Question 1 What did Marx mean with his formu - University of Utah

U of Utah Econ 5080 2007fa 55
make than weaving linen, which obviously means more labor would be involved in making
the coat. Any labor value should be added to the produced product, so in this case, more
labor value would be added to the price of the coat.
Marx sums this section up by stating that smaller quantity of complex labor ends up being
equal to a larger quantity of simple labor.
Hans: The discovery Marx was so proud of was not that weaving labor is different than tailoring, but that the labor
which produces use-value is different from the labor which produces value. He called the first labor concrete labor,
and the second abstract labor.
I.e., your first paragraph is right. But the first sentence in the second paragraph is wrong. Only the abstract
labor is homogeneous. Concrete labor isn’t homongeneous, there are many qualitatively different kinds of concrete
labor.
Message [74] referenced by [2008fa:628]. Next Message by Poppy is [162].
Question 114 is 100 in 2005fa, 113 in 2007SP, 114 in 2008fa, and 119 in 2009fa:
Question 114 Coat and linen are qualitatively different use-values. Are they exchanged
because their use-values are different, or because the labors in them are different?
[71] JohnGalt: Who Needs A Coat When It’s Summer? Precisely because coats and
linen are produced by different classes of labor, they possess different use-values. Without
both of these components, coats and linen, or any other two distinct commodities would not
be able to be traded. First, this is because without different classes of labor no distinct commodities
would be produced. This leads to the second dilemma, a lack of labor distinction
would fail to allow use-value to be created. Thus, the relative values of commodities, such
as could be produced, would be unable to be determined.
It is therefore essential to recognize that distinctions in use-value or labor are related
and necessary and have been so as the capitalist system has developed. One cannot wholly
exist without the other in order for this system to function seamlessly. Because of this, an
infinite amount of differentiation and variation must exist to bring forward the use-value of
an increasing array of commodities that are both desired and offered in the market which
facilitates their trade.
Message [71] referenced by [77]. Next Message by JohnGalt is [145].
[77] Hans: Causality Disentangled. Marx argues: whenever there is commodity production,
a social division of labor must be underneath. This is pretty obvious, and we can just
leave it at that. But Marx tries to be very precise, and my Annotations try to identify each
step in his derivation. If you read the text closely, you find two statements which seem to be
at odds with each other. In 132:3, Marx says:
Were these two objects not qualitatively different use-values ..., they could
not face each other as commodities.
And in 132:5/o he says:
Use-values cannot confront each other as commodities, unless they are produced
by qualitatively different useful labors.
Question 114 tries to get clarity about this: is it the first or the second? JohnGalt [71]
stresses that qualitatively different use-values cannot exist without qualitatively different
56 2007fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
useful labors. This is right. But even if the differences in use-values come from differences
in labor, the use-value differences can have their own effects – to say otherwise would
be the error of reductionism. Indeed, if you look at the exchange process itself, only the
use-values are present; the labor is somewhere in the background but is usually not talked
about. Therefore I would say: the exchange directly requires different use-values, and since
different use-values presuppose different labor processes, one can conclude from this that
exchange is also based on different labors.
I think this is how Marx meant it. The first sentence gives the direct effect, and the second
the direct and indirect effect. This is a small point, but my Annotations try to follow Marx
even in these small matters, so that we know we are not missing something profound.
Message [77] referenced by [2008fa:166]. Next Message by Hans is [81].
Question 118 is 51 in 1995WI, 61 in 1995ut, 63 in 1996ut, 71 in 1997sp, 66 in 1997ut,
92 in 2003fa, 103 in 2004fa, 118 in 2008fa, 126 in 2010fa, 146 in 2011fa, and 145 in
2012fa:
Question 118 (a) Why is it necessary for the exchange of commodities that they contain
qualitatively different kinds of useful labor?
(b) Can commodity production exist without division of labor?
(c) Can division of labor exist without commodity production?
(d) How does commodity production influence the division of labor?
[126] Jeff: Commodity Production. a) Marx argues that it is important to have qualitatively
different kinds of useful labor because that is what gives things its value. These
different values allow for things to be exchanged based on the wants of individuals and how
much the commodity is valued.
b) According to Marx, commodity production is not possible without the division of labor
c) Yes, division of labor can exist without commodity production
d) Because commodity production is not possible without division of labor, the more
advanced the commodity manufacturing is, the more specialized the division of labor will
become.
Hans: Your b), c), and d) are right, but a) isn’t.
Next Message by Jeff is [225].
Question 120 is 79 in 1999SP, 94 in 2003fa, 105 in 2004fa, 106 in 2005fa, 119 in 2007SP,
and 130 in 2010fa:
Question 120 When Marx wrote that labor is the father and the earth the mother of usevalues,
should he also have included produced means of production in addition to nature
and labor?
[66] Josh: No. Marx did not include produced means of production in addition to nature
and labor, because the produced means of production is a product of labor.
Marx states “Labor, then, as the creator of use-values, as useful labor, is a condition
of human existence which is independent on all forms of society; it is an eternal natural