will be 

other hours tacked on until the company is happy. 

Here in Utah, overtime is not paid until the working day exceeds 11 hours or 40 hours in 

a work week. Most other states will pay overtime for anything over 8 hours and double time 

for any hours greater than 12 in a day along with overtime for over a 40 hour work week. 

This is a great example of exploitation. The entire state agrees to exploit their workers, 

to go with there low wages. This should be the bend-over state. 

For exploitation to stop, the heads of the companies, and governments have got to stop 

thinking of themselves and open their eyes’ to the big picture. The little guy supports him. 

Without the little doing his work for him, he is nothing. You must take care of those who 

take care of you. 


[575] Hans: Can there be an end to exploitation? This Question was asked with a very 

specific situation in mind. Although the working class could in protracted struggles push 

through a legal limitation of the working day in England in the 1850s, this did not mean that 

exploitation stopped or diminished. Chapter Twelve shows that even if the total length of the 

working day is fixed, exploitation can increase by the increase of relative surplus value. This 

is an example how the capitalist system integrates reforms without losing its fundamental 

character. 

Many answers think capitalism is so resilient, it will stay here for ever. They take the 

Question therefore in a much broader sense, namely, saying that exploitation of the worker 

can never stop. 

Chocolate makes this point not only in [408] but also in his submission to the discussion 

list [425]: Even under the highest wage, the workers will still be exploited because they 

cannot have the same satisfaction as say a painter, because the product does not belong 

to them. Marx agrees with this particular point, although he does not draw the sinister 

conclusion that exploitation must be with us for ever. Marx says: there is no such thing as a 

fair wage, what the working class must fight for is the abolition of wage labor. Only if the


workers are no longer forced to sell their labor power to the highest bidder but can have a 

say over their own production process will exploitation cease. 

MUCHO’s [463] agrees with Chocolate that exploitation is probably here to stay. But to 

him, the most important thing is not a shorter working day or pride in the product but higher 

wages. 

Skippy’s [546] looks at the issue in a slightly different light. First of all, he emphasises 

that the limit on the working day may perhaps exist on paper, but it does not exist in reality, 

especially not here in Utah. A legal fixation is not yet a real fixation. In the last paragraph 

Skippy proposes the following remedy: 

For exploitation to stop, the heads of the companies, and governments have 

got to stop thinking of themselves and open their eyes’ to the big picture. 

The little guy supports him. Without the little doing his work for him, he is 

nothing. You must take care of those who take care of you. 

It seems, Skippy has also given up any hopes for an end to exploitation. Instead of calling 

for the abolition of exploitation, he is asking the bigshots to take better care of the little 

guys, because without the little guy doing the work for them they are nothing. This is a very 

tame form of criticism, because in his proposed kinder gentler capitalism there will still be 

bigshots and little guys. 



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, 683 in 2010fa, 

703 in 2011fa, 732 in 2012fa, and 683 in Answer: 

Exam Question 232 What is relative surplus-value? Which whole new dimension, which 

was so far treated as a given constant, enters the discussion of relative surplus-value? 

[336] MsMarx: Relative surplus-value If something is relative, it is dependent on the 

relation to something else; it is not absolute. Relative surplus-value is “that surplus-value 

which arises from the shortening of the necessary labor-time, and from the corresponding 

alteration in the respective lengths of the two components of the working day.” In other 

words, relative surplus-value is the result of changes in the productivity of labor and can 

only be produced if productivity rises. Surplus value is relative because it is an increase in 

the gap between the capitalist and laborer. 

The mode of production that has thus far been given, has been invariable, and only the 

duration of the labor process was prolonged. A whole new dimension is brought into the 

discussion of relative surplus-value as the technical and social conditions and consequently 

the mode of production is revolutionized. As the productivity of labor is increased, the value 

of labor power is lowered and the portion of the working day necessary for the reproduction 

of that value is shortened. An increase in productivity suggests the conditions of production 

of labor, the mode of production, and the labor process which would shorten the labor-time 

socially necessary for the production of a commodity and provide a given quantity of labor 

the power of producing a greater quantity of use-value. 


Relative surplus-value is surplus-value that derives from a reduction in necessary labor 

time, distinguished from absolute surplus-value, which results from a lengthening of the 

working day. The terms “absolute” and “relative” apply to changes in the rate of surplusvalue 

from some initial position. If a capitalist froces his workers to work longer hours, 

he benefits directly from the resulting (absolute) surplus-value. By contrast, the effect on 

surplus-valule of productivity increases (relative surplus-value) is more indirect. 

Surplus value as a total is determined first by its rate, and second by the mass of labor 

simultaneously employed at this rate, or what amounts to the same, by the magnitude of 

the variable capital. One of these factors, the rate of surplus value, rises, and the other, 

the number of laborers, falls (relatively or absolutely). Inasmuch as the development of the 

productive forces reduces the paid portion of employed labor, it raises the surplus-value, 

because it raises its rate; but inasmuch as it reduces the total mass of labor employed by 

a given capital, it reduces the factor of the number by which the rate of surplus-value is 

multiplied to obtain its mass. 

The absolute increase in the mass of capital depends on its existing magnitude. But, 

on the other hand, if this magnitude is given, the proportion of its growth or the rate of 

its increment, depends on the rate of profit. The increase in the productiveness can directly 

only increase that portion of the value of the annual product which is reconverted into capital. 

Regarding the productivity of labor, this can only occur by raising the relative surplus-value, 

or reducing the value of the constant capital, so that the commodities which enter either the 

reproduction of labor-power or the elements of constant capital, are cheapened. 

Hans: Since you are always trying to be comprehensive, look in my [424] to see which aspect of the Question you 

did not emphasize enough here. 

Message [336] referenced by [376] and [424]. Next Message by MsMarx is [336.1]. 

[376] Emma: To understand what relative surplus-value is, one must first understand the 

concepts of “necessary” and “surplus” labor and, surplus-value and absolute surplus-value. 

Necessary labor of a society is the amount of labor required for reproducing that society 

at a certain material and cultural level. Surplus labor is whatever labor is performed over 

this minimum amount. Say, for instance, that individually it takes six hours a day to produce 

the food, clothing, shelter, etc. necessary to support someone who works eight hours. The 

remaining two hours represent surplus labor. What the capitalist buys is the worker’s labor 

power. What he pays for it equals the cost of the reproduction of the labor power, the wage. 

When the capitalist uses the labor power he just purchased and it realizes itself in an amount 

of labor time greater than the necessary labor time, the capitalist makes a profit. That is, 

the worker produces surplus labor time that is retained by the capitalist and not paid out in 

a wage. Surplus labor time is represented as surplus value. The capitalist’s profdit in this 

transaction is the surplus value created by the surplus labor. 

“Absolute” surplus value can change if there is a change in the overall length of the 

working day, since it assumes that necessary labor remains constant. But the amount of 

surplus value can be changed by changing the length of necessary labor time in a given 

working day through, for example, increasing the productivity necessary for reproducing 

labor power. Thus, if the working day is eight hours and the necessary part is six hours, the 

surplus value represents two hours. But if the necessary part is cut in half then, everything


else being held constant, the surplus value is increased by three hours. This means too that 

relative surplus value can not only be increased without increasing the absolute length of 

the working day, but it can be increased while actually decreasing the length of the working 

day. This variability in necessary labor represents a new concept since up to now Marx has 

assumed that necessary labor is a constant. 

Hans: Good explanation of the concept of surplus labor, but regarding the Question itself, [336] was the better 

answer. 

Message [376] referenced by [424]. Next Message by Emma is [475.3]. 

[387] Camera: Surplus value, as explained in the study guide, is surplus value that arises 

from the shortening of the necessary labor-time, and from the corresponding alteration in the 

respective lengths of the two components of the working day. The new dimension, which 

was so far treated as a given constant and now enters the discussion of relative surplus value 

is that of the length productivity of a working day. Chapter 12 starts out explaining this by 

stating,“That portion of the working day which merely produces an equivalent for the value 

paid by the capitalist for his labour-power has up to this point been treated by us as a constant 

magnitude.” Labor time is now an adjustable variable that will affect overall value as well 

as surplus value. We now will consider commodity production under the circumstances of 

varying length of work day as well as necessary and surplus labor. 

Message [387] referenced by [424]. Next Message by Camera is [503]. 

[424] Hans: Decline from the first to the third answer Of the three answers to 232, the 

first answer we received, MsMarx’s [336], was the best. MsMarx recognized that the new 

element entering here is technology. Now capitalism creates its own mode of production; it 

no longer depends on the traditional labor process but moulds the labor process according 

to its own needs. It institutes technologies in which the worker is controlled by the machine 

rather than vice versa. In Marx’s view, production technology would look much different if 

the social relations of production were different. 

Emma’s [376] saw the issue on a more technical level, saying that the assumption of a 

constant length of the necessary day was relaxed. The relaxation of an assumption itself 

cannot be considered a “whole new dimension.” Technology is not just a quantitative matter, 

but a qualitative change. Camera’s [387] is a shorter statement which contains nothing which 

was not said in Emma’s [376]. Camera bears a severe grade penalty because of that. 


Exam Question 234 is 212 in 1995ut, 352 in 1997sp, and 351 in 1997ut: 

Exam Question 234 Extending the surplus labor by increases in productivity seems hopeless 

because only few industries produce the workers’ means of consumption, and the lowering 

of the value of any given use value (e.g. shirts) can only have a negligible effect on the 

wages. How does Marx reply to these objections? 

[379] VanHalen: First of all I think that Marx would agree that the lowering of the value 

of the use value of a shirt for example would only have a negligible effect on wages. But 

Marx says you have to look at all the factors that make up the total value of labor power. 

Obviously if there are 100 items that make up the means of subsistence for the laborer 

and you only analyze one item then you won’t see much if any change. If a small bolt used 

in making a car becomes cheaper, you won’t see much change in the cost of producing the 


car. But if all the parts of the car become cheaper then you obviously would see a change in 

the cost of producing the car. 

On the whole, Marx says on page 433, “the total decrease of necessary labour-time is 

equal to the sum of all the different reductions in the labour time which have occurred in 

those various distinct branches of production.” 

Though there may be only a few industries that produce the workers’ means of consumption, 

there are many other markets that affect these industries. A change in the price of 

leather will change the value of leather shoes even if the productivity of the cobbler stays the 

same, or gets better. The industries that supply the cobbler with everything that he uses to 

make shoes multiplies the industries that affect the value of labor power. There may be only 

3 industries that directly affect the value of labor power but there may be 30 industries that 

affect those three magnifying the number of industries that really affect the value of labor. 

Again, Marx’s main point to these objections is ,“the total decrease of necessary labor 

time is = to the sum of all the different reductions in labor time which have occurred in those 

various distinct branches of production.” I would think that Marx is refering to both direct 

and indirect industries whose products determine the value of labor directly. 

Hans: Good and thorough answer to this (not very difficult) Question. 


Question 235 is 204 in 1995WI and 213 in 1995ut: 

Question 235 Which are the motives why a capitalist might try to introduce new technology? 

[334] Jake: Technology can both help workers and also possibly replace them. A capitalist 

has profits in mind when ever there is a change in production. Technology can help 

productivity. By introducing new technology, the capitalist has in mind of increasing production 

or making current production levels more efficient. Technology is the way the capitalist 

survives. If not implemented by him, somebody else will beat him to the punch. The main 

motives for new technology is to increase profits or possibly maintain current profit levels. 

The new technology is a window to compete against other capitalists. If technology can produce 

a product cheaper than the next capitalist, market pressures will force old production 

methods out of the market. So as I see it, the motive of survival pushes the capitalist to seek 

new technology. 

Hans: You did not make the connection between this Question and relative surplus value. 

Message [334] referenced by [370] and [574]. Next Message by Jake is [335]. 

[370] Angela: Submission 8 I think if a capitalist wants to cheapen his products without 

reducing the value of labor power and shortening necessary labor- time. And a capitalist 

wants to earn the prodit from his products. I think these may be the motives to introducing 

new technology to cheapen his products. This way can increase the general rate of surplusvalue 

without influencing anythings!! So the capitalist will introducing new technoloy. 

Hans: What you are saying falls far behind Jake’s [334]. 

Message [370] referenced by [574]. Next Message by Angela is [393.1]. 

[380] KALISPEL: Technology In this realm, Marx analyses production and specifically 

on the labor process in which raw materials are transformed to produce use values. This


model can be extended into the “non productive sector” including the home. Marx stressed 

that technology was central. Nature does not build machines. Machines are products of 

human labor. Natural material transformed into the human will, organs of the human brain 

made with human hands. This model incorporates the nature of class struggle and the oppression 

of the working classes. 

So, what are the motives why a capitalist might try to introduce new technology? 1- To 

help keep his class status. He now has a way to cheapen the subsistence level of workers 

which cheapens the value of labor itself. This creates larger inequalities and forces the 

worker to become more subjective to the capitalist through inequal relations. 2- Profits. We 

cannot leave out these in capitalism. Capitalists want to take a larger part of the surplus 

value. This can only be done with machines, cheapened values of labor, and the ability to 

coerce those to operate the machinery itself. These, I believe are the two general aims. 

However, I believe, there are some other subclasses to consider. 1- If you introduce 

technology you can experiece faster growth rates. This is part of profit motivation. The 

faster you grow the less likely you will go out of business and the more capital accumulation 

you will have. Thus, if you ever go out of business you can sell off the capital and retire 

nicely. 2- You need to grow to be competitive. If you do not produce more efficiently all 

the time and increase your company’s net worth than you may end up going out of business. 

Introducing technology helps a company to remain more secure assuming its costs are not 

too high. 

It is obvious what the results of these motivations lead to. It leads to a longer work day, 

larger inequalities, and class struggle. The social outcome is not revolved around the wellbeing 

of the worker, but it does revolve around the capitalist. This leads to democracy for 

the few. 

Social aims should revolve around making the masses better off. Technology should be 

desired to lower the hours worked in a week and at producing commodities efficiently so 

that there will be more to go around for everyone. This will make people “happier” and 

society will be a better place to live in. The capitalist motives appear to do these things, but 

capitalism contradicts itself, from it’s aims to its results. How capitalism appears and how it 

operates are two different things. I believe this is obvious, but you cannot take an “impure 

(greedy)” motive and turn it into sunshine. Results are a product of the human mind, just as 

technology. However, we are free to wish upon the star that never was. In this way, we can 

at least think we have the sunshine in our pockets. 


[406] Homer: question 235 KALISPEL’s response to this answer stated one of the 

reasons is to increase profits. This is certainly true. However, I would like to explore this a 

little further. 

For a capitalist to purchase a new machine to reduce the costs of production (thus increasing 

profits) the cost of the new machine must be less than the wages paid to the workers 

whom the machine will replace. It is not enough for a machine to be “labor-saving” it must 

also be “profit-increasing.” If a machine’s cost is equal to potential savings in wages, it will 


not be purchased; even though it may represent a substantial saving in labor-time in society 

as a whole. This shows an important difference in the dynamics of a capitalist industry 

compared to a planned socialist industry. 

New machinary can lower production costs by saving wages that would have been paid to 

the replaced workers. New technology also lowers costs in another way. When workers see 

that a machine will be used if it is cheaper than wages paid, they have to compete by settling 

for lower wages. This process continues until workers are forced to accept wages that only 

cover the bare cost of reproducing their labor-power. 


[426] Hans: KALISPEL’s and Homer’s answers KALISPEL’s answer [380] not only 

gives the motives themselves, but also a critique of these motives. Just one quibble about the 

motive which you bring first: 

To help keep his class status. He now has a way to cheapen the subsistence 

level of workers which cheapens the value of labor itself. 

Relative surplus value is usually not a conscious motive of the capitalist. The capitalist 

may consider the wages a cost which must be reduced like any other cost. This is a reified 

consciousness which suppresses the fact that the wage is the revenue for his co-citizens. It 

is my view that many capitalists would be much less enthusiastic capitalists if they knew 

where their porofits came from. 

Homer’s [406] is the fourth submission to the same answer, yet he has something to say 

which all of them overlooked: Very good! 


[506] Gottlieb: Technology The capitalist’s main motive for anything is profit. Because 

capitalistic societies are at the cutting edge of technology, technology must equal profits. 

Why? To a capitalist the value of human labor is the amount that they are paying in wages. 

If I own a farm I may pay my illegal laborers fifty dollars per day. They can plant one 

hundred dollars worth of tomatoes per week. I get the surplus $50. If I can somehow create 

more surplus through technology, then I will incorperate it. Loaning my workers hoes will 

help them plant $200 worth of tomatoes per week with only $50 of wage labor costs. 

Personally, a good capitalist would raise the wage to $55 per week and charge $6 per 

week to rent the hoe. If obtaining a machine to create $1000 worth of tomatoes per week 

is possible, I will incorporate it only if my surplus increases. This way the work is less 

strenuous and I can pay my laborers less. 

Hans: This is a very obvious answer. But this is not the only possible motivation, and it might also have been good 

to put this in the context of Marx’s discussion of relative surplus value. 

First Message by Gottlieb is [32]. 

[574] Femme: There’s a motive for each capitalist to cheapen his commodities, increasing 

his profit by increasing productivity of labour. An increase in the productivity of labour is 

defined as a labour process that would decrease the labour-time socially necessary for the 

production of a commodity and have a given quantity of labour which produces a greater 

quantity of use-value. The productivity of a persons labor most likely will not for example


double unless there’s an alteration in his tools or in his mode of production. The introduction 

of new technology is the tool necessary for this alteration so that the productivity of a 

persons labor can double. So with the increase in productivity of labour the value of labourpower 

will go down and the working day necessary for the reproduction of that value will be 

shortened. New technology can discover new ways of making a product with fewer people 

and/or within a shorter period of time which will lead to a higher profit margin by reducing 

costs. 

Hans: Your original message came after [334] and [370], and it added very little to them. 


Question 237 is 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, 688 


Question 237 Why can we gain a scientific understanding of competition only after having 

grasped the inner nature of capital? 

[386] Pizza: The inner nature of capital are those forces which assert themselves upon 

individuals through society. To attempt to quanitify we must first use a looking glass as 

does the scientist to observe the relations between each of the actors in our play. Once we 

understand the context of the scene we then look to the roles played out by the actors. We 

known the context now lets see the result. 


[401] Wolf: To begin with I would like to first start by addrassing two ideas, “We first 

must grasp the inner nature of capital before we can understand the phenomena generated 

by competition.” pp.144 If it is a phenom., then everything about it is new, unrealised, and 

not perceptable to the sences. It is dynamic. Next, I would like to address the fact that 

in compairison to cooperation, competition is where something is always lost or wasted. 

where as in cooperation something is always gained. For example if 2 people were to build 

a house, if they both worked together they might have a place to stay for winter and can use 

the capital/machienery to build the next house for the other. But, if they are in competion 

and don’t work together and share there are inumerable wastes and they both may not have 

a place to stay for the winter. 

Hans: That Marx said so is not a sufficient answer to the Question “why”. 

Message [401] referenced by [431] and [599]. Next Message by Wolf is [445]. 

[431] Hans: Short and worth reading Pizza’s short answer [386] is worth reading carefully; 

it is a good description of Marx’s method. Wolf’s [401] misunderstands how Marx 

uses the words “phenomenon” and “competition”. Although in general usage, a phenomenon 

is something amazing and unexplainable, Marx uses it in the philosophical sense of an 

empirical fact, something which presents itself to the investigator on the surface. “Competition” 

is used by Marx for the market interactions of the economic agents under capitalism. 


Exam Question 238 is 205 in 1995WI, 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, 

690 in 2010fa, 710 in 2011fa, 739 in 2012fa, and 690 in Answer: 


Exam Question 238 Does the introduction of new machinery increase the value produced 

during the day? 

[375] Kalle: Intro of new machinery=increased value produced? To answer this question 

one must first distinguish between social value and individual value. I chapter One we 

learned that the labor cost (or value) that goes into a commodity is determined by the socially 

necessary labor time under prevailing production conditions. The socially necessary 

labor time and value of means of production determines the social value of a commodity. 

However, one producer might be able to increase productivity and use less labor time for a 

given commodity than what is socially necessary. The individual value of his products will 

therefore be less than the social value. 

For a moment, let’s go further back and look at the labor power that goes into the products. 

A producer has only available a limited amount of labor hours. To determine how 

much labor time to allocate to each article, one put total labor time over number of articles 

produced. However, introduction of new machinery might reduce the labor time allocated to 

each article. The total labor time, however, remains the same, but will be allocated in a less 

amount over an increased number of products. Since value of labor time is a fixed amount 

the total value produced remains the same. For example, let’s assume that 100 hours of labor 

produced 10 articles, and each labor hour is valued at $1, a total of $100. In this situation 

$10 worth of labor goes into each product. If new machinery caused an increase in production 

so that it only took 9 hours worth of labor time to produce the article, only $9 of labor 

value is allocated to each product. For this we can see that increased productivity caused by 

new machinery does not increase value produced. The labor time is merely distributed over 

an increased number of products. 

However, if we look back on the discussion about social value and individual value, we 

can see that an increase in productivity will benefit the producer. The individual value of each 

article will be less than the social value, because he uses less labor than socially necessary 

on the average. Consumers will still value his products at the social value, and will therefore 

realize extra surplus value because he produces the articles for less than the social value. 

This situation, however, is not a sustainable over a longer period. Other producers will 

duplicate the more productive method and will soon be the “new standard” or socially necessary 

on the average. 

Hans: Good comprehensive answer. But it is a little confusing that you call value also the “labor cost” und the 

value created in a certain time the “value of labor time”. In general usage, the labor cost of an article is the wage 

cost, which is below the value created by the labor. 


[449] Snowman: Re: question 238 The introduction of new, presumably more efficient 

machinery does not increase the value produced in a day. The value of what is produced in 

a day is based on the human labor power expended in a day. If a person is to work for a full 

day, say eight hours, then the results of his/her work for that day carry the value of having 

an eight hour quantity of human labor, or some fraction there of depending on what is being 

produced and how much of the working day is devoted to its production on average. That is 

if the labor of an eight hour work day results in the completion of eight commodities then 

each commodity contains 1/8th of the value produced by that worker for that day. Should


the efficiency double because for the introduction of a new machine then the output for the 

worker will double and at the end of the day there will be twice as many goods, however 

the value of each commodity will be halve as they represent individually half the labor as 

was contained in them before. So the sum of the value produced in one day is still the 

same it is only spread over twice as many goods. The only difference is that the quantity of 

goods produced is doubled, what this may mean socially is that certain labor-power may be 

freed to persue other production, assuming the quantity orginaly produced before the new 

machine was sufficient, so that now half the total labor hours are required to produce the 

same quantity of commodities. This could over the long run allow greater diversity in what 

is being produced in the community as a whole. This is assuming that the Labor-power 

originally producing the commodity where the new machine was installed was performed 

by more than one person, for you can slit the labor in a production plant to other plants, but 

not in the individual Laborer to other plants. 

Hans: Well written and clear. But you should have mentioned the extra surplus value in the short run, for those 

who innovate first, which was at the center of attention in Kalles’s [375]. 

Message [449] referenced by [464]. Next Message by Snowman is [507]. 

[464] MUCHO: introduction of new machinery Snowman points out important fact. 

He states in his submission[449], introducing new machinery only increase the efficiency 

for the products which also leads to the increase of the output. However, the value will 

remain same. I feel the same way as Snowman. The new machinery cannot effect the value 

of goods any ways. Because, machinery cannot create the value. Only the human labor can 

create the value produced during the day. 


Exam Question 239 is 206 in 1995WI and 215 in 1995ut: 

Exam Question 239 Explain the difference between individual value and social value. 

[341] Wight: Individual value is the labor cost to produce one article. Social value is the 

cost to produce the great bulk of the same articles under average social conditions. Individual 

value of articles is typically lower than social value. When aggregated, the cost of production 

is higher accounting for higher social value, whereas with individual value the producer has 

some additional control over his costs and techniques to cut labor costs. There is an average 

that each article costs marketwide, but under altered modes of production, these costs can 

be reduced resulting in lower individual value for that particular producer. The effective 

value of a commodity is its social value not individual value i.e. its value is not measured by 

the labor time that the article costs the producer in each individual case but the labor time 

socially required for its production. This differential between social and individual value is 

realized by the producer in the form of extra surplus value. 

Hans: The social value can also be below individual value, since the competitors are trying innovate and to control 

their costs as well. When you introduce the question of “effective” value, it sounds as if you was a question of how 

to measure values, but from your last sentence one can see that it is the question which of these values determines 

the price. 

Message [341] referenced by [343], [377], [385], and [432]. Next Message by Wight is [422]. 

[343] MsMarx: Difference in individual value and social value Individual value is 

lower than social value; an article costs less labor-time than the bulk of the same articles 

produced under the average social conditions. The effective value of a commodity is not its 


individual value, but its social value. Its value is not measured by the labor-time that the 

article costs the producer in each individual case, but by the labor-time socially required for 

its production. If a capitalist sells his commodity at its social value of 44 cents, but under 

the altered mode of production it costs only 20 cents, he realizes an extra surplus-value of 

24 cents. 

In other words, the value of an article depends on the labor socially necessary to produce 

it. If an individual capitalist can find a way of raising productivity above the general level, 

he can reap more surplus-value, since the general level of productivity still determines the 

value of the product. This seems to be a strong incentive to increase productivity. Other 

capitalists will then be forced to copy the new methods, for fear of being undersold, and the 

value of the product will fall as the general level of productivity is raised. 

Hans: Your answer is good, but even though you did not want a grade for it, you should have said, for the benefit 

of the many class participants to whom these answers are sent, how your answer relates to what Wright wrote in 

[341] a day earlier. Did you consider it a clarification, or a correction, or did he leave something out? 

Message [343] referenced by [377] and [432]. Next Message by MsMarx is [436]. 

[359] Snake: individual and social value Individual value constitutes that the behavior 

of one individual may not be that of another individual. Personal traits dictate the motive behind 

an individual decision making. The decision making ability of an individual is effected 

by his/hers cultural background. Where one individual might highly value a commodity as 

opposed to another whom might not value this commodity at all. Thus, the demand for a 

particular commodity may be at any given value on the individual level. Therefore a producer 

would want to develop a commodity that fits the needs of a particular individual. On 

the other hand, social value is driven by the forces of the community. Depending on the 

type of society involved in market time production and exchange, the demand for a commodity 

is given by the needs of the social complex. Where consumers as a whole empower 

the value of the commodity. Therefore a producer would want to develop a commodity by 

which is deemed acceptable once under social context, where the value of the commodity is 

determined by the demand. 

Hans: Your answer has nothing to do with Marx or with the context in which the Question was asked. 

Message [359] referenced by [432]. Next Message by Snake is [515]. 

[377] Bandit: Individual value and Social Value In order to distinguish the difference 

between individual value and social value we must first define what the value of a commodity 

is. The value of a commodity is made up of the value of quantity of labour and the value 

of the instruments used in the labor process. Therefore, the individual value is the added 

value given by the amount of labor used in producting the commodity. The social value, or 

the “real value of the commodity” is the labour-time required for its production. In other 

words the individual value is the labour-time, in each individual case, the product costs the 

producer, whereas social value is the total labour-time value of the product. 

Hans: You are saying that the individual value is the direct labor going into the product, while the social value is 

the direct and indirect labor. This is a wrong answer. Your answer came after Wight’s [341] and MsMarx’s [343], 

which were both correct answers. 

Next Message by Bandit is [560]. 

[392] Brumbys: individual and social Society is made up of individuals. It is important 

to understand that society is the majority. We cannot cry about one person’s values not being 

represented by society. If we allow this to happen, thenw we will fall into a society where


everybody will be expecting to be listened to. If you have power or money and lots of it, 

then your values will be expressed by society. If you have neither, then you will be ithe one 

who is crying in the end. In terms of commodities, social value determines the price of an 

item. It is not the individual labor time that determines the price it is the whole entire labor 

force. Therefore, the value of a commodity is not the individual but the social labor time it 

took for its production. So in a capitalist society this is how they profit is by selling above 

its individual value. 

Message [392] referenced by [432]. Next Message by Brumbys is [392.2]. 

[397] Positive: There are several other students answering this question. Wight and 

MsMarx are copying Karl Marx himself too much. This might be the reason why they do 

not really get the understanding of his thoughts. Snake,on the other hand talkes over his 

head. This is how I will view Marx’ thoughts: 

Labor-time is the social value which again represents social labor. The individual labor is 

the labor-time contributed to produce a specific product. The effective value of a commodity 

is not individual value but social value. For example, a product which appears as two hours 

worth of labor can actually be done in a shorter period of time. This shorter period of time 

implies as more intense and effective labor, and is named as the individual value of the labortime. 

The whole two hours is the social value. The products made throughout the day will be 

sold at their price from social value. So - the value of the product made is not measured by 

the time of labor it costs for the producer in each individual case, but the socially labor-time 

required for its production. The market-price of a product is always sold at its social value, 

vs the labor which is done at its individual value. And, the differential between social and 

individual value is realized by the producer in the form of surplus value. 


[398] CaseWorker: individual and social In my terms, the difference between individual 

value and social value is: An individual values would be value you would set for yourself 

and social value as in general is some value you would set to fit society. when you set an 

individual value you do not care if anyone would accept it or not. but when setting a social 

value, you want it to be accepted by the general public. 

Message [398] referenced by [432]. First Message by CaseWorker is [335.9]. 

[432] Hans: Individual and Social Value: Seven Answers We have seven answers to 

this Question. The first answer, Wight’s [341], was already basically correct, and the second 

answer, MsMarx’s [343], was a little clearer and also added a little bit that was not in [343]. 

Strangely, both claim that indvidual value is below social value. This is obviously incorrect; 

it is like saying that everyone is above average. 

Snake’s [359] and CaseWorker’s [398] give an interpretation of the concept “individual 

value” and “social value” which has nothing to do with Marx or the subject of the readings. 

They got very bad grades for this. 

Brumbys’s [392] and Positive’s [397] try to give an additional spin to the “correct” answers. 

Brumbys sees a parallel between the social fact that society does not necessarily 

represent an individual’s value and the economic fact that commodities are valued at their 

average rather than their individual labor content. I would have liked Brumbys to be more 

specific about the connection of these two things. Brymbys seems to say that a society in 


which everyone expects to be listened to would be a society of crybabies. How about a society 

of mature adults in which in fact everybody has a say, not only the rich and powerful? 

Positive thinks that the source of profits is that you produce something which seems to 

contain two hours of labor in a shorter time than two hours. Although it is a common 

marketing strategy to make everything look as slick and expensive as possible, this is not the 

main source of surplus value. I also disagree with the formulation of Positive’s last sentence: 

The differential between social and individual value is realized by the producer 

in the form of surplus value. 

Don’t confuse the capitalist with the “producer.” The worker is the producer. 


Question 240 is 207 in 1995WI, 216 in 1995ut, 238 in 1996ut, 291 in 1997WI, and 356 in 

1997sp: 

Question 240 Why does Marx say the social value and not the individual value is the “effective” 

value (wirklicher Wert)? 

[357] Reidar: “Effective” value Marx says that the social value of a commodity is the 

effective value because the social value associated with a commodity is the value that the 

capitalist can sell his product for. Although the capitalist may reduce the cost of producing 

his product and thus have a lower individual value, the value which he is interested in when 

the product enters the market place for sell is the “effective” social value. 

Marx later explains that the capitalist will have a greater quantity of commodities to sell 

an may have to sell below the social value price in order to sell his commodities. He however 

can still sell above his cost with a greater margin of profit. 

His competitors may obtain the same technology in order to reduce their prices to match 

his, but regardless of how the market price may change, the effective value to the capitalist 

is still the social value. 

Message [357] referenced by [368] and [385]. Next Message by Reidar is [487]. 

[368] Hans: “Effective” value The first portion of Reidar’s answer [357] is completely 

right: 

Marx says that the social value of a commodity is the effective value because 

the social value associated with a commodity is the value that the 

capitalist can sell his product for. Although the capitalist may reduce the 

cost of producing his product and thus have a lower individual value, the 

value which he is interested in when the product enters the market place for 

sell is the “effective” social value. 

Next Reidar tries out his concept in somewhat more irregular cases. This is a good way 

to test it: 

Marx later explains that the capitalist will have a greater quantity of commodities 

to sell an may have to sell below the social value price in order to


sell his commodities. He however can still sell above his cost with a greater 

margin of profit. 

According to Reidar’s own criterion, here the social value is no longer the effective value, 

but the individual value is not either. The market price is. I would go along with this. In the 

next paragraph, Reider makes a mistake: 

His competitors may obtain the same technology in order to reduce their 

prices to match his, but regardless of how the market price may change, the 

effective value to the capitalist is still the social value. 

In this situation, not only the market price changes, but also the social value changes. If 

the social value falls to the capitalist’s individual value, then one can say that the individual 

value is the “effective” value, but only because it is equal to the social value. 


[385] Peaches: Effective social value Marx states that social value and not individual 

value is the effective value of a commodity. This means that the social value, for a capitalist, 

means extra surplus-value. The capitalist can make extra money if he sells his commodity 

at its social value rather than for its individual value which means that it has costs less 

labor time for the same items produced under the average social conditions. Its value is 

not measured by the labor-time that the item costs the producer in each individual case, but 

by the labor-time socially required for its production. The effective value of a commodity, 

therefore, is not its individual, but its social value. 

Hans: Taken by itself, your answer is ok and shows that you are understanding the material. But [357] and [368] 

already gave a much more comprehensive answer than yours, and also [341] says everything that you are saying. 

This hurts your grade. 

Next Message by Peaches is [407.3]. 


1997sp, 355 in 1997ut, and 597 in 2007SP: 

Question 241 How does the introduction of machinery increase the exploitation of the 

worker even if he does not have to work harder and longer than before and lives as well 

as before? 

[347] Jupiter: Exploitation of the worker The introduction of machinery into a the life 

of a worker would seem to be a very positive thing, but in many cases it is not the case. Let 

me go off on a tangent for a second, during the industrial revolution many new machines 

came to town to make work easier for the the workers, but what ended up happening is that 

the work became much more labor intensive. New machines brought problems which had to 

be fixed by the workers and many times these machines would kill those who were working 

with them, hours became longer for these workers producing hords of commodities much to 

the delight of the owners of production. The work spaces were dark and not well ventilated 

for the exaust of these machines. 

Now that I said that back to the question at hand. Yes, the introduction of machines do 

increase the exploitation of the worker. Just because a laborer works the same hours and 

does not have to work harder, and lives just sa well as before does not mean that he is not 


exploited. Exploitation takes many forms, in this case the text in which we see it is that of 

unfair wages. This is clear that a laborer gets paid for his labor-power(abstract labor), so if 

he worked on making boots and did it all by hand it takes him a while to do it, and he is paid 

for whatever he put into that boot, and every boot that he puts labor into. If a machine or 

new tools come along to make this production of boots double that of the old production the 

laborer will loose the surplus value that will be made by the owner of the boot factory. Let 

me make this clearer, the owner of the factory can now sell twice as many boots as before, 

and still pay the person who actually made them the same amount, this gives the owner a big 

surplus of money, while the only surplus that the worker gets is that of surplus-labor, which 

is like giving free labor. 

Exploitation can be hidden as I have just mentioned or it can be more blatant as in my 

opening paragraph, it is a key player in the game of the capitalist. 

Message [347] referenced by [366]. Next Message by Jupiter is [349]. 

[366] Hans: Increases in productivity hide exploitation Jupiter’s [347] gives the right 

answer: if the capitalist makes more money but does not give any of this to the worker, 

this makes the situation more unfair and therefore is an increase in exploitation, even if 

absolutely the worker is no worse off than before. It is not just a moral issue: the higher 

profits give the capitalist more power over the worker: he can use the additional money to 

break strikes, lobby for anti-labor government, etc. 

But I disagree with the following formulation: 

During the industrial revolution many new machines came to town to make 

work easier for the the workers, but what ended up happening is that the 

work became much more labor intensive. 

This sounds as if the purpose of the machinery was to improve the situation of the worker, 

but unfortunately the reality of it turned out differently. You can read similar stories in the 

newspaper every day. Somehow all the bad consequences of capitalism are happening by 

mistake. The capitalists know exactly what the consequences of their actions are, and they 

still have the gall to say: we did not want it. 


[381] MUCHO: exploitation of worker Because the machinery was introduced, muscular 

power was not as important as it used to be. As a result, the labor of women and children 

was the capitalist application of machinery. According to the book, “The value of laborpower 

was determined, not only by the labor-time necessary to maintain the individual adult 

worker, but also by that necessary to maintain his family.” It also states that “Machinery, 

by throwing every member of that family onto the labor-market, spreads the value of the 

man’s labor-power over his whole family.” For the capitalist, it will cost them to purchase 

the labor-power of whole family than the labor-power of the head of the family. However, 

they believe that it is worth doing so because they can minimize the labor time and the price 

falls in proportion to the excess of the surplus labor of whole family over the surplus labor of 

one. Now the whole family have to provide not only labor for the capitalist, but also surplus 

labor. 

Message [381] referenced by [433]. Next Message by MUCHO is [458].


[390] Scott: The introduction of machinery decreases the amount of labour power necessary 

for the labourer to reproduce her / his value. Thus, by default, this increases the surplusvalue, 

since we can say that the working day, and working pay can remain unchanged. The 

previous submissions, concerning this question, have made the point of increased efficiency 

for the capitalist, so that more work can be accomplished in a given period. Generally stated, 

surplus-value is creating profit, and is the exploitation of the worker in a capitalist society. 

An example might be of a secretary whom has had a computer installed in his office. The 

capitalists’ value of a secretary in a particular city might be $1800 per month. Okay, so 

now this capitalists’ secretary can accomplish many more tasks in the same work day as the 

adjacent secretaries down the street. In fact, the addition of machinery for the one secretary 

will lead to the further exploitation of the adjacent ones, since they will all receive improved 

machinery i.e. computers, to accomplish more work in the same period of time, due to 

competition. 

The exploitation of the worker has increased due to the introduction of machinery. He 

is producing more surplus-labour than without the computer, and yet the rate for secretaries 

has not changed in the market, nor has the lenght of the work day. 

Message [390] referenced by [433]. Next Message by Scott is [429.1]. 

[417] Gilligan: well since my submission didn’t go through the first time, my answer 

ought to compare to most that have attempted to answer it. As machinery is introduced 

into the workplace a lot more is able to be accomplished in the same amount of time. The 

laborer without the machine was able to produce according to his or her individual value 

and was paid for that, when machinery is implemented the worker produces alot more than 

he previously was able to. Once this has happened it creates a surplus value that isn’t being 

passed onto the laborer and in this sense he is being exploited. The capitalist is the person 

who is sitting back enjoying the new machinery because he’s able to make a quick profit and 

still pay his employee (SLAVE) the same wages as before. This is true because I’m in this 

same type of situation at my work. We used to put the machines we manufacture together 

with screwdrivers, hammers, and other small instruments, then they decided to get everybody 

power tools to speed up the production process, which it did and I was able to produce at 

least twice as much as before. BUT they haven’t even thought of paying me differently and 

the surplus value of my labor is going directly into their pockets. It made me mad after I 

read this and it really made me think of the many ways in which the capitalist system takes 

advantage of me and my fellow members of society. With capitalism exploitation is the 

name of the game. 

Message [417] referenced by [433]. Next Message by Gilligan is [448]. 

[433] Hans: MUCHO’s, Scott’s, and Gilligan’s answers After I wrote in [366] that 

it is not the purpose of machinery to improve the situation of the worker, MUCHO gave 

a good example of this in [381]: even the fact that machine labor is easier than manual 

labor is turned agaisnt the worker, because now the capitalist is able to employ children. 

Gilligan’s [417] is an interesting personal account of his own situation: he feels tbat in he is 

exploited more because the labor process has been made mroe efficient without him getting 

any benefits from it. 

Scott, in [390], seems to mean the right thing, but his formulations are very imprecise. 

Instead of 


The introduction of machinery decreases the amount of labour power necessary 

for the labourer to reproduce her / his value. 

he should have written: 

The introduction of machinery decreases the amount of labour necessary to 

reproduce the labourer’s labour power. 

And surplus value is not creating profit, but profit is surplus value. Besides, Scott’s grade 

suffered because he said things that were said before on the list. 


[443] Jake: Question 241 wants to address the exploitation of the worker by the introduction 

of technology. I want to make the point that technology always exploits the workers. Its 

true that the capitalists gain more by more efficient ways and employees never share these 

excess profits, but I want to talk about technology and relate it to slavery. Without any major 

advances in technology, slavery in the early going of this country clearly exploited mankind 

more than any kind of exploitation today. This exploitation came from the hard core manually 

labor expected from the plantation owners. With all the hard labor the slaves put into the 

plantations, is this better than if they had tractors and other means of producing? I guess the 

point trying to be made is that as wrong as it was to condone slavery at that time, technology 

could of been one of the many factors that began to turn individuals from slavery. Other 

means of extracting came about. So as bad as technology may seem today as a means of 

exploiting workers, there was a time that it actually may have helped them. There may be 

many exceptions similiar today. 



2000fa, 479 in 2001fa, 518 in 2002fa, 538 in 2003fa, 592 in 2004fa, 545 in 2005fa, 

598 in 2007SP, 588 in 2007fa, 596 in 2008SP, 600 in 2008fa, 712 in 2011fa, and 741 in 

2012fa: 

Question 242 What is extra surplus-value? How is it related to relative surplus-value? 

[378] Kia: Marx stated that extra value is social value that is added to produce a commodity. 

Which the the value that are measured by the labor time socially required for producing 

a commodity. Thus, if capitalist who applies this method and sell his commodity at its social 

value of 24 cents, and turns around and sell it for above its individual value of 6 cents. At 

end he realize the extra value of 6 cents. 

Relative surplus value can be recognized from the value of the production costs. From 

this costs, good percentage represent the value of the means of production. The rest of the 

sum, are created during the production. Looking at this, most produtive labor is done at 

the end of working day. Thus, workers now only need to work less hours to produce same 

value at a higher surplus value. Increasing the number of the extra surplus value into relative 

value. 

Message [378] referenced by [447]. Next Message by Kia is [400]. 

[396] Caren: Extra surplus-value A driving force for the social production of surplusvalue 

is actually in individual capitalists attempt to improve their own methods of production


in order to obtain extra surplus-value. A capitalist who has managed to introduce an exceptionally 

superior technological method of production in comparison with the dominant 

representative method in an industry reduces the labor-time as well as the costs necessary to 

produce a unit of product, while he can sell it with a social value estimated on the basis of the 

general conditions of production in the industry. The extra surplus-value which is obtained 

by such a capitalist must disappear with the gradual diffusion of his method of production 

over the industry, and the social value of the product is accordingly reduced down. Therefore, 

the acquisition of extra surplus-value presupposes more or less difficulty in instantly 

introducing new technological methods of production on the part of other capitalists, generally 

because of the costs of abandoning the existing equipments with their remaining values. 

The legal patent rights system further serves to secure extra surplus-value for the initiating 

capitalists. 

Since even the capitalists in industries producing luxury goods can obtain extra surplusvalue 

by innovating technologies, extra surplus-value is obtainable even without directly 

contributing to the social production of relative surplus-value. The workers with same intensity 

of labor cease to bring about extra surplus-value after the generalisation of new technology. 

The source of extra surplus-value is in the redistribution of social surplus-labor-time 

through the price mechanism, so that either less surplus-labor-substance may be distributed 

to other capitalists with old methods of production, or it is increased socially, with the gradual 

reduction of the price of commodity products in the process of generalisation of new 

method of production. So long as a portion of social surplus-labor must cover, in one way 

or another, the costs of improving methods of production according to the general economic 

norms common to all human societies, the portion of capitalistic surplus-labor redistributed 

in the form of extra surplus-value has such a social function by its very nature. Nevertheless 

there cannot be any objective standard set by general economic norms as to how large 

a proportion of social surplus-labor is to be spent for such a function. And the quantity of 

surplus-labor obtained in the form of extra surplus-value by capitalists often well exceeds 

the quantity of labor which is rationally and actually necessary for improving methods of 

production. Hence, it serves as a strong incentive for technological innovations. 

The capitalistic development of productive power, driven by the incentive to acquire extra 

surplus-value and resulting in the social production of relative surplus-value, takes three 

elementary forms: i.e. co-operation, division of labor and mechanised factory system. 


[404] Super: The extra surplus value is the extra time spent to produce an extra amount of 

product. The workday is extended to produce a surplus amount or increase total productivity. 

The relative surplus value is the increased technology or innovation used in the production 

process to increase total output of the product within the same amount of time. 

These are related in that both cause increased total productivity in the production of a 

commodity. 


[447] Hans: Caren’s, Kia’s and Super’s answers Caren’s answer [396] is very thoughful. 

She points out the link between extra surplus value and patent laws, and she also asks the 

question where the extra surplus value comes from, and how good its social justification is. 


These are additional points which are not in the reading, but which pertinent to the subject. 

Very good job! 

By contrast, Kia’s [378] and Super’s [404] are completely in the dark about the subject. 


Question 246 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. 

[403] TOAD: Some of the other avenues that will increase surplus value would be tecnology. 

With new tecnology the worker is able to produce ten times as many products as 

before now he only spends one tenth as much time on every item. The laborer still has the 

opertunity to work for the same amount of hours he just is now able to credit more time to 

himself and less to necessary labor time. 

One other avenue is becoming more skilled at the task at hand this enables the laborer 

to increse the number of units produced in a given amount of time and use the remaning 

time, that would continue to increase as he became better and quicker, to credit towards his 

surplus value. 


[460] Hans: TOAD’s answer TOAD’s [403] starts with the sentence: 

Some of the other avenues that will increase surplus value would be tecnology. 

“Increase in productivity” and “technology” is the same thing. It seems so obvious that 

an increase in productivity increase profits, but according to the labor theory of value it is 

not. You write: 

With new tecnology the worker is able to produce ten times as many products 

as before now he only spends one tenth as much time on every item. 

But if the labor theory of value is valid, then the total sum of values the worker creates 

during the day does not change. See Question 238 about that. How can then profits increase? 

It is not a rhetorical question, but it is not obvious. This was the subject of Chapter 12. 

In the second paragraph of your answer, you should have distinguished between increases 

in productivity and increases in intensity of labor. If you change your production method so 

that more can be produced with the same amount of effort, this is an increase in productivity. 

If you produce more because you work faster, this is an increase in the product but not an 

increase in productivity, because you had to work harder for the additional output. 

One other avenue is becoming more skilled at the task at hand this enables 

the laborer to increse the number of units produced in a given amount of 

time and use the remaning time, that would continue to increase as he became 

better and quicker.


Workers whose work intensity is higher than the average create more value than the average. 

Their wages will be higher, but the wage differential will be lower than the difference in 

value produced. Since higher technology is often accompanied by more control and therefore 

more intensive labor, this is indeed an additional avenue for increasing profits. 


Exam Question 247 is 214 in 1995WI, 223 in 1995ut, 245 in 1996ut, 298 in 1997WI, and 

733 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 247 What is the difference between the value (resp. price) of labor-power 

and the wage? 

[422] Wight: When a capitalist pays a worker, a transformation takes place. The transformation 

is one of the value of the labor power into a price. The price is not paid for the 

labor power itself but for the labor in which the labor power is recognized. The difference 

between the value of labor power and the wage paid is illustrated in this transformation. If 

the worker were paid for his labor power, he would need to tell the employer how much he 

needs for the reproduction of his labor power, and the employer would reimburse for these 

expenses. Instead, the worker is paid for his labor in which his labor power is realized. His 

compensation is the wage paid for labor. The worker is not surprised that he is paid for his 

labor. After selling his labor power on the market, he cannot go home and enjoy the wage. 

He must first show up and work for the capitalist for many hours. What he really gives the 

capitalist is therefore his labor. The worker does not see the transformation that I mentioned 

earlier. He thinks he is paid for what he is giving the capitalist which is his labor. Hence, 

the value of labor power is the cost to replenish and repoduce this labor power day after 

day, and the wage is the monetary compensation paid by the employer for labor performed 

by the employee. This transformation is one big reason why exploitation is invisible under 

capitalism. 

Message [422] referenced by [461]. Next Message by Wight is [527]. 

[461] Hans: Wight’s answer Wight’s answer [422] was a good explanation (based on my 

Annotations). Here is an additional point which, I hope, makes the matter more concrete. 

Since the workers sells her labor power, she only gets paid the value of her labor power, not 

the value of what she is producing. If someone makes $10 per hour, this is not because she 

creates a value of $10 per hour, but because workers like her traditionally need $400 per 

week to survive, and work 40 hours per week. 


[481] Caren: There is the difference between the value of labor-power and the wage. The 

wage is the price of labor power, in so far as this is simply function of the relation of supply 

and demand on the labor market; on the other hand the value of labor-power is that average 

quantity to which the actual wage paid seeks to adjust itself in the long run, and which is 

therefore independent of supply and demand. Since labor-power only exists as a capacity 

of the living individual, and since it is inseparable from its bearer, the worker himself, the 

costs of its production clearly break down into those costs which are required to maintain 

the worker as worker and to perpetuate the race of workers; and these are primarily the 

necessities which serve for the maintenance of workers and their families, for their nourishment, 

clothing, housing etc., if we disregard the relatively small costs of training of the great 


majority of workers. In this sense the value of labor-power is determined by the value of 

the necessary means of labor incorporated in them. The value of labor-power is constituted 

from two elements, one of which is merely physical, the other social. Nothing other than 

that the laws of determination of wages are elastic, and that the value of labor-power must 

vary within particular limits. Its ultimate limit is determined by physical element, that is to 

say, to maintain and reproduce itself, to perpetuate is physical existence, the working class 

must receive the necessaries absolutely indispensable for living and multiplying. The value 

of those indispensable necessaries forms, therefore, the ultimate limit of the value of labor. 

The wage moves up or down according to the relationship between supply and demand 

that is the relation between the disposable labor-powers and the size of the capital which is 

seeking an outlet in production. 


[482] Skippy: Wage Vs Labor Power Its very simple. 

Its is stated clearly that a wage is the compensation received by an individual for his labor 

time. 

Labor power is realized in labor itself. Labor power is the capibility of the individual. 

This is a consept. To provide labor is putting this concept to work. This is how an employer 

desides, in a way, how much to set the wage based on the job required. 


[499] Pizza: In looking to the other answers on question 247 I dont feel the question or 

meaning of labor power was answered. 

Labor power is the resulting output that produces an enhanced value that is not easily 

recognized by the worker who thinks that he is only selling labor. Labor is amount of 

resources expended to produce the labor power. The failure to recognize this distinction on 

the part of the worker and recognition on the part of the capitalist enables this nondistinction 

to be perpetuated. Capitalism helps to sustain this distinction as the worker is alienated from 

the transformation process and I think this allows the capitalist to perpetuate the belief that 

the end result of the production is the result of his labor and not the worker. The value 

belongs to the capitalists, the worker did not play a part in this labort value. Somewhere in 

the middle I think lies the actual truth that both parties have the right to the ownership of the 

labor value. 


[505] Femme: The value of labour-power is what the labour is worth. For the worker the 

cost of production is the value of labour-power as it exists in the personality of the worker. 

By calculating the daily value of labour-power upon the length of the workers life and giving 

it a money form determines the value of labour. In Marx’s example he used a 12 hour day 

was equivalent to a vlaue of labour-power of $3. The laborer took 12 hours to produce an 

object and his labour-power is = $3. If the laborer produced 2 of these same objects within 

his 12 hours of labor than the vlaue of his labour power is =$6. 

The wage is what a laborer earns despite how many objects he produces within his 12 

hours of work a day (sticking to the example). It’s a fixed amount despite the workers 

production and efficiency. For the capitalist the cost of production will naturally be lower 

than the value/price of the labour-power. Because despite how many objects the laborer


produces, he receives a fixed amount not based on the value of the items as defined by hours 

of labor it took to produce the item but based on an amount that will be most profitable for 

the capitalist. This the difference between wage and value of labour-power as I understood 

it. 

Message [505] referenced by [570]. Next Message by Femme is [548]. 

[510] KALISPEL: Labout power and the wage Wages are the monetary form in which 

workers are paid for the sale of their labor power. Their level is the price of lavor power, 

and like other prices this fluctuates around its value, according to the particular situation of 

demand and supply, in this case in the labor market. Unlike other commodities, however, 

labor power is not produced under capitalist relations of production, and the value of labor 

power therefore undergoes no transformation into a price of production as the price around 

which, for other commodities, the market price fluctuates. The value of labor power, in that 

sense, remains untransformed. 

Marx points out that the wage-form is deceptive in nature because a day’s wage is paid 

only after a whole day’s work, it appears that it is payment for a day’s labor. The worker 

is underpaid. The capitalist tries to make it appear that the worker is being paid for the 

labor they produced by doing this. Marx points out that unequal exchange cannot produce 

value, only possibly redistribute the surplus. The wage form is the hidden mechanism in 

exploitation. 

The condition is that the wage is an agreement of payment when a certain amount of labor 

is performed. What is really being bought and sold is a worker’s labor power. This is paid 

for at its value, and its value must be less than that which the worker could create in one 

day, otherwise no profit would be made. The wage form is illusory in the sense of hiding 

the exploitation that goes underneath it, not in the sense of being unreal. It is a real mode of 

surplus extraction of capitalism. 

Marx points out that the growth of wages cannot keep pace with the growth of productivity. 

This comes out when he considers national differences in wages. He argues that 

although the level of wages may be higher in absolute terms in more advanced capitalist 

countries the value of labor power will be lower than in less developed nations. This is 

because the purpose of capitalist accumulation is the extraction of more and more surplus 

value, and ultimately this must take form of the extraction of relative surplus value through 

a lowering of the value of labor power. Wages will rise with time, but in the movement 

from less to more developed economies, this is not in proportion to the relative increase of 

productivity, and what happens is workers become more exploited as the value of their labor 

power falls. 

Succinctly: The more capitalism grows so does the rate of exploitation rise. The wage is 

the mechanism which hides the exploitation. 


[512] Rambis: labor power vs. wage The wage is what the capitalist pays the laborer for 

his labor, or output produced. The laborer receives compensation for his labor performed 

after he has performed it and realizes that s/he is not paid for his/her labor power, but instead 

for the wage attached to the production of commodities or services through the application 

of his/her labor. The labor power of an individual may be much greater than the labor 


performed to produce a good/service, but the quantity of labor power needed to perform 

the particular labor may be such that full application of labor power isn’t necessary for the 

accomplishment of the capitalist’s desire for output. The wage is simply the value of the 

labor expended to produce the commodity, while the value of labor power can be much 

greater. 

An individual laborer may have a much greater and valuable labor power than another 

laborer, but they are both paid equally for the amount of production that they produce with 

the wage paid for by the capitalist. Thus, the wage is paid for the value of the labor accomplished, 

and not as a measurement of the value of labor power contained within the individual 

who produced the labor product. The laborer may sell his/her labor power in the marketplace 

(including his/her capacity for certain labor skills or performances), but s/he will be 

rewarded or compensated only for his/her labor performed, not for the value of his/her labor 

power. 

Message [512] referenced by [570]. Next Message by Rambis is [563]. 

[515] Snake: difference of value and wage The value of labour power is determined 

by the labor time essential for the production and the duplication of a specific article. As 

far as it has value, it represents no more than a definite quanity of the average social labor 

objectified in it. For his/her maintenance there requires a certain quantity of the means of 

subsistence of the worker. On the other hand, the worker constantly produces labour power 

that dominates and exploits him/her and the capitalist just as constantly produces labour 

power, in the form of a subjective source of wealth which is for the most part theoretical, 

although it exists only in the physical body of the worker, and is separated from its own 

means of objectification and observation, therefore the capitalist produces the worker as 

a wage-labour. This continual reproduction, the duration of the worker, is the absolutely 

necessary circumstances for capitalist production. 

——————– 


[570] Hans: About the remaining answers to Question 247 Caren’s [481] explains the 

difference between value of labor power and the market price of labor power. (What Caren 

calls “wage” is the market price of labor power.) Caren overlooks the other, more important 

transformation, which Marx is focusing on, i.e., the fact that the wage is not paid for the 

labor power itself but for labor. 

Skippy’s [482] is short and interesting enough that I will discuss it here sentence by 

sentence: 

Its is stated clearly that a wage is the compensation received by an individual 

for his labor time. 

Labor power is realized in labor itself. Labor power is the capability of the 

individual. This is a concept. 

So far everything is right. But labor power is not only a concept. Nowadays it is also 

something which you can buy on the market. Labor power can be bought because the laborers 

are prevented from applying their labor power under their own command by the fact 

that they are excluded, by private property rights, from access to the means of production.


Skippy is describing this situation in the words: the worker is only a theoretical concept, and 

the employer puts it into practice, therefore he gets to decide how much to pay the laborer: 

To provide labor is putting this concept to work. This is how an employer 

desides, in a way, how much to set the wage based on the job required. 

What Skippy is forgetting is the coercive social conditions which force the laborer to 

assume the status of a “theoretical concept.” 

Pizza’s [499] and Rambis’s [512] are mislead by the word “power” in the term “labor 

power”. They think labor power is more than mere labor. This is a misunderstanding. Labor 

power, as Marx uses the term, is synonymous to “potential labor”, or “ability to work”, it is 

less than actual labor because it does not have the conditions to realize itself. Such a basic 

misunderstanding makes me wonder how closely Pizza and Rambis have read Marx. On 

the other hand, as examples of the spontaneous explanations people generate for the income 

differentials between capitalist and worker, these answers are of interest. 

Pizza writes in [499]: labor power is the output of labor. The worker works at such low 

wages because he does not realize how valuable the output of his labor is, but the capitalist 

knows it. In other words, Pizza thinks the worker sells his labor, not his labor power, but he 

is too dumb to demand an appropriate price for it. Marx’s answer would be that it is not the 

worker’s stupidity that prevents the laborer from getting an equivalent of what he produces 

during the day, but the fact that he is only selling his ability to work, not his work itself, and 

the market value of this ability is determined by the reproduction cost of the laborer, not by 

the value produced during the day. 

Rambis, in [512], thinks: no wonder the employer pays so little, because he is using only 

very little of the employee’s potential. He is confusing cause and effect. The employer can 

afford using only so little of the employee’s productivity and creativity, and instead assign 

boring, repetitive, and stupid tasks to him, because wages are so low. He has no interest in 

giving the workers more say in the production process because he is afraid the workers will 

then no longer tolerate being taken advantage of and will kick him out. 

Femme, in [505], does not see that labor creates new value but thinks that labor transfers 

its cost to the end product. In her interpretation, profits come from a mixture of overcharging 

on the market place and hurrying the worker in the production process. 

KALISPEL, in [510], brings interesting additional points which are not in the assigned 

readings. His work is, as usual, very thorough and thoughtful. 

Snake’s [515] is apparently a paraphrase of several Marx quotes. They are sometimes 

botched by the omission or confusion of words. I didn’t figure out what he means with it, 

but it sure sounds very Marxian. 



2000fa, 488 in 2001fa, 527 in 2002fa, 547 in 2003fa, 602 in 2004fa, 555 in 2005fa, 608 

in 2007fa, 620 in 2008fa, 651 in 2009fa, 734 in 2011fa, and 608 in Answer: 


Question 248 There is a saying: “if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks 

like a duck, then it is a duck.” What the laborer is selling the capitalist is paid as if it was his 

labor, and what the laborer gives the capitalist during the day is his labor, therefore on what 

grounds does Marx assert that it is not his labor but his labor power which he is selling? 

[497] VanHalen: This chapter took me a while to figure out. Here goes.. 

I think Marx asserts that what is really being sold is labor-power because of the return 

that is given. If you sell a vase, the value of the vase is the labor that it took to produce the 

vase. If the worker was really selling his labor, then he would realize the value of his labor. 

If he put in 12 hours he would recieve the equivalent. 

But he doesn’t. He recieves only the value of his labor-power, the value of which is 

determined by the things necessary to basically keep him alive and working. In reality, that 

is all that he is selling because that is all he gets in return for his 12 hours. 

If the laborer was paid according to his labor then there wouldn’t be any surplus labor, 

hence surplus value reinvestment in capital and accumulation. Labor would realize its value 

just like any other commodity. 

Marx gives an explanation for why there is this false perception that what is being sold 

is labor: “we see further; the value of 3 shillings which represents the paid portion of the 

working day - 6 hours of labour appears as the value of price of the whole working day of 

12 hours, which thus includes 6 hours which have not been paid for. The wage form thus 

extinguishes every trace of the division of the working day into necessary labour and surplus 

labor into paid and unpaid labor. All labour appears as paid labor.” 

If the trace of the division of the working day had not been extinguished, we would better 

be able to see what is actually being sold. The division between paid and unpaid labor would 

be known because of the fact that the return to the laborer is only the value of the things that 

sustain his life and keep him working not the value of all twelve of his labor hours. 

Message [497] referenced by [500] and [541]. Next Message by VanHalen is [551]. 

[500] Homer: question 248 Marx asserts that a worker sells his labor-power rather than 

his labor. As the Annotations state, it appears that the worker is being paid for his labor. 

However, because of the element of surplus value which is created by the worker’s labor, 

the value of one hour of labor-power is less than one hour of social labor time equivilent 

received by workers per one hour of social labor time expended. Thus, the value of labor 

performed is greater than the wage received for the work er’s labor-power. This descrepency 

between the value created by labor and the wagev received for labor-power is the foundation 

of worker exploitation. Every hour that a worker is at work, her labor-power is available 

to the capitalist and she is paid the hourly value of her labor-power. While she recieves 

payment for her labor-power, she does not recieve the full payment for her labor. 

Hans: Your grade suffered because your answer was too similar to VanHalen’s [497], which was posted to the 

class one hour earlier. 


[541] Hans: Cause and Effect in VanHalen’s answer At the beginning of his thoughtful 

answer [497], VanHalen writes:


Marx asserts that what is really being sold is labor-power because of the 

return that is given. 

This is right. Despite superficial evidence to the contrary, Marx insists that what is being 

sold is labor power, because this makes a big difference for the wage the laborer can hope to 

receive. VanHalen continues: 

If you sell a vase, the value of the vase is the labor that it took to produce 

the vase. If the worker was really selling his labor, then he would realize 

the value of his labor. If he put in 12 hours he would recieve the equivalent. 

But he doesn’t. He recieves only the value of his labor-power, the value of 

which is determined by the things necessary to basically keep him alive and 

working. 

Now I disagree with VanHalen’s next sentence. It reads: 

In reality, that is all that he is selling because that is all he gets in return for 

his 12 hours. 

“In reality,” things are exactly the other way round. VanHalen should have written: 

In reality, that is all that he gets in return for his 12 hours because that is all 

he is selling. 

I.e., he does not get the full equivalent for his 12 hours because he is not selling his labor, 

but only his labor power (which has a value that is below the value product of 12 hours). 

VanHalen’s original formulation may still have its justification. Perhaps VanHalen meant: 

I know that he is selling only his labor power because I see that he is getting a wage which 

is much less than the value of labor. The word “because” is sometimes used to describe real 

connections, and sometimes to describe how we find out about reality. 


[544] Hans: More Confusion between Cause and Effect Homer writes in [500]: 

As the Annotations state, it appears that the worker is being paid for his 

labor. 

I think the sentence Homer is referring to is the first sentence in Chapter Nineteen: 

On the surface of bourgeois society, the compensation of the laborer appears 

as price of labor, a certain quantum of money paid for a certain 

quantum of labor. 

Here, appears is taken in the meaning of “takes the form of”. It is not just an illusion, 

but it is reality that the worker gets his income in form of a hourly price of his labor. We are 

talking here about forms, i.e., about the surface of the economy. But Marx warns us that we 

should not conclude from this surface appearance that labor is what the worker is selling the 

capitalist. 

Now Homer continues: 


However, because of the element of surplus value which is created by the 

worker’s labor, the value of one hour of labor-power is less than one hour 

of social labor time equivilent received by workers per one hour of social 

labor time expended. 

This sentence is not quite coherent. I think Homer meant something like: 

However, because of the element of surplus value which is created by the 

worker’s labor, the value of one hour of labor-power received by the worker 

is less than the equivalent produced by one hour of social labor. 

Marx would argue just the other way round: 

Since the value of one hour of labor-power received by the worker is less 

than the equivalent produced by one hour of social labor, the laborer produces 

a surplus value for the capitalist. 

I am amazed how people get cause and effect confused when they speak about exploitation. 

Apparently our brains are so conditioned that we don’t even dare to think that exploitation 

is not some eternal given but that it has specific mechanisms which can be changed. Of 

course, under today’s conditions, the capitalists would not hire the workers if they did not 

get more value out of them than they pay them. But they can only be so greedy because they 

monopolize the means of production and conveniently find the commodity labor power on 

the market. 

In the rest of his submission, Homer has it right and formulates it well, and I will not 

repeat it here. I hope that Homer does not consider it a personal putdown that I am pointing 

out his errors here. I did it because I think others can learn from this exercise too. 


Question 250 is 226 in 1995ut, 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, 720 in 2010fa, 740 in 2011fa, and 769 in 2012fa: 

Question 250 Why can the laborer not sell commodities instead of his labor? 

[442] Jake: question 250 The point being made here is that if a person had the capacity 

to use his labor to bring products to the market place himself, he them would have no need 

to sell his labor power as if it was a commodity. Labor is not first produced as a commodity 

and then brought to the market for exchange. Labor is created the moment it reaches the 

market. 

Another look at the question, “Why can the laborer not sell commodities instead of his 

labor?” If the individual was selling his own commodities in the market, he wouldn’t be considered 

a laborer. A laborer is one who labors for another. One who brings his commodities 

to the market is a producer. 

Message [442] referenced by [462]. Next Message by Jake is [443].


[462] Hans: Jake’s two answers Jake gives two answers in [442]. The second answer 

is: “because then he would not be a laborer.” This is sophistry, call this individual what you 

want. Jake’s first answer is: 

if a person had the capacity to use his labor to bring products to the market 

place himself, he them would have no need to sell his labor power as if it 

was a commodity. 

This assumes that the laborer does not have “the capacity” but does not explain why not. 

The reason is not that the workers are too stupid. The reason is that workers do not have 

control over the means of production. If they were the ones who directed the labor process, 

instead of a greedy boss, then they would also organize the labor in such a way that it is not 

so stultifying for the worker. 


[469] Skyler: “If labor had value, then it would transfer its value to the product.” (Annotations 

Pg. 153) For labor to be of use the laborer must have available the raw materials 

and beable to produce a commodity to sell for value. The value of a commodity or product 

is expressed through its exchange value on the market. The laborer or producer of the 

commodity must take the materials and means of production and produce something to sell 

on the market allowing the value to be expressed. The labor in-and-off-itself is does not 

have value. If it did there would be no need to produce commodities. Labor would just 

exist before being sold. People would store labor until needed and then sell when the time 

was right. In short, a laborer needs a job or a means of production to produce a product or 

commodity. “If a worker able to endow labor with an independent existence, he would be 

selling a commodity, and not labor.” 

Message [469] referenced by [470]. Next Message by Skyler is [566]. 

[470] Hans: Warning: No More Question 250! Skyler’s [469] discusses the issue which 

Marx brings up at the beginning of Chapter Nineteen: that for logical reasons, labor, the 

source of value, cannot have value. I tried to make Marx’s argument more explicit in my 

Annotations. I am not 100 percent satisfied with what I wrote there, but I think it generally 

goes in the right direction. Skyler has read my Annotations and plays with these arguments. 

I am interested in this. Perhaps there is a better way to put it all together. However Skyler’s 

submission is very brief, and I do not see all the connections he is making, and I suspect 

some of them are based on misunderstandings. 

For instance, how does he get from the first sentence: 

“If labor had value, then it would transfer its value to the product.” 

which is a quote from my Annotations, to the second sentence: 

For labor to be of use the laborer must have available the raw materials and 

be able to produce a commodity to sell for value. 

I suspect Skyler understood my quote from the Annotations as if it had said: 

“Labor power only then has any use if it can be materialized in a product.” 


This is not what I meant. I meant: If labor were a commodity like any other, an input 

into production, something that has value instead of being the unique source of value, then it 

would transfer the value which it has to the end product, like any other input into production. 

I.e., then it would be wrong to say that the labor produces more value than it costs the capitalist; 

if the wage costs are so and so much, this is how much value the laborer contributes to 

the product. This is what neoclassical economics assumes, and they even have the “addingup 

theorem” to prove it, but it is at variance with Marx’s claim that all profits come from the 

unpaid labor of the proletarian. 

But apart from this suspected misunderstanding, Skyler’s text makes sense. He does a 

better job than my Annotations at integrating Marx’s 675:3, the paragraph to which Question 

250 refers. In my Annotations I thought there was a break in Marx’s argument, suddenly 

he talks about the practicalities of the exchange. Skyler’s text made it clear to me that these 

practicalities are not extraneous, but that the ability to express the value on the market place 

is essential for the concept of value: 

The value of a commodity or product is expressed through its exchange 

value on the market. The laborer or producer of the commodity must take 

the materials and means of production and produce something to sell on the 

market allowing the value to be expressed. The labor in-and-of-itself does 

not have value. If it did there would be no need to produce commodities. 

Labor would just exist before being sold. People would store labor until 

needed and then sell when the time was right. 

Here Skyler follows my counterfactual argument in the Annotations, but again I meant 

it differently. I meant: people would store labor until needed and then use it when the time 

was right. For instance, some unexpected guests arrive at the door. What do you do? You 

run into the kitchen, take some eggs and flour etc., pour some labor over it out of your bottle, 

and voila you have a cake instantly. No need to store cakes in the deep freezer. And you 

sprinkle some labor into the living room, and there! everything is tidied up and inviting for 

the guests to sit down. 

Skyler’s attempt was interesting and also ambitious, and I rewarded him with a good 

grade for it. But before everyone else rushes to beat this Question to death by answering 

it too, let me warn you: unless you are bringing something really new and enlightening, 

you cannot expect a good grade any more. My earlier [462] and Skyler’s [469] and this 

commentary here probably said everything there is to say about this Question. 


[503] Camera: The laborer can not sell commodities instead of his labor because as stated 

in chapter 19 in order to sell labor as a commodity in the market, it must exist before it is sold. 

To remedy this, the laborer would have to give the labor an independency so that it exists on 

its own and not as a result of the laborer’s efforts. Then he would be selling a commodity 

instead of his labor; but of course this is not how the market works. Commodities sold on 

the market are produced in order to exchange, then brought to the market, whereas labor is 

created the moment it is brought to the market.


Another explanation comes from chapter six where Marx states that there must exist two 

conditions in order for labor power to be a commodity; one was that the person creating the 

labor power must offer the labor power for sale as a commodity, and the other, which helps 

to answer the question at hand, is that the producer of the labor power must free himself 

from the market where his labor power is sold as a commodity. 

Hans: Good answer! 

First Message by Camera is [51]. 

Question 253 is 217 in 1995WI, 304 in 1997WI, 377 in 1998WI, 378 in 1999SP, 495 in 


in 2007fa, and 744 in 2011fa: 

Question 253 Why can the inequality in the exchange between worker and capitalist not 

be explained by the difference that the worker represents living labor, and the capitalist 

objectified labor? 

[494] Karl: Workers gouged? Some economists have argued that labor is not equal to 

the value of other commodities, ie: the labor required to produce an equivalent amount of 

capital. The differentiation process they have used to explain this is dead labor vs. living 

labor. This can be explained in the form. What the capitalist does is make un-essential 

changes in the form of the commodity such as devaluing the labor against the capital. This 

is is only true because of the laborer willing to enter into the “social contract” so he can sell 

his only commodity, that of labor. This was qouted in the reading, “It was necessary to reach 

an agreement”(yet another version of the social contract!)’that every time completed labor 

was exchanged for, the capitalist would receive a higher value than the former. 

Marx would argue against the mere change in form to describe living labor, and objectified 

labor. Marx said, “dead labor is dead.” Marx goes into the idea of the labor theory of 

value. It is not the dead labor that counts here. It is the allocation of socially present labor 

time that equates to the value differences. For instance if If I am a furniture maker, and 

produce a table in 12 hours, then that is the equated value represented by socially present 

labor time. However, if I design a process to reduce the amount of time it takes to produce 

the table, 6 hours, it then then reduces to half of it’s value. Marx is quick to point out that 

it is not the quantity objectified in it, but the quantity of living labor needed to produce the 

commodity that counts. The capitalist thinks nothing of the differences, one only needs to 

look at the Douglas/Cobb models or study Taylorism to see that this labor saving methods 

never changes the value of the commodity. Rather the capitalist takes the difference as his 

surplus. 

I think one can carry this concept a step further by realizing that the capitalist also creates 

unequal exchange of labor by not paying for the labor power, instead he(capitalist) pays for 

strict hourly labor. The difference between the two forms of living and objectified labor can 

be thought of in these terms. For the capitalist to pay for labor power, in essence he would 

have to pay for the total subsistence costs to the worker. The capitalist not doe this. When 

was the last time your employer had you bring in an expense/reimbursment sheet on how 

much it costs you to live? This is is yet another reason why there is an unessential, and 

unequal exchange in light of the capitalist view. 


Hans: Wow! You are really working through my Annotations. You are trying to follow the most abstract arguments, 

and doing a good job of it. It makes me hope that my arguments are right. In a sense, I am groping around 

too, but it helps if I can witness how someone else tries to make sense of it. Then you are putting your own thoughts 

in too. I can only encourage you; you are doing excellent work. 


Question 254 is 565 in 2005fa: 

Question 254 Don’t all the contradictions in the concept of “value of labor” described here 

come from the fallacious attempt to derive the value of something from its use value? 

[492] Brumbys: reproduced argument Yes. The argument that Marx makes for skilled 

labor being more valuable than unskilled or average labor is circular. 

The purpose of the concept of “value of labor” is to explain why goods are valued at 

different levels. Marx says that goods produced by skilled labor are worth more than goods 

produced by unskilled labor (e.g. one hour of labor from a computer programmer is worth 

five hours of the labor of a fast-food worker). He argues that skilled labor should simply be 

treated as a multiple of unskilled or average labor. However, the only way that Marx knows 

that skilled labor is worth more than unskilled labor is because the market values skilled 

labor more highly. Marx has to rely on the process that he is attempting to explain in order 

to explain it. Why should one part of the product of a given amount of labor be valued more 

highly than any other part? For example, at the Kenecott Copper mine small amounts of 

labor to “produce” worth more than the copper? According to Marx, in the long run, they 

should be valued equally but they are not. 

He also argues that if value is created by living labor and not machines, then in the long 

run the amount of profit that capitalists earn would be completely unrelated to the amount of 

capital that they employ. This is false. Capital is employed to increase productivity which 

increases profits. If the price that a capitalist paid for a machine was equal to the value that 

machine was doing to eventually pass on to the commodities that are produced by it, why 

buy the machines at all? 

Message [492] referenced by [598]. Next Message by Brumbys is [495]. 

[598] Hans: Are there basic fallacies in Marx? Brumbys’s [492] is not specifically 

an answer to Question 254, but Brumbys raises the Question whether Marx’s theory does 

not contain some theoretical fallacies. Brumbys brings three such fallacies, but this list 

could easily be extended: there is a whole cottage industry in academia busy discovering 

“fallacies” in Marx. 

Here is Marx’s first fallacy, according to Brumbys: 

The argument that Marx makes for skilled labor being more valuable than 

unskilled or average labor is circular. The purpose of the concept of “value 

of labor” is to explain why goods are valued at different levels. Marx says 

that goods produced by skilled labor are worth more than goods produced 

by unskilled labor (e.g. one hour of labor from a computer programmer is 

worth five hours of the labor of a fast-food worker).


Before Brumbys even gets to the fallacy in this, here are a few comments on what Brumbys 

wrote so far: According to Marx, labor has no value, this was the subject of Chapter 

Nineteen. Brumbys probably means: the purpose of Marx’s labor theory of value. Even 

after this correction, many Marxists would disagree with the statement that Marx’s purpose 

was to explain prices. Marx’s purpose was to explain exploitation. However some Marxists 

(myself included) think that Marx’s theory should also be able to explain prices, along with 

all the other surface phenomena. 

Another remark: Marx would never think the relations between skilled and unskilled 

labor are 1:5, they are perhaps 1:2, but not more. 

He argues that skilled labor should simply be treated as a multiple of unskilled 

or average labor. However, the only way taht Marx knows that 

skilled labor is worth more than unskilled labor is because the market values 

skilled labor more highly. Marx has to rely on the process that he is 

attempting to explain in order to explain it. 

Marx basically says, if you are a skilled laborer who needs 5 years of training in order 

to work afterwards for 30 years, then you produce the same value in those 30 years which 

an unskilled laborer would produce who works the whole 35 years. Of course, wages differences 

are much higher, because skilled laborers usually have a better bargaining position. 

This is why capitalists prefer hiring unskilled laborers to skilled workers. 

But not all differences in labor powers are reducible to skill differences. Those other 

differences will result in value differences, but there is no general law determining those. 

Unlike mainstream economics, which never has a problem coughing up n equations if it has 

n unknowns, Marx says that some aspects of the economy just depend on the constellations 

of demand and supply and do not follow a deeper regularity. 

This is my take on it. Other Marxists may disagree. Marxist economics is not a very 

developed science, because not many are doing it, but in my view it is not inherently contradictory. 

Now Brumbys brings another example where there is a fallacy in Marx. 

Why should one part of the product of a given amount of labor be valued 

more highly thanany other part? For example, at the Kenecott Copper mine 

small amounts of labor to “produce” worth more than the copper? According 

to Marx, in the long run, they should be valued equally but they are 

not. 

The sentences are a little garbled, and I can only guess what is meant. Perhaps Brumbys 

means that the gold which they get out of the mine should have the same value as the copper? 

Let me switch to another example, because gold and copper need not always be produced 

together, and therefore the average production costs of both can be determined separately. 

But let us go to meat: the expensive cuts of beef and the cheap cuts are produced in the 

same production process, how can the labor theory of value explain these price differences? 

Answer: the sum total of the prices of all cuts of meat are determined by the labor necessary 


to raise beef, but how these prices are distributed over the different cuts is determined by 

demand and supply. 

Brumbys’s last objection is dealt with in Volume 3 of Capital. Brumbys writes: 

He also argues that if value is created by living labor and not machines, 

then in the long run the amount of profit that capitalists earn would be completely 

unrelated to the amount of capital that they employ. This is false. 

Capital is employed to increase productivity which increases profits. If the 

price that a capitalist paid for a machine was equal to the value that machine 

was doing to eventually pass on to the commoditites that are produced by 

it, why buy the machines at all? 

Marx’s answer in volume 3 of Capital is: The equilibrium prices in a capitalist economy 

are not proportional to the values, but they are set in such a way that the rates of profit are 

equal. Capitalists with lots of machines can charge more for their products than those with 

less machines. Their profits are not created by the machines, but they are transferred from 

the surplus value created by the workers working for the capitalists with fewer machines. In 

other words, the capitalists exploit the workers jointly, and then they distribute their booty in 

proportion to the total capital they had to advance for this exploitation, instead of allowing 

each capitalist to keep the surplus value which his own workers produce. 


Question 255 is 230 in 1995ut, 253 in 1996ut, 306 in 1997WI, 372 in 1997sp, and 370 in 

1997ut: 

Question 255 Give real life examples from which one can see that the laborer, when he 

works, is no longer the owner of his labor. 

[468] Jupiter: In researching this question I find that I can take everyday situations to 

apply. One of the more obvious examples of this form of exploitation would be that of 

a worker that enters a contract binding agreement (which many of workers do), that sets 

limits on the worker, i.e. time constraints, maximum or minimum. Lets use a professional 

basketball player (if you can call playing basketball labor?), they get paid to play basketball. 

If the basketball player is good then he usually stays with a team for a long period of time 

(Karl Malone). If however on the other hand the player is not good then they will be sold 

to another team in a different area (maybe David Benoit?), this now is the example that the 

player is not the owner of his production, if the player does not want to move or play with 

a certain member of the proposed new team then that is tough. The player has the choice to 

be traded against his will, or he can quit (breach the contract which will have stiff penalties). 

We can therefor see that the player is no longer in control it has been bought by some person 

or group with lots of money. 

Another example I will give will be a personal one. I have worked some awful jobs, one I 

cleaned a parking lot when I was 15-17 years old, my labor was sold for a low price to clean 

a 3 level parking garage. I was told to do many thing which i did not wish to do, things that 

I deemed as unesesary, but I had to do them because I was no longer the owner of my own


labor, if I did not do the job I would be fired and have no income, so against my will I had 

to do the job. 

I think that these are 2 examples simple as they may be but they are everyday ocurances, 

and will continue to be ,either in the small scale form or the obvious form. In both cases the 

labor surenders his labor to his “boss”. 

Hans: Good examples. By their contrast in thouse regards which are irrelevant to the Question, you bring out very 

well what they have in common. 


[471] Positive: The capitalist who “owns” the worker tries to receive as as much labor as 

possible for as little money as possible. Because, he tries to gain as much profit as possible 

without having unnecessary costs. The cheaper the laborer works for, and the lower the 

capitalist’s costs of production is, the greater chance he has to make a greater return on his 

products. This prooves, according to Marx, that it is not the labor-power which becomes 

paid, it is the value of its function, of the labor itself. In real life, a worker is responsible for 

his work, but is not the owner of his labor. This is based on the phenomena that the capitalist 

who hired the worker in the first place, is able to treat his worker the way he wants, but 

within his limited rights and norms. 


[472] Hans: Positive’s Proof of What? I agree with the first three sentences in Positive’s 

answer [471]: 

The capitalist who “owns” the worker tries to receive as as much labor 

as possible for as little money as possible. Because, he tries to gain as 

much profit as possible without having unnecessary costs. The cheaper the 

laborer works for, and the lower the capitalist’s costs of production is, the 

greater chance he has to make a greater return on his products. 

And the worker does not get any of the benefits, they are all pocketed by the capitalist. 

This may seem utterly unfair and purely arbitrary. The capitalist can get away with grossly 

underpaying the worker, to the point of paying immorally low wages. Marx claims now 

that there is an economic mechanism systematically enabling the capitalists to be this unfair. 

This mechanism is: what the worker sells to the capitalist is not his labor but his labor 

power. And although the capitalist underpays the worker in terms of the labor received, i.e., 

he pays the laborer much less than the value created by the laborer, he does not necessarily 

underpay him in terms of his labor power received. Therefore Positive’s next sentence has it 

all backwards. Positive writes: 

This proves, according to Marx, that it is not the labor-power which becomes 

paid, it is the value of its function, of the labor itself. 

Positive should have written: 

This proves, according to Marx, that it is not the labor which is sold on 

the market and determines the wage, but the hourly wage is an installment 

on the payment of the value of labor power, which is far below the value 

created by its function, the labor itself. 


The next sentence is another argument how one can see it already during the labor process, 

without even looking at the pay check, that what is sold is not the labor but so-to-say 

the laborer: 

In real life, a worker is responsible for his work, but is not the owner of 

his labor. This is based on the phenomena that the capitalist who hired the 

worker in the first place, is able to treat his worker the way he wants, but 

within his limited rights and norms. 


[502] Wolf: A real life example of a laborer, that when they work, is no longer the owner 

of his labor is that of an electriction to be even more specific an electrition that is starting 

out = an apprentice. This apprentice or any other for that fact (including inturns) often do 

work at a wage rate far below the going rate, some work for free and they do so for a given 

ammount of time ( years, months, days, etc.) willfully or because they have to in order to 

become a professional and possibly a capitalist. So, it may be that they don’t recieve any 

sort of a benefit for their labor in the short run, there is a carrot dangleing in front of them 

so to speak, enticing them to maybe profit one day and own the labor of others whom they 

train and hire. 

I myself am in a sort of apprenticeship my pay is just enough to survive, I am only 

supposed to work 20 hrs. per week but however, I always put in about 40+ per week and for 

more than half of the year my hours exceed 90 hrs per week. I am also required to attend 

full hours of class in order to get paid in the first place. There are many times when I lose 

focus of that carrot and I want to move on especially after reading Marx. But, I don’t at 

least I have the oppotunity to be an apprentice or an inturn because as it turns out, statisticly 

apprenticeships and inturnships are often bias, prejudice, sexest, etc. And sonn I’ll be a 

part of the good’ol boys, or so I think. To hell with negative thoughts, they are a waste of 

productive energy, thanks for reading, but as for now I need to get back to work of which I 

don’t own my labor. I own my mind! 

Message [502] referenced by [516]. Next Message by Wolf is [550]. 

[507] Snowman: The real life examples that I can think of are Assembly line workers 

who make anything for instance coke bottles, at the point that they input their labor into the 

building of the coke bottle they have lost their labor. The coke bottle is the commodity and 

the labor that is congealed in it is sold as a part of it, and therefor because the bottle does 

not belong to the laborer the labor that the bottle contains no longer belongs to the laborer. 

Another example that the labor of the worker is lost from the start of production is the 

example of the contractor for home improvement. When the contractor signs the agreement 

he thus promises his labor in return for the agreed payment. What is often strange is the 

contractor often does the work before there the payment is made, so that not only is his labor 

contained in that which he does not own for, and as such sell, but he has also done so with 

out any real payment. Clearly this sets up the potential for the owner of the house to gain 

labor power with out paying for it. So not only does the worker not own the labor that he 

produces but he also does not get any payment for that which he expends. 

Next Message by Snowman is [606].


[516] Hans: Wolf and Snowman: Real Work Life I agree with Wolf’s [502]. Having 

to do productive work without getting paid (with the excuse that as an apprentice you are 

learning from the work) can make one feel like a slave, not the owner of one’s labor power. 

And having to work 90 hours per week when one is supposed to be working 20 hours per 

week shows how one-sided the relationship of dependence between worker and employer is. 

The exaples given as answers to 255 can be classified into two categories. Wolf’s examples 

show that in many situations the laborer can hardly even be called the owner of his 

labor power. Perhaps he is formally so, on paper, but not in reality. Also Jupiter’s example 

of the baseball players in [468] makes this point. Other examples show that the worker as he 

works is no longer the owner of his labor. (Here you must distinguish between labor power 

and labor!) These are the examples where he has to follow orders and does not benefit from 

improvements in the efficiency of the labor process etc. Strictly speaking my Question only 

asked for examples of this latter kind, but I am giving good grades for both. 

Snowman’s coke bottle worker is an example of the latter kind: as soon as the worker 

enters the plant he has lost his labor. The worker thinks the product of his labor is no longer 

his because the materials and instruments he works with are not his. This does not quite go to 

the bottom of it. The ultimate reason why his labor is taken away from him is: he was forced 

to sell his labor power, instead of being able to sell his labor. The employer takes advantage 

of the fact that those who do the work do not have control of the means of production. 

Snowman’s contractor example is still of another kind: here the worker does sell his labor, 

not his labor power, but he has to sell it on credit, and risks not getting paid. 


[517] Peaches: A laborer is no longer the owner of his labor onces he starts working 

because he has sold his labor power to someone, a capitalist. Marx states that “as soon as 

his labor begins, it has already ceased to belong to him: it can therefore no longer be sold by 

him.” He cannot go to the next man and sell his labor because he is already “employed” by 

someone. 

It’s like my job. I have sold my labor power to the FAA: eight hours a day, five days a 

week. During this time, I cannot sell my labor power to anyone else because I “belong,” 

for this duration of time, to the FAA and labor for them what they want of me. I can, after 

putting in this time, sell my labor power to someone else, for say another four hours. Of 

course, in duration of this time, I, again, cannot sell my labor power to someone else...etc. 

Therefore, I can only sell my labor power when I am not employed or have not been bought 

by someone. It only makes sense...I cannot be in two places at the same time. BUT, I can be 

doing two different tasks at the same time! 

Hans: You are saying two things in your answer without differentiating them: 

(1) the laborer is no longer the owner of his labor once he has sold his labor power (even if you can do two 

things at the same time, the employer expects that both of these things are work for him). 

(2) the laborer is no longer the owner of his labor power once he has sold it. 


Question 256 Which theory of imaginary numbers is suggested by this social analogy? 


[511] Dunny: question 256 Which theory of imaginary numbers is suggested by this 

social analogy? The theory of imaginary numbers being refered here by Marx is that of the 

mathematicians. In the mathematical process of solving problems you come across certain 

places that to some could be consideres dead ends or even something impossible. This is 

not the reality of it for a mathematician. They have developed formulas and such to break 

through those dead ends and be able to continue on with their analysis. I believe this is what 

Marx is refering to. Specifically I think of the imaginary “i” numbers that make it possible 

to take the square roots of numbers that normally you would be unable. In comparison it 

seems that Marx is moving in that same direction with his ideas of labor. The value of labor 

has some impossibility about it. 

Marx says that there has to be some way around this block just as the mathematicians had 

found with their imaginary numbers. In the study guide it mentioned the value of the earth 

as being an impossible concept. Sure, you can’t really put a value on it but to each individual 

it carries some sort of maybe innate value. To a business it may be the value of the natural 

resources that they acquire from the earth, or maybe to a forrest ranger, it may be the joy 

that they get from living on that beautiful land that gives them a sense of its value. There is 

some imaginary value that can be placed on labor through tha relations of what it produces. 


[521] Hans: Imaginary numbers In [511], Dunny re-explains in his own words, in a 

very lively and understandable style, an obscure and subtle allusion made by Marx about 

imaginary numbers. He certainly understands Marx correctly in this respect. Then Dunny 

also speculates how the concept of “value of the earth,” which is equally imaginary as “value 

of labor,” might be explained rationally: 

Sure, you can’t really put a value on it but to each individual it carries some 

sort of maybe innate value. To a business it may be the value of the natural 

resources that they acquire from the earth, or maybe to a forrest ranger, it 

may be the joy that they get from living on that beautiful land that gives 

them a sense of its value. There is some imaginary value that can be placed 

on labor through tha relations of what it produces. 

Sorry, Dunny, from a Marxian point of view you are drowning here in the swamp of 

confusion between value and use value. Marx nevers crosses this boundary. Ricardo wrote 

something similar as you did, trying to derive the value of the earth from the value of the natural 

resources that the earth contains. Marx, the pedant, caught him and severely criticized 

him for this. More details are in my [109]. 


Question 257 At which point in their theories did the classical economists unwittingly 

switch from the assertion that the laborer sells his labor to that that he sells his labor power? 

[491] Panacea: labour and labour power I see the switch occurring together with their 

objectification of the labourer himself. Marx’s formulation of the question “But what is 

the cost of production...of the worker, i.e. the cost of producing or reproducing the worker 

himself?...” seems to me to be a fundemental reason why Malthus (Ricardo agreeing with


him) finds it so necessary to keep the working class on subsistence wages...could this, in 

their eyes, more closely reproduce the value of the workers’ labour? 

Marx mentions the parallel between the machine and it’s function, and man and his labour 

power, which I find interesting. I believe Marx is pointing out how neo-classicals end up 

judging the worker by the value of his potential labour, this being for the capitalist the 

expressed use they see in the worker. (Hans?) The neo-classicals fail to examine their own 

terms - “value of labour” leads one into a inexplicable dead end, whereas they meant to 

use “value of labour power.” Marx writes how this mishap may have been unknown to the 

capitalists mostly concerned with market prices of labour and their ability to turn a profit. 

Hans: You are bringing some interesting observations which are not exactly the answer sought by this Question, 

but which are very relevant: 

(1) such a switch reveals that they consider the laborers objects, 

(2) if they do believe that this is the value of labor, then they must oppose any rise of the worker’s standard of 

living above subsistence. 

(3) Their confusion between the laborer and his function also reveals that they want to use the laborer for their 

own purposes. 

Maybe one could turn this into a theory of fetishism of labor power. 



2004fa, 573 in 2005fa, 630 in 2007fa, 642 in 2008fa, 673 in 2009fa, 758 in 2011fa, and 

787 in 2012fa: 

Question 258 How is the “value of labor” derived from the value of labor-power? Compare 

the “value of labor” thus obtained with the value of the product of the labor. 

[436] MsMarx: The derivation of the value of labor The distinction between labor 

and labor-power is what Marx’s analysis of surplus-value rests on. The worker sells laborpower 

and is paid the value of his labor-power. What the capitalist gets from the worker is 

value-creating labor. In everyday life, no one makes this distinction, and workers are paid 

wages either at an hourly rate or on a piece work basis. This is where Marx takes account 

of this fact. The value of labor-power is what the worker sells, and the hourly wage is the 

value (or price) of a day’s labor-power divided by the normal number of hours worked per 

day. The value of labor is not to be treated merely as wages. As Marx states in 677:3/oo: 

“what they called the ‘value of labour’ is in fact the value of labour-power, as it exists in 

the personality of the worker, and it is as different from its function, labour, as a machine is 

from the operations it performs.” 

It is as if the price of a horse was quoted at so much per leg, and then multiplied by four 

to find the price per horse. The price of labor-power is normally quoted at so much per 

hour. However, in a commodity producing society, there is no need to calculate the value 

of labor-power or of any other commodity. Sellers simply seek the highest price the market 

will bear, while buyers look for the best bargain. 

According to Marx, the value of labor-power is determined, as in the the case of every 

other commodity, by the labor-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the 

reproduction, of this special article. So far as its value, it represents no more than a definite 


quantity of the average labor of society incorporated in it. Labor-power exists only as a 

capacity or power of the living individual, so its production pre-supposes its existence. 

The production of labor-power for an individual consists of his reproduction of himself 

or his maintenance. For his maintenance he requires a given quantity of the means of subsistence. 

Therefore, the labor-time required for the production of labor-power reduces itself 

to that necessary for the production of those menas of subsistence. In other words, the value 

of labor-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of 

the laborer. Labor-power becomes a reality only by its exercise; it sets itself in action only 

by working. But then a definite quantity of human muscle, nerve, brain, etc. is wasted and 

needs to be restored. This increased expenditure demands a larger income. If the owner of 

labor-power worked today, tomorrow he must again be able to repeat the same process in 

the same condition of health and strength. His means of subsistence must be sufficient to 

maintain him in his normal state as a laboring individual. His natural wants, such as food, 

clothing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of 

his country. Yet the number and extend of his so-called necessary wants and the modes of 

satisfying them enter into the determination of the value of labor-power as a historical and 

moral element. Nevertheless, the average quantity of the means of subsistence necessary for 

the laborer is practically known. 

The two factors necessary for the calculation of the value of labor power are the worker’s 

life expectancy and the length of the working day. The value of labor power determines 

the value of labor, or its necessary price. Assume that the usual working day is 12 hours 

and the daily value of labor-power is three shillings, which is the expression in money of a 

value of 6 hours of labor. If the worker receive 3 shillings, then he receives the value of his 

labor-power, which functions through 12 hours. If this value of a day’s labor-power is now 

expressed as the value of a day’s labor itself, then 12 hours of labor has a value of 3 shillings. 

This quantity of labor forms the value of a day’s labor-power or the value of thelaborpower 

daily reproduced. If half a day’s average social labor is incorporated in three shillings, 

then three shillings is the price corresponding to the value of a day’s labor-power. If its owner 

therefore offers it for sale at three shillings a day, its selling price is equal to its value, and 

someone who is intent upon converting his three shillings into capitall, pays this value. 

Hence, the value of labor power thus determines the value of labor, or its necessary price. 

Marx states that use-value supplied by the worker to the capitalist is not labour-power, but it 

is its function. “That this labour, is on the other hand, the universal value-creating element, 

an dthus possesses a property of virtue which falls outside the frame of reference of the 

everyday consciousness.” (p. 681). 

The value of labor is only a non-rational expression for the value of labor-power, which 

explains the above-mentioned fact that the value of labor is always less than its valueproduced 

and the capitalist always makes labor-power work longer than is necessary for 

the reproduction of its own value. This is because the value which the labor-power produces 

is dependent on the length of time it is in action, not on its own value. In the example given, 

the value which the labor-power produces is 6 shillings, because it functions during the 12


hours. Labor which creates a value of 6 shillings can possess a value of 3 shillings, but it 

functions during the 12-hour period. 

Hans: Only after the end of the Quarter did I find out that the analogy with the horse’s legs at the beginning of the 

second paragraph was lifted, without attribution, from Anthony Brewer’s book about Marx’s Capital. 

Message [436] referenced by [441], [2004fa:369], [2004fa:397], and [2005fa:1326]. Next Message by MsMarx is 

[438]. 

[441] Hans: MsMarx has too many Marx quotes at the end Here are some remarks 

about MsMarx’s answer [436]. I like her observation that 

In everyday life, no one makes this distinction 

(between labor and labor power). No wonder. Revolution would be around the corner 

if the kids were to learn in kindergarden: no, Dad is not selling his labor, he has to sell his 

labor power, because there are some rich people who say: “this is my factory”, although 

they do not even work there. 

MsMarx also remarks on the perverse method by which the value of labor power is computed, 

with the striking analogy: 

It is as if the price of a horse was quoted at so much per leg, and then 

multiplied by four to find the price per horse. 

This is an unforgettable metaphor, and I will put it into the next edition of my Annotations, 

if you don’t mind, MsMarx. 

I also like the following explanation: 

In a commodity producing society, there is no need to calculate the value 

of labor-power or of any other commodity. Sellers simply seek the highest 

price the market will bear, while buyers look for the best bargain. 

Very true. The market makes these calculations for us. The formulas which Marx gives 

in his book are only the theoretical anticipations of the results of the market mechanisms— 

provided these mechanisms are allowed to act in purity. But for the market participants, such 

formulas can provide only the crudest guidelines. In their practical activities, most market 

participants do not rely on such calculations, but merely observe the play of the forces of 

demand and supply to set their wages. Unfortunately, MsMarx does not give us more details 

about how the play of demand and supply enforce the general law that wages are determined 

by the value of labor power. It is quite simple: if people will not get a living wage, they 

cannot work, and on the other hand, as long as there is unemployment (and we will discuss 

the causes of unemployment in Chapter 25, where Marx claims that unemployment is a 

necessary aspect of capitalism), everyone who offers a living wage will find takers. 

The rest of MsMarx’s submission is for my taste too close to Marx’s text. MsMarx does 

not deny her source, she starts it all with the words “According to Marx”, but it would have 

been more helpful, and possibly also much shorter and thus less taxing for the attention span 

of the readers, had MsMarx used her own formulations. 

First, MsMarx gives a long quote from Chapter Six, pp. R 184/5. After this, MsMarx 

jumps to Chapter 19, p. R679, with the remark that the worker’s life expectancy enters the 


wage. Neither Marx nor, for that matter, my Annotations are very clear about this, therefore 

I would have appreciated some clarification, instead of more Marx quotes. But Marx quotes 

is all we get for the rest of MsMarx’s long submission. 


[504] Chacci: The ‘value of labor’ is derived from the value of labor-power in the following 

way: The laborer uses his labor-power during a normal day which has been given a 

certain value. The socially necessary time to produce this value is a fraction of the normal 

working day. But the capitalist make the laborer work longer to produce a surplus value. 

The laborer receives this value of labor-power as compensation. Thus the value of his laborpower 

has been given the value of labor. A more specific explanation may be: A laborer 

works a normal “x” hour day. The daily value of the labor-power is “y” dollars. The socially 

necessary time to produce value “y” is a fraction of “x” hours. If the laborer receives “y” 

dollars for his “x” hours of labor, the value of his labor-power is now determined by the 

‘value of labor’ or necessary price of labor. If the value or price of labor-power differs then 

the necessary price of labor will differ similarly. 

Thus to compare the value of the labor-power and the value of the product of labor the 

fraction of “x” hours must be considered. This fraction was the socially necessary time to 

produce the value of labor-power. Thus since the laborer works “x” hours rather than a 

fraction of “x” hours he produces a surplus of value which is contained in the value of the 

product of labor. 

This means that the value of the product of labor is greater than the value of labor-power. 

Hans: I like your attempt at giving a straightforward step-by-step explanation. It was not quite successful, but 

almost. I think you got off the track in the two sentences: 

The laborer receives this value of labor-power as compensation. Thus the value of his laborpower 

has been given the value of labor. 

The first sentence is right. But then you should have added that the laborer does not get the equivalent of his daily 

labor power in one piece, but for every hour he works he gets the value of his daily labor power divided by the 

average number of hours worked per day. In this way the value of his labor power determines what he gets paid for 

each hour of his labor. Your second sentence should therefore read: 

His labor has been given the value of his labor-power. 

Further down you are making the same confusion when you write: 

The value of his labor-power is now determined by the ‘value of labor’. 

Again, it is just the other way around. 


Question 259 Under which circumstances will capitalists agree to let the workers go home 

early and pay them accordingly less? 

[493] Panacea: getting the day off The problem here has to do with how the capitalist 

actually makes his bread and butter: since his profit is surplus value, and value is produced 

by labour - for which he and the worker have afixed a monetary value - then it is in the 

capitalists best interests to employ the worker for as long as possible so that he is able to 

accumulate as much surplus value as possible. Somewhere I have heard the notion that your 

employer makes his cut only in the last few hours of the workday. This seems plausible -in 

the first few hours, the revenue value of production pays for the materials, equipment and


labour power necessary to produce the commodities. After this is paid for, the capitalist 

reaps the profits. 

I work in a bread factory which gladly pays overtime in order to keep workers on the 

job longer than eight hours. Even paying me time and a half, the company makes more 

money during the last few hours than at any time during my shift. I’m happy because of the 

extra wages - their happy because of their profit. This is one of those “mystifications of the 

capitalist mode of production” marx talks about. 

Panacea 

Hans: That’s basically the right answer: they usually don’t want to do it. 


Question 260 is 222 in 1995WI, 387 in 1999SP, 567 in 2003fa, 623 in 2004fa, and 575 in 

2005fa: 

Question 260 Why is the transformation of the value (resp. price) of labor-power into the 

value (resp. price) of labor the basis of “all mystifications of the capitalistic mode of production”? 

[438] MsMarx: A Mystificiation of the capitalistic mode of production As in the case 

of the slave laborer, his labor appears as unpaid labor. However, in wage labor, even surplus 

labor or unpaid labor, appears as paid. The property-relation conceals the slave’s labor for 

himself. The money-relation conceals the uncompensated labor of the wage-laborer. This is 

why it is important to understand the transformation of the value and price of labor-power 

into form of wages or into price of labor itself–because the form of appearance makes the 

actual relation invisible and appears to the eye as the opposite of that relation and apears as 

a mystification of the capitalistic mode of production. 

In other words, the concept of wage labor can be thought of as a phenomenal form, which 

disguises its true form. This phenomenal form, Marx writes, is the source of “all the ideas 

about rights on the part of workers as well as capitalists, all mystifications of the capitalist 

mode of production, all its illusions about freedom, all of the apoligetic humbug of the vulgar 

economists.” (p. 680). 

To understand how the wage form of labor is responsible for such awesome confusion and 

nonsense, remember that the earlier modes of production rest ultimately upon noneconomic 

power–that is, the slave produces because he is forced to do so, the serf contributes his 

surplus labor to the lord because of tradition and santitity to God, and so on. Capitalism 

disdains these primitive means of exploitation and proclaims itself a society of freedom, of 

contract, and of equivalent exchange. At the same time, it requires that the owners of the 

means of production appropriate an increasing surplus. If the workers are paid the full value 

of what they produce, then there will be nothing left over for profit and new investment. The 

problem is to rationalize a nonequivalent exchange, in which one party to a contract gets 

more than the other, as an equivalent exchange. 

Marx argues that the wage does this, because it is a “phenomenal form,” a reality whose 

appearance conceals rather than reveals its meaning. It defines an equal exchange between 

unequals. This phenomenal form falsifies the fact that the worker was on the losing end 


of an unequal exhcange, proclaiming that he was paid for every minute he labored. But it 

also funcitoned as a truth, for the unequal exchange was the justice and logic of a society of 

private social labor. 

To quote from Marx, “that this same labour, is on the other hand, the universal valuecreating 

element, and thus possesses a property by virtue of which it differs from all other 

commodities, is something which falls outside the frame of reference of the everyday consciousness.” 

(p. 681). 


Question 261 is 223 in 1995WI, 235 in 1995ut, 313 in 1997WI, 385 in 1998WI, 388 in 

1999SP, 480 in 2000fa, 509 in 2001fa, and 644 in 2008SP: 

Question 261 In a speech which was later published as a pamphlet called Value, Price and 

Profit, Marx says that there is no such thing as a fair wage. What does he mean by this? 

[478] Lamma: fair wages I think that Marx means that there will always be exploitation 

in the market based system. In his own example he shows that “labour wich creates a value 

of 6 shillings posseses a value of 3 shillings.” Marx is showing us that in a market economy, 

due to the way value is determined from the labour power, a man working in this system will 

always be exploited and not get a fair wage. 

He calls the relation of the labour power and wages ‘invisible’. It is this invisibility that 

allows for all individuals involved in the market process to think that it is a justifyable and 

fair process. But in fact is not a fair wage. 

Hans: You have learned Marx’s lessons well. Since everything is going according to the law of value, there is no 

hope that the workers will bet a better lot as long as the market system continues. And Marx also explains how the 

real relations are mystified by the appearances. You will only get fairness when you abolish the wage labor system. 

Message [478] referenced by [488]. Next Message by Lamma is [584.2]. 

[488] Angela: Submission 8 From the Marx’ point of view, the labour is always exploited 

in any economics ( market ) system. From R608:1, we know that under the capitalist 

economics system, the wage-form extinguishes into necessary labor and surplus labor, and 

we know the wage did’nt cover the surplus labor in this system even though all labor seem 

to pay the fair wage. Moreover, under the corvee system, the slave labor just replaces the 

value of his own means of subsistence. So all the labor appears as unpaid labor. So from 

the Mrax’s point of view, the labour is exploited in any economics system. If the labour is 

exploited in any economics system, then no matter whatever paid for labour ( laboue is paid 

for money or slave labour is paid for subsistence ) is always unfair in any economics system. 

From the reading, we also know that the value of labour is determined by the value of 

labour-power and we know this relationship is invisible. Let why I said all labour seem to 

pay the fair wage even though the wage did’nt cover the surplus labour. Because of this 

invisible relationship, the capitalist market system evaluates the value of labour by the value 

of labour-power in order to let the wage seems fair in the market system and also let the 

labour think the wage is fair. 

Hans: Your answer reproduces step by step the argument made in [478]. You gave the page number of Lamma’s 

example, but other than that, that what you added was wrong. Unlike Lamma, you imply that any economy must 

be an exploitative market economy, and also the following sentence is a blunder:


Moreover, under the corvee system, the slave labor just replaces the value of his own means 

of subsistence. So all the labor appears as unpaid labor. 


[509] Scott: question 261- fair wages Some Marx quotes relating to the question: 

“for every wage that rises there is generally one which remains stationary and another 

that falls” 

“We can fix the minimum of wages, but we cannot fix their maximum” 

“The will of the capitalist is certainly to take as much as possible” 

I feel the third quote is the main force behind the non-existence of fair wages in a capitalist 

society. Clearly, if wages rise, profits must decline, ceteris paribus . The general tendency of 

capitalist production is to sink to the average standard of wages, and not to an above average 

or a higher state. Utimately, it has to be understood by the worker that he is only fighting the 

effects and not the causes of those effects. He must rise up and overthrow the capitalists’, 

before fair wages will be attainable. Marx indicates that labour unions are fighting effects, if 

I am understanding him correctly. Previously, I was thinking that Marx would have approved 

of labour unions’ efforts, and I now see how they are only working within the system, which 

he believed was not the most judicious use of their endeavors. He felt more aggressive 

behavior would be the appropriate method of representing the labourer. 

Hans: I don’t know where you have those Marx quotes from; I’d like to see the context in which he said these 

things. 

Your thoughts about labor unions are interesting. You are right: labor unions are fighting against economic laws 

which are stronger than they. But nevertheless Marx says workers should not give up this fight, since by this fight 

they establish the claim to be the masters of their own fates. You are right, he thinks this fight must and will take 

on a more “aggressive” form. 


[576] Scott: Marx quotations utilised Hans, 

In response to your query concerning the passages where I had found the quotes used in 

my submission 509 on Q:261.... 

The first was from Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts by Karl Marx, under the 

sub-heading of Wages and Labour. I have looked again carefully, and I’m not sure if I have 

taken this quote out of context or not. It appears the translation is somewhat ambiguous. 

The second and third were from the Value, Price, and Profit pamphlet referred to in the 

question. I used the Marx-Engels library search on line, in order to locate were I had originally 

gathered these quotes from. I did find that the pamphlet was an easier read that most 

of Marxs’ work. The library search is an excellent resource that I think you should inform 

your future students about. I only wish that I had found it earlier in the quarter. 


[583] Scott: Marx quotations utilised Hans, 

In response to your query concerning the passages where I had found the quotes used in 

my submission 509 on Q:261.... 


The first was from Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts by Karl Marx, under the 

sub-heading of Wages and Labour. I have looked again carefully, and I’m not sure if I have 

taken this quote out of context or not. It appears the translation is somewhat ambiguous. 

The second and third were from the Value, Price, and Profit pamphlet referred to in the 

question. I used the Marx-Engels library search on line, in order to locate were I had originally 

gathered these quotes from. I did find that the pamphlet was an easier read that most 

of Marxs’ work. The library search is an excellent resource that I think you should inform 

your future students about. I only wish that I had found it earlier in the quarter. 


Question 262 is 224 in 1995WI, 236 in 1995ut, 261 in 1996ut, and 314 in 1997WI: 

Question 262 Why is the labor-power usually paid after it is consumed by the purchaser, 

and why is it paid by the hour? 

[458] MUCHO: labor-power usually paid after... If the purchaser pay for the laborpower 

in advance, it would be a risky thing to do for the purchaser. Because, there is no 

guarantee that purchaser get efficient result from the workers. Thus, it is safer for the purchaser 

to pay after the labor-power is consumed. So that purchaser can get efficient result 

from the workers. 

Hourly salary also has to do with things that I mentioned above. In addition, paid by the 

hour can help both workers and employers. Because, employer can cut the hour that was not 

useful or efficient for the employer. On the other hand, worker can get paid for exactly what 

they have worked for. Sometimes, workers contribute more labor-power than they paid for. 


[487] Reidar: Labor payment Mucho already responded to this question, but I wanted 

to make a few remarks regarding the earlier submittal. Mucho states that it is safer for the 

capitalist to pay the laborer his/her wage after the labor is performed in order to ensure 

that the work is satisfactory. Hans states simply that the capitalist ensures that the work is 

actually done. The difference between these two statements is probably negligible. 

In my own employment I identify with the explantion given in Chapter 6. Marx said, 

“the worker advances the use value of his labour-power to the capitalist. He lets the buyer 

consume it before he receives payment of the price.” The worker loses the payment of these 

wages if the capitalist goes bankrupt. Not only does this method of wage payment ensure 

that the capitalist receives the labour power of the laborer, but also ensures that when he goes 

bankrupt, he will take the unpaid wages with him. 

By paying wages according to an hourly basis, the capitalist improves his ability to rob 

the laborer of all wages possible. With an hourly wage, the capitalist can deduct any time 

that may have been lost due to the laborer being late or having taken a longer break than 

allowed in his/her contract. 

Today capitalists are able to pay an hourly wage, but on the basis of the timeclock which 

counts the minutes which a laborer is present. The capitalist therefore will be allowed to 

more accurately and precisely take advantage of the laborer.


In regards to the last line of Mucho’s submittal, “sometimes, workers contribute more 

labour-power than the (are) paid for.” Correct me if I am wrong, but the Marx described this 

process as the surplus labor which is performed by the laborer. The capitalist is hence a 

capitalist because he/she pays the laborer less than the actual amount of labour power which 

they receive from the laborer. 

Hans: Nice job. You pointed out the other side of the coin of what MUCHO said. MUCHO said that the hourly 

pay sees to it that the laborer cannot cheat the capitalist, but the fact that the labor is paid with a time lag exposes 

the worker to cheating by the capitalist. 

And when MUCHO said that the worker gets paid for all the hours he is on the job, you say that the capitalist 

can also take financial advantage if the worker is late. 

Regarding your question: 

In regards to the last line of Mucho’s submittal, “sometimes, workers contribute more labourpower 

than the (are) paid for.” Correct me if I am wrong, but the Marx described this process 

as the surplus labor which is performed by the laborer. 

This is one way to get some extra surplus value, but even if the worker gets paid for every minute he is on the job, 

there still will be surplus value, due to the difference between the value of labor power and the value created by the 

use of this labor power. 

Message [487] referenced by [501]. Next Message by Reidar is [543]. 

[496] Super: It was already explained in Chapter 6 that the value of a commodity is 

already determined before it is presented to the open market. This includes the labor power 

which is then exercised by the worker and this labor power commodity’s value is now seen 

as the use value. The actual exchange of this labor value commodity for wages is not done 

until the laborer has completed the job. The purchaser wishes to gain maximum return on 

his or her purchase and will make sure that he or she receives the most use value possible 

out of the transaction. 

The worker is paid by the hour so that adjustments can be made easily by the consumer 

(or capitalist) to the changes in demand and supply of labor power within the economy, or 

others such as wage changes of similar workers. The capitalist wishes to receive maximum 

labor for minimal expense. The capitalist does not want to pay the actual labor value price, 

he or she wants to pay much less. It is the capitalists advantage to pay labor power by the 

hour in order to make changes in wages so that they can maximize their return. 

Hans: Your point that this form of payment allows the capitalist to adjust better to demand and supply is a good 

one, and it was not made very clearly in the two previous submissions. But other things were already covered, and 

if you say: 

The capitalist does not want to pay the actual labor value price, he or she wants to pay much 

less. 

this sounds as if the capitalist did not make profits if he had to pay the worker the actual value of the labor power. 

This is not true. 


[498] Gottlieb: Post Paid Labor To understand why labor-power is usually paid after it 

has been rendered, we must first realize the assumptions Marx places on the capitalist. He 

assumes that capitalists make their monies from the profit not paid to the workers. They, 

therefore, will do all that they can to increase that amount. To increase their profits they can 

either get more money from the product they sell and/or pay less in wage labor. 


One of the reasons the laborer is paid after the commodity is consumed could be due to 

Marx’s reason number three, ‘the movement of wages over time.’ The capitalist has learned 

to use this to her advantage to gauge the worker especially in times of inflation. 

In the late seventies and early eighties we experienced very high inflation. Many employers 

meet with employees only once per year to evaluate the workers’ performances and 

make any changes in wages. In periods of high inflation the real wage is decreasing rapidly 

and the increases in nominal wages must be higher. If wages are paid after the fact, then 

the employers gain an extra pay period at the old wage for the “old labor.” This can make 

a big difference for a company employing several hundred laborers, especially when this is 

practiced year after year. 

Marx was most definitely referring to the industrial assembly-line worker when he talked 

about paying by the hour. In an assembly-line job the individual worker can stop work at 

any time and pick up the next day where she left off – or someone else could continue her 

work. There is no incentive forcing the laborer to work more than eight hours in the day. 

When paid by the hour the worker loses the time consumed when going to and from the 

workplace, changing into the proper attire once at the workplace, and any other activities 

taken in preparation for work. 

In a banking job, many management positions are paid a flat yearly salary. Managers 

know that things MUST be finished on certain days and realize that they are the only ones 

that can do it. They often work overtime hours to accomplish this. If they were paid by 

the hour the employer would be forced to pay them more. The meat of Marx’s “paid by the 

hour” statement is that employers want to pay as little as possible for as much work as they 

can. For a Branch Manager, the employer pays less with a flat salary, for an assembly line 

worker, it is by paying by the hour. 

Hans: Very good point. Inflation is a new argument which none of the 3 previous submissions mentioned, and you 

are using the same arguments which explain why some workers are paid by the hour in order to explain why other 

workers are not paid by the hour. 

Next Message by Gottlieb is [504.1]. 

[501] Kalle: paid by the hour In chapter 6, Marx talks about labor-power usually being 

paid for after it is consumed by the purchaser, but never actually gives a specific reason why 

this is the case. For example, on page 278, he writes: “In every country where the capitalist 

mode of production prevails, it is the custom not to pay for labor-power until it has been 

exercised..” Further he goes on to talk about the implications of workers offering credit to 

the capitalist, but never really explains why it is so. 

However, several places he talks about the difference between the exchange of commodities 

and the exchange of labor for capital. By analyzing this difference I believe I can answer 

the question why labor power is paid for after it has been exercised. When you exchange 

money for a commodity, you immediately get the use value you paid for. The use value of 

the labor is not realized until the worker exercise his labor power. As for the exchange of 

commodities, he must deliver the use value until he gets paid. This way the capitalist can 

be sure he receives the labor-power he pays for. The same reason can be given for why 

labor-power is paid for by the hour. This will ensure that the consumer of the labor-power 

only pays for the amount consumed (hours work by the laborer.)


Hans: Marx did say this, although in rather abstract terms, in 277:2. He used exactly the same arguments as you 

did. But unfortunately, other answers of this Question, [458], [487], and [496] have already said it as well. Perhaps 

they were not quite as detailed as you, but nevertheless this depressed your grade. 


[508] Scott: Pre-paid labour Just a comment which I thought was obvious, and has not 

been mentioned.... I have personally advanced thoasands of dollars of wages to be left in the 

lurch by the unscrupulous worker. The worker would take the money and quit the job. ( and 

I’m sure many of the readers are laughing and thinking what a stupid company that is.) The 

management began to be more cynical and cold towards the plight of the labourer. It then 

became much easier to dismiss the emergency situations in which an employee requested an 

advance upon his wages. Sure, we should have paid more so that the labourers would not 

need advances, but as I said we were poor “capitalists”. The company was not an profitable 

one, and yet we always wanted to respect the labourer because the management knew that 

their positions were extremely important. We knew that we were replaceable in a second, 

and often were, whereas good labourers begat a safe working environment and enticed other 

labourers to the work place. I even thought some of the labourers were happy, but alas 

I have discovered from Marx that they were not at all. They were only ignorant of their 

exploitation, and that ignorance is bliss in capitalism. 

Hans: You were a capitalist who tried to help his workers, and you could not afford to. I think this is a good lesson 

for us. It is not necessarily the capitalists who are evil, but it is the system as a whole. 


[519] Kalle: Why are wages paid after labor-power is exercised For the last homework 

assignment I tried as best as I could to answer question 262 about why labor power is usually 

paid after it is consumed. According to Hans the answer to this could be found in chapter 

six of Capital. However I could not find a satisfactory answer to this question. Sure, Marx 

talks a lot about the nature of labor-power and wages, but do not directly adress the question 

why wages is paid after labor-power is consumed. One thing that bothered me was when he 

on page 278 when he says that “In every country where the capitalist mode of production 

prevails, it is the custom not to pay for labor-power until it has been exercised..” He does not 

give a more detailed explination, as far as I understand. I also read others who answered the 

same question as me, but still I would be pleased if someone could cearlify the issue for me. 


[524] Super: Why wages are paid after labor power is exercised This is somewhat 

confusing to me also but hopefully I can shed a little light. As I understand it the worker 

advances his or her labor power to the capitalist as a loan. This loan starts the minute the 

worker begins giving his or her labor power to the buyer (capitalist). The buyer does not 

pay for this labor power until the contract or agreement has been fulfilled. I think the reason 

for this is that for one thing it is easier for the buyer to purchase the labor in intervals such 

as weekly or monthly payments to the worker. Paying the worker daily can be a hassle. If 

the buyer (capitalist) pre-pays the worker than he is taking a substantial risk. What if the 

worker decides to skip town before he completes the labor contract? Marx indicates that the 

value of labor is predetermined before the labor contract is completed, but the use-value is 

the actual exercise of the labor power. The capitalist wants to make sure he is receiving the 

most use-value he can and hopes it is more than the wage he pays. So he waits until the 


contract is completed and could even have the nerve to change the wage in his favor. The 

capitalist then has nothing to lose where the laborer risks much more. 


[543] Reidar: Thread 683 I submitted an answer to this question earlier, but after reading 

the many other responses to this question I wonder if we are not all missing the point. Other 

than an obvious reason that is in the syllabus; the capitalist pays the laborer after the labor is 

expended to ensure that it actually is accomplished, I wonder if the main reason is because 

before the labor is expended, it has no real value. 

If the laborer could receive payment without having done the labor, this would mean that 

his/her labor would have a use value that could be considered a commodity. We have already 

established that this cannot occur. 

The persons labor has no actual value until the laborer provides it. Just as an object has no 

value to its owner before the object is sold or exchanged and the owner receives something 

in payment, the labor power of a laborer has no value that can be paid for in advance, until 

the labor power is provided. 

Gottlieb also states that a bank laborer would be paid on a salaried basis because he/she 

will inevitably work overtime. This occurrence is very common, but not because it is legal. I 

have worked in salaried positions for a couple of years and received a slightly higher salary, 

but would have been paid more had I been paid for my overtime. Until six months ago I 

did not know that in the state of Utah, it is illegal to withhold overtime pay from salaried 

employees if the overtime hours are greater than a certain amount. I am not presently aware 

of the exact amount of hours. 

By creating a salaried position, the capitalist has found yet another way to extract more 

labor hours from laborers while paying them a fixed salary. The threat of termination is 

real for those employees who actually have the guts to point out that what their capitalist 

employers are doing is illegal. 


[611] Kia: Workers are paid after they provide labour power, because many capitalist 

wants to see what they are getting before paying their workers. If the workers performance 

is great and provide good commodity he than produce commodity that will generate money 

for his employer. In turn, employer gets surplus value from the buyer. If workers job performance 

is bad then commodity that he produce will bring less surplus value for the employer. 

This way capitalist will know what he is getting before he pays for the workers wages. 

Hans: Your grade suffered because your submission was late. 

Next Message by Kia is [612]. 

Exam Question 263 is 262 in 1996ut, 315 in 1997WI, and 379 in 1997ut: 

Exam Question 263 Does Marx agree that points a and b are valid proofs that wages are 

the price of labor and not of labor power? Give his arguments in your own words. 

[514] Pinky: Marx makes it clear that the reasoning put forth in the beginning of point a 

and b do not offer proof that wages are payment for labor rather than labor power. Marx says 

that with an increase in the daily or weekly wage, the price of labour may remain nominally 

constant , and yet fall balow its normal level. He says that this occurs every time the working


day is prolonged beyond its customary length, while the price of labour remains constant. 

Hence, point a is just an illusion. Point b goes on to define the differences in the value 

created by different laborers. This point is an illusion as well, since it is the capitalist that 

reaps the benefit from increased production far more than does the worker himself. 

Hans: Your first point goes in the right direction, but you are leaving it as a paradox, without finishing the explanation: 

Marx says that with an increase in the daily or weekly wage, the price of labour may remain 

nominally constant , and yet fall balow its normal level. He says that this occurs every time 

the working day is prolonged beyond its customary length, while the price of labour remains 

constant. 

Regarding point b, what you write is correct. 


Question 264 is 225 in 1995WI, 316 in 1997WI, 389 in 1998WI, 393 in 1999SP, 514 in 


in 2008fa, and 773 in 2011fa: 

Question 264 Is the transformation of the value of labor-power into the value of labor real, 

or does it take place only in the minds of those who sell and buy labor-power? 

[513] Pinky: Marx contends that the notion that wages represent the value of labor is 

absurd. To Marx, labor creates value. The capitalist system is in no way a system of the 

exchange of equal values. If the capitalist was to pay the worker the value created by his 

work, there would be no surplus-value. As for the specific question of if the transformation 

of the value of labor-power into the value take place only in the minds of those who sell and 

buy labor-power, I think that it would be a stretch to assume that they truly see it as an equal 

exchange. Capitalism is the process by which the capitalist takes a value-producing thing 

and puts it to work to create more value than he has paid for it. This philosophy applies to 

every aspect of production. 

Hans: The following sentence is a basic misunderstanding: 

The capitalist system is in no way a system of the exchange of equal values. 

Marx took pains to explain profits not as a violation of equal exchange, but on the basis of equal exchange. Where 

have you been? Given this faulty starting point, no wonder you are misunderstanding the question. The question 

was not whether workers consider their wages fair. 

And the last sentence is a bummer too: 

This philosophy applies to every aspect of production. 

You are saying that all production is exploitation. 


Question 265 is 264 in 1996ut, 387 in 1997WI, 451 in 1997ut, 457 in 1998WI, and 678 in 

2003fa: 

Question 265 Answer the above Questions (a)-(h) for capitalist society. 

[193] Angela: Capitalist Society I do not know much about Theory of Capitalism, but 

I think I am living in the capitalist society. And I just use my knowledge to answer the 

following questions and I do not know it is right or not!! 

(a) Yes, I think that everyone shares the labour necessary to the society’s physical survival, 

because everyone provides their labour to produce the different commodities and serives. 


People, in the capitalist society, take the advantages and share each other. And I think the 

labours sell their laborur for wages in the capitalist society, I do’nt think that they are slaves 

because the slaves can not decide to sell their laborur by themselves and they are the part 

of porperty for their masters and their masters decided everything for them in the feudal 

system. Moreover, these slaves might be born into a certain caste in the feudal society, not 

in the capitalist society. In the capitalsit society, people work for their bosses or owners and 

their relationships like trade of commodities. one side sell their laborur and the other side 

buy their laborur. 

(b) Basically, I think that people work to earn the money to satisfy their survival needs and 

then to satisfy their desires. In the capitalist society, the producers produce the commodities 

not only for survival needs and also for desirous needs ( not for survival needs ). And I 

think that in the capitalist systems people are not obliged on pain of death or punishment 

to produce tribute for someone else. People work by their owns’ purposes or wills, because 

they have different purposes for working so that they represent different styles in the society. 

Some people work not because they want to earn the money for survival needs and they 

have the other purposes to do so!! For example, some artists create their arts not because 

they want to earn the money for survival needs. They just carry out their dreams. But in 

the capitalist society, some people might need these artists’ creations to satisfy their mental 

needs or something else. So these creations will become a commodity to trade in the market 

in the capitalist society. 

(c) In the capitalist society, I think the capitalists and governments and independent producers 

will organize how to work and what kind of work and the speed and the mothods 

of work and etc... I think once people work who may be managed by their managers or 

their owners or bosses. But it is not kind of controlling everything by their owners or bosses 

or managers. there will be some communication ways to communicate each other such as 

unions. 

(d) In the capitalist society, the capitalists and owners and bosses own and independent 

producers control the means of production. These people provide the means of production 

and hire people to produce the commodities into the markets. 

(e) I think that the purpose of underlying production of the capitalism is to make the 

money and profits. And capitalists, owners, bosses and independent producers establish a 

production process with the objective of enriching themselves. And I also think there are 

some institutions which direct the production process necessary for collective survival in the 

society. So that in the whole society, there will are everything of commodities or servies for 

everyone. 

(f) In the capitalist society, I do not think that there are particlar castes into which some 

people are born which do not require them to work, but they get enough food or goods to 

survive. I just think there are some people who do not work but they get enough goods 

to survive because some other people support them to do so. For example, I came USA 

for studying and I did not work but I get enough goods for survive not because I have a 

special caste just because my parents support me!! But on the other hand, some countries 

are monarchies, eventhough their economies are capitalist economics, their kings and the


royal familes might not need to work but they get everything which they need. I do not 

know this situation violates the ideas of capitalist. 

Moreover, in the capitalist society there might be a sexual division of labour which requires 

one sex to do less work than the other. Eventhough there are some sexual movements 

against these situations, uptoday there still are a sexual division of labour. But I do not 

think there is a class of people who manage to receive and income without working. They 

just work different ways to earn their incomes. I think they use their management skills or 

they have to develop the new commodity for the market and they might take the risk for 

these things. So in my opinion, I do not think these managers receive their income without 

working. 

(g) In the capitalist society, I think that people can be divided into 2 main groups- blue 

group and white group. And individual’s standard of living and levels of income depends 

on which group he/she belongs to. But I think that in the capitalist society, more skills and 

technical knowledge people have, and more income they earn. And the society necessary 

will decide these differences!! But in general, white group has higher income than blue 

group. 

(h) I think that in the capitalist society, the markets play main roles for the distribution 

mechanism. Using market systems, people can find out what and how to do with their supplies 

and demands. People sell and buy the commodities and servcies with market systems. 

The market will adjustment how to distribution of the commodities and services. 

Message [193] referenced by [247]. Next Message by Angela is [193.1]. 

[243] Brumbys: work or no work not a choice People work because it is part of 

surviving. I don’t think it is to produce the goods they need but for what others need and in 

exchange they get money for it. This is part of the comparative advantage theory where one 

will produce more of what she/he is good at. In a capitalist society it isn’t a choice whether 

you want to work or not if you want bread on the table then yes you must work. This is 

why in a capitalist society they like the unemployment rate to be high so that way it makes 

people work harder because if you don’t then someone else will take your job immediately. 

In every job force, there is a master who determines what you do and at what price. I believe 

that every individual works because they need money to satisfy their survival needs. In order 

to survive in a capitalist society, you need money therefore you must work. Of course there 

are individuals that are happy about there jobs and get paid for it. 

Hans: When you sent your message on Monday, it was rejected because you had specified Question number 265b. 

There is no Question 265b. Question 265 asks you to answer all parts of the Question. It is not right to say that 

everyone has to work in capitalism; labor is not the only source of income in capitalism. 


[247] Hans: Relations of Production in Contemporary Capitalism Angela starts her 

answer [193] with the remark that she does not know much about capitalism. Reading her 

comments I am getting the impression that she does not want to know much about capitalism. 

She is trying to tell herself that conditions in capitalism are just fine, but she is not very 

successful at it. Here are my more detailed responses: 

(a) There are important enough differences between the different motivations to work that 

I would not think it can be summarized by saying: “everybody shares the work.” (Angela 


almost seems to say that people take advantage of each other; this is something I could agree 

more with.) Some people work because they need the income from wage labor. Others 

work in their homes, doing housework for the family, child rearing etc. They do not get 

paid for their labor, but they are dependent on the wage earner for support. Others are 

“independently wealthy” and do not have to work at all if they do not want to. Others (the 

unemployed) would like to have a waged job but society does not provide for one. Others 

are on welfare. 

You are right that wage workers are not slaves, but this does not make it a voluntary 

relationship. They are forced to work for others because they do not have access to the 

means of production otherwise. 

(b) You say: 

people work to earn the money to satisfy their survival needs and then to 

satisfy their desires. 

Again I do not think this properly reflects the facts. The broad masses of the population 

are allowed to use some products of modern technology, like TV’s, but on the other hand, 

many go without adequate food or housing or medical care. They do not have a choice how 

much they want to work; there are no well-paid decent part-time jobs, it is either a full-time 

job or misery. 

You continue: 

People work by their owns’ purposes or wills, because they have different 

purposes for working so that they represent different styles in the society. 

Some people work not because they want to earn the money for survival 

needs and they have the other purposes to do so!! For example, some artists 

create their arts not because they want to earn the money for survival needs. 

They just carry out their dreams. But in the capitalist society, some people 

might need these artists’ creations to satisfy their mental needs or something 

else. So these creations will become a commodity to trade in the 

market in the capitalist society. 

There are very few people lucky enough that they can follow their dreams and still make a 

living. They can only follow their dreams if the market allows them to do so. Artists are torn 

between the necessity to produce what sells and their desire to follow their inner avocation. 

Regarding (c) you say correctly that it is not the workers who organize their work, but 

their bosses. Some enlightened bosses listen to their workers, and sometimes the unions step 

in when abuses become too obvious, but this is still quite a different affair than if the workers 

themselves could decide. 

(d) In our society, the capitalists are often called the “producers,” although the workers 

are the real producers. I also disagree with your formulation that the capitalists “provide” 

the means of production. They control them and have the right to withhold them (and often 

do withhold them, this is why there is so much unemployment). They only “provide” them 

if it is in their interest to do so.


(e) I agree with you that the purpose of underlying production of the capitalism is to make 

the money and profits. You also way that 

there are some institutions which direct the production process necessary 

for collective survival in the society. 

But these are subordinate to private profit-making. Some industries (schools, roadbuilding) 

are run by the state because capitalist profiteering in this area would do too much damage 

to capitalist profiteering elsewhere. 

I do not know how you can say the following sentence: 

So that in the whole society, there will are everything of commodities or 

servies for everyone. 

Even in one of the richest capitalist countries, there is an appaling amount of misery and 

poverty next to obscene amounts of wealth, and if you go to the countries in the periphery 

(India, Africa), people cannot even feed themselves. 

In (f), you say a few things with which I can agree. But you should ask how your parents 

have enough income to send you to study in the USA? Does everyone in your country have 

enough income for this, and if not, why not? You see that in capitalism, one can gain income 

without working (property income, stock market or commodity speculation, royalties from 

the sale of something, income of the managers). You are trying to re-interpret this and say 

that all these sources of income are some kind of work. 

Regarding (g), some Marxists argue that the relative protection of the white collar workers 

from exploitation is coming to an end. 


Exam Question 267 is 389 in 1997WI: 

Exam Question 267 Define productive forces and relations of production. 

[176] Snake: productive forces Production is a state of being engaged in the creating of 

economic value, or the producing of goods and services. Productive forces could be defined 

as the only productive labor is that which is directly consumed in the coarse of production for 

the fixing of prices of capital. Labor is productive if it directly controls the value of capital, 

or creates surplus value. Where as relations of production correspond to a determined stage 

of development of the productive forces. 


[178] Hans: Productive forces do not only exist in capitalism There is not a single 

sentence that is right in Snake’s answer [176]. 

Production is a state of being engaged in the creating of economic value, or 

the producing of goods and services. 

Only in particular economies are things produced as “economic values”. The concept of 

productive forces is however applicable to all higherto existing economies. Snake should 


have used the word “use value” here. Use values as use values do not fall into the realm of 

economics, use values are not “economic”. 

Productive forces could be defined as the only productive labor is that which 

is directly consumed in the coarse of production for the fixing of prices of 

capital. Labor is productive if it directly controls the value of capital, or 

creates surplus value. 

Snake is confusing the concept of “productive force” with a different concept of Marx’s, 

namely, the concept of productive labor under capitalism, which is labor that produces surplus 

value. Did you read the Annotations? 

Where as relations of production correspond to a determined stage of development 

of the productive forces. 

This is one of Marx’s theses about relations of production, but not their definition. 


Question 276 How does the passage from the Preface which we just discussed relate to 

the famous assertion in the Communist Manifesto that “the history of all hitherto existing 

society is the history of class struggles”? 

[183] Jupiter: Class struggles This statment relates to the subject of class struggles, 

in that no matter what our wills will be we have really no choice in the cards that we are 

handed. It is a function of social stratification, which is structured inequality within a given 

society that separates groups of people and the roles which they play within that particular 

society. 

Through out history except for the Primitive Communal period of time (which is where it 

is mostly a communal order so there is no inequality among the tribe) there has been forms of 

inequality. For example there were the lords who exploited the serfs, the plantation owners 

who exploited the slaves, and many more that contributed along the way to put us where we 

are today. Where are we today? Are we so much better off than those of time past? To be 

honest I do not know that we are, sure we have allot more opprotunity in this life but I look 

around and see so much inequality today that brings me to believe that we are not that much 

better of. We live in a bureaucratic institution that thrives on exploiting those who are not at 

the top (the proletariate). 

This is what I see Marx to be saying about a history of all class struggles, it is a summation 

of all past bringing us to where we are today. 

Hans: I like what you say about class struggles (individual advancement is, as a matter of principle, only open to 

a minority, and we still live in a class society today). This is a central concept for Marxism. Question 276 was 

wondering whether Marx had forgotten about this when he wrote the Preface. 


Question 277 is 56 in 2005fa, 67 in 2007fa, 68 in 2008SP, 68 in 2008fa, 71 in 2009fa, 

and 72 in 2010fa: 

Question 277 First give Marx’s arguments how one can come to the conclusion that exchange 

value 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. (This is Question 37 and 40 merged). 

[170.2] VanHalen: Marx says that, “Exchange value appears first of all as the quantitative 

relation, the proportion , in which use values of one kind exchange for the use values of 

another kind. This relation changes constantly with time and place. Hence exchange value 

appears to be something accidental and purely relative and consequently an intrinsic value, 

i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with the commodity, inherent in it 

seems a contradiction in terms.” 

Since the exchange value is constantly changing, due to social factors and time and place 

it can’t be inherent in the commodity. Sometimes it may fetch no exchange and other times 

when various factors change it may fetch a rather large exchange. This volatility keeps the 

exchange value from being inherent in the commodity. 

My own interpretation (due to reading others interpretations) of Marx’s rebuttal that despite 

these arguements, exchange value seems to be something inherent to the commodity 

is as follows. From Marx’s example of the quarter of wheat when it is exchanged for x 

shoe polish or z gold or y silk, we can see that between these commodities there is some 

relationship. In one geographical area, the wheat may fetch some amount of shoe polish, in 

another place the wheat may fetch some amount of gold and in another place it may fetch 

some quantity of silk. The wheat is expressing that the silk, shoe polish and gold have some 

value, and at the same time the shoe polish, silk and gold are expressing that wheat has some 

value in it. 

I like the example of the headlights, at first the person thinks that the other car was 

blinking its lights at him because the person may have known him. But as many other 

cars begin to flash their lights at him, he realizes that all the cars are trying to tell him 

something solely about him... that his lights are not on. Back to the wheat example, the 

other commodities that wheat comes up against at different times and different places, are 

all “flashing their lights” at the wheat in that a certain quantity of the other commodities 

can be exchanged for a certain amount of wheat. This gives the notion that there is some 

intrinsic value in the wheat and it is being expressed by the other commodities when they 

come in contact with the wheat. 

Hans: Your in-class exam is very incomplete, but it started along the right track, and your resubmission is excellent. 


[176.1] Karl: First I will address why Marx thought exchange is not something inherent in 

the commodity. Take the relevant form of commodity A, 20 yards of linen, then set it equal 

to commodity B, a coat( the equivalent form.) If these articles are exchanged, they produce 

an underlying 3rd dimension that is not inherent in either commodity. Exchange value is also 

not inherent due to the other variables of exchanged. For example Marx believed exchange 

value was also changed by other “outside” factors such as “abundance, time, and place of 

exchange.” 

Then Marx uses a planned contradiction to explain that exchange value is inherent after 

all. According to the text, Marx believed that a commodity held a “two-fold form.” It is 

exchange value tied with its underlying factor of “abstract labor”, or “general abstract labor” 


that gives exchange value it’s inherent value to the commodity. It is so much a part of 

the commodity that Marx called it the Father of the commodity, and nature is the Mother. 

Without the inherent nature of of exchange value, the commodity would not be recognized 

in it’s original form. 

The notion of an inherent exchange value is simple. Put very well in Hans’s rebuttal to 

question 40. It was stated, “It seems commodities have a value (exchange value), otherwise 

people would not bother producing them.” 

Hans: Do not think that all the answers can be found in the collection of answers. Some of the discussions on the 

internet were incomplete. 

First I will address why Marx thought exchange is not something inherent in the commodity. 

Take the relevant form of commodity A, 20 yards of linen, then set it equal to commodity B, 

a coat( the equivalent form.) If these articles are exchanged, they produce an underlying 3rd 

dimension that is not inherent in either commodity. 

The exchange does not produce this, the exchange is proof that there is this underlying third dimension. This 3rd 

dimension is not identical to either commodity, but it is inherent in both. I.e., here you are bringing arguments for 

an intrinsic exchange value, not against it. The next portion of your text is better: 

Exchange value is also not inherent due to the other variables of exchanged. For example Marx 

believed exchange value was also changed by other “outside” factors such as “abundance, 

time, and place of exchange.” 

This is already Marx’s reconciliation how it can be something intrinsic despite this variability. Alone by calling 

these the “outside” factors you imply that there are also “inside” factors, namely, the labor. 

Then Marx uses a planned contradiction to explain that exchange value is inherent after all. 

According to the text, Marx believed that a commodity held a “two-fold form.” It is exchange 

value tied with it’s underlying factor of “abstract labor”, or “general abstract labor” that gives 

exchange value it’s inherent value to the commodity. It is so much a part of the commodity 

that Marx called it the Father of the commodity, and nature is the Mother. 

You did not get this planned contradiction at all. No, he said that concrete labor was the father of the use value and 

nature its mother. 

Without the inherent nature of of exchange value, the commodity would not be recognized in 

its original form. 

I don’t understand this one. 

The notion of an inherent exchange value is simple. Put very well in Hans’s rebuttal to question 

40. It was stated, “It seems commodities have a value (exchange value), otherwise people 

would not bother producing them.” 

This is a somewhat crude 2nd order argument, but it is a 2nd order argument. Marx used a much more sophisticated 

2nd order argument to reach his conclusions. 

Next Message by Karl is [176.2]. 

[188.1] Skyler: Exchange value cannot be something inherent in a commodity because 

of the variables that are contained in its ability to be exchanged. Things like place and time 

and quantity are variables that can adjust the exchange value. The market allows things to 

be exchanged and the market evolved because of the development of different commodities. 

An example being a snow plow has value in Utah, but no value in Hawaii. The characteristic 

of need forms its value. 

According to Marx, regardless of the variability, the exchange values are the expressions 

of something inherent to the commodities. Inherent values remain constant despite their 

exchange values. The process by which the value is created depends on the inherent social 

labor time invested into the commodity.


Hans: You are giving Marx’s arguments against value being inherent to the commodity, and then you say that it is 

not inherent. Marx tried to give arguments how one can see that it is not inherent. 

Here are some remarks about your in-class exam: It is incorrect to say: commodities have value, or the consumers 

would not desire them. This only has to do with use value. At the end of your answer you seem to say that 

values are inherent because the exchange relation is so general. This is the right kind of argument, but you are not 

bringing it out very clearly. 

Your resubmission left out some things which you did wrong in class, but while cleaning it out you also cut out 

some potentially valuable thoughts. Don’t be too critical with yourself. 

Next Message by Skyler is [272]. 

[203.1] KALISPEL: A commodity does not have an inherent value because there are 

several different variables that may change its exchange value. It is dependent on time, 

place, and the circumstances of exchange. For example, our book may have an exchange 

value for people enrolled in our class, but has little or no value to those enrolled in a math 

class. Therefore, our book does not hold any kind of inherent value, otherwise it would have 

the same value to the math student as it does to us enrolled in class. 

Despite these arguments, exchange value seems to be inherent to the commodity after all. 

For example, when we bought our Das Capital book it had a price. This price was chosen 

by the relation Das Capital has to all books in general and more specifically to books of 

its kind. This makes the price of the book subjective to the market and factors included in 

the production process. Further, Das Capital may be compared with other commodities like 

styling gel and boot polish that are very different in form. These other commodities must 

be replaceable by each other or equal in magnitude. Exchanges of value are expressions of 

something equal. Das Capital cannot always be exchanged against the same other commodity. 

It may be expressed in boot polish one day and bread on another day and as lobster tails 

another. Exchange value is not a relationship between the owner of Das Capital productions 

and the owner of other commodity productions. All other commodities will express the same 

thing about the commodity Das Capital. This conclusion affirms that the exchange value of 

Das Capital has an intrinsic or inherent value after all. Marx reveals the structural form of 

commodity relations. 

Hans: This is good. What you tried to do in class was a different approach, but that was good too. 

Next Message by KALISPEL is [208]. 

[211.2] Reidar: A commodity does not have an inherent exchange value because each 

individual commodity contains numerous “variables that may change its exchange value.” 

The exchange value depends on several differing factors such as the time and place it is 

exchanged, as well as perhaps the desired use that the buyer may have in mind. 

Marx explains that although commodities have differing factors which effect their exchange 

value, all commodities possess some exhange value in common. He states that wheat 

may have exchange values with several other commodities and the exchange rate will differ 

depending on the commodites involved in the exchange and these “differing variables”. 

Marx does not stress a relationship between wheat and other commodities, but the idea 

that wheat contains an inherent exchange value that can be exchanged against various other 

commodities. He likened this to linen in the “expanded form of value”. This exchange value 

appears as an inherent part of the wheat or linen, because the wheat or linen has a value 

which can be exchanged. This exchange value is the “mode of expression” which gives the 

commodity a perceived intrinsic value. 


Hans: Everything is right until the last two sentences: 

This exchange value appears as an inherent part of the wheat or linen, because the wheat or 

linen has a value which can be exchanged. 

No, the exchange value is the form of appearance of something other than exchange value, which is inherent in the 

wheat or linen. 

This exchange value is the “mode of expression” which gives the commodity a perceived 

intrinsic value. 

Nothing can be generated by its own mode of expression. It is right to say that the exchange value is the mode of 

expression of the value (not exchange value) inherent in the commodity. 


[214.1] Kalle: Exchange value is not necessarily something which is inherent in a commodity, 

because of the fact that a commodity can loose it’s ability to serve as a means for 

exchange. As long a someone is willing to exchange commodity A for commodity B, both 

commodities can be said to be carriers of exchange value. Exchange relations exists between 

all commodities and are socially given. However, what happens to a commodity which use 

value becomes freely available to all people? For example, commodity A suddenly begins 

to grow on wild trees. No one would any longer exchange commodity B (or any other) for 

commodity A because it is freely available to all without any cost. The exchange relationship 

between A and B clearly is no longer the same. This example is maybe extreme, but 

one can prove that exchange proportions between all commodities changes with time and 

place. Because of this variability Marx concludes that exchange value is not inherent in 

commodities. 

However, Marx looks at the situation from another point of view. Without contradicting 

himself, he derives to the conclusion that exchange value is inherent in commodities after all. 

He argues that it is not the people who carry out exchange who “create” the exchange value 

of commodities. If commodities can be “valued” relative to other commodities, exchange 

value must be inherent in commodities and express something in them. In other words, even 

before the exchange took place, exchange value was inherent in the commodity. 

Hans: The second part is ok, although you should have elaborated on it a little in your resubmission (since these 

are quite subtle issues). The first part is not quite right. A change in the productivity of producign the commodity is 

really a change of something inherent to the commodity. The variability Marx was talking about referred to changes 

due to the accidents of demand and supply, which are much more extraneous to the commodity, and which suggest 

that the exchange value only depends on the situation of the exchange, not on something that has to do with the 

commodity itself. 


[317.1] Wolf: To begin with, exchange value is NOT something inherent in the commodity 

for a number of reasons. First and foremost, exchange value is used and determined by the 

market which is dependent upon time, place, and other various circumstances. The market 

is separate and actually an entity in and of it’s self, in compairson to a commodity. Thus, the 

market (where exchange value is determined) is external and independent of the commodity. 

Allowing for the conclusion that the exchange value is not inherent, it is not a fundamental 

property of every commodity upon completion of production=¿before it even reaches the 

market. 

However, despite what I have just discussed above, there are two sides to every story. Exchange 

value seems to be something inherent to the commodity after all. Exchange value has


an intrinsic root because it is the expression of something in the commodity. This something 

I speak of, with in the commodity, is expressed by the relation of it to other commodities. 

In the form of a complement or a substitute. In all, exchange value then exists apriori in a 

commodity before it rreaches the market 

Hans: You are giving a very good explanation of the first side of the story, but regarding the other side of the story 

you are only giving the conclusion Marx arrived at 

(a) without giving any arguments how already the very superficial first look at the market may support his 

conclusin (see here the blinking car metaphor in my Annotations), and 

(b) without noticing that the explanation which you give as the opposing alternative story also contains an 

explanation of the first side of the story. 

Nevertheless, this is an impressive piece of work, especially since it is the same you wrote in class. Unfortunately 

your grade suffered from the late resubmission. 


Question 278 What does Marx mean with the statement that “the individual commodity 

must here generally be considered as an average sample of its kind”? Give examples. And 

give a reasoning why Marx’s statement might be true. (This is a extension of Question 54). 

[212.2] Pinky: By “The individual commodity here must be considered an average sample 

of its kind”, Marx means that the labor content and use value is considered average. A 

commodity is a two-sided thing, the product of concrete useful labor and the product of 

general abstract labor, and must reflect what it is. Marx says that in competition, the agents 

force each other to conform with the laws of capitalism, though one cannot infer these laws 

themselves from competition. Marx understands that market relations are not established 

between idiosyncratic individual commodities, but between standardized commodity types; 

the commodities copy each other, the market dictates it. The labor time involved in the 

production of one of the products must be reflected in all of the products. If I go to buy a 

1-pocket tee shirt and get home to find that it has no pocket, I take it back because it is not 

lke all of the others that stood as examples of what I was indenting to buy. 

Hans: You were the only one who answered this Question. 

Next Message by Pinky is [216.1]. 

[313.1] Snowman: The value of any product according to Marx “is determined by the 

quantity of labor used to produce it.” The reason that he uses this determinant for deriving 

the value of products is it is the only factor of production that is inherent in all commodities, 

and therefor by measuring the quantity of that factor in any one commodity we can compare 

its value to any other commodity. The relative value then is the quantity of labor used to 

produce a product. The value of a given product is not any one individuals labor but instead 

the labor hour is determined as a whole based on the average labor hour for the entire society. 

The labor hour is then merely the average time it takes to produce a commodity in a society. 

Though Labor is not perhaps the only constant variable in the production of commodities it 

is the best suited to relate values, because of its relation to the society as a whole, most other 

inputs merely serve to increase or decrease the productivity of this one variable. 

Because a commodity’s value is determined by the average amount of labor hours that is 

required in its production, and labor hours are an average of society, it is required to consider 

any one commodity as generic, or representative of all the commodities of its kind. That is to 

determine the value based on the average labor in production we must assume that which is 


being produced is representative of a group of products identical to one another. For example 

to know the value of a hammer one must assume that we are comparing an average hammer 

and its value to some other product and its value. This is a requirement that ensures apples 

are compared with apples and not oranges, as with the hammer its value would reflect the 

amount of labour used to produce it and all the hammers that are identical to it, but would 

not require that it represent the features of a hammer with different features, though it may 

accidently. So when given the value of hammer “A” that all hammers identical to “A” would 

have the same value and use value based on the average of the labor hours used to produce 

all “A” like hammers, and as such any on of the “A” like hammers is an “average sample of 

its kind.” 

Message [313-1] referenced by [327]. Next Message by Snowman is [369]. 

[335.10] MsMarx: Conditions for labor power to be a commodity For labor power 

to be a commodity, certain conditions must first be met. First, it must be sold by its own 

possessor, that is, it must be free labor-power, Since buyer and seller as contracting parties 

are both juridicially equal persons, labor-power must be sold only temporarily, since in a 

sale en bloc the seller no longer remains the seller, but becomes a commodity himself. But 

then the owner, instead of being able to sell commodities in which his labor is embodied, 

must rather be in a position where he has to sell his labor-power itself as a commodity. 

Therefore, for the conversion of his money into capital, the owner of money must find in 

the commodity market the free laborer, free in the double sense that as a free man he can 

dispose of his labor-power as his commodity and that, on the other hand, he has no other 

commodities to sell, has no ties, and is free of all things necessary for the realization of his 

labor-power. 

The owner of money must be compelled to offer for sale as a commodity the labor-power 

which exists only in his living body. He requires the means of subsistence. If products are 

produced as commodities, they must be sold after they have been produced, and they can 

only satisfy the producer’s needs after they have been sold. 

Marx said “the exchange of commodities implies no other relations of dependence than 

those which result from its own nature.” (p. 271). Labor-power can appear on the market as 

a commodity only if its possessor, the individual whose labor-power it is, offers it for sale 

or sells it as a commodity. For this to happen is where I referred that he must be free, the 

owners of the commodities are equal, and he sells it for a limited or temporary time. In this 

way, he alienates his labor-power to avoid renouncing his rights of ownership. 

I think that you summarized it well in your lecture: For labor power to be a commodity it 

must be “free from” and “free to.” For labor-power to be for sale, there must exist a class of 

free laborers, a proletariat who are, free in this double sense. They are free to sell their laborpower; 

they are not slaves or serfs. They are also free of any ownership of commodities, so 

that they have nothing else to sell but their labor-power. Marx goes on to say that this 

existence of a class of free laborers is a result of historical development. 

Hans: The sentence 

He alienates his labor-power to avoid renouncing his rights of ownership. 

is a somewhat distorted version of the last sentence in 270:3/o. But otherwise what you wrote is good and comprehensive, 

as usual.



Question 281 is 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, 569 

in 2010fa, and 611 in 2012fa: 

Question 281 Marx argues that two sets of conditions must be satisfied for labor power to 

be a commodity. What are they? 

[335.3] Jake: The conditions are labor power can only appear as a commodity if the the 

possessor of it offers it for sale or sells it as a commodity. For him to sell it, it must be at 

his disposal. The individual must have his freedom to decide if he/she is to sell his labor. 

The buyer and seller of labor meet in the market as equals. The seller must sell it in limited 

quantities, this protecting the seller from becoming a slave and losing control. By selling in 

a temporary way, it protects the sellers rights to his own labor power. 

The owner of labor or person selling labor must realize that his labor is now a commodity. 

This representing the temporary lost ability for his labor to produce commodities for 

individual sell in the market. This giving the labor power in him to another for use. 

Hans: Your characterization of the first condition is excellent. Regarding the second condition, you mention the 

temporary lost ability for his labor to produce commodities for individual sell in the market. 

Here I would go further than you. First of all, this is not a temporary loss, but a permanent loss. And he not only 

has lost his ability to use his labor for individual commodity production, but he has lost his ability to use his labor 

in any meaningful sense at all, because the capitalists monopolize the means of production. 

Next Message by Jake is [335.4]. 

[340.1] Wight: Two sets of conditions must be satisfied for labor power to be considered 

a commodity. They are as follows: 

1. Labor power can appear on the market as a commodity only if its possessor, the 

individual whose labor power it is, offers it for sale or sells it as a commodity. He must 

be the free proprietor of his own labor capacity. He and the owner of money meet in the 

market and enter into relations with the understanding that they are on equal footing and 

both exchanging a commodity. The proprietor of labor power must always sell his labor for 

a limited period of time. If he sold his labor all at once, he would be making himself a slave. 

He must constantly treat his labor power as his own property. In this way, he manages both 

to alienate his labor power and avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it. Essentially, 

this first condition incorporates the idea that the laborer is free to sell his labor power in the 

marketplace. 

2. The second essential condition is that the possessor of labor power, instead of being 

able to sell commodities in which his labor has been objectified, must rather be compelled 

to offer for sale as a commodity that very labor power which exists only in his living body. 

In order that a man may be able to sell commodities other than his labor power, he must of 

course possess means of production i.e. raw materials, instruments of labor, etc. Basically, 

what this condition in stating is that the laborer who sells his labor power in the marketplace 

must be free from the constraints that result from the ownership of any kinds of means of 

production. 


In summary, the first condition states the laborer is FREE TO and the second condition 

states the laborer is FREE FROM. 


Message [340-1] referenced by [2007fa:543]. Next Message by Wight is [341]. 

[341.7] Panacea: Condition 1: The individual who owns it (necessarily the labourer 

himself) must voluntarily offer up his labour on the market for a temporary and specified 

period. If the time period were not specified as temporary, the labourer would be entering 

into slavery. 

Condition 2: The individual sells on the market not the objectified RESULT of his labourers 

(which he cannot own since he has no means of production nor raw materials), i.e. a commodity, 

but rather he sells his LABOUR-POWER, or potential labour, which is the force by 

which commodities are produced from raw materials. 

Hans: I would call condition 2 that what you put in parentheses: that the laborer has no access to the means of 

production nor raw materials. 


[341.6] KALISPEL: 1- Labor power is not produced like other commodities. Production 

of labor power is an aspect of the biological and social reproduction of workers as human 

beings. This complex process of reproduction involves social relations which are in general 

different from capitalist or commodity relations. In well developed capitalist societies, labor 

power is reproduced by household labor which doesn’t receive a wage (domestic economy). 

Less developed countries do it through non-capitalistic modes of production like private 

farming through the domestic economy. 

2- The use-value of labor power is its capacity to produce value. Labor power is unlike 

other commodities in that in order to utilize it the purchaser, the capitalist, must enter into 

a whole new set of relations whith the seller, the worker. The extraction of labor from 

labor power raises additional points of conflict between buyer and seller beyond the usual 

negotiation over the price of the commodity, in this case the wage. These antagonistic class 

struggles fundamentally structure the technical and social aspects of capitalistic production. 

More simply these conditions must exist. 

1- There must be a class of free laborers who have the right to dispose of their labor for 

limited periods of time. 2- It requires the separation of laborers from means of production 

so they can’t produce and sell the product of thier labor power. Workers are forced to sell 

their labor power. 3- As a result the worker is alienated from work and creative functions 

are decreased. 

Essentially to answer the question we only need the first two answers directly above. The 

rest is to put it all in perspective. 

Workers are commodities because they represent human capital that is forced to work and 

produce value. Thus humans have use value (brain,energy, nerves,etc.) and humans are paid 

a subsistence wage to maintain the capitalist’s capital (human labor). This reveals the secret 

of surplus value in ch. 7 and so on. 

Hans: Your first two paragraphs are really answers of Question 282. The Question was asking about the conditions 

for labor power to be a commodity, i.e., the circumstances that must exist so that labor power can be a commodity. 

This is the free from and free to stuff.



[346.2] Jupiter: Labor power is the mental and physical abilities that exist in the physical 

form of a human being, ones that are used when a use-value of any kind is made. In order for 

this to be classified as a commodity two conditions must be present. First, the recognition of 

this power by the person to whom it is inherent, knowing what it is and how to use it. Once 

this is done then the person has to be free of any of the other important natural materials i.e. 

land, tools, materials and so forth. The absence of these important assets leaves the human 

with nothing but his or her raw phyisical and mental capacities. This will lead a person into 

the market place to recieve rewards or some other form of compensation in exchange for 

this labor-power. We now have a seller of a commodity and a buyer of that commodity, we 

have a market for human labor! Both are deemed as equals in this setting because both are 

willing to give up something in exchange for something else, but this brings into action the 

other condition. 

The second criteria that must be present in order for labor-power to become a commodity 

is that of free will. Freedom for the worker to set limits and boundries on the certain things 

that will be asked of his or her labor-power. A contract will be made that has both approvals 

of those that are involved. The rewards that the laborer will recieve will be that of his efforts 

of abstract labor, thats where it will end. For the buyer of the labor he will recieve his 

compensation in the market of the products that he promotes in the market place,(selling the 

products of his laborer). 

The laborer must by all accounts be a free worker one who only will produce what he or 

she is saked to produce by the new owner of his or her labor power. 

Hans: Your resubmission was a definite improvement over what you wrote in class. I like especially that you 

recognized that even the positive freedom, the freedom to as opposed to the freedom from, has a negative content: 

it is the freedom to set limits. 


[356.2] Reidar: The sets of conditions which must be justified for labor power to be a 

commodity are first, “labour power can appear on the market as a commodity only if...the 

possessor offers his/her labor power for sale. In order that the possessor can sell his labor 

power, he must possess or be the free proprietor of his own labour capacity”. 

The second condition is that the owner of his/her labour power must not be able or 

have the means of creating use-value on their own. He “must be compelled to offer for 

sale...labour power which exists in his living body”. 

He cannot possess a means of production other than his labour power. I.E.; “raw materials, 

instruments of labor”. He is therefore compelled in order to survive, to sell his own 

labor power as a commodity to those who possess the means of production. 


[357.2] Karl: x 

The first condition must be that the laborer must voluntarily offer his labor for sell. Marx 

makes it clear that this must be sold to the “owner of money”, in increments, and not in a 

lump sum. Marx said, “He (laborer) must constantly treat his labor power as his own.” 

The second condition that satisfies labor as a commodity is that he(laborer),“must be 

compelled to offer for sale as a commodity the very labor power of his living body.” This 


concept contains various components not found in the first. For instance within this second 

concept, a person must be free to dispose of his labor power, and also at the same time rid 

himself of all other commodities for sale. In other words the laborer must live on subsistence 

commodity consumption only. The only commodity the poor labor can offer is his own 

labor power. Marx refered to this in the German as “Zukunftsmusik.” And “money owners” 

in antithesis must be the owener of raw materials above subsistence levels, in order for the 

buyer and seller of labor power to successfully transact equal commodity proportions of 

money for labor power. 

Hans: You misunderstood Marx’s passage about “Zukunftsmusik” (utopian dreams about the future, castles in the 

air) on p. R272. Marx did not want to say that the future will or should hold simple commodity production. Marx 

said that people have to consume before they can produce, and he jokingly added, even if all they do is dream about 

the future, they still have to eat in the present. 

Next Message by Karl is [357.4]. 

[357.3] Caren: For the worker the exchange between capital and labor simply represents 

the sale of his labor-power for a particular sum of money, for wage; what the capitalist gains 

by means of this exchange is labor itself, ‘the productive power which capital obtains and 

multiplies’ which does not arise from the value of the commodity which capital purchases, 

but from its use-value. The worker’s exchange is an act of simple commodity circulation 

in which his commodity (labor-power) passes through the circulation form C-M-C; whereas 

capital represents the moment opposed to this, the form M-C-M. Finally, for the worker 

the matter is one of an exchange of equivalents (labor-power for the price of labor), on the 

other hand one can only speak of a non-exchange on the side of capital since, through that 

exchange, the capitalist has to obtain more value than he has given. 

As in any exchange, the worker appears here as the owner of his commodity, labor power, 

which does not however exist as a thing external to him, but as part of his living body. It 

is therefore evident that he can only hand over the disposition over his capacity to work to 

the owner of money, to the capitalist, if this disposition is restricted to a specific labor and is 

restricted in time (so much labor-time). The two sets of conditions that must be satisfied for 

labor-power to be a commodity are again “a specific labor” and “ restricted in time”. 

The worker can always begin the exchange anew as soon as he has taken in the quantity 

of substances required in order to reproduce the externalisation of his life; and that labor 

constitutes ’a constant new source of exchange with capital for the worker as long as he is 

capable of working’. The periodic recurrence of the act of exchange is merely the expression 

of the fact that the worker is not perpetuum mobile, and must first sleep and eat his fill before 

he is capable of repeating his labor and his exchange with capital. Labor always has only his 

living direct labor itself to exchange. 

Hans: A condition, in Marx’s terminology, is not only something that restricts, but also something that enables. 

When you write: 

He can only hand over the disposition over his capacity to work to the owner of money, to the 

capitalist, if this disposition is restricted to a specific labor and is restricted in time (so much 

labor-time). 

you overlook the positive condition implied in this, namely, the fact that the laborer must be enough of a master 

over himself to be able to sell his labor. It is a freedom which the laborer can only make use of by giving it up. 

The two conditions the Question referred to were on the one hand this freedom (which must be restricted as 

you say), and on the other hand, as you write in your in-class exam, but not in your resubmission, that he must be


obligated to sell his labor power instead of a commodity. You omit that he is obligated to do so because he is cut 

off from the means of production. 

Next Message by Caren is [394.2]. 

[368.3] Lamma: First of all, in order to offer labor power for sale as a commodity the 

owner of this labor power must offer it for sale. This is a basic but most important step. In 

order for the owner to offer his labor power for sale he must be the sole owner and have 

comlete control and ownership of the labor power. He also must offer it for sell for only 

a limited time, as to sell the labor power contained within himself and not himself as the 

commodity. The second step is that the owner must be able to offer pure labor power and 

not a commodity produced by the power. So, only the labor paower contained within his 

living body can offered in order for the labor paower to be offered as a commodity. 

Hans: You are leaving out the reason why the laborer is selling his labor power instead of selling a commodity 

produced by his labor power, which would be much more lucrative, since he would get reimbursed for all the labor 

instead of just the value of his labor power. 


[369.4] Camera: 1st condition: 

The possessor of the labor power, who is the individual putting out the labor power, must 

offer the labor power for sale or sell it as a commodity. In order for that to happen this 

person must have the labor power at his disposal and be the free proprietor of his own labor 

capacity. He must always sell it for a limited period of time exclusively, and treat his labor 

power as his own commodity in order to distinguish himself from that of a slave entity. 

2nd contition: 

The possessor of the labor power, instead of possessing the ability to sell commodities 

in which his labor has been objectified, must rather be compelled to offer for sale as a 

commodity that very labor power which exists only in his living body. The possessor of 

the labor power must have a sense of freedom as far as his ability to sell his labor power 

as a commodity and also freedom in the sense of free from all the objects needed for the 

realization of his labor power. 

Next Message by Camera is [387]. 

[369.5] Snowman: The first set of conditions laid out by Marx revolves around the requirement 

that the possessor of the labor power, or the individual who the labor belongs to, 

offers the labor-power for sale as a commodity. This condition requires that the seller of the 

labor power must be selling their own labor power and that their labor power is theirs to sell. 

This is so that what is being sold is not already spoken for in such a way that the commodity 

is actually availble for sale, this similar to the analogy that when you go to by a house you 

do not discuss the sale with the renters of the property but rather the one who holds the title 

and rights to that property. It is also required that the labor seller must sell his labor power 

for a defined period of time, which is to be limited in such a way so as to have bounds, or 

else the possessor of the labor power no longer owns themselves, and in effect becomes a 

slave. 

The second condition requires that the seller not the results of his labor but the labor itself, 

in other words the sale can not be the congealed labor contained in another commodity but 

the commodity must be the labor itself. The sale of the raw labor as a use value to the buyer 

allows the buyer to do what ever they wish with it as they would with any other commodity 


that factors into their business. The labor becomes a tool, and is bought and sold as such. 

This is why the Labor must be the labor that is ready at hand with in the body of the laborer. 

Next Message by Snowman is [369.6]. 

[371.2] Kalle: The first condition Marx mentions is that labor power (the possessor of it) 

offers it for sale or sell it as a commodity on the market. This implies that the person is in a 

situation where he/she controls what can be done with the labor power possessed. A slave, 

for example, does not have the opportunity to sell or their labor power because it is under 

control of another person or institution. To fulfill the first condition a person must enter into 

a contract and sell his/her labor power for a limited period of time. When the specified time 

period is over the person will again market it’s labor power and enter into a new contract. 

The second criteria necessary for the realization of labor power is that the individual has 

no other commodity for sale except his/her labor power. If a person can sell commodities 

other than his/her own labor power he/she must possess the means to produce commodities 

(machines, raw-material, etc.) A person without these means of production fulfill the second 

condition necessary to offer his/her labor power as a commodity on the market 


[374.1] Chocolate: According to Marx, the value of labour-power is determined, “as 

in the case of every othercommodity, by the labor-time necessary for the production, and 

sonsequently also the reproduction of this article.” Labor-time and the reproduction of the 

commodity are the two sets of conditions that must be satisfied for labor power to be a commodity. 

Marx also states that “labor-power exists only as a capacity of the living individual...the 

production of labor-power consists in his reproduction of himself or his maintence.” 

What I feel Marx’s is saying is that as long as the individual is alive and able to perform 

the task’s necessary to produce or reproduce a certain commodity then that individual’s effort 

will give value to labor-power. 

Hans: Sorry for this grade, but you are confusing value and use value, and you did not catch the significance of 

labor power being a commodity. 


[391.1] CaseWorker: 1) labour power can appear on the market as a commodity only if 

and in so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour power it is, offer it for sale or sells 

it as a commodity. 

2) the possessor of labour power, instead of being able to sell commodities in which his 

labour has been objectified, must rather be compelled to offer for sale as a commodity that 

very labour power which exists only in his living body. 

Hans: The firswt condition as you formulated it is a tautology. To say a commodity is on the market is the same as 

saying someone offers it for sale. 


[394.4] TOAD: Labor power must meet the conditions of, “its posser the individual whose 

labor power it is, offers it for sale or sales it as a commodity” and that “he must have it at 

his disposal, he must be the free propritor of his own labor capacity, hence of his person.” 

Also the owner of money must want to employ the owner of labor power and see a profitable 

amount of value in employing the others use value. In other words there must be a demand 

for the labor and a suplier of money for that labor. The laborer must be free meaning that 

he has no other obligations for his labor and is able to sell his whole self for the time period


expressed in the contract. And he has no other commodities to sell on the market to provide 

substance. 

Hans: Your observation that there can be no market without demand is a good one. Freedom is more than just the 

absence of an “obligation.” or would you call the unfreedom of a slave an “obligation for his labor”? But I am glad 

that you are using your own words and yuour own head. 


[394] Angela: The first set of condition: The labour can be free from and free to by 

himself on the market as a commodity. This means the he can manages both to alienate 

his labour-power and to avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it. The labour can 

alienate his labour- power to sell his labour-power to the buyer, And the other hand he also 

can renouncing his labour-power to his buyer if he does not want to sell his labour-power. 

The second set of condition: the necessary for sale must be counted as well as the time 

of production. Because the labour-power exists only in the labour’s living body and nobody 

can live on the products of the future or on use-value whose production has not yet been 

completed. 

So the worker must be free in the double sense that as a free individual he can dispose 

of his labour-power as his own commodity and that on the other hand, he has no other 

commodity for sale, i.e. he is free of all the objects needed for the realization of his labourpower. 


[395.3] Skyler: Fwd: Your Submission Returned The first condition is the fact that 

labor-power can appear on the market as a commodity only if, the possessor (individual) 

whose labor-power its is, offers the commodity for sale, at his disposal and free of propriety. 

He must treat the labor-power as his own property, own commodity, by placing it at the 

disposal of a buyer. This must take place in small amounts, not a lump sum which would 

convert the owner into a slave to the commodities labor-power. 

The second conditin allows the owner of the money to dind labor-power in the market 

as a commodity. Thepossesr of labor-power, instead of selling the commodity in the labor 

displayee, he will offer to sell the commodity by the labor-power that exists in hisself. Possessing 

a means of production is also very important. For example, raw materials, tools etc. 

The time necessary for sale must be counted as well as the time of production. 

Hans: You did not get the second condition right. The worker must exactly be deprived of means of production in 

order to have to sell his labor power. 

It is not very polite to re-send all the error messages at the top of your message. You should clean them out. 

Next Message by Skyler is [469]. 

[395.1] Super: First, the possessor of this labor power must be willing to offer his/her 

services for sale in an open market as a commodity. This labor power must be used at the 

laborer’s discretion and he/she is free to offer their own labor power on their own terms. 

This labor power is his/her own commodity to exchange. 

The second condition is that the laborer must take care of his/her own means of subsistence 

first, then the labor power that is left over can be used as a commodity on the open 

market. Marx says, “...that the possessor of labour-power, instead of being able to sell commodities 

in which his labour has been objectified, must rather be compelled to offer for sale 

as a commodity that very labour-power which exists only in his living body.” Marx explains 


that the possessor of this labor power can only offer his/her commodity in the amount in 

which he/she possesses within the limits of their physical abilities. 

Hans: You did not understand the second condition. 

Next Message by Super is [395.2]. 

[398.2] Wolf: Labor power can appear on the market as a commodity only if, and in so 

far as, it’s possessor, the individual whose labor power it is, offers it for sale or sells it as a 

commodity (exchange). Thus, they must have it at their disposal and be the free proprietor 

of his own labor capacity, hence of his person. This person and the owner of the money 

meet in the market and enter into relations, one a seller, one a buyer. The proprietor of labor 

power must always sell it for a limited period of time only, other wise he would be making 

himself a slave. 

The second essential condition which allows the owner of money to find labor power in 

the market as a commodity is this, that the possessor of labor power, instead of being able to 

sell commotities in which his labor has been objectified, must rather be compelled to offer 

for ssale as a commodity that very labor power which exists only in his living body. He must 

posses the means of production for a commodity, with in. In all, labor power must be used 

for (the purpose of) exchange and have use value. 

Hans: You got the second condition wrong. 


[399.2] Femme: Marx argues that two sets of conditions must be satisfied for labor power 

to be a commodity. One of these conditions is that its possesor, the individual whose labourpower 

it is, offers it for sale or sells it as a commodity. The possessor must have it at his 

disposal, he must be the free proprietor of his own labour capacity. The second condition is 

the possesor of labour-power must be compelled to offer for sale as a commodity the labourpower 

which exists only in his living body. These two sets of conditions must be satisfied 

for labour-power to be a commosity. 

Hans: How will he be compelled? 

Next Message by Femme is [399.3]. 

[401.4] Homer: For labor power to be a commodity, two conditions must exist. The first 

is that the worker must be free to dispose of his or her own labor power. Thus, the worker 

cannot be bound to a particular labor process, such as a slave being bound to the master in 

a slave economy. The second condition is the worker must not have access to the means of 

production. A worker will only sell his or her labor power if they cannot provide themselves 

with the necessary means of production. 



[402.1] Pinky: For labor power to be for sale, ther must exist a class of free laborers, a 

proletariat. Marx describes this class as free in a double sense. Free to 1: Sell their labor 

power and 2: Free of any ownership of commodities so that their labor power is all they have 

to sell. They cannot produce for themselves because they do not own the needed means of 

production. The existance of a class of free laborers is a result of historical development, as 

are all of the other prerequisites for the emergence of capital. 

Hans: Excellent. 

Next Message by Pinky is [418].


[405] Dunny: 281 two conditions The first condition is this that this labor power can 

only enter or be part of the market if the producer and possessor of that labor power puts it 

up for sale on the market as his/her commodity, or in other words, sells himself or herself as 

a commodity. This is the aspect of the physical product. The owners have to put themselves 

there. The second aspect is that the person or individual that holds the labor power, instead 

of selling the commodity in which the labor was set out for, he must sell it instead as the 

commodity that encludes his very labor power which he used to produce it. Everything from 

his own body. This encompasses the use of raw materials that he uses as his instruments of 

labor. 


[405.6] Chacci: Marx states that the two conditions that must be satisfied for labor power 

to be a commodity are if the individual offers it for sale or sells it as a commodity and 

the individual must be compelled to offer his labor power his sole commodity. First, the 

individual must be the sole proprietor of his labor power. He must sale it for limited time 

periods otherwise he would be a slave. In other words you must be free to give up your labor 

power for limited time periods. Second, the individual must be compelled to offer his labor 

power as his sole commodity. He must own no other means of production. 

Marx states that a ‘owner of money must find the worker available on the commodity 

market: and this worker must be free in the double sense that as a free individual he can 

dispose of his labor power as his own commodity, and that he has no other commodity to 

sale.’ I gave a bad example on my in class test because exchange value should not have been 

brought into the discussion. 

I give a better one here. If I was a laborer my labor power would be realized as a commodity 

on the market because I am free to dispose of my labor, I have no prior arrangements 

with anyone else, my labor power is my commodity (condition 1). I am compelled to do so 

because I have no other means of production, I have no raw materials or other commodities 

to produce value except my own muscle and brain power (condition 2). 

Hans: Good. Why did you say: exchange value should not have been brought into the discussion? 


[407.3] Peaches: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: m.ucc.utah.edu: ho 

The first condition that needs to be present in order that labour power be a commodity is that 

labour power can appear on the market as a commodity only if its possessor offers it for sale 

or sells it as a commodity. The possessor must have it at his disposal, he must be the free 

proprietor of his own labour capacity. He must only sell his commodity for a short time or 

he will be selling his commodity, himself, as a commodity; therefore, becoming a slave. 

The second condition allows the owner of money to find labor power in the market as a 

commodity only if the possessor of labour power be compelled to offer for sale as a commodity 

that very labour power which exits only in his living body. The possessor must be 

free in a double sense in that as a free individual, he can dispose of his labour power as his 

own commodity, and that, on the other hand, he has no other commodity for sale. 

Hans: The “free from” can be developed one step further: that he does not have access to means of production. 



[420.4] Punani: Commodities assume a role in capitalism that one would not deduce 

based on available knowledge and which goes “beyond use value and the content of determinations” 

Marx understood commodities to be social products, that they owe their value 

not primarily to the estimation of their utility by consumers, but to the existence of social 

relations which constitute the fabric society and which make the production of the commodity 

possible in the first place. So value of labor power is determined by the “labor time 

necessary for the production and consequently also the reproduction of the specific article” 

“All one needs is mobility of labor and in the case of simple commodity production, the assumption 

that labor cost outweigh all other costs. As long as demand is so high in a certain 

industry that price rise above labor content, labor will migrate into that industry, and this will 

re-establish prices in line with labor values.” “In some societies it’s not the abstract labor in 

the things that is counted by society, but the concrete labor, which is a relation between the 

producer and the product.” 

Hans: What you wrote is not relevant to the question at hand. 


[430.1] Scott: The first condition for labour power to be a commodity, is that it can be 

sold only temporarily for a limited time, in order that the labourer would not become a slave 

versus a free man. The labourer cannot sell it once and for all, lest he transgresses from 

being an owner of a commodity into a commodity itself. He must offer it to the buyer on 

equal terms “in the eyes of the law.” 

The second condition, is that the labour power utilised may only exist in the sellers’ living 

body. This means that the labour power exists only as a capacity. 

Hans gave a more eloquent answer in the class, as usual, in the discussion of May 8th. 

Since I already have an overwelming feeling of guilt due to plagiarism, when answering 

many of these questions, I reframed from using Hans’ terminology as much as I could. 

Hans: Your second reason is not developed to its end. 


[457.5] Rambis: The two conditions which must be satisfied for labor power to be considered 

a commodity are first, “that the individual whose labor power it is, offers it for sale 

or sells it as a commodity”; and second, “that the possessor of labor power be compelled to 

offer for sale as a commodity that very labor power which exists only in his living body.” 

In other words, the individual alone can provide exactly the labor power s/he is capable 

of and s/he willingly agrees to offer this labor power for exchange in the marketplace, either 

through the forms of other commodities or the universal commodity, money. For labor power 

to be considered a commodity it must originate with the individual, be unique or endogenous 

to the individual, and be freely offered by the individual in order to be exchanged in the 

marketplace. 

Hans: You did not understand either of the two conditions. I doubt that you understood the question; it is not a 

matter of “being cosidered a commodity”. 


[475.3] Emma: From our class discussion after the test I believe it is necessary to add 

the “free to” and “free from” arguments. That is, a laborer only sells labor to the capitalist 

if the laborer does not own or have access to the means of production for himself. I’m


personally not clear on how this provision is applied on a practical level. Owning or controlling 

the means of production requires that one be an entrepreneur, for the most part. Not 

very many people have the capacity to take the risks or perform the tasks associated with 

entrepreneurship, aside from acquiring the necessary financial and capital resources. The 

data on the number of failed businesses as a percentage of startups would, I believe, bear 

this observation out. That, plus the number of business owners as a percentage of the labor 

force, would be further evidence. Marx seems to imply that the change in roles from laborer 

to capitalist is a simple one, even an arbitrary one. I disagree. The second part of the answer 

makes more sense to me. It’s clear that for labor to be a commodity the laborer must be a 

willing participant, capable of rational exchange behavior. 

Hans: See my [572]. Regarding your last sentence: 

It’s clear that for labor to be a commodity the laborer must be a willing participant, capable of 

rational exchange behavior. 

He must above all the have the right to sell his labor, he must be the owner of his labor power (a slave is not). Of 

course it also makes a big difference whether or not he is willing to do it, whether he considers sale of his labor 

power as an opportunity or a compulsion. 

Message [475-3] referenced by [572]. Next Message by Emma is [475.4]. 

[572] Hans: How can laborers have access to the means of production? Emma’s quiz 

resubmission [475-3] raised an interesting question which I want to answer publicly. Emma 

wrote: 

From our class discussion after the test I believe it is necessary to add the 

“free to” and “free from” arguments. That is, a laborer only sells labor to 

the capitalist if the laborer does not own or have access to the means of 

production for himself. I’m personally not clear on how this provision is 

applied on a practical level. Owning or controlling the means of production 

requires that one be an entrepreneur, for the most part. Not very many people 

have the capacity to take the risks or perform the tasks associated with 

entrepreneurship, aside from acquiring the necessary financial and capital 

resources. The data on the number of failed businesses as a percentage of 

startups would, I believe, bear this observation out. That, plus the number 

of business owners as a percentage of the labor force, would be further 

evidence. Marx seems to imply that the change in roles from laborer to 

capitalist is a simple one, even an arbitrary one. I disagree. 

This is an important question. In the olden times, ownership of the means of production 

was no problem. People worked alone or in the circle of the family with perhaps a few 

outside helpers and used hand tools. Modern production must be done in factories. Not 

everyone can privately own a factory. The “access” to the means of production can no 

longer be organized by private property. Under the conditions of modern technology and 

modern interdependence, ownership of means of production means that all the workers run 

the factory cooperatively, and they make joint decisions, in coordination with other workers 

elsewhere, what to produce. Worker’s “ownership” of the means of production is the right 

to use it and the right to decide, within a larger collective, what should be done with it. 

And it is the right to a job. It does not mean that everyone can walk in and out freely and 

work only when they please, as the owner of the factory today. It also does not mean that 


they can sell their factory and split up the proceeds. There will be no market for means of 

production. Today’s means of production are inherently social, and this will be reflected in 

the forms of ownership (if we ever get there before the present myopic system throws us into 

an ecological tailspin). 


[617.10] Dunny: Dunny did not resubmit his exam. The in-class exam was not very well 

formulated and it is not clear what he means. A resubmission would have been called for. 

First Message by Dunny is [101]. 

[617.2] Brumbys: Brumbys did not resubmit the exam, but gave a good summary of both 

points. 

First Message by Brumbys is [243]. 

[617.1] Angela: Angela did not resubmit her exam. The in-class exam she wrote shows 

that she did not understand the two pages in Capital she was trying to excerpt. 

First Message by Angela is [35]. 

Question 282 is 287 in 1996ut, 342 in 1997sp, 341 in 1997ut, 352 in 1999SP, and 557 in 

2009fa: 

Question 282 It is often argued that labor power is not really a commodity. Does labor 

power meet the following general characteristics of the commodity? 

It is a non-use-value for its producer. 

It is a use value for the buyer. 

Its use value is not the source of its value. 

It is produced for the exchange. 

[335.7] Positive: Labor power is the actually labor being done by a worker. The worker is 

the one who actually makes the product. His goal and meaning with the production is to sell 

his products. The reason is because he is willing to make profit. This is why the workers only 

value will be the exchange-value. The producer has no direct use for his product. When the 

product is being exchanged on the market from seller to buyer, the product will get a value 

for the buyer. This value is the the use-value, in which is because it will make it useful to 

him. The source of a commodity’s value leads back to its production. The production of a 

product is done because there is a market of its sales. If these statements are reasonable, the 

four characteristics of the commodity Are right. 

Hans: The Question was not asking about the product of labor power being a commodity, but labor power itself. 

This is a central point that is new in Chapter Six, how could you miss this? 


[475.1] Skippy: Labor power is a commodity. It is bought and sold on the open market. 

It is produced by individuals. Training is used to enhance the labpr skills. There is not any 

physical objects attached to it. 

Different types of labor have different values. To the individual, he earns a wage for his 

labor and the employer receives the value of production of that labor. 

Labor is the only possession that we all have to give and use. It is marketable everywhere. 

it is used to produce everything. it is rediculas to not think of labor power as a commodity.


The need for physical substance for a commodity to exists is not neccessary. Labor power 

is a commodity. 

Hans: The definition at the beginning of Chapter One is: a commodity is a material thing produced for the exchange. 

Despite what you say, labor power is a material thing, its physical substance is the worker. Is labor power 

produced for the exchange? It is not entirely clear. Your argument that workers acquire skills to enhance the value 

of their labor power is a good one. But it has one important property: it is a non-use value for its owner, because 

workers do not have access to the means of production. This is somewhat implied in your sentence: 

Labor is the only possession that we all have to give and use. 

All in all what you are saying is roughly correct but not well reasoned out. 


[617.5] Fox: Fox did not resubmit his exam. Too bad, every single one of his answers 

was wrong, and it would have been instructive for him and the class to explain this in more 

detail. 

Next Message by Fox is [617.8]. 

Question 283 is 477 in 2005fa and 524 in 2008fa: 

Question 283 How is the value of labor power determined? Explain what it means that 

“the determination of the value of labor power contains a historical and moral element.” 

Doesn’t Marx imply with this that the value of labor power can be just about anything? Is 

there any scientific insight in this? 

[344.3] Kia: Marx stated that value of labour power is determined as in the case of every 

other commodity, by the labour time necessary for the production and consequently also 

the reproduction. Labour power exists only as a capacity of the living individual. Also 

the production of labour power consists in his reproduction of himself or his maintenance. 

However, labour power becomes reality only by being expressed. But in the course of this 

activity, a definite quantity of human muscle, nerve, etc. is expanded, and these things have 

to be replaced. Since there is expansion one must work to again expand in order to expand. 

Hans: You seem to say that the value of labor power is determined by the labor time necessary to replace human 

muscle, nerve, etc. This seems a hopeless task, since at the same time you say (correctly) that labor uses up those 

things. And you should look up in the dictionary the difference between expend and expand. This is important for 

understanding the text. 


[345.3] VanHalen: I’ll try and carry on with the ideas of my inclass answer. 

Marx says that the value of labor power is determined by the labor time necessary for the 

production and the reproduction of the specific article. The value of labor power is the value 

of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of its owner. 

Now about the historical and moral element to the value of labor power... The historical 

element comes from the fact that as societies became more advanced more things became 

“necessary requirements” for the laborer. The historical element also includes the conditions 

which the class of free workers has been formed. As time progressed the class of 

free workers may develope habits and expectations that are necessary to keep the free workers 

working. As time passes, “necessary requirements,” change as do expectations of the 

workers. That is the historical element to the value of labor. 


Question 283 left out the first part of the quoted sentence. It said that, “In contrast, 

therefore, with the case of other commodities......” I think this adds a lot to the question 

about the moral element. In contrast to other commodities...... The commodity of labor 

power is very different from all other commodities. Labor power is performed by human 

beings for other human beings. The labor power can be exploited by the buyer of the labor 

power. I think this is the moral element Marx is talking about. To what degree will the labor 

power seller be exploited by the labor buyer brings in a moral question. How will you treat 

another human being. 

Marx might be implying that the value of labor power could be just about anything but I 

think that puts it in a different light than what he was meaning. You would have very different 

values for labor power if you looked at early times when labor first started to be a commodity 

versus now. Different cultures even today have very different values of labor power. They 

might all have the same elements , food, shelter... but the quantities and qualities can vary 

greatly across time periods, cultures or geographic locations. 

I’m not sure what is meant by the question, “is there any scientific insight in this?” I 

think there are conlusions and hypothesies that can be drawn from looking at the value of 

labor power. Such as that as long as the laborer is only compensated for his labor with 

just the necessities to basically stay alive , then the worker will never have enough to be 

anything more than just a laborer. In this way the worker has to come back to work to get the 

necessities of life and the buyer of labor power gets more out of the laborer than he is putting 

into the laborer. I don’t know if that is scientific insight but from studying how the value of 

labor power is determined, one begin to see cycles developing over time which would lend 

insights as to what keeps the cycles going or what could be done to break the cycle. 

Hans: Excellent! At Marx’s time, the word “moral” was often used for something nonphysical. For instance, Marx 

calls technical obsolescence of means of production “moral depreciation”. Besides, Marx was over-inclined to see 

morality as a form of exercise of power (which it often is, but it seems Marx threw out the baby of an objectively 

justifiable ethics – remember the fact-value distinction is wrong – with the bathwater of moralism and hypocricy). 

Therefore I am not sure if that what you say about morality coincides with Marx’s views, but I find your argument 

interesting and think there is something to it even if Marx himself does not say it. 


[345.2] MUCHO: I just like to add little more to what I wrote on my exam. As I mentioned 

it on exam, historical and moral element lead to hierarchy of labor power. If the family had 

historical power even the family who live in now do not have any power. Because of their 

ancestors were powerful, just the power was passed on to now. That is why the determination 

of the value of labor power contains a historical and moral element. 

Hans: You are required to resubmit your whole answer, not just the additions. You did not give Marx’s basic 

argument how the value of labor power is determined. 


[357.1] Snake: labour power The value of labor power is determined by the price or 

exchange rate in which the commodity was bought or exchanged for, on the market. If a 

commodity is highly valued on the market, then we must subtract the marginal cost of production 

from the market value of the commodity. The excess currency obtained could then 

be divided by the time in which it took to develope the commodity. This would then determine 

the labor power used to develop this particular commodity. In which labor power


operates with the certainty of a force of nature in order to create the commodity. In a capitalistic 

sense the labour is only the foundation of labor power. Use value that comes of the 

labour is generally shown by the amount of effort and time an individual applies to the commodity. 

In which the labour sells their capacity to work for a given period of time, then labor 

power becomes a commodity. Throughout history labor has always coexisted in market time 

society. Also improvements with technological occurrence has significantly elevated labor 

power, where labor power has decreased production time of an commodity. Value of labor 

power as an moral element has been abused throughout history, indentured servants, slavery 

are all examples of the moral effect that comes from labor power. The abuses of labor power 

can still be seen even to present day, by that of the wage separation between the individuals 

that actually create the commodity and the individuals that benefit from the work of others. 

———————- 

Hans: This answer is completely unsatisfactory. 


[505.1] Gottlieb: Labor power is a constant even though there can be no definite value 

given to it. This may sound like a oxymoron at first but I think that this will be explained in 

this response. 

If one shoe is produced with one labor hour then the value of the labor power of one hour 

equals one shoe. If three toothbrushes can be produced in one hour then one hour of labor 

power equals three toothbrushes. Marx can use the value of labor power to measure just 

about anything. This is the reason that the value can be just about anything. It can not be 

used by itself as a means of measurement though because it has not definite value. It is a 

constant because it, when used with toothbrushes is 1=3, or with shoes 1=1. 

Do not compare it with money either. Because we measure everything in dollars, this 

is the thing we automatically want to relate it to. This would be a mistake. The value of 

labor power can only give the value of things that can be produced: shoes, thoothbrushes, 

buildings, etc. Things such as land can not be given a value in labor power because it does not 

originate from it. Money gives the value of land in dollars. It can measure anything...except 

the value of labor power. 

Hans: You are confusing labor power and labor. You are anticipating Marx’s argument in Chapter 19 that labor 

cannot have value, because it gives everything value. Thoughtful, but apparently you did not do your homework 

preparing Chapter Six. 


[547.2] Gilligan: labor power is labor capacity, the aggregate of those mental and physical 

capabilities existing in the physical form, living personality, of a human being. On this 

assumption labor power can appear on the market as a commodity only if its possessor , 

the individual whose labor power it is offers it for sale or sells it as a commodity. Labor 

power is determined as in the case of every other commodity, by the labor time necessary 

for the production, and reproduction. Labor power only exists as a capacity of the living 

individual. It’s production presupposes his existence. Given the existence of the individual, 

the production of labor power consists of his reproduction of himself or his maintenance. 

He requires subsistence. The value of labor power is the value of the means of subsistence. 

Labor power becomes reality only by being expressed , through labor. The labor power 

expended should be compensated for. He has necessary requirements i.e. food, clothing, 


fuel and housing. On the other hand , the number and extent of his requirements , as also the 

manner in which they are satisfied, are themselves products of history, and depend therefore 

to a great extent on the level of civilization attained by a country. Labor power contains 

a historical and moral element, in that there is pride involved in all forms of labor and it 

creates a moral value when the product is completed that one can be proud of and feel his or 

her accomplishment, this has been the same historically as well as in present times. As far 

as scientific insight you must replace what is taken away, therefore I would say that there is 

in that a father creates children with his wife he creates labor power for the future, and as he 

the father goes to his death bed he has left what has been taken away in the form of his own 

children that will generate labor power. 

Hans: Your in-class exam was just a collection of Marx-quotes, some irrelevant to the question, without any of 

your own thinking. In the resubmission you added some of your own thoughts. 


[617.3] Pizza: Pizza did not resubmit his exam. He did not say how the value of labor 

power is determined. Supply and demand is not a historical element, and in Marx’s theory, 

supply and demand do not determine the value of something, but the deviations between 

price and value. 


Question 286 In Marx’s theory, labor costs have a fundamentally different role than other 

costs. While the costs of materials, supplies, depreciation, etc., are simply passed on to the 

consumer, the capitalists can charge more for the labor costs they incur than what they pay 

for labor. Is this true, and if so, how can it be so? 

[349] Jupiter: 286 Labor costsX-credit In response to this question, which I hope I 

am understanding, the value of certain commodities are passed on to the purchacer of those 

goods, this is clear in all that we have thus far discused in the class. The buyer will buy a 

good for the satisfying of a need, thus they purchace the material of the commodity and they 

purchace the abstract labor that has gone into that product, which gives it its exchange value. 

The costs are then passed onto the consumer of the good, wether a increase or a decrease 

in the price of the good it is now the consumers to control. The labor costs are intrinsic 

within the product (built in), this is part of the cost. We talk about exchange-value, and at 

this point I find it very important, because in a simpler market with only every day items 

being exchanged one could know what to trade, for example; 2 pounds of wheat for 1 shirt, 

3 bushels of apples for 1 pair of boots, people were well aware of the amount of labor that 

went into these products. They were hand done, no fancy costly machinery was employed, 

just hard human labor, which was paid for or compensated for. 

Today we have capitalism that is spread throughout the world, we have millions upon 

millions of products saturating our markets, in which we want to pay the lowest cost. We 

have products that are American being made in Taiwan and sent back and sold here in the 

USA, we could be buying Polo shirts that cost $5.00 in material, $.50-$3.00 of labor time, 

and the consumer pays $45.00 for the shirt! The consumer agrees to pay this so to him all is 

well, but the workers are not receiving just compenssation for their abstract labor, although 

they think that they are. This is how the capitalist can sell labor for more cost but yet be 

paying the worker less than adequate pay.


I think that it goes back to the consumer being well informed, in todays market place 

consumers have little information about the costs of products (me included), but is that our 

fault? Or is there just to much asymetric information going on that keeps consumers in the 

dark about production costs? 


[356] Hans: Why are laborers content with their low wages? Jupiter’s answer [349] 

starts with the words: 

In response to this question, which I hope I am understanding, 

and what he writes in his first paragraph makes me wonder too whether he does not 

misunderstand certain aspects of the question or, for that matter, of Marx’s theory. But let’s 

skip over this first, theoretical paragraph, and read what Jupiter says in the second paragraph 

about the realities of modern capitalism: 

We have products that are American being made in Taiwan and sent back 

and sold here in the USA, we could be buying Polo shirts that cost $5.00 

in material, $.50-$3.00 of labor time, and the consumer pays $45.00 for the 

shirt! The consumer agrees to pay this so to him all is well, but the workers 

are not receiving just compenssation for their abstract labor, although they 

think that they are. 

One thing is very right here: instead of the common prejudiuce that the capitalists make 

profits because they charge too much for their product, Jupiter says the prices are ok but 

the wages are too low. Jupiter is completely right. The source of profits is not the sphere 

of exchange but the site of production. But why can the workers not assert the full value 

of their labor on the labor market? Marx’s answer is: because they are selling their labor 

power, not their labor. In plain English: the capitalists know that, according to the laws of the 

market, all they have to give the workers is a survival wage, and they are not stupid enough 

to give the worker more, although the worker produces much more than an equivalent for 

his meager survival wage. 

Jupiter’s last sentence in the above paragraph: “although they think that they are (receiving 

a just wage for their labor)” is a very important additional element in all this, but this 

is not the main reason for the low wages. In Chapter Nineteen (which will be the reading 

assignment next week), Marx explains why the workers think they are paid fairly for their 

labor, and he emphasizes how very important is this misconception of workers and capitalists 

alike (i.e., it is not an issue of asymmetric information). Workers would probably be 

much more rebellious if the mechanism of their exploitation would be more obvious. 

In his last paragraph, Jupiter forgets what he said about wages being too low and falls back 

into the common prejudice that prices are too high because consumers are not informed. 


[434] Lamma: extra credit Yes in capitalism the owners of capital are able to charge 

more for the labor costs than the labor costs them. This is due to the forum in which this 

labor takes place. The owners of capital provide the means for a laborer to expend his labor 

power. The owners must take care of more than just a wage. They must pay for training, for 


insurances, and other types of hidden costs that may drive up their charge for labor. They 

feel that this is neccesary in order to cover their costs and thier risks taken at every level 

of employment. They pass this cost of being in business and having employees on to the 

consumer through thier products. 

Message [434] referenced by [489] and [565]. Next Message by Lamma is [453]. 

[445] Wolf: As we have learned in this class and others, capitalism is a system built on 

profit, not stealing, or feudalism. It therefore organises its productive mechanisms in such a 

way to reduce costs of production to a minimum. Leading to a “division of labor”- a method 

of reducing complex skills to routiene and regular motions. Next, labor becomes simple due 

to the division of labor and as a result it is at the mercy of the capitalists who employ them 

because they have no other way of securing their livelyhood. Labor is bought and sold like 

grain. 

A commodity is not just a thing,but it is also a container of invisible social relationships=¿this 

2 fold nature of the commodity mystifies our perception of capitalist realities=¿the 

FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES, meaning that the exchangeability of commodities 

appears to be the result from their physical properties, not from hidden social relationships 

that, by filling them with abstract labor, endow them with their attributes of exchange 

value. 

There is also a special attribute of labor power that makes it unlike any other commodity. 

It is the act of consuming its use-values yields a “surplus”. This attribute comes about 

because its use-value lies in the products that are produced for the capitalist by the worker 

during the time in which they labor. And one of the conditions of selling labor power as a 

commodity is that the working person abandons any claim to the product he or she creates. 

As discussed above it is clear that laborers don’t have real power, they only have labor 

power that in reality may not be enough to surive on. It has also been stated that capitalism 

is built on profit. There is a secret to how this profit is gained. the secrete is that profit is 

won not as a result of sharp dealings in the commodity market, but as a normal part of the 

production process; not in exchange but proir to exchange, in productoin itself. The profit 

lies in the idea of surplus value, or the difference between the value of labor power sold as 

a commodity by the working class, and the value of the product of that labor power, which 

accrues to the capitalist at the end of the production process. 

Marx’s theory of surplus value asserts that there must be a difference between labor and 

labor power. Ss that one must always be able to buy the capacity for work for less than the 

value that will be created (when commodities are produced). ONly because of this difference 

can capital be brought into being in the first place. 

HOW CAN THIS BE? 

Workers have nothing to sell but their labor power, and that capitalists have the bulk of 

society’s wealth at their disposal. THus workers cannot strike (effective enough) to secure 

the payment of wages equal to the value of their output. 

The second surplus-value protecting element is a “mechanism” that will prevent wages 

from going up due to competition. The pressure of competition will induce employers to


introduce cost-cutting, labor saving machienery. Technological unemployment thereby creates 

a “ relative overpopulation” that plays the same role as absolute rise in population. And 

again capitalists have the upper hand and workers are forced to take a back seat because of 

machienes, or become more productive than a machiene, and feel happy not alienated with 

barely enough money to survive on. No wonder there are drugs in our society-¿ the biggest 

and most expensive cash crops. 

Message [445] referenced by [489]. Next Message by Wolf is [502]. 

[450] Punani: Yes, the capitalist can charge more for the labor they incur than what 

they pay for labor. Just look at all the costs the proprietor goes through, such as wages for 

employees, insurance coverage, medical benefits, all kinds of costs that is needed to cover 

the labor cost. With the danger that the employee goes through during the work area of 

course the employer is going to make sure that nothing is hazardous. So because of the 

coverage and the risk the employer is taking in hiring laborers, he is able to charge more 

for the labor costs than what the consumers pay for labor. Thus, the time, the quality and 

the quantity of making the product is then passed down to the consumer, therefore business 

remains in business, and workers remain working. 

Message [450] referenced by [489]. Next Message by Punani is [455]. 

[451] Caren: @286 Surplus value is the difference between between the amount of 

exchange and use value create by workers and the amount of value re turn them as wages. 

The capitalists control over this surplus is the basis of their power over the workers and 

the rest of society. Because of competition among capitalists, worker are constantly being 

replaced by machinery, enabing and requiring capitalists to extract ever-greater amounts of 

surplus value from workers remaining. Therefore, it is ture that the capitalists incur than 

what they pay for labor. The amount of surplus value is also the source of capitalism’s 

greatest weakness. Because only part of their product is returned to them as wages, the 

workers, as consumers, cannot buy a large portionof what they produce. Under pressure from 

the constant growth of the total product, the capitalists periodically fail to find new markets 

up the slack. This leads to crises of overproduction capitalism’s classic contradiction, in 

which people are forced to live on too little because they have produced too much. 


[454] Lamma: extra credit Yes the owners of capital can charge more for labor costs 

incurred than they pay for that same labor. In reality when commodities are exchanged it 

is as if the labor value is exchanging hands. But as Marx writes.. the labor does not pass 

straight into the hands of the buyer. The value of that labor has already been pre-determined 

before it goes into circulation. It is given a labor value based upon the amount of social 

labourspent on the production of that commodity. 

At this point we can see that if the owner of capital can decrease his own labor costs 

through technology, training employees, or new machinery ect, he can create a ‘gap’ in the 

amount of labor he reqires to make the commdities. This ‘gap’ is a profit maximizing gap 

that allows him to pay for less labor but charge the predetermined amount. 

Secondly, when buyers and sellers go to market they are interested in only thier individual 

needs. According to Marx they pay no attention to the others in the market. This allows for 

this ‘gap’ to be passed on from producer to buyer. And due to the harmony of the market 

those buyers and sellers selfich needs come together and work for a mutual advantage to all. 


So the fact that this labor price is pre-determined allows the owners of capital to charge 

more than what they might pay for the labor. This is truly a mysterious role in the capitalist 

market system. 


[489] Hans: Wolf, Lamma, Punani, Caren on Q 286 I like Wolf’s essay [445]. Just one 

remark about his first two sentences: 

As we have learned in this class and others, capitalism is a system built 

on profit, not stealing, or feudalism. It therefore organises its productive 

mechanisms in such a way to reduce costs of production to a minimum. 

Who organizes the production process? The capitalists. They buy labor. This is important. 

Production is not organized by the producers themselves, the laborers, but by the owner 

of the means of production for the laborers. For the capitalists, the laborers are cost. What 

you call “reduction of the costs of production” is really the act of depriving the laborers of 

their product. 

Lamma tried the Question twice. In [434] he said the employer must not only pay for 

labor, but also for “training, insurances, and other types of hidden costs.” But if he only 

charges for his costs, he will not be making a profit. In his second submission [445], the 

capitalist does make a profit – because he lowers the cost of production through “technology, 

training employees or new machinery” below the costs of his competitors. Does he mean to 

say that the competitors do not make profits? Neither answer is even close to Marx’s basic 

explanation of profits. 

Punani’s [450] starts with similar arguments as Lamma’s [434], but then Punani settles 

on explaining profits as a risk premium, and apparently also as a reward for protecting the 

employee from the inherent dangers of work: 

With the danger that the employee goes through during the work area of 

course the employer is going to make sure that nothing is hazardous. 

Needless to say that Marx’s view of the capitalists was not so positive. 

Caren’s [451] is good: Caren explains that the capitalist continually replaces laborers by 

machines. She does not say it in this many words, but this excess supply of labor is an 

important factor keeping the price of labor low. 


[565] Rambis: Yes, it’s true, and it is very simple how it can be done. Labor costs take 

into account many non-production costs involving the laborer, many of which are somewhat 

hard to quantify in money terms whereas costs of materials, supplies, depreciation, etc., are 

explicit and can easily be given a dollar amount. These non-explicit costs of labor are much 

harder to pin down with a specific dollar amount. How do you determine exactly how much 

training is sufficient for each particular worker? What constitutes enough worker on the job 

safety and protection measures? How do you pin a dollar amount on how much enjoyment 

the workers received by attending the company picnic? These kinds of ‘hidden’ costs have 

an interesting relationship to another ‘hidden’ entity – when you look at it under the guise 

of labor costs, this appears to be another form of exploitation.


Hans: This is close to [434], and even if it were the right answer you would have lost points because of that. 


[610] Kia: Extra credit 286 Yes, it is true that the labor costs can so be included in the 

price tag of a product, with the other input costs. In which these costs are passed to consumers 

by the capitalists. Reason is that Capitalists idea is to make highest possible surplus 

value on commodity. Thus, the actual labor costs has to be cover more than just workers 

wages. These includes the living labour that occur during the process of the production. 

For example, if the production process doubles, the labour costs are substaintly kept at the 

same level, while the capitalists increase productivity, additional labour costs would remain 

same. Due to the capital costs that occur would absorb less additional labour costs during 

the production. 


Question 287 Labor versus Labor Power: What is in a Theoretical Distinction? Marx 

claims that people could understand the society they live in much better if they did not 

always confuse labor and labor power. Do you agree? 

[578] Brumbys: extra credit I disagree that if people could understand the difference 

between labor and labor power people will understand soceity better. I think that everyone 

wants the power of being in charge. Labor of course is not always value for what it’s worth. 

The problem has to do with the pricing of scarce materials so that they are rationed in the 

produciton process. Let us assume that there are two completely substitutable resources 

(minerals or ore) that are used in a given production process. Furthermore, power to discoer, 

mine and process. Inany economy that valued these resources take exactly the smae amount 

of Labor pwer to discover, mine and process. In any economy that valued these reasources 

based on the amount of Labor needed to process them, these to existed in a much smaller 

volune than the other. The more scarce resource should be priced higher than the other, 

reflecting its more rare nature. Pricing the scarce resource higher makes producers use it 

more sparingly, thus economizing the resource. This is exactly what happens in the free 

market. But if Labor values were used, then both resources would be priced equally and this 

would lead to the over rapid consuption of the reosuce that was more scarce. 

Hans: Very sloppy writing, with typos and repeated words etc. And I do not understand what your topic has to do 

with anything in this class. Are you perhaps thinking that Marx’s Capital was about socialism? 


[582] Scott: surplus credit The theoretical distinction between labor and labor power is 

based upon an illusion, according to Marx. The workers believe that they are being paid a 

wage for labor, but actually they are selling their labor power to the capitalist. Labor power 

is a capacity. Their labor power is a commodity, just as any raw material, such as steel, is 

to the CEO of Chrysler. The workers exchange their labor power for another commodity, 

from the capitalist, which is money. Naturally, the workers utilize the money paid to them in 

the form of wages, to obtain commodities necessary for the workers existence. The workers 

must exist and reproduce in order that the capitalist has this particular commodity in great 

supply. 

I would have to agree with some of Marxs’ conclusions concerning labor power in the 

period applicable to his life. I do however find it to be less important in the present time, 


except to form a basis for further elucidation into the plight of Marxs’ laborer, and for 

Marx to cohesively build a foundation leading to his conclusions. Many of the hazards 

and injustices of the workers have changed since Marx’s time (at least in the US). He refers 

to the exploitation of children, fifteen-hour work days, and the average life span of workers 

at one-third of todays’ life expectancies. 

I believe most people and workers understand the concept of the capitalists’ exploitation 

of the worker. I think this concept is more key to revolutionizing the laborers. I realize that 

the labor power explanation leads to the clarification of the exploitation. However, the clear 

path in my mind would be to move to the educational level of the worker and teach him, and 

not only the privileged few that attend universities and study Marx. 

Hans: Your argument seems somewhat contradictory. On the one hand you seem to say that there is no more 

exploitation today, and on the other that “most people and workers understand the concept of the capitalist’s exploitation 

of the worker.” 

And if they are already understanding it, how can better teaching revolutionize them? 


[591] Wolf: A theoretical distinction allows for a difference between already existing 

knowledge to be seen and yield knowledge that wasn’t present before. It isn’t testing or 

experimenting, it is inventing new concepts, thinking, and changing focus (abstracting). 

In “Critical Realism” on page 41 it says: “In the preface to CAPITAL vol. 1, Marx tells 

us that ’in the analysis of economic forms neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of 

assistance. The power of abstraction must replace both’(p.90). This may appear theoreticist, 

but of course the ‘power of abstraction’ works on a mass of emperical material: some of 

it information that anyone who has lived in a capitalist society will be familiar with, some 

familiar to those running capitalist concerns, some familiar to workers struggling against its 

tendencies; much was derived from famous reports of the factory inspectors whom Marx 

praised so highly, and from many other historical records. Years of research had gone into 

accumulating the emperical raw material of CAPITAL. None of it was experimental. By 

virtue of the work of abstraction, Marx is able to put questions to this mass of emperical 

data in terms of precisely defined concepts, and to make it answer them, in some cases, as if 

they were experimental in nature.” 

In all, new knowledge, familiarity, and preciseness is what is in a theoretical distinction. 

The difference between labor and labor power is a theoretical distinction and as said before, 

this is done by a methodology of abstraction which in and of itself is quite easy in 

compairison to the method of implementing the methodology (abstraction)- the way, the directions 

for realising each step along the road toward abstraction, is hard for one to follow. 

because we soon find that very important decisions must be made at each stage- deciding 

which abstract elements to pursue, and separating fundamental connections from accidental 

ones, narrowing down the process of analysis and judgement the final result for its usefulness. 

what criteria should we use (on our own with out the help of marx) in deciding, for 

instance, whether we should analize labor as a product or input, does it come about for 

commodities, or for people, if one or the other, what kind (of commodity or person)? in 

this sence, if people don’t know how to abstract or they can’t help but get more confused


by trying to clear up a little confusion. then itwould be a bad idea for people to attempt 

to understand the difference between labor and labor power. they may only have a much 

harder time trying to understand society as opposed to in the past when they didn’t abstract. 

abstraction of society can lead to many gross interpertations too, along with nightmarish 

consequences. just look at stallin and our past wars, their leaders, and why. 

there are however many positives for one when trying to understand society to know the 

difference between labor and labor power, i didn’t want to address that side of the arguement 

because i figured others will, have and with much more ease than proving it to be just the 

contrary. 

Hans: I like it. It has many deep thoughts. 


Term Paper 296 is 523 in 1997WI, 523 in 1997sp, 923 in 1997ut, 923 in 1998WI, and 712 

in 2008fa: 

Term Paper 296 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Three 

[612] Kia: Extra credit ch. 23 In this chapter Marx gives us insight about the reproduction 

process and the relationships between capitalist and workers. In addition, it shows how 

the capitalist took its form and the workers who sell their labour commodity. 

The process of reproduction takes repeated forms. Every time one consumes commodity 

it must be done with the smae process as before and must do same in previous amount to 

fill the gap. I.e. labour and raw materials. When capitalists sell their commodity they get 

in rturn of surplus value. The surplus value in turn must be converted into money form or 

wage and purchase the needed materials to reproduce the commodity. However, even such 

process is mere reproduction, it will lose the original characteristics. If factory workers keep 

producing the same commodity over and over again, the final product is different from one 

and other. It is because each time workers labour input and skills, each product they produce 

are different. Such as taking in form of an improved commodity. For example, if we look 

at the current production of cars, the new models come out with the new and improved 

models each year. From this process the manufatures bulids on and continue to do so. Thus, 

producing commodity that are little different from the previous one. 

Before the process of production, workers labour are purchased before the production. 

Later, the works will realize their value when they finalize in the production and then they 

will get paid in wages. But, the form of the wage represents the workers labour inputs they 

produced during previous work. 

To able to keep the capital in one’s hand, he needs to keep working for himself. If his 

labour is for someone else’s gain then the looses his capital. For example, let’s say farmer 

who prodcue food for him own consumption, he is working for his gain and capital. Vice 

versa, if we look at a farmer who produce same commodity as previous farmer but, need to 

sell is commodity in order to make living, then he is loosing his capital by working for other. 

In both cases, the process of reprodcution is on hand. 

To obtain capial not everybody was born with it. From begining, people worked for 

providing for themselves. After awhile, each workers commodity was placed with the value. 


Depending upon how much the skills and labour was put on creating the exchange system 

in the market. With the formation of barter system, it began the capital system. Also, labour 

power can be considered as a type of capital. The labour he puts in during production and 

then converting into product. 

So, its relationships between capitalist and workers are similar at the beginning. However, 

soon as capitalist obtain workers labour it takes a different trun. Due to capitalist not only 

gaining from the workers, but also by waht he gives him. The relationship that exists between 

the worker and capitalist is inseparatable. But, capitalists can continue with the production 

even if workers are no longer willing to work, long as the working population is increasing 

and emigrating into the job force. 

Hans: I can tell that you worked through some of the text, but you understood only little of it. There are many 

misunderstandings. For instance you write: 

However, even such process is mere reproduction, it will lose the original characteristics. If 

factory workers keep producing the same commodity over and over again, the final product is 

different from one and otehr. 

If a production process is repeated over and over again, then not only the individual products may differ (although 

modern quality control tries to eliminate this as much as possible), but the whole process may assume a different 

character. The main example Marx uses in this Chapter is: if one looks at an individual process, it looks as if the 

capitalist advances the capital. But looked at in repetition, one sees that this capital comes from previous surplus 

labor of the workers themselves. 


Term Paper 297 is 524 in 1997WI, 524 in 1997sp, 924 in 1997ut, 924 in 1998WI, 924 in 

2000fa, 924 in 2001fa, 824 in 2002fa, 824 in 2003fa, 824 in 2005fa, 721 in 2007SP, and 

699 in 2007fa: 

Term Paper 297 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Four 

[584] Caren: Inversion of the law of appropriation The inversion of the law of appropriation 

comes about first of all because the ultimate stage of free exchange is the exchange 

of labour-capacity as a commodity. “From then onwards commodity production is generalised 

and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that every 

product is produced for sale from the outset and all wealth produced goes through the sphere 

of circulation. only where wage-labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself 

upon society as a whole; but it is also true that only there does it unfold all its hidden 

potentialities.” 733:4/o Hardly surprising then that the full development of commodity production 

according to its inherent laws drives onwards to results which contradict its mode of 

appropriation and turn it into its opposite. 

Nevertheless the circulation process, as it appears on the surface of society knows no 

other method of appropriation apart from through the exchange of equivalents and it si for 

precisely this reason that this mode of appropriation itself as well as the laws which cotracdict 

it have to be derived from the development of exchange-value itself. The same holds 

true for the law of value which on the one hand no longer seems to apply to the capitalist 

mode of production, but on the ohter hand requires this mode of production in order to attain 

its full validity. Of course, bourgeois economics has to sever the connection between the 

mode of appropriation of the simple commodity econmy and that of capitalist produciton 

- it is unable to grasp their mutual relation as unity of opposites. In the first place it does


not possess the tool of the dialectical method, and in the second it has no theroretical understanding 

of either the simple commodity economy or the capitalist mode of production 

itself as having a merely relative, historical character. The true nature of capital emerges 

only at the end of second circuit, and hence that it is here that the illusion first disappears 

that the capitalist exchanges anything at all with the worker other than a part of the latter’s 

own objectified labour. Not until this point does labour appear as a mere menans to realise 

objectified, dead labour to penetrate it with an animating soul while losing its own soul to it. 

whereas the objective conditions of this laboru are posited as alien independent existences as 

self-sufficeint values for themselves, which form wealth alien to albour- capacity the wealth 

of capital. The result of this is the most extreme alienation, the separation of labour itself 

from the conditions of its realisation. Once this separation is given the production process 

can only produce it anew, reproduce it and reproduce it on an expanded scale. But we know 

“What appears paradoxical as result is already contained in the presupposition in the act of 

exchange between the capitalist and the worker, since the separation of labour form property 

in the product of labour, of labour from wealth, is thus posited in this act of exchange 

itself. This presupposition is merely realised in the production and reproduction process of 

capital.” 


Term Paper 298 is 500 in 1996ut, 505 in 1997WI, and 905 in 1997ut: 

Term Paper 298 Essay about Chapter Five 

[325] Karl: In my estimation, one of the most interesting points Marx makes in chapter 

5 is the idea that of M-C-M in a capaitalist system. This is interesting because of Marx’s 

pre cursor to mentioning this. He starts of by comparing two merchants of commodities, 

one has plenty of corn and no wine, the other plenty of wine and no corn. Marx gives use 

the idea that when the two exchange commodities they exchange only what is superfluous, 

to get more for less. This is sort of the concept behind M-C-M. The interesting contradictory 

implication is that commodities are always by nature supposed to be exchanged in 

“equivalents.” So if the the two merchants exchange corn and wine, it should be on an equal 

exchange. It isn’t in capatialism, there is an extra magnitude of value reflected in the price of 

the commodity. Notice how Marx said commodities are “supposed” to behave as equivalents 

in any transaction, but in capatilism the don’t. Perhaps this is why Marx concluded with the 

phrase used by Hegel, “Hic Rhodus, hic Salta”, meaning that the purpose is to comprehend 

the contradiction of M-C-M, rather than to dwell on what is supposed to be. 

Marx does hint at the fact that even though capatalist can scrape the surplus off of exchange 

in transaction, that it can equalize by the buying and selling of additional commodities. 

Marx’s example in chapter 5 of M-C-M is that the producer that exchanged money for 

capital drew from the system more than was put in. He goes on to say that M-C-M may 

shift towards a more equivalent over all transaction, because just as the capitalist scrapes 

surplus, other capitalists will scrape surplus from that capitalist when he becomes the buyer 

as opposed to the seller. I found it extremely interesting how Marx presented the argument 

that in some instances M-C-M may not be all the capitalist had planned on, that possibly 

commodities are more like “equivalents” in the overall scheme of things. 

Hans: You could get A’s if you worked harder. 


Message [325] referenced by [355]. Next Message by Karl is [357.2]. 

[329] Bandit: Extra Credit Term Paper (ch.5) The general theme of Chapter five in 

Marx’s “Capital”, is that the general formula of capital M-C-M (money-commodity-money) 

has many contradictions. The basis of this argument is the misunderstanding of use-value 

and exchange value in the circulation of commodities. 

Marx begins chapter five with a deeper look into the circulation of money from buyer 

to seller and vice versa. This circulation consists of a seller who gives up some of his 

commodities in hope of receiving commodities that will fulfill his needs. Inversion of the 

order of succession is introduced and explained as the act between these purchasers and the 

sellers. The important concept in the beginning is whether this circulation, by nature, can 

valorize its own values and if the result is a surplus-value. Marx begins the argument with a 

comparison of exhange value and use-value. 

The comparison begins with a look at the commodity in the abstract. An important note 

that Marx educates is that a commodity is expressed in its price before it enters into circulation, 

therefore it is a pre-condition of circulation and not a result. A commodity has the same 

value (social labor) throughout the process, because the value is manifested first in the price 

of the commodity offered for sale, then as the actual sum of money it sold for and finally 

as the price of an equivalent commodity. Marx states that in the circulation of commodities 

and their exchanges will be equal only in its purity. 

Marx critizes the “vulgar economists” for not understanding the difference between usevalues 

and exchange values. They believe that the equivalent exchange is in both cases 

of use-values and exchange values. Marx states that “in its pure form, the exchange of 

commodities is an exchange of equivalents, and not a method of increasing values.” 

This same confusion also applies to the theory that the circualtion of commodities reaps 

a surplus-value. Marx openly critizes Condillac’s idea that in the exchange of equal values 

neither make a profit, yet both gain. Condillac’s obvious confusion of use-values and 

exchange values are still quoted by most economists today. Marx continues to disagree by 

allowing a buyer to receive a ten cents off the selling price but in turn only losing to another 

buyer, by buying the commodity he needs. The seller who gets the same discount also loses 

the advantage by buying his needs by the same increase in price. The bottom line is that the 

prices would rise but the values would remain unchanged. 

Not only in the above paragraph did Marx discredited Condillac’s theory but enlightens 

the idea that surplus-value cannot be explained by assuming commodities are sold above or 

below their value. Stated another way if no surplus-value results due to equivalents being 

exchanged and the same for non-equivalents exchange then the exchange of commodities 

create no value. Marx continues his discredit of surplus value by equivalent exchange by 

introducing merchants’ capital and usurers’ capital. 

Marx says that merchants’ capital is done through the circulation of the commodities. 

Only a merchant who partially puts himself between the buyer and seller can a twofold 

advantage be gained. Money is thrown into the market and also gained back from the market 

in the form of a buyer. In ursers’ capital the form M-C-M is reduced to M-M, which is money 

being exchange for more money and therefore unrelated to the exchange of commodities.


The chapter is concluded by stating that surplus value cannot arise from circulation and 

capital cannot arise from circulation. The commodity owner can create values by labour, but 

he cannot create values which valorize themselves. Marx gives an example of leather and 

boots. He states that the leather cannot valuorize itself but increase its value when made into 

boots. Marx closes with the following statement, “The transformation of money into capital 

has to be developed on the basis of immanent laws of the exchange of commodities, in such 

a way that the starting point is the exchange of equivalents”. 


[330] MsMarx: Contradictions in the General Formula for Capital The form of 

circulation by which money becomes capital contradicts all previous laws bearing on the 

nature of commodities, of value, of money, and of circulation itself. In Chapter 4 Marx 

defined capital by the formula M - C - M’, the production of surplus-value. Chapter 5 is a 

puzzle to the question, where does the surplus-value come from, or what has enabled the 

capitalist to advance money and receive a surplus. It seems to be a puzzle, as he suggests 

that surplus-value cannot exist. 

Marx distinguished between use-value and exchange-value. When commodities are exchanged, 

both parties gain in terms of use-value; each parts with something he does not want, 

and gets in exchange something that he does want. This gain, however, has nothing to do 

with exchange-value, and the capitalist who starts and finishes with money is interested only 

in exchange-value. Marx says that the capitalist does not spend money, he merely advances 

it. He has assumed competition and no cheating. 

If equivalents are exchanged, value for value, the process M - C - M’ becomes M - C - M; 

there is no surplus-value to be gained by exchanging one hundred pounds for commodities, 

and then selling them for one hundred pounds again. Commodity circulation creates no new 

value. If all goods are priced above (below) their values, the capitalists’s gain (loss) as a 

seller is exactly offset by his loss (gain) as a buyer. Marx lays down as a rule for himself 

that the conversion of money into capital has to be explained on the basis of the exchange of 

equivalents. What is more, this inversion exists only for one of the three transacting persons. 

Marx argues that the surplus does not arise from the circulation of commodities, but from 

the process of production. In Chapter 6, Marx resolves the difficulty, as labour-power can 

create extra value, and its use-value possesses the pecululiar property of being a source of 

value. 

Message [330] referenced by [365] and [490]. Next Message by MsMarx is [335.10]. 

[332] Femme: Summary of Chapter 5 Marx begins this chapter with an example of 

M-C-M. Here the simple circulation in the exchange of commodities are pure and simple. 

The owner of one commodity exchanges with the owner of another commodity enough 

material where the amounts they owe each other and the balance is equal on the date of 

the exchange. The exchange is a transaction where both parties gain. The trade does not 

produce an increase of exchange-value for either party involved in the trade. If one was to 

introduce money as a medium of circulation into this trade it would not change the situation. 

The commodities are still equal in value because the value of a commodity is expressed in its 

price before it enters into circulation, so it’s a pre-condition of circulation not a result. The 

same value or the the same amount of social labour is in the hands of the commodity owners 


in the shape of his commodity, the shape of the money which the commodity has been 

transformed and the shape of the commodity into which this money has been re-converted. 

Now granted this occurs in its pure form or its natural form where no gain is experienced by 

either owner. 

Next Marx goes into when the exchange value of commodities and money are not traded 

in their natural form this leads to surplus-value. Marx defines commodities as a natural 

form and money as the converted for of commodities. This occurs when a seller sells his 

commodities above the value, where he sells whats worth $50 for $100 and keeps the surplus 

value of $50. When the seller has sold his commodity he transforms into the buyer. At this 

time the gross amount may be balanced if he buys a commodity more than its value. 

Lastly, Marx goes into the transformation of money into capital is developed where you 

start with the exchange of equivalents. The money-owner buys his commoditied at their 

value, sells them at their value and at the end of the process has more value than he threw 

into it at the beginning. 

Message [332] referenced by [365]. Next Message by Femme is [399.2]. 

[335] Jake: Extra credit ch 5 When any two individuals buy and sell on the market 

both sides gain from the transaction. Both sides receive something of use value that they 

previously not had. When money enters the picture, the same should hold true. If exchange 

values are followed, the possibility of buyer and seller gaining does not occur. “In its pure 

form, the exchange of commodities is an exchange of equivalents, and thus it is not a method 

of increasing value.” 

When the market comes into the picture where buyers and sellers meet with different 

objectives and purposes, the possibility of exchange of equivalents changes. Everyone holds 

the object of need of another. The buyer could sell his commodity above that of its value. 

The seller gains the surplus but is then faced to purchase from another who also ups the 

price. This then creates an equivalence, it is just the same as if they sold and bought at the 

true exchange values. The same is true for those that lose a percentage as a seller and then 

gain a percentage as buyer. 

Marx goes on to say that a person who sells high and buys low is basically a thief. Marx 

makes the point that a “capitalist class of a given country, taken as a whole cannot defraud 

itself.” If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus value results, and if non-equivalents are 

exchanged, we still have no surplus value. This is true by looking at the circulation issue. 

There then becomes a double result of the origination of capital. Capital doesn’t come 

from the circulation part, but also is impossible to come from about without the circulation. 

The capitalist must “buy commodities at their value, sell them at their value, and yet at the 

end of the process withdraw more value from circulation than he threw into at the beginning.” 

Message [335] referenced by [365]. Next Message by Jake is [335.3]. 

[355] Hans: Karl’s Essay about Chapter Five Here is Karl’s essay [325] again with my 

comments, so that you know what is expected of you in your essays. 

Karl’s first sentence is “malformed” and therefore it is not clear what Karl means:


In my estimation, one of the most interesting points Marx makes in chapter 

5 is the idea that of M-C-M in a capaitalist system. 

Karl also did not correct his typos. I consider it a matter of basic courtesy to go over 

everything you write to the list before sending it. Karl continues: 

This is interesting because of Marx’s pre cursor to mentioning this. He 

starts of by comparing two merchants of commodities, one has plenty of 

corn and no wine, the other plenty of wine and no corn. Marx gives use the 

idea that when the two exchange commodities they exchange only what is 

superfluous, to get more for less. This is sort of the concept behind M-C-M. 

Marx’s precursor is, if I understand Karl right, Ricardo with his comparative advantage. 

Karl says here therefore: the gain in M-C-M’ (and Karl should not have omitted the prime 

in M’, because this is what the whole Chapter Five is about) comes from the fact that those 

get the goods who need them, and there may also be some comparative advantage involved. 

Karl did not notice that Marx denies that this is the source of the gain! Both arguments 

explain a gain in use value, not in value! Marx argues that the sum total of values cannot 

increase by acts of circulation, and based on this argument Marx reaffirms his commitment 

to explain capitalism by an exchange of equal values (which seems then pretty hopeless, but 

the resolution will be given in Chapter SIx). This line of reasoning by Marx is reflected in 

Karl’s essay as follows: 

The interesting contradictory implication is that commodities are always by 

nature supposed to be exchanged in “equivalents.” So if the the two merchants 

exchange corn and wine, it should be on an equal exchange. It isn’t 

in capatialism, there is an extra magnitude of value reflected in the price of 

the commodity. Notice how Marx said commodities are “supposed” to behave 

as equivalents in any transaction, but in capatilism the don’t. Perhaps 

this is why Marx concluded with the phrase used by Hegel, “Hic Rhodus, 

hic Salsa”, meaning that the purpose is to comprehend the contradiction of 

M-C-M, rather than to dwell on what is supposed to be. 

Karl seems to think that earlier, Marx tried to derive laws to what proportions commodities 

should be exchanged, but now he realizes that in capitalism commodities are not exchanged 

this way, and therefore Marx gives up on his normative goals and tries to comprehend 

M-C-M’ as it is. 

Karl misunderstands here Marx’s method. Marx never considered the exchange of equal 

values as something that should happen. Marx makes the assumption of equal commodity 

exchange because he claims that the main mechanism which creates profits does not depend 

on unequal exchange. Unequal exchange may give more profits for some, but only at the 

expense of less profits for others; it is an additional distortion but not the basic principle 

explaining profits. Marx’s arguments in support of this are summarized in Karl’s essay as 

follows: 

Marx does hint at the fact that even though capatalist can scrape the surplus 

off of exchange in transaction, that it can equalize by the buying and selling 


of additional commodities. Marx’s example in chapter 5 of M-C-M is that 

the producer that exchanged money for capital drew from the system more 

than was put in. He goes on to say that M-C-M may shift towards a more 

equivalent over all transaction, because just as the capitalist scrapes surplus 

, other capitalists will scrape surplus from that capitalist when he becomes 

the buyer as opposed to the seller. I found it extremely interesting how 

Marx presented the arguement that in some instances M-C-M may not be 

all the capitalist had planned on, that possibly commodities are more like 

“equivalents” in the over all scheme of things. 

I think that instead of 

in some instances M-C-M may not be all the capitalist had planned on 

Karl means: 

in some instances M-C-M’ may not materialize although the capitalist had 

planned on it. 

because the laws of the commodity exchange assert themselves anyway. Again, this is 

not what Marx meant. 

One thing that apparently prevents Karl from just reading what Marx wrote is that Karl 

gets too many ideas of his own as he reads Marx. Nobody should expect to understand 

all the intricacies in Marx’s arguments just by reading it over in a relaxed manner. Marx’s 

arguments are highly constructed and it requires a long attention span and often several 

careful readings to catch all that he is saying. 


[364] Hans: How to get a good grade without bothering with the material Bandit’s 

[329] reminds me more of a sports reportage than an essay discussing economic arguments. 

Marx begins with this and then he begins with that and then he begins with that, and then 

he criticizes and criticizes and disagrees and discredits, but he also enlightens and educates 

(thank you for trying to make me feel good, Bandit), and then he concludes. 

And what did I learn reading Bandit’s report? I know now that Bandit did read Chapter 

Five. Since I know Chapter Five fairly well I can also pretty much recognize what Bandit 

was reading when he made which statement. But somebody who has not read the Chapter, 

and is interested in what Marx really argued, will get a few unrelated tidbits (one should not 

confuse use value and exchange value, and: commodities have their values before they enter 

the market) but preciously little in a coherent thought. Indeed, Bandit’s travel diary tells 

me more about Bandit’s misunderstandings of Marx, and Bandit’s unwillingness to follow 

Marx’s argument, combined with his willingness to go through the motions required to get 

a good grade, than about Marx’s arguments. 

In other words, for those who want to learn about Marxist economics it is a waste of time 

to go through Bandit’s [329]. I will therefore not bother you with the details. 

Next Message by Hans is [365].


[365] Hans: About MsMarx’s, Jake’s, and Femme’s essays MsMarx’s [330] is an 

informative bird’s eye view of Marx’s argument in Chapter Five. Everybody who is still 

thinking of writing an essay before the deadline tonight midnight should read it. There is 

also lots of room to build on it, there are many things that can be elaborated more. 

Jake’s [335] re-explains some of the thoughts given by Marx in Chapter Five. Jake also 

has the guts to take on some controversial issues, since he writes: “Marx goes on to say 

that a person who sells high and buys low is basically a thief.” I’d like to add an explanation 

to this. Marx does not mean with this that capitalism is immoral. In 265:1, Marx makes 

a very specific argument: buying and selling at prices that deviate from values cannot be 

the main source of surplus value in modern capitalism. Why not? Because this is only a 

transfer of value from one to the other, it cannot explain how the capitalist class as a whole 

makes profits. This is where the metaphor with the thief comes in: theft is also a transfer of 

things from one to another, it does not create new things. The upshot of Marx’s argument is 

therefore: modern capitalists make their money in a different way than thieves. 

Femme’s [332] is not worth reading, unless you are interested in explanations that are 

refreshingly unconcerned about logical contradictions. Femme writes the following two 

sentences right one after another without seeing a need for explanation: 

The exchange is a transaction where both parties gain. The trade does not 

produce an increase of exchange-value for either party. 

At the end, Femme writes that developed capitalism does the following: 

The money-owner buys his commoditied at their value, sells them at their 

value and at the end of the process has more value than he threw into it at 

the beginning. 

Marx sees this as a big challenge, how can this be done? He adds: “Hic Rhodus, hic 

salta” (in other words, “I first want to see how this is done, before I believe it.”) Femme does 

not see it as a challenge. For her, this is simply the way things are being done. 

Is this feminist economics? No. This is a sign that there is a big taboo in our society. We 

are not supposed to think rationally about the question where profits come from. 


[388] Brumbys: In this reading, I have learned that an individual goes into a market to 

exchange his/her commodities for other commodities. The value will be equal of each item 

this is where equivalence comes in. When there is an equal exchange of each commodity. 

An individual comes into a market hoping to exchange for something he/she needs at an 

equivalent price. This is how the circulation of money happens. Every individual makes a 

something to exchange for something they need, so it just goes around in a circle. So if A 

makes something to get what B wants but A doesn’t need Bs item then A can exchange with 

C. So it goes around. But all this equivalence can be a problem if capitalist charges more 

than it’s surplus value. If one increases its price then the other will have to start increasing 

its prices, which again leads to an equivalence in the exchange value if both the sellers and 

buyers increase its prices. In a capitalist society they want to gain from selling so of course 

they will increase the value of the item. So they will buy at their value and sell it at a higher 


value and this is how capitialism is formed. Although Marx claims that any individual that 

buys something at a lower price and sells it at a higher price is a thief but this does lead to 



[393] Pizza: The conception of the process of mercatilism being a process of cheating 

holds true only under certain assumptions: 

Each time there is an exchange each person has the same use value for the same commodity 

Supply and demand do not exist 

There exist no dimishing returns on utility 

These are just a few of the reasons I can point out that come to my mind. 

Thus the process of exchange exists for the very reason that when the process of production 

exists to an extent that we produce more than we consume the relative exchange value 

and use values create mercantilism. 

Any takers on this? 


[400] Kia: Extra Credit Ch. 5 In Chapter 5, Marx distinguishes between use value and 

exchange value during the commodity circulation. Also asserts that capital cannot arise from 

circulation, and it equally impossible to apart from circulation. 

Marx starts with the clear example relationships between capitalist, buyer, and seller. 

Between buyer and seller there is no distinct relationships that arises from them. There are 

nothing more than just exchange in commodity. Only capitalist have relationships during 

the circulation. Where capitalist act as both seller and buyer between the three. Looking at 

this one can conclude that it is pure and simple circulation, balancing out equally at the end. 

Where money serves as a account with the expression of commodities in the price. 

During this circulation the use value is either increased or decreased. However, it is 

wrong to assume that exchange value is gained in the process. The use value are changed 

through hands of people in the trade. Where one person trade something he has no use value 

with someone that holds commodity that he needs. This process takes care of the use value 

between the traders, as both equally gaining the use value. Thus, during the exchange there 

can not be increase nor decrease in exchange value. There might be only in form of equality 

in the exchange. So, basically exchange value is exchange in equal thing and with increase 

in use values in it. Here Marx state that “Where equality exists there is no gain.” 

For many experts such as Condillac in this chapter tries to pass commodities circulation 

as a surplus value. Confusing use value and exchange value. Where he asks question, why 

then we engage in exchange of commodities if no one is to gain a values in the process. On 

this issue Marx asserts that many experts like Condillac, confuses ideas of values in question 

and commodities producers throws into exchange to gain his needs. Also Marx argue that 

commodities can not be paid for twice, once for their use value and other for account of 

their values. Since, during the exchange again, use values can only be exchanged. Far as


exchange value goes money it self as server are expressed in the form of value. Where it 

dosen’t alter the pure physical form between the two. 

In the market, power is attained by the commodities owners. As their ownership of commodity 

dictate their power. With the material differences, it clarify the buyer and sellers 

need. Again, because no-one holds what they need, only what others need. Besides the 

commodities differences in physical variety and use value, there is also converted form, between 

money and commodities. Money as being buyer and commodities as a seller. As a 

buyer and sellers, there is really no end to the circulation of the cycle. When seller makes a 

sale, than he has to buy back what he need to make a another sale with the surplus he gained 

from selling in first place. Thus, seller becomes buyer in turn buyer becomes seller. 

My assumption after reading chapter 5, both the seller and buyers gain advantages. By 

distinguishing the labour both sides can gain their needs by skills that are put into producing 

commodity. This way one would not waste his time producing all the commodities he needs, 

which he has to put more labour producing something that he can effectively produce at a 

effecient level. Thus, putting more time on something that he his good at producing while 

gaining his use value through exchange. However, I got an impression that producers of 

commodity is the only one being gaining. If you look at a example on Asia Minor paid a 

yealy money tribute to ancient Rome. Which in turn bought commodities from them. 

Message [400] referenced by [490]. Next Message by Kia is [580]. 

[407] Caren: CHAPTER V Chapter 5; Contradictions in the General Formula of Capital 

For the transition of value from its money-form into the form of capital, the form within 

which value finally becomes the self-determining and self-mediating process of its own selfexpansion. 

Unlike the commodity, which enters circulation only then to fall out of it again 

once it reaches the hands of its consumer, money, on entering the sphere of circulation is 

constantly being displaced from one hand to another. With the simple circulation of commodities, 

the commodity is sold because it possesses the quality of a non-use-value for its 

producer but at the same time has a use value for the owner of money. Having transformed 

her commodity into money the commodity producer can then buy another commodity that 

does have the quality of being a use-value for her. Thus the motive force for simple circulation 

of commodities arises from the qualitative difference in commodities with respect 

to their use-values. In the form -M-C-M- there can be no such qualitative difference since 

money is the same homogeneous commodity. 

Money may become coveted and accumulated for its own shake. The motive for the inverted 

form of the simple circulation of commodities may therefore become the quantitative 

difference between M1 and M2. This inverted form of the simple circulation of commodities 

then becomes expressed in what Marx terms the general formula of capital, or, alternatively, 

the formula of merchant capital: M-C-M’ Where M¡M’ Here the miser, who accumulated 

money by selling but not buying, now develops into the merchant who accumulates money 

not by withdrawing money from the process of circulation but by buying commodities cheap 

and selling them dear. 


Whereas the motive force for the simple circulation of commodities lay outside the sphere 

of commodity exchange itself in the needs and desires of the commodity producers themselves, 

the motive force for the circulation of the merchant becomes internal to it. It emerges 

as the insatiable accumulation of the universal and abstract wealth represented by money. 

With this formula we find the formal expression of capital - the process of the self-expansion 

of value. 

In developing into the form of capital, value comes to subordinate the movement of usevalue 

to its own ends - to its own self-expansion. As capital, therefore, value becomes an 

independent and objective force whose movement appears autonomous from the will and 

desires of human beings. But for value to take up the form of capital it has to overcome an 

important contradiction between its own general expression and the circulation of commodities. 

The circulation of commodities appears as being based on the free and equal exchange 

of commodities. commodities have, for the most part, been assumed to exchange according 

to their values. But the circuit of merchant capital implies unequal exchange. Either the 

merchant buys commodities below their value and then sells at their value, or else she buys 

them at their value but then sells them above their value. In either case the merchant must 

be able to impose an unequal exchange in either the first phase of buying, or else in the 

second phase of selling. While for each individual merchant there may be a possibility of 

taking advantage of the divergence of the prices of commodities from their values in order 

to buy cheap and to sell dear, overall it is a zero sum game since the total value in circulation 

is predetermined by the values created in production. One dealer’s gain must be another’s 

loss. Hence there can be no general basis for merchant capitalist’s profit, and thus for the 

self-expansion of value, within the circulation of commodities. With the generalization of 

commodity exchange, merchant profit, by itself, become impossible. The capitalist must 

find a commodity which can be used to create a value greater than that embodied within 

itself; and the only such commodity is labor-power. 

Hans: Excellent! There is only one thing wrong. You write: 

Whereas the motive force for the simple circulation of commodities lay outside the sphere of 

commodity exchange itself in the needs and desires of the commodity producers themselves, 

the motive force for the circulation of the merchant becomes internal to it. 

The goal of accumulation of value in its independent monetary form is not a goal intrinsic to circulation. The 

hoarder even tries to reach it by “saving” money from circulation. 


[415] Brumbys: extra credit (fwd) In this reading, I have learned that an individual goes 

into a market to exchange his/her commodities for other commodities. The value will be 

equal of each item this is where equivalence comes in. When there is an equal exchange 

of each commodity. An individual comes into a market hoping to exchange for something 

he/she needs at an equivalent price. This is how the circulation of money happens. Every 

individual makes a something to exchange for something they need, so it just goes around 

in a circle. So if A makes something to get what B wants but A doesn’t need Bs item then 

A can exchange with C. So it goes around. But all this equivalence can be a problem if 

capitalist charges more than it’s surplus value. If one increases its price then the other will 

have to start increasing its prices, which again leads to an equivalence in the exchange value


if both the sellers and buyers increase its prices. In a capitalist society they want to gain from 

selling so of course they will increase the value of the item. So they will buy at their value 

and sell it at a higher value and this is how capitialism is formed. Although Marx claims that 

any individual that buys something at a lower price and sells it at a higher price is a thief but 

this does lead to capitalism. 


[428] Positive: Extra credit chapter 5 Use-value, both sides gain! 

This is a great statement, and also a very true statement. If we relate it to the example 

in the book, we can look at A, who sells wine and buys corn, and the corn-farmer B, who 

sells corn and buys wine. They both trade their own-produced good with the other person’s 

own-produced good. A and B makes their products for sale and profit. It is assumed that 

both will benefit from their trades. They exchange their products for a different product, in 

which they will gain a use-value from. This, because both have no use for their own product, 

but for the product they are exchanging it into. On the other hand, A who sells wine and 

buys corn, possibly produces more wine in the same labor-time than B would, and B may 

produce more corn than A, the wine-grower could produce. Therefore, they will both get 

more “product”, or assets they can use than they would have gotten without the exchange. 

This is the reason why we can state that both sides will gain from the transaction they have 

completed. 


[455] Punani: extra credit Chapter 5 in Marx’s “Capital” focuses on the the idea of 

M-C-M in a capitalist regularity. M for money, C for commodity, and M for money. The 

basis of this controversy is the conflict of use-value and exchange value in the circulation of 

commodities. He start off with the misunderstanding of the money circulation from buyer to 

seller and seller to buyer. This consists of the seller sacrificing his commodities in exchange 

for commidity to satisfy his needs and wants. Marx’s analysis of commodity is everything, 

whether raw material or finished good, which is produced for sale. Commodities are the social 

form of wealth in capitalist societies. Every commodity has two aspects; it’s use value 

and exchange value. Marx begins the argument with a comparison of exchange and usevalue. 

Marx sees it as a commodity is declared in its price prior into entering the circulation, 

thus it’s not the outcome but a pre-condition of circulation. Marx’s analyses of the commodity 

circulation and their exchanges will be equal only in its purity. “Vulgar Economists”, 

believe that the equal exchange is in both cases of exchange values and use-values. Marx 

blames these economists for the lack of apprehending the facts on exchange values and 

use-values. He also goes on stating “ in its pure form, the exchange of commodities is an 

exchange of equivalents, and not a method of increasing values.” Chapter 5 ended mentioning 

that capital cannot arise from circulation and surplus value cannot arise from circulation. 

“ The transformation of money into capital has tobe developed in the basis of immanent 

laws of the exchange of commodities, in such a way that the startin point is the exchange of 

equivalents ”. The value of a product increases when its content is changed to be used as 

something else, for example wood when turned into a table, wood cannot valuorize itself but 

the change into a table increases its value. 

Message [455] referenced by [490]. Next Message by Punani is [533]. 


[490] Hans: Pizza’s term paper In message [365] I recommended to everyone who 

was still thinking of writing an essay about Chapter Five to first read MsMarx’s [330] and 

build on it. Nevertheless, Kia’s [400], Brumbys’s [415], and Punani’s [455] tried an overall 

overview of the Chapter without getting Marx’s basic argument as it was laid out in [330]. 

There is not much use discussing these particular contributions; they are just notes jotted 

down while reading the Chapter Five which show that the readers did not understand what 

Marx wanted to say in Chapter Five. 

Pizza’s [393] and Positive’s [428] only concentrated on one aspect of the Chapter: whether 

there is gain involved in the exchange of equivalents. It is legitimate for a term paper like 

this, also for the one on Chapter Twenty-Five, to narrow the subject down like this. Marx 

says that in terms of use value both sides gain, but in terms of value, the exchange is a zero 

sum game. Neither Pizza nor Positive distinguish between use value and exchange value, 

and they also do not give any arguments that this is a false or artificial distinction. Neverhteless, 

both of them had some interesting point. If I understand Pizza right, he tried to give 

a set of conditions under which there would not be a net gain in marginal utility in the exchange. 

Pizza tried to show that Marx was only an uninteresting special case of neoclassical 

theory, something that other neoclassical economists have tried to show too. Positive argues 

that comparative advantage is not only a gain in use value but allows higher productivity. 

The gain is therefore not subjective but objective. Marx nevertheless insists that it is a gain 

only in terms of use values, not in terms of values. Higher productivity does not mean that 

higher values will be created, but more use value with the same labor time. 


Term Paper 299 is 999 in 1995WI and 999 in 1996ut: 

Term Paper 299 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Five 

[527] Wight: For my termpaper essay, I chose to write a paragraph by paragraph abstract 

of the first section of Chapter 25. This chapter explores the impact of the growth of capital 

on the working class, focusing on the process of accumulation and composition of capital. 

Composition of capital has two general aspects. Firstly, as value, it is divided into constant 

capital or the value of the means of production. This is the value composition or organic 

composition. Secondly, as material, all capital is divided into means of production and living 

labor power. This is the technical composition. 

The average of all the average compositions in all areas of production gives us the composition 

of the total social capital of a country. This is an aggergate of all capital means in a 

country. 

Growth of capital implies a growth in labor power. Sometimes, the demand for workers 

may exceed the supply, leading to a rise in wages during the process of rapid capital accumulation. 

The accumulation of capital may surpass the growth in labor power. The result 

is more capitalists and more wage-laborers. Accumulation of capital is the multiplication of 

the working class. 

In a free country where slaves are not allowed, the wealthy survive on a multitude of 

laborious poor. Without the working poor, no country would be valuable or successful. To


make a society, it is necessary that a great number of citizens remain ignorant and poor. 

Knowledge enlarges and multiplies our desires. 

The mechanism of the accumulation process itself increases the amount of capital as well 

as the mass of the laboring poor. The laboring poor are wage laborers who turn their labor 

power into a force to aid in increasing capital and are compelled to make their relationship 

of dependence on their product an eternal relationship. Persons of independent fortunes owe 

their superior advantages to the industry of others. The ability to command labor distinguishes 

the rich from the poor. Workers are placed in a state of easy and liberal dependence. 

Instead of workers relationship of dependence becoming more intensive with the growth 

of capital, it becomes more extensive. The sphere of capital’s exploitation and dominance 

extends with the number of people subjected to it. The rise in wages as a result of capital 

accumulation only allows the workers a minimal amount of additional freedom. The aim of 

the capitalist is the production of commodities which contain more labor than he paid for. 

Therefore, containing a portion of value which cost him nothing and is realized in the sale of 

the commodities. The law of this mode of production is surplus value, or additional profits. 

Wages imply that workers will always provide a certain quantity of unpaid labor. So, an 

increase in wages means a decrease in the amount of unpaid labor. 

A rise in the price of labor resulting from accumulation of capital implies the following 

alternatives. Either, the price of labor keeps on rising, because the rise doesn’t interfere 

with the progress of accumulation. The increase in capital made the exploitable labor power 

insufficient. Or, accumulation slackens as a result of the price of labor rising, because the 

stimulus of gain is blunted. The rule of accumulation lessens. The relative reduction in the 

amount of capital caused the exploitable labor power i.e. its price, to be in excess. The rate 

of capital accumulation is the independent variable, and the rate of wages in the dependent 

variable. 

The relation between capital accumulation and the rate of wages is the relation between 

the unpaid labor which has been transformed into capital and the additional paid labor necessary 

to set in motion this additional capital. It is a relation of the paid and unpaid labor of 

the same working population. The rise in wages is therefore confined within limits that leave 

intact the foundations of the capitalist systems as well as securing its reproduction on an increasing 

scale. The law of capitalist accumulation expresses the situation that the very nature 

of accumulation excludes every diminution in the degree of exploitation of labor and every 

rise in the price of labor, which could seriously interfere with the continual reproduction of 

the capital relation on a larger scale. 

Hans: What you are saying is right, and it is also well written, but should have put more emphasis on the connections 

between the different topics which you are reporting about. When Marx makes his summary statements 

trying to pull it all together, you just quote him literally, instead of exploring with your own words and your own 

thoughts whether such a connection really exists. 

First Message by Wight is [55]. 

[528] Pinky: Chapter 25 summary After having discussed the concept of accumulation 

in isolation, Marx next places it in the context of technical progress, examining the effects 

on the working class. 


Section 1: Marx lays out some basics: He explains the value-composition of capital as 

the ratio of constant to variable capital; c/v, measured in values. The technical composition 

of capital; the pool of means of production relative to the employed labor is its counterpart 

in use-value terms. 

Marx then defines the organic composition of capital, the “...value-composition of capital 

in so far as it is determined by its technical composition and mirrors the changes of the latter” 

pg.762 Marx notes that the technical compostition cannot be measured in a quantitative sense 

because the means of production and labor are qualitatively variable. Therefore, one cannot 

be divided by the other. That is, changes in the organic composition demonstrate how the 

value-composition would have changed if the values of the individual commodities used as 

the value of labor power and the means of production remained constant. The following 

example demonstrates: When you have 300 value units of constant capital and 100 units of 

variable capital, the value-composition is 3; (c/v=300/100=3), the organic composition =ing 

3 as well. If a technical change brings about a 50% increase in the means of production 

used, cutting the employed labor-power in half, the values of individual units of means of 

production and labor-power stayed the same, c would then equal 450 and v would equal 50, 

thus the organic composition increases to 9; (450/50). It must then be considered that the 

cost of the means of production may have decreased to that (c) would actually fall so the 

value-composition rises at a lesser rate. The organic composition is a measure of changes 

in the technical aspect of the composition. To figure the average composition of capital, one 

includes the “value or organic” composition of the complete capital of a country. The organic 

composition is the basic meaning when the composition of capital is discussed, unless it is 

defined otherwise. 

If accumulation does take place with the absence of technological advances and thus 

the 3 aspects of composition measure remain constant, the constant and variable capital 

will increase at an even proportion and consequently in the demand for labor-power. As a 

result, Marx says that the demand for labor will be greater than the supply, and the workers 

wages will rise. Though this may reduce the pain of exploitation, exploitation is still the 

underlying trait of capitalism. Marx states that wages rise and fall as a result of the variable 

accumulation over the industrial cycle. 

Section 2: Next, Marx investigates the results of having the composition of capital variable. 

He asserts that the mass of means of production increases the productivity of the 

laborer. The means of production plays a double role. The mass of machinery, etc. is a 

condition of the increasing productivity of his labor, and the consequence is that a greater 

mass of raw material will enter the labor process. Marx says that as the technical/organic 

composition of capital increases, labor productivity follows. As the productivity of labor 

increases, the value in comparison with its mass is reduced. The value per unit of the means 

of production will fall and to some degree make up for the rise in the technical/organic composition 

of capital. Despite this, Marx maintains that the value-composition will continue to 

rise, though at a rate significantly slower that the organic. 

Increased accumulation stimulates the growth of capital. Marx defined the meaning of 

concentration of capital as the process by which surplus value is gained by mere accumulation. 

He identifies competition as the catalystic facor of a converse phenomena: that of


the centralization of capital where the stream-lining and consequently, reduction of units of 

capital takes place. 

In conclusion, concentreation and centralization are the result of accumulation and competition 

. This promotes greater efficiency, productivity, and the surplus-value rate which 

subsequently encourages still more accumulation. 

Section 3: When the overall composition of capital rises, the capitalist invests the increased 

capital in more or better means of production. The result is: the demand for laborpower 

falls. Marx notes the irony in that the laboring population produces the means by 

which its own value or neccessity is reduced, and this process is ever-multiplying. 

This reality supports Marx’s theory of the need of having a “surplus-population” of laborers 

who keep the cost of employing them down. This enforces the capitalist’s ability to pay 

the price of labor-power at the level of its value as a commodity of sorts. This is neccessary 

for capitalist production to exercise unrestricted activity. Marx describes the development 

of the capitalist mode of production as one in which the capitalist “sets more labour in motion 

without enlisting more workers” The population of laborers is excessive only relative to 

the availability of employment. Marx then dismisses Malthus’ demographic explanations of 

wages and population in which higher wages stimulate the birth rate and consequently, the 

supply of labor-power, based on the theory that dempgraphic reaction takes longer than the 

life of the industrial cycle. Marx gives credit for the recognition that surplus-population is 

needed in capitalist production, but scoffs because Malthus fails to see that it is a result of 

the forcible rendering of its own superfluousness. 

Section 4: Marx splits the reserve labor-army into 4 basic parts: 

1: The majority that forms the “floating” surplus workers. This includes the workers that 

were the victims of the increased technical/organic composition of capital and those replaced 

by younger or less-skilled workers. This group is the most accessable when the capitalist 

needs to draw from the surplus-group. 

2: The latent surplus population–where capitalist agriculture creates a large number of 

population of unemployed in rural areas. 

3: The stagnant reserve army; consisting of people who are more irregularly employed. 

Princilpally utilized in “domestic industry”, characterized by exessively long hours and low 

wages. 

4: Paupers that are divided into three sub-groups: a. Those able to work b. Orphans/pauper 

children. c. Those who succomb to their inability to adapt to change–the maimed, widowed, 

etc. 

Marx vividly describes this as “...The hospital of the active labor-army and the dead 

weight of the industrial reserve army.” pg. 797. 

Marx explains the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation as the process in which 

great social wealth leads to an increased industrial reserve army which results in a greater 

population of paupers. He elaborates to say that competition empowers the capitalist to 

maintain low wages while lengthening and intensifying the work day. He finally stresses 


that capitalism neccessitates that freedom and reasonable working conditions give way to 

the innovation of increased mechanization. 

Hans: Very good! But I disagree with the following paragraph: 

changes in the organic composition demonstrate how the value-composition would have changed 

if the values of the individual commodities used as the value of labor power and the means of 

production remained constant. 


[551] MsMarx and VanHalen: Term Paper This paper is a summary of each section of 

Chapter 25, The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. In this chapter, Marx examines 

the concept of accumulation in the context of continuous technical revolution, and he looks 

at the effects on the working class. 

Section 1. A growing demand for labor-power accompanies accumulation if the composition 

of capital remains the same. 

First, Marx establishes an essential set of concepts. The value-composition of capital is 

the ratio of constant to variable capital, c/v, measured, in values. The technical composition 

of capital is its counterpart in terms of use-values, the mass of means of production 

relative to the living labor employed. The technical composition cannot be measured quantitatively, 

since means of production and labor are qualitatively different things; one cannot 

be divided by the other. Marx then defines the organic composition of capital, which is 

“the value-composition of capital, in so far as it is determined by its technical composition 

and mirrors the changes of the latter.” Changes in the organic composition show how the 

value-composition would have changed had the values of the individual commodities used 

as means of production, and the value of labor-power, remained constant. 

The average composition of capital is the composition (value or organic) of the total 

social capital of a country. If accumulation takes place with no technical change, and with 

all three measures of the composition of capital remaining constant, there will be an equal 

proportional increase in constant and variable capital, and therefore in the demand for laborpower. 

This outstrips the growth of the laboring population, so the demand for labor will 

exceed the supply and wages will rise. To put it mathematically, the rate of accumulation 

is the independent, not the dependent, variable; the rate of wages the dependent, not the 

independent variable. 

Section 2. A relative diminution of the variable part of capital occurs in the course of the 

further progress of accumulation and of the concentration accompanying it. 

So far, the composition of capital has been held constant. However, as the productivity of 

labor rises, so does the technical and therefore the organic composition of capital. Marx asserts 

that the value-composition of capital rises, but it is slower than the organic composition, 

which mirrors the technical composition. 

As accumulation proceeds, individual capitals grow. Growth of units of capital by simple 

accumulation of surplus-value is called concentration of capital, which is “only another name 

for reproduction on an extended scale.” Centralization of capital refers to the regrouping of 

existing capital into fewer units, through takeovers, mergers, or the buying up of the assets of 

bankrupt firms. Competition promotes centralization, since large capitals have lower costs


and drive out smaller ones. Accumulation promotes concentration and centralization, which 

in turn promotes increased efficiency, raises the productivity of labor, and increases the 

rate of surplus-value, accelerating accumulation even further. Along with this, the organic 

composition of capital rises. 

Section 3. The progressive production of a relative surplus population or industrial reserve 

army. 

As the composition of capital rises, the demand for labor-power falls relatively, since 

a larger part of capital goes to buy means of production and less to employ workers. “The 

labouring population therefore produces...the means by which itself is made relatively superfluous, 

is turned into a relative surplus-population; and it does this to an always increasing 

extent.” It is this presence of the relative surplus-population that holds wages (the price of 

labor-power) down to the value of labor-power. 

There are three factors at work in producing a relative surplus-population: the increasing 

composition of capital (which reduces the demand for labor power), the accumulation of 

capital (which increases the demand), and the growth in the size of the working class (which 

increases the supply of labor-power). 

An industrial reserve army or relative surplus-population, which is a mass of unemployed 

labor-power, is essential to capitalism, according to Marx. “The mass of social 

wealth...thrusts iself frantically into old branches of production, whose market suddenly 

expands, or into newly formed brances...In all such cases there must be the possiblity of 

throwing great masses of men suddenly on the decisive points..Over-population supplies 

these masses.” The population is excessive in relativity to the employment that capital provides. 

The working day is lengthened and the intensity of work is stepped up. “The condemnation 

of one part of the working-class to enforced idleness by the over-work of the 

other part, and the converse, becomes a means of enriching the individual capitalists, and 

accelerates at the same time the production of the industrial reserve army.” 

Marx next deals with opposing theories. He ridicules Malthusian demographic explanations 

of wages and population, in which high wages raise birth rates and the supply of 

labor-power. He says that the industrial cycle only lasts seven to ten years in total, while 

demographic reactions take much longer. Marx also critizes the theory of compensation. 

Section 4. Different forms of existence of the relative surplus population, the general law 

of capitalist accumulation. 

The reserve army of labor can be divided into different parts. The floating surpluspopulation 

consists of unemployed workers who have previously worked for capital and who 

are already in the industrial centers. The industrial cycle alternately throws great masses of 

workers into the reserve army, and then draws them into employment again. 

In rural areas, the development of capitalist agriculture has created massive underemployment, 

the latent surplus-population. This ensures that new workers for urban industry 

are always available. The stagnant reserve army consists of those who are employed very 

rarely and irregularly, and who get low wages when they are employed. They provide the 


labor force for sweated handicrafts and domestic industry. At the lowest level are masses of 

paupers who are desperately poor. 

The absolute general law of capitalist accumulation says that “The greater the social 

wealth...the greater is the industrial reserve army...The more extensive...the industrial reserve 

army, the greater is offical pauperism.” The pressure of competition for jobs keeps wages 

down and gives the capitalist the bargaining power to lengthen the working day and intensify 

labor. Marx also reminds us of the destructive effects of mechanization on freedom and on 

working conditions. He then concludes, that “in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot 

of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse.” 

Section 5. Illustrations of the general law of capitalist accumulation. 

In the final section of Chapter 25, Marx presents a number of cases to back up the conclusions 

stated above, including the British agriculturalist and the nomadic population. 

Hans: Very good. I see some similarities with Pinky’s [528]. You adopted Pinky’s wrong definition of organic 

composition. 

Message [551] referenced by [560] and [596]. First Message by MsMarx is [1]. 

[560] Bandit: Term Paper In Chapter 25 “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation”, 

Marx supports his definition of the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation by an in 

depth study of four categories in the context of continuous revolution, and the effects of the 

working class. 

The first section “Growing Demand for Labour-Power Accompanies Accumulation if 

the Composition of Capital Remains the Same”, Marx introduces two concepts: the value 

composition of capital and the technical composition of capital. The value composition 

of capital is the ratio of constant to variable capital; c/v, measured in values. Technical 

composition of capital is the mass of means of production relative to the employed labor in 

use-value terms. 

Marx turns his attention next to the subject of the organic composition of capital. Marx 

states that this organic composition cannot be measured in quantities because the means of 

production and labor are qualitatively variable. Therefore one cannot be divided by the other. 

Changes in the organic composition show how the value-composition would have changed 

had the values of the individual commodities used as means of production, and the value of 

labor-power, remained constant. Basically stated, the organic composition is a measure of 

changes in the technical aspect of the composition. In calculating the average composition 

of capital, the total social capital of the entire country must be used. 

In the second section Marx discusses the composition of capital as being variable and not 

constant as it has been in previous discussions. This process of the composition of capital 

being variable produces an increase in the productivity of the laborer. He states that as the 

organic composition of capital increases this productivity of labor follows. This causes a 

second reaction that as labor productivity increases, the value in comparison with its mass is 

reduced. 

We next look at the concentration of capital. Concentration of capital is the process by 

which surplus value is gained by accumulation. This accumulation stimulates the growth of 

capital.


In section three, we find that as the composition of capital rises, the demand for laborpower 

falls. The reason for this is that a larger part of the capital is invested into the means 

of production than into employment of workers. Marx states that this is the reason, the 

presence of relative surplus-population, that wages are held down. 

Marx blasts Malthus’ theory on demographic explanation of the demographic reaction 

taking longer than the life of the industrial cycle. Marx explains that there is a need of a 

“surplus-population” of laborers. Why? It enforces the capitalists ability to pay the price of 

labor-power at the level of its values as a commodity. 

In the final section, before the examples of capital accumulation throughout history, Marx 

introduces four parts to the reserve labor-army. The first part being the “floating” surplus 

workers, second, the latent surplus population, third the stagnant reserve army, and finally 

the Paupers. The Paupers are divided into three sub-groups: those able to work, orphans, 

and the maimed or widowed. Marx describes the Pauperism group as “the hospital of the 

active labour-army and the dead weight of the industrial reserve army.” 

In conclusion, section five, states evidence of Marx’s arguments through out chapter 25, 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation, stating actual cases from history. 

Hans: You missed some major points, and one might get the impression that you merely excerpted [551] and did 

not read the Chaper itself. 

First Message by Bandit is [150]. 

[561] Jupiter: Term Paper I have thus far read the previous papers which my classmates 

have contributed as their term paper, I would like to take a different approach to the subject 

and give some personal thoughts about what I read in chapter 25. My main topic of discussion 

will be at the very heart of capitalism, which is exploitation of the “Proletariat” or the 

working-class. 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation, the name given to chapter 25 is properly 

so, for the capitalist to be, by its own design must have constant accumulation. With this 

is incooperated the exploitation of those who are the laborers, those who are paid for their 

labor-power. This will be one of the main conflicts that Marxs will take on, and try to prove 

that their is exploitation of the working class. 

In one of Karl Marx readings I came across one of his theories, which says that “there are 

two major classes a) those that are the owners of the means of production, and b) those who 

are not.” Because of this there is a rise of class conflict, that between the “bourgeoise” and 

the “proletariat”,or the owners and the workers. Marxs also said that “all history is a history 

of class struggle”, this is true, and we can see it prevail today in our society. 

I found in my reading of chapter 25, that I was one of the simple minded workers, who 

when I get an increase in pay thinks that boy I sure do have it made. Marx makes it all to 

clear and easy to see that when I get an increase in pay it is only in small proportion to what 

it is that I am producing. I have never really thought of it in that manner, but it is true and it 

is very unsettling to me to know that when I get a bonus for something that I have done well, 

that the boss or buyer of my labor-power is for the valorization of his capital. The surplus 

value that the owner recieves in comparison to that of my surplus labor power, is really not 


a comparison at all, the increased wages is there to make me believe that I am doing well, 

when all it is there for is to put me in a state of “false consciousness”. 

This form of increased pay can also be used by the owner of the means of production to 

increase his work force. Marx says, “Then the time comes round again when the suply of 

labor is less than the demand, wages rise and so on.” This is where Marx is addressing the 

problem with the reserve army work force, which by simple definition to me is the people 

who do not have jobs but are willing to work when work is given to them, and in the mean 

time they suffer with poverty and homelessness. The quote Marx gives is a pivital point 

in understanding the economy as a whole, the economy is as we can see controled by the 

owners of production. When times are good and people are recieving lots of money for their 

labor power then they can afford to have children, and replentish the work force, for the 

future. It is also scary to see how this can be true for the opposite. The wage labor that 

one gives to a product seems so far removed, he is not getting money in respect to it, but is 

getting paid by what the economy is dictating , which economy is directed by the powerful, 

rich, bourgeoise “elite”. 

Another aspect of this chapter that I found very informative and at the same tine discouraging, 

is that of competition. I have previously written in one of my submissions that I have 

opened a new store (with friends, we all work at the store and we are all owners so I don’t 

find myself to be a capitalist!), now that it has been open a little while I have found out that 

a bigger more established store in a different part of town is going to put a new store near 

by. Marx says that in competition a few things must be present one is that “the battle of 

competition is fought by the cheapining of commodities”. I can see this going to happen to 

my little store and I (and my friends) can not afford to lower our commodity price, thus we 

will be a victem of the all to powerful large-scale industry. I am very angry about this and 

the more I try to understand the less I do, but what I do know is that it is very unfair, and 

something needs to be done about it. 

These are the two main points that I got out of Marx in chapter 25, what it boils down 

to is that we the “proletarian” are being exploited by those who have gotten control over the 

means of production. If those that have the control really feel that we should be grateful to 

them for all that they do for us, well I think that they should look around and see all that 

we do for them, for without the laborers where would the capitalist be? There would be no 

capital. 

Hans: Good personal report. But you seem to allude to the theory that high wages lead to more children and 

therefore to an oversupply of labor that depresses wages again. This is Malthus’s mechanism which Marx argued 

against. Marx has a different mechanism. 

First Message by Jupiter is [126]. 

[566] Skyler: essay of chapter twenty-five I’ve chosen to do an indepth study of section 

one of chapter twenty-five. This chapter focuses on the growth of capital on the working 

class, focusing on the composition of capital and the process of accumulation. Composition 

of capital is broken down into two areas. The value-composition of capital as the ratio of 

constant to variable capital; c/v, measured in values. The second is technical composition of 

capital; the pool of means of production relative to the employed labor is its counterpart in 

use-value terms. Marx also explains that organic composition is the understanding when he 

refers to the composition of capital. Organic composition is defined; “value-composition of


capital in so far as it is determined by its technical composition and mirrors the changes of 

the latter.” Pg. 762 The average of individual capitals invested into a branch of production 

gives us the composition of the total capital in the branch of production being considered. So 

the overall average of a composition from each branch of production gives us the compostion 

of the total social capital of a country. “To figure the average composition of capital, one 

includes the ‘value or organic’ composition of the complete capital of a country.” 

Growth of capital implies growth in labour-power. Labor power is the main factor in 

allowing capital to grow. Businesses function because of the laborer doing the work. When 

capital accumulates, demand for labour-power increases,although the supply may be less 

than the demand, causing an increase in wages. The reproduction of labour-power increases 

the amount of capitalists and wage-laborers. Accumulaton of capital is therefore a multiplication 

of the working class. John Bellers said that a rich man is not rich unless there is a 

laborer in the field to do the work of the rich man’s assets. 

In a free country where slaves are not allowed, the wealthy survive on a multitude of 

laborious poor. “To make the society ... happy and people easier under the meanest circumstances, 

it is requisite that great numbers of them should 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.” Marx pg. 764:1/o 

The mechanism of accumulation increases capital as well as labouring poor. The valorization 

of growing capital is increased because of labour-power from the wage-labourers. 

The laborer is dependant upon the product in the capitalist system. Becasue of this, workers 

place themselves in a state of easy and liberal dependance. Individuals with great fortune almost 

always owe their advantages to the abilities of others. The ability to command laborers 

separates the rich from the poor. 

The workers relationship of dependence becomes more extensive than intensive when the 

price of labor increases due to accumulating capital. In other words, chain around the laborers 

neck is loosened just alittle as time goes on.The buyers aim is production of commodities 

which include an amount of unpaid labor. This law of production is based on the surplusvalue 

(additional profits.) So as wages increase, the amount of unpaid labor decreases. 

A rise in the price of labour due to the accumulation of capital includes to alternatives: 

1 Either the price of labour keeps on rising, because its rise does not interfere with the 

progress of accumulation. 2 Accumulation slackens as a result of the rise in the price of 

labour, because the stimulus of gain is blunted. In case one, the dimished rate mor the increased 

labour-power were the cause of excess capital. The capital made the exploitable 

labour-power insufficiently. In case two, not the increased rate, but the relative reduction 

in the amount of capital caused the exploitable labour-power or price to be in excess. Accumulation 

is the independant, rate of wage is the dependant. A general rise in the price 

of commodities is expressed as a fall in the relative value of money. The law of capitalist 

production is simply the relation between the unpaid labor and the paid labor in the same 

working population. Wages can rise by the addition of a paid labour if the quantity of unpaid 

labour, accumulated by capitalists increases to fast. When this happens, unpaid labour begins 

to diminsh in return, and a point is reached that caused smaller returns in capital, slow 


downs in accumulation and a rise in wages. “The rise in wages is therefore confined within 

limits that not only leave intact the foundations of the capitalist system, but also secure its 

reproduction on an increasing scale.” Marx Pg. 771. So workers are there to satisfy the need 

for valorization of commodities. In conclusion, “Just as man is governed, in religion, by the 

products of his own brain, so, in capitalist production, he is governed by the products of his 

own hand.” Marx Pg. 771. 

Message [566] referenced by [596] and [615]. First Message by Skyler is [97]. 

[573] Chocolate, KALISPEL, and Punani: The fate of the working class!! This essay 

will show the importance of the composition of capital, and the changes it undergoes in the 

course of the process of accumulation. IT will show how the accumulation of capital has an 

adverse effect on the wages of the working class. This essay will describe how the drive to 

produce more is not necessarily good for the working class. On the other side of the coin 

we will discuss how mainstream economics claims that this drive is essential to economic 

prosperity. 

I. A growing demand for labor-power accompanies accumulation if the composition of 

capital remains the same. 

All capital is divided into means of production and living labor power. Labor power is 

called the value composition and means of production is the technical composition. Value 

composition is dollars divided by dollars and technical composition is capital divided by 

hours of labor. These are the two parts of capital accumulation; the value side and the 

technical side. An overall look at value and technical composition is referred to as organic 

composition, by Marx. Marx points out the relationship between value and technical composition. 

The issue, however, is important since the dynamics of the composition of capital in 

value terms are central to Marx’s analysis of the industrial cycle and wage movements, of 

unemployment, and of the rate of profit. A change in the OCC (oraganic composition of 

capital) is simply a value change in the TCC. Changes in OCC are proportional to changes 

in TCC. Thus, a rise in the TCC always produces a rise in the OCC. The total effect is found 

in the VCC (variable cost of capital) which may or may not rise. 

These compositions are important because they all have the ability to valorize themselves. 

Capitalists seek profits and in doing so introduce machinery. Workers are able to produce 

more and more in the same amount of time. The value of the outputs fall and this creates 

more profits for the capitalist. Because adjustments to this process take time discrepancies 

appear. Old values must be adjusted to current values. This can cause an economic crisis. 

Marx point out that adjustment of these compositions can be abrupt and continuous. 

These relationships lead to an increase of the working class. Marx points out three points 

here. 1- “Capital can only increase by exchanging itself for labor-power, by calling wagelabor 

to life.” In other words, in order to be able to accumulate, capital needs more and 

more wage labor. This may cause an excess demand for labor, higher wages, better working 

conditions. 2- “The labor-power of the wage worker can only exchange itself for capital by 

increasing capital, by strengthening the power whose slave it is.” In this second aspect of 

the relation between wage-labor and capital, the relationship or power between the two is


reversed: Wage labor is only then usefl for capital if its price is low enough. 3- “Hence, 

increase of capital is increase of the proletariat, that is, of the working class.” This is to be 

understood in the sense: accumulation of capital can only go on if the size of the working 

class increases as well. 

II. A relative diminution of the variable part of capital occurs in the course of the further 

progress of accumulation and of the concentration accompanying it. 

It is here Marx points out a qualitative change in the compositon of capital by rising the 

organic composition. He presents the following arguments: 1- Capital accumulation leads 

to higher technology 2- higher technology leads to higher organic composition. This is like 

a big snowball to who knows where. The reason for doing this is to make it so a smaller 

quantity of labor is needed to produce a greater quantity of work. 

This capitalist accumulation leads to a concentration of production sites. This concentration 

leads to producting even higher forms of technology. Higher technology leads to higher 

technical composition and is reflected in a higher value composition. 

Marx makes an important point. ....A POINT is regularly reached in the course of accumulation 

at which the development of the productivity of social labor becomes the most 

powerful lever of accumulation. 

Here we can see a contradiction. The accumulation tends to increase wages, but on the 

other hand it sets laborers free and therefore tends to reduce wages. Ultimately, the point is 

that labor is subjective and never will be objective as it is claimed to be by capitalist society. 

III. The progressive production of a relative surplus population or industrial reserve army. 

This section discusses the effect of both kinds of accumulation on the working class, the 

creation of a relative surplus population, and the reaction of the surplus-populationon the 

accumulation of capital. 

Here Marx adds the point that the organic composition will outpace accumulation and 

thus create a relative surplus-populaton. Why? 

1- Centralisation of individual capitals, and the technical progress which this increase of 

the individual firms enables, can take place even if the total mass of capital does not increase. 

2- Technical innovation in the additional capital forces also the original capital to innovate, 

which may result in an absolute loss of jobs. 3- Number of industries which are seized by 

increasing organic composition increases. 4- Intermediate pauses in which accumulation 

takes place with constant composition of capital are shortened. 

The qualitative change of capital succeeds at the expense of its variable component (workers). 

Marx points out here that the demand for labor is determined by its variable constituent 

alone. Demand falls progressively with the growth of the total capital, instead of rising 

in proportion to it as was previously assumed and put forth as doctrine by mainstream 

economists. This makes sense because if you remember where profits come from; gathering 

of surplus value. This the variable value is really the bottom line or foundational value 

of the economic picture. 


Marx points out that the wages fall at an accelerated rate as the magnitude of capital 

increases. 

This looks as if the growth of the working population outpaced that of capital. In other 

words, it looks as if it wsa the laborers’ own fault that they do not get high wages; they are 

too many. 

This is an accelerated process. The variable component accompanies the increase of the 

total capital and moves more rapidly with this increase. The increase of the TCC component 

is faster than the increse of the VCC component, but the TCC component does speed up the 

VCC component. 

Thus, workers lose jobs and wages in response to capital growth. This shows that it is 

obvious that the capitalist aim to grow is not goint to create a better society. 

IV. Different Forms of Existence of the Relative Surplus Population. The General Law of 

Capitalist Accumulation. 

Relative surplus population? Capital accumulation forces people to accept less desirable 

work because of the threat of starvation, homelessness etc. Marx calls these workers repelled 

by the accumulation of capital. This is because there may be no alternatives available. 

There is a floating surplus population. The repulsion of old workers is outweighed by the 

attraction of young workers, what is why they are part of the floating surplus-population. 

Marx points out that capital accumulation needs young workers. Once you reach maturity 

only a very small number continues to find employment in the same branches of industry, 

while the majority are regularly dismissed. This majority grows with the branches of that 

industry. Some emigrate following capital. The natural increase of workers does not satisfy 

the requirements of the accumulation of capital and at the same time exceeds those requirements. 

On the one hand there is complaining of a shortage of workers and on the other hand 

there are many out of work. The division of labor has chained workers to individual industries. 

Each individual industries reserve army of labor is the bargaining tool capitalists need 

to obtain profits. 

One interesting sidenote Marx points out that the upper-class lived to be 38 years old and 

the proletariat only 17. Industry takes the toll of life. 

Here is an example that will conclude and simplify chapter 25. Bill and Ted have just 

become owners of a new shirt factory. They have invested a lot of money in the factory and 

need workers desperately. It is like hot coals in their hands. It must produce. They hire 

workers and train them. These workers are paid at subsistence level wages. As production 

increases they buy more plants and more capital. Their new type of shirt manufacture requires 

special training. Wages begin to rise because there is more capital to be manned than 

workers available. This causes more workers to come to the industry. Then, as technology 

increases and productivity increases then the workers are able to produce much more commodities 

with less labor hours. This causes layoffs of workers. The company now has a 

reserve army of labor because of the workers training and maturity level. This now makes 

it possible to lower the wages of the workers because those on unemployment are paid so 

much less (i.e. barely surviving). This accumulation has helped the worker in the beginning,


but has actutally been a chain to drag the majority down to lower levels of living. People 

actually give their lives to the capitalist’s desire for profits. 

Hans: Good work! There are a few minor glitches: your definition of organic composition is not quite right, 

and you are not really explaining the snowball effect, and you are also not quite presenting the argument why 

unemployment is not a sign that there are too many workers. But overall you got the thrust of it. I also like the 

following sentence, which is not a point Marx makes in Chapter 25, but which is an important point nonetheless: 

Ultimately, the point is that labor is subjective and never will be objective as it is claimed to 

be by capitalist society. 

First Message by Chocolate is [5]. 

[577] Femme, Kalle, Pizza, and Positive: Chapter 25 Section 1 Chapter 25: The 

General Law of Capitalist Accumulation Section I. A Growing Demand For Labour-Power 

Accompanies Accumulation If The Composition of Capital Remains The Same 

Our goal in this essay is to summarize Section One of Chapter Twenty-Five. Section one 

looks at the growth of capital, its composition and the changes it undergoes in the process of 

accumulation. The composition of capital is looked at in two ways; as value and as material. 

The value is determined by the proportion that’s divided into constant capital, or the value 

of the means of production and variable capital, or the value of labour-power that is the 

sum of total wages. As material, all capital is divided into means of production and living 

labour-power. This is further categorized into two parts; one, the value-composition which is 

determined by the relation between the mass of the means of production employed and two, 

the technical composition of capital that is the mass labour necessary for their employement. 

The value-composition of capital is determined by its technical composition on the organic 

composition. 

The growth of capital implies growth of its variable constituents or the part invested 

in labour-power. This is due to the fact that surplus-value that has been transformed into 

additional capital has to always be re-transformed into additional labour-fund or variable 

capital. If one assumes that all factors are constant, naturally the composition of capital 

remains constant, or the mass of labour-power is the same. Now if capital increases, than 

the demand for labour-power and the fund for the subsistence of the workers increases by 

the same increment. But capital produces a surplus-value per year where a percentage is 

added to the original capital. As this capital increases and there is opening of new markets, 

a percentage of the surplus-value/product, is divided into capital and revenue which results 

in an accumulation of capital that exceeds the growth in the labour-power; the demand for 

labour increases, the supply decreases, the result is an increase in wages. This only results 

if all factors other than capital remain constant. 

In the capital relation when reproduction constantly reproduces itself; you get the presence 

of capitalist at one end and the wage laborers on the opposing end. The reproduction of 

labour-power, according to Marx, is enslaved to the capitalist because the laborers must sell 

themselves and their labor for the capitalist to reproduce and for the laborers to reproduce. 

This is part of the capital as its means of valorization. The laborer makes a profit for the 

capitalist, the more labourer a capitalist has, the larger profit margin he can attain. So the 

accumulation of capital is the accumulation of the laborer. 

As capital accumulation increases under the assumptions that have been made, this increases 

the exploitation and domination of the laborer. It’s true that as wages increase the 


labourer can delve into purchases that increases their enjoyment but this only makes the 

labourer more dependent on the capitalist. Also one must look at the essential factor that the 

worker will always provide a percentage of the labor that he does not get paid for. Under the 

capitalist system, labour-power is not purchased for the personal satisfaction of the buyer by 

its service or through the product. The goal of the buyer is the valorization of his capital, 

production of capital that contains more labour than what he paid for. Labour-power reproduces 

its own value as capital by selling itself so that means of production is maintained and 

it provides a source of additional capital in the shape of unpaid labour. The unpaid labor that 

is built into the nature of wages. Even when there is an increase in wages and a decrease 

in price of labour the result is a reduction in the amount of unpaid labour supplied, not an 

abolishment of unpaid labour. 

So what are the alternatives ? 1. A rise in the price of labour resulting from accumulation 

of capital as long as the increase in the price of labour does not interfere with the progress 

of accumulation. According to Adam Smith this can work; due to his theory that a great 

stock with a smaller profit margin will increase at a more rapid pace than small stock with a 

larger profit margin. Therefore a reduction in the amount of unpaid labour will not interfere 

with the progress of accumulation. 2. The capital accumulation slows down as a result of an 

increase in the price of labour-power, because profits decrease. The decrease in the amount 

of capital causes the price of unpaid labour-power to be in excess. 

Capital production is based on the ‘Natural Law of Population’ which says : the relationship 

between capital, accumulation and the rate of wages is the relation between the unpaid 

labour that has been turned into capital and the additional paid labour that is needed to set in 

motion additional capital. It is the relation of paid and un-paid labour within a working population. 

For example if the number of unpaid labour accumulated by the capitalist increases 

so fast that the capitalist needs surplus-labour, than wages increase and the unpaid labourer 

decreases. But if surplus-labour is not supplied as needed, accumulation decreases, a smaller 

part of revenue is capitalized and you get a slow increase in wages. The rise of wages is limited 

within the foundation of the capitalist system leaving the laborer to be governed by the 

products made with his own hands. 

Hans: Higher wages do not make the laborer dependent on the capitalist because he enjoys himself more. 

Your essay is ok, but the explanations were not quite crisp and clear enough. 

First Message by Femme is [207.1]. 

[579] Jake: term paper For my term paper I chose to look at section one of chapter 

25. This chapter begins with Marx clarifying the differences in capital. “As value, it is 

determined by the the proportion in which it is divided into constant capital, or the value of 

the means of production, and variable capital, or the value of labour-power, the sum total of 

wages. As material, as it functions in the process of production, all capital is divided into 

means of production and living labour-power. This latter composition is determined by the 

relationship between the mass of the means of production employed on the one hand, and 

the mass of labour necessary for their employment on the other.” Marx goes on to say that 

one is value composition and the other technical composition. 

Capital grows by the returning of the profits to the original capital source. For capital to 

truly grow the surplus of growth must be retransformed into additional labor. When capital


grows without the labor side changing the result will be an increase in the wages because of 

demand for workers being larger than supply. 

The chapter discusses a quote from Mandeville. He goes on to make the point that the 

rich are only rich because of the poor. He makes the point that the poor do all the work for 

the rich. He then makes the point that the poor must be kept at a level that they need the 

rich to survive, but also the rich keep them at a level that they continue to have there labor 

available. He makes the point that too much money can make a man lazy, where as too little 

can make a man desperate. Mandevilles makes the point that the surest wealth in a country 

can be considered the laborious work force. This wealth then can be trapped if the society 

can keep the workers both ignorant as well as poor. This being the case because “knowledge 

both enlarges and multiplies our desires, and the fewer things a man wishes for, the more 

easily his necessities may be supplied.” 

Marx goes on to point out that Mandeville has neglected to realize that the accumulation 

of capital process also increases the mass of the laboring poor. By giving the laborer wages, 

its possible to lull the employee into being content. This is when the exploitation process 

begins. The worker is able to buy necessities that may bring some satisfaction, and possibly 

save a little, this little satisfaction is just a fraction of the efforts given to capitalist by the 

worker. Marx somewhat compares this to the little satisfaction a slave might receive with a 

room and board. 

The capitalist gain comes from the workers unpaid labor. This is what the capitalist thrive 

on. If the worker was to be fully compensated for his labor, capitalism would not exist. 

Capitalism will not let this process happen. “The relation between capital, accumulation and 

the rate of wages is nothing other than the relation between the unpaid labour which has 

been transformed into capital and the additional paid labour necessary to set in motion this 

additional capital. What then becomes important is the relation of the unpaid labor and the 

paid labor of the working class. Wages will rise when the capitalist has a sharp increase in the 

accumulation of capital, this being the case because of the need for more labor. The opposite 

effect occurs also, as the accumulation of capital slows down, revenue that is capitalized 

drops causing the need for additional labor to diminish. Thus causing wages to drop. The 

capitalist nature then can be responsible for every rise and drop in wages. Because of the 

nature of capitalism: ‘just as man is governed, in religion, by the products of his own brain, 

so, in capitalist production, he is governed by the products of his own hand.’” 

Hans: You picked out some good key quotes, but the argument with which you connected these quotes is not quite 

precise enough. 

First Message by Jake is [41]. 

[581] TOAD: Chapter 25 For my term paper I have chosen to discuss section 4 of 

chapter 25. In this section Marx talks about the three forms that relative surplus population 

possesses. However I think that there could be six forms. Marxs’ three forms are:the floating, 

the latent, and the stagnant. After reading this section a number of times I feel the six forms 

that he discusses are: the floating, the latent, the stagnent, the pauper, the orphans and pauper 

children, and the cripple. 

The floating form: This form of surplus population is that which has reached and exceeded 

maturity. Once a member of the male population reaches maturity they are not 


considered to be prime for employment, this makes it hard for them to continue to find 

employment in ther same branches of industery. Thus they are left to emigrate and follow 

capital which has itself emigrated. Hence they are considered floating. 

The Latent form: This form of surplus population is that which is out there to be exploited, 

but it is not done so unless there is a demand for there labor. Marx says that the latent 

population exists in agriculture and that there wages are so low that they already exist with 

one foot in pauperism (the poor house). 

The Stagnent form: This form of surplus population is that which consists of those with 

irregular employment. Meaning that they can’t hold a job. So for capitol this means an “inexhaustible 

reservoir of labor-power” or that there are allot of people to be taken advantage 

of. These people are those that typically will work for a maximum of hours with minimum 

wages because they cant find work and they need to survive. 

This is where I don’t follow Marx, because he said in the beginning of this section that 

there were only three forms of surplus population. However after he finishes discussing 

those three forms he goes on to explain the three forms of pauperism that exist under surplus 

population, doesen’t this make six. he says that the three forms of pauperism are: those 

that are able to work but don’t; orphans and pauper children, these are candidates for the 

industrial reserve army to be exploited in times of prosperity. And third the demoralized the 

raged and those unable to work; basicaly, the old, the widowed, the sickly, the mutilated, and 

those who have fallen victim to dangerous machinery. Marx explains that capital transfers 

the resoponsibility of these to the working class and the petty bourgeoisie. 

Marx continues and concludes the rest of this section by talking about the Venetian monk 

Ortes, one of the great economic writers of the eighteenth century. Ortes explains his view of 

wealth, and how if there is wealth there is an equal amount of poverty to offset that wealth. 

He says that there cannot be success without failure and good without evil, basicaly the 

natural balance of life. Marx closes with a quote from Destutt de Tracy “in poor nations the 

people are comfortable, in rich nations they are generally poor.” The reason I feel that this 

is, is because in poor nations the people have nothing to compare themselves to, and in rich 

nations they do. 

Hans: The difference between the three forms of relative surplus population (floating, latent, and stagnant), and 

pauperism is: pauperism is a consequence of the existence of unemployment. Unemployment is caused by the 

accumulation of capital, and pauperism is caused by unemployment. 

Marx does not just “talk about” Ortes, he heartily disagrees with him! He would also disagree with your 

interpretation that the povery amidst plenty is only an artefat of the comparison effect. 

First Message by TOAD is [10]. 

[585] Super and Lamma: Chapter 25 Term Paper Chapter 25, Section 4 

In this section Marx is talking about the different forms of the relative surplus population. 

According to Marx surplus population is the group of workers who are only partially employed 

or completely unemployed. Marx breaks this surplus population into three different 

forms; floating, latent, and stagnant. 

The floating form of surplus population occurs when workers are laid off and then recalled 

back to work in a greater number. In Marx’s time workers in factories and workshops 

were mostly male. Once they reached maturity only a small number of these workers could


continue employment in the same industry. The majority of them found work elsewhere. It 

was this group who found work in a different industry which made up the floating surplus 

population. Marx brings up a contradiction with the accumulation of capital. Capitalists will 

complain of a shortage in labor while at the same time many people are out of work because 

of the division of labor which restricts them to a particular industry. After their prime working 

years they are sifted out and exist in the floating surplus population. The floating form of 

population is, “...rapid replacement of one generation of workers by another (this law does 

not hold for the other classes of the population).” p. 795. 

The agricultural population provides us with a good example of latent surplus population. 

Advances in technology decrease the demand for the rural working population. Therefore 

this group of workers are in a constant movement finding work in the urban or manufacturing 

industries. It is this group that constitutes a laten surplus population. Because of this surplus 

labor their wages are reduced to a minimum and the workers are forced to live in poverty. 

The last form is the stagnant population. The group is made up of those workers with 

very irregular employment. This can be seen in industries where machinery and technology 

is taking the place of handmade types of manufacturing. “It is characterized by a maximum 

of working time and a minimum of wages.” p. 796. The growth of this working class is 

continuously increasing. This creates a large group of the working class who continually 

reach deeper levels of pauperism. 

Marx divides the stagnant population into three categories. The first are those workers 

who are able to work but choose not to. The second category are orphans and the pauper 

children. Third are those who are unable to work or are not able to adapt to the constant 

changing industries. 

The mechanism of capitalist production is driven by the creation of this relative surplus 

population. Workers are taught that they should adapt their number of workers to the requirements 

of capital. Marx states that this is foolish because in capital accumulation the more 

the workers sell their own labor power, the higher the increases of capitalist wealth. Capital 

accumulation raises the social productivity of labor at the expense of the individual worker. 

Or in other words, development of production leads to further exploitation of the worker. 

“It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, 

be his payment high or low, must grow worse.” p. 799. Marx argues that this exploitation 

of the worker is a necessary force in the accumulation of capital. The wealth of capitalists 

corresponds inversely to the degradation of the poor and less fortunate. Throughout society 

there must be opposition in all things in order to have an equilibrium. For example there 

cannot be good without evil. The same is true for the wealth of a nation, riches must be 

offset by lack of subsistence for the indigent class. “ ‘It seems to be a law of Nature that the 

poor should be to a certain degree improvident’...’that there may always be some to fulfill 

the most servile, the most sordid, and the most ignoble offices in the community.’ ” p. 800. 

Marx quotes Storch in order to explain the advantage of the degradation of the masses in 

capitalist societies. Storch says security is the only benefit. He does not expand upon what 

type of security or how the security exists. We think he is talking about the economic security 

of the existing owners of wealth. They can maintain their high standard of living by 

feeding off the consumption of the poor. 


Due to increasing advances in technology and manufacturing the accumulation of capital 

has created a necessary exploitation of the working class. This creates a greater division 

of classes between the rich and the poor. The three type of surplus population reveal the 

different outcomes of the capitalist exploitation of labor. 

Hans: Your characterization of the floating, latent, and stagnant overpopulation is ok. But you misunderstand 

pauperism: this is not part of the stagnant overpopulation, but is the effect of all three kinds of overpopulation. If 

Marx says that some of the paupers are able to work, this does not mean, as you write, that they “choose not to.” At 

the end you seem to think that Marx quoted certain authors with approval which he was really critical of. How can 

one “feed off the consumption of the poor”? The rich are so rich because they make the poor work for them. 

Message [585] referenced by [596]. First Message by Super is [169]. 

[590] Gilligan, Skippy, and Kia: term paper We have chosen to write a section by 

section description of chapter 25. 

Section 1: Capital is just like the commodity that we have studied so intensely. It is 

comprised of two components, constant capital or the value of the means of production, 

and variable capital which takes into account labor power and its total wages paid to those 

laborers. Labor power has a partner known as subsistence which is a part of capital and it 

helps in defining labor power. 

When capital grows or increases it is dealing with the variable component, which stated 

above tells us that it directly affects labor power and most importantly the subsistence factor. 

So as capital grows the same amount of surplus value gained must be “retransformed into 

variable capital.” “The demand for labor, and the fund for subsistence of workers, both 

clearly increase in the same proportion as the capital, and with the same rapidity.” 763:1/o 

Capitalist need the laborers as well as laborers need the capitalist in order to survive. John 

Bellers makes a great point when he says, “For if one had a hundred thousand acresof land 

and as many pounds in money, and as many cattle, without a laborer, what would the rich 

man be but a laborer?” This statement is vital and an important quote even today. If you take 

Bill Gates for insatnce and take all his laborers away from him and leave him with money, 

microsoft wouldn’t be anything, because he is so dependant upon the workers. People who 

labor for another are a very important key to the growing fortunes of the capitalist himself. 

Sir F.M. Eden says, “persons of independent fortunes .. owe their superoir advantages by 

no means to any superior abilities of their own, but almost entirely... to the industry of others.” 

We laborers are dependent upon them in that we work for our subsistence, we ensalve 

ourselves because we need to live. 

As wages rise we think we’re better off but do new clothes, more food,and increased joy 

really define themselves as such. No. they don’t, its the key factor in the exploitation process, 

and as our surplus rises we are eploited to an even greater extent. The consumer doesn’t pay 

a price that reflects the amount of labor that was put into an item, its called unpaid labor. 

This exploitation will always be because if their wasn’t such a thing the domain of capital 

would be disturbed. We don;t recognise the exploitation process and usually feel some self 

valor from the wages that we receive. 

“The relation between capital, accumulation and the rate of wages is nothing other than 

the relation between unpaid labor which has been transformed into capital and the additional 

paid labor necessary to set in motion this additional capittal.”

section 2 


Marx reminds us that capital is not constant as we thought , but rather variable. The laborers 

productivity is increased due to this variablity of captital. So, as thought, the production 

of the laborers increases right along with the rise in organic capital. “With the increased 

productivity of labor, the mass of the means of production consumed by labor increases, but 

their value in comparison with their masses diminishes.” (774) This has an inverse effect on 

the value, it goes down since the productivity has risen. 

The Lager Companies, for example are driving the little guys right out of business because 

their able to purchase more and kep more on hand than the little co.. through this method 

they are able to make drastic price reductions where the smaller firm doesn’t have that type of 

power or even the same opportunity. This promotes centralization from the larger companies, 

which maximizes the effeciency rates of labor. Company takeovers, buy outs, and liquidation 

of these smaller firms is what is known as centralization. 

section 3 In section 3 Marx reminds that accumulation of capital comes to life through 

a continuing increase of its constant component at the expense of its variable component. 

The production mode of capitalists, labor, does not keep pace with the change in society 

and its wealth of accumulation on hand, capital changes form from constant to variable. 

Also the demand of labor does not keep up with proportions to accumulation because, the 

variable capital that falls compares to the growth. At an advantage, not employing additional 

workers, capitalist enjoy the surplus population. 

As technology increases the less workers are needed. This is the current situation that 

is seen today in many manufacturing industries. Reason being that the machines employed 

don’t have to be paid or they aren’t affected by the subsistent component. Capitalist make 

grand profits from innovations such as these. The more money firm makes the more likely it 

will increase its production i.e. franchising. 

Workers wages will increase as the firms output increases. However, at the end , the 

higher wges become vulnerable. Because the surpus population that brings in workers allows 

capitalist to set wages. The more supply of labor there is the lower the wages will drop. With 

more available workers the chance of losing your job is greater, because that prson might be 

wiling to accept a smaller wage than you. Its all about maximization. 

section 4 

The 4 parts to the reserve labor army are the: floating, Latent, Stagnant, and the Paupers. 

The floating surplus consists of the population of workrs that cause diminishining returns 

for the co. As stated on page 798 “once the workers reach the age of maturity, only a 

few number of them continue to find employment in the same branches of industry.” The 

unemplouyed that are left over make up the floating surplus. 

The Latent surplus happens when the capitalists take over the agricultural aspects forcing 

the rural working population to fall as the capital employed by agriculture rises. This is done 

without compensationas done with nonagricultural industry. The people go into the industry 

looking for opportunities to complete the transformation. This also causes the wages of the 

agriculture worker to fall to a minimum being on the edge of pauperism. 


The stagnant population consists of the left over population of the Latent workers and the 

Floating forces. These people work maximum hours for minimal pay. These are the people 

that capital easily exploits. “Its extent grows in proportion as, with the growth in the extent 

and the energy of accumulation, the creation of a surplus population also advances.”(796) 

The population of the Paupers that are able to work “increases with the crisis of trade and 

diminishes with every revival.” 

As stated by Marx these Paupers are good candidates for the reserves. 

The third is the excess weight or the fat of the population. They have passed their time of 

being productive and are of little use to society. 

Hans: There are some misunderstandings. Is the following a joke? 

Labor power has a partner known as subsistence which is a part of capital and it helps in 

defining labor power. 

Also your concept of unpaid labor is not at all what Marx was talking about: 

The consumer doesn’t pay a price that reflects the amount of labor that was put into an item, 

its called unpaid labor. 

Also the following sentence does not make sense and is incongruous with the rest of what you are writing: 

The production mode of capitalists, labor, does not keep pace with the change in society and 

its wealth of accumulation on hand, capital changes form from constant to variable. 

Finally, regarding your last sentence: 

They have passed their time of being productive and are of little use to society. 

You are perhaps not aware of it, but usefulness to society is a bad standard to judge people by. You should rather 

ask whether society is useful to people. 

First Message by Gilligan is [60]. 

[592] Homer: chapter 25 This essay will discuss part 2 of Chapter 25: The General Law 

of Capitalist Accumulation and some of my own thoughts pertaining to this section. 

As machines become a larger and larger part of the production process,the ratio between 

constant and variable capital (hereafter referred to as the organic compostion of capital) 

needed for a business to earn an average profit increases. Any new businesses must have 

this same, higher, organic composition of capital in order to be successful. The effect of 

this is that in any industry, the average size of each firm increases. Because of competition, 

those firms most likely to succeed will have an organic composition of capital that is above 

average. These firms will have the most funds for keeping up with the rate of technological 

change. 

These processes lead to the centralization and concentration of capital. A large number 

of small firms are either driven out of business or absorbed by a small number of large firms. 

The means of production become centralized in the hands of a few large firms. Smaller 

capitals can only find entry into business in those areas which are new or have for some other 

reason been neglected by larger capital. In reference to this, Marx writes, “Here competition 

rages in direct proportion to the number, and in inverse proportion to the magnitude of rival 

capitals. It always ends in the ruin of many small capitalists, whose capitals partly pass into 

the hands of their conquerors, and partly vanish completely.” (pg. 777:2) Small firms, which 

have higher production costs, go bankrupt. In times of economic recession, this can happen 

to a large number of these enterprises within a short span of time.


What happens to the entrepreneurs who have had their businesses fail? A few are able 

to take middle-class jobs as managers if their firm is absorbed by a larger one. While the 

more fortunate ones maintain their status of middle-class, it is a new middle class that does 

not own the means of production. The rest undergo a reversal of roles and are forced to sell 

their labor-power . This process of the transformation of owners of capital into owners of 

only labor-power is fascinating and can be statistically demonstrated: 

percent of the employed population of the USA 

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 employees of all kinds: 62 65 67.9 71.9 73.9 entrepreneurs 

of all kinds: 36.9 33.8 30.8 26.3 23.5 

1930 1940 1950 1960 1965 76 78.2 79.8 84.2 86.3 20.3 18.8 17.1 14.0 12.4 

(The information for the years 1880-1939 is from Productivity, Wages, and National 

Income by Spurgeon Bell. The figures for 1950 are from the U.S. Statistical Absrtact, 1958. 

The figures for 1960 and 1965 are from the U.S. Statistical Absract, 1965) 

This process thrusts some pro-capitalist arguments into a new light. When discussing 

the virtues of capitalism, its proponents often chant the mantra, “Anyone who wants to, 

can ‘make it’. Anyone who has no job or doesn’t like their job can simply start their own 

business.” This may have been a somewhat true and relevant statement 100 years ago. However,in 

the present time, it just doesn’t hold water, and becomes more unrealistic as time 

passes. This process also leads to a rebuttal of another common theme: the virtues of competition. 

The supporters of the capitalist system zealously assert, “Competition promotes 

innovation and efficiency. If you think that you can do something better than someone else, 

start your own business and beat them in competition.” Again, this may have been feasible 

in an earlier stage of capitalism, but is no longer true. Competition has winners and losers. 

The enormous, global corporations and “old” capitalist families (e.g. the Rockefellers, Du 

Ponts, etc.) have won and the competition is over. The only competition now is among 

corporate oligarchs (who either implicitly or explicitly coordinate their activities) for pieces 

of market share. Some people will say, “but I know a guy who started his own business, 

what about that?” It is true that some people are able to become entrepreneurs. However, 

how many of these new entrepreneurs are involved in the production of any durable goods? 

The vast majority are in the reselling of commodities produced by large capital or in service 

industries. They are merely scrambling for table scaps. 

Hans: Interesting data! 


[594] Emma: Marx-right and wrong As a theme for this essay, I have chosen to take 

a closer look at a theme is section three which Marx characterizes as “one of the great 

exploits of economic apologetics.” The issue seems to fit closely with the purpose of the 

entire chapter as described in the first line, that being, to “consider the influence of growth 

of capital on the fate of the working class” and so seems to be worth careful consideration. 

Given how Marx, the master word-smith, uses the word fate here the reader might suspect 

that Marx’s thoughts on the accumulation and growth of capital do not bode well for workers. 

He’d be right. However, I hope to show that while Marx was correct in his explanation of 

the effects of capital accumulation on workers, as far as it goes, he didn’t go far enough. 

What Marx missed was the corollary to capitalism that manifests itself as it matures. It also 


represents one of its essential dynamic forces that while at times causes the stress and social 

destruction that Marx decries so well, as is often the case, out of such destruction comes new 

opportunity for growth and life. The “great exploit” that Marx refers to is the tendency for 

the accumulation of capital to ultimately drive into irrelevance the vary factors (i.e., workers) 

that produced it. 

Marx sets up the problem by establishing a lengthy and detailed definition of capital, 

complete with various constant and variable components that have been described by others 

in the class. The nub of Marx’s argument concerning the deleterious effects of the accumulation 

of capital for workers has to do with his contention that “With the growth of the 

total capital, its variable constitent or the labour incorporated in it, also does increase, but 

in a constantly diminishing proportion...In fact it is capitalistic accumulation itself that constantly 

produces...a relatively redundant population of labourers...” The cause of the “redundant” 

or “surplus-population” stems from the idea that as capital accumulates it is reinvested 

in better and more efficient machinery equipment. Tools, so to say, which by design are 

made simpler while more efficient than those which they replace. In this way, the number of 

wokers required to operate the new generation of machines is fewer and the skills required 

are less. This has the dual advantage for capitalists of requiring less human labor power in 

absolute numbers and less skilled labor power that can be replaced more easily than before 

and by extension will require less compensation, that is, wages. As Marx says, “We have 

seen that the development of the capitalist mode of production and the productive power of 

labor...enables the capitalist with the same outlay of variabale capital, to set in action more 

labor by greater exploitation of each individual labour-power. We have further seen that the 

capitalist buys with the same capital a greater mass of labour-power, as he progressively replaces 

skilled labourers by less skilled, mature labour-power by immature, male by female, 

that of adults by that of young persons or children.” 

Toward the end of the section Marx drops the technical aspects of his language in favor of 

real passion. It’s clear that he believes strongly in his arguments and his role as protector of 

workers. He say, “As soon therefore as the labourers learn the secret, how it comes to pass 

that in the same measure as they work more, as they produce more wealth for others, and 

as the productive power of their labour increases, so in the same measure their function as 

a means of self expansion of capital becomes more and more precarious for them...so soon 

capital and its sycophant, political economy, cry out at the infringement of the ‘eternal’ and 

so to say ‘sacred’ law of supply and demand.” 

My criticism of Marx on this particular line of attack on capitalism is two-fold. First, 

buried deep within one of Marx’s examples of this exploitation is a qualifying phrase concerning 

the effects of capital accumulation “and in a more productive form.” Marx is here 

referring to one of the ancillary effects of capital accumulation. It makes production more 

efficient. Is this in itself enough reason to justify the social displacement caused by capital 

accumulaton that Marx describes. Probably not. However, Marx has missed an essential, 

albeit accidental, component of capitalism as it relates to human nature. What we see in 

every day life is that when technology improves and is implemented in the work place workers 

are displaced, for a time. (What is the current unemployment rate?) And there is a lag 

period between the time the workers are displaced and the time the workers can become


employable in a new or related field. That “down” period can be traumatic, to say the least, 

but shouldn’t and need not be excessive. After all, what is the alternative to the temporary 

trauma? Should we not seek to improve technolgy through the accumulation of capital? 

Should we not create greater efficiencies of production that Marx himself admits come from 

capital accumulation? Where would we be now if we hadn’t improved technology in order 

to feed the growing world’s population? Unless we decide to force a zero population growth 

and accept the current standard of living worldwide, we will need to improve technolgy and 

accept the social consequences. Perhaps what needs greater emphasis is education, training, 

and retraining in a capitalist society and the responsibility for such placed on the worker. 

Government may also be help in this regard but should strive to stay out as much as possible. 

My second criticism centers around Marx’s “us-against-them” mentality that he exploits. 

He states that as workers produce more wealth “they produce more wealth for others.” As 

if the workers are not benefitted in the process. This is nonsense and a bad-faith effort to 

egregiously increase class conflict unnecessarily. When production is more efficient all society 

benefits through greater supply and lower costs. Clearly capitalists also benefit, and 

perhpas out of proportion. But what do capitalists do, by definition, with their “tainted” 

money? Unless they literally stick it under their mattresses they invest it and put it to work 

for themselves and the benefit of the economy and consumers (workers) in particular (the 

relatively inconsequential conspicuous consumption of some capitalists, usually later generations, 

notwithstanding). After all, capitalists need above all else a market for their goods. If, 

as Marx contends, workers do not gain any of the benefit of their labors, who is consuming 

all the capitalists’ goods? 

We should remember that Marx wrote over a hundred years ago. His comments came 

at a time when there were almost not labor laws to protect workers including children. It 

was a time of raw and unbridled capitalsim that cried out for reform. Marx was one of the 

strongest voices crying out and he almost singlehandedly provided a theoretical basis for 

workers rights. That should not be forgotten and has great relevance even today. Which 

is why every potential and actual capitalist should study Marx and his thoughts, but not 

uncritically. 

Hans: This was a thoughtful and sincere contribution. As counterarguments I can recommend that you read pages 

798/9 in the book. But I respect your unwillingness to make this a casus belli against the system. 


[595] Reidar: Final paper Section IV Review Chpt. 25 

In section IV of Chapter 25, Marx separates the relative surplus population, or the surplus 

working population into three categories; 1)floating, 2)latent, and 3)stagnant. Floating 

surplus laborers could be compared to the cyclical unemployed which we study in basic economics. 

In the industrial sector, many workers are thrown out of employment and simply 

“float” until they are called back to work or until the find employment in other fields. 

Marx describes latent unemployment as those workers who have been displaced in the 

agricultural sector through the effects of the inception of capitalism. They are on the edge 

of the industrial employment area, and stand ready to commute to employment in the towns 

where industrial employment is found. 


The stagnant labor population are those laborers who have been employed but are the 

loest paid laborers. They usually are employed in the lowest paid positions and work the 

longest days. They rarely remain employed. 

Below the stagnant laborers are the paupers. Usually they are unable to adapt to the above 

categories and are in the lowest of poverty levels. 

Section IV begins with the classification of laborers into the relative surplus population, 

but continues with a few points which I found much more interesting. 

Marx explains on pg. 798 paragraph 3, that the “worker does not employ the means of 

production, but the means of production employ the worker.” In section three of this chapter, 

Marx explained that there is a contradiction present in capital accumulation. The more 

capital that is accumulated does not go toward paying the laborer more or for increasing the 

amount of hired labor, but for the purchase of greater means of production. 

With a relative surplus labor population, Marx describes the laborer as standing with one 

foot on the edge of joining this surplus population. The laborer can be forced to work longer 

hours without greater compensation in order to use the new means of production which the 

capitalist has purchased with his accumulation of capital. 

This goes to explain Marx’s statement on pg 799, “all methods of production of surplusvalue 

are at the same time methods of accumulation, and every extension of accumulation 

becomes, conversely, a means for the development of those methods. It follows therefore 

that in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker...must grow worse.” 

Capital accumulation therefore worsens the state that the laborers are in. 

In footnote 23 pg. 799, Marx explains that the relative surplus labor population is increased 

by the role which capital accumulation plays among the bourgois classes. “in the 

same relation in which wealth is produced, poverty is produced also...these relations produce 

bourgeois wealth...only by annihilating the wealth of the individual members of this class 

and by producing an ever-growing proletariat.” 

Marx says that the competition of the bourgeois class not only forces the laborers to 

accept less pay, but also increase the proletariat by forcing more members of the bourgeoisie 

into the proletariat. Thus the relative surplus labor population increases. It appears therefore 

that capital accumulation harms not only the proletariat, but also those in the bourgeoisie 

who are unable to compete with their elite bourgeois competitors. 

Hans: I like it! Your characterization of the floating surplus population is wrong, but the others are good, and the 

selection of points at the end is indeed interesting. 

First Message by Reidar is [100]. 

[596] Brumbys and MUCHO: Termpaper for chapter 25 SECTION 1 

In section one, ‘Growing Demand for Labour-power Accompanies Accumulation if the 

Composition of capital Remains the same’, Marx explains the growth of capital on the working 

class. By doing this, he uses two concepts: the value composition of capital and the 

technical composition of capital and the technical composition of capital. The value composition 

of capital. The value composition of capital is the ration of constant to variable 

capital; (c/v), measured in values. Technical composition of capital is the mass of means of 

production relative to the employed labor in use value terms. Marx explains that the average


of a composition from each production gives us the composition of the total social capital 

of a country. Labor-power plays an important role in a capital growth, therefore, if there is 

growth in capital then there is an automatic growth in labor-power. 

Capitalism occurs because the poor (laborer) is dependent upon the product in the capitalist 

system. Therefore, there will always be a separation between the rich and the poor. 

With this system, the richer gets richer, and poor gets poorer. So basically, Marx is saying 

that in calculating the average composition of capital, the total social capital of the entire 

country must be used. 

SECTION 2 

In this section, there are three main issues. They are; Constant of capital, Centralization, 

and Credit system. Among the three issues, the book mainly focuses on Constant of capital. 

Constant of capital is represented by value of the means of production. The variable of the 

capital is payment made for labor. Means of production such as machines and technology 

increase then a labor portion of capital is diminished because labor become more productive. 

The reason is simple: with the increasing productivity of labor, the mass of the means 

of production consumed by labor increases, but their value in comparison with their mass 

diminishes. Accumulation of capital or wealth becomes the means of new accumulation or 


Centralization is attraction of capital. The larger capitals beat the smaller. Because, 

the battle of competition is fought by the cheapening of commodities. The cheapness of 

commodities depends on, all other circumstances remaining the same, on the productivity of 

labor, and this depends in turn on the scale of production. 

Credit system becomes a new and terrible weapon in the battle of competition and is 

finally transformed into an enormous social mechanism for the centralization of capital. 

However, credit system is one of the big factor that supports today’s economic system. 

SECTION 3 

In the section three, Marx discusses that as the composition of capital rises, the demand 

for labor-power falls relatively, since a larger part of capital is invested into the means of 

production than into employment of workers. This seems very logical. Because, capitalists 

prefer to invest more into the means of production such as machines and technologies than 

labor-power to be more productive and efficient. This factor leads to the presence of relative 

surplus-population which holds wages down to the value of labor-power. 

Marx disagrees with Malthus’ theory on demographic explanation of wages and population. 

He explains an industrial cycle only lasts seven to ten years in total, while demographic 

reaction takes much longer than an industrial cycle. He also argues the theory of compensation 

which he is absolutely against it. 

SECTION 4 

In this section, Marx explains the employed and unemployed in the population. 


By doing this, he breaks the population into four. One, floating surplus workers is when 

an individual gets laid off and then rehired. These individuals may have a hard time finding 

a job due to the age. So they end up as floating surplus workers. Two, latent surplus 

population, these individuals are in a constant movement finding work in the urban or manufacturing 

industries. These workers usually get paid very little and live in poverty. Three, 

there is stagnant population these are people who are not consistent with their employment. 

Because of high technology, they are being replaced, therefore this leads them to pauperism. 

Four, paupers, are divided into three: those workers who are able to work but choose not 

to. The second are orphans and third are those who cannot keep up with the constant job 

changing. These four different types of surplus population creates the wealth of capitalists. 

The rich live off the poor by exploiting of the workers. Therefore, these four types of surplus 

population reveal the different outcomes of the capitalist exploitation of labor. 

Hans: I would have liked it better if you had gone to the original text, instead of taking over formulations from the 

other termpapers [566], [551], [585]. 

Next Message by Brumbys is [617.2]. 

[599] Angela, Caren, and Wolf: Essay on Ch.25 The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation 

Growth of capital implies growth of its variable constituent, in other words the part invested 

in labour-power. Since the capital produces a surplus-value every year, of which one 

part is added every year to the original capital; since this increment itself grows every year 

along with the augmentation of the capital already functioning; and since, lastly, under conditions 

especially liable to stimulate the drive for self-enrichment, such as the opening of 

new markets, or of new spheres for the outlay of capital resulting from newly developed social 

requirements, the scale of accumulation may suddenly be extended merely by a change 

in the proportion in which the surplus-value or the surplus-product is divided into capital 

and revenue- for all these reasons the requirements of accumulating capital may exceed the 

growth in labour-power or in the number of workers; the demand for workers may outstrip 

the supply, and thus wages may rise. This must indeed ultimately be the case if the conditions 

assumed above continue to prevail. For since in each year more workers are employed 

than in the preceding year, sooner or later a point must be the customary supply of labour, 

and a rise of wages therefore takes place. 

It is of course true that “under the conditions of accumulation assumed so far, conditions 

which are the most favorable to the workers, But their relation of dependence on capital 

takes on forms which are endurable. Instead of becoming more intensive with the growth of 

capital, this relation of dependence only becomes more extensive, i.e. the sphere of capital’s 

exploitation and domination merely extends with its own dimensions and the number of 

people subjected to it. A larger part of the workers’ own surplus-product, which is always 

increasing and is continually being transformed into additional capital, comes back to them 

in the shape of means of payment, 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. But these things no more abolish the exploitation of the wage-labour, and his 

situation of dependence, than do better clothing, food and treatment, and a larger peculium 

in the case of the slave. A rise in the price of labour, as a consequence of the accumulation 

of capital, only means in fact that the wage-labourer has already forged for himself.”


THE WAGE LABORER WORKS WITH AND CONTROLS THE CAPITAL (LARGE 

MACHINERY) THUS, THE CAPITALISTS ARE AT THEIR MERCY, IN THE EVENT 

THAT THE LABORER MISTREATS THE CAPITAL FORCING THE CAPITALISTS 

TO REINVEST IN THE SAME CAPITAL WITH THEIR ACCUMULATION AND NOT 

ALLOWING FOR AN INCREASE IN TECHNOLOGY, MORE CAPITAL=INCREASED 

PRODUCTION AND COMPLETE EXPLOITATION. LEADING TO THE FORMATION 

OF UNIONS, INSURANCE, AND PENSIONS. 

A allow it to be loosened somewhat. It implies “at the best of times a merely quantitative 

reduction in the amount of unpaid labour the worker has to supply. This reduction can never 

go so far as to threaten the system itself. This is because : ”Either the price of labour keeps 

on rising, because its rise does not interfere with the progress of accumulation. In this case 

it is evident that a reduction in the amount of unpaid labour in no way interferes with the 

extension of the domain of capital. Or, the other alternative, accumulation slackens as a 

result of the rise in the price of labour, because the stimulus of gain is blunted. The rate 

of accumulati but this means that the primary cause of that lessening itself vanishes,i.e. the 

disproportion between capital and exploitable labour-power. The mechanism of the process 

of capitalist production removes the very obstacle it temporarily creates. The price of labour 

falls again to a level corresponding with capital’s requirements for self valorisation, whether 

this level is below, the same as, or above that which was normal before the rise of wages 

took place. 

Marx concludes, the rise of wages is therefore confined within limits that not only leave 

intact the foundations of the capitalist system, but also secure its reproduction on an increasing 

scale. The law of capitalist accumulation in fact expresses the situation that the 

very nature of accumulation excludes every rise in the price of labour, which could seriously 

imperil the continual reproduction, on an ever larger scale, of the capital-relation. 

Marx underlined not only the possibility, but also the necessity of an increase in real 

wages during the prosperity phase of the industrial cycle. In fact, the growing demand for 

labour-power’ is examined under the assumption that the composition of capital remains the 

same. That is without taking into account the existence of the industrial reserve army. Now, 

let us look at Marx’s very important doctrine of relative wages. Wages are also detemined 

by their relation to the gain, to the profit of the capitalist-comparative, relative wages. Real 

wages express the price of labour in relation to the price of other commodities; relative 

wages, on the other hand, express the share of direct labour in the new value it has created 

in relation to the share which falls to accumulated labour to capital. 

For the position of the working class under capitalism, real wages may stay the same, the 

even rise, and yet relative wages may fall. Suppose that all means of subsistence have gone 

down in price by two-thirds while wages per day have only fallen by one-third, that is to say, 

for example, from three marks to two marks. Although the worker can command a greater 

amount of commodities with these two marks than he previously could with three marks, 

yet his wages have gone down in relation to the profit of the capitalist. The profit of the 

capitalist (for example the manufacturer) has increased by one mark; that is for a smaller sum 

of exchange-values which he pays to the worker, the latter must produce a greater amount of 

exchange-values than before. The share of capital relative to labour has risen. The division 


of social wealth between capital and labour has become still more unequal. With the same 

capital, the capitalist commands a greater quantity of labour. The power of the capitalist 

class over the worker has grown, the social position of the worker has deteriorated, has been 

depressed one step further below that of the capitalist. 

Capitalist production cannot take one step forward without squeezing the workers’ share 

of the machinery, every new application of steam and electricity in production and commerce, 

the worker’s share in the product gets smaller, and that of that capitalist, larger. It is 

this quite invisible power, a simple mechanical effect of commodity production and competition, 

which deprives the worker of a larger share of his product. The personal role of the 

exploiter is still visible where the question is that of absolute wages, i.e. real living standard 

of living of the workers, is a visible attack by the capitalists against the workers, and will 

be responded to with an immediate struggle wherever the influence of the unions extends. 

The effects of all these forms of progress on the relative wage of the worker result quite 

automatively from commodity production and the commodity-character of labour-power i.e. 

against capitalist production as a whole. Thus the struggle against the fall in relative wages is 

no longer a struggle on the basis of the commodity economy, but a revolutionary, subversive 

attack on the existence of this economy. 

There are some general elements of the theory of the industrial reserve army. In the first 

place, that the rise in the organic composition of capital, which is necessarily bound up with 

the progress of capitalist production, would have to lead to a proportionate reduction in the 

variable part of capital, intended for the purchase of labour-power. Of course, capitalist 

production continually extends itself, and as a consequence the demand for labour-power 

grows too, in the long run; but it grows in a “continually declining proportion”. the situation 

was quite different in capitalism’s period of infancy: “The composition of capital underwent 

only every gradual changes. By and large therefore, the proportional growth in the demand 

for labour has corresponded to the accumulation of capital. However, this was a period in 

which the variable capital, laid out in the form of wages, heavily outweighed that laid out for 

machinery, i.e. in which manufacture still predominated and large-scale industry was only 

in its infancy. The accumulation of capital was identical with a continuously rising demand 

for labour, and a continual rise in wages, and that the level of wages was simply determined 

by the relation of the absolute number of workers to the size of the productive capital.” 

In fact the development of large-scale industry has rendered this optimistic view obsolete. 

Capitalists were compelled, on pain of extinction, to constantly introduce new machinery 

and perfect the machinery they already had; but perfection of machinery means making 

human labour superfluous. Owing to the expansion of the machine system , the relation of 

constant to variable capital must change to the advantage of the former. 

CAPITALISTS WERE/ARE ALSO COMPELLED TO GIVE IN TO NEPOTISM, MAKE 

UP SOMETHING LIKE FILING FOR CHAPTER 11 (BANKRUPTCY) AND OR SELL- 

ING THEIR COMPANY TO A FRIEND OR RELATIVE IN THE FORM OF A CORPO- 

RATE MERGER/TAKEOVER AND THEN TAKING AWAY THE LABORERS’ BENE- 

FITS AND PENSION PLANS. IF THEY DIDN’T LIKE IT THEY COULD FIND A JOB 

ELSEWHERE. WHICH IS NOT FAIR IT IS EXPLOITATION.


However, since the demand for labour is determined not by the extent of the total capital 

but by its variable constituent alone, that demand falls progressively with the growth of the 

total capital, instead of rising in proportion to it, as was previously assumed. It falls relatively 

to the magnitude of the total capital, and at an accelerated rate, as this magnitude increases. 

This tendency explains the empirically given fact of a relative surplus population of workers, 

i.e. a population which exceeds the average valorisation requirements of capital. The surplus 

population is expressed in enormous armies of unemployed during periods of crisis, which 

almost trickle away during periods of high prosperity, but always remain in existence. The 

burden of providing this population with a miserable level of subsistence falls partly on society 

and partly on the employed work-force. What function does this surplus population have 

in capitalist production? It is indispensable to capital for two reasons. Firstly, it places as its 

disposal a mass of human material which can be exploited for capital’s changing valorisation 

requirements, which it can either employ, or put onto the streets. Capitalist production can 

by no means content itself with the quantity of disposable labour-power which the natural 

increase of population yields. It requires for its unrestricted activity and industrial reserve 

army which is independent of these natural limits. And secondly, the industrial reserve army 

acts as a powerful regulator of wages which holds the wage demands of the work-force in 

check. For in a developed capitalist society, it is precisely the fact of relative surplus population 

which is the background against which the law of the demand and supply of labour 

does its work. It confines the field of action of this law to the limits absolutely convenient to 

capital’s drive to exploit and dominate the workers. During periods of economic stagnation 

and at the beginning of upswings it presses down on the active army of workers’, by not 

allowing them to push their wage demands too high; and in periods of crisis it ofter pervents 

them from making use of their living standards. In this sense the general movements of 

wages are exclusively regulated by the expansion and contraction of the industrial reserve 

army and this in turn corresponds to the periodic alternations of the industrial cycle. They 

are not regulated by the variations of the absolute numbers of the working class is divided 

into an active army and a reserve army by the increase of diminution in the relative amount 

of the surplus population by the extent to which it is alternately absorbed and set free. 

In this chapter, Marx stresses the fact that capital can increase its supply of labor more 

quickly than its demand for workers, by extorting a larger quantity of work from the same 

number of employed workers, by prolonging working-time. The overwork of the employed 

part of the working class swells the ranks of its reserve, while, conversely, the greater pressure 

that the reserve by its competition exerts on the employed workers forces these to submit 

to overwork and subjects them to the dictates of capital. The production of a relative surplus 

population, or the setting free of workers, therefore proceeds still more rapidly than technical 

transformation of the process of production that accompanies the advance of accumulation 

and is accelerated by it, and more rapidly than corresponding diminution of the variable part 

of capital as compared with the constant. 

THIS CHAPTER AlSO SHOWS THAT THE STRUGGLE FOR EXPENSION IS AN 

INTEGRAL AND INEXTRICABLE ELEMENT IN THE EVOLUTION OF CAPITALISM 

AS A PERIOD OF HISTORY YET AT THE SAME TIME THIS EXPANSIVE ASPECT 

IS CONSTANTLY UNDERMINING THE VIABILITY OF THE LARGER SYSTEM AND 

NUMBERS OF PEOPLE (THUS, INCREASING UNEMPLOYMENT) 


In all, capitalist accumulation can be seen as an expression of thr class strugle, in which 

the capitalists/ dominant calss seeks to maintain it’s position of superiority. It maintains 

such, by constantly renewing and expanding its accumulation of capital-the way it enforces 

its power over labor. And there is one last thing we would like to touch on and that is that 

profit drives capitalists to do the above to some degree. But there is also something else that 

is a force in the market place between capitalists, and labourers alike that runs even deeper 

than the thurst for profit. Some call it survival (instinct) we prefer to call it COMPETION. 

Competion manifests itself in the on going threat that every capital(ist) poses to every other, 

and threat that can only be dealt with by ongoing agressive and expansive strategies. In this 

light, in order to survive capitalists are FORCED to accumulate and expand. 

In addition, the fact that in comparison to cooperation, competition is where something 

is always lost or wasted. Where as in cooperation something is always gained. For example 

if two people were to bulid a house, if they both worked together they might have a place to 

stay for winter and can use the capital/machienery to build the next house for the other. But, 

if they are in competition and do not work together and share there are inumerable wastes 

and they both may not have a place to stay for the winter. 

Hans: You drowned your paper in literal quotes from Marx and also a re-run of your earlier submission [401]. The 

capitalized paragraphs may have been the starting point for interesting thought pieces. 

Next Message by Angela is [617.1]. 

[600] Chacci and Karl: Term Paper:Sections 1 and 4 Chapt. 25 Sections 1 and 4 

Section 1 

The subject of this section is an explanation of how a growing demand for labor-power 

accompanies accumulation if the composition of the capital remains the same. He begins the 

section with an explanation of the composition of capital. He then defines the composition 

of the total social capital of a country and states this is what he is concerned with. Marx then 

states that a growth in capital implies growth of the investment in labor-power. He states 

that if all else is held constant that there is a growth in demand for labor and the fund for the 

substinence of the workers. He states that both of these grow in the same proportion. Marx 

then proves that the accumulation of capital multiplies the presence of the wage earner. In 

other words in order to multiply capital there must be a wage earner. Without this proletariat 

a capitalist could not accumulate capital. Marx then states that the capitalist uses this un-paid 

labor in order to produce a surplus for himself. Marx states, ‘Labor-power can be sold only 

to the extent that it preserves and maintains the means of production as capital reproduces it 

own value as capital and provides a source of additional capital in the shape of unpaid labor’. 

Thus if the capitalist desires the accumulation of capital and the composition of capital is 

held constant, there must be a growth in demand for labor power. 

Marx then relates wages and the accumulation of capital. He sums it up when he states 

‘the relation between capital, accumulation and the rate of wages is nothing other than the 

relation between un-paid labor which has been transformed into capital and the additional 

paid labor necessary to set in motion this additional capital’. In other words Marx is saying 

that there is a relation between how wages react when un-paid labor increase or decreases, 

because the rate of wages is dependent on the accumulation of capital. 

Section 4


One of the key elements of chapter 25 that Marx discusses is the concept of the “floating 

surplus population”, or the reserve army. Marx describes that in the process of capital accumulation 

the workers are chained by their labor to a “particular branch of industry.” This 

keeps the workers in specialized divisions only for as long as they are useful, and profitable 

for the capitalist in his quest to exploit, and skim wealth of the laborers. Marx said that large 

numbers of male workers are employed but only to the pooint of maturity. The capitalist will 

not invest in labor at this point, but will seek additional youthful labor. This surplus is caused 

by this, or a natural increase of women over men. This is the cause of the “reserve army” 

or surplus population. In this situation the Capitalist will complain that he has a shortage of 

labor, while in reality Marx said, “many thousands are out of work, because the division of 

labor chains them to a particular branch of industry.” Marx believed that the reserve army 

was a tool the capitalist could always hang over the laborer, like a hammer ready to blow, 

that would keep wages low, and cause a sense of insecurity in the labor market. 

Marx is also concerned with the law of capital accumulation, which is as Marx said, 

“The relative mass of the industrial reserve army thus increases with the potential energy of 

wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labor army , the greater 

is the mass of consolidated surplus population, whose misery is in inverse ratio to the amount 

of torture it has to undergo in the form of labour.” Marx believed that for the capitalist to 

acquire wealth, and constant capital, it would only mean that his variable capital (the laborer) 

would end up as a miserable pauper of a human being. One of the great descriptive narratives 

by Marx concerning this takes place in section 4 of chapter 25. Here Marx at some length 

makes one of the best descriptions of the working proletariat class, and the misery, and 

drudgery caused by the bourgeois capitalist. Here he describes the unbearable pains of the 

laborer, and humilation of exploitation, becoming a mindless “appendage to the capitalist’s 

machinery.” Marx said of this accumulation and misery, 

“Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation 

of misery, the torment of labour, slavery, ignorance, brutalization, 

and moral degradation.” 

An interesting point that Marx quotes is the concept that in the poor nations, people in 

general are comfortable, but in the wealthy nations people are poor, and miserable. This law 

of accumulation is akin to the adage, one man’s loss, is another man’s fortune. 

Hans: Your excerpt of Section 1 is a typical case of: how to excerpt an article without understanding a thing that 

is written in it. Section 4 is a little better. 

First Message by Chacci is [14]. 

[601] Snake and Chuck: term paper In this paper we plan to present the argument that 

socialism is a slow means of production as compared to capitalism. First we would like to 

argue that there is a lack of incentive with the Socialist system. Second, we would like to 

show alternatives to the means of production within Socialism. Finally, we would like to 

show that Socialism is better suited for small market economies. 

We feel that there is a lack of incentive within Socialism. One reason for this is people 

are not rewarded for the ideas that they come up with. For instance, if Bill Gates were living 

within a Socialist economy he would not be able to advance the products that he creates 

because there would not be the resevoir of capital. Within in the Capitalistic society people 


are rewarded for the ideas that they have, if the people are willing to buy the products that are 

created, then the company creating them will not last very long. This shows that the market 

is in control of what is being produced. Within the Socialist society the government decides 

what will be produced whether the people want this product or not. Putting the power of 

production in the governments hands creates inefficiency. 

Within the Socialist society the means of production is slow because there is not a structured 

management system. If the manager is not paid any more than the worker, he will not 

ahve the incentive to make them work. The workers would have to be put on some sort of a 

profit sharing method or they would have no desire to produce goods. In the Socialist system 

there is no reason to work hard. An example of this would be a company that was set up on 

the idea of production through assembly lines. If the product was half way through production, 

and the people at the end of the line decided to take a break, the production is instanly 

slowed. That is why it is necessary for a production team to have a specific management 

system with incentives to have the people work. With the Capitalist society the workers are 

put on specific schedules and they are better able to produce goods efficiently. Within the 

Capitalist society wages are set to maximize the units of labor per dollar expenditure. This 

is the reason for the management system. It is not there to act as a slave driving system, but 

for the purpose of creating an environment where the worker is able to produce goods with 

the least amount of expense for the company. This is a system where a person always has to 

be in charge of others because this creates the ability for the production to run smoothly. 

Within small market economy socialism is better suited to an area in which people of 

the twon know one another, and where communications among one another is relatively 

available. In the confines of a small area the rate of product advancement declines due to 

present level of subsistence the town has come to maintain. The idea that they have become 

more of a trade and barter system than a high production system. The small community is 

set up trading commodities that are produced by individuals. This forces the communities 

to stay small because there is only so much time and space for the trade and barter system. 

Once the system starts to grow larger there must be people who act as middle men to get the 

goods from the individuals and sell them to others. Once this becomes the norm the middle 

man must be able to make some money, or he will have no commodity to trade for other 

goods. If a society is to grow above the trade and barter set up the people must be able to 

make money in order to survive. This is where we get into the problem of efficiency. The 

man who is able to buy and sell the most amount of goods in a given period of time should 

be rewarded for his efforts. In the Socialist society the man would have to give up most of 

the profits that he had made in order to fair to everyone else. This is what creates the lack of 

incentive within the Socialist system. 

We have shown why there is a lack of incentives and efficiency within the Socialist society. 

First, the people are not rewarded for the efforts that they make to produce more. 

Second, there is a lack of efficiency within the system due to the problem of mismanagement. 

This is a problem because the people have no reason to encourage the workers to 

produce more. For these reasons we feel that Capitalism is the superior way to run any area 

that has grown beyond the trade and barter system. 

————————————-


Hans: You missed the subject. In [604], I gave you permission to resubmit, and I even announced it in class, but 

you did not respond. 

Message [601] referenced by [604]. First Message by Snake is [172.2]. 

[602] Rambis and Dunny: term paper! In Section 4 of Chapter 25, Marx discusses the 

different forms of existence of the relative surplus population as they relate to the general 

law of capitalist accumulation. According to Marx “every worker belongs to [the relative 

surplus population] when he is only partially employed or wholly unemployed.” (pg. 794) 

Marx demarcates these workers into three subgroups or forms consisting of the floating form, 

the latent form, and the stagnant form. Others have already analyzed thoroughly this section 

based on the content alone, so in our quest to differentiate this term paper from the others, 

it is our aim to examine the different forms of this relative surplus population and how they 

relate to modern, mainstream economics. 

The first of these forms, the floating form, occurs when workers are repelled and attracted 

from industry resulting in an overall increase in employment but disproportionate to 

the growth of output. This is a form of structural unemployment caused by the reallocation 

of labor from industries that are shrinking, or regions that are depressed, to areas that are 

growing. Workers caught up in this continuous fluctuation and movement are like anthropomorphic 

flotsam and jetsam being swept to and from the beach of prosperity by changing 

economic tides. In Marx’s model, workers who reach the age of maturity are no longer considered 

prime for employment and therefore find it difficult to find continued employment 

in the selected field. These workers end up following the migration of capital and achieve 

employment only as they are able to follow capital’s movement and perform the very menial 

labor. The resultant fluctuations of the employment level causes a form of cyclical unemployment 

because the economy’s output and employment are below full-employment levels. 

The second form, or the latent form, is expressed in the group of the relative surplus 

population which is forced to “pass over” from one type of economic framework to another, 

as given in the example of the agricultural society moving towards the urban industries. 

This form of the surplus population is characterized by “wages reduced to a minimum...with 

one foot already in the swamp of pauperism.” (pg. 796) In modern economics, this is a 

kind of frictional unemployment where workers search for suitable jobs and firms search 

for suitable workers. Due to the heavy migration of individuals from the one framework (in 

this example, the rural agricultural workers) to another (the manufacturing industries), labor 

supply in the newly emphasized framework greatly exceeds labor demand, thus driving down 

the wage paid to the workers, leading to the circumstance of low wage bordering pauperism 

expressed earlier. 

The third form, or stagnant form, is characterized by “a maximum of working time and 

a minimum of wages.” (pg. 796) Workers who make up a part of this form “offer capital an 

inexhaustible reservoir of disposable labour-power” and as a result experience “extremely 

irregular employment.” (pg. 796) “Its conditions of life sink below the average normal level 

of the working class, and it is precisely this which makes it a broad foundation for special 

branches of capitalist exploitation.” (pg. 796) Workers in the stagnant form of the reserve 

surplus population can be considered as the unemployed members of the modern economic 

labor force; either they didn’t work in the past few weeks but were looking for employment, 


or else they held erratic employment and weren’t able to stay with a job with any stability or 

weren’t able to find employment in a stable job. 

Below this stagnant form is another group, “those in the sphere of pauperism,” (pg. 797) 

which Marx describes as containing “first, those able to work....second, orphans and pauper 

children....[and] third, the demoralized, the ragged, and those unable to work...” (pg. 

797) Those in the first subgroup, or “those able to work” make up both the employed and 

unemployed members of the labor force. The “orphans and pauper children” are among 

the chronically unemployable, those who are unemployed a large part of the time and because 

of their personal circumstances have difficulty in overcoming their environment to 

find employment. These have low skills and are characterized by the lackadaisical attitude 

with which they approach the employment search. Lastly, the “demoralized, the ragged, and 

those unable to work” account for those suffering from the discouraged worker effect, the 

unemployed members of the labor force, and those out of the labor force. Marx describes 

the ‘contribution’ of this class of paupers by saying, “Pauperism is the hospital of the active 

labour-army and the dead weight of the industrial reserve army.” (pg. 797) In other words, 

the pauper class is where the ‘sick’ members of the labour-army or those not able to keep 

up or adjust with the changes in the economy eventually end up, while the industrial reserve 

army is held back by the “dead weight” burdens placed on it by this class of paupers. 

Hans: Interesting attempt to rconcile the modern categories of structural unemployment, frictional unemployment, 

and discouraged workers with Marx’s categories. The stagnant surplus population can perhaps be seen as the “dual” 

labor market consisting of the minimum wages and part time jobs. But in any case, the categories do not quite fit 

because they tacitly assume quite different mechanisms than Marx’s. By the way, I had to laugh about the 

anthropomorphic flotsam and jetsam being swept to and from the beach of prosperity by 

changing economic tides. 

But it sounds like blaming the victim if you say the victims of unemployment are “characterized by the lackadaisical 

attitude with which they approach the employment search,” and if you complain about the burden which they place 

on the other workers. 

First Message by Rambis is [95]. 

[603] Peaches: Term Paper: Chapter 25 I will discuss Section IV: DIFFERENT 

FORMS OF EXISTENCE OF THE RELATIVE SURPLUS POPULATION. THE GEN- 

ERAL LAW OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION. 

Marx describes relative surplus population as a person being partially employed or wholly 

unemployed. Marx breaks out relative surplus population into three categories: the floating, 

the latent, and the stagnant. 

The floating population are those who generally are rejected, then asked to come back, 

sometimes at higher volumnes so that the number of those employed increases on the whole 

although in a constantly diminishing proportion to the scale of production. 

The latent population are those large numbers of male workers who are employed up to 

the age of maturity, and not beyond. Once these men reach maturity, it becomes harder for 

them to find employment in the same branch of industry. The majority of these men stay unemployed. 

These majority who stay unemployed are part of the floating surplus population 

which grows within each branch of industry. This causes a contradiction in that the economy 

is saying that there is a shortage of workers when in fact there is an excess of unemployed 

workers who have reached beyond that maturity stage, and cannot find employment. This


causes the female population to grow more rapidly because the division of labour is looking 

for people who will fit into these “maturity age discriminations.” 

The stagnant population is a part of the active labour army, but with extremely irregular 

employment. This population exploits the worker by creating a life conditioned below the 

normal average working class. It allows capital an inexhaustible reservoir of disposable 

labour power. This means more hours at less wages. 

Marx adds another final category, pauperism. In this final stage, Marx divides it into three 

more categories: those able to work; orphans and pauper children; and the demoralized, the 

ragged, and those unable to work. Pauperism is the hospital of the active labour army, and 

the dead weight of the industrial reserve army. Its production is included in that of the 

relative surplus population. 

The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases with the potential energy of 

wealth. The greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is 

the mass of a consolidated surplus population. Marx says that the more extensive the pauperized 

sections of the working class and the industrial reserve army, the greater is official 

pauperism. This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation. Therefore, Marx 

states, the higher the productivity of labour, the greater is the pressure of the workers on the 

means of employment, the more precarious becomes the condition for their existence, the 

sale of their own labour power for the increase of alien wealth, or the self-valorization of 

capital. 

It follows that in proportion to capital accumulation, the situation of the worker, be his 

payment high or low, must grow worse. It makes an accumulation of misery a necessary 

condition to the accumulation of wealth. 

As the Venetian monk Ortes stated, “the poor and idle are a necessary consequence of the 

rich and active.” 

First Message by Peaches is [7]. 

[604] Kevin and Hans: Re: term paper Kevin, our outside observer, sent me some 

remarks about Snake and Chuck’s [601], which I am forwarding to the list here. Snake 

and Chuck must have misunderstood the assignment. They have my permission to submit a 

termpaper which is really about Chapter 25 late, but since it will be late, I am asking them 

not to duplicate what others have written but perhaps to criticize it and to build on it. In their 

case, I will pay much more attention to this than with the other papers. So far, Hans has been 

speaking. Now here is their paper interspersed with Kevin’s comments. I want to publicly 

express my gratitude to Kevin’s contributions to this class. Hans. Everything else below this 

here is Kevin. 

In this paper we plan to present the argument that socialism is a slow means 

of production as compared to capitalism. First we would like to argue that 

there is a lack of incentive with the Socialist system. Second, we would 

like to show alternatives to the means of production within Socialism. Finally, 

we would like to show that Socialism is better suited for small market 

economies. 


Though I am not grading it, I feel strongly this paper is insufficient because it does not define 

adequately the socialism that the author is discussing. No definition is given of socialism 

besides “the government owns everything, and divides it up amongst the people.” 

Emma wrote a very solid paper criticizing the applicability of Marx’s criticism of capitalism, 

and though I have disagreements with specific points; she presents her arguments 

cogently, and most importantly argues something she has some knowledge of. In this Econ 

class you read Capital, which again is a criticism of capitalism and not a blueprint for socialism; 

if you want to learn about socialism I’ve recommended several books and given a 

few mini-lectures of my own. 

We feel that there is a lack of incentive within Socialism. One reason for 

this is people are not rewarded for the ideas that they come up with. 

What “fundamental law of nature” in even a centrally planned socialism dictates that the 

people cannot and will not chose to allocate a small percentage of their income (i.e. taxes) 

to setup funds to reward entrapeneurs as an incentive to spur growth? 

For instance, if Bill Gates were living within a Socialist economy he would 

not be able to advance the products that he creates because there would not 

be the resevoir of capital. Within in the 

Advance the products HE creates? I’ve never understood this massive obsession with 

Bill Gates, perhaps its the work of the media which plays him off as the “new individualist 

man” everytime he is featured. Of course Newsweek, and Time completely ignore how the 

man made his money; by massively exploiting the work of others. I’ll send a few references 

if you want to learn about how alienating Microsoft Corp. is. Perhaps I’ll lecture on this 

theme, and delusion about Gates’s genius later. 

Within the Socialist society the government decides what will be produced 

whether the people want this product or not. Putting the power of production 

in the governments hands creates inefficiency. 

The first sentence is complete ignorance, and uses “socialism” to mean a society more 

like the former Soviet Union where the working people are not able to decide the general 

plan. This is not what socialists want. 

Within the Socialist society the means of production is slow because there 

is not a structured management system. If the manager is 

Bullshit, that’s exactly what you’re talking. Even the Soviet Union had a structured management 

system where, at various times in its history, workers could elect, and recall their 

managers. 

not paid any more than the worker, he will not ahve the incentive to make 

them work. The workers would have to be put on some sort of a profit 

sharing method or they would have no desire to produce goods. In the 

Socialist system there is no reason to work hard. An example of this would 

be a company that was set up on the idea of production through assembly


lines. If the product was half way through production, and the people at the 

end of the line decided to take a break, the production is instanly slowed. 

If the worker’s have a financial interest in meeting their production quotas they will decide 

to schedule breaks at the same time. 

That is why it is necessary for a production team to have a specific management 

system with incentives to have the people work. With the Capitalist 

society the workers are put on specific schedules and they are better able 

to produce goods efficiently. Within the Capitalist society wages are set to 

maximize the units of labor per dollar expenditure. This is the reason for 

the management system. It is not there to act as a slave driving system, 

but for the purpose of creating an environment where the worker is able to 

produce goods with the least amount of expense for the company. 

You completely confuse management with class exploitation. They are separatable from 

each other in socialism, though united under capitalism. 

Class exploitation - Boss extracts surplus value from worker by “making the worker produce 

the most goods at the lowest wages” that he later re-sales to make a profit. This profit 

is not distributed back to the workers. 

Management - Middle managers are occasionally productive workers, but their main job 

is to make sure that productive workers are able to complete their jobs efficiently. Depending 

on the industry their role varies in its isolation from the working class, and their closeness 

with the capitalist. Management under a socialism, where each worker receives the fullvalue 

of their labor by a division of profits or aggregate social product, can be democratically 

regulated and serves not to maximize the profits that the capitalist receives, but rather makes 

sure that the plan the worker’s agreed upon is carried out. 

Within small market economy socialism is better suited to an area in which 

people of the twon know one another, and where communications among 

one another is relatively available. In the confines of a small area the rate of 

product advancement declines due to present level of subsistence the town 

has come to maintain. The idea that they have become more of a trade and 

barter system than a high production system. The small community is set 

up trading commodities that are produced by individuals. 

The system you have just described is one of the past in the developed world. Marx 

describes why a society like this is NOT capitalist towards the very end of the 1st chapter in 

Capital after his discussion of the commodity. 

We have shown why there is a lack of incentives and efficiency within the 

Socialist society. First, the people are not rewarded for the efforts that they 

make to produce more. Second, there is a lack of efficiency within the 

system due to the problem of mismanagement. This is a problem because 

the people have no reason to encourage the workers to produce more. For 


these reasons we feel that Capitalism is the superior way to run any area 

that has grown beyond the trade and barter system. 

Message [604] referenced by [601]. First Message by Kevin is [112]. 

[606] Snowman: The part of chapter twenty five that most struck me was the analysis of 

the development of the separation of wealth. That is straight from the start of the chapter the 

parallel of the capitalist economy described by Marx and that which we live in is directly 

appearent. Though as of late it has been easier and easier for the middle class to attain higher 

and higher levels of comfort their relative plight in society is still a loosing relation. That is 

the power and bredth of the large corporations still grows slowly subverting more and more 

people int o the subserviant relation of laborer to sustain their level of susistance. 

The growth of both forms of capital do tend to supplement one another to the extent that 

as one grows so must the other. And as the embodiment of labor becomes more accustomed 

to the new level of capital the relation becomes more dependent. The laborer even to day, 

in our society, continues to become more and more comfortable where they are, and with 

the influence of pecuniary emulation only wishes to further their acquirements, for example 

nicer clothes, and faster cars. But little thought is given to the slave type relation one is 

putting themselves into through the acquistion of these things. Pecuniary emulation state that 

the strongest drive of the individual worker is to show their relatively better lot as compared 

to their neighbor. The proof of their lot is displayed in conspicuous consumption, or the 

aqcuisiton of commodities that are a ready example of wealth. According to this theory by 

Veblen this is the strongest motivation in capitalist society. This is also the very motivation 

leads to the need for the broadening of the accumumlation of capital, especially in the form 

of surplus labor paid as wages. 

Now because the laborer puts him or herself in the position of constant need for greater 

amounts of surplus labor and wages, and there for furthering the bond to that which provides 

the wages, the capitalist, the separation of wealth is furthered. The purchase of labor by the 

capitalist never equals the return expected form that input. The capitalist always arranges, or 

at least it is his aim, for the value of the inputs used to be more than the payments actually 

made for their acquisition. So as the relation of the laborer increases in need for surplus 

labor, couples with the increase in the quantity of laborers, so does the span that separates 

the divisions of wealth. 

Basically what the capitalist society then forms is a ever increasing gap between the states 

of wealth and relations of the laborers to the capitalists. Or as Marx put it “He who was 

previously the money-owner now stride out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labourpower 

follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the 

other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and 

now has nothing else to expect but - a tanning.” 

Hans: Your essay illustrates well the modern forms of “easy and liberal dependence.” The illusion of economic 

success masks the dependency on capital. 


[613] Panacea: Re: Term Paper: Chapter 25 Plenty has already been written about the 

structure and impact of chapter 25. Most significantly, in my opinion, many have written


about section four, where Marx has explained his 3+1 division of labour: floating, latent and 

stagnant labour populations, and the a-productive (or anti-productive, as you like) paupers. 

In recapping his/her essay, I found the quotation submitted by Peaches to be very controversial: 

As the Venetian monk Ortes stated, “the poor and idle are a necessary consequence 

of the rich and active.” 

This reads, for me, almost as an excuse. I havn’t seen the source, nor do I know the 

context of the statement, but it has similarities with the quotations provided by Marx from 

Malthus and Harriet Martineau, both found on page 787, in chapter 25 of Kapital. It is this 

aspect of the chapter I would like to address. 

Reverend Malthus, a major capitalist theorist who influenced Ricardo and others greatly, 

is known for his extreme views on labour, marriage, and virtue of the lower classes working 

in industry. Marx quotes him in order to illustrate and substantiate his analysis of surplus 

population: “”Prudential habits with regard to marriage, carried to a considerable extent 

among the labouring class of a country mainly depending on manufactures and commerce, 

might injure it...“” Malthus has seen the light - but this is a two faced answer, forming a 

paradox for the labour class which proves impossible to escape from, but which even many 

today readily buy into.. One of Malthus’s basic tenets was that the lower classes WERE 

lower classed because of their lack of virtue. The were simply immoral, and constantly 

procreated like rabbits (because who could call this virtue? sex all day! shame on the lower 

classes for having time for such pleasure because they are out of work!) Any rise in wages 

provides the lower class with more chance to be lazy and immoral and sexual - so wages need 

to be kept right at subsistence levels in order to keep the lower class from overpopulating 

itself and putting resources at risk. 

Now, in this quote Marx takes from Malthus’ Principles of Political Economy, Malthus 

explains that “prudence” on the part of the lower classes would actually injure capitalism. 

If the lower class would suddenly begin to have only two kids instead of twelve, if they 

would cease having illegitimate children and all manner of immoralities, then it could bring 

capitalism to it’s knees, for there would be no longer any substantial reserve army of labour. 

The paradox? The people are lower class because they are immoral. Malthus explains 

that the only way for them to rise in class is to struggle to be more virtuous. Here in Marx’s 

quotation, we see that if the lower class ever actually become virtuous, then they can cripple 

capitalism - and then where would be? 

In this light, indeed, the monk’s quote sounds like a sick apology. Maybe Malthus would 

have written “the immoral and unvirtuous are the necessary result of the moral and wealthy.” 

Marx notes other apologists, who dare to make similar statements directly to the ‘redundant’ 

workers: (this is from Harriet) “We manufacturers do what we can for you, whilst we 

are increasing that capital on which you must subsist, and you must do the rest by accommodating 

your numbers to the means of subsistence.” 


How could someone have taken this person seriously? Who is creating capital? Who is 

dependant on whom? Malthus understands that without unemployment then it might spell 

disaster for the capitalists. This chapter is significant for me because it unmasks the truth 

behind statements like his and the Harriet one. Marx is telling us - never again believe your 

employer again when he says “Look, we are doing you a favour, providing you with a job 

and doing all we can, so you had better just accept the wages we offer...” 

The capitalist is a parasite, he needs the worker, and what is even more disheartening, he 

needs to pay them low and keep some unemployed in order to reap his benefits. And we do 

not need to have poor and unemployed in order to have wealthy and employed, there must 

be another way. 

Panacea 

“...we won’t vote conservative, because we never have - everyone lies...” MOZ 

Hans: The Ortes quote is on p. 800, and of Marx disagrees with him to some extent. Ortes saw the contradictions 

of capitalist society, but he attributed them to eternal laws of balance. 

You are recognizing well the explosive situation implied in the dialectic that the worker’s dependence on capital 

is created by the workers’ own product. 

First Message by Panacea is [38]. 

[615] Hans: A few common mistakes in the termpapers Skyler’s termpaper [566] is a 

good try to work through some complex material. Skyler went to the text, instead of relying 

on other sources. It is a honest effort, and if there are mistakes, this should not bother us 

too much, because it is the kind of mistakes we can learn from. Before explaining two of 

his mistakes to you, I want to remark that his paper has a correct definition of “organic 

composition”, 

Organic composition is defined; “value-composition of capital in so far as 

it is determined by its technical composition and mirrors the changes of the 

latter.” Pg. 762 

I.e., if the value composition increases because the value of the materials used rises, 

without a change in the technology, Marx would not call it a rise in “organic composition.” 

On the other hand, organic composition is not the value composition in constant dollars, as 

some other papers said. 

But now I have to be critical, and perhaps you may think I am splitting hairs. Please read 

the following passage for its logic: 

Labor power is the main factor in allowing capital to grow. Businesses 

function because of the laborer doing the work. ... The reproduction of 

labour-power increases the amount of capitalists and wage-laborers. Accumulaton 

of capital is therefore a multiplication of the working class. 

The last of these four sentences is a quote of Marx which is used in a wrong way. The “is” 

in this sentence, as Marx used it, means “entails”. To summarize the first three sentences, 

Marx would have said that the multiplication of the working class is (entails) accumulation 

of capital. But Marx argues in his Chapter exactly that it is the other way round. Although 

one should think capital depends so much on labor that the accumulation of capital depends


on the growth of the working class, capital manages to overcome this dependency: capital 

controls the growth of the labor force and it makes sure that there is enough labor supply. 

This is the “general law of capitalist accumulation.” 

Here is another point, which is not quite as subtle: 

The laborer is dependant upon the product in the capitalist system. Becasue 

of this, workers place themselves in a state of easy and liberal dependance. 

This sounds as if the capitalist system produces the goodies for the workers and keeps 

them dependent. Suddenly it’s not only the welfare recipients, but all workers. You forget 

that in Marx’s view the workers are producing all value. 

First Message by Hans is [2]. 

[616] Scott: Chapter 25 Marx builds the basis for his conclusions on the accumulation 

of capital in a logical order. First, he proceeds to define the terms, which he utilizes in his 

critiques of Capitalism. Marx then offers his conclusion that accumulation of capital is the 

multiplication of the proletariat, and then intersperses his argument with fine analogies. One 

choice analogy is “ A rise in the price of labor, as a consequence of accumulation of capital, 

only means, in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-worker has 

already forged for himself, allow of a relaxation of the tension of it.” Marx then continues 

with explanations concerning the technical and the value composition of capital and their 

inter-relationship. Next, he points out that every accumulation of capital becomes the means 

of new accumulation. 

Centralization assists accumulation in expanding due to economies of scale. Additionally, 

competition leads to centralization and to the over-working of the employed portion of the 

labor force. Then Marx asserts another key point, 

“The condemnation of one part of the working class to enforced idleness by the overwork 

of the other part, and the converse, becomes the means of enriching the individual 

capitalists and accelerates at the same time the production of the industrial reserve army on 

a scale corresponding with the advance of social accumulation.” 

This is a central point because it is the industrial reserve army which drags down the 

active labor army. This relative surplus population is the pivot point between the supply 

and demand of labor. Marx also asserts that the accumulation of capital through the consumption 

of labor power proceeds so intensely that the laborer is consummed before his life 

has attained its’ mid-point. Naturally, the capitalist can buy more of this commodity from 

a reproduceable source. This reproduction is critical to the capitalist. He must pay what 

he perceives to be a “sustenance wage” in order to perpetuate the wage labor force. This 

must be the minimalist amount in order that the capitalist may still maximize profit yet, the 

laborer may reproduce. 

Marx also maintains that the size of the family is inversely related to the height of wages. 

It appears that this may have changed since Marxs’ time, and I would venture that size of 

families may be more cultural / religious in the present day. ( This is at least in regards to 

my knowledge of the Islamic, Catholic, and Mormon faiths.) Also, the trend of the more 

affluent towards smaller families is on-going. However, this is a slight digression. 


The preceeding argument leads to the statement, that the accumulation of capital for the 

capitalist, is merely the accumulation of misery, and exploitation to the wage-laborer. It 

appears to be a vicious circle for the wage-laborer, and a miraclous circle for the capitalist. 

Hans: This was a good essay, but out of fairness to the others I had to duck your grade because it came long after 

the deadline. 

First Message by Scott is [94]. 

Question 301 Thread 301 

[57] KALISPEL: How to beat capitalism in less than 50 years? I would like to start a 

thread that will expose capitalist tendencies and give empowerment to members of the class 

at the same time. In the introduction of Karl Mark’s book Capital it states that capitalism 

is unlikely to last another fifty years. Assuming that the author of the introduction was 

not underestimating the strength of the capitalist system we will see the “overthrow” of 

capitalism in most of our lifetimes. Me, I am too impatient to wait fifty years. How can it be 

done today. 

The goal, of course, is to be rich. If you are rich then you get all the goods and can 

have leisure time and can also pursue intrinsic values which produce happiness. As Marx 

has stated, we have a right as human beings to develop personalities and follow what we 

believe is important. I am in no way advocating eating cakes all day in the shade of an apple 

tree. I am advocating the first law of any type of happiness and that is freedom. I am not a 

commodity. I am a human being with desires and wants. This thread I want to discuss the 

true nature of happiness and how to become truly free under capitalism in less than 50 years. 

How to be rich. Nearly all “professional” jobs in society pay about the same. The range 

is from 25,000 to 35,000 dollars a year. Unskilled workers are paid much less and there are 

those who are in the “lucky” jobs can make around 60-100 thousand dollars a year. 

Here’s the thing. If you get married and have kids and want a house and a car and want to 

go to the movie once in a while your wages just will not allow you to save enough money to 

obtain capital. It is almost impossible and that is why few people have done it, in comparison 

with the rest of the population. Those who make the high salaries are few and most are in 

the upward parts of their careers. They are old. Why wait until your old to have cash and 

freedom? Then again most people never obtain much of either. There is a constant push and 

pull. 

The way to get the most cash, of course, is to be the capitalist. You could start your own 

business. In this way your surplus labor power is not robbed and you can rob the labor power 

of others (let’s not discuss the moral dilemmas of capitalism here. Let’s discuss the how of 

it all). Once you start to get a lot of money you can hire skilled and unskilled workers to 

operate your capital while you go on vacation in the Bahamas with your family, of course 

there are a lot of bosses who can’t do this a lot, but many can. I have never seen the owner 

of the company I work for. 

Of course to get the capital to start the business you must obtain large sums of money. It 

is obvious that the standard wages 25-35 thousand dollars a year will not cut it unless your 

sleeping under a porch. So, what can you do? You can get in an illustious career. Top paid


fields include lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, insurance, and real estate. These are some of 

the people who can actually start saving some cash to obtain capital. 

Time is short, but I would like feedback on the “How” of dealing with a way to break out 

of capitalism on a personal level, not as a society. Please leave out moral implications. We 

can discuss that later on. Do you see loopholes in the system? Who do you know that has 

“made it” in capitalist society? I would appreciate anyone’s comments. 


[77] Peace: How to beat capitalism in less than 50 years? i am picking up on Kalispel’s 

discussion thread. 

First, i am unable to locate where in the introduction that it says it is unlikely that capitalism 

will last another 50 years[?]. 

In fact Mandel’s introduction in section 11 seems to attempt to defend against these types 

of “inevitable collapse of capitalism” interpretations of Marx. 

Secondly, i am a bit troubled by Kalispel’s idea that capitalism can be transcended by 

the individual. Moreover, that the way the individual transcends capitalism is, in Kalispel’s 

words, by “[t]he goal, of course, is to be rich”. 

Next, Kalispel introduces philosophical terms such as happiness and freedom ... wants 

and desires. Stating that the “first law of any type of happiness [...] is freedom”. i especially 

dislike and disagree with this formulation. However, Kalispel seems (quite unsuccessfully) 

to be trying to develop some sort of notion of self- determination; or in some sense of 

minimizing the coercive (social) forces that confront each individual. 

Kalispel states: “I am not a commodity.” This i like very much. This idea is important 

to Marx, and seems very related to his notions of commodity fetishism and alienation. 

However, this is not the line that Kalispel decides to pursue or develop. 

Kalispel’s question is not ‘how to overcome alienation’, but rather “[h]ow to be rich”. 

Noting that most people in a capitalist society are and cannot be rich. But that “old” people 

can achieve “cash” and consequently “freedom.” 

Kalispel ends with the question “how” to “break out of capitalism on a personal level, not 

as a society. Please leave out moral implications.” 

This entire analysis is full of moral implications, so i am unsure what is meant by leaving 

them out. But more importantly it seems that Kalispel has made a mistake to believe that 

an individual by hirself can transcend the coercive (social) forces of capitalism by becoming 

“rich.” i would argue that a rich person confronts the coercive (social) forces on a different 

level. 

The mistake seems to be in equating “cash” with “freedom”; this is especially to remain in 

a capitalist consciousness (however, i would agree that a “rich” individual has more choices 

than the poor individual; but i do not want to equate this with a notion of “freedom” or 

“self-determination”). 

i would further add that an individual can change class status in capitalism, but that no 

individual by hirself can “break” out of capitalist social relations. This requires a social 


transformation. There are certain boundary conditions (of freedom) in a capitalist society; 

a philosophical notion freedom cannot be achieved within the boundary conditions of capitalism. 

Likewise, “freedom” by definition could not have been achieved in a (Greek) Slave 

economy or in a Feudal economy. 

The individual can achieve emancipation from the tyranny of being a member of the 

welfare class or the working class; but the individual cannot achieve freedom from capitalism 

within capitalist relations. 

Next Message by Peace is [80]. 

[133] KALISPEL: How to beat capitalism in less than 50 years. I enjoyed peace’s 

ideas on how to beat capitalism in less than 50 years, however I have many unanswered 

questions to what he/she said. It, although, did get me to think more about the notion of 

beating capitalism. 

Peace could not find the phrase in the introduction to Marx’s Capital. It is the last paragraph 

which states: It is most unlikely that capitalism will survive another half-century 

because of the crises which have occurred since 1914. It is most probable, moreover, that 

Capital and what it stands for-namely a scientific analysis of bourgeois society which represents 

the proletariat’s class consciousness at its highest level-will in the end prove to have 

made a decisive contribution to capitalism’s replacement by a classless society of associated 

producers. 

First peace states that the individual cannot transcend capitalism. I agree with this statement, 

but not completely. Of course you can never break out of capitalistic social relations, 

but you can “save yourself.” Marx reveals many of the crimes involved under capitalism 

such as exploitation and human commodities and the like. These negative aspects can be 

eliminated through transcending class states such as that of the welfare and the working 

class. 

For example, Joe is a factory worker and must work 50-65 hours per week to keep his 

job. It is hard labor and he doesn’t have much energy left over to really enjoy life. He has 

become a human commodity, or in other words, the typical every day wage slave. He is not 

able to pursue intrinsic interests and his growth as a human being are stifled. Few would 

argue with this. 

Another example, Sally is a mother of 3 and is on welfare. She doesn’t have a car that 

works and can barely buy food and pay rent. Her entertainment and ability to pursue intrinsic 

values is also greatly stifled. 

Billy Bob, is a capitalist. He worked hard at a lucrative job and saved up lots of cash. He 

invested his money and makes a return of 15% a year. This gives him a salary above that of 

Sally, and Joe. What does Billy have that Sally and Joe do not. He has both the time and the 

means to pursue his interests as a human being. He has broken out of the coercive powers 

of capitalism. He can do what he wants whenever he wants and has enough money to do 

most anything within reason. Billy Bob may not have truly transcended capitalistic social 

relations, but why would he care? He has his cake and is eating it too. Morally, this may be 

a bad approach, but in Capitalism it is rob, or be robbed.


I do not at all understand what you mean by saying that freedom is not necessary for 

happiness. How can a person be happy under coercive powers? If I love to make music and I 

am a street sweeper am I truly happy? Maybe not completely unhappy, but if you are allowed 

to choose what you want to do with your time you will, or course, find more happiness. If 

I have a talent for music and due to capitalism I must search for the buck and do something 

that turns me into a commodity, how can I be truly happy. I am not a philosopher, but I can 

see that any kind of “prison” does not lead to happiness. To me, it seems fundamental. Why 

isn’t the capitalism free? He doesn’t have to go to work. He is not under coercive powers 

like his boss yelling at him. He is able to do most of what he wishes as long as it isn’t killing 

people or something crazy like this. 

On the one hand everyone can say choose this, choose that, it’s all up to you, but most 

people never break the coerciveness of capitalism. How many people love to go to work 

every day? If they do not love it when why do they do it. They have to. Likewise, the 

capitalist can go to the Bahamas one weekend and produce a music album the next by choice. 

I believe it is immoral to be a capitalist, but as I said before it is rob or be robbed. It is also 

immoral to let someone rob from me and not do anything about it, also. It’s a paradox, but 

as Marx said blame the system, not the capitalist. 

Lastly, I think it would do many of the marxists a lot of good if they became capitalists. 

Why? First, they understand the nature of how capital operates. Secondly, how else can a 

difference be made at all. The “establishment” known as the ruling class are not going to let 

a bunch of discontent Marxists overthrow the system they rule. Powerful men (power=cash) 

who have the means and time need to band together and change the system. The slaves and 

serfs didn’t like their systems much, but what good did it do them. Changes must come 

from the top down, thus some Marxists need to go to the top and start working on it. It may 

seem immoral to the Marxist to pursue cash by becoming a capitalist, but I think it is just as 

immoral to allow someone to exploit you as a commodity your whole life. I believe that to 

beat the system you must first show that you have mastered it. Fighting a system you have 

no control over, or in, in my estimation, does little good. It is not probable that the world will 

be converted to marxism and capitalism has proved how easy it is to manipulate the masses. 

I believe we are talking about a change that will take too many lifetimes. It’ll be like Star 

Trek the next generation before there is this complete social consciousness when everyone 

is treated equally etc. 

Peace, I am interested in what your notion of happiness is and I want to know how to 

live in a capitalistic society until it either self-destructs or is overturn. There must be some 

empowering strategies someone can take. Presently, I believe that the best thing to do is 

become a capitalist and work at bringing about social consciousness of these issues. I may 

not be able to change the world, but maybe I can make a “mark” towards a better society by 

becoming involved in the lives of others. If I let the capitalist rob me bleed me and pilpher 

me than what have I become? 

Note: Rick Majerus advised Keith Van Horn about the money he would be giving up if 

he stayed another year. Van Horn decided to stay at the U with an insurance policy of about 

a million if he got hurt. Discussing the issue Majerus said something interesting. He said, 

“Money can buy happiness and if anyone thinks this is not so then they have never had it 


and are naive.” I believe this notion that money doesn’t buy happiness is one of the “songs” 

sung by the capitalist to keep himself in ruling power. 


[186] Jupiter: How to beat capitalism in less than 50 years? I find the topic very 

interesting and want to join in on the answer (if there is one?). I have found in Marx that 

throughout history for the most part there has been different severities of exploitation of 

groups of people, this is not limited to Marx himself but even in all our school texts, from 

the time we were able to read to the present. There are two main classes; those who do own 

the means of production and those who do not, this gives rise to class conflict. Here is just a 

brief history: 

Period Mode of Production Major classes 

Primitive Primitive communal -none- 

Ancient Slavery-1st historical Master/slave act of property 

Middle ages Feudalism/Estates Lords/Serfs 

Modern period Capitalism Bourgeosie/Proletariate 

Future Socialism/Communism -none- 

This brief history does not encompass all forms of class conflict but it shows some major 

themes that have happened in history. Changes were brought about in each era by a certain 

group or event, revolutions which brought about a change. For example “Freemen” brought 

about a change from slavery to Feudlaism, Capitalists (Nationalists) brought about a change 

from Feudalism to Capitalism, they did this because the Lords had to much power in both 

the political and economic markets so the Lords were done away with. 

I think what we are in for in this society is not good! It is not har to see an end to our 

resources comming, what to do? I say to do away with a system that is failing in many ways. 

For starters I have a strong opinion that the welfare system in this county is so bogus that 

it really makes me sick to my stomach. I say this because I know people who are on it that 

shop at Nordstoms and JMR. How they do this is simple they get pregnant and have a baby 

then they get a rich boyfriend who gives them money while at the same time they get money 

from me (the Tax payer). This is not the case for all people I do realize. 

This is just one point that is a dowmfall in our economy, which falls back on those who 

are on the floor in congress making it easier for people to get on welfare. They should get a 

better handle on it and make it tougher for people to get on welfare and once on they should 

follow up on that person. My comment may be trivial to some and offend others but it is the 

little things that are going to reform this country back into equalibrium. 


[237] Peace: How to beat capitalism in less than 50 years i too find this thread interesting. 

i did not check the citation about crisis and the demise of capital in fifty years. i 

find it suprising that E. Mandel would say this. i do not at all believe that crises will be the 

demise of capitalism. Marx and Engels can be forgiven for having a faith in this mechanism 

or contradiction of capitalism as causing its own downfall; but capitalism is quite capable of 

transforming itself, as it has done in world wide Great Crises of 1820’s; 1870’s; 1930’s; and


1970’s. Business cycles which occur quite often are not de-stablizing, but rather the business 

cycle is what seems to give capitalism its stablity or its strength to endure, reproduce and 

transform when it has to. 

Crises do not bring individuals (the working class) together but rather fragment them, 

putting them into competition with one another. Crises should not be understood as the 

causal mechanism for the fall of capitalism; it is much more enduring than this. 

Moreover, i no longer believe that the proletariat are the universal consciousness (either 

in Marx or Lukacs). The working class are not in any material condition to gain universal 

class consciousness. i reject this teleological faith in the working class consciousness the 

emancipatory potential we must depend. 

Also i remain in disagreement that becoming rich somehow “saves yourself”. But i think 

the main disagreement here is in our levels of abstraction. It is true that being wealthy in 

capitalism can make for a less miserable life for any individual; but when i look around 

and see the conditions for the vast majority of people in this world, something is deadly 

wrong. Namely, the individual does not matter, and there is very little room for (individual 

or otherwise) human agency. Because i am the exploiter and receive a greater amount of the 

surplus value produced does not make me feel emancipated. Only in capitalism would such 

a belief exist. Does winning the lottery really mean emancipation; come on! Does becoming 

a criminal mean that you have transcended being a victim? 

i am very discouraged by this statement: “Morally, this may be a bad approach, but in 

Capitalism it is rob, or be robbed.” With this you have suggested that virtue does not exist 

for the individual under capitalist relations. i very much want to disagree and firmly reject 

this. There are many examples of virtuous individuals facing and within capitalist relations. 

i think you have misunderstood my comments about freedom. Did i say that freedom 

is not necessary for happiness? If so this is certainly not what i mean at all. What i mean 

is that freedom cannot be reduced to the a utilitiarianist feeling of happiness (pleasure) and 

avoidence of pain. But freedom itself will of course entail happiness. And i do not believe 

you when you say freedom is not having to go to work. Freedom is still something different 

to me. 

i find myself agreeing with you when you say it must start from the top down. i am not 

sure this is the answer, but to begin to transform social relations into (at least less) nonexploitative 

social relations it must be more than the working class. But i would disagree 

that to make a difference you must be a capitalist. The history of socialist thought has had 

many capitalists (e.g. F. Engels and Robert Owen). 

We must try to understand how capitalist relations function; and must educate one another 

about this. Happiness has something to do with virtue and ethics. But even with this we 

can be fated for an “Unhappy Consciousness”. Allowing one’s self to give up one’s virtue 

and inner ethic is the greatest form of self-estrangement that a human being can face. Not 

everyone can develop such a virtue; but it would be a great disappointment to believe that 

the only way to become virtuous is to become capitalist. 


However, i certainly agree that we fetishize money and people that have money in this 

society. Moreover, having money certainly makes an individual’s life easier in capitalist 

relations. Yes, we need to understand this, but at what (social) cost are people becoming rich. 

This is why we need to understand the dynamics and mechanisms of capitalism. We must 

understand the unacknowledged conditions that enable us and constrain us as individuals; 

and we must begin to understand the unintended consequences of our individual action, 

when we have accepted the unacknowledged conditions as normal. 

Message [237] referenced by [2001fa:523]. Next Message by Peace is [238]. 

[240] KALISPEL: How to beat capitalism in less than 50 years. Peace, I appreciate 

your comments. I can see where you disagree, but I am having a hard time understanding 

where you are going. 

First you say that the proletariat is not capable materially of universal class cosciousness. 

Yes, this is true if you are a proletariat, but what if I am a successful capitalist. For example, 

Ross perot has “radical political ideas” and has not been able to get the Republicans or the 

Democrats to sponsor him. If he was a proletariat no one would know his name. Why do 

we all know who he is? He has money. He can buy ads and put them on t.v. and travel the 

world giving speeches and can hire speech writers and people to write books for him, it’s 

enless. I believe that if several Marxists became rich then they could in fact generate class 

consciousness. 

Peace says that being rich does not save yourself. He agrees that it will produce an easier 

life, but won’t save you. This, I believe is a small point to make. It is merely your level 

of abstraction. Peace brings up that if you win the lottery you will not gain emancipation 

or that if you are a criminal you have not transcended being a victim. This is true if you 

want to look at it as completely emancipated or completely non victim. But, a capitalist can 

certainly gain more emancipation than the proletariat. 

Rob or be robbed. Peace states that this would mean that there is no virtue under capitalist 

relations. I do not believe peace meant no virtue at all because of course that would mean 

we are all evil in every way. I believe peace was saying that capitalist social relations are 

not virtuous. Yes, this was my point exactly. Virtue does not exist under capitalist relations. 

It is immoral to exploit someone and likewise immoral to allow the system to exploit you 

freely. I don’t care if the capitalist goes to church every week and gives his workers the 

minimum wage. Inequality is immoral and we all know the capitalistic system thrives on 

this inequality. It’s the root of the motivation. Society says, “Oh, I can be the capitalist 

one day and I will be rich so it’s ok that I am exploited today.” Here’s the problem. If your 

motivation is impure then you cannot be moral. Some people may want to change the system 

and may say, I am operating under correct principles. However, a problem exists here. For 

example, if I know it is wrong to steal and then end up doing it because my buddies are 

peer pressuring me, is this ok. Likewise, if I accept capitalistic relations that are immoral 

and think, “Oh, it’s ok because I want things to be different.” This, I would say makes this 

person immoral. Therefore, there is no virtue under the capitalist relations. Most people 

accept this unvirtue because they do not want to live the alternative even though they know 

it is a far more moral choice.


Freedom is not having to go to work. Why do you disagree? Is it because I can choose 

the job I want to have? The problem is I cannot choose the job I want to have? I must take 

what I can when I can to survive. 40-60 hours a week of prison is not freedom. Maybe there 

is greater freedom out there, ie. the level of abstraction again, but right now most people 

need to focus on this first very important hurdle. Once again, I do not advocate not working, 

but being paid fairly to do the kind of work you love to do. 

Peace says something very interesting and very bold. He says that happiness is a result 

of a virtuous and ethical life. This I will strongly agree with, although, it is hard to determine 

what is virtuous and what is ethical. Additionally, there are a lot of miserable religious 

zealots. This would mean that true virtue and ethics appear in multivariate forms within each 

and every religion. I do have a question here. If a person enters immorally into capitalistic 

relations and knows these relations are immoral, and the person does this because the alternatives 

reveal a harder life than what they desire what kind of happiness will this person 

have. If virtue and ehtics create happiness than there are portions of human happiness that 

cannot exist under capitalism. In fact, the bible points this out. For example, the city of 

Enoch. 

What I find are two prevailing attitudes that people have. The first say that capitalism is 

necessary for everyone to be better off. Capitalism gets people to work hard. Marxists have 

never been able to deal with the motivation issue. If I am able to get the same pay no matter 

how hard I work most people will simply not work hard. Marxists cannot deal effectively 

with this issue because they just plain do not know how it could work either. 

The other is one of indifference. For example I was talking to a friend about Marxist 

theory and they said, “I do not believe in exploitation and do not believe Marxist theory.” I 

asked them why and they said, “There are only a few bad capitalists we cannot give them all 

a bad rap.” This may be naive, but I questioned further and my friend said this, “Why would 

anyone want to believe in Marxism. Who wants to believe they are being exploited and being 

”used up“ by the greedy capitalist. This would make me very angry and unhappy to believe 

this.” Here’s the thing, if you accept what Marx wrote then you must make a choice to either 

be immoral by accepting and living peacably under capitalist relations (this will cause you 

to suffer self-enstrangement), or you can pay a heavy price by leaving the system. Making a 

statement by the way in which you live your life. 

I think the less you know the better off you are because this leads to self-enstrangement 

and anger. Maybe I should just refute Marxism and convince myself that inequality is good 

and equality is bad. 


[255] Peace: How to beat capitalism in less than 50 years. Kalispel said in [240]: 

Peace, I appreciate your comments. I can see where you disagree, but I am 

having a hard time understanding where you are going. 

Yes so do i. But the point i initially attempted to make is a protest against the form of 

emancipation you but forth. 


i think i also said that our differences are one of abstraction. This is propably true. However, 

there are also some ontological differences involved. That is to say i don’t believe terms 

like “freedom” and “emancipation” actually characterize your arguments. You are talking 

about practical types of survival within material conditons. 

i guess that i want to use such terms in a more traditional philosphical sense. In this sense 

i do not think you are being very philosophically careful in your use of such terms. We can 

agree that being rich has certain advantages (but we could also talk about disadvantages); 

but i do not want to use “freedom” and “emancipation” to charactize the arguments you are 

attempting to put forth. 

The argument you are making has to do with social mobility, but not emancipation and 

freedom. i want to say or argue that the slave-master himself is not emancipated until the 

slavery itself is an absence. If slavery is present then there is no emancipation and freedom 

is the absence. 

This is not merely a philosophical argument, but i believe it to be a religious position also. 

That is for example, most religious people would hate the notion of Jesus coming back as a 

capitalist. In fact, this seems quite contradictory. 

When you say: “Inequality is immoral and we all know the capitalistic system thrives on 

this inequality. It’s the root of the motivation.” Then emancipation is absent in a philosohical 

sense. But again this is not merely a differenece in abstraction or defination. The difference 

is ontological, i am arguing that emancipation and freedom, in the sense that economic liberalism 

promised and in the sense that neo-liberialism (i.e. political conservativism) promises 

can be achieved within capitalist relations cannot be achieved; it is an absence of the system 

in an ontological sense. 

i am fond of saying it this way: in capitalist relations some notion of limited freedom for 

any individual can be achieved; but freedom, even limited in a capitalist sense, cannot be 

achieve for all individuals. That is merely to say that capitalism is a class society, and when 

one person’s success is achieved by the exploitation of others, (in a dialectical sense) there 

exists no freedom, or freedom is absent in that society. 

Thus, i agree when you say: 

“This would mean that true virtue and ethics appear in multivariate forms 

within each and every religion. [...] If a person enters immorally into capitalistic 

relations and knows these relations are immoral, and the person 

does this because the alternatives reveal a harder life than what they desire 

what kind of happiness will this person have. If virtue and ethics create 

happiness then there are portions of human happiness that cannot exist under 

capitalism. In fact, the bible points this out. For example, the city of 

Enoch.” 

However, we should not have to rely on religion for your morality, nor virtue. In saying 

this, i reveal that i am in some way a moral realist.


i believe this statement has nothing to do with the point: “If I am able to get the same 

pay no matter how hard I work most people will simply not work hard.” Humanism (in a 

philosophical or religious for) has nothing to do with making human being work hard(er); 

any more than animal right activism has to do with getting animal to do better tricks. 

When you say the following it reminded me of the questions that Wight put forward: 

I was talking to a friend about Marxist theory and they said, “I do not believe 

in exploitation and do not believe Marxist theory.” I asked them why 

and they said, “There are only a few bad capitalists we cannot give them all 

a bad rap.” This may be naive, but I questioned further and my friend said 

this, “Why would anyone want to believe in Marxism. Who wants to believe 

they are being exploited and being ‘used up’ by the greedy capitalist. 

This would make me very angry and unhappy to believe this.” Here’s the 

thing, if you accept what Marx wrote then you must make a choice to either 

be immoral by accepting and living peacably under capitalist relations (this 

will cause you to suffer self-enstrangement), or you can pay a heavy price 

by leaving the system. Making a statement by the way in which you live 

your life. 

I think the less you know the better off you are because this leads to selfenstrangement 

and anger. Maybe I should just refute Marxism and convince 

myself that inequality is good and equality is bad. 

i would not put it exactly the way you have above, but these are the general problems. If 

we understand capitalism as a system of crisis (and exploitation); then we must struggle to 

absent these social ills and attempt to construct better ones. One big problem is that we do 

not very well understand exactly how capitalism functions, but empirically we know it is a 

system of crisis and welfare (or misery without welfare); there is no reason that we have to 

understand everything about an alternative, anymore than we need to understand everything 

about capitalism before we change. The point would be to create a system and structure that 

we can change in the future and not create and build ideologies to protect and reproduce it. 

We know there will be mistakes, but it seems silly to believe, or have such a loss of faith 

in human beings, that their ultimate fate is capitalism and market relations. 



[63] Hans: Invitation to join the Bhaskar reading As you may have noticed, the Annotations 

often make reference to the philosopher Roy Bhaskar. There is an international 

email discussion list about Bhaskar, and as it so happens, right now they are starting a collective 

reading of Bhaskar’s works. It is serious philosophy, quite difficult to read, but in my 

view extremely relevant not only for Marxists but also for any scientist today. The first work 

which will be read, Bhaskar’s “Realist Theory of Science”, argues that positivism is wrong 

even in the natural sciences. Those in this class who have an interest in these methodologial 

matters are invited to join us in the bhaskar reading. Announcement and explanations how 

to join follow below. There is of course no charge for this. 


BHASKAR is a (virtual) community committed to the discussion of the 

philosophy of Roy Bhaskar and Critical Realism as a philosophy for science 

and as a movement for further human emancipation. 

In Bhaskar early writings, his concern is developing a philosophy for science (and social 

science). Bhaskar’s philosophy for science has “Lockean” motives, as the underlaborer, 

and sometimes midwife of science itself. Moreover, there are “Popperian” motives in that 

Bhaskar attempts to explain what scientists are doing when they are doing science (or the 

dialectic of scientific activity). But were Popper commitments himself to falsification criteria 

(committing what Bhaskar calls the epistemic fallacy), Bhaskar constructs an explicit 

ontological realm to understood the driving force of scientific progress. 

Bhaskar’s philosophy for science emerges after 150 years of critique toward empiricism, 

and more recently the positivist tradition. Movements away from the empiricist/positivist 

conceptions of the philosophy of science have quite often had thinkers committed to pragmatism, 

convention and relativism, or an abandonment of philosophy altogether. 

Bhaskar does not choose any of these routes, but rather constructs a philosophy for science 

which is capable of supporting an explicit ontological realm, which Bhaskar calls 

“depth realism,” which has been dubbed Critical Realism. 

Critical Realism is a hybrid term, which refers to the philosophy for science of a number 

of philosophers and thinkers of who Roy Bhaskar has come to be know as the figure head. 

The philosophical position of Bhaskar’s first book, A Realist Theory of Science was dubbed 

“transcendental realism”, and his second book, The Possibility of Naturalism, “critical naturalism”, 

hence the hybrid term “Critical Realism”. 

One could argue that in part the significance of Bhaskar’s philosophy is the further development 

of human knowledge of: the world, society, human beings themselves and the 

universe, along with further human emancipation and freedom. 

For many people today the practical, philosophical and emancipatory importance of Roy 

Bhaskar’s philosophy cannot be understated. It is the aim of this list to bring forth and 

discuss this importance. Moreover, Bhaskar’s work is often held to be quite dense, deep in 

philosophical prose, and in short – difficult. The Bhaskar list hopes and aims to relieve a bit 

of the anxiety from the Bhaskar reader. 

The list further hopes to bring together those who may be applying his philosophy to their 

own work, and introduce and discuss the work being done within the framework of Critical 

Realism. 

The aim of the Bhaskar list will be to discuss Critical Realism as a philosophy for science 

and as a philosophy for human emancipation. Depending on the will of the lists members, 

the Bhaskar list is capable of supporting different forums, for example: 

1) an open discussion forum. In this forum there will be an open discourse of Critical 

Realism. 

2) seminars on specific articles and publication of pertaining to the work of Roy Bhaskar 

and Critical Realism


3) A Bhaskar reading group. Those who desire such a forum would together decide what 

they would like to read, discuss and archive. 

Based on Spoon’s philosophy, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT POSTS CONTAINING 

LANGUAGE OR DEALING WITH SUBJECT MATTER THAT SOME MIGHT FIND 

OFFENSIVE MAY APPEAR ON THE LIST FROM TIME TO TIME, AND SUCH POST 

WILL NOT (NECESSARILY) BE CENSORED. For this reason, if you are not interestd in 

receiving such posts, please do not subscribe. If you are already subscribed, please unsubscribe. 

Please address any question, comments, or concerns regarding BHASKAR list that are 

not appropriate for the list as a whole to 

bhaskar-owner@lists.village.virginia.edu 

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO BHASKAR 

Note: Send all commands to: 

majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu 

To subscribe BHASKAR, send the following command as an e-mail message to majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu 

subscribe bhaskar 

To unsubscribe, send the following command as an e-mail message to majordomo@lists.village.vir 

unsubscribe bhaskar 

To find out what other Spoon collective lists are available, send the following command 

as an e-mail message to majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu 

lists 

To obtain a list of BHASKAR members, send an e-mail message to majordomo@lists.village.vir 

who bhaskar 

To learn more about how to use Majordomo, send the following command as an e-mail 

message to majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu 

help 

Please send all requests with regard to your subscription to 

bhaskar-approval@lists.village.virginia.edu 

To post to the BHASKAR community itself e-mail your post to: 

bhaskar@lists.village.virginia.edu 



[114] Caren: Marx’s dialectic was materialist! Marx’s study of capitalism was grounded 

in a philosophy that was both dialectical and materialist. With dialectics, the changes and 


interactions that anything undergoes are brought into focus and emphasized and special attention 

is devoted to whatever patterns emerge. This method enabled Marx to keep in view 

both the broader interactions that made up the whole and the past and future development 

of present phenomena. From my point of view, Marx’s dialectic was materialist. Marx was 

primarily concerned with capitalism as lived rather that as thought about, but people’s lives 

also involve consciousness. Marx’s materialism puts ideas back into the heads of living people 

and treats both as parts of a world that is forever being remade through human activities, 

particularly in production. In this dialectical process, ideas also affect the social conditions 

and behavior that more generally shape them. Anyone think differently??? 


[116] Hans: A less heroic view of dialectics, please I am very happy about the subject 

which Caren broached in her [114], but let me play the devil’s advocate and pour some cold 

water on it. Caren wrote: 

With dialectics, the changes and interactions that anything undergoes are 

brought into focus and emphasized and special attention is devoted to whatever 

patterns emerge. This method enabled Marx to keep in view both the 

broader interactions that made up the whole and the past and future development 

of present phenomena. 

Critics will at best say that this is nothing any serious scientist will not do, it is odd to 

use the name “dialectics” for a practice which all scientists engage in. At worst, however, 

the critics will diagnose here a totalising point of view, which claims to have the correct 

view on the world as a whole (both present, past, and future), and which bears the seeds 

of totalitarian dictatorships – because only the Communist Party has the correct, proletarian 

“world outlook.” In fact, both these criticisms have recently been raised in the “big” marxism 

list. 

Now I will formulate some serious and very difficult questions, and I invite all the experts 

lurking in the background to plunge in: I claim that the portion of Caren’s description quoted 

above on the one hand has errors, some things it says are wrong, and on the other hand has 

omissions, i.e., some things which would have been necessary to say were not said. What 

are they? 

And another Question: can you identify things discussed so far in this class which are 

dialectic, i.e., have we done dialectics yet? Or to make this Question a little easier: can you 

discern things in our discussion which are so different from the mainstream that they are 

under the suspicion to belong to a different philosophical paradigm? It you point some out, 

I may be able to come to your help and show to what extent they are indeed “dialectical”. 



[187] Karl: Marx vs. Friedman I have noticed in various discussions a tendency to use 

the neo-classical analysis to explain Marx’s view of a societal aggregate. I must say that this 

is a major disappointment to me, in that it seems fitting that we stop using our ethnocentric 

capitalistic views to explain Marx. Sure we need to give examples, but there is a difference


between Marx’s definition of society and Friedman’s. Not that there is a definite superiority 

of either theory but there is a definite difference we should respect. 

For instance in Snowman’s [138] it was obvious to me that there is a definite use of the 

neo-classical definition of society.=) He uses the neo-classical sigma summation of societal 

aggregates to explain Marx, which is completely contradictory to what Marx meant, I won’t 

go into details—research it.=) 

Marx believed that society is not reducible to the actions of the individual, and therefore 

cannot be looked at as a summation of individual actions or preferences. Marx stated, “Society 

does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of connections, relations, in which 

these individuals stand in respect (keyword) to each other.” Society is not viewed as a mere 

group of individuals tied together by aggregate decisions or intentions. 

Does anyone else back this opinion, or want to critique, or enhance it? 



[190] Wight: Capitalism - is it all bad? I wanted to comment on an observation that 

I have made thus far throughout the quarter. In this class, we ruthlessly critique capitalism 

through Marx’s eyes. Granted there are many unfair, oppressive aspects to a capitalist system, 

but then why is it the dominant economic system in the world? One could basically 

assume at this point that communism has failed. WIth the end of the cold war and a cease 

to communism in Eastern Europe, there are very few communist countries left, which seem 

to be near collapse as well. I have found this class enlightening in terms of a new perspective 

and a different approach to economics. But, I guess my question is if capitalism is so 

evil, why is it the reigning economic paradigm worldwide? Is it our competitive nature as 

individuals - survival of the fittest? Just a point for discussion I thought I would bring up if 

anyone would like to respond??? 

Message [190] referenced by [191] and [340]. Next Message by Wight is [192]. 

[191] Kevin: Re: Capitalism - is it all bad? In response to Wight’s [190]: 

That question of why capitalism is still the reigning system worldwide has been the subject 

of much debate amongst Marxist academic circles for decades. That field of Marxian 

debate has come to be known as “subjectivity theory.” The field looks at the subjective motivations 

for overthrowing capitalism amongst mainly aggregate groupings of individuals. 

When I have extra time I’ll write an introduction to subjectivity, unless Hans would like to 

fuel this debate. 

The second thing, which I think Hans has tried to focus attention on throughout the class, 

to realize is that Das Kapital is not a blueprint for socialism; it is an analysis of capitalism. 

Thus, the mode of production formed in the ex-Soviet Union are not necessarily representative 

to the ideal solution to the problems of capitalism. Its a nice piece of propaganda 

for pundits from such corporate think-tanks as the Freedom House to decree the “failure of 

Marxian economics” in the Soviet Union; implying that capitalism is the obvious remaining 

answer. But in truth, Marxian economic analysis is not a blueprint for socialism, rather its 


an analysis of capitalism and its changes and foundations with special analysis given to the 

contradictions which emerge along class lines within the system. 

At this point, we can now descend onto an analysis of the Soviet Union’s planned economy. 

The most influential Marxist analysis of it thus so far comes from the theoretical 

tradition of Leon Trotsky. The first book I would recommend for an introduction to this 

analysis would be “The Revolution Betrayed” which is availible online to read on the Marx- 

Engels Archive. Trotsky basically analysis the faults of the “Soviet” economy on the basis 

of its anti-democratic character which led to the establishment of an aristocratic bureaucracy 

which, instead of fulfilling the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat with the support 

of the peasantry” that Lenin had decreed as the goal of Bolshevikism, then “betrayed” the 

revolution along the path of state capitalism. 

Trotsky defines state capitalism as a system which is neither socialist nor capitalist, rather 

its controlled by a bureaucratic class; which in Trotsky’s state capitalism draws the surplus 

value from the proletariat to fund its own extravagant lifestyle, or to fund the production of 

bombs, instead of bread. Thus a contradiction emerges in which the state is no longer under 

the central control of the proletariat (dictatorship of the proletariat) but rather a bureaucratic 

class which is isolated from it. The institutions of workplace democracy, like the worker’s 

councils, have all been crushed and exploitation and alienation are becoming more prevelant. 

Trotsky, until his murder by an agent of Josef Stalin in 1940, held that this system was a 

“degenerated worker’s state” which, in my opinion, becomes contradictory with his analysis 

in which worker’s no-longer own the means of production. Anyway, regardless of his faults, 

Trotsky became a rallying cry against Stalinism after being exiled from Russia in 1928 (?). 

Another popular tradition, though not nearly as popular as Trotsky’s, focuses strongly on 

not only the anti-democratic nature of Russia’s planning system but also its anti-democratic 

political character which stifled the creativity which could be unleashed in socialism by the 

people. This tradition is mainly represented by Rosa Luxemburg in her writings, and strong 

debates with V.I. Lenin. 

All of these traditions also hold, like Lenin did, that the Soviet Union, regardless of 

its democratic character, was economically doomed unless socialist revolution (even state 

capitalist) took place in the more advanced countries in the West like Germany, England, or 

America within a decade or so. 

Other traditions hold that the Soviet Union’s system of planning was not only un-democratic, 

but also not advanced enough. This position generally holds that decentralized, or centralized 

planning is possible; but only with the aid of computers, telecommunications, and a 

more efficient monetary system. This position is held by Paul Cockshott in his book “Towards 

a New Socialism” which is also availible online. In this book he constructs a technical 

model of a feasible socialism involving computers. 

Many have also now embraced a market socialism, in ways similar to the system that 

was used in Yugoslavia, that allows for such democratic institutions as worker’s control of 

factories, and macroeconomic planning; but allows for markets and competition amongst 

worker owned firms. This model is represented in several recent books, most accessibly


being David McNally’s “Markets and Socialism” and David Scheickwert’s (sp?) “Against 

Capitalism.” 

I’ll be sure to get some of the addresses where you can find these things, and perhaps the 

discussion can go from there. 

Kevin An Outside Observer 


[196] Panacea: Perhaps it is only natural that we defend what we know and have from 

that which we don’t understand. Das Kapital is Marx’s tool for helping us overcome this 

human frailty, because it helps us see the fundamental problems which we tend to overlook. 

Capitalism is not a perfect system, and has incredible weaknesses. Few want to talk about 

them, but Marx examines them more thoroughly than any have ever done. 

Why can’t we admit that capitalism is bankrupt economically as well as morally? Maybe 

because we see only one alternative out there - soviet style police states under the guise of 

‘marxism’. So we struggle on, and the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, and we write 

odes to the likes of Donald Trump and Bill Gates for their ability to create money, and forget 

the worth of human life - any human life - from the crack-babies in the Bronx to Rodeo 

Drive. 

Capitalism is the reigning paradigm, we must admit. But don’t draw from this the idea 

that it is moral, it is natural, or it is the “best of all possible worlds.” In my opinion, this is a 

horrible lie on all three accounts. We need to criticly study capitalism, know its faults, and 

be ready to change - to search for change. Marx is helpful in this regard. 

Panacea 

“...no amnesty for the murderurs of the working class. Rope or gas?...” Beautiful South 


[205] Pinky: Drama at its worst Let me first disclaim my following response to 

Panacea’s comment on capitalism by conceeding that indeed, Marx provides an immensely 

insightful and intriguing evaluation of capitalism. A social system that does not undergo a 

great deal of scrutiny and constant adaptation would be awful. Whats more, you can never 

understand any issue truly unless you understand the flaws and the opposition. 

This in mind, I completed the first paragraph of Panacea’s recent submission in total 

agreement. Then Panacea’s Prozac seems to run out. She appears to be under the impression 

that Bill Gates was born with a Bazillion dollars in his diaper. Gates was about as middleclass 

as you could get. Anyhow, this somehow leads naturally into the conclusion that since 

there are such people, no one cares about crack-babies. The logic there is.......? Forget logic, 

Panacea goes for the drama. 

Capitalism has great faults. Communism has great faults. Whatever they call the society 

in Star Trek has great faults. My neices ballet class has great faults. Why? Because people, 

no matter what kind of ideal society you come up with will have to be in it. This is a problem 

because: NEWSFLASH: People have great faults. If only that annoying aspect didn’t have 

to play a role in our self-righteous pontifications of what society should be. 


The search for the perfect society is futile as long as people have natural instincts to 

compete. All we are left with then is how we can best manage this reality. There will be 

horrible, selfish people, sure. There will also be generous and loving people. Whatever they 

will be, they must decide on their own. They must have the desire to be kind. It can never be 

sucessfully forced upon someone; forcing, if anything will only make them more resistant 

to change. 

Message [205] referenced by [224] and [231]. Next Message by Pinky is [212.2]. 

[223] Panacea: Capitalism - is it all bad? Perhaps it is only natural that we defend what 

we know and have from that which we don’t understand. Das Kapital is Marx’s tool for helping 

us overcome this human frailty, because it helps us see the fundamental problems which 

we tend to overlook. Capitalism is not a perfect system, and has incredible weaknesses. Few 

want to talk about them, but Marx examines them more thoroughly than any have ever done. 

Why can’t we admit that capitalism is bankrupt economically as well as morally? Maybe 

because we see only one alternative out there - soviet style police states under the guise of 

‘marxism’. So we struggle on, and the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, and we write 

odes to the likes of Donald Trump and Bill Gates for their ability to create money, and forget 

the worth of human life - any human life - from the crack-babies in the Bronx to Rodeo Drive. 

We focus on legislature aimed at protecting our hallowed flag, and make cuts in Medicare 

and Medicaid, upon which many are forced to rely on for their very survival. We invade 

foriegn countries under the cloak of ‘intervention into human rights abuses and political 

oppression’, yet our country consistently turns up on Amnesty International’s listings of 

countries committing such abuses - and, believe it or not, we too have political dissidents 

imprisoned under no other pretense than their political views. If you don’t believe it, study 

the facts. 

Capitalism is the reigning paradigm, we must admit. But don’t draw from this the idea 

that it is moral, it is natural, or it is the “best of all possible worlds.” In my opinion, this is a 

horrible lie on all three accounts. We need to value human life equally, without preference 

because of someone’s ecomonic status and regardless as to whether or not they are legal 

residents. Human is human. We need to criticly study capitalism, know its faults, and be 

ready to change - to search for change. 

Marx is helpful in this regard. 

“...no amnesty for the murderurs of the working class. Rope or gas?...” Beautiful South 


[224] Franz: Capitalism - is it all bad: Pinky World Pinky wrote in [205] 

Capitalism has great faults. Communism has great faults. Whatever they 

call the society in Star Trek has great faults. My neices ballet class has great 

faults. 

You forgot San Andreas. 

Why? Because people, no matter what kind of ideal society you come up 

with will have to be in it. This is a problem because: NEWSFLASH: People 

have great faults.

??? 


The search for the perfect society is futile as long as people have natural 

instincts to compete. 

How about this for a more perfect society . . . 

1) nationalize all companies. 

2) instead of paying profits to shareholders, raise wages. 

Jon Huntsman will cry cause he won’t be able to exploit you any more. . . Jon Huntsman 

will cry cause his kids will attend the same school as you. . . 

I don’t see how the economy will be any worse off because of the change, in fact – would 

probably be a very positive stimulus. 


[231] Homer: Capitalism - is it all bad? Pinky wrote in [205] 

The search for the perfect society is futile as long as people have natural 

instincts to compete. All we are left with then is how we can best manage 

this reality. There will be horrible, selfish people, sure. There will also be 

generous and loving people. Whatever they will be, they must decide on 

their own. They must have the desire to be kind. It can never be sucessfully 

forced upon someone; forcing, if anything will only make them more 

resistant to change. 

It is true that people have faults that may make it impossible to form a “perfect” society. 

But this is not what Marx had in mind. Marx only wanted to make a better society. Marx 

saw that the evolution of social systems had a general trend toward an increase in human 

liberty. He saw that capitalism had a purpose and was a necessary step in this process. 

Socialism and later, communism, were seen by Marx as the next steps in a continual 

process. By no means did he think that communism would be the perfect and final system 

of mankind. Marx knew that communism would give rise to new problems and that these 

problems would have to be solved by people in the future. 

As far as the behavior of people, Marx would definitely disagree with Pinky’s statement 

that “...they must decide on their own.” Human beings are social creatures and their behavior 

is to a large extent shaped by society. Therefore, Pinky is able to observe “horrible, selfish” 

people that were brought up in a capitalist society. That people act a certain way in a capitalist 

system does not prove how people brought up in a true socialist society would behave 

(not the Soviet Union, the book “The Revolution Betrayed” by Leon Trotsky was brought 

up earlier; it explains how and why the USSR was not socialist. There are at least two copies 

available in the Marriott Library). 


[232] Chacci: Capitalism - is it all bad? I find it hypocritical that people could use the 

word capitalism and moral in the same sentence. Capitalism is defined as using capital to 

produce products at a profit. Some capitalist do this at the expense of human lives. We could 

look at historical examples of physical violence against peaceful labor protests, capitalist 


paying workers low wages while they live in shacks. For example on April 20, 1914 armed 

state militia men and company guards shot at unarmed striking workers, striking against 

John D. Rockefeller’s company Colorado Fuel and Iron, killing eighteen. Is this moral? I’m 

not stating that a person is immoral if he/she is a capitalist. I’m just stating that he has 

a propensity to become greedy, and thus immoral, or at least in my eyes immoral. These 

occurances of injustice to workers is not just a rare occasion either, does anyone else have 

any other examples? 


[238] Peace: Capitalism - is it all bad? Wight brings forth some very important questions. 

Marxists should not be defensive about this. Why capitalism endures is of the utmost 

importance, and i do not believe the answer is necessarily in the work of Marx (although he 

can certainly help us understand this). 

Kevin did a very nice job of explaining why we should not say the failure of the Soviet(like) 

command economies is a feather in the cap of capitalism. Moreover, he also pointed 

out reasons why these societies are not necessarily Marxists. They are (or were) Marxist 

in the sense that they were protests against the social constraints of capitalism. They are 

non-Marxist in the sense they were not necessarily emancipatory for individuals. 

Trotsky is an important figure in this, especially in that he himself was a Bolshevik; but 

the Western Marxist tradition has had a long history of critique against the Soviet Union (i.e. 

S. Hook in the U.S., the Frankfurt School, etc.). 

In fact Frankfurt School literature might be more to the point of Wight’s question. This 

i would be happy to expound on. The Frankfurt School was a group of intellectuall at 

University of Frankfurt, will rehearsed in Marxian thought, who ran for their lives with the 

rise of the Nazis. Many came to the U.S.. Much of their thought is psychological, but mostly 

social and philosophical. 

Thus, i am not sure why Kevin says the field of Marxian debate is known as “subjectivity 

theory”. It is much more broad then this. How and why capitalism reproduces itself and 

endures, is like the subject of capitalism itself, i.e., it cannot be reduced to the motivation of 

the individual. The Post-Structualist tradition has made some important contributions in this 

respect. 

We must pursue this further. 


[248] Brumbys: Re: Capitalism - is it all bad? I do agree. Capitalism is not the best 

moral way to go but for some reason it works in this society. The poorer are getting poorer 

and the rich are getting richer. That is why I believe that money is power although you lose 

human value. It is only natural that an individual is greedy but sometimes that individual 

forgets where they come from. They take things for granted but then at the same time they 

the rich can say the same to the poor that the poor have no idea what life is really about. It 

really goes both ways. This society will become more greedy. For example, I Christmas and 

many other holidays have become so commercialized. It isn’t a celebration of happiness it 

is how much you get. I believe this will only get worse. 

Next Message by Brumbys is [318.2].


[261] Emma: Capitalism - is it all bad? It seems that the majority of the criticisms of 

capitalism that I have read following this thread derive from misunderstandings of capitalism’s 

mandate. Capitalism aspires to create an economic condition, not a moral condition. 

As such, capitalism’s goal is to create an environment in which the most people enjoy the 

most economic benefit. It’s not interested in equality of classes or the equal distribution of 

wealth or any other moral issue, except to the extent that such matters affect productivity. 

Sound harsh, well let’s see. Rather than focusing on the extreme high end of this condition, 

it might be useful to concentrate on the low end. In capitalistic societies there may very well 

be a growing cravass between the classes. But more importantly, the lower classes enjoy a 

higher average standard of living than in other noncapitalistic societies. These are the facts. 

No other system has shown that it can foster an environment so conducive to raising everyone’s 

standard of living so consistently. Isn’t that what an economic system is supposed to 

do? That some people are becoming very rich as a result should not bother anyone so long 

as the base is moving consistently upward, which it is, with some occassional, short-term 

slips. Can someone show me a noncapitalist society that enjoys the standard of living that 

we do? After having traveled through Europe, Asia and other parts of the world I can say 

none exists. Why else are so many quasi- socialist countries beating a hasty retreat toward 

capitalism or have been outright eliminated in recent history? Capitalism’s sole goal is to 

maximize consumption, and it does that better than anything else we have come accross. It’s 

not interested in equality of consumption or class. 

Does this mean that there is no room for compassion or morality in society? That everything 

is just dog-eat-dog? Well, as far as capitalism is concerned the answer is yes. But 

society can choose to intervene on a moral basis and soften capitalism’s edges. That is, in 

capitalism you have to take care of yourself. You also know that you will be the recipient 

of the product of your labor. If you work more that the next guy, you get more. Capitalism 

panders unashamedly. It also recognizes and exploits human selfishness for the benefit of 

everyone. When was the last time you got a job from a poor guy? That is self-interest at its 

best and has been demonstrated to be the best motivation in human history and is the reason 

why capitalism succeeds and socialism, including Marxism, fails as a system intending to 

maximize consumption. Socialism can’t deal with the realities of human nature, motivation, 

laziness, etc. It assumes away too much in theory. The practice? ... well now we have a 

few generations of data,and the results aren’t encouraging, as much as we might wish otherwise. 

(Emphasis on wish.) If your goal is not to maximize consumption, you may have a 

legitimate quarrel with capitalism. But such is not the case for most people. 

But capitalism has no heart. It’s not supposed to have one. And to criticize it for not 

having one is absurd. It’s like criticizing a fish for not having fur. It doesn’t make sense 

and a fish doesn’t require fur to function; indeed it would suffer if it had fur. Capitalism’s 

only purpose is to create the most wealth possible for the most people. It’s up to society 

to supply the heart in the way of support for people incapable of competing successfully 

in the jungle of capitalism through some limited measure of wealth redistribution. That is 

a perfectly legitimate function of government. (One of its few.) The trick is in the extent 

of the intervention because any intervention distorts the market and ultimately suppresses 

growth to some extent. We need to be careful not to squeeze the golden goose too hard, he 

(she) might croak. (It’s also up to society to impose a conscience on capitalism with regard 


to the environment, ecological matters, dissipation of natural resources, etc. Capitalism, per 

se, is not designed and cannot be expected to consider these matters. There is no such thing 

as something policing itself.) 

Hard line capitalists don’t want any distortion or redistributions of wealth in the market 

and are far too willing to live with the human suffering of those who can’t compete. Socialists 

are far too quick to create disincentives to work through giveaways without accountability, 

excessive social nets that end up encouraging the behavior they hope to eradicate and 

higher taxes on those who are fortunate enough to be able to compete successfully to such 

an extent that the producers don’t have enough incentive to take the risks associated with 

producing. Somewhere in between those two positions is where we need to be. But its not a 

static point and a constant dynamic is in play, as it should be. 

To paraphrase some one else talking about something else, capitalism is the worst economic 

system around, except for all the rest. 


[265] Panacea: Re: Thread 312 Emma wrote recently: 

It seems that the majority of the criticisms of capitalism that I have read following 

this thread derive from misunderstandings of capitalism’s mandate. 

Capitalism aspires to create an economic condition, not a moral condition. 

As such, capitalism’s goal is to create an environment in which the most 

people enjoy the most economic benefit. It’s not interested in equality of 

classes or the equal distribution of wealth or any other moral issue, except 

to the extent that such matters affect productivity. 

Emma, this is exactly what most of us are criticizing. Many of us believe that it is invalid 

to separate the normative from the positive - to say that capitalism is amoral, which is how I 

understand your statement, is to justify this separation. 

But I can’t agree with you - see your other statement: 

Does this mean that there is no room for compassion or morality in society? 

That everything is just dog-eat-dog? Well, as far as capitalism is concerned 

the answer is yes. But society can choose to intervene on a moral basis and 

soften capitalism’s edges. That is, in capitalism you have to take care of 

yourself. 

Emma, these are normative judgements - these are values which you say are inherent in 

capitalism. Your cover is blown, capitalism, by your own description, is no longer amoral. 

My response, then, is a normative one: I cannot agree with these values. I do not believe 

that a ‘dog-eat-dog’ world in which ‘there is no room for compassion or morality’ is a viable 

nor satisfactory economic system. Your statements reveal the very reason for criticizing 

capitalism. Many of us believe that there are other, better answers - economic bases which 

do not force us to screw each other all the time. 

Capitalism panders unashamedly. It also recognizes and exploits human 

selfishness for the benefit of everyone.


This is not a virtue, emma. Can you look someone in the eye and claim that selfishness 

is a human virtue? I’m sorry, but this is not amoral, but immoral 

That is self-interest at its best and has been demonstrated to be the best 

motivation in human history and is the reason why capitalism succeeds and 

socialism, including Marxism, fails as a system intending to maximize consumption. 

Socialism can’t deal with the realities of human nature, motivation, 

laziness, etc. It assumes away too much in theory. The practice? ... 

well now we have a few generations of data,and the results aren’t encouraging, 

as much as we might wish otherwise. (Emphasis on wish.) 

Emma, again, emphasizing self-interest is a great example how capitalism turns recognized 

basic human faults and transforms them into virtues. This is a lie. Your condemnation 

of socialist movements cannot conceal this. As to whether or not socialism has enjoyed any 

success, you seem to lump every third-world movement into a pot called ‘socialism’ and call 

them all failures. Certainly, soviet style ‘communism’ has failed the world over, I agree. But 

justifying capitalism based on the faults of various alternatives is illogical. A man in a very 

leeky boat filling with water finds little solace in noticing those drowning around him - it 

would be better that he recognize his predicament and take action to change it. 

But capitalism has no heart. It’s not supposed to have one. And to criticize 

it for not having one is absurd. 

But Emma, we want an economic base that allows US to have a heart, not one like capitalism 

that makes us all HEARTLESS. You say capitalism’s only purpose is to create the 

most possible wealth for the most people - I say you have misunderstood Adam Smith and 

the rest of them: Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations that government’s role is to protect the 

rich from the poor - this is exactly what capitalism does: creates the most possible wealth 

for a few people. Malthus, another leading capitalist thinker, even advocated keeping the 

working class on subsistence wages in order to control them. Ricardo agrees. 

Hard line capitalists don’t want any distortion or redistributions of wealth in 

the market and are far too willing to live with the human suffering of those 

who can’t compete. Socialists are far too quick to create disincentives to 

work through giveaways without accountability, excessive social nets that 

end up encouraging the behavior they hope to eradicate and higher taxes on 

those who are fortunate enough to be able to compete successfully to such 

an extent that the producers don’t have enough incentive to take the risks 

associated with producing. 

This I agree with, yet this opposition of which you speak is the ‘welfare capitalist’ response. 

Once recognize that capitalism DOES have a normative existence, and is not neutral 

(again, you explained this in your own comments), than we see that patching the system 

up will not help. This is nothing but welfare capitalism, producing the problems you mention 

above. Seeking a stance in between the two does not solve the underlying problem - 

only scrapping the system for a new one will actually solve the problem. Emma, the ills you 

speak of: disincentives, accountability, excessive social nets, etc.: these are problems related 


with softening capitalism - not with socialism. Socialism is a whole new economic base and 

superstructure. 

The main points, then: 1) capitalism is not amoral, or neutral, but has necessary normative 

effects which cannot be overcome by ‘softening’: selfishness is the governing characteristic. 

2) Justifying capitalism by finding fault with a few other systems is not logical - it is a 

fallacy, I believe, which is referred to in classical logic as ‘ad hominem’, or an appeal to 

truth on the basis of what the masses believe or do. (This may be a strong argument in some 

cases, but always invalid and therefore illogical. In this case it is not strong, but weak.) 

3) Finding a midpoint between capitalism and socialism results in a paradox: welfare 

capitalism which neither hardline capitalists nor socialists can accept, because it is merely 

patching up a sinking boat (in the socialist view) or hampering selfishness (in the capitalist 

view). 

I would enjoy a response to these thoughts - especially from Peace - in order that we 

might continue productive debate. And I must admit I found Emmas posting quite thought 

provoking. 

Panacea 

“...the kind people have a wonderful dream - Margeret Thatcher on the guillotine...” Moz 


[340] Franz: “we” Wight wrote in [190] 

I wanted to comment on an observation that I have made thus far throughout 

the quarter. In this class, we ruthlessly critique capitalism through Marx’s 

eyes. 

Where is the “ruthlessness?” Dr. Ehrbar is a scientist. He does not express personal 

opinions about what “should be.” 

If you are including Dr. Ehrbar and Marx in your definition of “we,” please provide 

quotations. 

Economists don’t make value judgements. They just tell you like it is. 


[350] Jupiter: Is capitalism all bad? I do not know if capitalism ia all bad, but I am 

begining to question it. I just recently opened a store with some other people, so I have been 

excited about it, but as I have progressed in this class I am begining to question whether I 

should be all that excited about it. I have another job right now and will continue to work 

there, it is not the greatest job and I do not get paid even close to what I should be, I guess 

you could say that I am an exploited worker. In posessing these two very contradictory traits, 

that of being an entrepenuer and that of an exploited worker, I find myself thinking that a 

society in which all could have decent jobs that are rewarded in a like manner with little or 

no exploitation, begins to make more sense to me than looking at the world we know now, 

and having to exploit others inn order to get to the top. But on the contrary what if I make it 

to the top wont that be great to have power, property, and be of high socioeconomic status, 

where everybody wants to be like me!


I guess that I do not have to say that capitalism is all bad, I just wish that we could refine 

it and be able to protect more peoples rights as laborers. One other thing we should try and 

bring the middle class back, because right now it is “the rich are getting richer and the poor 

are getting poorer”, the middle class is being wiped out. Something in this country will have 

to change one day because it can not survive at the rate in which it is going! 


[351] Franz: Jupiter’s Capitalism Jupiter wrote in [350] 

I just recently opened a store with some other people, so I have been excited 

about it. 

I have another job right now and will continue to work there, it is not the 

greatest job and I do not get paid even close to what I should be. 

In posessing these two very contradictory traits, that of being an entrepenuer 

and that of an exploited worker, 

that of being a capitalist and that of an exploited worker 

I find myself thinking that a society in which all could have decent jobs that 

are rewarded in a like manner with little or no exploitation, begins to make 

more sense to me than looking at the world we know now, and having to 

exploit others inn order to get to the top. 

but isn’t that exactly what you are doing? How do you pay the workers you employ? Do 

you divide up the profits at the end of the month and distribute to each employee according 

to the hours they worked? Or do you stuff them into your own pocket? 

But on the contrary what if I make it to the top wont that be great to have 

power, property, and be of high socioeconomic status, where everybody 

wants to be like me! 

Isn’t it “great” to rip off your employees so that you will be able to live next to Jon 

Huntsman? 

I guess that I do not have to say that capitalism is all bad, I just wish that 

we could refine it and be able to protect more peoples rights as laborers 

why not nationalize all businesses (it means the government owns instead of Jon Huntsman)? 

At the end of each week, add up all the income and distribute it amongst the people 

who produced the product/service. 

One other thing we should try and bring the middle class back, because 

right now it is “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer”, 

the middle class is being wiped out. Something in this country will have to 

change one day because it can not survive at the rate in which it is going! 

The revolution is coming. . . 


Uncle Sam is going to take away your ability/property right to keep your store’s profit. 

Instead, the “profits” will be distributed to the people who actually performed the labor. 


[444] Jake: Capitalism is it all bad? Capitalism is the reason for technology. Though 

this class pointed out the many negatives of capitalism, it has also showed what the possible 

outcomes of not this society could be. We can sit back and analyze all the different social 

systems today and point out where we have gone wrong and what could of been done different. 

Is there really a system that is perfect that leads people away from there natural desires? 

Would we all be happy in a world based on marxist principles? With humans nowhere near 

perfect, I don’t think such a system could work even if you were able to brain wash everyone 

and erase all such memorys of capitalism and start anew. People are selfish, they will 

eventually find a way back into making gain from one another. People also tend to be lazy. 

Would marxism provide for those who chose not enter the market with commodities? Even 

with full effort and compensation would there really be equality? 

Message [444] referenced by [467]. Next Message by Jake is [579]. 

[467] Jupiter: Thread 312 is capitalism all bad? I would like to respond to a few 

comments that Jake made [444]. To be honest I don’t know that you can say that technology 

is a by product of capitalism, if we take a quick look at the former Soviet Union they had 

some great leads in the technology, it was just focused in the form of national defense. Look 

at China a “red country” they seem to be pretty advanced in theirs as well, just look around 

and you will probably see some item that is made there. So I can not agree with the idea that 

technology comes from capitalism. 

You asked the question Would we bee happy in a Marxist frame work? (or something 

similar to that) I would respond how many people in the United States are really happy? I 

think that the answers would be skewed to the side that most are not to pleased. We just might 

be happier in a society which will bring about some form of equality among its members. 

As for the term you used “brain washed”, who is to say that we are not now brain washed? 

Sure we have our free choice to do as we please, or do we? Looking at the consequences 

of our actions I would say that we don’t have as much freedom as we think. If I don’t go 

to school then I will not have a good job, if I do not have a good job then I will not make 

money, if I do not make money than I will be poor, if I am poor than i will be a failure to 

society, and nothing but a state aid recipient free loading on a society of sucsesful peers. I 

think that we may be “brain washed”. 

One more item that I would like to address is that the natural man is not a brutish savage 

beast, which you make it sound like. Man is not by nature a selfish beast, just look way back 

to the Primitive Communal order which there was no inequality among the members. They 

lived a communal law which was to the benefit the group as a whole not certain individuals. 

The turn of events ocured when property was given to cultivate and people began to be 

obsessive with it and wanted more, so I say property is the basis og all this evil. Would it 

not be great to live in such a simple communal order? I think it would be, and is it not ironic 

that such a simple thing is so far removed from us that to have this life is to complex for us 

to achieve. Maybe we are the ones who are “brain washed” to forget about the communal 

life we could have!



[474] VanHalen: Jupiters 312 entry Jupiter posed the question in his discussion list 

comments of how many people in the United States are really happy. Then he answers 

himself and says that the answer is probably skewed more toward most people are unhappy. 

Happiness is relative. If most people in the US aren’t happy thats ok but I wonder if they 

would want to come back to the US if they were told to live in the old Soviet Union or China 

or anywhere like that. It is easy to complain when you don’t see how other people live and 

the conditions they are subject to. Granted there is injustices everywhere in every country 

and of course it occurs here in the US. But I wonder if a lot of complainers would have a 

change of attitude if they were sent to live in one of the countries Jupiter used in his entry. 

The US may not be perfect but everytime I leave the country which has been numerous times 

I’m always glad to get back to the US. country than the US. 



[201] Jake: Could marxism work today? Giving back the excess So far the main point 

that Marx seems to be stressing is how Capitalism robs the worker from the full profits or 

gain that comes from production. The point being that workers aren’t fully compensated for 

the work they do. The excess rises to the top of the pyramid to the owners or stockholders. 

My question is there a way to reverse the current trend and change capitalism into some 

form of socialism. The workers could become the owners of factories and stores and have 

the excess be compensated in the direct wage the individuals receive. Though this seems to 

be attempting to solve the exploitation of the common worker, I don’t think it is possible to 

turn from capitalism. We as a society have been conditioned to play the capitalism game. 

Selfish individuals will always seek ways to reap excess profits. For society to change today 

it would require change in the resources available to man. With different resources endowed 

to certain societies, there will be dependencies formed, allowing profits to be continually 

sought after. 

? 


[210] Reidar: Can Marxism work? I am responding to the remarks and questions raised 

by Jake in his submittal to this thread. He asked I capitalism could be transformed to a form 

of socialism in which workers receive the profits of their labors. 

I would propose that this is the idea behind the employee owned factories which we hear 

so much about. An example of this could be Saturn Automobile Co. which advertises its 

employee owned status. Although I am not sure what makes them an employee owned 

franchise, I assume that it is simply a pseudoform of the socialism you are talking about. 

Surely, Saturn as a sister company of GM is giving some stock/holdings to its employees as 

a part of their benefits package, but they probably are not modern day cooperative. 

Without complete collapse of the capitalist system which we live under, I do not believe 

that it is possible to move change the capitalist state into a socialist state. For the time being, 

companies will probably only use employee ownership as an advertising gimmic. 

Next Message by Reidar is [211.2]. 



[202] Gottlieb: Ein sehr vertracktes Ding Marx was right on when he talked about some 

characters of the commodity being “mysterious.” Hans listed some things such as inflation 

and stock market crashes. One that came to my mind was the foreign exchange market. I 

want to stress that I agree with the idea that the mystery in these “happenings” are not due to 

a lack of knowledge about the subject but because the “happening” seems to occur by itself 

as a result of magic. 

Perhaps out of necessity I have been forced to pay close attention to the foreign exchange 

market. These markets seem to balance out if there is an inequality among the exchange 

rates. If the interest rates in Germany are higher than they are in the United States, it does 

not last very long. Magically, the difference disappears due to a lowering of the interest rate 

or of an increase in the inflation rate. 

Although occasional momentous efforts are made by countries to “readjust” the worth of 

important currencies, most adjustments are made by the invisible Wechsel in the sky. 

Message [202] referenced by [229]. Next Message by Gottlieb is [250]. 

[229] Franz: Mysterious Gottlieb Gottlieb writes in [202]: 

Marx was right on when he talked about some characters of the commodity 

being “myserious.” One that came to my mind was the foreign exchange 

market. I want to stress that I agree with the idea that the mystery in these 

“happenings” are not due to a lack of knowledge about the subject but because 

the “happening” seems to occur by itself as a result of magic. 

so lack of knowledge is not what makes something mysterious. 

Perhaps out of necessity I have been forced to pay close attention to the 

foreign exchange market. These markets seem to balance out if there is 

an inequality among the exchange rates. If the interest rates in Germany 

are higher than they are in the United States, it does not last very long. 

Magically, the difference disappears due to a lowering of the interest rate 

or of an increase in the inflation rate. 

Although occasional momentous efforts are made by countries to “readjust” 

the worth of important currencies, most adjustments are made by the 

invisable Wechsel in the sky. 

so Wechsel is what makes something mysterious. 

To study which factors influence the supply and demand of a currency, would you take a 

Bible class instead of International Monetary Relations? 



[222] Camera: An Ugly Rumor I am wondering if anyone has studied Karl Marx in 

a more sociological setting. What type of person is he? What could drive a man to be (as


it seems) so absorbed in the bourgeoise/proletariate state of capitalism? Did he have a bad 

childhood experience; maybe some other kid down the street had more lincoln logs than he? 

I am very curious to know what his driving force is. I would like to know what Freud would 

think of a man like he. 

Perhaps I am getting a false impression of him. I only know him from what he writes. It 

is possible that he could write so passionately about the subject of capitalism without being 

totally absorbed by it; it just doesn’t seem probable. 

I would like to be more familiar with the environmental influences Marx was subject to. 

Where did he grow up? What exact time period? What was going on economically, socially, 

at the time? I’m sure this played an important part of why he feels the way he does about 


When I mentioned this class to a friend of mine, he replied,“Isn’t that the guy who was 

so absorbed in his work he let his children starve to death?” Is there any truth to this rumor? 

Message [222] referenced by [225]. Next Message by Camera is [332.6]. 

[225] Kevin: An Ugly Rumor Camera wrote in [222]: 

I am wondering if anyone has studied Karl Marx in a more sociological 

setting. What type of person is he? What could drive a man to be (as it 

seems) so absorbed in the bourgeoise/proletariate state of capitalism? Did 

he have a bad childhood experience; maybe some other kid down the street 

had more lincoln logs than he? I am very curious to know what his driving 

force is. I would like to know what Freud would think of a man like he. 

Marx was definitely not a psychopath, or any immature little kid in his youth. It was more 

his interest in getting to the bottom of problems, as influenced by Hegel. Through his study 

of Hegelism he was drawn into Paris, and the Young Communists from which he became 

friends with Frederick Engels. From that point on Marx, and Engels immersed themselves 

into the worker’s movements which where gaining great strength after the revolutions of the 

mid-1800s. Engels was the son of a factory owner, and from that position made most of his 

observations. 

Perhaps I am getting a false impression of him. I only know him from 

what he writes. It is possible that he could write so passionately about the 

subject of capitalism without being totally absorbed by it; it just doesn’t 

seem probable. 

Marx was definitely absorbed by his work, spending uncountable long nights in the London 

Museum studying the political economy of his time. Marx was passionate, but more 

passionate about debunking than anything. Like Freud he tried to debunk the structures 

which create our conscious, and environment. 

I would like to be more familiar with the environmental influences Marx 

was subject to. Where did he grow up? What exact time period? What 

was going on economically, socially, at the time? I’m sure this played an 

important part of why he feels the way he does about capitalism. 


There are many great biographies about Marx, some better than others; I’ll be sure to 

post some recommendations to the list. But since you seem to have absolutely no idea about 

Marx’s early years perhaps you should look him in the the Britannica Encyclopedia; they 

have a decent entry in the Marx and Marxism section of the macropedia. 

For a quick summary he was born in 1818 in Trier, Prussia (now in Germany) from which 

he was educated in a liberal high school there. He then attended the University of Bonn from 

which he was introduced to Hegel’s philosophy, and thus began his philosophical evolution. 

When I mentioned this class to a friend of mine, he replied, “Isn’t that the 

guy who was so absorbed in his work he let his children starve to death?” 

Is there any truth to this rumor? 

Karl had legitimately 7 children, only 3 of whom lived until maturity. He also had a child 

with his maid, whose paternity was taken by Engels in order to keep Eleanor from finding 

out about Karl’s affairs. Anyways you can read about his sex life in a biography. But as far 

as letting his children starve, that’s rather untrue though there is some truth to the fact that 

because Karl refused to work, rather prefering to do research, the family may have suffered 

through unnecessary “pangs of capitalism” as Karl described it. But due to subsidies from 

Engels, who unlike Marx grew up in an upper-class family, the family managed to sustain 

itself. 



[246] Peaches: An Ugly Rumor I don’t have an answer to the question that Camera 

addressed, but another question to add to that. Did Marx ever teach? Where did he get 

his degree from, what school, etc. I don’t know a lot about this class and what Marx’s 

main “theory” was about and in order to understand his writings, it might be a good idea 

on hearing some feedback on Marx so that I can better “understand” where Marx is coming 

from because I am having a hard time reading between the lines of Marx’s Das Capital! The 

Introduction of Capital is quite lengthy (86 pages!) about Marx. Perhaps someone has a 

synopsis on who Marx is?! 


[253] Peace: Who is Marx? i have some things to say about the life of Marx. i would 

like to find the time to write something up more formal, but do not have the time. i have 

read quite a bit about Marx, but will tell the story below from memory, so i will not provide 

citations. 

Marx was born in Germany, his parents were Jewish but converted to Protestantism when 

Karl was a young boy. His father wanted him to become a lawyer. Marx actually entered the 

University of Bonn to study law. He was not a very serious stundent, but liked very much the 

“night” life. He was virtually kicked out of Bonn, actually his father believed that changing 

the environment might have Marx taking his studies more serious. 

There are some interesting stories to tell about Marx’s correspondence with his father and 

his father’s worry about his affections toward Jenny (his future wife). However, memory 

does not serve me well on these details.


Marx left Bonn for the University of Berlin. His father’s hopes were realized when Marx 

began to take his studies quite serious. However, he focused changed from law to philosophy. 

More specifically, Marx became affiliated with a group of graduate and post-graduate 

students know as the Left (or Young) Hegelians. 

This was very significant in intellectual development of Marx. He had entered the University 

of Berlin very shortly after the death of the infamous German philosophier G.W.F. 

Hegel (1832?). Following the death of Hegel there was a struggle over the interpretation of 

Hegel’s philosophy. More specifically, the struggle was over the respective place of Religion 

within the Hegelian Philosophical System. 

The Left Hegelians were very uneasy with Hegel’s desire to reconcile religion (Christianity; 

especially in its Protestant form) with philosophy (there is still great debate about 

Hegel’s intentions with religion and philosophy). For example, Ludwig Feuerbach (at one 

time the figure head of the Left Hegelians) believed that it was a metaphysical mistake to 

conflate Religion with Philosophy in the way he understood the intentions of Hegel. 

The Left Hegelians (for example Strauss, Bauer and Feuerbach) wanted to show that the 

doctrine and (unintended) aims of religion were out of phase with philosophy. There are 

many important stories to be told here (about dozens of Left Hegelians), but let me focus on 

Feuerbach. 

Feuerbach argues that not only is religion out of phase and dogmatic (as emphasized 

by other Left Hegelians) but the subject of religion, namely human beings, are reduced to 

predicates of the religion itself. In other words the religion becomes more important then 

human beings themselves. Feuerbach, unlike any of the Left Hegelians before him, also 

maintained that this so-called inversion was not only characteristic of religions historically, 

but it is further the history of philosophy. 

That is philosophy has human beings as the subject, but the actual human being is reduced 

to being a predicate of Thought, and Thought itself becomes the subject. This is epitomized 

in the Hegelian system according to Feuerbach (again Feuerbach’s work is extermely interesting 

and there are many more important aspect with regards to Marx’s development within 

it). 

All the Left Hegelians were quickly Feuerbachized with the publication of Feuerbach’s 

The Essence of Christianity (1841). Feuerbach argues that Religion is nothing but the reflection 

of human being’s own potential, to knows a human being’s God is to know the human 

being. Moreover, God is the human being raised infinitity. To parapharse Feuerbach, ‘first 

man creates God in his own image, and then God procedes to create man in his own image’. 

Feuerbach was Marx’s mentor and friend. He very much began writing in the style and 

spirit of Feuerbach. 

The important development of Marx via Feuerbach is his materialism (actually the term 

realism is less confussing here) and humanism. That is Feuerbach argued that philosophy 

(and religion) should begin with the material conditions of human beings (their “real” human 

conditions) and human beings themselves always must remain the subject. That is the 


primary concern should not be with pleasing some deity or holding a particular faith, but 

with the betterment of human beings themselves. 

It is significant to mention that Feuerbach was not an atheist, his critique pivots on the 

historical development of religion not the existence or non-existence of God. There is some 

debate still today whether Feuerbach is a deist or theist, but this is not important in our story. 

At the same time Marx becomes a Feuerbachian realist humanist, he is introduced to 

economic by his friend F. Engels. Moreover, he also comes in correspondence with socialists 

(e.g. Proudhon). He comes to understand the inversion that Feuerbach is emphasizing is not 

restricted to philosophy and religion, but in fact the inversion of philosophy and religion is a 

special case of the inversion that occurs in human social reality. That is to say human being 

create their own society, much like they create their own religion, but then become objects 

of society (and religion). Or in other words human beings create society to make their lives 

better, but the society takes on a (virtual) life of its own and begins to rule over human beings 

rather than being ruled by them. 

Like Feuerbach had demonstrated about religions, Marx argues that human beings lost 

faith in their own Powers and potential of changing their conditions. Social Structure is 

taken to be “natural” and/or “fixed.” Marx’s arugment is that Social Structure are humanly 

created construction which have an historical existence. Moreover, capitalism is understood 

to be a specific Socio-economic Structure that emerged historical and must be reproduced in 

specific ways, and can be and sometimes is tranformed. 

Let me bring this to an end by saying as Marx becomes more familiar with philosophy 

he distances himself from that of Feuerbach’s (this is break away from Feuerbach is the part 

of the aim of Marx and Engels’ German Ideology and his the captured in his “Theses on 

Feuerbach”). As he becomes more familiar with economics and the dynamics of capitalism 

is able to bring the philosophically argued critiques down to the concrete level of human (or 

empirical) reality. 

Marx also has a great advantage over the other Left Hegelians and scientists in general 

in that he has a firm grasp in the philosophy of science (much of it developed from a return 

to Hegel, especially his Science of Logic). Marx understand that reality, both natural and 

social, does not immediately reveal itself to human perception. Thus, the impoverishment 

of empiricism and positivism that maintain(ed) this belief. Marx realizes he must go behind 

the appearences and begin to understand the “essence” or what Bhaskar calls the “generative 

mechanisms” (i.e. the domain of the real). Somewhere Marx says: (to paraphrase from 

memory) ‘all science understands this principle but political economy’ (actually he gives 

other sciences and especially the philosophiers of others science to much credit). 

thats all for now. 


[331] Scott: An Ugly Rumor Who is Marx? 

Marx, although without question a brillant man, brings to my mind a contradiction between 

how he allowed his life to evolve, and one of his major condemnations of capitalism. 

It seems to me that his own life, and that of his family was indeed neglected for the “good” 

of society. For example, most of the bibliographies which I have read include phrases such


as “extreme financial problems”, or “desititute poverty”. It has even been implied that his 

refusal to obtain a means of income during his life, may have hastened his own death, and 

lead to the death of many of his children. Granted, infant mortality was much higher in his 

day, but the lack of doctor’s care or medications certainly did not bode well for the Marx 

family. I can easily understand the hatred which Marx displayed for the capitalist system 

under these dire circumstances. We are indebted to Engels for Marxs’ survival even though 

the Engels family money was a product of capitalism. Some irony there. My point is that 

it appears that Marx was a slave to his work, as much as he indicates that a worker in our 

society is a slave to the capitalist. 

It is often said that an artist or a writer needs to experience strife in one’s life in order to 

have a better perspective. I think that Marx experienced more than his share of hardship, and 

I venture to say that it contributed to his intensity in pursuing his lifes’ work even though he 

had become a slave to it. 

On a separate note, I am curious as to whether Marx had ever written anything which was 

cheerful or celebrated the human spirit? Did he ever write poetry, or something light that I 

don’t have to re-read to have it sink in??? 

Message [331] referenced by [338]. Next Message by Scott is [390]. 

[333] Panacea: Re: An Ugly Rumor Scott wrote recently: 

Who is Marx? 

Marx, although without question a brillant man, brings to my mind a contradiction 

between how he allowed his life to evolve, and one of his major 

condemnations of capitalism. It seems to me that his own life, and that 

of his family was indeed neglected for the “good” of society. For example, 

most of the bibliographies which I have read include phrases such as 

“extreme financial problems”, or “desititute poverty”. It has even been implied 

that his refusal to obtain a means of income during his life, may have 

hastened his own death, and lead to the death of many of his children. 

Why should Marx’s personal life be necessarily in sync with what he writes? Few writers 

accomplish this. We need to separate than man’s personal life from his philisophical projects. 

He could have been a rich land owner or a beggar on the street - this does not effect the 

validity of his philosophy. 

On a separate note, I am curious as to whether Marx had ever written anything 

which was cheerful or celebrated the human spirit? Did he ever write 

poetry, or something light that I don’t have to re-read to have it sink in??? 

Has any written poetry or light-hearted and cheerful novel had more of a positive and 

emancipatory effect on the world than Das Kapital? Marx’s entire philisophical goal was 

understanding reality in order to know how to change it - the ultimate in ‘celebrating the 

human spirit’ would be to emancipate those enslaved in the current economic form. 

These were just a few responses to Scott’s message. 

Panacea “...they’re laughing and a-drinking on the swill of overtime...” Beautiful South 



[338] Franz: Slave-boy Marx Scott wrote in [331] 

I can easily understand the hatred which Marx displayed for the capitalist 

system under these dire circumstances. 

Where do you see “the hatred” in any of Marx’s work? 

It is a scientific study of Capitalism – similar to your Micro 201 textbook. 

Please provide “hatred” quotations. 

My point is that it appears that Marx was a slave to his work, as much as he 

indicates that a worker in our society is a slave to the capitalist. 

but there is a difference. . . worker-slave is exploited. 

I am curious as to whether Marx had ever written anything which was cheerful 

or celebrated the human spirit? 

Marx was known for his scientific work. Publisher probably rejected his poetry. 


[429] Peace: Marx is a nut-burger Kevin your comments and thoughts about socialist 

economies have been a nice additon to the discussion. i have been reading them with interest. 

But where and when did Marx and Engels say they subscribe to centralized planning? 

Certainly they believed in democracy, and rule by the proletariat, but i know of no place 

that Marx or Engels explicate a model or even a(n) (explicit) suggestion of centralized planning. 

First Message by Peace is [77]. 


[239] Angela: Capitalism and Ecology I never know what is different between Capitalism 

and Socialism or other theories. I just know that I am living in the Capitalism society 

which might be changing a little bit because the governments and some strong unions and 

associations which might use their powers or polities to intervene our societies or economics 

environments. So I think that the society might not be really Capitalism Society. And I want 

to say something about the capitalism and ecology because I read a book - Green Business - 

which talk about new management ways in business. And I want to use this idea to discuss 

the problem between Capitalism and Ecology in my country- Tawain. 

I came from the small island - Tawain. And lots of people know that there was a miraclous 

economics development in Tawain. And I believed that in the pass 50 years, my 

country adopted the capitalism to carry out the miraclous economics and at the same time 

my living environment has been damaged every seriously. According to this fact, it seems 

that capitalism always is against ecology. Because the capitalism will use all resource to 

create commodities which can bring lots of profits and make or increase our living standard 

or lever of income. Anyway before I read this book, I always think that capitalism always 

damages the earth mother. But right now I think that no matter what kind of the theories we


adopt, we always hurt out earth mother. For example, in the East European countries, before 

they become demoratic countries and they did’nt adopt the capitalism in their countries. But 

their environments still are damaged seriously. So no matter what kind of theories still will 

bring the ecology problems. 

I think the capitalism will still be the mainstream in the world even it will bring lots of 

ecological problems. But the smart capitalists will figure out the best benefit way that is to 

consider how to protect our environoments and let the damages of our earth mother decrease. 

I think that the developed countries become to consider these problems and try to it better. 

So in the Asian countries should take these experiences. 

I do’nt know that my opinion about this topic is right or not. And I do’nt know it is fitting 

the course which we study. I think this is what I know that !! If there is any wrong for my 

opinion, please tell me and tell me what is your opinion, thank you. 



[245] Punani: Employer taste Output market is a monopoly and its operator has a 

taste for discrimination; initially he won’t employ black workers at all if Ww is less than 

Wb+Di, black workers aren’t cheap enough to be employed hence the monopolist is not 

profit-maximizing, he’s maximizing utility. As long as the firm can be sold and there’s a 

potential buyer without the taste for discrimination, he should be able to buy the firm out. 

Message [245] referenced by [249]. Next Message by Punani is [407.1]. 

[249] Lamma: Re: Your Submission Returned I am not sure what it is that was returned 

to me in Punani’s [245] but it was not the response I had previously made to Punani. What 

I did say is that when I read the ideas about Capitalism I got the impression that Punani 

thought there was all bad and no good in our present system. I disagree. I feel that there 

are some good things like competition and the such that bring out the best in our society. 

If we swith to a completely socialist type system those things would have to be produced 

unaturally. So I’m simply saying that we should not be so quick to scrap the old plan because 

it does have some good things for us as a society. 



[250] Gottlieb: Capitalists or Hyppocrites? Capitalists have heads up butts. How can 

some people still believe Marxism can work? It seems like any time that a society has attempted 

to create this perfect society they fail miserably. With 20/20 hindsight they still can 

not find the mistakes in their very complicated theory. Think about it. Point out experiments 

in the Soviet Union. Marxists do not want to dwell on the ecological and more importantly 

spiritual destruction (No Franz, this has nothing to do with religion) that occured. The only 

excuse Marxists can come up with is that “They didn’t practice true Marxism.” 

What about the suppression that occured in East Germany. From one of the taller buildings 

in the West you could look over into the Eastern part of the town and see economic 

victimization of the whole society. The excuse was once more, “They practiced a broken 


socialism, not marxism.” I would hope that after all of the experiments that have occured in 

Europe, Africa, South America, and that continue to persist in Asia, Marxists could come 

up with some better excuse for their tremendous failings than, “Oh, they were not practicing 

true Marxism.” All I want is a good explanation. 

One Marxism will not work is that in order for it to function everyone in the society must 

be a Marxist. It is an extremely delicate system prone to failure. Those that do believe in 

the system tend to see themselves with a higher ‘enlightenment’ or ‘understanding’ of the 

human will. One example occurred to me last week. After class I followed a student who 

was speaking to a friend. He said of a discussion about Marxism that took place in another 

class, “Most of the students felt like they had to stick up for Capitalism...they just had their 

heads stuck up their asses.” 

This is troubling because it tells us two thinks about this Marxist. First, he thinks that 

those that do not agree with him feel an obligation to defend Capitalism. Is it our lack of 

understanding of ‘the real world?’ Please enlighten us if it is. Second, those that do not 

agree with him are naturally less intelligent because we “have our heads up our asses.” Why 

is it so difficult for him to understand that people can disagree with him for a reason other 

than the reason stated above. 

It would be nice and dandy to have a society where people work for the society. It would 

be nice to have free pizza and gym passes, walk around bare footed in the springtime and 

hold hands as we join our fellow brothers and sisters in song. These are wonderful ideas and 

you can not blame somebody for wanting it, but it will not ever happen. It is just as bad to 

assume that those who do not support the pursuit of this unattainable dream somehow lost 

out when god handed out compassion and virtue. 

Face the facts. Marxism does not work. It never has, and it never will. It looks good on 

paper and warms your heart though. If you do agree with this idea, then fine. 


[256] Panacea: Re: Capitalists have heads up butts. Gottlieb recently said: 

How can some people still believe Marxism can work? It seems like any 

time that a society has attempted to create this perfect society they fail miserably. 

With 20/20 hindsight they still can not find the mistakes in their 

very complicated theory. Think about it. Point out experiments in the Soviet 

Union. Marxists do not want to dwell on the ecological and more 

importantly spiritual destruction (No Franz, this has nothing to do with religion) 

that occured. The only excuse Marxists can come up with is that, 

“They didn’t practice true Marxism.” 

Guess what Gottlieb. The marxists say this for one extremely good reason, which even 

mainstream neo-classical economists are forced to agree with: Because they are right. The 

soviets did not practice Marxist ideology, and they said this themselves in the early birthpangs 

of their government in 1918. Read a book, for god’s sake. And then read Marx’s 

books - see for yourself, instead of invoking all sorts of main-stream and ignorant american 

inanities.


Again - if even the capitalist theoriticians admit they were practicing a bastardized form 

of marxism, than maybe you should as well. Carry the argument forward...since the UdSSR 

was the main catalyst behind ‘Communism’ in this century...perhaps all of the third world 

attempts at ‘communism’ have necessarily suffered similar fates...hmmm? 

What about the suppression that occured in East Germany. From one of 

the taller buildings in the West you could look over into the Eastern part of 

the town and see economic victimization of the whole society. The excuse 

was once more, “They practiced a broken socialism, not marxism.” I would 

hope that after all of the experiments that have occured in Europe, Africa, 

South America, and that continue to persist in Asia, Marxists could come 

up with some better excuse for their tremendous failings than, “Oh, they 

were not practicing true Marxism.” All I want is a good explanation. 

First, Gottlieb, get it right that East Germany recieved as much protest from Marxists 

the world over as the UdSSR did. Your argument is weak. Ever been to Germany? The 

only place you can experience what you mention is in West Berlin. Yes, there was a marked 

difference between the economic situations. But go there today and ask people in both the 

affluent western district Zehlendorf and the blighted eastern district Schoeneberg, and half 

the people will express dissatisfaction with the new turn of events in ‘the new Germany’. 

The wessies don’t like paying for it (hmmm. worried about money.) and the ossies are 

appalled at the moral degradation of western society. Rape, murder, robberies and other 

crimes suddenly climbed sky high after the fall of the wall. 

I do not defend East Germany - I only offer you a different perspective. Here in america 

people too often tend to see things as absolute. You want a good explanation? You sure 

don’t sound like it. From your rhetoric, one easily sees how you’ve already made up your 

mind. The best explanation I’ve heard is exactly this: capitalists have their heads up their 

asses. Why do I say this? Because the very judeo-christian morals they believe support their 

economics actually condemn them. Where does Christ say “go forth, and charge them 19 

percent annual percentage rates..” Are you not familiar with the early christian anti-usury 

laws, or the ‘just price’ of the middle ages? 

It would be nice and dandy to have a society where people work for the 

society. It would be nice to have free pizza and gym passes, walk around 

bare footed in the springtime and hold hands as we join our fellow brothers 

and sisters in song. These are wonderful ideas and you can not blame 

somebody for wanting it, but it will not ever happen. It is just as bad to 

assume that those who do not support the pursuit of this unattainable dream 

somehow lost out when god handed out compassion and virtue. 

Gottlieb, I find you very depressing as a person. Indeed, if Marx was misguided in 

one point, it was that he BELIEVED in HUMANITY, instead of how the neo-classicals 

BELIEVE in making money off HUMANITY. Why can’t society be like you describe? 

Because of attitudes like yours, so wake up. You say you want it, but I bet the lottery 

interests you more. Labile attitudes are at the root cause of many of societies ills. 


Your christian God believed in us. Why can’t you believe in us? 

Face the facts. Marxism does not work. It never has, and it never will. It 

looks good on paper and warms your heart though.¿ 

Another sad statement, lacking in evidence or logic. 

I would hope that mankind can face the evils of capitalism and focus on creating an 

alternative, be it socialism or something else. We cannot deny, however, that this is NOT the 

best of all possible worlds. 

Panacea 

“...for too long the working class has stood at the window to the wealthy with their noses 

pressed against the glass. This Christmas, take Christ, take Marx, take Hope...” The Housemartins 


[257] Peace: Capitalists have heads up butts. Panacea brings some very good points to 

Gottlieb’s comments. However, i suspect that Gottlieb will merely see this as some sort of 

apology. 

But i do agree with Panacea. Just because a reign that protests a (capitalist) social order 

is wearing a marxist cloak; it does not necessarily make it emancipatory. Even in Marx there 

are tendencies against emancipation itself (at least particular interpretations of Marx). But 

this should be expected. The point is the failures of the so-called socialist or better command 

economy does not make better the social ills that are present within capitalism. 

We have come to understand (via Marx, K. Polyani, or J.M. Keynes, etc.) that the immanent 

potential and indeed necessity of capitalism is crisis. Thus, it is also necessitated that 

the capitalist form of economic production must create welfare systems so to reproduce and 

enable capitalist relations to endure. 

It is a different agrument to say ‘this is the best that humans can do’; from the claim of 

economic liberialism that all individuals can be rich or even free in capitalist relations. 

Thus, when Gottlieb asks: “How can some people still believe Marxism can work?” He 

is asking: ‘why does anyone believe in human emancipation any longer’ – ‘the failures of 

Eastern Bloc prove that emancipation is not possible.’ ‘Human beings are fated to the social 

ills of capitalism.’ Like Panacea this is in some sense depressing, but more accurately this is 

a loss of faith in one’s own powers and possiblities. 

This is a Post-modern loss of faith in human potentiality itself. It is not merely the work 

of Marxist to critique the failures of the command economies to achieve emanicpation from 

overly coercive social forces, but more important to re-establish a faith in the Powers and 

Potentialities of human being themselves. 

The Postmodern (at least in the sense i want to [mis-]use the term) is epitomized by Bevis 

and Butthead, and the “why bother generation” that have find themselves inheriting social 

ills that seem to be overwhelming. And committing themselves to a “firm” belief in the 

potentiality of system rather than of human beings powers to change it.


This loss of faith is not merely an accident, but reflects the limits of capitalist social 

relations. It in fact reflects the failed attempts at absenting social ills. 

In any event i do not know if the Soviet Union was practicing “true Marxism”, perhaps 

because i do not know what the meaning of this term is. However, i am very willing, following 

Panacea, to say that the command economies failed to achieve human emancipation. 

In fact they turned the problems of emancipation into a technological engineering problem 

of efficiently producing products. This is not the problem that needs to be solved. In 

fact, capitalism is a “great success” in this sense (with the exception of the capitalist necessity 

of crisis, but emancipation cannot be reduced to the absenting of economic crises; 

although this is necessary it is not sufficient). 

However, emancipation has very little to do with efficiency problems. And in this sense, 

Panacea and especially Kevin have given good arguments not to put our emancipatory hopes 

in command economies. Moreover, as Kevin pointed out this was a critique of the Soviet 

Union in a very short time within the Marxist literature. 

However, i do believe that Gottlieb is correct to be critical of those people that hold to 

a faith in system merely in name or in promise. This is one of the major problems human 

beings make toward capitalism and economic liberalism’s promise to achieve universal 

freedom within capitalist relations. And we should be careful not to (re-)commit it. 

i agree with Gottlieb on this point: 

“I would hope that after all of the experiments that have occured in Europe, 

Africa, South America, and that continue to persist in Asia, Marxists could 

come up with some better excuse for their tremendous failings than, ‘Oh, 

they were not practicing true Marxism.’ All I want is a good explanation.” 

There is lots of literature on this. But these experiments did not fail because they were or 

weren’t (necessarily) Marxist. They failed in the problems they tried to solve and the social 

ills which they themselves created. 

Moreover, there must be instituted politically certain degree of flexibility and possiblity 

for change. So-called socialist countries have failed at this as much or more than the 

capitalist societies. There are contradictions, unacknowledged conditions and unintended 

consequences in (most) all human action, thus we must expect this to be a feature of social 

experiments. Hence, politically we must be capable institutionally to absent social ills as 

they emerge from our unintended consequences. This is something capitalist political institution 

have not taken very seriously; in fact most intellectual economic contructs deny the 

possibility of crisis with their commitments to the so-called “Say’s Law” and “Walras’ Law” 

Moreover, we must face the contradictions that exists socially and understand and absent 

them accordingly. Perhaps this means a particular and specific type of government, not of 

politicians but of social thinkers and philosophers? 


[259] Femme: Capitalists or Hypocrites? It appears to me that there’s a lot of emotions 

floating around and a lot of finger pointing, perhaps that’s the definition of conversing with 


another party. I don’t think that Capitaism is such an ugly and cruel intervention perhaps 

because I’m fond of Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest”. I feel that if you are weak 

and inept and not contributing to society you may not be able to survive with in a capitalistic 

economy for a very long time. I like to think of it as a filtering process. I think that when 

people progress within our economy they are not out to intentionally screw their neighbor 

inorder to get ahead or make a buck. I really believe that people have good intentions and 

try to follow through with them. I don’t think any one wants to carry the burden of someone 

else when the other party is wilingly not trying. I’m all for helping those who can’t help 

themselves but not for helping those who choose not to help themselves. In a capitalistic 

society we are forced to help ourselves and advance where I don’t see that occuring in any 

other model. Marxian theory sounds wonderful but realistically looking at it I don’t think it 

can work. Femme 


[312] Wight: Capitalists have heads up butts I wanted to respond to Gottlieb’s comment 

about his perception of Marxists view of Capitalists. I think he/she brought up a good point 

in asking why we have never seen a society more oriented towards Marxist ideals survive. 

Granted, communism is the closest system we have experienced, but it still lacked some 

Marxist ideals. It seems to be the outline of a fair economic and social system - so why 

has it never been in existence? I think that most people would agree that capitalism has 

some seriuos shortcomings - it is not fair, it exploits certain memebers of the system, etc. - 

nonetheless, capitalism seems to thrive in all successful, industrialized countries. It is the 

only economic system that functions successfully. Maybe it is because human beings are 

instinctively self-serving and motivated by greed, as much as we all hate to admit it. The 

one thing that I do see a dangerous is when we begin to discount other people’s opinions 

that differ from ours as “unenlightened.” This is one perception that Gottlieb addressed that 

I feel is very important. Everyone has a different slant on issues. It is important to always 

respect people’s point of view even if you don’t agree. Ultimately, what is right or wrong 

or truthful or false is subjective based on the belief’s of the individual. Marxism seemsin 

theory to be a great idea but Gottlieb’s right in stating that it will never work. 

Message [312] referenced by [313]. Next Message by Wight is [339.1]. 

[313] Kevin: Re: Capitalists have heads up butts Wight wrote in [312] 

Marxism seems in theory to be a great idea but Gottlieb’s right in stating 

that it will never work. 

He is? Why so? It seems a few here are jumping to quick conclusions about the validity 

of socialism (used as a syn. for Marxism) without having much idea about the nature of 

socialism; as Hans emphasized Das Kapital is not a blueprint for socialism. 

Gottlieb cites the collapse of the former Soviet Union as a negation of Marxism, and 

somehow the victory of capitalism because “after all, we’re all just greedy and selfish.” 

But he forgets that this is not utopian socialism we are talking about. Marx made a point 

of dismissing the idea that capitalists could be convinced, for the good of society, to give 

up their wealth 140 years ago. What is unworkable about workers expropriating capitalist 

property themselves?


Philosophers, until now, have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it, to paraphrase 

Marx. I would suggest that you research some more before drawing your conclusions 

so hastily. I would suggest publications like the Monthly Review, and books like Mandel’s 

“Marxist Economic Theory” or David Scheickwert’s (sp?) “Against Capitalism” or Paul 

Cockshott’s “Towards a New Socialism” as a starting point. Perhaps Hans could compile a 

recommended reading list before the class is through? 

Something was also said to the effect that since the Soviet Union collapsed that “well, 

capitalism must be all we are stuck with.” If anything, perhaps with more reading, you’ll 

realize the collapse of the Soviet Union may have done more to actually validate Marxist 

theory than anything else by showing how impossible it is to build socialism in an isolated, 

backward country without going through the stages of capitalist accumulation and modernization 

first. You may also get a better conception of the Marxist dialectical conception of 

history, and historical analysis. 



[252] Chocolate: Re: Labor theory of value. The labor theory of value which David 

Ricardo and Adam Smith studied and discussed dearly throughout their lives has been a 

great interest of mine ever since I first studied economics. What I would like to know is how 

would Marx’s relate to Ricardo’s theory and if he would or would not agree with them. 

It is my understanding that the labor theory of value has to do with the cost of producing 

a certain commodity (direct cost) and other factors added on to the final cost aside from the 

production process. For example, suppose it only takes five minutes of total labor to produce 

a light-bulb. This is the direct cost. The inderect cost that is added on to the final price is the 

cost of the tools that was used to produce the light-bulb. Other inderect cost would be the 

cost of the factory that was used to make the product. Without the factory and the tools to 

make the light-bulb, then the light-bulb would have never been made. 

But another question is, does the maker of the tools that is used to produce the light-bulb 

recieve a fair compensation for the tools final use. 



[260] Neaner: group discussion Last night in class we mentioned how a capitalistic 

society is self serving and selfish as a whole. There can be no doubt that this is true. I 

couldn’t get this thought from my head and wondered do all people realize how bad we 

must look? 

For an economic system to function, we primarily each have to have the same goal. Right 

now that would have to be the accumulation of wealth. We are conditioned to believe that 

money brings happiness and a lack of money brings unhappiness. Does it have to be so? 

Can we do anything to make ourselves happy that does not have a price tag affixed? 

Family, friends, school, outdoors, sports, reading, t.v., music, volunteer service and etc. If 

it doesn’t cost money it costs time and in our society are we not taught that time is money? 


How can we do the things that make us happy without worrying about how we are going 

to get the money. What a lousy way to live. We are all making tradeoffs of some sort in 

order to maximize our happiness. Are there better ways or a better system? Is Marxism the 

answer? I don’t know. 

[308] Gilligan: should money create happiness? In regards to money I agree that we 

have all been to a certain extent brainwashed and think that the only way to find or experience 

happiness is to be wealthy. The capitalist society that we live in today creates an image that 

says, “ the more money you have the more powerful you are and therefore the more happy 

you are.” Take the O.J. Simpson trial for example, he has a lot of money and with it he was 

able to buy his freedom even though he committed a horrible crime. This only serves as 

a definition and a great example of the capitalist system and why we as members of this 

society tend to crave money and think of it as the only means of happiness. Money doesn’t 

buy happiness but when thats all we hear and talk about we can’t help but be a part of 

something that actually creates a large portion of the inequality that exists today. I lived 

in Guatemala for 2 years and I have never seen poorer people in my life. People that live 

in huts made of tree branches and a roof made of leaves, people that have 5 children and 

all they have to eat are corn tortillas each and every day, floors made of the earth itself, no 

work, people that have only one pair of clothes and those being the ones on their bodies. 

no bathrooms, no showers, people that go to the desease infested river to bathe or to wash 

there clothes on a rock, BUT for some odd reason every time a came i contact with these 

people they greeted me with a smile and were happy. They never complained or spoke of 

money, they just smiled and enjoyed life just for the sake of being alive. Should or does 

money buy happiness? I think not but do to selfishness and the competition to beat out your 

fellow brither we have created a monster that causes the majority of our problems here in 

the wonderful land of PROMISE!! 

Message [308] referenced by [354]. Next Message by Gilligan is [417]. 

[354] Franz: Gilligan’s Guatemalans Gilligan wrote in [308]: 

I lived in Guatemala for 2 years and I have never seen poorer people in 

my life. People that live in huts made of tree branches and a roof made of 

leaves, people that have 5 children and all they have to eat are corn tortillas 

each and every day, floors made of the earth itself, no work, people that 

have only one pair of clothes and those being the ones on their bodies. no 

bathrooms, no showers, people that go to the desease infested river to bathe 

or to wash there clothes on a rock, BUT for some odd reason every time 

a came i contact with these people they greeted me with a smile and were 

happy. They never complained or spoke of money, they just smiled and 

enjoyed life just for the sake of being alive. 

find a Guatemalan. . . 

tell the Guatemalan he/she can work for you, and that you’ll pay him/her the value of 

what he/she creates MINUS half which you will keep for yourself. . . 

then see if the Guatemalan greets you with a smile. . .


wouldn’t the Guatemalan people be happier if they drove stakes through the hearts of 

their Capitalist Vampire oppressors and kept their blood? 

wouldn’t you? 

I think not but do to selfishness and the competition to beat out your fellow 

brither we have created a monster that causes the majority of our problems 

here in the wonderful land of PROMISE!! 

write instead: 

Capitalism has created monster vampires that cause the majority of our problems here in 

the wonderful land of PROMISE!! 


[383] KALISPEL: Gilligan’s Guatemalans I follow you that money does not buy happiness, 

however I would like to explain your analogy a little farther. 

You say that the poor Guatemalans were happy. I believe that there are many happy poor 

people all over the world. If this was not so then we must assume that at least 2/3 of the 

world is extremely miserable. 

I believe misery is created not by the lack of money, but by inequalies. For example, I 

was on a fire crew in Idaho and was promoted and made more money than anyone else on 

the crew per hour. Several of the people found out and suddenly they were pissed off and not 

happy anymore. Look at children. Bring one home a present and not the other one and see 

what happens. Our society has norms that say everyone needs this or needs that. If it seems 

that everyone has these things and we do not than we feel some discomfort. If everyone lost 

everything we would feel much better than if everyone has everything and I have nothing. 

What I find interesting is that the rich do not feel bad about being rich. Maybe they do 

and ignore how they feel. I do not see how a rich person can feel good about him/her self 

when there are starving people all around them. This is why we should call all rich people 

rich bastards. Bastards to adjectivise a rich persons true nature. 



[321] KALISPEL: Depressive Suburbia (m-c-m). Money as an end in itself has caused 

some ills to society. I would like to focus on that of depression. This came from an article I 

read in time magazine. 

This article points out that depression has evolved from the social relations of society. 

Depression comes from alienation from people. Lonely people are generally depressed. 

Society has caused people to be more vulnerable to this disease. 

What happens is that we drive to work in our cars alone. Then we go home, park our 

car in the garage and then go into the house to do whatever we do. Each mother and father 

take care of only their children and pretty much like their privacy. It is part of the rugged 

individualism brought forth in capitalism. Additionally, through division of labor there are 

many rote jobs and jobs that force alienation on people. For example, you may work in a 


factory and talk to no one for 10 hours and then drive home alone in your car and go into your 

house. This leaves most of your living life alienated from people. This leads to depression 

because we all need each other to not only be happy, but also to achieve our potentials and 

live “rich” lives. 

Interestingly, scientists were sent back into tribes in Africa and Asia to study depression. 

They found that it did not exist. Scientists also went into the Amish society to study depression 

there and found that it was virtually non-existent in this culture. Scientists concluded 

that the communal type living is what contributed to the greater elevation of happiness in 

these cultures. In the tribes, all of the women would take care of each others children together. 

The men would hunt for food together. Everything was done as a team effort and 

no one was left alone. This is the same principle the Amish go by. They have a very strong 

sense of community and help each other out. There is no unemployment and homelessness 

and starvation and also there is no isolation. 

M-c-m provides an aim that doesn’t lead to happiness. It is imperative that the aim lead 

people to be authentic and happy human beings. Life is about being happy and happiness 

is not produced by what you are told will bring you happiness. It comes from within and is 

different for everyone. Thus, M-c-m should be M-c-h or something like this. Has society 

taken great leaps forward, or has it taken two steps forward and three backward? 



[358] Karl: Where is the revolution? Marx talked about capitalism as a stage that would 

take place prior to communism. It is often heard from Marxist students that capitalism will 

sow the seeds of it’s own destruction. Well as far as history shows, there have been strikes, 

and even mass destruction of machinery in the industrial revolution. However, I have yet to 

see a mass revolt due to a class struggle that ends capitalism as we know it. The 2 reasons I 

give for this is A) no system is perfect B) Marx is just a human, not the God everyone makes 

him out to be in this class. 

First I would like to address point A. Marx wants us to believe that socialism, communism, 

and what other mask you want to use, is a utopian world far advanced from capitalism. 

Why did I say that. Simple, for those of you who are interested go talk to professor Hua in 

the sociology dept. sometime. He will tell you that there are gross class struggles in the 

Marxian world. After all he was forced under the rule of Mao Tse-tung, in China,to eat 

grass and leaves in a prison camp, while Mao lived better than most kings capatilism has 

produced. Is there conflict, and class struggles, yes. Now I know someone will say that what 

happened in China isn’t what Marx intended. The point is that there are exceptions to rules 

in both Marx, and Adam Smith’s line of thinking. Perhaps they aren’t the Gods we make 

them to be. I certainly don’t, because I am a free thinker, and I believe Marx was as well. 

I really don’t care what the school system or the world thinks of my interpretations . I like 

Marx am willing to take a beating from professors, and be kicked out of countries for my 

views, as was Marx.


In my estimation, people miss there own creativity, and joy in life if they follow like blind 

puppy dogs. There is a grave danger in associating your whole line of thinking in one group, 

such as to call yourself a Marxist, a Capitalist or any other brand name. For in doing so 

you are like the blind leading the blind. I don’t think Marx really fully believed this either, 

as Marx himself was very wealthy through the inheritance of his Father’s work. Marx and 

Engels knew no harsh drudgery, but they weren’t afraid to give there opinion on the matter. 

So, we must ask ourselves, where is the revolution? Whether it is the strikes of labors in 

capitalism? Or is it the people throughing down the statues of Stalin in Russia? Or perhaps 

the person in Tenimin square facing a tank for his bliefs? The point is, there is no one answer. 

In the words of the indigo girls, “The less I search my soul for some definitive, the closer I 

am to fine.” 

Message [358] referenced by [360] and [363]. Next Message by Karl is [361]. 

[360] Franz: eating grass and leaves Karl wrote in [358]: 

First I would like to address point A. Marx wants us to believe that socialism, 

communism, and what other mask you want to use, is a utopian 

world far advanced from capitalism. Why did I say that. Simple, for those 

of you who are interested go talk to professor Hua in the sociology dept. 

sometime. 

If the question is: (why did you say that?) The answer is: (you listened to some guy 

named Hua and did not read Marx.) 

After pouring through thousands of pages, you may find perhaps 20 to 30 pages (less 

than 1%) where Marx makes mention of what a “utopian” world it would be if we could rid 

ourselves of the master/slave relationship. 

sort of similar to lyrics found in John Lennon’s “Imagine.” 

Imagine a world where a vampire doesn’t suck surplus value outta your neck. 

Your Sociology prof eats grass and leaves and this is supposed to tie into K.M.’s writings? 

? ? 

How? 

If your prof blames K.M. because Mao put him in a prison camp, I think that quite a leap. 

. . 

Now I know someone will say that what happened in China isn’t what Marx 

intended. 

You need to remove the name “Marx” and insert someone else’s name. Probably the 

name of the person the Chinese followed while setting up their society. 

The point is that there are exceptions to rules in both Marx, and Adam 

Smith’s line of thinking. 

What “rules?” 



[363] Kevin: Re: Where is the revolution? Karl wrote in [358]: 

Marx talked about capitalism as a stage that would take place prior to communism. 

It is often heard from Marxist students that capitalism will sow the 

seeds of it’s own destruction. Well as far as history shows, there have been 

strikes, and even mass destruction of machinery in the industrial revolution. 

It should be noted that this is “some” Marxist students who make that assertion. Please 

understand that the idea of capitalism destroying itself in some sudden conflagulation has 

been of much controversy both among Marxists and non-Marxists for the last century. 


communism, and what other mask you want to use, is a utopian world 

far advanced from capitalism. Why did 

Maybe a few others would like you to “believe” that, but Marx tries to make the case that 

capitalism’s inherant contradictions form the basis from which that society can be formed. 

Not a perfect society, but one far better than the previous. It should also be noted that Marx 

really devoted much time to considering his theory of the state and socialism; he spent much 

more time analyzing capitalism. 

I say that. Simple, for those of you who are interested go talk to professor 

Hua in the sociology dept. sometime. He will tell you that there are gross 

class struggles in the Marxian world. 

For a “freethinker” you seem to still be constrained by some of the characteristics and the 

false dichotomy which punditry has semantically bestowed on the world; between the “free” 

world and the “Marxist” or communist world. Actually if you’re professor Hua was such a 

Marxian expert with experience in China he would realize the emphasis that Maoism puts 

on class struggle and contradiction within all societies. 

In my estimation, people miss there own creativity, and joy in life if they 

follow like blind puppy dogs. There is a grave danger in associating your 

whole line of thinking in one group, such as to call yourself a Marxist, 

a Capitalist or any other brand name. For in doing so you are like the 

blind leading the blind. I don’t think Marx really fully believed this either, 

as Marx himself was very wealthy through the inheritance of his Father’s 

work. Marx and Engels knew no harsh drudgery, but they weren’t afraid to 

give there opinion on the matter. 

I like the first sentence. It reminds me of the great quote from Keynes in the “General 

Theory” in which he comments on individuals “becoming the slave of some defunct economist.” 

But two points; capitalist is not a “brand name” its actually a very specific label as defined 

by Marx to describe individuals in capitalism. Its much different than “Marxist” which is a 

term that is widely disagreed upon.


Next, before you make comments about Marx read a biography. Any biography, or perhaps 

Professor Hua?, will tell you Marx was poor throughout the later part of his life, and 

never rich in the former. Marx’s father was a lawyer, and certainly not of the capitalist class. 

Engels was the only one of the two with any money, he was a partner at a textile factory. 

But I fail to see how that relates to your comment about drudgery or slavery; as Marx and 

Engels hardly were “slaves of some defunct economist.” Actually they revolutionized political 

economy of the day, even most non-Marxists will acknowledge this. Next, if you make 

the comment that they knew of “no drudgery” you must not have read Capital, or perhaps 

Engel’s “Condition of the Working Class in England.” But of course Adam Smith, nor Lord 

Keynes knew of “drudgery.” Neither did Aristotle, or Socrates. If you consider the history 

of philosophy and nearly every science, it is rarely the proletariat that has the time to argue 

their views with the rigor of the leisured classes (with the exception of the great eye-lense 

grinder Spinoza). 

So, we must ask ourselves, where is the revolution? Whether it is 

Obviously not here yet. Unless, of course, you feel strongly or “believe” that Stalinist 

Russia or the quasi-fascist dictatorship in China can be adequately acquianted with the 

thought of Marx; anymore than Hitler’s Germany can be equated with the thought of Ayn 

Rand. 


[371] Panacea: How many times? Karl recently wrote something which pains me on 

a historical level, which I and many others have already addressed over and over again - I 

recently had the chance to introduce to a freshman seminar the subject of Marxism, and even 

they brought this point up, and UNDERSTOOD IT. Why can’t students in a 500 level class 

understand it? 

A) no system is perfect B) Marx is just a human, not the God everyone 

makes him out to be in this class. 


communism, and what other mask you want to use, is a utopian world 

far advanced from capitalism. Why did I say that. Simple, for those of 

you who are interested go talk to professor Hua in the sociology department 

sometime. He will tell you that there are gross class struggles in the 

Marxian world. After all he was forced under the rule of Mao Tse-tung, in 

China,to eat grass and leaves in a prison camp, while Mao lived better than 

most kings capitalism has produced. 

Guess what, Karl. Marxism is NOT ABOUT SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM! As 

Fredric Jamison, at his seminar two weeks ago so eloquently put it (and I paraphrase): It 

is en vogue today to celebrate the ‘fall of marxism’, yet post-modern capitalism must realize 

that as long as capitalism exists, marxism will exist along side of it - why? Because Marxism 

is the critique of capitalism! They must coexist like black and white! 

I feel for Hua, Karl. I had the opportunity to take a graduate polisci course up in Logan 

from one of the organizers of the Tianiman (sp) Square incident - it was a travesty.. But you 


and all the rest must realize that what goes on in China is MAOISM - thats what they call it, 

thats what we should call it. Eastern Europe was not representative of Marxism, nor was the 

Soviet Union. Figure out what the terms mean, Karl, then you will understand. 

In my estimation, people miss their own creativity, and joy in life if they 

follow like blind puppy dogs. There is a grave danger in associating your 

whole line of thinking in one group, such as to call yourself a Marxist, a 

Capitalist or any other brand name. For in doing so you are like the blind 

leading the blind. 

Karl, this is a real oversimplification. Try telling a black man to stop associating himself 

with blacks. It doesn’t work, Karl. I call myself a Marxist not because I have deified Marx, 

but because I agree with his critique of Capitalism, not because I’m some blind ignoramus 

who needs to follow something. I criticized capitalism before I knew who marx was. 

And can you see that a capitalist who says to himself “I’m not a capitalist!” and grins to 

himself - HE is the blind man? Marx, remember Karl, does not place normative judgemnets 

on individuals, but rather examines quite positively the system. Then, even the blind man 

can make normative judgements. 

I don’t think Marx really fully believed this either, as Marx himself was 

very wealthy through the inheritance of his Father’s work. Marx and Engels 

knew no harsh drudgery, but they weren’t afraid to give there opinion on the 

matter. 

OK, maybe you don’t know much about Marx. Please refer to submissions by Kevin and 

Peace to understand that, in this case and the case of readers who agree with this statement 

- you really are the blind leading the blind. 

As for the revolution, the beginnings lie in classes like this, where we must decide whether 

or not to recognize problems in the system. Once enough of us can see capitalism for the 

poison it is, the revolution will be inevitable. 

Panacea 

“...some men here, they know the full extent of your distress. They kneel and pray and 

they say, ‘Long may it last!’ - why don’t you find out for yourselves, and then you’ll see the 

glass hidden in the grass...” 

Moz 

Message [371] referenced by [372]. Next Message by Panacea is [409]. 

[372] Kevin: Maoism [was: How many more times?] Panacea wrote in [371] 

I feel for Hua, Karl. I had the opportunity to take a graduate polisci course 

up in Logan from one of the organizers of the Tianiman (sp) Square incident 

- it was a travesty.. But you and all the rest must realize that what goes on 

in China is MAOISM - thats what they call it, thats what we should call 

it. Eastern Europe was not representative of Marxism, nor was the Soviet 

Union. Figure out what the terms mean, Karl, then you will understand.


Actually every Maoist out there today, in the West at least, would strongly disagree that 

China has much to do with Maoism. The leaders of every small Maoist group in the world 

acknowledge this, as well as the leaders of the Communist Party of Peru; which has been 

fighting a Maoist revolutionary war for 16 years now. 

Maoism, in proper context, should refer more to the philosophical, economic, and military 

writings and theory of Mao; and often his actions and policy, like the Cultural Revolution. 

China today really has very little to do with Mao outside of the party line that he was ‘70% 

correct.’ There are many excellent books on the events in China, especially after Mao’s 

death. I suggest you find some, perhaps try the newest one on Monthly Review Press entitled 

“White Tiger, Red Tiger.” 


[389] KALISPEL: How many times? Panacea, I liked your submission on Marx. However, 

I thought that last quote was by Morrissey and not by Moz. Did Moz write the lyrics 

for Morrissey? 


[409] Panacea: Re: Maoism [was: How many more times?] Kevin wrote: 

Actually every Maoist out there today, in the West at least, would strongly 

disagree that China has much to do with Maoism. The leaders of every 

small Maoist group in the world acknowledge this, as well as the leaders of 

the Communist Party of Peru; which has been fighting a Maoist revolutionary 

war for 16 years now. 

Certainly, Kevin, just as ‘Leninism’ was supplanted with ‘Stalinism’ and subsequently 

other ‘isms’. It is however, valid to label a significant portion of Red China’s history as 

‘Maoism’ - we all like to revise history a little. 

Maoism, in proper context, should refer more to the philosophical, economic, 

and military writings and theory of Mao; and often his actions and 

policy, like the Cultural Revolution. China today really has very little to 

do with Mao outside of the party line that he was ‘70% correct.’ There are 

many excellent books on the events in China, especially after Mao’s death. 

I suggest you find some, perhaps try the newest one on Monthly Review 

Press entitled “White Tiger, Red Tiger.” 

Again, I don’t disagree. It is a revisionist history that tries to eliminate ‘Maoism’ as the 

driving force behind China’s economic, social and secular history. I’ll post some titles for 

this if you would like - some of the most important China scholars are fairly even on this 

issue. Your reference does seem interesting - I’ll look it up. 

The China of today is very different, I think you’ll agree, than the bulk of it’s Red history 

- it is this that I addressed in my previous posting. Thanks for the insight, Kevin. 

Panacea 

“...there are some bad people on the rise... they’re saving their own skins by ruining 

people’s lives...” Moz 




[373] Pinky: Marx is a nut-burger I was shocked to learn that Panacea believes that 

Marx’s personal practice held no importance in considering the value of his philosophy. I 

think it is very dangerous when we refuse to see the people behind the philosophies we 

espouse. To claim that a man can be a leacherous egomaniac in his life, but have some really 

good ideas regarding how we should work as a society is ludicrous. Especially, when the 

ideas center around giving up ego in exchange for an egalitarian society. 

Now, I will address those of you who are indignantly reading on asking yourselves how 

I can call him a leacherous egomaniac. Karl mentioned in a previous submission that many 

in this class tend to regard Marx as a god. I agree, and believe that there are substantial 

reasons for this. Also, in answer to Scotts question about if Marx had ever written anything 

in celebration of the human spirit, (no, Panacea, I don’t think Das Kapital counts) he did. He 

celebrated his own spirit and out of control lust for power as exemplified in the following 

passage of one of his poems: 

Then I will wander godlike and victorious Through the ruins of the world 

And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the creator. 

Franz proclaimed in one of his messages that “The revolution is coming” One scholar has 

counted over fourty anticipations of revolutions in the correspondence between Marx and 

Engels. Franz is eagerly anticipating the day when his real dream can come to fruition; the 

momentous day that he can finally make Jon Huntsman cry. 

Franz has also issued the challenge to find a hateful statement in capital. This may well 

be a fruitless effort since the evaluations will be subjective. Rather, I found a quote from a 

fellow revolutionary on his evaluation of Marx: “If his heart had matched his intellect, and 

if he possessed as much love as hate, I would have gone through fire for him, but a most 

dangerous personal ambition has eaten away all the good in him.” Marx was also known to 

glare at anyone who challenged his conclusions and say “I will annihilate you!” 

Marx knew alot about exploitation. He did to everyone around him, especially his own 

family. He exploited his mother for a monthly allowance; threatening to “draw bills on 

her...and letting myself be locked up” if she failed to continue payment. Excuses have been 

made for the death of three of his children by blaming it on his poverty or better, the system. 

Despite the fact that the Marx’s did indeed live in poverty, his known income was sufficinent 

for a lower middle family standard of living at that time, and was about three times the 

income of an unskilled worker. 

His illegitimate son, Freddy Demuth was deprived of any relationship, let alone financial 

support from Marx. He was a sacrifice for Marx’s convenience and image. When, in order 

to substantiate his income, he wanted German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle to find him some 

business, he cultivated him with flattery to his face and contempt behind his back; referring 

to his book as an “exhibition of enormous erudition” when writing to Lassalle and a 

“Silly concoction” when writing to Engels. Marx added that Lassalle was a “Jewish nigger,”


(though crude, in practice Marx demonstrated that he was not a racist in the twentieth century’s 

sense.) He exploited the labor of many by non-payment of debts. Wow!, that may 

even be worse than low wages! 

Regarding exploitation, the phrase “takes one to know one” comes to my mind. 

The reality is that Marx’s vision of a society could not be realized if a man like him would 

have had to live in it. The people that would have to administer his kind of society would 

have to be completely honest and unselfish. If the man behind the socialist philosophy stands 

as a poor example of morality even in a capitalist society, giving the freedom of the masses 

up to him or even anyone else slightly less that christlike would be disastrous. 

As much as people will try and tell you otherwise, CHARACTER DOES COUNT! Beware 

the people who tell you that it doesn’t; they most likely have clandestine motivation. 

Message [373] referenced by [382], [410], and [416]. Next Message by Pinky is [374]. 

[374] Pinky: Clarification: Marx WAS a nut-burger Sorry, I used the present tense. 


[382] Kevin: Re: Marx is a nut-burger Pinky wrote in [373]: 

I was shocked to learn that Panacea believes that Marx’s personal practice 

held no importance in considering the value of his philosophy. I think it is 

very dangerous when we refuse to see the people behind the philosophies 

we espouse. To claim that a man can be a leacherous egomaniac in his 

life, but have some really good ideas regarding how we should work as a 

society is ludicrous. Especially, when the ideas center around giving up ego 

in exchange for an egalitarian society. 

Your report on Marx was very good, and overall very true; yet I fail to see the connection 

between his personality and his economic perspective. Second where do you get the idea that 

Marx wishes individuals to “give up their ego in exchange for an egalitarian society.” This is 

nowhere near Marx’s conception of socialism, which was based on the idea that capitalism 

would reach a point in its development where the individual’s self-worth would be eroded 

both physically and mentally; thus socialism can provide a system where this self-worth can 

be realized, away from exploitation and alienation. Marx was not an Owenite or some hippy 

communist; as you seem to think he was. 

spirit, (no, Panacea, I don’t think Das Kapital counts) he did. He celebrated 

his own spirit and out of control lust for power as exemplified in the following 

passage of one of his poems: 



Where can this be found, by the way? 

Franz proclaimed in one of his messages that “The revolution is coming” 

One scholar has counted over fourty anticipations of revolutions in the correspondence 

between Marx and Engels. Franz is eagerly anticipating the 


day when his real dream can come to fruition; the momentous day that he 

can finally make Jon Huntsman cry. 

Again, Franz is one of millions who call themselves Marxists around the world. He may 

be a “free-thinker” or perhaps a “slave of some defunct economist.” Or perhaps a little naive. 

This hardly means much for the general characteristics of the Marxian analysis of capitalism. 

Actually it seems as though neoclassical economists often do no better in their predictions 

than Marxists. 

By the way, again, where are your sources? And what qualifies itself as “anticipation of 

a revolution.” Just a simple reference to some unknown time, or a date, hour, minute, and 

second? When citing things you need to be more specific. 

Marx knew alot about exploitation. He did to everyone around him, especially 

his own family. He exploited his mother for a monthly allowance; 

threatening to “draw bills on her...and letting myself be locked up” if she 

failed to continue payment. Excuses have been made for the death of three 

of his children by blaming it on his poverty or better, the system. Despite 

the fact that the Marx’s did indeed live in poverty, his known income was 

sufficinent for a lower middle family standard of living at that time, and was 

about three times the income of an unskilled worker. sense.) He exploited 

the labor of many by non-payment of debts. Wow!, that may even be worse 

than low wages! 

I fail to see what this has to do with such questions as: 

- Can capitalism really collapse on its own? Is there any general trend towards the falling 

rate of profit? 

- How does the Third World fit in within global capitalism? Are planned economies 

beneficial to them? Did Marx anticipate any of this, how about later Marxists like Trotsky, 

Cabral (Amilcar), or Guervara? 

- What contradictions do we find in capitalism today? What kind of socialism can demolish 

these? 

- Can an economy be planned? Does the Mises-Hayek calculation hold true? Is there a 

type of market socialism which could work? 

It looks to me as though you’re simply trying to skip around some of these questions 

in order to “expose” Marx’s personal failings in order to somehow disprove his political 

economy by ad hominid attacks. 

completely honest and unselfish. If the man behind the socialist philosophy 

stands as a poor example of morality even in a capitalist society, giving 

the freedom of the masses up to him or even anyone else slightly less that 

christlike would be disastrous. As much as people will try and tell you 

otherwise, CHARACTER DOES COUNT! Beware the people who tell you 

that it doesn’t; they most likely have clandestine motivation.

There is a line in the Internationale which goes: 


“No saviour from on high delivers No faith have we in prince or peer” 

This sums up very well the attitude of any serious socialist towards Earthly messiahs-tobe. 

But, of course you might not want to trust me, because I MIGHT HAVE CLANDES- 

TINE MOTIVATIONS!!! 

Kevin Church of Marx, the Scientist - Archbishop of the Columbus Diocese 


[384] KALISPEL: Marx is a nut-burger CHARACTER is important on a personal 

level, but it doesn’t count in this atmosphere. Marx does not claim to be the son of God. 

He’s human. Neither you or I can judge his moral actions. If we do so then we are not 

christlike. 

What level do we say he’s ok? Do we accept the fact that he stole a candy bar when he 

was 8 years old or do we accept the fact that he had premarital sex one time and then felt 

sorry for it? Do we judge his actions as a provider? Can I personally say that because Marx 

wasn’t up to the moral average that he should be considered stupid also. Should we discount 

Einsteins revelations on the basis that he commited adultery several times. I think we should 

have just told Einstein that he was to be mute because he was a dreg of society for doing 

these things. The truth is we don’t know why Marx did what he did. To him it may have 

been a moral choice. Who are we to judge that? 

Look in the bible. Solomon had many concubines, yet he was considered one of the 

wisest kings that ever lived. David took upon Bathsheba. Are these people suddenly stupid 

and worthless? 

We all have weaknesses. We should judge theories based on their content, not on the 

perpetrators moral subjectiveness. This would indicate that we know the mind and will of 

God and of the human involved, if we chose to do this. This, of course, is impossible. 

By the way, clandestine means a secret or alterior motive to all of you out there who have 

never heard of it (is that everyone?). Marx must have wanted capitalism to thrive since he 

exploited his wife and murdered his children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Character does not count!! 


[399] Pinky: Marx is a nut-burger Dear KALISPEL, 

Had Marx come up with the theory of relativity, I would in no way question its validity. 

The theory of relativity has nothing to do with human behavior. Social philosophy has 

everything to do with it. Either we accept that humans have major weaknesses, or we don’t. 

Communism demands that we don’t. If any leader posesses a quality that is not wholly 

pure, it will fail. My point is; if the man who wrote (with Engels, who is another story) 

the Communist Manifesto had such obvious moral frailty, how can we not see the blatant 

hypocrisy and the obviousness that man cannot build the kind of communist society Marx 

envisioned? 


Marx is the best example of why Communism will fail. Men are, have always been, and 

will always be imperfect. My moral judgement of him is limited to making the much-needed 

comparison with his philosophy. 

Message [399] referenced by [411] and [413]. Next Message by Pinky is [401.3]. 

[410] Panacea: Marx is a nut-burger Pinky wrote in [373]: 

I was shocked to learn that Panacea believes that Marx’s personal practice 

held no importance in considering the value of his philosophy. I think it is 

very dangerous when we refuse to see the people behind the philosophies 

we espouse. To claim that a man can be a leacherous egomaniac in his life, 

but have some really good ideas regarding how we should work as a society 

is ludicrous. 

Face it, Pinky. You’ll have a difficult time finding someone who doesn’t have skeletons 

in the closet. Remember Jefferson, the guy who wrote so much about human emancipation 

while having his slaves bear his illigitimate children? Look hard enough, Pinky, and you’ll 

find something. Even Washington’s limp, which he bravely told others was a war wound, 

was a revolutionary war lie. He got it climbing out of his mistresses window, the old lecher. 

We must separate the person from the work. Rousseau, Kant, Mann all come to mind. 

Few individuals can meld their personalities with their writings, as Goethe did. Although I 

don’t blame you for you’re hatred or disgust with Marx’s personal life, I do think you are 

misguided to equate that with his writings. 

Now, I will address those of you who are indignantly reading on asking 

yourselves how I can call him a leacherous egomaniac. Karl mentioned in 

a previous submission that many in this class tend to regard Marx as a god. I 

agree, and believe that there are substantial reasons for this. Also, in answer 

to Scotts question about if Marx had ever written anything in celebration of 

the human spirit, (no, Panacea, I don’t think Das Kapital counts) he did. He 

celebrated his own spirit and out of control lust for power as exemplified in 

the following passage of one of his poems: 



Pinky, I’m impressed! Please give a reference as to where the rest of us can find this 

gem. Hey, you don’t read much classsical style poetry, do you? Because this sounds like 

a whole genre of Goethe’s writings - which carried over and through to Nietzsche (a very 

misunderstood man). So what is your point? Goethe, though he wrote Prometheus, realized 

he wasn’t a god. Did Marx? Hardly. Do we think Marx is a god? Go study more abnormal 

psych, Pinky. The whole point in Marxism is to critique - and I’ll side with you if you find 

someone who feels Marx is God, for he truly will be crazy. 

Incidently, Marx didn’t believe in God. He was an athiest.


Franz proclaimed in one of his messages that “The revolution is coming” 

One scholar has counted over fourty anticipations of revolutions in the correspondence 

between Marx and Engels. Franz is eagerly anticipating the 

day when his real dream can come to fruition; the momentous day that he 

can finally make Jon Huntsman cry. 

Boy, won’t this be nice! He who has oppressed so many through his money really should 

learn what it is like to be equal. 

Hey, Pinky, are you a christian? Because scholars have documented at least 200 instinces 

in which ‘christians’ have anticipated the second coming. Yet ‘He’ has yet to come. Get 

the point? Whether or not Christ comes has little to do with how many fanatics are drinking 

drugged kool-aid, nor does the coming of the revolution Franz awaits have much to do with 

whether or not some Marxist fanatics are ditributing pamphlets. It will be a social movement, 

just as capitalism has been one. 

As much as people will try and tell you otherwise, CHARACTER DOES 

COUNT! Beware the people who tell you that it doesn’t; they most likely 

have clandestine motivation. 

Hmm. I would flip that one around, pinky. Beware he who tells you CHARACTER 

counts so much (Kennedy, Reagan, and so on) - character has rarely fed starving masses. It 

usely ends up being the excuse for it. 

I did love the biographical information - I was really impressed, actually. Again, I’m 

interested in the reference for that poem. 

Panacea 

“...we’re in a government scheme designed to kill your dream...” Moz 



had Marx come up with the theory of relativity, I would in no way question 

it’s validity. The theory of relativity has nothing to do with human behavior. 

Social philosophy has everything to do with it. Either we accept that 

humans have major weaknesses, or we don’t. Communism demands that 

we don’t. If any leader posesses a quality that is not wholly pure, it will fail. 

My point is; if the man who wrote (with Engels, who is another story) the 

Communist Manifesto had such obvious moral frailty, how can we not see 

the blatant hipocracy and the obviousness that man cannot build the kind of 

communist society Marx envisioned? 

Marx is the best example of why Communism will fail. Men are, have 

always been, and will always be imperfect. My moral judgement of him is 

limited to making the much-needed comparison with his philosophy. 

Perhaps you should first have a better understanding of what communism, or socialism 

for that matter is. You are completely off-base. Have you ever read a socialist magazine? 


Against the Current? Monthly Review? Ever read a socialist author? A socialist sociologist? 

Do you know that Karl Marx has been dead since March 14th 1883, and that he is not coming 

back to raise all communist martyrs from the dead while sitting at the right side of Jesus? 

You treat socialism as if it is a religion which relies on saviors, prayers, and moral perfection. 

You are absolutely clueless, I certainly hope you will take the time to read something 

before you open your mouth again with such blather. Maybe you could start by reading 

Mandel’s introduction to Capital, then perhaps reading some of thousands of other resources 

out there for you to learn from. Maybe Hans has some suggestions? 


[413] KALISPEL: Marx is a nut-burger Pinky wrote in [399] 

had Marx come up with the theory of relativity, I would in no way question 

its validity. The theory of relativity has nothing to do with human behavior. 

Social philosophy has everything to do with it. Either we accept that 

humans have major weaknesses, or we don’t. 

Of course we accept that humans have weaknesses. The theory of relativity operates on 

scientific principles. Marx and Bhaskar are trying to develop these principles from a scientific 

point of view. What are the mechanisms at work? Once we know these mechanisms 

and can prove them it is no different than the theory of relativity. This hasn’t been done yet, 

of course, but we should study those who devoted their lives to this and if we do not accept 

their philosphies then we should be able to prove them wrong. 

Communism demands that we don’t. 

This was a major flaw in communism. Who would disagree with this? 

If any leader posesses a quality that is not wholly pure, it will fail. My point 

is; if the man who wrote (with Engels, who is another story) the Communist 

Manifesto had such obvious moral frailty, how can we not see the blatant 

hipocracy and the obviousness that man cannot build the kind of communist 

society Marx envisioned? 

Marx did not build the communist Soviet Union. Parts of his theories were used and 

others left out. One of communisms main failings was because much of Marx’s theory was 

left out. Additionally, Marx did not attempt to write a utopia for mankind. His main point 

was to point out the flaws in capitalism. How wanted to show that there must be a better way. 

The reason he didn’t write a utopia was because a utopia can always be refuted no matter 

what it is. How? You can just write a better one or punch holes in the ideology. Either way 

Marx knew this would do him no good so he simply critiqued capitalism. 

You say a system will fail if leaders motives aren’t completely pure. Who has comletely 

pure motives? Not a single soul. Has the U.S. fallen because Clinton inhaled some marijuana? 

I’m willing to bet you think president Clinton is scum because you don’t like his 

personal moral choices.


Marx is the best example of why Communism will fail. Men are, have 

always been, and will always be imperfect. My moral judgement of him is 

limited to making the much-needed comparison with his philosophy. 

Perhaps you should first have a better understanding of what communism, 

or socialism for that matter is. You are right on! Have you ever read a 

socialist magazine? Against the Current? Monthly Review? Ever read a 

socialist author? A socialist sociologist? Do you know that Karl Marx has 

been dead since March 14th 1883, and that he is not coming back to raise 

all communist martyrs from the dead while sitting at the right side of Jesus? 

I thought Jesus was and Marx were buddies. 

Yes, I have read socialist authors. Do you claim to know more than most about socialism? 

You seem to care a lot about personal knowledge. I’ll readily admit there are many who 

dwarf my socialist knowledge. If you know so much why don’t you explain to the class 

what a true system devoid of a failing Marx can provide. Then I will be happy to learn from 

you. 

You treat socialism as if it is a religion which relies on saviors, prayers, 

and moral perfection. You are absolutely clueless, I certainly hope you 

will take the time to read something before you open your mouth again 

with such blather. Maybe you could start by reading Mandel’s introduction 

to Capital, then perhaps reading some of thousands of other resources out 

there for you to learn from. Maybe Hans has some suggestions? 

Every society has a foundation with morals laid in it. For example, in most societies 

you cannot steal or murder. These morals have a place in protecting rights and producing 

happiness. True socialism does not exist at present. We need to discover how to use these 

and whatever other principles there are to create a better place to live. I totally disagree that 

this has anything to do with religion, saviors, prayers, or moral perfection. If someone was 

mislead before, please know this was not at all my point. My point was that we should judge 

theories based on content, predictability, and empirical evidence, not on personal morals of 

the person who developed these theories. 

I have read the introduction to Capital very carefully, in fact. I would hope that with your 

knowledge a superior system might be developed. 

Are you saying that our leaders should all possess moral absolutes? Do you have a 

system of determining moral against non-moral people? How do we discriminate rights 

and priviledges through a society based on morals? Do we simply withold leadership from 

non-moral people? In our society it’s done through laws and regulations and enforced by the 

police etc? Do you want to take these morals farther? Do you want a society run by religious 

leaders that go to church every week? What’s your conviction? What principles do you go 

by and how will you implement this? 

Thank-you for your ideas Kevin. 


“some men here, they have a special interest, in you distress, And they’ll siphon all your 

dough! Why don’t you find out for yourself, then you’ll find president Clinton smoking in 

some grass against a pane of glass...” 


[416] Franz: PINKY (from FRANZOLA) Pinky wrote in [373]: 

Franz issued the challenge to find a hateful statement in capital. This may 

well be a fruitless effort since the evaluations will be subjective. 

please. . . be as subjective as you wish. . . for example, in his answer to a question, Jason 

provided a quote in which Marx stated that the Capitalist is a thief. Jason interpreted this 

as a moral (value) statement – like “Capitalist are low down dirty thieves.” Dr. E points out 

that Marx was using this statement as a definition (positive) term – like “the expropriation 

of surplus value is theft.” 

the point of this course = in depth critique of Capital. Perhaps you will decide to read 

the section of Capital to which Jason makes reference, interpret for yourself and be able to 

incorporate in one of your own answers later in the course. Whatever your opinion, if you 

are able to back it up with sound reasoning etc. . . it can only help your grade. 

so challenge still stands. . . find statement from K.M. which exhibit some sort of normative 

(un-scientific) sentiment. . . 

K.M. is a scientist “nut-burger”, not a judgemental “nut-burger.” 

First Message by Franz is [224]. 

[418] Pinky: Marx is a nut-burger You have all focused so narrowly on what I said that 

you have completely missed my point. No, I do not expect or in any way want our leaders 

to be religious fanatics. I never expect to see our society form a religious or moral ideology 

that is agreeable to all. 

HELLO!, THAT IS MY POINT! 

Socialism, and later; Communism is based upon the assumption that we will be taken care 

of because our high-minded leaders will know what is best. Central planning would be a necessity. 

Marx and Engels failed to consider how the very apparatus of central planning would 

present an ever-present temptation to the holders of such power to trun the whole economy 

to their own purposes, even possibly military might; rather than serving the consumers. 

Whether they are down-right evil or just fruity based on our assesment does not matter. 

They have the power. 

I agree Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Bill Clinton (who, by the way, Panacea, 

I do think is a true scum-bag) all had/have moral flaws. The beauty of it is, we are not entirely 

beholden to them because of the constant threat of the great evil: competition. Competition 

is the very thing that protects us against evil doers and fruit cakes alike. Yes, if competition 

was allowed to dominate society’s actions free of laws and regulations, it would be a disaster 

as well. But Communism holds no tolerance for competition. Many see it as a really neat 

and friendly thing. Realists will see it as a frightening threat on personal liberty.


Am I wrong? Does Marx not believe that central planning is the way to go? Do human 

beings not have to occupy the positions? Does Marx embrace the concept of competition, 

but I just somehow missed it? 

Please enlighten me, I seem to be clueless. Blather, blather, blather...... 


[420] Pinky: Pinky’s Sources Just a note to those of you out there interested in my 

sources. 

The megalomaniactic poem came from: David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and 

Thought, p.22 

The citation of the scholar that counted over 40 anticipations of revolutions came from: 

Robert Payne, Marx, p.338 

Another interesting source: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, selected Letters, edited by 

Fritz J. Raddatz (Little, Brown and Company, 1980) 



Socialism, and later; Communism is based upon the assumption that we 

will be taken care of because our high-minded leaders will know what is 

best. Central planning would be a necessity. Marx and Engels failed to 

consider how the very apparatus of central planning would present an everpresent 

temptation to the holders of such power to trun the whole economy 

to their own purposes, even possibly military might; rather than serving the 

consumers. 

This is a terrible generalization about centralized planning and its possibilities and uses. 

Central planning was certainly what Marx and Engels believed in; but central does not have 

to necessarily imply command by one or a few. Actually its been argued that the technological 

means exist to very easil give everyone a voice in central planning. Read Alex 

Cockshott’s book which I recommended ages ago on this list, its called “Towards a New 

Socialism” and is availible from the archives of papers at http://csf.colorado.edu/psn under 

a directory with Paul Cockshott’s name on it. It’s a very good book on central planning, and 

its misconceptions. 

But to bring it back to Marx and Engels they believed in democratic planning, where the 

dictatorship of the proletariat meant control of the means of production by the working class. 

Certainly not by a small bureaucratic class that issues orders to the proletariat. 

Your entire argument is put forward in ignorance of a century of socialist discourse, 

especially that which has taken place West of the Former Soviet Union. 

moral flaws. The beauty of it is, we are not entirely beholdent to them 

because of the constant threat of the great evil: COMPETITION. Competition 

is the very thing that protects us against evil doers and fruit cakes alike. 

Yes, if competition was allowed to dominate society’s actions free of laws 

and regulations, it would be a disaster as well. But Communism holds no 


tolerance for competition. Many see it as a really neat and friendly thing. 

Realists will see it as a frightening threat on personal liberty. 

Such a horrible argument. There was certainly much corruption in the centrally planned 

countries, and there is certainly much corruption in capitalism. Note: you use Communism 

as if its some object that exists “behind the backs of men” or springs out of nowhere commanding 

the world; this has certainly nothing to do with Marx’s materialist position which 

sees history as the work of men, and not as pure accident or natural law. 

As far as competition goes most socialists would say you’re sentence is way to general. 

If you mean competition, which is won or lost by slashing jobs, wages, destroying environments, 

etc. they would say competition is a no-no. But if what you mean as competition is 

choice between different products that are created by different worker controlled companies 

then socialists would say choice is a good thing; assuming the general populous would like 

several different products to choose from, which is a very natural thing. 

Some, like myself, contend that competition is actually the best way to run a socialist 

economy if the contradictions which make competition so dangerous are eliminated. This is 

certainly not social democracy as it involves expropriating capitalists, running autonomous 

worker controled corporations, establishing full-employment, and instituting new means of 

democracy both within the workplace, and outside of the workplace. Most would call this 

market socialism. It is to an extent market oriented, but that certainly does not mean that I 

am against planning. What I feel is problematic is an economy ran entirely on the basis of 

planning. 


[423] Panacea: Re: Marx is a nut-burger Oh, Pinky. Sadly, this entire subject is so 

convoluted. It appears to me that no one knows who is responding to who and who said 

what. KALISPEL quotes the wrong person in an answer, so does Pinky. Oh, well. The 

discussion was quite unnecessary anyhow if everyone threw off their opinions and simply 

stuck to facts. 

Fact: Marx is not god, nor was he ever. Much like the respect which we give important 

and influential figures throughout history, so some of us feel Marx deserves similar respect. 

If you feel any of us have deified him, Pinky, I’d sure like to know what colour the sky is in 

your world, cause it sure ain’t blue. 

Fact: The Soviet Union, Cuba, Eastern Europe, China, etc are and were NOT MARX- 

IST GOVERNMENTS. Sorry, Pinky. Every one of these regimes have embraced facets of 

Marxism and ignored others. This may not give you the warm fuzzzy you desire, Pinky, but 

you’d better accept it. 

Pinky writes: 

You have all focused so narrowly on what I said that you have completely 

missed my point. No, I do not expect or in any way want our leaders to 

be religious fanatics. I never expect to see our society form a religious or 

moral ideology that is agreeable to all. 

HELLO!, THAT IS MY POINT!


Socialism, and later; Communism is based upon the assumption that we 

will be taken care of because our high-minded leaders will know what is 

best. Central planning would be a necessity. Marx and Engels failed to 

consider how the very apparatus of central planning would present an everpresent 

temptation to the holders of such power to trun the whole economy 

to their own purposes, even possibly military might; rather than serving the 

consumers. 

Woah, Pinky. you make a whole lot of conclusions based on shaky if not untrue premises. 

Examine the U.S.’s “democracy” and examine the concept “communism”. It doesn’t take a 

real bright boy to figure out that communism IS democracy. So who is being taken care of 

by high-minded leaders? LOOK AROUND! THAT is going on RIGHT HERE! In fact, all 

of your above statements have or have had to do with our present government. 

SSO WHAT IS YOUR POINT? You just described Communism as American style government. 

Now we are all lost as to what you mean. 

Whether they are down-right evil or just fruity based on our assesment does 

not matter. They have the power. 

And here you just described Newt Gingrich and Alan Greenspan, among others. 

The beauty of it is, we are not entirely beholdent to them because of the 

constant threat of the great evil: COMPETITION. Competition is the very 

thing that protects us against evil doers and fruit cakes alike. Yes, if competition 

was allowed to dominate society’s actions free of laws and regulations, 

it would be a disaster as well. But Communism holds no tolerance 

for competition. Many see it as a really neat and friendly thing. Realists 

will see it as a frightening threat on personal liberty. 

Pinky, correct your own statement: You see it as frightening (perhaps because you don’t 

understand it? We fear what we don’t understand.) See, both socialism/communism have 

been described as “emancipatory economics” - a term hardly applicable to capitalism. It is 

the realization that constant competition, although it may provide a better refrigerator, MAY 

NOT BE HELPFUL TO HUMANITY. (How much of your Hi-tech goodies would you give 

up in order that everyone in america had something to eat?) Pinky, many of us could care 

less for bigger better faster sleeker smarter etc. Many of us think that after 5000 years of 

human progress, maybe we ought to focus more on making sure everyone has food, shelter, 

education. Pinky, some of us love HUMANS more than THINGS. 

Yeah yeah yeah, this is all utopian bullshit, you’re thinking. Whatever. The point here is 

- YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. He’s not god, but he had a damn good idea with alot 

more merit than the crap we have right now. 

Panacea 

follower of the Cult of Marx, Salt Lake City Coven. 


[430] Pinky: Marx is a nut-burger Panacea writes: 


Fact: The Soviet Union, Cuba, Eastern Europe, China, etc are and were 

NOT MARXIST GOVERNMENTS. Sorry, Pinky. Every one of these regimes 

have embraced facets of Marxism and ignored others. This may not give 

you the warm fuzzzy you desire, Pinky, but you’d better accept it. 

I will accept it as soon as you explain to me what a Marxist government is. Marxism is 

supposed to be simply a critique of Capitalism, but there is obviously a societal intent behind 

it, because Marxists always know when a Socialist/Communist society is not Marxist. 

Woah, Pinky. you make a whole lot of conclusions based on shaky if not 

untrue premises. Examine the U.S.’s “democracy” and examine the concept 

“communism”. It doesn’t take a real bright boy to figure out that communism 

IS democracy. 

I agree, anyone who would figure that Communism is democracy could not possibly be 

a bright boy. Fortunately, I am not only bright, but a girl as well. Consequently, I deem 

your assessment of Communism an enormous truckload of hooey. A democracy takes place 

when the majority makes the determinations as to how their society will interact. Last time I 

checked, Communism was not nearly a majority view in America. You will conclude, I am 

guessing, that this is because American’s are either too greedy or too stupid. 

So who is being taken care of by high-minded eaders? LOOK AROUND! 

THAT is going on RIGHT HERE! In fact, all of your above statements have 

or have had to do with our present government. 

Yes, everyone knows that our present system takes many paternalistic actions towards it’s 

citizens. Some of which I agree and some of which I do not. I do not see, however, how this 

means that the obvious conclusion to be made based on this that we turn everything over to 

the government entirely. 

SSO WHAT IS YOUR POINT? You just described Communism as American 

style government. Now we are all lost as to what you mean. 

Correction: now WE are all confused as to what YOU mean. 

Pinky, correct your own statement: You see it as frightening (perhaps because 

you don’t understand it? We fear what we don’t understand.) 

You obviously do not understand me, but I will not be so patronizing as to psychologically 

evaluate you and conclude that you must then fear me. Thanks for pretending to care, all the 

same. 

See, both socialism/communism have been described as “emancipatory economics” 

- a term hardly applicable to capitalism. 

O.K., I know what, you can go and explain this to all the people who are risking their 

lives in makeshift boats in hopes of escaping their emancipation in Cuba to live in oppressive 

America. Note: you did not say that Marxism was emancipatory; you said Socialism/Communism. 

That, as you know is what Cuba is.


It is the realization that constant competition, although it may provide a better 

refrigerator, MAY NOT BE HELPFUL TO HUMANITY. (How much 

of your Hi-tech goodies would you give up in order that everyone in america 

had something to eat?) Pinky, many of us could care less for bigger 

better faster sleeker smarter etc. Many of us think that after 5000 years of 

human progress, maybe we ought to focus more on making sure everyone 

has food, shelter, education. Pinky, some of us love HUMANS more than 

THINGS. 

Again, another unfortunate evaluation of my psyche. Didn’t you say earlier that we 

should stick to the facts? Oh, well. Though I am sorry that it is necessary for my to do 

so in order to have a philisophical discussion, I will reveal to you my present relationship 

with humanity. For the duration of my adult life, I have given 10% of my income for charitable 

purposes. This expense is the greatest single expenditure in my entire budget. More 

than my rent, groceries, car payment etc. The novel part of the whole thing is this: I do it 

voluntarily. I gain great pleasure in giving to causes that I feel will be beneficial to others. 

Being nice isn’t being nice if you are forced to be nice. 

Panacea 

follower of the Cult of Marx, Salt Lake City Coven. 

I think this joke has about exhausted its humerous possibilities. 

Pinky 


[435] Panacea: Re: why society won’t embrace Marx Rambis recently wrote: 

And while capitalism and democracy aren’t perfect, they may indeed fulfill 

the saying, “They’re crappy ways of doing things, but it is the best we have.” 

I’m sorry, Rambis. Compare the dictionary meaning of ‘Democracy’ with what you know 

about Marx. Instead of our American ‘democratic’ republic, in which the poor have little 

or no rights, and the road to any significant public office requires millions, communism is 

more ‘by the people for the people.’ A simple fact. Your arguments have little basis in 

understanding the text or the topic - you sound like some sixth grader whose “daddy told me 

communism is bad.” 


[437] Panacea: Re: Marx is a nut-burger Pinky - I am sorry I took you for a boy - my 

mistake. I am also sorry you further the stereotype of american political thought. 

I will accept it as soon as you explain to me what a Marxist government 

is. Marxism is supposed to be simply a critique of Capitalism, but there is 

obviously a societal intent behind it, because Marxists always know when 

a Socialist/Communist society is not Marxist. 

There is a reason, Pinky. Marxists put no faith in dictatorship of the few over the many. 

When Marxists see this happen, they distance themselves from such a government. Marxists 


focus on the emancipation of mankind from economic chains - all of your submissions for 

‘Marxist’ regimes hardly fit this. And last - capitalism does not exist in a Marxist government. 

There are plenty of source material for you to link the Soviets, for example, with 

capitalism. I believe it was 1922, although I may be wrong as to the date, that Lenin melded 

his Bolsheviks with a market economy in the hopes to gain better control over his country. 

See this? 

I agree, anyone who would figure that Communism is democracy could not 

possibly be a bright boy. Consequently, I deem your assessment of Communism 

an enormous truckload of hooey. A democracy takes place when 

the majority makes the determinations as to how their society will interact. 

Last time I checked, Communism was not nearly a majority view in America. 

You will conclude, I am guessing, that this is because American’s are 

either too greedy or too stupid. 

Sometimes you are down right funny to read, Pinky. Luckily, the validity of whether or 

not Communism is a democratic form of government is not based on America’s majority 

interest in it. That is pretty sad logic. Oh, and I’m sorry, America is hardly much of a 

democracy - when was the last time your vote mattered in a presidential election? Never. We 

have an electoral college, because people like Adams and Jefferson (“fathers of democracy”) 

felt the poor masses were too uneducated to make their own decisions. 

“Communism” is a democratic form - this has nothing to do with whether or not America 

as a majority wants it, just like the majority opinion won’t make the sun turn green. 

Yes, everyone knows that our present system takes many paternalistic actions 

towards it’s citizens. Some of which I agree and some of which I do 

not. I do not see, however, how this means that the obvious conclusion to be 

made based on this that we turn everything over to the government entirely. 

Another misconception about communism. And I certainly made no statement of advocacy 

for this. 

I wrote: 

SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT? You just described Communism as American 

style government. Now we are all lost as to what you mean. 

Pinky wrote: 

Correction: now WE are all confused as to what YOU mean. 

Well, maybe you’re right, I’m not perfect. Let me rephrase it: You described the ills of 

communism in order to justify its supposed faults. In doing so, you inadvertently described 

the ills of our own government - revealing its faults - as well as displaying a few major 

misconceptions about communism. Go read, Pinky 

I wrote:




Pinky answered: 

O.K., I know what, you can go and explain this to all the people who are 

risking their lives in makeshift boats in hopes of escaping their emancipation 

in Cuba to live in oppressive America. Note: you did not say that 

Marxism was emancipatory; you said Socialism/Communism. That, as you 

know is what Cuba is. 

I’m sorry, Pinky - the human rights abuses, the dictatorship of Fidel, the very economics 

of their country all show otherwise. And take a walk around the world - you’ll find that 

america really is oppressive - the reason it makes Amnesty international’s list of countries 

with Human Rights abuses EVERY YEAR. 

Though I am sorry that it is necessary for my to do so in order to have a 

philisophical discussion, I will reveal to you my present relationship with 

humanity. For the duration of my adult life, I have given 10% of my income 

for charitable purposes. This expense is the greatest single expenditure in 

my entire budget. More than my rent, groceries, car payment etc. The novel 

part of the whole thing is this: I do it voluntarily. I gain great pleasure in 

giving to causes that I feel will be beneficial to others. Being nice isn’t 

being nice if you are forced to be nice. 

Pinky, few of us are interested in whether or not you have been paying your full tithe to 

the church of your choice. It is commendable, yet unimportant - as is your own evaluation 

of the human psyche. Being nice is nice - period. Now, you obviously have an opinion as to 

whether communists give freely, and I respect that (though I disagree). 

You are, I assume, LDS. Read much history of the church? Brigham Young was a forerunner 

of communism, trying it for awhile right here in the valley. Evidently the Mormons 

weren’t ready for it - many were simply greedy. But Brigham declared that, although it 

failed at present, God will establish the UNITED ORDER or some such later at the second 

coming. So Mormons are very much like many christian marxists - they focus on a type of 

future revolution which will bring a divine form of Communism. I can deal with that. 

I mean no disrespect to your faith, it is commendable. But because your bishop says 

(which they do) that “communism is of the devil”, tell him to open a book other than his 

priesthood manual. He is way off on this one. 


[440] Kevin: Marx, Socialism, and Comments [was: Marx is nut] Previously on this 

list there was a discussion on Marx and Socialism which has now degenerated into principly 

a name-calling contest. Let me offer a few thoughts in question and answer format: 

Q: Marxists always complain that the countries we know as socialist, like Cuba, North 

Korea, or the Former Soviet Union are not socialist; but rather state capitaism, bureaucratic 

collectivist, or some other Marxese term. How is that conclusion arrived at? 


A: Marxists, or anyone trying to understand Marx, should analyze the contradictions 

within a society. Such as between a bureaucratic class, and the working class; or contradictions 

between middle management and the working class. 

Ex. 

Has a new bourgeoisie developed within these societies? 

* To what extent are worker’s able to control the means of production? 

* Is surplus value extracted from the labor of the proletariat? 

* Is this value extracted by their choice? Can they vote on how much to extract from their 

labor, or where to allocate it? 

* Is the working class unable to control the actions of the new bureaucratic class? Are 

career politicians commonplace in these societies, or is their mass-based democracy? Does 

this new bureaucratic class resort to violence to control the desires of the proletariat? Or has 

the bureaucratic class established a ruling ideology in these countries to justify its rule? 

These are a few of the parralels Marxists draw to come up with theories of state capitalism, 

or bureaucratic collectivism, etc; when trying to evaluate the handful of countries in the 

world who still officially proclaim themselves as “worker’s states.” 

Notes: 

(bourgeoisie = ruling class, capitalists) 

Q: Were the Mormon priests communist? Was Robert Owen a communist? 

A: To evaluate the “utopian societies,” in Marxist terminology, one needs to recall Marx’s 

theory of history; in which the advancement of the means of production and the amount 

of goods it can produce leads towards new social orders. For Marx, socialism comes as 

the synthesis of the contradictions of capitalism doing battle; but only in those societies in 

which productivity is high enough to sustain a socialist society. Marx would never thought 

that socialism could emerge out of feudalism or small-scale mercantile capitalism; because 

societies aggregate production was not high enough to meet the demands of all. Nor did 

Marx feel that its economically viable to start small communes in the country. 

If you want to read about communist priests perhaps you should pick up some information 

on liberation theology. Or read the book by Herbert Aptheker on dialogue between 

Christians and Marxists; I forget the exact title, but you should be able to find it. Afterwards 

I can direct you to a few priests, online, who could discuss with you their Marxian justice 

theory, and how it relates with Christianity. 

Q: When did Marx-Engels say a central plan would be necessary to organize a new form 

of society? 

A: This quote comes from Frederick Engels’s Principles of Communism from 1847: 

What will this new social order [socialism] look like? 

Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of 

production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead


institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated 

by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a 

common plan, and with the participation of all members of society. 

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. 

Note: Marx held the same view at the time of his death. You may also want to read the rest 

of Principles of Communism found at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/princom.htm 

for a good introduction into the basic generalities of M-E’s thought and political 

programme. I feel it makes a better non-technical introduction to M-E’s immature political 

theory than the Communist Manifesto. But also understand that Marx modified and 

changed some of the views he held in the Manifesto/Principles as he matured in his study of 

political economy; which culminated in Capital. But you can get the general idea from the 

documents, then debate the details. 


[459] Pinky: Re: Marx is a nut-burger I wrote in [430]: 

I will accept it as soon as you explain to me what a Marxist government 

is. Marxism is supposed to be simply a critique of Capitalism, but there is 

obviously a societal intent behind it, because Marxists always know when 

a Socialist/Communist society is not Marxist. 

Panacea answered in [437]: 

There is a reason, Pinky. Marxists put no faith in dictatorship of the few 

over the many. When Marxists see this happen, they distance themselves 

from such a government. Marxists focus on the emancipation of mankind 

from economic chains - all of your submissions for ‘Marxist’ regimes hardly 

fit this. 

Emancipation. That is the best you can do in your effort to define Marxism? You don’t 

know how it will happen, but as soon as a society comes about that is without any problems 

and the sun shines every day, that will be the fulfillment of the Marxist propecy. 

I wrote: 

I agree, anyone who would figure that Communism is democracy could not 

possibly be a bright boy. Consequently, I deem your assessment of Communism 

an enormous truckload of hooey. A democracy takes place when 

the majority makes the determinations as to how their society will interact. 

Last time I checked, Communism was not nearly a majority view in America. 

You will conclude, I am guessing, that this is because American’s are 

either too greedy or too stupid. 

Panacea answered: 

“Communism” is a democratic form - this has nothing to do with whether 

or not America as a majority wants it, just like the majority opinion won’t 

make the sun turn green. 


So you are saying that it is democratic to force a social system upon people who disagree 

because you think that it is a democracy. Now isn’t forcing a system upon people, (as 

democratic as the system itself might be) by defenition, un-democratic if they do not want 

it? 

I wrote: 

Yes, everyone knows that our present system takes many paternalistic actions 

towards it’s citizens. Some of which I agree and some of which I do 

not. I do not see, however, how this means that the obvious conclusion to be 

made based on this that we turn everything over to the government entirely. 


Another misconception about communism. And I certainly made no statement 

of advocacy for this. 

Where was the misconception? I know YOUR definition of the government will be “The 

people”. That does not change the fact that it is, indeed, the government 

Panacea wrote: 



Pinky answered: 

O.K., I know what, you can go and explain this to all the people who are 

risking their lives in makeshift boats in hopes of escaping their emancipation 

in Cuba to live in oppressive America. Note: you did not say that 

Marxism was emancipatory; you said Socialism/Communism. That, as you 

know is what Cuba is. 


I’m sorry, Pinky - the human rights abuses, the dictatorship of Fidel, the 

very economics of their country all show otherwise. And take a walk 

around the world - you’ll find that america really is oppressive - the reason 

it makes Amnesty international’s list of countries with Human Rights 

abuses EVERY YEAR. 

Color me stunned. I knew you were whacked out, but you are actually telling me that the 

Cubans don’t know how great they have it. This speaks for itself. I need not point out how 

removed from reality you would need to be to make such a statement. (but I like to do it) 

How completely sick of you to maintain that people are putting their lives at risk because 

they are too stupid to know how happy they should be. If your response was based on not 

understanding that when I said the people were escaping their “emancipation” was sarcasm, 

my point still stands: How is it emancipatory? 

Panacea answered to my statement of giving 10% of my income freely:


Pinky, few of us are interested in whether or not you have been paying your 

full tithe to the church of your choice. It is commendable, yet unimportant - 

as is your own evaluation of the human psyche. Being nice is nice - period. 

So, it is really nice that residents of the State Prison make us signs. It doesn’t matter why, 

because we like signs, they help us to know how to be courteous drivers. We like that, it is 

nice. Forget the motivation, it is just nice. Nice, nice, nice....... 

Now, you obviously have an opinion as to whether communists give freely, 

and I respect that (though I disagree). 

You are, I assume, LDS. Read much history of the church? Brigham Young 

was a forrunner of communism, trying it for awhile right here in the valley. 

Evidently the Mormons were’nt ready for it - many were simply greedy. 

But Brigham declared that, although it failed at present, God will establish 

the UNITED ORDER or some such later at the second coming. So Mormons 

are very much like many christian marxists - they focus on a type of 

future revolution which will bring a divine form of Communism. I can deal 

with that. 

Good, get back to me at the second coming. In the meantime, let’s try to exist in reality. 

I mean no disrespect to your faith, it is commendable. But because your 

bishop says (which they do) that “communism is of the devil”, tell him to 

open a book other than his priesthood manual. He is way off on this one. 

Panacea, your method of argumentation is truly pathetic. Let’s review: 

1. You attack my ability to give by stating that “Some of us care more for HUMANS than 

THINGS”. 

2. I unenthusiastically defend myself, letting you know that I care as well, as is exemplified 

by my money, saying I do not see how it is relevant. 

3. My answer proves to you that people don’t need you to force them to do “nice” things. 

4. This really messes you up, so you say it is “unimportant” (Again, despite the fact that 

you were the one that asked.) 

5. Then, another bright and shining contradiction: though the fact that I pay my thithes is 

completely unimportant, you launch into a 3-paragraph attack on it. 

I hope you are not planning to go to law school. 

Anyway, I do not need to justify myself to you. I let you know that you were wrong: I 

do give freely of my earthly belongings. Church history has nothing to do with anything in 

this discussion. The point began and ended with my proving you wrong. If it helps, I was 

also named “volunteer of the year” of the boys and girls clubs of Utah. There – now are you 

going to try and question my service there because of the boys and girls club’s history? 

Message [459] referenced by [465], [477], [484], [529], [534], and [536]. Next Message by Pinky is [479]. 


[465] Panacea: Marx is a nut-burger Pinky recently sent a rather humourous message 

[459], I hope most of you found it interesting, I know I did. 

Some of the most interesting parts were about how socialism/communism/marxism/whatever 

she wants to call it is by necessity forced upon the masses. Another point I actually laughed 

at was her boasting about being volunteer of the year. Congratulations, Pinky - again, though, 

your personal virtue has little to do with the discussion. Or should we all just start citing 

credentials? Do you live in a vacuum called “ME”, Pinky? 

Where do you find it necessary to make such an illogical statement? Tell you what, I 

know you are fairly intelligent - I’ll just figure you find it hard to express what you mean. 

Happens to everyone, me too.: 

Color me stunned. I knew you were whacked out, but you are actually 

telling me that the Cuban’s don’t know how great they have it. This speaks 

for itself. I need not point out how removed from reality you would need 

to be to make such a statement. (but I like to do it) How completely sick 

of you to maintain that people are putting their lives at risk because they 

are too stupid to know how happy they should be. If your response was 

based on not understanding that when I said the people were escaping their 

“emancipation” was sarcasm, my point still stands: How is it emancipatory? 

Pinky, I think Kevin was right when he said this seems to have degenerated to name 

calling. I hope we can keep this on an intellectual level. 

1) I don’t, nor have I ever supported Fidel’s regime. I don’t view them as anything more 

than an attempt at communism, having failed miserably when internecine warfare began 

with Che Guevara’s murder. It is a dictatorship, and I am sad about the effects on their 

people. It is recognizable (and the opinion of many foriegn countries) that the blockade by 

our country has only made it worse 

2) Communism has not been named ‘emancipatory’ without reason. Now, I do not understand 

many of the ins and outs of Marx’s technical critique of capitalism - but I am well 

acquainted with the social commentary by later marxists. I thank Peace for having introduced 

me to Erich Fromm, of the Frankfurt School. His writings express clearly the social 

ills that come with capitalism - one needs to recognize these before one can really understand 

the benefits to an alternative: 

In describing the period in history prior to Capitalism, Fromm comments: “Most important 

of all was the principle that society and economy exist for man, and not man for them. 

No economic progress was supposed to be healthy if it hurt any group within society.” (Sane 

Society, p85) A few pages earlier Fromm gives a description of an unhealthy society - Now, 

Pinky, pay close attention to see how the description can be both applied to Cuba, Russia, etc 

AND the USA! : “An unhealthy society is one which creates mutual hostility, distrust, which 

transforms man into an instrument of use and exploitation for others, which deprives him of 

a sense of self, except inasmuch as he submits to others or becomes an automaton.”(p73) 

Harsh - for his examples of how true this is for America, read the book. In class and on


the list people have mentioned before about how capitalism is ‘natural’, how Mankind is 

simply selfish, this way of life is natural for us. Fromm writes: “One, decidedly the most 

popular one today, wants to make us believe that contemporary Western society and more 

especially, the ‘American way of life’ corresponds to the deepest needs of human nature and 

that adjustment to this way of life means mental health and maturity.” How wrong this really 

is. “Selfishness” is one aspect of human nature - there are many others, such as compassion, 

equality, fairness, sharing, etc. These, according to fromm, are given lipservice. We would 

all agree that we find the selfish person annoying, distasteful, and would rather not have that 

attribute - yet out of the other side of our mouths we praise it as a virtue. This is a lie, this is 

not right - but it is one of the basic tents of capitalism. 

So, Marx explains the economic face of capitalism - Fromm attempts to describe the 

social character of it: “It needs men who cooperate smoothly in large groups; who want 

to consume more an more, whose tastes are standardized and can be easily influenced and 

anticipated. It needs men who feel free and independant, not subject to any authority, or 

principle, or conscience - yet willing to be commanded, to do what is expected, to fit into 

the social machine without friction.”(p110) This is a direct lead into the idea of alienation, 

and it’s prevelance in capitalistic society. We are so wrapped up in being individuals that 

we loose sight of others - and ultimitaly ourselves. No wonder that in primitive communal 

societies in the twentieth century little evidence of depression and mental illness has been 

found. 

I like Marx’s definition of alientation: it is a condition in which our “own act becomes to 

him an alien power, standing over and against him, instead of being ruled by him.” Fromm 

cites example after example of alienation with American culture, in many different aspects 

of our lives. He writes, for example,: “Originally, the idea of consuming more and better 

things was meant to give man a happier, more satisfied life. Consumption was a means to an 

end, that of happiness. Now it has become an end in itself.”(p134) Very telling. 

The result of alienation is herd mentality, transformation of virtue into vice, vice into 

virtue. Acquiring has lost it’s original purpose - acquiring now IS the purpose. SO, back to 

the original question: why is communism/socialism - lets just call it C/S - called an emancipatory 

economic system? With the above basis to work with, and keeping in mind that 

Cuba, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc were NOT represantative, but rather something closer to 

‘communal fascism’, to coin a phrase, Fromm writes: “The aim of the various forms of 

socialism...was an industrial organization in which every working person would be an active, 

responsible participant, where work would be attractive and meaningful, where capital 

would not employ labour, but labour would employ capital.”(p284) 

In a C/S system, such emancipatory benefits include the recognition of humanity’s precedence 

over things. Access to means of production is a human right, as is food and shelter. 

Free education and compensation based upon capability. Recognition of ‘society’ as an entity, 

and the necessity to work together. These are just a few things noticeably absent from 


Pinky, you mentioned your ‘giving’, of time and money. A large argument against C/SS 

is that the chance to give, to be charitable will be eliminated. I don’t understand why charity 


would not be a driving element in C/S - for a large part, charity is it’s basis. This argument 

is offensive on another scale - I hardly think much of continueing to allow millions 

throughout the world to starve and suffer from disease because people want to retain all of 

the opportunities to be charitable. I want to give. I know you do. 

You mentioned getting back to you at the second coming in order to see if Christ is really 

a communist. I was hoping more for maybe a little intellectual debate as to whether or not 

that is what Mormons believe. Then you write: 

Panacea, your method of argumentation is truly pathetic. Let’s review: 

1. You attack my ability to give by stating that “Some of us care more for 

HUMANS than THINGS”. 

This pains me - I never accussed you of anything. I have only offered congratulations. 

Please don’t paint me as some sort of ingrate. The point stands, however: in capitalism, 

efficiency is the prime mover, and this is in opposition to enviromental safety or mental 

health. Ever heard of the Ford Pinto case? People actually died, just as the execs predicted. 

And when the law suits were over, Ford still had made a profit, as they had predicted. Did 

anyone go to jail? No, even though evidence showing that executives had knowingly allowed 

a defect in the design - which they KNEW (it’s in memos) would kill some people - remain 

in production. They hid behind the cloak of efficiency and utility, as corps do everyday. 

2. I unenthusiastically defend myself, letting you know that I care as well, 

as is exemplified by my money, saying I do not see how it is relevant. 

Again, if you give to your church, that’s great, I’m impressed. But the bearing on the 

question: whether or not Communism has a chance, or whether or not Capitalism is faulty 

and diseased. What do you want from me, Pinky? Validation? 

3. My answer proves to you that people don’t need you to force them to do 

“nice” things. 

Ummm, Pinky - did I ever claim otherwise? You must have been proving this to yourself, 

yet another item having only an insignificant bearing on the question. I hope you hav’nt 

based your “winning” on this. 

I believe the same - we should’nt have to force people to be nice. But should we let 

people remain on subsistence wages, or starve or die from lack of medical attention in order 

that the rich have the opportunity to “be nice”? I think not. 

4. This really messes you up, so you say it is “unimportant” (Again, despite 

the fact that you were the one that asked.) 

5. Then, another bright and shining contradiction: though the fact that I pay 

my thithes is completely unimportant, you launch into a 3-paragraph attack 

on it.


Sure enough, you did base your argument on this. Come on, Pinky... all right, all right - 

I’ll tell you what you evidently need to hear: You are a good person, doing a good job, being 

a full tithe payer. Good job! 

There - feel validated? Now, write something on the topic. 

Anyway, I do not need to justify myself to you. I let you know that you 

were wrong: I do give freely of my earthly belongings. Church history has 

nothing to do with anything in this discussion. The point began and ended 

with my proving you wrong. If it helps, I was also named “volunteer of the 

year” of the boys and girls clubs of Utah. There-now are you going to try 

and question my service there because of the boys and girls club’s history? 

Damn, Pinky, if that don’t beat all. Still need validation... 

“This craving for acceptance is indeed a very characteristic feeling in the alienated person. 

Why should anyone be so grateful for acceptance unless [she] doubts that [she] is 

acceptable...?” Fromm, p155 

Message [465] referenced by [477] and [484]. Next Message by Panacea is [491]. 

[466] Kevin: Q and A with a Commie [was: Marx is a nut: Part Deux] Pinky is 

once again firing away the assumptions, and blathering about communists, and democracy; 

while Panacea is running with some sort of morality argument, or at least leaving 90% of 

the participants in this list confused about what this bicker is about. 

So, back to the topic. I once again want to direct a discussion. I listed several interesting 

questions earlier regarding important issues to discuss on the importance of Marx, and the 

future of socialism. These were obviously ignored by the peanut gallery, and equally ignored 

by the ring-leader, and his nemesis. 

As they have been ignored let me inquire again, does anyone want to learn what goes 

on amongst Marxists today? How do they think? What is socialism? Etc. Or should we 

keep up with the ad hominad trench warfare. I’m gladly donating my time for questions, 

or comments; please feel free to make a long list, but I hope to address some good ones, 

which could help advance a thread that will help us all to learn something new; instead of 

perpetuating this trench war which is leading nowhere. 



[477] Lamma: Re: Marx is a nut-burger I have to agree with Panacea [465] on Pinky’s 

comments in [459]. I am forced to think that if we all looked to ourselves every time we 

need an answer to something that is difficult, the world would get pretty small very fast. 

Might I suggest that when looking for answers to Marx or any other deep subject, it helps to 

look around at thing happening outside your norm. 

Message [477] referenced by [484]. Next Message by Lamma is [478]. 

[480] Pinky: Pinky waves a white flag Alright. Enough already. I do not need validation. 

I will not list my other very redeeming qualities. I made the huge mistake of thinking 

that Panacea truly believed that all capitalist’s “forgot.. about crack babies...”, that in the 

statement “Some of us care more for HUMANS” she was implying that the rest of us didn’t. 


I thought I could do the service of informing those with that dreadful misconception otherwise. 

Panacea was obviously not in the market to be informed otherwise. These statements 

were made only to paint an ugly face upon those who disagree, and I apologize for not 

understanding the intent. 

Peaceful Pinky 


[484] Pinky: Lamma-bo-bamma Lamma wrote in [477]: 

I have to agree with Panacea [465] on Pinky’s comments in [459]. I am 

forced to think that if we all looked to ourselves every time we need an 

answer to something that is difficult, the world would get pretty small very 

fast. Might I suggest that when looking for answers to Marx or any other 

deep subject, it helps to look around at things happening outside your norm. 

I see your point and agree with most of it. I would just like to insert that it would be 

even worse if we did not look at ourselves when posed with difficult questions. It is very 

easy to criticise everyone “out there”, but if we do that while failing to take a hard look at 

ourselves, we are making a big mistake. Though many of you disagree, I think this is exactly 

what Marx did. He was wonderful at looking at everyone else, but when it came down to 

it, I doubt that he had the ability to live up to the standards he was advocating to be set for 

everyone else. 


[523] KALISPEL: Re: Marx is a nut-burger I would like to point out some misconceptions 

in this line of argumentation against cuba. Cuba was criticized heavily by the U.S. for 

being to strict because it didn’t allow for the citizens to leave the country. This was considered 

unfair. In response, Cuba made it so anyone that wanted to could leave both legally and 

illegally. Either way it was not enforced. Now Cuba is criticized for dumping their people 

on the rest of the world. 

It is true I would rather live in the U.S. than Cuba because of the higher standard of living 

and I think there a lot of people feel the same way. But, this is comparing apples to oranges. 

Cuba has historically been a small third world country. It has limited resources. When Cuba 

turned to socialism to help out the country it was put on embargo by the U.S. and since 

then has got a lot of bad press. Capitalists do not want the American people to think that 

Cuba has a system worth looking at. If you compare Cuba with many of the other latin 

american nations you will find out that as Cuba switched over to Socialism that the masses 

were much better off. Iliteracy and starvation were virtually abolished as well as health care 

for everyone. This shows that a poor third world can better meet subsistence level needs of 

the people with socialism than capitalism. Cuba is actually a good example of socialism and 

much has been learned by what the Cubans have done. Another example of this is the India 

vs. China debate. China was socialistic while India was capitalistic and China showed to 

much more be able to meet the needs of the people, food, clothing, shelter than India. 

It makes good sense. If a small amount of people have most of the wealth than how can 

this be good for the masses. To a poor country elimination of this type of thing goes a long 

way to making people better off.


Just because something the U.S. is powerful and has a high standard of living does not 

mean it has a good system; just because it is doesn’t mean it ought. 



[425] Chocolate: Re: EXPLOITATION IN THE WORKFORCE! Unless you are 

the owner (capatilist) of a certain company and/or have your own business, where all of the 

business decisions must go through with your approval, where you can change or add-on to 

those decisions then you are being exploited as a worker. 

Recieving an “X” amount in wages and benefits doesn’t add up to the effort an individual 

has put forth to produce (or help produce) a certain commodity. In my opinion, no matter 

how much an individual recieves in wages and benefits, he/she is still being exploited 

because; 

1. the product he/she is producing (or help produce) is owned by another individual who 

can sell it for a lot more than the price he/she is paying other’s to produce. 

2. the worker’s who are paid to produce a commodity for someone else will never feel 

the same satisfaction about their work that a painter might have. Where as the painter will 

feel joy and happiness at the materpiece he/she has just created. The worker will simply feel 

relieved that another day of work is over. The painter can enjoy his work of art by displaying 

it or sell it for a reasonable price and still enjoy the profits from his work. But the worker 

can never enjoy the prduct that he/she has created (or help create) because it doesn’t belong 

to him/her. So when the product is finally produced the individual’s who own it will feel 

happy and joyous not the individual’s who actually produced it. 

This is a part of life that money cannot buy, even if a worker were being paid fifty-dollars 

an hour, he/she is still being exploited by the individual’s (capatilist) who own the finished 

good. 


[448] Gilligan: exploitation of workers I completely agree with fact that a person really 

doesn’t feel a true sense of satisfaction when he or she is working for someone else. As 

far as the painter goes I feel it’s a bad comparison in that a painter isn’t subject to someone 

telling them what to do and they are able to create a piece of work and feel the rewards for 

doing so. But if thayt painter had someone telling them what to paint and was working for a 

painting firm then his whole attitude would change for the worse. It’s funny because where 

I work I feel the way you said, I really don’t get any satisfaction out of producing the goods 

there, but I know I have to in order to receive a paycheck every other week. I can careless 

about the quality of the machine we’re building or if it looks nice, as long as it works then 

I’m happy and package it for shipping. As the prices of the machines have risen since i’ve 

been working there I have yet to receive a pay raise, so all the profits of increased production 

and increased profits are going directly into the pockets of the owners. thanks guys I don’t 

feel like a slave or anything!! The capitalist system is very exploitative and it will continue 

to be like that until we all wake up and recognise it. 



[453] Lamma: exploitation of the worker In response to gilligans comments on this 

matter, I would like to say that the problem at hand is the furthur exploitation of the worker 

when new machinery is introduced. We must first look at when exploitation occurs. If you 

are working for me and I am making a profit off your labors and not paying you what your 

productivity is worth then you are exploited. Now apply this to your situation and see how 

this fits into your own situation. I think that we may have lost track of what the original 

question is asking. 


[495] Brumbys: discussion on exploitation We all know that, according to Marx, the 

worker is eploited by the capitalist who sucks surplus labor (or surplus value) off of the 

worker. Most people assume that in order to correct this injustice Marx advocates that each 

worker receives the full value of his or her Labor not just their labor power. Marx argues 

that some surplus value would have to be withheld from the workers in order to provide for 

future investment and savings. According to this reasoning, if surplus value is taken from 

workers against their will by the government, it’s not exploitation. However, when the evil 

the capitlist steals surplus labor surreptitiously, it is exploitation. 



[427] Rambis: why society won’t embrace marx (fwd) The following are a few random 

thoughts that I have had about why I think society at large doesn’t accept Marxism as the 

model of social existence. Through the medium of his research and philosophizing about 

the nature of our social ecosystem, Marx does make many interesting points concerning the 

value of what he calls “abstract labor” and the proper motivations behind being a contributing 

member of society, but as has been debated in class and on the internet submissions, most of 

the concepts that he tries to advance are steeped in personal philosophy and are so abstract 

as to lose touch with the everyday experience and interaction that people know as their 

existence. This led to the comment that “Well, obviously the masses aren’t able to grasp 

the concepts of the nature of the beast, and therefore that has to be left up to the high-level 

intellectuals to determine and explain.” Pardon me, but doesn’t this lead to the same kind of 

elitism and exclusion of the masses from controlling their own destiny when the decisions 

of society are left in the hands of a very few who act with no accountability? This, to me, is 

the great contradiction of Marxism and is the very reason that society wouldn’t embrace this 

form of social living. And while capitalism and democracy aren’t perfect, they may indeed 

fulfill the saying, “They’re crappy ways of doing things, but it is the best we have.” 



[456] Caren: How did capitalism originate, and where is it leading? (from Marx’s 

view). 

Marx focused on the contradictions that arose through the growth of towns, population, 

technology, and trade, which at a certain point burst asunder the feudal social and political 

forms in which production had been organized. Relations of lord to serf based on feudal


rights and obligations had become a hindrance to the further development of these productive 

forces; they were replaced by the contractual relations of capitalists to wokers. With 

capitalists free to pursue profits wherever they might take them and workers equally “free” 

to sell their labor power to capitalists however they might use it, the productive potential 

inherent in the new forces of production, especially technology and science, was freed. If 

profit maximization leads to rapid growth when rapid growth maximizes profits, however, 

profit maximization restricts growth when growth proves unprofitable. According to Marx, 

the periodic and worsening crises of overproduction that began about 1830 attest to capitalism’s 

growing inability to take full advantage of the potential for producing wealth that has 

grown up with it. 

Within this framework the actual course of history is determined by class struggle. According 

to Marx, each class is defined chiefly by its relation to the productive process and 

has objective interests rooted in that relation. The capitalists’ interests lie in securing their 

power and expanding profits. Workers, on the other hand, have interests in higher wages, 

safer working conditions, shorter hours, job security, and–because it is required to realize 

other interests–a new distribution of power. The class struggle involves everything that these 

two major classes do to promote their incompatible interests at each other’s expense. In this 

battle, which rages throughout society, the capitalists are aided by their wealth, their control 

of state, and their domination over other institutions–school, media, churches– that guide 

and distort people’s thinking. On the workers’ side are their sheer numbers, their experience 

of cooperation–however alienated–while at work, trade unions, working-class political parties(where 

they exist), and the growing contradictions within capitalism that make present 

conditions increasingly irrational. 

Marx believed that once most workers recognized their interests and became “class conscious”, 

the overthrow of capitalism would proceed as quickly and democratically as the 

nature of capitalist opposition allowed. The socialist society that would emerge out of the 

revolution would develop the full productive potential inherited from capitalism through 

democratic planning on behalf of social needs. The final goal, toward which socialist society 

would constantly build, is the human one abolishing alienation. Marx called the attainment 

of this goal “communism.” 



[473] VanHalen: I was talking to a guy in our class last week and he was telling me about 

how Marx and some of his cronies used to write to each other. He said they wouldn’t write 

for understanding but almost the opposite they would almost write to see how academic or 

sophisticated they could write. During the course of their writings they would mock other 

thinkers of the day or people that they didn’t get along with. 

I think it is a shame that the mountain bike wasn’t invented back in their time because 

I think it would have greatly impacted their thinking. It would have given them time to 

see that there are other great things to do with your time than to postulate theories that not 

many people will understand. It would have given them time to think to themselves,“hey 

my theory is pretty good, I’ll try and make it more understandable so that people can put it 


into practice.” Since they didn’t have Mountain Bikes, it seems to me like they never said 

this to themselves and hence no one has ever practiced true Marxism. I like some of the 

things Marx has to say, I think they would really help out society if we could live like that. I 

probably would like more of the things Marx says but since Marx didn’t have the benefit of 

a mountain bike he never came to the realization that to be put into practice it would have to 

be understandable to more than a few people. 

This brings me to a question; who was Marx’s audience? if it was to only his academic 

cronies then what did he hope to accomplish by all of his writings. If his audience was 

the workers that were being exploited why did he write his theory geared to helping them 

understand?? 


[540] Positive: Comment to thread 677 I believe Karl Marx had very many people on 

his side regarding the thoughts of capitalism. It is important to understand after reading “the 

capital”, that his consepts are true to a certain extend, and that his thoughts are extremely 

deep. People wrote differently one hundred year ago. They wrote as they thought, which 

brings us (people today) to a different mode of thinking. This, because we are not used to 

it. I think more people in today’s society should learn more about Marx to get a broader 

knowledge about how the society actually CAN work. 



[476] Emma: New thread. Given the high level of frustration that I have seen among 

fellow students caused by the difficulty in understanding Marx’s writings, it may be useful 

to try and figure out why he’s so hard to decipher. 

The easy and also wrong answer is that the subject matter is intrinsically difficult and not 

easily understood. There are too many examples of writings that are far easier to understand 

with comparably difficult subject matter. 

I can think of at least two good answers. The first is that Marx uses words in unique 

ways. He has his own definitions and style that a reader must understand on Marx’s terms. It 

takes a great deal of time and study to be able to thrive in Marx’s world of words and ideas. 

Time that most students don’t have. Still, the exercise is worthwhile if only as an exercise in 

dissecting complex writing. We should understand that Marx’s audience was very narrow. 

It consisted of academics and intellectuals, not a bunch of undergraduates in Utah. Which 

brings me to my next reason. I’m aware that there is a strong if puzzling tradition among 

intellectuals (especially European) to purposely obscure their writings. Many of them don’t 

want to be easily understood. It’s almost a game to them to see who among their colleagues 

won’t “get it.” I know this was the case with other intellectuals in Germany around the time 

of Marx, including Hegel and Nietzsche. The evidence is in their letters to other colleagues 

and friends. I don’t know specifically whether Marx participated in this academic game, but 

I suspect he did. Perhaps someone else knows for sure. One problem with this approach 

is that in order for the writer to keep his audience the payoff at the end, once the writing 

is finally understood as well as can be, should be worth the effort. Otherwise no one will


continue to put out the effort. Perhaps a new thread should be started titled, “Is Marx Worth 

The Effort.” I’ve got mixed feelings on that. 


[483] Kevin: Re: New thread. Emma wrote in [476] 

Given the high level of frustration that I have seen among fellow students 

caused by the difficulty in understanding Marx’s writings, it may be useful 

to try and figure out why he’s so hard to decipher. 

I can think of at least two good answers. The first is that Marx uses words 

in unique ways. He has his own definitions and style that a reader must understand 

on Marx’s terms. It takes a great deal of time and study to be able 

to thrive in Marx’s world of words and ideas. Time that most students don’t 

have. Still, the exercise is worthwhile if only as an exercise in dissecting 

complex writing. We should understand that Marx’s audience was 

I agree with this definition. Keep in mind the categories which Marx worked with; they 

were the often contradictory and abstract categories and terminology of classical economics. 

In order to revolutionize economics Marx had to signifigantly alter its modus operandi. 

undergraduates in Utah. Which brings me to my next reason. I’m aware 

that there is a strong if puzzling tradition among intellectuals (especially 

European) to purposely obscure their writings. Many of them don’t want 

to be easily understood. It’s almost a game to them to see who among their 

colleagues won’t “get it.” I know this was the case with other friends. I 

don’t know specifically whether Marx participated in this academic game, 

but I suspect he did. Perhaps someone else knows for sure. 

I agree with your categorization of many intellectuals who have become caught up in a 

culture of pure jive. There have actually been articles in the mainstream press (The New 

York Times) this week talking about an incident where a physics teacher submitted a bunch 

of jibberish, for parody, to a respected pomo (post-modernist) journal; and had it published. 

But Marx never really got caught up in proving his dialectic materialism correct, or any 

other philosophical issues he brought up; this was left to many others. And Marx, believe 

it or not, actually hoped that Capital would become popular amongst the working classes 

of Europe (read his prefaces to each edition). Marx also kept a close connection with the 

working class movements of his time, and while he recognized that his rare genius gave him 

the “duty” to elaborate on his political economy; he also was involved for more than half his 

life with various political parties of the time. So he was certainly not a hermit, and did have 

much real-world contact with human beings; and he also did write reports, and texts (ex. for 

the New York Tribune) that were very understandable. So labeling Marx an “ivory tower 

communist” or a “hermit intellectual” is certainly not correct. 


[520] Kalle: Why Marx is hard to understand I agree with all of you who think it is 

hard to understand Marx and his wrinting. He uses difficult words and ueses them in unusual 

and unfamiliar relations. However, I do not think he deliberately want to give the reader a 


hard time. I believe he had to write in his special style in order to really investigate and 

explain the issues he dealt with. First time I read a paragraph I am usually very confused 

about what he want to say. To understand it I am forced to go back and read it over often 

several times. As I it read for the second or third time, I really starts to understand what 

he means. My point is that I do not think Marx could have got his message across without 

using his typical style, including unique words and phlisophical approach to various issues. 

As I have read more and more in Capital I get the point faster and faster, and it is very clear 

that you need practise to become a good interpreter of Marx. 


[522] Brumbys: discussion on Understanding Marx I agree that marxism is very confusing. 

IF my understanding of the Marxian philosophy of economics is correct, I understand 

the reason for the government taking surplus value from the worker is so that it can be distributed 

equally to society in the utopian communist regime. Under the capitalist system, 

the owner of production (the capitalist), receives a surplus value by exploiting the labor of 

the worker and then placing much of the money into his own pocket. If Marx’s “utopian” 

system was guilty of anything it was his overestimation of human nature. He believed that 

people would place the interest of others above their own and we both know this is not he 

case. 


[525] Kevin: Re: discussion on Understanding Marx Brumbys, your understanding in 

[522] is not correct. I posted a quotation from Engel’s (Marx’s good friend, and collaborator) 

on plans, democracy, and the like. Maybe you should have read it. 

But for Marx communism is NOT a huge welfare state with everyone being employed 

by the government, and without their consent having surplus value extracted from them; 

and then re-invested by the government in various activities that were never ratified by the 

worker who produced the value in the first place. That was the primary economic reason 

that the Soviet Union was NOT socialist. Rather socialism puts workers in control of their 

firms, factories, and small businesses; without having surplus value extracted from them. 

Rather the working class should be entitled to the value they produce, and be able to allocate 

it wherever they desire; without having either a capitalist, or a bureaucrat to extract it from 

them. 


[542] Positive: Comment to thread 678. Your question was: Why is Marx so hard to 

understand ? My respond to this is the following: Marx lived over hundred years ago. People 

were people at this point in time as well, but their behaviors conserning writing and thinking 

in general was just very different. Why ?, because people lived in the good-old-times. Even 

the schools and industries were totally different. When it came to writing, authors wrote 

along as their thoughts went through their minds. There is a reason why “Das Capital” 

has the thickness it has. This book can be cut to a third of the size in today’s more consice 

writing. With the shorter and more concrete sentences. I believe, that if we in today’s schools 

WERE to take more philosophical courses we will gain a better understanding of books like 

“The Capital”. 

Are we too laid back today just because many people have a hard time analysing this 

enormous piece of work.



[547] Gilligan: marx is hard to understand (fwd) I completey agree with the most 

of you when you say that marx is difficult to understand. When I read a section in the 

book I often have to reread what I have read in order to capture the meaning of what he is 

stating. I also think the way he describes and explains things makes it hard to grasp because 

his thought and theory are foreign to most, that meaning we haven’t heard of these things 

described in such a manner before. He does have his good points though and some of his 

thoughts are interesting. He is definitely a deep thinker and had alot of time on his hands to 

sit and worry or wonder about such things. I know at times I feel like I don;t have enough 

time to get everything done but he obviously had alot due to his volumes upon volumes of 

book work. Sometimes people are just completely smarter than the rest and are very talented 

like Marx, and if he tried to explain all of it another way it would probably sound and read 

very complex. 



[419] Pinky: Someone wake me up It seems to me as though the excuse as to why 

Communist societies have failed around the world is always: 

THATS BECAUSE IT WASN’T TRUE MARXISM 

However, when one tries to criticize the philosophies that seem to be put forth by Marx, 

the response is always: 

MARX JUST CRITICIZED CAPITALISM, HE HAD NO VISION OF WHAT COM- 

MUNISM WOULD/SHOULD BE. 

If Marx was just some sort of glorified political Roger Ebert, then why do his beliefs spurn 

the coming of a great revolution?–That, again, never comes, because it is always inevitably 

NOT MARXISM, because it inevitably fails. Someone wake me up when a sucessful society 

comes about that we can commit the deified name of Marx to. 


[479] Pinky: Attn: Kevin and Franz I appreciate Kevin and Franz’s willingness to 

respond to questions. Perhaps this has already been answered; but I do not understand the 

seeming contradiction I am getting when I see the two following defenses of Marx take 

place: Marx did not have a plan for socialism/Communism and That was not true Marxism. 

He must have stated a theory somewhere for people to be able to say that Marxism was not 

correctly implemented. The closest definition of his theory that I have heard is a bunch of 

lofty one-word explanations like: Emancipation, freedom, democracy. Above that, I have no 

clue (aside from what my obvious suspicions are) as to what, in a concrete form Marxists are 

after. I don’t know how you can implement a society where you just criticise Capitalism, so 

that can’t be it, but no one can seem to come to a difinative conclusion. Perhaps I am asking 

more than is possible in an E-mail submission, but I would appreciate a good attempt. Did 

he ever make clear statements about what he wanted, or is it just implied in his criticisms? 

Do Marxists agree on what the intent is? What (besides emancipation) was really missing 

in previous Communist governments that Marx would have wanted implemented? Despite 


my obvious aversion to the whole idea, I have no aversion to trying to understand. Just 

please skip the moral accusations. Such accusations are what give birth to the unneccesary 

tangents. 


[485] Kevin: Marx Q and A I [was: Attn: Kevin and Franz] Pinky wrote in [479] 

Perhaps this has already been answered; but I do not understand the seeming 

contradiction I am getting when I see the two following defenses of 

Marx take place: Marx did not have a plan for socialism/Communism and 

That was not true Marxism. He must have stated a theory somewhere for 

people to be able to say that Marxism was not correctly implemented. The 

closest definition of his theory that I have heard is a bunch of lofty oneword 

explanations like: Emancipation, freedom, democracy. Above that, I 

have no clue (aside from what my obvious suspicions are) as to what, in a 

concrete form Marxists are after. 

I posted this quote earlier, it’s from Fred Engel’s Principles of Communism; Marx held 

the same opinions: 

What will this new social order have to be like? 

Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of 

production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead 

institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated 

by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a 

common plan, and with the participation of all members of society. 

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. 

What Fred is basically saying here is: 

* expropriate the means of production from the capitalists 

* gather together the working class 

* make a plan and run society for yourselves, without having your surplus value extracted 

and being alienated by a capitalist 

But along with that Marx and Engels valued the participation of all in society. If you read 

their texts on the French Revolution, the or the Paris Commune you can see their general 

distain for all classes of leisure (bourgeoisie) and their praise for the radical democracy 

which would form the iron foundations of socialism. 

That is a very general idea of what Marx and Engels wanted. They established a general 

ideal, and a method to criticize class society; but certainly never made detailed models. 

As far as what Marxists want, if you’re interested in models I already have recommended 

two books three times to this list. They are: 

“Against Capitalism” by David Scheikerwart (sp?) 

“Towards a New Socialism” by Paul Cockshott

The Cockshott book is available online from: 


ftp://csf.colorado.edu (find the authors directory, then look under his name) 

I myself am a market socialist. I already defined abstractly what they means. It involves: 

* expropriating capitalists (by the worker’s choice of course) 

* allowing workers to form worker-owned companies (much like, though much easier, 

than they would unionize). 

* allowing for competition between these enterprises 

* worker-owner companies then form the basis for the elimination of alienation; and lead 

towards full-employment, more leisure time, an end to the contradiction between labor and 

capital; etc. 

* some services will still be provided by the government, and many development projects 

will still be planned; but autonomous worker-owned corporations will form the foundation 

of a new radical democracy. 

There are certainly many more issues involved in discussing an economic system, but that 

is a quick description. If you wanted to learn more you should read “Against Capitalism.” 

a good attempt. Did he ever make clear statements about what he wanted, or 

is it just implied in his criticisms? Do Marxists agree on what the intent is? 

What (besides emancipation) was really missing in previous Communist 

governments that Marx would have wanted implemented? 

I already analyzed this question. Maybe you missed it? Basically analyzing the governments 

which formally called themselves communists involved simply asking the question: 

* does the working class control the means of production. 

I analyzed this question much farther in a previous post. Please consult the archives, as I 

don’t care to answer any more questions that I’ve already answered in previous posts. 



[486] Caren: Last thread As we all now study chapter 19, I would like to discuss more 

about the value of labor power and wages. 

As a basic theory of the process of capitalist production, wages as the form of value 

of labor-power are to be conceived at a level which enables the equal exchange of laborsubstance 

with the necessary means of subsistence. The socially standard wages must theoretically 

be defined as the form of substantial value of labor-power, or the price-form of 

value for the labor-time necessary to reproduce the commodity labor-power by consuming 

the necessary means of subsistence purchased in a market. According to Marx, he said that 

“However, on the surface of bourgeois society the worker’s wage appears as the price of 

labor, as a certain quantity of money that is paid for a certain quantity of labor,”. He attempts 

to show the transformation of the value of labor-power into wages in this sense, and 


says that the ordinary expression like value of labor arise from the relations of production 

themselves. Through he clarifies how these common-sense notions like the value of labor 

or wages conceal the real social substance of exploitation, he does not seem successful in 

presenting a logic for why these notions arise from the nature of the capitalist relations of 

production. In retrospect the notion of wages a remuneration for the whole work of labor 

performed was not really established from the transformation from the value of labor-power. 

Already in precapitalist societies, various artisans or craftsmen like gardeners or barbers 

having their own tools used to be paid remuneration for all their work in the form of wages. 

Therefore, the wage-form itself is part of the forms of a commodity economy in general, and 

is not specific to capitalism. Capitalism took over such a wage-form for the wage-worker 

in completely differing social conditions. Although the propertyless wage-workers, unlike 

the independent craftsmen, actually have to sell their commodity labor-power for the daily 

means of subsistence which embody just the necessary labor-time in a working day to sustain 

their labor-power, wages with the notion of the value of labor is conceived as the full 

remuneration for the whole laboring day. As Marx points out, the wage-form in this sense 

conceals the source of surplus-value on the surface of bourgeois society. 


Question 684 German History 

[526] Emma: What revolution? Given recent history, is Marx worth studying as something 

more than an historical curiosity? Well, yes. But with the benefit of some hindsight, 

it seems clear Marx was a prisoner of his own rigid thinking and didn’t allow enough for 

deviation in his model. A criticism that very often fits even first-rate systematic thinkers, 

like Marx. Generally, American society today dismisses Marx completely. Too bad. We 

do so at our own expense since many of his criticisms of capitalism still apply. That others 

of his theories have been shown to be inaccurate, even wildly so, should not diminish the 

fact that on a lot of matters he was not only accurate but prescient. What follows are some 

thoughts on German history and some advice for Marx and Marxists. 

Instead of predicting a cataclysmic end to capitalism in favor of an equally definite beginning 

of communism, Marx should have given capitalism more credit in its abilityto adapt 

and modify itself in the face of change. The “evil” capitalism of mid-19th century Europe 

that marx criticized in Kapital deserved criticism. but it began to significantly modify itself 

at almost the same time. By the end of the century when Marx’s workers should have been 

storming the capitalists’ walls, they were instead cutting deals, unionizing, forcing shorter 

work days, getting their kids out of the mines and factories for at least part of the day, and 

restricting child labor altogether, though the process was painfully (and deadly) slow. Germany 

was also at this time in the midst of the greatest relative growth period in industrial 

production the world has ever seen. Was it perfect progress? Of course not. Was it getting 

better? Absolutely. And when German hard-liners were complaining that their comrades 

were selling out, what was the response? “You’re right, we are. But, you know, things 

used to be and could still be a lot worse.” And given that WWI was about to break out, the 

Social Democrats decided they were Germans first and Commies second, or third.... They 

also agreed to put the revolution on hold, indefinitely as it turned out. (And don’t tell me 

that the upheaval after the War was communist inspired. As I understand it the communists


were being recalled, permanently! Let’s see, there were Liebknecht and Luxemburg, etc. 

and then they weren’t there anymore!) Where Marx’s revolution did occur, sort of, was in 

Russia. Marx was at a loss to explain why there since Russia had essentially no proletariat. 

Oh well. 

Does all this point to Marx as irrelevant for today. To some extent, yes. But, Marx is 

still the best source on a number of issues including, in my opinion, the dynamics of class 

struggle. And Marx is right on concerning worker alienation, at least as the simiple level at 

which I understand it, as workers removed from the products of their labor and the negative 

social effects caused by that. What Marx didn’t plug into his model is the extent to which 

people refuse to be defined by their work in a modern industrial society and how quick they 

are to find other outlets from which to draw their meaning. (How would you quantify that? 

Thank goodness for ceteris paribus.) I would go on, but these discussion submissions aren’t 

being graded. Thankfully. Any responses out there? What else is Marx good for? 


[532] Panacea: Re: What revolution? Emma [526] wrote a great piece on the German 

history intertwined with early Communism. I found it intriguing, but have just a slight 

problem with her examination of the period directly after WW1. She wrote: 

And when German hard-liners were complaining that their comrades were 

selling out, what was the response? “You’re right, we are. But, you know, 

things used to be and could still be a lot worse.” And given that WWI was 

about to break out, the Social Democrats decided they were Germans first 

and Commies second, or third.... They also agreed to put the revolution 

on hold, indefinitely as it turned out. (And don’t tell me that the upheaval 

after the War was communist inspired. As I understand it the communists 

were being recalled, permanently! Let’s see, there were Liebknecht and 

Luxemburg, etc. and then they weren’t there anymore!) 

This, I feel, is a gross oversimplification of the role communism played throughout Germany 

after the war. Remember the Freikorps, Emma - the ultra right-wing mercenaries who 

moved throughout the company fighting a running struggle against the communists, as the 

Weimar government allowed them to systematically exterminate communists. If the communists 

lifted a hand, the Government troops would react, killing and making arrests. If the 

Freikorps killed or molested a communist, the government would not lift a finger. The communists 

had a strong hope for social change, but they could hardly hold meetings without 

some sort of harassment. 

Certainly, prominant communist thinkers made their exit (under duress), but communism 

has been a movement of the underclass - and they suffered greatly in the period directly after 

the war. Finally, they began to fight back, and periods such as the Kapp Putsch in Berlin, 

and other Putschs were the result. Remember, the specter of “international communism” 

was such a nightmare that the democratic government in Weimar, under Streseman, often 

cut deals with the rightists in order to fight their “common enemy”, the communists. 

And who did Onkel Adolf blame the Reichstagsbrand on? The communists - thus securing 

his political position, and justifying his order for marshall law. Thousands of communists 


were then systematically hunted down and destroyed by firing squad or concentration camp. 

One camp with a terrifying story lies just north of Dresden, a middle ages robber baron’s castle 

on a peak with sheer cliffs on three sides, the fourth heavily guarded. Today it is a youth 

hostel. On the eastern cliff face, some fifteen feet down the side there is a tiny ledge. SOme 

time in 1940, three of the prisoners with the red triangle escaped to this ledge, having hoped 

to find a path down the cliff - there was none. Each carved his name and a “Totenkopf”, a 

skull, into the cliff wall - and then leapt the 600 feet or so to their deaths rather than return 

to certain torture. This is just one small story, to be read in camp records available at the 

hostel. 

The fate of communists, from the twenties through to the NS regime under Hitler, is often 

ignored. Thousands of them died even before the Reichstagsbrand, and thousands died 

in camps. Certainly, there were many many more jews who suffered, as well as gays and 

gypsies and so forth - but we can’t ignore those who wore the red triangle on their camp 

uniforms. Emma, your statement seems to gloss over these facts. Hitler’s Mein Kampf is 

as equally venemous towards communists, and promises them the same fate as the jews. I 

advise anyone interested to read Hitlers work, and look for the sections he writes on communists. 

Panacea 

“Du luegst, wenn du uns allen den Untergang prophezeist. Aus unserm Untergang holst 

du dir, indem du ihn verkuendest, deine Dauer...” Kassandra from Christa Wolf 


[597] Emma: Reply to Panacea Panacea criticizes my “What Revolution?” submission 

to the discussion list as an oversimplification. He’s right, to some extent. It was simply stated 

and I did get a bit flippant referring to the German communists as comrades who had sold 

out. But Panacea’s criticism of my submission really misses the mark. I said that the German 

communists sold out prior to WWI. By sold out I mean the real majority of the communists 

were literally bought off by the Kaiser through reforms and pressure to be and act German 

first. I think that is correct. The only time German communists ever had a chance to effect 

the political and social landscape was then. And they did force some needed changes in 

the labor market. But by the time WWI was over so were the communists, effectively. They 

never again enjoyed any real political power. That is not to say that there weren’t courageous 

communists who made the ultimate sacrifice after WWI. There were and I mentioned a 

couple of the leaders. But by then the communists were too few and without any real popular 

support. The Kapp Putsch you mention was squashed literally before it began and its leaders 

captured and hung while and before the putsch played out. The nationalists, including the 

NAZIS, were just too strong and communism had become synonomous with Russia, which 

was its ultimate death knell. Later, Hitler used the communists as a foil and blamed a lot 

of things on them that they were not responsible for. But that doesn’t mean the communists 

had any power, which is what I maintained in my piece. It just means they were a convenient 

group to blame and one that would resonate with other Germans. 

First Message by Emma is [61].


[609] Panacea: Re: Emma’s comments I agree for the most part with Emma’s clarifications 

on Communism in Germany between WWI and 2, and thank her for her extra 

comments and criticisms. 



[529] Karl: Birds of a feather-dl I am refuting a very absurd idea, and that is Marxian 

theory had nothing to do with communism, and socialism. In particular to Panacea’s remark, 

“Marx had nothing to do with communism or socialism!” Panacea[459] thread. How far 

from the mark can you go. That is like saying Luther had nothing to do with Protestantism, 

or more like the Pope isn’t Catholic. Good effort, but look into it some time before you 

get into blasting your mouth off like a parrot, only mimicking someone else. I think kevin 

will back this by his quote, “Marx actually was quite concerned with socialism.” Notice 

Marx’s choice of titles, the communist Manifesto, yes I’ve read it several times. Why would 

future eastern block leaders, choose the name. Why were some obsessed with Marx, if you 

really look behind the facade of pat answers given by some, you may be suprised how much 

influence his theories have had on the world. 

Panacea, do me a favor, go to the Marriott library to the section on Socialism, and Communism 

(4th floor, I go there frequently). Intermingled you will find numerous volumes on 

Marx. Did someone put them there by accident? 

Message [529] referenced by [534] and [536]. Next Message by Karl is [600]. 

[534] Panacea: Re: Birds of a feather-dl Karl wrote in [529] 

I am refuting a very absurd idea, and that is Marxian theory had nothing 

to do with communism, and socialism. In particular to Panacea’s remark, 

“Marx had nothing to do with communism or socialism!”Panacea[459] 

thread. How far from the mark can you go. That is like saying Luther 

had nothing to do with Protestantism, or more like the Pope isn’t Catholic. 

Good effort, but look into it some time before you get into blasting your 

mouth off like a parrot, only mimicking someone else. I think kevin will 

back this by his quote, “Marx actually was quite concerned with socialism.” 

Notice Marx’s choice of titles, the communist Manifesto, yes I’ve 

read it several times. 

Good, Karl you’ve read it. I admit, my statement was a bit of an oversimplification. I do 

wish, however, that you had gone to hear Fredric Jamison speak recently over in LNCO - 

he is Duke’s resident marxist, and had many a good thing to say (Kevin - I wonder if you 

were there...). His point, which I have already stated, was that capitalism’s mere existence 

is the reason “Marxism” cannot die - for “Marxism” is the study and critique of capitalism 

as formulated and furthured by Marx. 

Now - you realize when the Manifesto was written? 1848. Was there a communist party 

in 1848? No. No, No, No. See, Karl, don’t just read the text, read the secondary literature 

- Marx saw this as an inflammatory experiment, one of his attempts at ‘prophecy’ of sorts. 

Was Marx ever a Party member? No did marx start a party? No. 


I admit that my statement needs furthur explanation - Marx was what was then called a 

socialist... But Marx is not as significant for his effect on communsim or socialism - his role 

has more importantly revolved around understanding capitalism. He has written little on any 

type of optional economy, for this wasn’t his focus. His few attempts aren’t actually that 

good, either. 

It is in this context that I made the statement - and because of it’s ambiguity, I frankly 

wish I had rephrased it. Sorry if I sound like a parrot - you sound much like a myna bird, 

however - it would be real easy for me as well to simply mimic what others have told me 

about communism to be truth, or to take a book’s title at face value as you do. Read for 

comprehension, Karl. It is difficult to reach your conclusions if you can realize that in 1848 

there was no “communism” for there to be a manifesto for, nor were there for a few years 

to come. In 1848 there was an important civil war in Marx’s Germany - but these were 

socialists - and far from communists. Good luck 

Panacea 

“not all conservatives are idiots - but all idiots are conservatives.” 


[536] Kevin: Re: Birds of a feather-dl Karl wrote in [529] 

I am refuting a very absurd idea, and that is Marxian theory had nothing 

to do with communism, and socialism. In particular to Panacea’s remark, 

“Marx had nothing to do with communism or socialism!”Panacea[459] 

thread. How far from the mark can you go. That is like saying Luther 

had nothing to do with Protestantism, or more like the Pope isn’t Catholic. 

Good effort, but look into it some time before you get into blasting your 

mouth off like a parrot, only mimicking someone else. 

Your analysis is flawed because Marx was long dead before the rise of the many movements 

across the globe which took his name. Nor did Marx have any personal involvement 

in the laying out of the model of socialism that his worshipers would design. Yes, Marx 

was a socialist. But of course is Bill Clinton a liberal or Pat Buchanan a republican, in the 

classical definition of the terms? Its better to look at what someone thinks and does, rather 

than what they call themselves. 

I think kevin will back this by his quote, “Marx actually was quite concerned 

with socialism.” Notice Marx’s choice of titles, the communist Manifesto, 

yes I’ve read it several times. Why would future eastern block leaders, 

choose the name. Why were some obsessed with Marx, if you really 

look behind the facade of pat answers given by some, you may be suprised 

how much influence his theories have had on the world. 

Marx’s theory had plenty of influence in the “formerly-socialist countries.” But it was 

used primarily as a canon for worship. Soviet Marxism after the great Stalinist purges became 

a canon, fitted to the party line. Look at Zyuganov now in Russia; I would question 

whether the guy has read more than a few pages of Marx or Lenin in his life, yet he plays 

the Lenin card every other day; when he’s not busy talking to bankers and businessmen to


reassure them that they will retain all of their private property (ex. capitalism will stay). Its 

pure politics; one day Zyuganov calls Lenin the greatest man ever, the next day he’s talking 

about Jesus, and the next he is reassuring bankers that his main influence is John Maynard 

Keynes. Yet, when the time comes, he’ll certainly make plenty of references to “the founding 

fathers,” no matter how schooled he is in their thought. 

Maybe the Marriott Library has a copy of Pravda, or Kommunist for you to read (both 

Soviet party papers, and supposedly the leading “Marxist voice” in the SU). It’s very interesting 

to see the way they play Marx and Lenin on various occasions, Stalin was an absolute 

master at this; if you read Stalin’s manuscripts his ability to get Lenin (by then deceased) to 

back him up on every point is of professional quality. So I say, “yes Marx was very much 

concerned with socialism,” but he was long since dead when the Russian Revolution took 

place, and I have already discussed how to use Marx’s concepts of socialism, and criticism 

of capitalism to analyse the “formerly-socialist countries.” 



[530] Chocolate: Re: Are pro-athletes over paid!!!!!! Kia brought up the topic of 

professional athletes and the wages they recieve earlier and asked the question “Are proathletes 

over being over paid.” First of all, I would have to say that pro-athletes can be 

viewed as individuals who own a commodity (their talent) that is very rare and hard to 

obtain. It is often said that exactly less than one-percent of college athletes will make it to 

the professional level. Which inturn says that the talent and skill needed to make it to the 

professional level is very high. 

Professor Hunt once said that “an individaul will have a better chance to make it and 

succeed in the business world than as a professional athlete.” But, succeeding in the business 

world is not an easy task to accomplish either. 

I would have to say that pro-athletes are only over-paid when their skills and talent have 

diminished below a given level where he/she can no longer generate an equall amount of 

utility in return. 


[533] Punani: Re: Are pro-athletes over paid!!!!!! I would have to disagree with 

chocolate’s statement that pro-athletes are not over-paid. I can understand that their skill 

and talent are rare and hard to obtain, i can also understand that only a few will ever make 

it as a professional athlete. But, recieving a multi-million dollar contract to play in a sport 

is very ridiculous. I can understand recieving somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two 

million dollars a year but ten to twenty million is way out of hand. Bill Gates is a billionaire, 

but their is only one of him. Even though “less than one-percent of college athletes will 

become professionals” their are still hundreds of pro-athletes. 

I can understand a doctor being offered a multi-million dollar contract, because he/she is 

doing a service that is highly needed. An individual cannot compare the value and services 

of a doctor to that of a professional athlete. 



[535] Skippy: Re: Are pro-athletes over paid!!!!!! Pro athletes pay are determined on 

several different things. Most of which none of us have a clue about because we are not 

pro-athletes. 

There are a few players that are in the extremes. What about the majority of the players 

that are paid the minimum. These players are not making millions as proposed. They are 

surviving not to mention on who knows how long their athletic carreers will last. The amount 

of money made in their short time in the spot light might have to last them the rest of their 

lives. 

Players like M.J. contribute so much to the league. When he came back into the league, 

cities that haven’t seen a sold out crowd in years could not find a seat when he came into 

town. 

Dion went to Dallas withe the help of a few million. This mar isn’t called “Prime-Time” 

for nothing. All of America knows of him. Wheather they love or hate him is irrelevant. All 

sports fans have read an article about him, looked at his line of “Nike” tennis shoes. 

The “Dream Team”, the US olympic basket ball team, provides an entire country with 

thrills, and pride. 

Sports are such a major part of the US society. The players are heros to everyone. Everyone 

needs someone positive to look up to. These guys are better than bad guys. 

Most of the more popular athletes can’t have a private life. News reporters, photographers, 

and fans mall these people at all times. What price do you put on that. 

Money paid to these elite people is earned. They overpaid ones we should be consentrating 

on are the politicians. 


[548] Femme: Are Proathletes overpaid? On one hand you can say that pro-athletes are 

over paid, or are they? 

The top paid athletes in professional sports are the elite, they are the best of the best 

within the time frame that they are being paid large amounts of money. One must remember 

that most of their days are filled with the particular sport that they are playing. You have 

to ask are they exploiting the individuals who are paying them, or are they being exploited? 

One must ask how do you put a dollar amount on certain things, like freedom. Freedom 

to do what one likes according to their desires. I’m not an expert on the personal life of a 

professional top paid athlete, but I would assume that he has a fairly stringent schedule of 

workouts, practice, nutritional schedule, etc. For all we know their sex life is being affected 

due to their “schedule”, they may not even have one due to physiological strains and stress 

with in their body. How does one put a dollar figure on that? If one can, than I think one can 

answer the question whether or not Proathletes are being paid to much. 


[550] Wolf: Wages of pro-athletes I agreement with the last thread concerning this topic 

I would like to make a few more points. I happen to be friends with a number of professional 

athletes and dozens more that have tried to do so. Those who have arrived so to speak (made 

it to the N.F.L.) are in fairly good standing financially for the short run that is if their agent


didn’t rip them off in the first place and if they don’t get cut before or during next season. 

One experience of my friend was that he was kept on as part of the team until the last possible 

day (a few games into the preseason) in which he was used as nothing more than a human 

punching bag for those on the other side of the line of scrimmage (that were competing for a 

starting position) could go against and litteraly cave his head in. Needless to say that is NOT 

FUN there is alot of phyisical and yes emmotional pain for a person in that situation. Just 

because you are big it doesn’t mean that you are immune to pain. This friend was cut after 

sacrificing his body and then the management had the nerve to ask him back some weeks 

later after the starter in his position was hurt. I would like you to also keep in mind that he 

was going through these camps and all this pain during the last quarter of his senior year, 

inableing him to finish his degree with the rest of his peers and missing out on a time of life 

when he should be rejoicing with his friends and trying to figure out what to do next. This 

is EXPLIOTATION not to just a few isolated cases, not even to just a few hundred, but to 

THOUSANDS of athletes each year. 

THE WOLF 


[559] Peaches: Comment to “are pro-athletes overpaid” thread First of all, Skippy, 

ALL pro-athletes AREN’T role models. Would you say Dennis Rodman is your role model? 

Say, son I’d like you to be like Dennis Rodman. What a joke! More like the mistake you 

never want to commit! Secondly, fame is a part of being famous. If you can’t handle it, do 

something else. There are ways of keeping yourself out of the limelight. Isn’t that why they 

get paid what they do. 

In response to Chocolate’s regarding the University student getting a free, paid education 

and receiving nothing in return is somewhat missing the point. If the athlete got a scholarship 

to the U mainly because he had an excellent skill in football, and he doesn’t really have the 

brains to cut it, then he deserves nothing in the end if takes advantage of his coach when he 

tells him he’ll make it to the Pro’s. What person in his “right” mind would go to school for 

fours years for free, “cheat” his way through class, and expect that his talents can support 

him through the rest of his life?! What does he suspect will happen to him if he should be 

in an accident? Sure his “hard-earned” “pro” money might make him last a year, but what 

of that two years from now? Look at Michael Jordan’s comeback. Do you know the “real” 

reason why he came back to the pro’s? Talk about role models, Steve Young WAS smart 

enough to know that his first priority during his college years was to finish law school. If an 

athlete got a scholarship and used his brains, then in the end he would still have his degree. 

Sure he might get exploited through his talents, but doesn’t everyone at some point in their 

life. Are you immune from being exploited? If you are, I’m sure everyone in class would 

love to know how. 

As for Punani’s response regarding the comparison of the doctor to the athlete...I can’t 

see how you can compare such traits. I guess it depends on how you see the picture, your 

perception of “things.” Did you know that some doctors in this country are being paid such 

prices for their services? As for comparing values...value is a personal judgment. It depends 

where you sit how well you view the picture...meaning that Marx would say that value isn’t 


based on what kind of job you do but how much time and effort you put into it that counts 

in the end. 

In my opinion, people are paid for whatever the capitalist feels they are worth. You 

may not agree with that, but your opinion doesn’t count because you have sold your labour 

power to someone in exchange for something in return. If you do the labour, then you are 

in some type of agreement with that price. If you don’t like what you’re doing, then you go 

somewhere else and sell your labour, perhaps for a higher price. That’s capitalism for you... 


[588] Pinky: Wages of pro-athletes Wolf made the following observation: 

I agreement with the last thread concerning this topic I would like to make 

a few more points. I happen to be friends with a number of professional 

athletes and dozens more that have tried to do so. Those who have arrived 

so to speak (made it to the N.F.L.) are in fairly good standing financially for 

the short run that is if their agent didn’t rip them off in the first place and 

if they don’t get cut before or during next season. One experience of my 

friend was that he was kept on as part of the team until the last possible day 

(a few games into the preseason) in which he was used as nothing more than 

a human punching bag for those on the other side of the line of scrimmage 

(that were competing for a starting position) could go against and litteraly 

cave his head in. Needless to say that is NOT FUN there is alot of phyisical 

and yes emmotional pain for a person in that situation. Just because you 

are big it doesn’t mean that you are immune to pain. This friend was cut 

after sacrificing his body and then the management had the nerve to ask him 

back some weeks later after the starter in his position was hurt. I would like 

you to also keep in mind that he was going through these camps and all this 

pain during the last quarter of his senior year, inableing him to finish his 

degree with the rest of his peers and missing out on a time of life when he 

should be rejoicing with his friends and trying to figure out what to do next. 

This is EXPLIOTATION not to just a few isolated cases, not even to just a 

few hundred, but to THOUSANDS of athletes each year. 

I agree, this situation is really tough. I would like to first speak to some of the meaning for 

exploitation, then follow with a question. Exploitation means that the capitalist; or in this 

case; coach, management, and agents take advantage of the surplus-labor that the worker 

(player) puts into the commodity he sells (the game). This in mind, the question to me is 

where is the real power? Did your friends have no other job prospects?, or did the extremely 

rich prospect play some kind of a role in their decisions? I believe that yes, there are a lot 

of unpleasant, and even abusive practices that are utilized in the athletic industry. Certainly, 

anything such as forcing an injured player to take exessive doses of drugs to help them to 

play despite their injury is just plain wrong. However, the possibilities of problems could 

not have completely escaped their minds. The nature of athletics is such that it is based on 

competition; to find the best of the best and dispose of them when they are no longer able to 

maintain a high performance level. Otherwise, the basis of a good game (good competition) 

would be lost and no-one would pay attention to a senior-citizens playoff. This is not a stable


profession, it does not even pretend to be. I don’t imagine that any pro-athlete imagines that 

they will be there forever. The motivation is that they would like to try for a piece of it, 

to enjoy it while they can. If your friends have let their social lives fall because of the 

commitment that their chosen path requires, it is because they chose to do it. If the prospects 

didn’t include possible fame and fortune, few would probably take the risks. The fact is, 

that for many, the prospects are too attractive to ignore, and they must as well recognize that 

with the possibility of outrageous success, they risk their health, and could after all, not even 

make it to the top. The real power is in THEIR hands. It is a value-judgement not based on 

what the capitalist group makes him do, but what HE deems is a reasonable risk to take for 

the possibility of the benefits. NO ONE, but himself has the power to require him to take 

risks that he does not feel are worth the benefits. After the fact, he may realize that the whole 

thing sucked, and blame it on everyone else, but I think that a transferrance of his frustration 

in himself on to others so that he can feel like he had no choice. He did. 



[531] Chocolate: Re: Worth their effort. “Should college athletes be paid for their services?” 

is a topic that has brought up a lot of controversies throughout all the universities 

and colleges in America. Some say that college athlestes are being exploited by coaches, 

administrators and society. For example, football coaches at major universities recieve a 

yearly income of anywhere from seventy-five thousand to a million dollars (depending on 

past experience, win-loss percentage, reputation etc.) Aside from the yearly income they 

recieve, they also get bonuses for X-amount of victories and bowl games they go to, television 

revenues (all major universities have a talk show for their coaches) and sometimes 

commercials. 

All of this add up to very comfortable living for the coaches. But what about the football 

players (college athletes) who work long hard hours everyday for these coaches, what do 

they get in return? In one word NOTHING. A scholarship can only take an athlete so far! 

What if he/she doesn’t make it to the professional level? That means he/she will have to go 

out in the real world and find a job right! But, for four-years a group of coaches have used 

this individual’s talent (labor) to their make a living and in return these athletes are given a 

free education without ever recieving a single cent from their labor. 



[537] Skippy: Money makes the world go around. What is it about money that it 

alone causes so many problems. Those who have it want more as well as those who don’t. 

Countries are killing over it. We are wiping out species of animals to obtain it. The rain 

forests are being destroyed for it. 

People forgot that the purpose of money is just a means of a simpler exchange system. 

What would the rich people look like if the concept of money wasn’t created. How many 

cows would the have in their front yards. Maybe this is what the barter system provided 


for us. A different way of thinking was brought into this planet when the barter system was 

abolished. 

Maybe money is, as it is said, “the root of all evils.” Money changes people into things 

that we had never seen before. Greed is a major problem. Is greed a learned or inhert 

mentality? It is hard to say, but if you take a look at little children, they always take things 

and say mine. They see something they want and take it, sometimes it is something they 

don’t really want. They just don’t want someone else to have it. This also applies to some 

adults. 

Maybe we should start to look at what money really is before we try to control it in any 

way. 


[539] Super: Is money evil? Skippy brought up some interesting points about money 

being the root of all evil in “Money makes the world go round.” Is money really the evil 

one? No, people make money for what is. Our perceptions of material things are rooted 

with greed for those things. Money is not evil, it supplies us with a means of exchange 

instead of bartering with objects. Money allows us to make purchases without the hassle 

of trade where transporting objects for exchange of other goods would become extremely 

burdensome. 

In our capitalist society it is true that the needs or wants of the individual come before the 

needs of the many. But I know there are many people that have more money than others who 

help the less fortunate with their surplus cash through charities and other donations. Money 

can be used for the good in society, not always for individual gains or evil intentions. 


[549] Femme: I Money Evil? NO! Super and Skippy brought up some points about 

money, is it evil or is it not? 

Money is not evil, it is a simple object used for means of exchange. Greed is a behavior 

that is learned, it is not inherent. What one person defines as greed another defines as 

surviving or maintaining a lifestyle. I believe that money brings freedom and opportunity. 

The more money one has, the more freedom and opportunity he/she has and his/her family 

and children have. Some people’s focus is strictly monetary, how they can make money, how 

much, how efficiently they can make money with in a particular time-frame. Maybe people 

are that way because they feel that the market that they are working in is volatile; it’s feast 

or famine. So they work and earn money and more money for the fear that one day they may 

not be able to make a living and they don’t want to be a burden on anyone, or society; it’s 

their way of being self sufficient. It’s their way of providing for themself, their families and 

loved one’s. Is that wrong and evil? Is that greed? Does it matter? 

Message [549] referenced by [563]. Next Message by Femme is [574]. 

[552] Angela: Money in the society When I read the essays of Skippy and Super, they 

reminded me to start thinking about money. I do’nt think money is the root of all evils!! I 

think we just can say that when we create the monetary system in the socity because we want 

instead of the barter system!! And monetary system seems very important in the capitalism 

because everyone wants and needs the money. And from the capitalist’s view, they want to 

make lots of money or earn lots of money as possible as they can. And individual in the


capitalism society, it seems that everyone just wants to earn the money by any way which 

is right or wrong way. I think it is nothing wrong for the money, it is because of human’s 

greed. Human’s greed lets the money looks like evil. Money is just a tool in our economy. 

We create it just because we need it to let our trades work. 

Otherwise, if we still are in the barter system, when we need something, at the frist, 

we have to find someone who wants to be traded and at the same time, he or she wants to 

get our stuffs. It might be taken lots of time to do so and it might be complicated in the 

whole economy. And I also think that the barter system is not good for the development of 

economy, especially for the international trade. So I think the monetary system is better in 

the society and it is more simple and convenient for us. And do not forget that the money is 

a medium. We can’t eat or wear with money to survive!! We have to use it to exchage what 

we need. So if we say that money is the root of all evils, then I think we might say the the 

material is the root of all evils. 


[555] Chacci: Re: Is money evil? I don’t believe that money nor matieral is the root of 

all evil.. I think it is the vehicle by which people can become evil. Most people work there 

jobs to make money to sustain a certain modest lifestyle. The thing that makes money the 

vehicle of evil is when the lifestyle becomes too flamboyant or wastefull. When the money 

that they are wasting could be used in better ways. The richest 1% are becoming richer, and 

the bottom 33% are growing poorer. The pursuit of money is causing enviromental disasters 

daily. Its causing the explotation of the worker. Are these things evil? I would think so. And 

what is the common object, the pursuit of money and the accumulation of capital. 


[558] Peaches: Comment to “is money evil” thread I don’t think that money is evil. I 

think that the people who own money are the people who influence what money is. I think 

that Marx would not think of money as evil, but as a means of exchange. Marx would say that 

money, or capital is the building block in which a capitalist becomes a capitalist...making 

the most of what he’s got, anyhow and anyway. I don’t think that Marx would argue that 

money is evil but that it is what a person does with money that makes it what it is. I think 

that Marx would argue that money or capital is a part of the means which brings about an 

end...whatever that may be. 

Marx would be more concerned about how money serves the capitalist rather than how 

money influences a person and their perception of money. Am I far off? 


[562] Panacea: Re: I Money Evil? NO! Femme recently wrote: 

So they work and earn money and more money for the fear that one day 

they may not be able to make a living and they don’t want to be a burden 

on anyone, or society; it’s their way of being self sufficient. It’s their way 

of providing for themself, their families and loved one’s. Is that wrong and 

evil? Is that greed? Does it matter? 

My question is “What if the money they earn is exploited from others in capitalistic 

relations - is it now wrong, if the money is ‘earned’ at the expense of others?” 



[563] Rambis: Re: Is Money Evil? NO! In response to Femme’s [549] and Panacea’s 

response [562]: I think they both raise interesting points about the moral worth or morality of 

economic systems. Each makes a moral appeal concerning the moral worth or worthlessness 

of the system which seem very valid. This has stimulated my thinking in the following ways. 

First, I think it’s important we realize that in dealing with different economic philosophies 

there is a lot of just that – philosophy. Economics isn’t a hard science (nor am I sure that 

there even exists a hard science when we take into account how frequently our understandings 

change and what is true 100% one day is completely refuted the next) and each model 

assumes a large number of factors as accepted and given when making determinant judgments. 

Therefore, what constitutes moral worth depends entirely on the philosophy upon 

which it is based. For the capitalist, it is highly moral that a family can get ahead or get its 

piece of the pie by working hard and facing the challenges of the marketplace and that the 

system rewards them for this action. For the marxist, it is also highly moral that workers 

aren’t exploited and that each worker is valued equally by the economic system. Which of 

the two arguments has more moral worth, and who is it that determines which has more 

moral worth? It depends entirely on the philosophy behind the actions. 

Second, when making decisions on how to allocate limited resources, what constitutes 

“fairness” and what constitutes moral worth, the end result is that those making the decisions 

(whether consciously or unconsciously) base their decisions on value judgments. Value 

judgments are intrinsically dependent on the base philosophy for their definition. 

It seems to me that it is also very difficult to make judgments on the worth of economic 

systems empirically as well, because many times statistics can be manipulated to favor any 

position. Therefore, (if morality is human derived) when deciding which economic system 

is most valuable or more morally steeped in intrinsic value, it all comes down to value 

judgments based on the initial philosophy. The accepted philosophy is determined by what 

is important to the individual, and the determination as to which philosophy is better or more 

important or of more worth is largely personal. As to which is more moral, that depends 

entirely on what the source of determining morality is. 


[586] Pinky: Is Money Evil? NO! Femme wrote recently: 

Super and Skippy brought up some points about money, is it evil or is it 

not? Money is not evil, it is a simple object used for means of exchange. 

Greed is a behavior that is learned, it is not inherent. 

Just a quick observation and point. I am glad that you happen to be among the blessed 

minority of the human population that was able to share all of your toys, old or new, to 

anyone who desired to use them. I am ashamed to say however, that I am not in a class 

equal to your’s. Rather the opposite took place in my own life. As a child, I was very 

insecure about letting another kid take a toy of mine and use it incorrectly, destructively, or 

inconveniently based upon my feelings at the time. This occurance seemed to be a recurring 

one, and very frustrating when I was told that I “needed” to share. What??? This is MY toy 

and I am playing with it. Besides, the kid who wants it bugs me. I had to be corrected time 

and time again to become accepting of the sharing philosophy espoused by my mother upon


every trip to the playgound or occasion a friend came to visit. Perhaps I shoud be ashamed 

of my son, who is experiencing the same dilemma. The person that my mother taught me to 

be today is the person I am trying to teach my son to be as he grows and learns. This did not 

come easy to me, nor is it to my son. Maybe it’s just a genetic fluke. 



[538] Skippy: What do we do now? We all now that this country is in trouble. What can 

we do about it. The government controlls everything and most of the people that we need to 

talk to. 

Politicians talk alot, but what do they really do to benefit anyone besides themselves. I 

would like to know the last political official did something with out reguard for what will 

happen to their job. They should follow what they know is right instead of what will protect 

them. 

They are relying on us to just give them money. When is the last time that we actually 

had any control over what they did with it. The national bugget was a great example. When 

did I deside to give Bob Dole over 100 million dollars to try to win a presidency. Why didn’t 

they give it to education where it is needed instead of in the fire. 

Where does it end? 



[554] TOAD: Incentive A question that I have about the whole Marx thing is, If you can’t 

get ahead and become rich what incentive do people have to work. 



[556] TOAD: Days labor I have a question about chapter 6. pg276 paragraph 2 when 

Marx talks about the days labor being 6hrs and receiving 3 shilling for that days labor and 

then saying that a days labor is only 3hrs, I got lost. So I was wondering if someone would 

explain that to me in layman terms so that I may understand. Thanks. 


[571] Hans: Why did nobody answer TOAD’s question? TOAD, in [556], asked the 

list: 

I have a question about chapter 6. pg276 paragraph 2 when Marx talks 

about the days labor being 6hrs and receiving 3 shilling for that days labor 

and then saying that a days labor is only 3hrs, I got lost. So I was wondering 

if someone would explain that to me in layman terms so that I may 

understand. Thanks. 


I wish someone on the list who understood what was going on had taken the trouble to 

answer this. In the calculation TOAD refers to, Marx assumes (without saying it explicitly) 

that a normal working day is 12 hours long. Then he assumes that 6 hours of social labor are 

objectified in the means of consumption necessary to maintain labor power for one day, and 

these 6 hours are represented by 3 shillings. In this case, a wage of 3 shillings represents 

only half a day’s labor, and although the worker must work a full day to get this wage, he is 

selling his labor power at its value and not below its value. Marx never says a days labor is 

only 3 hours; he does say that half a day of labor is required to produce labor power for one 

day. But half a day of labor is 6 hours and not 3 hours. 



[557] Chacci: No Poor = No Rich One thing that I like about Marx is how he states that 

without the laborer there would be no rich. This comes from his analysis of un-paid labor. 

I guess I like the idea that if it wasn’t for the poor laborer there would be no way that the 

majority of rich people could have become rich. Is this the reason that society keeps “down” 

certain people? So that society can have a uneducated reserve army of labor? This would 

definitly keep down labor prices. And give a steady supply of surplus labor to the capitalist. 


[564] Rambis: No rich = no poor Chacci, I think you raise an interesting question 

when you ask if society intentionally keeps people or classes of people down in an effort to 

maintain an uneducated labor force that can be exploited to serve the capitalist’s purposes. I 

don’t know if society intentionally keeps people down, but it certainly doesn’t intentionally 

lift them up many times. It’s not that legislation is crafted to suppress people (most of the 

time), but more often the case is that nothing is done to lift people up or to liberate and 

empower them. Just a thought! 


[587] Pinky: No rich = no poor Rambis wrote recently: 

Chacci, I think you raise an interesting question when you ask if society 

intentionally keeps people or classes of people down in an effort to maintain 

an uneducated labor force that can be exploited to serve the capitalist’s 

purposes. I don’t know if society intentionally keeps people down, but it 

certainly doesn’t intentionally lift them up many times. It’s not that legislation 

is crafted to suppress people (most of the time), but more often the case 

is that nothing is done to lift people up or to liberate and empower them. 

Just a thought! 

I understand that many in this class are terrified of capitalism because of the greedy, awful 

mask that many have placed upon it. 

I believe that many welfare programs do indeed act to supress people by supplying the 

false notion within its recipients that they are not capable of success, thank heavens the good 

ol’ government is there to pay those bills! The drive for success is diluted within the false 

and distorted feel of security than some derive from the knowledge that the government will 

back them up if they can’t, or don’t want to work at the available jobs. This, as I think is


evidenced by the progression (or in many ways, regression) of our society has become an 

entreaty to be thankful for just above subsistence handouts from a really forward thinking 

government that (in this case) does little to encourge people to aspire to greater success in 

their lives. 

On the other hand, there are programs provided by the government that I feel have been 

made available in the interest of providing opportunity to those who are willing to work for 

it. I am a recipient of federal pell grants that enable me to reach for a life above my present 

one, if I can take it seriously and earn a decent G.P.A. This “Teaching a man to fish for 

himself rather than handing him a fish” will prove to be a much more valuable tool to myself 

and society as a whole. This program, contrasting to the welfare program tells me that I 

can make it on my own when provided with tools of encouragement and success, not that I 

need someone else to sustain my life. The effect of this is that I do feel very liberated and 

empowered. The message behind the “good intents” is what matters in the long-run. 


[589] Chacci: Re: No rich = no poor I think that I did not get my point across. My 

point was that without a poor labor class there would be no way that anyone could become 

rich (or recive Pell Grants). In a society such as ours it would be incredibly naive to think 

that the government doesn’t keep certain people down. We can look at history and see 

that this is the case. A few examples, segregation during the sixties, lower pay for women 

and minorities, strikes being “broken” by shear brutal and violent force. If people believe 

that there is equality, I would invite them to visit Midvale Elementary, were there is large 

population of poor students. Then I would invite them to visit Albion Elementary. Then 

come tell me about equality! Society would like us to think like PINKY, with his comments 

like “I believe that many welfare programs do indeed act to suppress people by supplying 

the false notion within its recipients that they are not capable of success, thank heavens the 

good ol’ government is there to pay those bills!” Is this the cause or the effect of inequality? 


[617] Pinky: Chacci Chacci wrote: 

I think that I did not get my point across. My point was that without a poor 

labor class there would be no way that anyone could become rich (or recive 

Pell Grants). 

My first question is, how does becoming rich correlate with receiving Pell Grants? Maybe 

you thought they are given to the wealthy? I’m not sure what you meant, but the pairing 

of these two as relating issues confused me. If that was the notion, that is not a correct 

defenition of the requirements for receiving Pell Grants; rather, the opposite is true. A 

student must be living in virtual poverty status (as defined by the Gov.’t), and must usually 

have at least one child. It is actually quite hard for a person to be poor enough to qualify for 

the Grant. 

Chacci continues: 

In a society such as ours it would be incredibly naive to think that the government 

doesnAEt keep certain people down. We can look at history and 

see that this is the case. A few examples, segregation during the sixties, 


lower pay for women and minorities, strikes being “broken” by shear brutal 

and violent force. 

As I noted with my welfare idea, I agree. I also see what you are saying. While the 

government usually turned their heads to such dispicable acts, it even enforced via military 

power such beliefs. Though the government has tried to establish laws and such that are 

meant to avoid such activity, they cannot outlaw ignorance. Today, I think the majority of 

discrimination is an act of individuals, who are often in violation of the laws themselves. 

In many ways, the remedies that were put in place to solve such problems have gone 

too far (in my own opinion). The government has participated and supported many beliefs 

that serve to penalize people unfairly. My feeling is, that most of the modern day penalties 

exist within the systems put into place that were meant to “help people.” So, I don’t disagree 

with your assessment of history, I was simply giving my input as to the current detremental 

effects of government. You may not agree, but please don’t infer that I must then be blind to 

historical mistakes of the American government. 

Chacci concludes: 

If people believe that there is equality, I would invite them to visit Midvale 

Elementary, were there is large population of poor students. Then I would 

invite them to visit Albion Elementary. Then come tell me about equality! 

Society would like us to think like PINKY, with his comments like “I 

believe that many welfare programs do indeed act to suppress people by 

supplying the false notion within its recipients that they are not capable of 

success, thank heavens the good ol’ government is there to pay those bills!” 

Is this the cause or the effect of inequality? 

Umm, here is where I get especially confused. You seem to be saying that these these 

illusions were espoused by me. I have read my submission over and over and, over again, 

and I can not find any statement that I thought could be interpreted to mean that I believed 

that there was equality. I know that there is not equality, and to be painfully frank, I feel it is 

neccesary that we do not try to act as if it is or should be. (sorry!, I realize that I see things 

in a much more “blunt” manner than many of you.) People are not equal. People grow and 

learn and explore. They do it at their own pace, difined often by their own feelings. This 

may mean that they are outrageously succesful or badly off. Poor people are good just as 

wealthy people are. Good and bad can easily be found in both pots. The poor have just been 

subjected to different circumstances and may have made decisions that did not serve them 

well. I know plenty of loosers that were children of the wealthy. I also know plenty of people 

who have emerged from poverty to find success. Remember that one guy, Abe Lincoln? I am 

afraid that treating people as though they are supposed to be equal is doing a great disservice 

to the entire population. The big guy can lose his shirt the same day the little guy achieves 

success. People, situations, needs, desires, etc., vary from person to person–ALWAYS! 

In summary, to answer your last question, I think it (welfare) is BOTH the cause and effect 

of inequality. It is the cause because it breeds a sense of dependancy on the government, and 

not yourself. I believe that such a response is greatly detremental. It is the effect because the 

government wants to replace your family, friends and community, to validate their “angelic”


jobs. This feeling sinks in and fosters a sense of not having to help your family, friends, and 

neighbors. I think you could go so far as to say, it is “Alienating” people from those around 

them. This can also lead to behavior that exemplifies a serious absence of symathy, respect, 

or love for others. When people do not help and depend on one another, these feelings can 

be much harder to attain. 

Practical Pinky 

First Message by Pinky is [31]. 


[580] Kia: Discrimination To have effective economic structure, there are number of 

things that must work together. Most important being human labour, without human power 

there can never be any economic structure. However, today in our society discrimination 

against females, elderly, young, and race has been biggest problem. Especially against different 

race. What many business leaders don’t realize is that in next generation, most of 

workers will consist from immigarants and 2nd generation wokers from other country. Even 

with many government programs often, with buracratics, it has not fully solved such problems. 

What would Marx say, I believe that he would be against such discrimination, and 

stating that it is greatest advantage for us with effective workers. 



[593] Homer: subsistence wages When issue that workers receive wages that only allow 

them to reproduce their labor-power i.e. subsistence wages, was discussed, it seemed that 

many people did not buy this. If people can physically survive on $12 a day by living in a 

cardboard box and eating out of garbage cans, how is it that a worker getting paid $12 an hour 

is receiving subsistence wages? In this case subsistence does not mean merely physiological 

survival. How many workers own anything more than some consumer goods? The point is 

that while a worker may be able to afford a tv and a popcorn popper, she will not be paid 

enough to acquire her own means of production. She will always have to continue selling 

her labor-power. 

First Message by Homer is [56]. 

Question 747 New Thread: High price of education. 

[614] Kia: As college students you will all know about the costs of going to school. 

Currently there is more than half of the students work while supporting themselves to finish 

school. Some are married and have a kid, others have trouble coming up with tuition and 

expenses. In order to receive education aid, your family must make certain amount of money 

or no money at all. For those that are considered as middle income family the cost of sending 

kids to college is terrible burden, while the economic shape is not so bright for them. With 

double mortgages, and loans they are at sacrafice to send their kids to college. Also, for 

those who pay out of state fees are in worst shape. To me, even those that are from out of 

state should not paying double. Because, we all pay taxes and so are our parents and family. 

Then, why should out of state students be different from in state students. 


First Message by Kia is [197.3]. 

Compiled by Hans G. Ehrbar 2013-07-07 04:20:41.

Exam Question 1 What is wealth? - University of Utah

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?