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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2007fa 83
the core of the society provides a commodity with its value and the superficial process that
takes place in the market place (with its particular environment and social relations) give it
its exchange-value. This distinction is important to Marx as it highlights the (exploitative)
workings of a capitalist society. Had Marx used the word “value” instead of “exchange
value”, the distinction between the surface and the heart would have collapsed. This, in my
opinion, would have defeated his objectives of highlighting the exploitation (of the working
class) that takes place in a capitalist society.
Message [96] referenced by [158]. Next Message by Daru is [131].
Question 223 is 144 in 1999SP, 160 in 2001fa, 173 in 2002fa, 176 in 2003fa, 203 in
2004fa, 200 in 2005fa, 220 in 2007SP, 228 in 2008fa, 241 in 2009fa, 268 in 2010fa, 234
in 2011fa, and 244 in 2012fa:
Question 223 Describe the joint work of all commodities which is necessary to appropriately
express the value of one commodity.
[85] Charles: Joint work of all commodities and their combined value. The value
of one commodity does depend on the joint work of all commodities. The final value of
the product is the combination of all the labor, parts, engineering, etc... associated with
making the product. All of the products in one commodity are passive until they have to be
exchanged or bought. The final value of the commodity is given by the person purchasing
it for the first time or making an exchange for another commodity. That’s when everything
comes together as a joint work in order to express the value. We also have to consider that
almost all the commodities will have an item which will determine the main value of the
product. Linen would be for the coat, lumber would be for the house, engine for the car,
etc... Even though there are many other items associated with making a coat, building a
house or a car, they are more likely to be passive until the time comes for everything to be
considered in order to express the value of the commodity.
Hans: Charles, you have creative ideas, and it is interesting to read how you see things. But most of your answers
have very little to do with Marx’s theory. For instance, your answer here discusses how the use-value of each
commodity draws on the use-values of its components, while Marx is discussing how the value of a commodity is
expressed in the surface interactions. You should have learned by now not to confuse value and use-value, see my
[30].
Message [85] referenced by [105]. Next Message by Charles is [179].
[89] Desk: The Value of a Commodity. When I look at the definition of commodity
according to Marx I see that a commodity is something for which there is demand, but which
is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a given market. Every commodity has a
certain value attached to it which requires work at a given point. That is where the joint work
of all commodities comes into play when you express the value of one commodity. Thomas
Cooper explained something great with one simple phrase “Take away from a piece of bread
the labor bestowed by the baker on the flour, by the miller on the grain brought to him, by the
farmer in plowing, sowing, tending, gathering, threshing, cleaning and transporting the seed,
and what will remain? A few grains of grass, growing wild in the woods, and unfit for any
human purpose.” This statement describes perfectly what is meant by the joint work of all
commodities which is necessary to express the value of one commodity. Marx explains that
all commodities express values in the General equivalent, this general equivalent commodity
is directly exchangeable with all commodities. If you take an ordinary commodity to market,
84 2007fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
two questions must be resolved for a change to go through: (1) does your trading partner
need your commodity and (2) how much of his own commodity is he going to give you for
your commodity. (159:2) In the case of this piece of bread, everyone is reliant on every one’s
commodity, the trade must take place. There will be shared values given to reap the reward
in the end. This also is why you will pay more for the one commodity (bread) while you do
not see the joint work that takes place to make it possible.
Hans: You are saying several loosely related things in your answer, but the right answer to question 223 is not
among them. Look at [2005fa:815] for instance.
Message [89] referenced by [92]. Next Message by Desk is [252].
[98] Gregory: “The joint work of all commodities...” We all know that every commodity
consists of a “value” that is determined individually by its process of labor and value of
use to the consumer. Consequently, determination of a single trade variable (i.e. currency in
the form of paper money or gold) is neccessary for the universal trade of commodities. Understanding
that all commodities have a determined use value that allows the commodity to
be qualitatively and quantitatively compared to others, the need for a “universal commodity”
to represent all commodities on a larger scale is greatly evident. Although we as consumers
know that paper money has little to no actual use value, in relation to the joint work of
all commodities, it performs the ultimate function necessary for the trade and exchange of
commodities in the market. Marx explains that in his General form of value “10lbs.of tea =
20yds. of linen, 40lbs.of coffee = 20yds. of linen, therefore 10lbs of tea = 40lbs of coffee.
In other words 1lb. of coffee contains only a quarter as much of the substance of value, that
is, labor, as 1lb of tea.” In concern to the joint work of all commodities, this indicates that
they are all in direct correlation due to their values determined by labor and use, which are
ultimately represented by the value of one universal commodity. If the exchange of commodities
in the market and their values were determined solely by the individual based on
their personal use value for that particular commodity, the result would be a market with
little uniformity or structure. In this case, commodities would have little or no joint work.
In conclusion, my understanding is that Marx’s General form of value is the joint work of
all commodities that are ultimately measured to one single commodity.
Message [98] referenced by [105] and [182]. Next Message by Gregory is [144].
[105] Hans: Value and Use-Value must be distinguished. Charles’s answer [85] describes
how the use-value of a complex product (coat, house, car) depends on the use-values
of its components. This is not only true for commodities but for all complex products, and
it is not what Marx means. When Marx says “value” he means the congealed abstract labor
inside the commodities, which makes them exchangeable.
Gregory [98] is better because it does stay on the value-side of commodities, instead of
discussing their use-values. Gregory sees correctly that the “joint work of all commodities”
is the willingness to accept one and the same commodity as the general equivalent. But there
are still some differences between what Marx says and what Gregory says:
(a) Gregory says that that which makes commodities exchangeable, its “value,” is “determined
individually by its process of labor and value of use to the consumer.” There are
two mistakes in this. (i) In Marx’s theory, the value is determined only by labor content,
not by the use-value. Use-value and demand determine how much of the commodity will be
produced, but not the price. Here Marx differs from mainstream economics. (ii) Although